NationStates Jolt Archive

A number of arsons have been committed in @@NAME@@ recently, all by underage children.

[option]"Well I think the answer is obvious," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, the Cheif of what's left of the police, "You need to give us more funding again! That way we can have the manpower and equipment to find this criminal and beat him to a pulp. Oh, and I suppose bring him to justice, too."
[effect]criminals of perticularly heinous crimes are beaten by the police
[stats]crime decreases, political freedoms decrease
[option]"The solution is simpler than what my violent coleague proposes," says renowned educator and occasional Teacher-of-the-Year @@RANDOMNAME@@, "Education simply needs even MORE funding. The thing is, if we can bring about some standardized sanity test for our children, then we can weed out the bad apples before they get lighters, kinves, or boxcutters into their hands. I suppose we'd have to open some asylums to house them all, though..."
[effect]children are given sanity tests at an early age
[stats]education increases, crime decreases, civil rights decrease, economy decreases
[option]"I think we should let this go on for a little longer," says CEO of Wolf News, @@RANDOMNAME@@, during a five-martini lunch, "I mean, we're raking in a huge profit covering this stuff! Sure a few buildings are being burnt down, and a few families are left homeless, but everyone's watching our footage of the incidents! After we let this run on for about a month or so the public interest will go down, and then we can actually try and catch the guy. Oh, and when we do we can get some nice stories on the court scene. Hey, you aren't going to quote me on this, are you?"
[effect]the news industry supercides the police force
[stats]economy increases signifigantly, crime increases

So whaddya'll think?

is this an actual issue, or an issue you just submitted?

I like it, however it's not as good as the one i made about killing the elderly...

Why hurt the economy?, would'nt it go up rather than down?. I mean crime goes down, which brings more people to the area. And more people means more money..

Just a thought

Why hurt the economy?, would'nt it go up rather than down?. I mean crime goes down, which brings more people to the area. And more people means more money..

Just a thoughtIn the long run, yes, there would be money involved. However there needs to be a signifigant vice to that part of the issue, and an economy decrease would do just that. Besides, the economy would decrease in the short run.

And yes, I did make this issue.

Ah :) , makes sense. Unless the people liked the crime :lol:

Oh and put some space between the different choices :) , they sort of flow into eachother

Why would educating people make civil rights decrease? If anything they should increase (right to education, right to be free from crime).

Why would educating people make civil rights decrease? If anything they should increase (right to education, right to be free from crime).Taking standardized sanity tests would make your rights decrease, yes.

Why would educating people make civil rights decrease? If anything they should increase (right to education, right to be free from crime).Taking standardized sanity tests would make your rights decrease, yes.

Perhaps. Though if this is the case the issue has no good options so it will end up being dismissed by most people.

Perhaps. Though if this is the case the issue has no good options so it will end up being dismissed by most people.If you notice, every option in every issue is both good and bad. There is no clear split between good and evil in NationStates, much like in real life.

Perhaps. Though if this is the case the issue has no good options so it will end up being dismissed by most people.If you notice, every option in every issue is both good and bad. There is no clear split between good and evil in NationStates, much like in real life.

That is not what I meant. Choices can have both positive and negative effects but they should try to represent the main arguments around an issue. In this case increase police funding (right wing) or increase education/welfare (left wing).

Your options are increase police funding (right), "sanity tests" (right) or tv contracts (stupid). Thus you are only representing authoritarian views or the silly one that for some reason everyone feels obliged to add to their issues. For this reason a lot of people will end up dismissing your issue rather than picking an option.

That is not what I meant. Choices can have both positive and negative effects but they should try to represent the main arguments around an issue. In this case increase police funding (right wing) or increase education/welfare (left wing).

Your options are increase police funding (right), "sanity tests" (right) or tv contracts (stupid). Thus you are only representing authoritarian views or the silly one that for some reason everyone feels obliged to add to their issues. For this reason a lot of people will end up dismissing your issue rather than picking an option.Actually, the "sanity tests" are more liberal than conservative, because they'd give the education system maximum possible funding. As for the TV contracts, a corporation like mine could go for that, so it isn't entirely stupid. Besides, such a business-minded move would be conservative anyway.

That is not what I meant. Choices can have both positive and negative effects but they should try to represent the main arguments around an issue. In this case increase police funding (right wing) or increase education/welfare (left wing).

Your options are increase police funding (right), "sanity tests" (right) or tv contracts (stupid). Thus you are only representing authoritarian views or the silly one that for some reason everyone feels obliged to add to their issues. For this reason a lot of people will end up dismissing your issue rather than picking an option.Actually, the "sanity tests" are more liberal than conservative, because they'd give the education system maximum possible funding. As for the TV contracts, a corporation like mine could go for that, so it isn't entirely stupid. Besides, such a business-minded move would be conservative anyway.

Sanity tests are authoritarian and therefore not very liberal. So you have two authoritarian answers and one pro business answer, thus like so many other issues you ignore the left. Please do not see everything as Liberal or Conservative, especially if you are using the US parties as a model of each. "Sanity tests" are also not, as far as I know widely supported. While increasing funding on education and welfare would be (it is also far broader and could perhaps include "sanity tests" if that is what the nation wanted).

Basically do not be too restrictive and try to pick answers so that everyone would support at least one of them.