NationStates Jolt Archive

I just had the death penalty issue, and had one of two options.

I disallow it, and I fall from a new york times democracy to inoffensive centrist democracy. All of a sudden my description mentions my population have little rights and extreme political groups are outlawed. Clearly this is stupid. What, if the people voted in nuking themselves? Would you become a dictatorship if you said no?

Maybe the reason there is no death penalty is because it violates the original charter of rights the country was founded on? This does not mean you outlaw extreme political groups or suddenly take away people's rights.

Pretty short sighted, a 3rd option is clearly needed on this issue, where a pre-exsisting clause prevents the death penalty from being allowed even if it is voted in by the majority.

For rejection of the death penalty on the grounds of civil rights
You could 1)Increase crime slightly since people are not as affraid of commiting capital crimes 2)Increase tax slightly to pay for long term incarceration and 3)Increase civil rights slightly

Or as a possible 4th option, you could allow the death penalty only in crimes involving a law enforcement official.
In this case you would 1)Increase tax slightly to pay for top notch investigations into law enforcement death 2)decrease civil rights slightly and 3) increase political freedoms slightly.

Been having fun so far until I got an issue that was so silly in its shallow options.

If you don't like an issue, then just hit dismiss.

That would be great if I could see the utterly illogical outcome with my superpower gift of futurevision.

Then just post questions about issues that you are unsure about here. Browse through some of the older threads too. I'm sure that every question about existing issues has come up before. You can also create a 'test country.'

I must concur with you Real Democracy...

I still want to know how barcoding citizens reduces political freedoms... :?

Probably something to do with the fact that a barcoded citizen's political affiliations and such can be more easily tracked, so people may feel intimidated, or be afraid that Someone will come and get them if they, say, join an anarchist group.

if they are intimidated because they are barcoded then they are not worthy of joining the anarchist group anyways.

The barcoding could go both ways

It would be good since it would allow opportunites for all new people who can remove barcodes to create all new cults and groups and then the fear of barcoding would just be another test to join them. then with people satisfied that they are protesting against you then the general happiness and population will increase.

It will be bad because then people will be scared of doing illegal things because they could be tracked easier. then people will just stop doing it for fear of prosecution and then become sad and psychotic and then your happiness and population decrease.

It could go both ways or just cancel each other out.

Are you serious? ? For one thing it does away with both privacy and the right of an indavidual to have the choice not to be branded. Treating people like cattle will lower political freedoms.

You might as well ask how outlawing elections lowers political freedom :roll:

If you don't like an issue, then just hit dismiss.


I always dismiss that issue, i really don't why [violet] won't allow it to be edited.

Plus this in the FAQ Why is my nation so weird?
Everything is exaggerated a little. Well, okay, a lot. Your decisions affect your nation very strongly, so your country might seem like a more extreme version of what you were aiming for. Unless you have radical politics. In which case you probably think nothing's wrong.

Yup. It's all too whacky. I selected to provide better living standards, bus passes and "walking around money" for retirees, now I'm a Left-wing Utopia with luxury suites in my retirement homes.

I recommend being very careful about signed issues, the ones that were submitted by people other than the game designers. And be very careful about issues with only two options, as well.

Another thing that bugs me is issues that ignore your past selections... like I have been hearing noise about how important the auto industry is to my economy (such as it is), even though cars have been long outlawed.

Well, I think for that one, the auto industry is supposed to be for export.

I always dismiss that issue, i really don't why [violet] won't allow it to be edited.
[violet] never allows issues to be edited once they have entered the game. This is his/her decision, and probably won't change. There have been many attempts to change pre-existing issues, all of which have failed.

Regarding the issue: The reason your political freedoms fell is because you chose an option that went against what the majority of voters wanted, as it says in the text of the issue.

If you don't like an issue, then just hit dismiss.

But that wasn't the complaint.

The complaint is that the *impact* of the slection was *too extreme*. I've seen the same thing happen.

Our point is that some of the issue authors *really* like to hit their point home with a 2x4, while in the real world there should be some thought given to just how strong or weak a statement is before it is coded.

The UN resolutions tend to have the exact same problem. Many UN resolution authors opt with "Strong" resolutions ... even when sometimes their resolution reads like a very weak impact upon nations.

[violet] never allows issues to be edited once they have entered the game. This is his/her decision, and probably won't change. There have been many attempts to change pre-existing issues, all of which have failed.

But I'm sure I've seen issues change - two examples I can remember:

1) In the spam issue, the third option originally had the Prime Minister of Bored Yawning speaking (Bored Yawning being the issue author), but when I've had that issue more recently it was like a government bureaucrat or something like that.

2) In the isse about chemicals and organic farming, the head of the agricultural corp originally said "only 1 in 10 child deaths are due to our chemicals" now s/he says "only a small number" or something similar.