Effects of issues
I have noticed, that sometimes after having answered issues, the effect taking place doesn´t match the answer. For instance: I had an issue about nazis and their protests, and I answered that they should be able to say what they want. But still it says in my description that extreme political parties are outlawed, which is a thing I am against! :mp5: I know that this game is ment to be a bit unrealistic and extreme, but I think it could try to give an accurate picture of the countries. I would like to know what your thoughts are on this matter! You may call me riddicolous if you want to, but I would like my country to reflect my personal views as best as poosible...
P.S: sorry about the grammar etc. I am not a native neglish speaker!
Actually, the grammar in that post was excellent. :-) Some spelling errors, but probably better than I could get at, say, Croatian.
I don't know what you did to outlaw extreme political groups, but when you allowed the rally, you got "the tenet of free speech is held dear". Your options on issues with the same underlying focus can totally contradict each other, but you can have a double standard if you want. It's your country. And now, a reminder:
Every issue is a dilemma. There is no one right decision. Allowing the Nazis to hold their rally will raise political freedoms, but hurt civil rights. Stopping it to protect people's feelings will do the opposite. I don't know when protecting people's feelings became a right, but that is how the game works. You'll never come across an option that will turn your nation into an anarchy (actually an excellent state for a nation, in this game) with healthy, law abiding citizens, so decide what your priorities are. To keep players unhappy, the game often ignores obvious solutions. Why, you ask? Because Max Barry's nation is a psychotic dictatorship. ;-) Max Barry does not want nations to easily turned into U.S.A. clones with high rights and freedoms and thriving supereconomies. He wants your nation to be
a) a moderate, uninteresting nation.
b) the most economically powerful nation in the world: home of the Green Glowing River (which we throw criminals into).
c) a nation where you can do anything you want but make money.
So, handle every issue very carefully.
I must say that I think you are right on the fact that the nazi question gave me "the tenet of speach is held dear". I just find it a bit disturbing that the effects contradicts my views on the world. And I am not out to make a new U.S.A or anything, I just want to make a country that "hold dear" all the things I do. I believe it could be a good idea to know what the different issues meant effectively. That shouldn´t change peoples oppinion about the questions, but perhaps help them to make sure they answer the issues correctly. You are welcome to comment on this point of view, and I would in fact very much like you to do so!
P.S: I hope my spelling is better this time=)
P.P.S: Hope it is not confusing that I have replied with a different country :p
If you outlaw the Nazi rally, then the option states, "It is illegal to make racist remarks in public."
It can be really tricky to play the issues, and as you have observed, some have somewhat counterintuitive results. If you get an issue that has no option you could even conceivably take, dismiss it. If you get iffy ones, be bold: follow your gut. Sometimes weird things happen to your nation, but hey, sometimes the best thought out legislation is disastrous once it's put into practise. It can be a fun RP hook.
Always read the issues carefully, and remember: effects are cumulative.
I posted about this in another thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9409312#post9409312). The exact same thing happened to me: I allowed nazis to speak up, but it says that "extreme political groups are outlawed". I never outlawed them!
And my Political Freedoms went from Excellent to Good...