NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm new to this whole Nationstates thing, bit I've noticed something rather odd about Issues, and the options you have with them. I noticed that many issues I have received simply have a YES or NO type answer. It seems like there should be more options than this. When you create a Nation, you are offered 10 different types of Government (Sensible, Anarchic, Libertarian, Conservative, etc.). I would assume that issues should have about as many options as well (A Conservative answer, An Anarchist answer, etc.). At least a few "Shades of Gray" anyways. I believe this would be a bit better in terms of gameplay than simple Black & White/Yes No answers, as it would give a country more character based off their choices. Take the Marijuana Issue for instance. A Conservative and Oppressive style Government would both (most likely) be against legalizing Marijuana, but they would both do it differently (Oppressives may execute Drug Dealers, while Conservatives may only jail them, etc.) I'm sure it would take a great deal more work to add several options to each issue, but it would make the game itself much more fun and interesting in my opinion.

This game isn't a realistic or complete nation simulation game; it was created on the foundation as being a promotion tool for Max Barry's book - Jennifer Government, which is a satire on Capitalism... hence, the issues here are satirical in nature AND have extreme option choices though the answer may just appear to be "yes" or "no."

I'm new to this whole Nationstates thing, bit I've noticed something rather odd about Issues, and the options you have with them. I noticed that many issues I have received simply have a YES or NO type answer. It seems like there should be more options than this. When you create a Nation, you are offered 10 different types of Government (Sensible, Anarchic, Libertarian, Conservative, etc.). I would assume that issues should have about as many options as well (A Conservative answer, An Anarchist answer, etc.). At least a few "Shades of Gray" anyways. I believe this would be a bit better in terms of gameplay than simple Black & White/Yes No answers, as it would give a country more character based off their choices. Take the Marijuana Issue for instance. A Conservative and Oppressive style Government would both (most likely) be against legalizing Marijuana, but they would both do it differently (Oppressives may execute Drug Dealers, while Conservatives may only jail them, etc.) I'm sure it would take a great deal more work to add several options to each issue, but it would make the game itself much more fun and interesting in my opinion.


I agree, there should be allot more choices.

Buy and read Max's book. Then come back and tell us what you think.

The issues are designed to be light-hearted and very hardline towards one side or the other. The issues were created to be taken with humor, not with complicated formulas.

The issues are designed to be light-hearted and very hardline towards one side or the other. The issues were created to be taken with humor, not with complicated formulas.

Plus imagine the size of some of the issues if you took every single thing in to account - there could be thousands of options to chose from and what fun would that be?

The other thing about the weird issues is that some people just pick an abstract option so they can see what it may do to their nation. Even what you think is a "good" option may have some strange side effects.

That probably didn't have much of a relation to the converstion, so I will shut up and leave now.

The other thing about the weird issues is that some people just pick an abstract option so they can see what it may do to their nation. Even what you think is a "good" option may have some strange side effects.

This is true... many nations, such as myself, will create puppets to test the extreme nature of the issues and what-not to see what happens due to selection choice.

When I first played i tried to keep as close to my actual beliefs as I could... then I went socialist for a while... now im just screwin with my people (frightening economy... politicasl freedoms screwed, civil stuff screwed, corporate police state)....

When I first played i tried to keep as close to my actual beliefs as I could...

So did I, but the extreme issue choices quickly showed me that there was nowhere I could come close to my exact politicial deameanor in NationStates. It was just impossible.

So did I, but the extreme issue choices quickly showed me that there was nowhere I could come close to my exact politicial deameanor in NationStates. It was just impossible.

Yeah, the impacts of a simple selection (not the game text, but stats) were just too extreme.

Where are the moderators with the status of coding new issues into the game? I've always been hoping that one of mine would make it through.

Sirocco is the Mod in charge of issues. I think he's somewhere in the middle of 2004 right now (referring to time block for submitted issues)... If he sees this thread, he'll probably be a bit annoyed at me guessing again. I've got one in too, but I don't think Siroc will get to it for a while. You'll know if it makes it through, too - Siroc sends you a telegram, as well as the final draft of the issue to respond to.

Sure its a good idea in theory, but what if there was, say, an issue about hippo poaching... There are only a couple answers to this problem and making 20 different views would be overkill on the issue reader.

What I'm trying to say overall is, even though this a simple, free, humourous, satirical, etc. Nation Simulation Game, it would be better, funnier, more satirical if we had say, more answers than just a YES or a NO on some issues. I'm not saying represent every possible stance, thats a silly idea. Like I tried to point with Marijuana example, there are several ways to say no, and all that. A few options (lets say 3 - 6) based off of the different types of government would be excellent, I'd say. You wouldn most likely never need more than 6 (even for the most serious issues), also. Some Governments would have stances that are very similar, so there would be no need for separate options for them (Libertarian and Anarchist in some instances come to mind). But others, such as the Conservative vs. Opressive stance on Drugs I mentioned should have different options, since they both say "NO" in very different ways.

On Hippo Poaching

I can think of a few options off the top of my head besides just YES POACH HIPPOS and NO POACH HIPPOS:

Legalize Hippo Hunting Completely
Allow Hippo Hunting for a Fee/Grant Hippo Hunting Licenses
Ban Hippo Hunting with Heavy Jail Time
Public Execution of Hippo Hunters
Etc. Etc.

I never said "20 Different Views". I said more than just "YES" and "NO". And I agree completely, 20 is overwhelming, but 2 is also underwhelming.

I'm new to this whole Nationstates thing, bit I've noticed something rather odd about Issues, and the options you have with them. I noticed that many issues I have received simply have a YES or NO type answer. It seems like there should be more options than this. When you create a Nation, you are offered 10 different types of Government (Sensible, Anarchic, Libertarian, Conservative, etc.). I would assume that issues should have about as many options as well (A Conservative answer, An Anarchist answer, etc.). At least a few "Shades of Gray" anyways. I believe this would be a bit better in terms of gameplay than simple Black & White/Yes No answers, as it would give a country more character based off their choices. Take the Marijuana Issue for instance. A Conservative and Oppressive style Government would both (most likely) be against legalizing Marijuana, but they would both do it differently (Oppressives may execute Drug Dealers, while Conservatives may only jail them, etc.) I'm sure it would take a great deal more work to add several options to each issue, but it would make the game itself much more fun and interesting in my opinion.

The issues appear to favor a very Libertarian approach. No restrictions on personal choice and laissez-faire capitalism only. Attempting to create a progressive nation in this game is fairly futile. Results from your choices tend to not reflect the actual language when they were presented.

Well let's stick this on the desk of the issue editor, first.

heeeey... what is this thread doing on my desk.. im not the editor!

*passes along the thread to the real editor's desk*

We're trying to use less two-option issues right now actually, so don't worry about it. Some issues work well with only two options, some require a lot more depth. It's just how things go.

Also, we don't usually add new options on to issues in the editing list - though there have been many occasions when we've had to take some away.

- though there have been many occasions when we've had to take some away.
Is this just because the options were impractical, or do you need to keep the number of options down?

Some options are outright ridiculous. You'd be amazed (then again, maybe you wouldn't) at how many people deliberately insert an option into an issue simply to boost their economy. 9/10 times, this isn't relevant to the issue and is removed.

The issues appear to favor a very Libertarian approach. No restrictions on personal choice and laissez-faire capitalism only. Attempting to create a progressive nation in this game is fairly futile. Results from your choices tend to not reflect the actual language when they were presented.

MNSCO the issues favor nothing. I have a crazed dictatorship (Amerikanha), a socialistic nation (Usania), a hypercapistalist nation (compound interest) and one representing my own views and I have no problems creating them (even though I go insane over some consequences of issues, but ath's like IRL).

The issue that's annoyed me like this recently is the "gambling children" one. Kids as young as 8 gambling in casinos, so what choices do I have? I can either go with it and let the kids loose their money, or I must outlaw gambling completely for all age groups. Does it really take a genius to realise that there might be a third option such as ooh, i dont know, maybe an age limit on gambling as used by the majority of developed countries IRL? Grrr! :headbang:

Does it really take a genius to realise that there might be a third option
That's the dismiss button. Works like a charm.

Attempting to create a progressive nation in this game is fairly futile.

Wrong. :)

Attempting to create a progressive nation in this game is fairly futile. No, it's simple but it takes patience. One has to dismiss as many issues as one selects. I'm working my way toward the different types of categories (they mostly started out as Inoffensive Centrist Democracies) but am having some trouble getting the last six because I'm also trying to keep my crime rate and tax rate at 0. Some of mine reverted in UN category when I lowered taxes forcing me to start all over again.



The issue that's annoyed me like this recently is the "gambling children" one. Kids as young as 8 gambling in casinos, so what choices do I have? I can either go with it and let the kids loose their money, or I must outlaw gambling completely for all age groups. Just dismiss this one. There's another one, #108, which has more nuanced choices.

It's fun to play a little. I think the key is not to take it too seriously. No-one could build a simulation of an entire government on something for 100,000+ players.
I have a libertarian nation, a progressive nation, and both seem to be doing OK. Now I'm seeing what happens if I just pick the first option, regardless.

Vote Option 1. You know it makes sense.