NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that in a lot of the issues I am given the choice of:

Support it, and use the government to fund it.
Don't support it, and use the government to ban it.

Perhaps in the creation of an issue, it would be worthwhile thinking of the obvious other choice:

We support it/don't support it/don't care but don't want to ban it or fund it.

It's a bit annoying when you have the choice of either banning it or putting taxpaers money into it.

Craig

They are meant to be bipolar.

Then dismiss is. The alternatives you listed all culminate in "no effective action taken. Maximally a nice speach to score points with the population."
Which is perfectly equal to the dismiss option...

Then dismiss is. The alternatives you listed all culminate in "no effective action taken. Maximally a nice speach to score points with the population."
Which is perfectly equal to the dismiss option...

But say it was a drugs issue, for example.

One side says subsidise cocaine for schoolchildren the other says ban all drugs including alcohol.

A middle ground of "Legalise drugs for adults" isn't the same as "Ignore it and let it go away"

Craig

I agree with Kiwicrog, though bipolar might not be the best word; "extreme views" might be better. It were as if the issue were to taste saltwater you would be forced to abstain or drink the ocean.

On a side note I also find the questions leading. For example (and I admit I have only answered a few issues, though it was apparent in the questions while designing my nation) any question involving Capitalism, Religion, or Corporations, paints each of them as either extremists, corrupt, or evil.

Again, this is just my opinion.

The issues are current topics of debate but are simplefied for the less political interested player. They are fine the way they are, and you can always dismiss them.

The whole point of issue choices is that they are "bipolar," so to say, because this is a satirical political simulation game that always uses the extremes to make decisions that much more petinent and effective.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/02407/page=faq#gameplay

I draw your attention particularly to these sections:

I don't agree with any of the options on this issue!
Dismiss it, then. This is the equivalent of ignoring an issue until people stop talking about it and there's not so much pressure to do something. If you were a real government, you'd do this all the time, of course, but in NationStates it's more interesting if you respond to issues by actually making decisions.

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.

My decision had unintended consequences!
Yep, that'll happen. For one thing, see "Why is my nation so weird?" above. For another, pretty much every decision you make will involve a trade-off of some kind. It's kind of an exercise in choosing the best of a bunch of bad options. You might find this frustrating, especially if you're the kind of person who thinks the solutions to all the world's problems are obvious.

To reiterate: it's intentional.

I totally agree. A lot of issues end up like:


Lately, people have been complaining about the lack of meat inspection before it is shipped off to resteraunts and stores. Here is the debate:

A."How about no meat at all!?" screams diehard vegan Ulysses S. Bush as he hurls tomatoes near your face. "If no one ate meat we'd all be better off!"

B. "Well, we could do so. But it would cost huge amounts of the taxpayers money! Why don't we just use the honesty system and let farmer do it themselves?" suggests your advisor, Marcus Meshubo.


Uhhh? I don't want a vegetarian nation and I don't want the farmers neglecting to do it. I thought this was gonna be a realistic nation simulator - I was very wrong. Thats why I usually steer clear of the issues provided by NS and just RP on the forums.

That issue wasen't very well made. And the editor was slacking off, I think.

I actually made that myself in 2 minutes.

By example :

The Issue

A group of prominent business identities has proposed privatizing Moonriders's beaches.
The Debate

1. "Have you been to the beach lately? It's disgusting," says company spokesperson Jennifer Falopian. "There's litter, there's teenagers smoking, and there are people enjoying themselves without paying for it. Let the private sector in on this, and Moonriders's beaches will be the talk of the region! And a nice little earner, too."
[Accept]

2. "Whoa, whoa, we're privatizing beaches now?" says local campaigner Tobias Longbottom. "These are public spaces! All Moonriders's citizens have a right to enjoy them, not just the well-off. Yes, we should improve the quality of our beaches, but handing them over to the money-grabbers is not the right way to do it. The right way to do it is to boost government spending by increasing taxes."

Option 3 : Any Industry wich is a source of pollution on beaches must pay a Cleaning Tax ...

There actually is an option 3 in that issue: dismiss. Perhaps it should be spelled out as an 'option' ?

3. "Visitors to our beaches should remain responsible for keeping the place clean themselves," says Jennifer Bush. "It's not the government's responsibility to clean up after everybody, nor should the government infringe on people's freedom to visit the beach by making them private. Let's just let people handle this problem themselves and in the end it'll all be just fine!"


Ballotonia

I agree with Kiwicrog, though bipolar might not be the best word; "extreme views" might be better. It were as if the issue were to taste saltwater you would be forced to abstain or drink the ocean.

On a side note I also find the questions leading. For example (and I admit I have only answered a few issues, though it was apparent in the questions while designing my nation) any question involving Capitalism, Religion, or Corporations, paints each of them as either extremists, corrupt, or evil.

Again, this is just my opinion.

But it happens to be an opinion that I certainly agree with. ;)

I'm certainly not happy with many of the leading / biases that are at work in many aspects of the game, but in the case of daily issues I think it would be interesting to have a poll on which issues people frequently dismiss, versus those that people actually make choices (any) on.

Such a poll might help provide some useful feedback ... Hmmmm.

but they wont add options to issues already in play