NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't help but notice that the consequences for issues are extremely liberal bias. This seems a bit unfair to me.

A few examples:

I am ranked last in education in my region(out of 29), because I didn't support education spending. In a sense, the game is saying that your people are stupid if government doesn't provide education. And this is hardly the case and an arguement could be made towards the exact opposite.

I constantly have the saying that old/poor people are starving because I don't have welfare or minimum wage.

Yet, my economy is thriving, both political and civil freedoms are in the roof and none of these people can save for their future, find jobs, or pay for school? I have no income tax rate, so they get their full wages.

Since I didn't inact the racial based %'s for letting minorities get into school easier, suddenly my country is a racist country that just completely refuses to let them into the best schools(Do I have them? I rank last in education in my region).

If you don't put hefty regulations and government programs to regulate businesses, my land turns into mud with 3 eyed creatures running around.

Is there at any point and time where this game does not give a liberals view of how things will turn out if you don't do certiain things?

Suggestion: Don't impose so many doom outcomes on things. Instead of smartest people rankings like today, maybe it should be Education Spending rankings. That or give people a fair shake on the outcome of things, such as my people aren't guarenteed to be stupid if the government doesn't provide schools.

Sssh! Youre using logic again!

Seriously, all issues can be uncomfortable for people of certain political leanings. Best to leave them be and select "dismissed." Technically, every state on NationStates is a terrible place to live.

BTW, if you want to raise intelligence, try not giving tax breaks when budget time comes.

Two points:
1) This is a free nation simulation game. Obviously it's not as complex or responsive as real life. So it can't come up with a list which takes into account the kind of costs and benefits of public vs private education comparison you want: that would just be too difficult.
2) The effects of all issues are exaggerated for comedy purposes. It works the other way round, too: if you generally choose the liberal option, you find that your kids are all foul-mouthed, your elevators full of thrash metal music, your streets are roamed by psychotic murderers and sado-masochists etc etc.

It's just a game, and if it just confirmed rather than poking fun at our political leanings it wouldn't be as entertaining.

There are numerous examples in history of a country not spending money on education and the populace becoming almost entirely illiterate a few generations later.

I really want to hear your argument for no government spending on education making people smarter.

Sssh! Youre using logic again!

Seriously, all issues can be uncomfortable for people of certain political leanings. Best to leave them be and select "dismissed." Technically, every state on NationStates is a terrible place to live.

BTW, if you want to raise intelligence, try not giving tax breaks when budget time comes.

They are also wonderful places to live, if you happen to be of a certain ideology. I would love to live in my country, even if the thrash metal in the elevators is a touch loud.

As for the liberal bias, this is purely because no country in Nationstates is perfect. You have a great economy and low taxes, but conversely education isn't great. I have excellent education, but a weak economy. The trick is simply to emphasise the areas you want to at the cost of things you don't care so much about.

Mikorlias of Imardeavia

Well, many issues are far from perfect (and other things are due to game limitations). I find myself dismissing roughly every second one. Half of them I dismiss because I think "do nothing" truely is the best answer to the presented problem, but the other half because after thinking about it, I would choose another course of action.

The first time an issue did have unexpected effects, I asked here on the forum. I have stopped doing that, since it is pretty clear the stated policy is "We do not change existing issues."
In light of that, it is pretty stupid to say "go submit better ones" everytime somebody complains about the issues (whether his/her reasons are valid or not). What people want to do is to improve the existing issues, more than introducing new ones (kinda similar to real life ;) )

What would be really cool would be a game exactly like this one (satiric exaggeration of effects and all :D ), with the one difference that both game rules and issue effects are open to scrutinity and open to change (i.e. an open source project).
Unfortunately I am unaware of any such project :(
I don't care too much about the plans for NationStates2. First I am neither willing to invest money, nor such an amount of time. Second I have no interest to play out a war directly within the game (I am very sceptical the rules devised for war will allow as much freedom as pure roleplaying does). And third from all I have read rules and issue effects won't be open to scrutinity in NationStates2 either.
And I would be so keen to read all the discussions, that would ensue if issue choices and effects were open to debate (such as the education level in a country without public schools) :(

@Spaminating: When you know your choice is going to have unrealistic effects (e.g. chosing not to fund education, when your country has no public schools anyway :headbang: ), simply dismiss the issue. At least, that's what I do in those cases...

You must be picking the conservative options if you think the resulting descriptors are liberal, because god knows my flaming liberal agenda looks damn bad. I had considered complaining about conservative bias in the new issues, but I guess it's both ways. Seriously, almost any choice you make will land you with a descriptor that sounds bad. You just have to ignore that little paragraph at the bottom sometimes. After all, on the one hand who wants the most foul-mouthed kids in the region, on the other hand who wants to stifle free speech? I'd rather get a bad descriptor since I'm sure the other one is equally bad, probably something like "the police often publicly punish youngsters caught using objectionable language".

As is written in the FAQ, all the outcomes of issues are extremely exaggerated. There's not really such a thing as a 'moderate' nation in NationStates.

I don't mind the exaggeration at all. Actually, I think it is both funny, and serves well in pointing out the consequences of a certain attitude.

The example of the foul-mouthed kids (which my country has :D ) is a good one. If you don't punish the children no matter what they say, then yes, they will be foul mouthed. If you do punish them, then that is the bad description you get.
Of course I know that both choices are extreme, but I think they are good in pointing out the different attitudes one can take to a problem, and the different priorities one thus sets.
And even if there was a more moderate alternative, do you think "Atchetchyuns children are getting sore behinds after schools started to order parents into school every time an objectionable word was heard by a teacher." sounds better? :p
What ever you do, one can always point out the downside of your action. Think beforehand, and know that the benefits outweight it, even if they are not explicitely stated.
The exaggeration definitely isn't what I took exception at... :rolleyes:

There are numerous examples in history of a country not spending money on education and the populace becoming almost entirely illiterate a few generations later.

I really want to hear your argument for no government spending on education making people smarter.

Washington Times: Public school teachers are twice as likely to send their children to private school. (http://mwhodges.home.att.net/edchoice_b.htm#teachers')

The Economist: Cleveland innercity private Catholic schools have vastly higher graduation rate. (http://mwhodges.home.att.net/edchoice.htm#cleveland)

Cato Institute, Department of Education: Private schools spend less and get higher quality. (http://mwhodges.home.att.net/education-a.htm#private)

I'm at my wit's end because I made ONE bad decision and now my nation is terrible. PLEASE help!!! :headbang: