NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, yesterday I got an issue about a tabloid that "uncovered" an extramarital affair of one of my top avisors with his secretary. I had to choose between the following options:

1) That top advisor recommends tabloids to be banned.
2) A religious man suggests that the advisor is fired and jailed.
3) A senator reckons a tax rate cut would divert the people's attention from the subject.

Being a democracy, I chose the third option. I assumed that lower taxes would allow my population to consume more and companies to invest more, thus improving my economy while "diverting" their attention from the advisor's affair. That was not the case.

It turns out that this morning I found out that my crime rate had gone up to moderate (somewhat slightly expected), my Political Freedoms rating has dropped to Below Average (from Average last night) and my economy had not improved in any visible way (remained on Good; my budget increased from 96 billion to 105 billion, but I think that's entirely related to the natural 4 million population increase).

I was baffled. My economy should have improved according to the measure I took, but what disappointed me the most was the Political Freedoms rating's drop. I mean, how can ignoring a tabloid (like most sensible people do) be an attack against the nation's political freedoms? Are they meant to have any political influence? I don't think so. I decided the third option would be the best to take, since the first one would derive in a direct attack against freedom of speech, and the second one would mean the imprisonment of someone merely because of his private affairs, which is nobody's business (especially since I didn't ilegalize adultery in a previous issue). I was somehow wrong, and I can't put my finger on why. :mad:

All in all, I think this issue needs a fix, quickly. =/

As I can see it, there are a couple of initial problems with your assumption concerning the economy.

1. Lowering taxes won't necessarily boost your economy. That's partly a RL observation - although this shouldn't degenerate into a debate about taxes - but very definitely an NS observation.
2. It could be that your economy was improved only very slightly - but not enough to move up a level in the economy classification.

'Political freedom' in the NS context is, that I can see, pretty loosely interpreted. It doesn't necessarily mean simply the existence or otherwise of laws pertaining to suffrage - I think it can also apply to generally how embracing of political criticism a government is. Here, they haven't clamped down on political freedoms in any obvious way - but they have deliberately drawn attention from a potential scandal rather than defend themselves in legitimate debate. If one takes that interpretation - and I clearly don't know whether it is correct or even valid - then the reduction in political freedoms is more understandable.

Someone who knows how the issue was coded may be able to offer a better answer. From your description of what happened, though, it doesn't sound to me as though there is anything vastly awry.

Two points:

- The alternative to deviate the people's attention was either to blast their civil rights or jail a government official who didn't commit any crime. There was no option to confront the scandal in a debate or anything like it.

- A government cannot be shaped by that kind of political criticism, or it would turn demagogic. I never compromised the population's political freedoms with the issue. I decided to ignore the accusations, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Even the people themselves have the right to accept or deny opinions every now and then.

Right, but it was corrupt and equivalent to buying votes. If a politician lowers taxes before an election to have people ignore his awful policies, you are lowering your people's political freedom. Considering that NS will take one small decision and blow it out of proportion, twisting the economy can become a political tool. It would not help the economy and it would not help your people's political freedoms.

The alternative to deviate the people's attention was either to blast their civil rights or jail a government official who didn't commit any crime. There was no option to confront the scandal in a debate or anything like it.

I didn't suggest there was. Issues can't cater for every viewpoint - at times, they exclude large areas of opinion. It's a limit that is unlikely to be changed.

A government cannot be shaped by that kind of political criticism, or it would turn demagogic. I never compromised the population's political freedoms with the issue. I decided to ignore the accusations, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Even the people themselves have the right to accept or deny opinions every now and then.

I agree. Nonetheless, you claimed the issue decreased your political freedoms: I was offering a possible explanation as to why that happened.

I kind of understand why some people think ignoring the scandal ultimately decreases political freedom (if, of course, you view political freedom in its broadest and vaguest sense, rendering the term almost completely useless), but since the issue didn't give you, the original poster, any workable alternatives, I side with you. Banning tabloids and jailing an advisor for committing adultery are obvious and direct violations of liberty. Whatever the poster picked, his political freedom score or civil rights score would have taken a hit. That's ridiculous. I also would have chosen the tax cut because it's the best way not to violate liberty and reward taxpayers (out of all the options presented). That question should be amended or deleted. You could have just dismissed the issue, obviously, but I don't think you could have predicted that outcome and I think the outcome's unreasonably unfair. (I accept that some of the outcomes are reasonably unfair.)

Well, every choice you make is expanded. So, I assumed that the effect would be using money to distort the people's opinions which is wrong.

Well, every choice you make is expanded. So, I assumed that the effect would be using money to distort the people's opinions which is wrong.

Who cares why the government cuts taxes? Also, the scandal is hardly earth shattering. If people would let themselves be so easily distracted by a tax cut, then the scandal must not have been that important. I think everybody wins.

Anyway, besides the multiple reasons of its consequences, there's something fundamentally wrong with this issue: every issue is supposed to be some kind of trade-off, I read, and by that I understand benefits proportionate to damages (in the simplest of examples, one rating goes up one level, another one goes down one level too, too). I've found that this stance on this issue hardly gives any benefits:

Benefits:
- Tiny increase in the economy.

Damages
- Political Freedoms rating down one level.
- Crime up one (?) level (from "relatively low" to "moderate").

In my humble opinion, economy should've improved more and either Political Freedoms or crime level should've been left alone. If you want to keep it simple while following your theories about "bribing" the people, the Economy rating should've gone up one level, and the Political Freedoms one should dropped one level, too.

There are other variables. Maybe your people got happier? That would be a benefit.

I don't think so. Otherwise, the crime rates wouldn't have increased.

Issues don't happen in a vacuum. Looking at just one issue and trying to figure everything out is going to fail miserably. These things work in ranges. If your Economy was at the low end, but your crime and PF were at the high end of their individual ranges, then a large Econ bump might not move you to the next level, while small crime and PF bumps might.

Once again, since you can't see the numbers behind the game, this sort of speculation is little more than blindly stumbling around.

I sill say that warping the economy for votes would be good neither for the economy or for political rights.