NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello,

I just wanted to voice my disagreement with how many of these issues turnout once I vote on them. I post my opinion not as an uniformed member of the community, but rather as a PhD candidate in Political Science specializing in American Government. So, while I find that the overall concept of the website is intriguing, I disagree with the simplistic nature of the presentation and results of many of the issues placed before my country.

Here are a few examples to highlight what I am referring to:

I was asked to determine whether Nazis should be able to hold a rally in the middle of a city and spout their violent views (I am paraphrasing). I voted no, though I wholly support the notions of free speech. However, even in America where the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", we have set limitations. Here the limitations have been established by the Supreme Court. First, there is time, place, and manner considerations to think about. American citizens cannot hold a loud rally at three in the morning in the middle of the interstate because the Court has established considerations of time, place, and manner. Because the issue said that they wanted to hold their rally in the middle of the city, I decided this was not the appropriate place. Second, the Supreme Court has also failed to uphold free speech that incites violence. Because the issue specifically said that they would be spouting their violent viewpoint, clearly I did not want groups inciting violence.

Now the results say that I have put strict restrictions on free speech. I disagree.

Second example: I was asked to vote on whether children should be allowed to gamble. When I said no, now gambling is totally outlawed. Well, I didn't want to totally outlaw gambling, just gambling by children. Again, we have the same restrictions in the United States, but would not be considered a country that is abridging the rights of its citizens with regard to gambling (though perhaps the fringes of this issue are debatable).

I would be interested to hear other countries' reactions to these comments.

The Empire of Taratoot

ooc: This is based on a satirical book, so you can expect some extremism. You may get a better result to your comments in Gameplay (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1234) or Technical (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1224), and you can ask the Mods, found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231) to move it if you wish.

We know the choices are extreme. It's by design. Read the game FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/page=faq) and the Issues FAQ (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=421198).

Thanks for responding. I did read those FAQ's before I posted. I just thought that might comments might generate some political discussion (I have referenced it in my region for members to look at).

Perhaps as a political scientist I disagree with the simplistic nature of how these issues are presented. This simplistic view is the exact reason that many Americans do not understand politics, policy making, and political decisions. This is because policies (especially bureaucratic policies) are extremely technical and not the "easy issues" we would like to make them. As a result, many Americans do not possess a firm foundation of all the intricate details of an issue and thus make an uninformed decision (or perhaps none at all). The result is that the public cannot understand why government acts the way it does because it does not understand the ramifications of all the available alternatives.

Actually Nazis have a legal right to organize and speak in public in at least California, if not the entire United States. It is in Germany that the party and its core symbols are constitutionally banned. I say this as a long-time election volunteer (inspector).

The issue in question didn't say Nazis were going to rally at 3 am, it simply focused on their freedom of assembly. When and where are subjects for possible future daily issues. ;)

As has been pointed out, the issue opinions and results are extreme. They are designed to highlight the differences between nations.

The issues are far from prefect ... for example, the hydropower one also is an oversimplification. But before I go on too long, I urge you as somebody interested in political decisions to continue to play the game for about 3 more months and then to give a stab at submitting an issue. :)

I've tried a few times and been shot down. But the thought experiment of looking at a problem from different sides is really where we learn more about an issue.

Thanks for responding. I did read those FAQ's before I posted. I just thought that might comments might generate some political discussion (I have referenced it in my region for members to look at).

Perhaps as a political scientist I disagree with the simplistic nature of how these issues are presented. This simplistic view is the exact reason that many Americans do not understand politics, policy making, and political decisions. This is because policies (especially bureaucratic policies) are extremely technical and not the "easy issues" we would like to make them. As a result, many Americans do not possess a firm foundation of all the intricate details of an issue and thus make an uninformed decision (or perhaps none at all). The result is that the public cannot understand why government acts the way it does because it does not understand the ramifications of all the available alternatives.

And that's part of why this simulation game is a surprisingly accurate representation of real-world politics.

Hello,

I just wanted to voice my disagreement with how many of these issues turnout once I vote on them. I post my opinion not as an uniformed member of the community, but rather as a PhD candidate in Political Science specializing in American Government. So, while I find that the overall concept of the website is intriguing, I disagree with the simplistic nature of the presentation and results of many of the issues placed before my country.

Perhaps you should set up a 'PhD level' site of your own. Then, when you've found enough volunteers to help you keep it running, you can give people multiple choice questions that require good, thorough research to answer. Actually, why not skip the multiple choice and have essays? You can mark them, and then develop their line of thought into national characteristics.

Perhaps, when your site collapses because people don't want to dedicate their leisure time to a massive academic discussion, and school's won't use it because they have no idea what it's on about, you might come back here and appreciate the simple, effective, and often amusing nature of this game.

Or are you someone who plays Monopoly and demands your rent with compound interest, and perhaps a little bit extra as a 'security surcharge'?

Your ideas regarding monopoly aren't bad, I will have to try that next time. Perhaps I can also institute stricter sentences for those that have gone to jail three times on a three strikes your out policy. I will also provide subsidies support for the owner of Baltic Avenue.

In regards to game play...the point of my comments regarding Nazis is not that cannot rally in the United States, but that based on the way the issue was presented referring to violent behavior (speech that incites violence is limited in the United States) and in the middle of the city (time, place, and manner), I restricted their activity. If it had said, they obtained all the proper permits and were espousing their Nazi views, totally different story.

But for the issue to be something like, "can people yell fire in a crowded theater?" and I say no and the results to say, "the government limits all free speech" is a far cry from reality. Here, I thought the purpose in a simulation would be to learn the difficult situations that governments face and how politicians/leaders must sometimes get their hands dirty with difficult choices.

To say that children can't gamble is certainly different than saying everyone can't gamble. It is a simple concept. If I were a voting member of a legislative body and the choices were presented to me in multiple choice format, I vote for one, and it is nothing like what I wanted, that would be a bit problematic would it not? Thus, there should be some middle ground between your extreme of essay questions for PhD students and misrepresented choices that lead to unpresented outcomes.

Either way, I am glad my comments could spark some debate, even if some of it seems for some to have some hostility behind it. Now that is real politics!

Thus, there should be some middle ground between your extreme of essay questions for PhD students and misrepresented choices that lead to unpresented outcomes.
Unfortunately, that's not the game Max Barry designed. He's not looking for realistic choices - he wants satirical extremism. He wrote the first 30 issues, and all subsequent issues have been edited by game mods and admins following his explicit instructions (and oh, you should see that instruction manual! Pity you can't. :D )

Philosopy's over-the-top rant nonwithstanding, this sort of change simply isn't going to happen. NationStates isn't intended as a realistic nation simulator, and none of the people who work on it are professional economists, politicians, statisticians, etc. We'll continue to muddle through as best we can, and continue to try to keep things coming from unexpected directions whenever we can.

welcome to what is known as a piece of satire.

I appreciate the responses from folks here, especially the moderator. I realize the satirical nature of the project and certainly do not intend any disrepect to the work that goes into it or its creator. :)

The motivation behind my comments was to spark debate surrounding the difficulties of governing that are captured in a variety of works (see Jean Paul Sartre's "Dirty Hands" for example). As a teacher of bureaucratic politics, I try to make my students see the difficult choices that government officials have to make that the public continues to not understand.

For instance, ask people if they want to pay higher taxes and they say, "No!". Ask the same people if they want a better educational system and the will say "Yes!". :headbang: Thus, it would be nice to see (and believe me when I get there, I will propose them) issues that capture this dynamic of the seemingly contradictory opinions of the general public. Of course, the dynamics of why the debt is out of control in the U.S. and how it relates to demands from a public that is unwilling to pay more taxes, yet demands government services would be too much to go into here.

I really think this could be an interesting tool used at the college level if it were to incorporate intragovernmental issues as well as intergovernmental issues. Heck, I would even use it in my own class. Perhaps then, students could understand the realities of government and public policy.

Philosopy's over-the-top rant nonwithstanding,

It wasn't intended to be an over the top rant. It's just we've had exactly the same problem with the General Parliament - something that's meant to be a simple, fun addition to the forum decends into people bickering about nonsense. We've had 'fairer election' equations and demands that we reform a non-existent education programme; it's when people get too serious about these things that they stop being fun.


Either way, I am glad my comments could spark some debate, even if some of it seems for some to have some hostility behind it.
I don't have a hostile bone in my body. I just talk like that, especially early in the morning, before coffee. :p

Seriously, it wasn't my intention to cause any offence. But, like I said above, it is when you try to get too realistic about these things that they stop being enjoyable and vaguely educational, and start creating unnecessary conflict over irrelevant things.

To take the Monopoly example; what would you prefer - kids who learnt a small bit about the financial system while having fun, or kids who learn nothing because they're too busy trying to kill each other over the positioning of a decimal point on rent charges?