NationStates Jolt Archive

I feel that the issues can have too extreme of an impact on the nation. I have had one issue explicitly on national security (#21, "Police Consider 'Big Brother' Anti-Crime System"), coupled with the initial questions, yet my country has been reclassified "anarchy." I have also dismissed a few questions on the grounds that the answers were too extreme, or I didn't agree with any of them. I suppose what I'm suggesting here is that issues weren't so extreme in base. When I took the "moderate" position on logging (#23, "Uranium Deposit Promises to Enrich @@NAME@@"), my national animal was suddenly on the brink of extinction due to widespread deforestation. I didn't want widespread deforestation or I would have picked it."There's no need for an either-or decision," says the government's Minister for Mining, Clear-Felling, and the Environment. "We can preserve most of the rainforest and allow mining of a small part. After all, think of all the good that the money from this uranium deposit can bring to @@NAME@@."This is what "widespread deforestation" looks like. I assume it's because my nation is so small (75 million) that there isn't a statistically significant basis for comparison, but the effects are a bit over the top imo.

Modedit: Moved from the Spoiler thread, which is more for recording the text of issues than for detailed discussion.

All issues' effects are exaggerated, especially in young nations like yours since bureaucratic inertia hasn't set in yet.

All issues' effects are exaggerated, especially in young nations like yours since bureaucratic inertia hasn't set in yet.

That was what I wanted to know. Thanks. :)

That was what I wanted to know. Thanks. :)

There should be some type of rule against having an issue that only negatively effects your nation. I mean, if they control your population and your standings( economy, political freedoms, Civil rights) there should be at least a neutral decision. Dismissing it will just have it come back later down the road...:rolleyes:

There should be some type of rule against having an issue that only negatively effects your nation.
As unrealistic as this game is, setting the bar where there are NO negative repercussions would utterly destroy the nature of this political simulation. The entire basis of this game is "unintended consequences from political decisions". If you're only looking for happy rosy outcomes, this is not the game for you.

I mean, if they control your population and your standings( economy, political freedoms, Civil rights) there should be at least a neutral decision. Dismissing it will just have it come back later down the road...:rolleyes:

Issues don't control population. It grows regardless of your choices. the only way to stop population growth is to let your nation die.

Dismiss it and it will come back later. Don't dismiss it and it will come back later. They almost all come back later. That's what you get when you have around 250 daily issues, but 365 days in a year, and players who have been here for six years.