NationStates Jolt Archive

overall, this is a fairly interesting game. i think i'm going to have to quit, however, due to the unforseen absurd results of formulating positions on the issues.

for example, i chose to claim one gold find under a lake on government property, and now my nation's "government seizes all major gold finds."

and, i chose to tax religious institutions but now "religious organizations are being forced to leave the country or pay income taxes like everybody else."

nowhere in the issues were these results hinted at.

i understand that often there will, and ought to be, certain consequences when decisions are made, but these -- which are only two of many examles -- 1) just don't make sense, and 2) seem geared to satisfy those who follow the tyranical approach.

when so few choices are given should it not be possible to make a choice with a simple, clear, and benign outcome? affecting nations negatively for the sake of maintaining verisimilitude is fine but doing it for the sake of negativity is frustrating and defeats all attempts at realism.

maybe it's just me.

'K both of these are player submitted issues.

Most people I know have problems with many most or even all of the new issues. Even Enodia, a mod who edited one of the issues became a Centrist Democracy.

As for the gold find issue. Aside from the submitter and mod who edited it, I know of nobody who likes that isssue. Everybody whom I know just dismisses it.

Now even the better issues may sometimes act odd.

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.

The key to being better is that they give a hint of what could go wrong and that they have a predictable cause and effect.

For example, although the Diving for Dollars issue hints that there are negative benefits, it then has the effect of options unrelated to the plausible effect of the choice or the (blatant) warning section (eg it hints that confiscating gold will lower civil rights, it realisticly would lower economic freedoms, and it actually loweres political freedoms)

the "hints" ARE often FAR from obvious and many if not most have
NO option who'se outcome is remotely desirable.
yes every policy any government of any sort chooses will have consiquences both expected AND unforseen.
it does seem however that MOST issues seem to have ONLY the unforseen.
while satire can be fun up to a point, it can and does become tedius if not downright monotonous. a satire of a satire is seldom successfuly humorous.
and many of these are not just second order but third, fourth and fifth.

=^^=
.../\...

the "hints" ARE often FAR from obvious
Yes that is what I like. Subtle hints, yet unforseen options which make sense.

and many if not most have NO option who'se outcome is remotely desirable.
I hate those issues. Why do people submit them in the first place.
My favorite player issue is still "Orbital Armegeddon" which has all positive options to me (although all three have trade-offs), and most people would find at least one option that they like.

yes every policy any government of any sort chooses will have consiquences both expected AND unforseen.
But sometimes government only claims that consequences were unforseen.

it does seem however that MOST issues seem to have ONLY the unforseen. Yes, almost all player issues seem to be like that.

while satire can be fun up to a point, it can and does become tedius if not downright monotonous.
Perhaps it's ust me, but I loe satire as long as the same jokes are repeated over and over and as long as it is not a blatantly partisan attack in disguise(ie "Democrats deny their secret massacre of kittens and puppies" or "Nader's true identity as John Ashcroft revealed" or "Bush insists that he is not reincarnation of Hitler and fails" sort of thing).

a satire of a satire is seldom successfuly humorous.
and many of these are not just second order but third, fourth and fifth.

=^^=
.../\...
I don't get those last two remarks. :?