NationStates Jolt Archive

limited options

06-12-2005, 02:25
has any one else noticed that possible answers for issues are always one sided and do not allow for authoritarian and liberitarian belifes
for instane if i had an issue saying banks should be required to show their account transactions the responses may be

A banks need to be required to show transactions

B banks sould not be required to show transactions and should have lower taxes and government funding

however i am of the opinion banks should not have to publish transactions but they shouldnt get gov funding what can i do? ithink you should be able to pick and choose from lobbyists cases to find common ground or an agreement

Emperor Matthuis
06-12-2005, 18:42
Well firstly this should probably be in the Issues forum.

Secondly the point of the issues is that there is normally not a right answer so whichever option you chose has a downside. Most of the issues are composed of two conflicting opinions and then a radical option so there is never a 'right' answer that will suit everybody.

Max Barry mentions it in the FAQ.

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.