Let's design a new NS ideology and/or policy test!

[Nasania]

Here is the Gameplay Alignment Test that we are all(well most of us) aware of. The operational version are the two links below.

http://www.selectsmart.com/plus/select.php?url=NSTest
http://www.selectsmart.com/plus/select.php?url=RCTest

However, there have been several criticisms of this test.

The criticisms are: it is biased, it is incomplete, it is 2D rather than 3D, policy and ideology are conflated etc.

So let's design a newer and improved version!

Here in this thread we can discuss how the questions can be changed, define the axes and other stuff.

Let's get started shall we?

[Shizensky]

I feel that several questions are making multiple statements, or asking multiple questions. They may seem closely related or even descriptive, but they can have very different meanings. One example is the question relating to raiders being bad people. It starts by asking how the participant views raider in a moral sense, and then jumps to ask for judgement of the actual raider. Both probably merit their own questions: (Is raiding bad? Are raiders bad people?) rather than (I think raiding is bad. Raiders much be bad people.)

There was another one in the R/C quiz:

7. Citizens who are inactive often but active elsewhere in NationStates (except they participate in the important votes) are not really �true- citizens and should be viewed with suspicion.

I think "suspicion" might be too strong of a word here, and in the same note, it probably wouldn't hurt to find more neutral language for most of the questions. Suspicion is a loaded word with negative connotations, so it's likely people would focus on that rather than the intent of the question itself.

[Valrifell]

2. Morality (e.g., right and wrong) in NationStates exists beyond simply just what is legal or illegal.

To be frank, I don't see why morality needs to be brought into this. The implication here is that raiding is immoral, but I mean really, morality technically exists everywhere. And there is no objective morale code.

[Solorni]

Lol... a morality question would be hilarious on a scale of Machiavelli to Jesus

[Shizensky]

2. Morality (e.g., right and wrong) in NationStates exists beyond simply just what is legal or illegal.

To be frank, I don't see why morality needs to be brought into this. The implication here is that raiding is immoral, but I mean really, morality technically exists everywhere. And there is no objective morale code.

Questions relating to morality should still be asked, but only to help determine the value each respondent places on morality's part in NS.

To go off of what you've said though, a lot of the questions ask how one feels about raiding. I wonder how easy it would be to remove labels (raider/defender) unless they are explicitly intended for use. Instead, the survey should seek to use general terms. Rather than ask if raiding is right, ask if it is right to take a region without the consent of those already residing in said region. TITO is known as a defender group, but they've never hesitated to move in and take a founderless raider region. They may not be "raiding" in the accepted sense of the word, but they're certainly taking a region without native consent to do so.

[KaelThas Quilor]

The problem with the morality question is it assumes saying morality exists makes you defenderist, which may not be accurate. I accept morality exists in NS - I just don't subscribe to the same version of morality your average Unibotian Defender does.

But on the other hand, Unibot's test doesn't actually say what side you're actually on, just where your ideology puts you. I've known some moderate defenderists (test-wise) to raid simply because they're in a region that raids and prefer sticking with the friends they know.

Rather than ask if raiding is right, ask if it is right to take a region without the consent of those already residing in said region. TITO is known as a defender group, but they've never hesitated to move in and take a founderless raider region. They may not be "raiding" in the accepted sense of the word, but they're certainly taking a region without native consent to do so.

Not a bad idea.

[Communist Eraser]

Many of these question don't account for the multiple positions in Gameplay.

6. Regions should not be invaded without strong political justification (e.g. self defense).

Too many double negatives with this question. If I agree with the statement, am I saying regions should be invaded with there is a strong political justification or that I think regions shouldn't be raided at all?

Some people believe regions should be raided if there is a political justification.
Some people believe regions should be raided without any justification.
Some people don't think regions should be raided at all.

I know there's the intensity meter, but that doesn't help distinguish the 3 options.

Similar thing here.


18. It would be fun to invade a random region against the will of its residents and try to maintain control over it.

I wonder if this question is focusing on 'fun' or on 'random'. Again there are multiple options.

It would be fun to invade random regions
We should only invade regions for political purposes, imperialism etc
Invasion isn't fun at all.

[KaelThas Quilor]

The use of random is inappropriate - no one, not even TBR chooses its targets at 'random', per se. I think there needs to be a separate set of questions about what Unibot and the UDL occasionally have called 'Arbitrary Raiding', and what Imperialist and Independent militaries tend to call 'training operations' (this being the more accurate term, all things considered)

[United Great Britian]

I think that it should also ask about where people stand on regional governance.

[KaelThas Quilor]

I think that it should also ask about where people stand on regional governance.

What do you mean? As in a whole new axis, or trying to wedge those kinds of questions into the other two axis? Because only some questions on the issue of regional governance could fall into either set, while there are many that would be independent of the raider/defender regionalist/cosmopolitan dichotomies. Plus, making general statements about ones opinion of regional governance is difficult, given how different regions work differently.

Not a bad idea, but could you clarify what exactly you mean by 'regional governance' in this case?

[United Great Britian]

I think that it should also ask about where people stand on regional governance.

What do you mean? As in a whole new axis, or trying to wedge those kinds of questions into the other two axis? Because only some questions on the issue of regional governance could fall into either set, while there are many that would be independent of the raider/defender regionalist/cosmopolitan dichotomies. Plus, making general statements about ones opinion of regional governance is difficult, given how different regions work differently.

Not a bad idea, but could you clarify what exactly you mean by 'regional governance' in this case?

Whole new axis. I mean like external forum, on site, non at all. Distribution of regional government. All that.

[KaelThas Quilor]

What exactly would the two ends be? There has to be more than one question to make an entire ideology. We'd need to identify a number of questions in that sort of vein and sort two general ideological propositions from within them.

[Topid]

If there is a third scale to be used it would be snarky to nice.

[KaelThas Quilor]

That's not an ideological set though. That's just personality traits. Plus, I think it would be nice to jack*ss, with snarky being in the middle

[Topid]

My attitude runs deeper than a character trait. I'm mean for ideological reasons.

[KaelThas Quilor]

How are 'nice' and 'snarky' ideologies? Could you elaborate?

[Ratateague]

The third axis could be apathetic vs involved, or inclusivity vs exclusivity. The latter, when applied regionally, would mean that organizations range from accepting all indiscriminately, to distinguishing a collective identity through limited ideals. Individually might imply one operates in closed social circles, or tries to make acquaintances/allegiances with all.

[Communist Eraser]

That's not an ideological set though. That's just personality traits. Plus, I think it would be nice to jack*ss, with snarky being in the middle

To be an ideology it needs to be some sort of worldview beyond just your personality.

I am ideologically mean because I wake up each morning and think 'How can I make the world more unpleasant today?'

[KaelThas Quilor]

The third axis could be apathetic vs involved, or inclusivity vs exclusivity. The latter, when applied regionally, would mean that organizations range from accepting all indiscriminately, to distinguishing a collective identity through limited ideals. Individually might imply one operates in closed social circles, or tries to make acquaintances/allegiances with all.

That's a lot like regionalist and cosmopolitian though.

[Ratateague]

That's a lot like regionalist and cosmopolitian though.

Yeah, it's really hard to come up with a third one when the two existing spectrums already have good coverage.

Opportunist vs Altruist, maybe?

[Valrifell]

That's a lot like regionalist and cosmopolitian though.

Yeah, it's really hard to come up with a third one when the two existing spectrums already have good coverage.

Opportunist vs Altruist, maybe?

I was thinking more along the lines of Imperialistic or... erm... non-Imperialistic? Theoretically it's possible to be Defender, cosmopolitan, and Imperialist at the same time.

[KaelThas Quilor]

Maybe.

I think Moralist versus non-moralist, maybe? Measuring the degree one things morality (whatever said morality is) exists in the context of the game?

Defender and Imperialist are incompatible. Imperialism is a political proposition that exists beyond the R/D dichotomy.

One could defend while being an Imperialist, but one cannot be an Imperialist and a Defender.

Now, if you mean one could score high as on the defenderist side of the Raideist/Defenderist scale and score high as an imperialist, that's different.

[Communist Eraser]

Or just a morality scale.

You can raid because you like hurting people
You can raid for the lulz
You can raid because you feel you are making a better world (e.g. antifa well, they think so)

You can defend because you like helping communities
You can defend for the lulz
You can defend because you hate raiders and want to see them suffer.

The mean nice scale doesn't seem ridiculous now does it?

[KaelThas Quilor]

I didn't say it did. I just wanted Topid to elaborate.

[Valrifell]

Maybe.

I think Moralist versus non-moralist, maybe? Measuring the degree one things morality (whatever said morality is) exists in the context of the game?

Defender and Imperialist are incompatible. Imperialism is a political proposition that exists beyond the R/D dichotomy.

One could defend while being an Imperialist, but one cannot be an Imperialist and a Defender.

Now, if you mean one could score high as on the defenderist side of the Raideist/Defenderist scale and score high as an imperialist, that's different.

I mean, Imperialism in the Game is more or less forcefully imposing your agenda on whatever region you desire, via any means necessary. While militant Imperialism is incompatible with Defenderism, political and cultural Imperialism are not, at least not inherently.

For instance, a Defender could rise through the ranks of a raider GCR and impose a new Defender regime unto the region. A peaceful alternative that still usurps what many would consider the "legitimate" government of that region and advances a certain ideal or goal.