Help us fix old issues

[Tecton]

Putting the entire internet under government control doesn't encourage technological advancement. The Minister of Telecommunications in that option is interested in ensuring "neutrality" (hardly encouraging innovation) and providing a free service so private enterprise can't profit out of it. That results in everyone having the same inefficient, mediocre internet with no profit incentive to improve.

Just because it isn't encouraged doesn't mean it wouldn't happen anyways. Also, who is to say that it would be inefficient? It would surely be more effective in the hands of a high SA nation (such as mine). Having no private ISPs wouldn't have much effect on overall SA, and now, with, "free" internet around your nation, it would be much easier for a not-so-well off citizen to pitch their ideas to others, such as a isolated inventor with a great idea, giving it to an invention sponsorship company, thus getting it out there and advancing the nation if it is accepted into society.

I'm not saying that the SA rise would have to be like 50+ points, it can be a low rise, especially counting the lower SAed nations, but the current impact it has seems a tad unrealistic (not saying that this is totally based on realism, but there needs to be some) to me.

It would be interesting to have something implemented, where, say, depending on SA, the bump grows a tad (like, a fraction of a point), but this isn't the place for that, obviously.

[Christian Democrats]

Putting the entire internet under government control doesn't encourage technological advancement. The Minister of Telecommunications in that option is interested in ensuring "neutrality" (hardly encouraging innovation) and providing a free service so private enterprise can't profit out of it. That results in everyone having the same inefficient, mediocre internet with no profit incentive to improve.

Just because it isn't encouraged doesn't mean it wouldn't happen anyways.

I recommend you rethink this.

Without a profit motive, technology companies will continue to push toward better technology anyway.

Is this possible? Yes, it's possible. Is this likely? No, not at all.

Stat effects tend to be based on likelihoods. Other pro-technology decisions can offset one's pro-"neutrality" stance on this issue.

[Christian Democrats]

Issue #413: A Shot in the Arm

The Issue

The dreaded Rubellan Measles has made a sudden comeback in @@NAME@@. The disease, which once killed millions, was thought to be wiped out after a vaccine was discovered fifty years ago. Medical professionals blame a recent anti-vaccination movement, which has turned immunization into a political football.

The Debate

1. "I'm not going to allow my babies to become slaves to Big Pharma!" bemoans parent and prominent anti-vaxxer @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Did you know that vaccines can cause autism and stunt a child's development? I can show you several studies that say so! These pharmaceutical companies are even putting nanobots in their vaccines! Nanobots! It is the right of every parent to determine what is best for their children."

2. "Please. Those so-called studies are nothing but hokum," counters your physician, Doctor @@RANDOMNAME@@, while checking your heartbeat with a stethoscope. "Vaccines save lives every single day. If it weren't for vaccines, Rubellan Measles would have killed off half of @@NAME@@'s population by now! There is absolutely no correlation between autism and vaccinations. Any scientist or doctor worth their degree will tell you that. If anything, we should make vaccinations mandatory for the health and well-being of @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ across the nation." The doctor snaps on a rubber glove. "Now, let's hurry this up. Cough, please."

3. "I agree, but we also need to send a message to these awful anti-vaxxer parents," states child psychologist @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Not only are these parents putting their children in danger by refusing to vaccinate them, they are putting all of society in danger. Do you really want to have an outbreak of Rubellan Measles in @@NAME@@s schools and daycares? I didn't think so. I recommend giving these parents a short jail sentence and banning their children from education until they're vaccinated. Sure, some people will complain about this being a violation of their rights as parents, but surely the health and safety of children trumps those concerns?"

4. "You know, we wouldn't have these problems if the population was more scientifically aware," muses amateur scientist @@RANDOMNAME@@ while pouring a vial of green liquid into a vial of purple liquid. "Movements like these are bred from ignorance and misinformation. If the government took an active role in promoting science and education this problem would go away. You could invest in real scientific studies and programs, make science classes mandatory in schools, and arrest any religious nuts who attempt to disrupt our work. @@NAME@@ would enter a new Golden Age!" The vials of liquid suddenly explode, covering your office with smoke and an unusually colored foam.

I honestly don't see the point of placing the term "religious nuts" in this particular issue. Religion isn't mentioned anywhere -- not once -- in this issue until the very end. To whom does option 4 refer? The issue description and options 1-3 say nothing about religion whatsoever; and, then, it pops into the issue out of the blue. In fact, many anti-vaccination activists are nonreligious.

http://www.naturalnews.com/031389_vaccines_philosophical_exemptions.html#

Let's look at the real-world example of polio vaccination rates in U.S. states. Kentucky has the highest polio vaccination rate at 97.0%. Oregon has the lowest polio vaccination rate at 86.7%.

http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih9/bioethics/guide/teacher/Mod2_vaccines-states.pdf

Kentucky is one of the most religious states, and Oregon is one of the least religious states.

[Golgothastan]

What do the stats say for the Swat Valley?

[Tecton]

Just because it isn't encouraged doesn't mean it wouldn't happen anyways.

I recommend you rethink this.

Without a profit motive, technology companies will continue to push toward better technology anyway.

Is this possible? Yes, it's possible. Is this likely? No, not at all.

Stat effects tend to be based on likelihoods. Other pro-technology decisions can offset one's pro-"neutrality" stance on this issue.

They would still have a profit motive, just not including the cost of an ISP's internet, this doesn't outlaw private enterprises based on the the internet (as in online orders). Technology companies will still be motivated to make a profit for, say, utilities when for working on products, thus having them have to make money to pay for their employees and the materials that go into their product and such. The only reason there would be no profit motive is if it freed up everything used by companies to make a certain product.

More innovations would be made to supply the company. They will still need to advance to be up to date with the nation's needs, they aren't going to attempt to have one version of a product work indefinitely, that's just not possible. Upgrades would have to be made.

Freeing up the internet would have a slight increase in SA, since it would be much easier to get ideas around, which a private enterprise could take up/sponsor, to improve their own products, making them more money, I say again.

The gist? Companies based/that have some profit off of online orders on the internet (such as Amazon and such) won't lose motive to innovate, since the government won't be taking away their profit, which they need to be able to produce more products (unless they are in fact an private ISP, though they don't invent many things anyways, they will just die off if they don't change their target market). As I have stated, it won't be a significant raise in SA, just a minor one.

[Nation of Quebec]

4. "You know, we wouldn't have these problems if the population was more scientifically aware," muses amateur scientist @@RANDOMNAME@@ while pouring a vial of green liquid into a vial of purple liquid. "Movements like these are bred from ignorance and misinformation. If the government took an active role in promoting science and education this problem would go away. You could invest in real scientific studies and programs, make science classes mandatory in schools, and arrest any religious nuts who attempt to disrupt our work. @@NAME@@ would enter a new Golden Age!" The vials of liquid suddenly explode, covering your office with smoke and an unusually colored foam.[/box]

I honestly don't see the point of placing the term "religious nuts" in this particular issue. Religion isn't mentioned anywhere -- not once -- in this issue until the very end. To whom does option 4 refer? The issue description and options 1-3 say nothing about religion whatsoever; and, then, it pops into the issue out of the blue. In fact, many anti-vaccination activists are nonreligious.

Option four is about making science a priority for the government, promoting it, and removing barriers that get in the way of science. Historically and even to this day, religion and science are at odds. How many times has science been oppressed by religion or scientists killed or censored because of religion?

The scientist in the option sees religion as an obstacle to that goal of promoting science and a better understanding of vaccinations, so they want to turn the tables so to speak. Besides, this is Nation States. Issues are often meant to be exaggerated.

[Undivulged Principles]

@tecton: in my experience in the business world a lack of incentive leads to stagnation. This is nigh universal.

@Christian democrats: there are plenty of issue choices that throw in what may be considered irrelevant opinions to a result. The issue choice banning fruit comes to mind. It also brings to mind countless real laws that have ammendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the law in question.

Welcome to reality in NS form.

[Tecton]

@tecton: in my experience in the business world a lack of incentive leads to stagnation. This is nigh universal.

@Christian democrats: there are plenty of issue choices that throw in what may be considered irrelevant opinions to a result. The issue choice banning fruit comes to mind. It also brings to mind countless real laws that have ammendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the law in question.

Welcome to reality in NS form.

Why would they lose incentive?

[Golgothastan]

"The Story So Far" in #391 doesn't make any sense.

Your government's response to overtures of aggression from the Brasilistanis has been to sanction it beyond imagination.

There is no singular object, so what does "it" refer to? It should be either "Brasilistan/the Brasilistani government" or "sanction them".

Also "casualties" is misspelled.

[Christian Democrats]

Also, in the last sentence of that issue's description, I would replace the word "but" with "and."

"But" implies contrast or contradiction, which does not exist in that sentence.

[Sanctaria]

Also, in the last sentence of that issue's description, I would replace the word "but" with "and."

"But" implies contrast or contradiction, which does not exist in that sentence.

There's no but in that last sentence. There is a but in the second to last sentence, however.

You have to stop being an extreme grammar pedant. We're trying to be more colloquial in the terms we use. People interchange (whether it's correct or not) but and and all the time in the spoken vernacular.

EDIT: Just to be clear, you are right in this instance and it has been changed to "and" (thanks! ) but please keep the above in consideration when commenting on what you percieve to be grammar issues in the future. I have noticed you and Lenyo have conversations about different tenses in the past.

"The Story So Far" in #391 doesn't make any sense.

Your government's response to overtures of aggression from the Brasilistanis has been to sanction it beyond imagination.

There is no singular object, so what does "it" refer to? It should be either "Brasilistan/the Brasilistani government" or "sanction them".

Also "casualties" is misspelled.

Fixed and fixed. Google changed casualties for me, dunno why it won't recognise the correct word.

[Mostrov]

‎

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

In issue 418, it should be ''this wasteful department'', not ''the'' as it is written.

[Sanctaria]

In issue 418, it should be ''this wasteful department'', not ''the'' as it is written.

Either is fine to me.

[Christian Democrats]

Issue #396: Hello, Is It Brie You're Looking For?

The Story So Far

The World Assembly's International Food Welfare Organization has estimated that Christian Democrats's harsh economic sanctions has led to the deaths of at least 50,000 starving Brasilitanis. After pleas from civil rights societies and humanitarian organisations, your government has agreed to allow some aid into Brasilistan.

The above should say "harsh economic sanctions have led."

[Sanctaria]

Issue #396: Hello, Is It Brie You're Looking For?

The Story So Far

The World Assembly's International Food Welfare Organization has estimated that Christian Democrats's harsh economic sanctions has led to the deaths of at least 50,000 starving Brasilitanis. After pleas from civil rights societies and humanitarian organisations, your government has agreed to allow some aid into Brasilistan.

The above should say "harsh economic sanctions have led."

We're trying to be more colloquial in the terms we use.

It's a much of a muchness really.

[Dornstrom]

#181: Radio Rebels Ruffle Government [Dupeksland; ed:Myrth]

The Issue
The 'Underground Element', a newly formed resistance force to the governing party in @@NAME@@, has begun broadcasting anti-government messages over a network of public radio stations.

The Debate
1. "These rebels are harmless," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, political commentator. "In the interests of free speech and democracy, we should allow them to broadcast their messages. There's nothing wrong with a little criticism of the government - indeed, it could do with some more incentive to perform well."

2. "It'd be one thing if it was genuinely insightful criticism," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, your personal advisor. "But this is a disgrace! It's simply fear-mongering and government-bashing. We should shut down these punks before they fill our citizens' heads full of mistruths. And while we're at it, there are a few other radio stations that need to smarten up their attitude to the government, too."

3. "Now now, let's be reasonable about this," muses @@RANDOMNAME@@, radio chatshow host. "The government should think very carefully before it gets into the business of telling people what they can and can't say on the air. The solution here is not to ban criticism, but to price radio station licenses at an appropriate level - that is, higher than a rabble of unshaven hippies can afford."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this issue is flawed. Choosing option 1 to support free speech increases your political freedom by a huge 28 points. My nation was classified as a Father Knows Best State dictatorship with "Rare" political freedoms, and suddenly choosing to let radio stations criticize the government because of free speech has bumped political freedoms all the way up to "Some" and changed my classification to "democracy" from dictatorship, with apparently "free elections" according to the description. This makes no sense, I banned elections forever ago and had no intentions of bringing them back ever.

If anything, I would think the huge increase should be in Civil Rights, because it's basically about the right to free speech. If political freedoms must be increased as well, it should probably be only by a little bit, since criticizing the government doesn't mean it'll actually listen to you, especially a dictatorship.

[Retrostadt]

Issue #353: "Broadband Going To The Birds?" gives an option to modify the functioning of the national internet service to use birds to carry data around. However, upon taking this decision it apparently sets flags claiming that I have enacted a ban on the internet, causing issues to come up (such as 335) asking me to lift the ban. Obviously a ban on the internet isn't the intended outcome of the bird event, as when you select it all that the post-issue message tells you is that your internet connection is merely threatened by cats, and says that there definitely exists a fledgling (oh I just got the pun) internet service. The intended result might just be that my bad unique policy decisions have caused a total collapse of the internet in the country, but if that's the case that should be made more clear by the results of the issue, and the issues that it triggers shouldn't assume that you've enacted a ban on the internet. Really though I feel like the consequences for attempting to do this should be at least slightly less harsh and allow you to have a functioning, if barely, bird internet.

[Czechostan]

#181: Radio Rebels Ruffle Government [Dupeksland; ed:Myrth]

The Issue
The 'Underground Element', a newly formed resistance force to the governing party in @@NAME@@, has begun broadcasting anti-government messages over a network of public radio stations.

The Debate
1. "These rebels are harmless," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, political commentator. "In the interests of free speech and democracy, we should allow them to broadcast their messages. There's nothing wrong with a little criticism of the government - indeed, it could do with some more incentive to perform well."

2. "It'd be one thing if it was genuinely insightful criticism," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, your personal advisor. "But this is a disgrace! It's simply fear-mongering and government-bashing. We should shut down these punks before they fill our citizens' heads full of mistruths. And while we're at it, there are a few other radio stations that need to smarten up their attitude to the government, too."

3. "Now now, let's be reasonable about this," muses @@RANDOMNAME@@, radio chatshow host. "The government should think very carefully before it gets into the business of telling people what they can and can't say on the air. The solution here is not to ban criticism, but to price radio station licenses at an appropriate level - that is, higher than a rabble of unshaven hippies can afford."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this issue is flawed. Choosing option 1 to support free speech increases your political freedom by a huge 28 points. My nation was classified as a Father Knows Best State dictatorship with "Rare" political freedoms, and suddenly choosing to let radio stations criticize the government because of free speech has bumped political freedoms all the way up to "Some" and changed my classification to "democracy" from dictatorship, with apparently "free elections" according to the description. This makes no sense, I banned elections forever ago and had no intentions of bringing them back ever.

If anything, I would think the huge increase should be in Civil Rights, because it's basically about the right to free speech. If political freedoms must be increased as well, it should probably be only by a little bit, since criticizing the government doesn't mean it'll actually listen to you, especially a dictatorship.

Political freedoms increase higher in nations that have low political freedoms. Conversely, they increase lower, if it all, in nations with high political freedoms.
Because it's free speech to criticize government, it is a political freedom, not a civil right.

[Dornstrom]

#181: Radio Rebels Ruffle Government [Dupeksland; ed:Myrth]

The Issue
The 'Underground Element', a newly formed resistance force to the governing party in @@NAME@@, has begun broadcasting anti-government messages over a network of public radio stations.

The Debate
1. "These rebels are harmless," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, political commentator. "In the interests of free speech and democracy, we should allow them to broadcast their messages. There's nothing wrong with a little criticism of the government - indeed, it could do with some more incentive to perform well."

2. "It'd be one thing if it was genuinely insightful criticism," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, your personal advisor. "But this is a disgrace! It's simply fear-mongering and government-bashing. We should shut down these punks before they fill our citizens' heads full of mistruths. And while we're at it, there are a few other radio stations that need to smarten up their attitude to the government, too."

3. "Now now, let's be reasonable about this," muses @@RANDOMNAME@@, radio chatshow host. "The government should think very carefully before it gets into the business of telling people what they can and can't say on the air. The solution here is not to ban criticism, but to price radio station licenses at an appropriate level - that is, higher than a rabble of unshaven hippies can afford."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this issue is flawed. Choosing option 1 to support free speech increases your political freedom by a huge 28 points. My nation was classified as a Father Knows Best State dictatorship with "Rare" political freedoms, and suddenly choosing to let radio stations criticize the government because of free speech has bumped political freedoms all the way up to "Some" and changed my classification to "democracy" from dictatorship, with apparently "free elections" according to the description. This makes no sense, I banned elections forever ago and had no intentions of bringing them back ever.

If anything, I would think the huge increase should be in Civil Rights, because it's basically about the right to free speech. If political freedoms must be increased as well, it should probably be only by a little bit, since criticizing the government doesn't mean it'll actually listen to you, especially a dictatorship.

Political freedoms increase higher in nations that have low political freedoms. Conversely, they increase lower, if it all, in nations with high political freedoms.
Because it's free speech to criticize government, it is a political freedom, not a civil right.

I wouldn't agree with that, criticizing the government does not magically make elections and democracy appear in a dictatorship. This is especially true given the notification displayed after picking option 1:

"'The Anti-Government Hour' is a popular programme on many of @@NAME@@'s radio stations."

That says nothing about political action to actually change the government, it just says people are listening these programs of dudes who don't like the government. That by itself will not make democracy and elections suddenly come back. I mean, forget game mechanics for 2 seconds, from a simulation point of view, listening to radio =/= changing government. At the very least, I'd consider re-writing the issue so that the big government changes make more sense.

[Christian Democrats]

12 hours ago: Following new legislation in Christian Democrats, the people are famous throughout the region for their bleached-white teeth.

Fluoride actually causes tooth discoloration...

Its benefit is the prevention of tooth decay.

[Golgothastan]

Heh, good catch. Maybe they've all started using whitening agents to cover up the fluorosis?

[Qwanch]

http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Traffic_Cops_Needed_on_Information_Highway%3F

I chose option one and it actually increased civil and political rights... I already had poltical and economic at zero, as was my goal... now I have to get political down again, which was very hard... I think one is mixed up with three somehow

I remember this one.

....

Anyway, I have another, newer one...
Just need to copy it...

[Czechostan]

Political freedoms increase higher in nations that have low political freedoms. Conversely, they increase lower, if it all, in nations with high political freedoms.
Because it's free speech to criticize government, it is a political freedom, not a civil right.

I wouldn't agree with that, criticizing the government does not magically make elections and democracy appear in a dictatorship. This is especially true given the notification displayed after picking option 1:

"'The Anti-Government Hour' is a popular programme on many of @@NAME@@'s radio stations."

That says nothing about political action to actually change the government, it just says people are listening these programs of dudes who don't like the government. That by itself will not make democracy and elections suddenly come back. I mean, forget game mechanics for 2 seconds, from a simulation point of view, listening to radio =/= changing government. At the very least, I'd consider re-writing the issue so that the big government changes make more sense.

Of course elections won't appear. I'm guessing you're concerned that your WA category classifies you as a democracy. Because of the small political spectrum and the exaggerated classifications, don't worry about that. It doesn't necessarily mean you are a democracy, just that your political freedoms are moderate, not low. You decide whether your nation is a democracy or not in your factbooks and RPs.
Issues that deal with freedom to criticize government officials and their policies are classified as political freedoms. People may not be allowed to change the government, but they have the political right to vocalize their grievances and their negative opinions toward the government.

[Trotterdam]

It makes sense to me that freedom of speech counts under political freedoms, but it still seems a bit weird that you can raise your political freedoms to over the halfway point just through freedom of speech, and I've always made fun of the fact that you can therefore be classified as an Inoffensive Centrist Democracy, Moralistic Democracy, Authoritarian Democracy, or Democratic Socialists (all of which require only middling political freedoms) without ever having a single election.

Conceivably the Inoffensive Centrist Democracy category could be made to display instead as Inoffensive Centrist Dictatorship (or similar) in nations that have banned elections, similarly to how Father Knows Best State is sometimes Mother Knows Best State, but more problematic because it would require chaning the long description as well.