by Candlewhisper Archive » Wed Jan 20, 2016 4:25 am
by Candlewhisper Archive » Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:56 am
by Leppikania » Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:37 am
by Candlewhisper Archive » Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:40 am
by Leppikania » Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:54 am
by Chan Island » Wed Jan 20, 2016 10:39 am
Conserative Morality wrote:"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:10 am
by Chan Island » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:28 am
Conserative Morality wrote:"It's not time yet" is a tactic used by reactionaries in every era. "It's not time for democracy, it's not time for capitalism, it's not time for emancipation." Of course it's not time. It's never time, not on its own. You make it time. If you're under fire in the no-man's land of WW1, you start digging a foxhole even if the ideal time would be when you *aren't* being bombarded, because once you wait for it to be 'time', other situations will need your attention, assuming you survive that long. If the fields aren't furrowed, plow them. If the iron is not hot, make it so. If society is not ready, change it.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:53 am
by Trotterdam » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:51 am
by Slakonian » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:56 am
Turmenista wrote:>USA/Obama drops bombs in Syria for over a year, nobody bats an eye or says a word.
>Russia/Putin drops bombs in Syria for a day and-
WE INTERRUPT THIS SHITPOST TO INFORM YOU THAT VLADIMIR PUTIN AND RUSSIA ARE TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!
by Sanctaria » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:56 am
Trotterdam wrote:What "larger and better established nuclear world powers"? NPC nations have so far generally been characterized as either backwaters or rogue states.
Issues are generally written from the point of view that your nation matters, and can aspire to the greatest heights or lowest depths of the world, rather than getting kicked around by NPCs. (Usually, you're the one kicking the NPCs about. There's actually no way to lose the war with Brasilistan, regardless of your stats, and nor is there an option to ask the international community for help and let someone else invade and liberate them.) Only if you have a really terrible military does Wezeltonia come and kick you around a little, and even then it only chips away at some remote territories of yours.
by Trotterdam » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:03 pm
That's generally just used as an indication of "we still have room to grow in this area", though, not "we need to bow down and appease our betters or we might get glassed".Sanctaria wrote:I don't see a problem with the premise of the issue. I mean, we have issues with the premise that other nations in the region have better healthcare systems, or better education systems.
by Sanctaria » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:05 pm
Trotterdam wrote:That's generally just used as an indication of "we still have room to grow in this area", though, not "we need to bow down and appease our betters or we might get glassed".Sanctaria wrote:I don't see a problem with the premise of the issue. I mean, we have issues with the premise that other nations in the region have better healthcare systems, or better education systems.
by Leppikania » Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:11 pm
by Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:03 am
Leppikania wrote:Also, option 3 should be for nations that have banned private industry, not have low civil rights. Communist countries are perfectly capable of having good civil rights. (The Mallard Islands is an example)
by Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:07 am
Trotterdam wrote:What "larger and better established nuclear world powers"? NPC nations have so far generally been characterized as either backwaters or rogue states.
Issues are generally written from the point of view that your nation matters, and can aspire to the greatest heights or lowest depths of the world, rather than getting kicked around by NPCs. (Usually, you're the one kicking the NPCs about. There's actually no way to lose the war with Brasilistan, regardless of your stats, and nor is there an option to ask the international community for help and let someone else invade and liberate them.) Only if you have a really terrible military does Wezeltonia come and kick you around a little, and even then it only chips away at some remote territories of yours.
Maybe you mean small compared to other player-controlled nations, but the game is also generally based on the assumption that player nations don't influence each other, so there's no way of knowing how big other nuclear powers actually are. At the very least, it would be better to have the validity specify nations which have small Defense Forces (despite having nukes), rather than being based on population, both so that nations that have invested heavily in the military don't get insulted, and because an issue that you can never receive again after growing to a certain size is boring ("population" is really supposed to be more of a meta stat).
Implying the major conflict worldwide comes down to a stereotyped "capitalist bloc" and "communist bloc" is also kind of boring. The Cold War is over in real life, and in-universe NationStates might well have conflicts over entirely different issues. Also, as Leppikania points out, capitalism and communism are about economic freedoms, not civil freedoms.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Lindsay, Valentine Z
Advertisement