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

[Ratateague]

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?

Essentially. Although, using those terms specifically are a bit lacking in definition. Opportunism might mean one uses whatever means available, or that one is simply spontaneous and subject to whimsy. Altruism would imply one is rooted in principle and follows a rigid code even when it's impractical and unfun.

[Drawkland]

Just from a quiz perspective, I didn't like how "all-or-nothing" it was. There's many questions which I felt forced to put "No Preference," because I felt the question's response depends on each individual situation.

In other words, I felt it was too binary. Perhaps a 1-5 scale plus a "depends on context" option, and more flexible results (i.e. Moral Defenderist, Chaotic Raiderist, Uncaring Swing Vote), sort of like the Good/Neutral/Evil//Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic scale. Binary is bad.

As for the 3D point the OP mentioned, perhaps a 3D scale of both quizzes be made? Cosmopolitan Defenderist? Regional Raiderist? Idk, just an idea.

[KaelThas Quilor]

Imperialism in NS is an actual political philosophy in NationStates. The term as it is used in real life doesn't really work.

[Valrifell]

Imperialism in NS is an actual political philosophy in NationStates. The term as it is used in real life doesn't really work.

Then, yes, a morality based third axis would make the most sense.

[Nasania]

So to sum up.

1. Ashcan the moralism
2. Clarify questions(Strike out random, use arbitrary)
3. No double negatives
4. New dimension(Mainly because of the imperialists)

On the new dimension here are the proposals:

Independentism(Centralism according Tyrs hand Party)
Imperialism
Apathetic vs Involved(measuring apathy hmm. this is an interesting idea, could try that)
Inclusivity vs Exclusivity(this reminds me more of the Cosmopolitanist/Interregionalist vs Regionalist already)
Opportunist vs Altruist(Reminds me somewhat of the Raiderism vs Defenderism. Also how do we rectify this with the 'no moralism' suggestion?)
Neutralism
Pacifism
Good/Evil/Chaos/Law (How is this to be rectified with the 'no moralism' suggestion? 'Evil' is a moral judgement. Unless one defines 'moralism' differently. Hmm. how does this relate to Ethicism and its differences from Moralism?)
Anti-Positions(like anti-imperialism, anti-regionalism, anti-cosmopolitanism, anti-individualism)
Ambivalence
Internal vs External Policy(Regional Governance suggestion, though policies are different from ideology. e.g. Raider vs Raiderist, Defender vs Defenderist)

How do we define the concepts(particularly the good/evil dimension that someone suggested) so we can determine more concise questions? Like Anti-Imperialism and differentiating it from Independentism? Personally I think Imperialism is a subset of Independentism as the term 'Independentism' is a result of the UDL test's 2D nature and perhaps a third way. However, some seem to imply that Independentism could be defined more as a type of Regional Sovereigntism.



Hmm. Could separate Independentism and Imperialism into two axes on their own, which gives us a 4D test.

In regards to the Good/Evil dimension someone suggested: Based on this book, Evil=Ambition+Sadism+Selfishness+Obsession with maintaining one's own good name.

resources:

Evil Philosophy
legal moralism
Altruism

[Crushing Our Enemies]

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

Quite some time ago, I made an effort to revise this test myself, to eliminate much of the loaded terminology, and fix some questions that I considered unclear or that asked more than one thing. Astarial read over my new list of questions and helped tweak, and also served as a check against raider bias. Solm hosted it for us just like he did with Unibot's, but that version is no longer available. Currently the only version of my test that I have kicking around is a list of questions that are color-coded by how they affect the test results. I wouldn't want to share that, because spoilers. I'll look into getting it hosted again, perhaps.

It accepts the axis of Unibot's test and the format. It only alters the questions. So I think it addresses the criticism regarding bias and the conflation of policy and ideology (to the extent that the two don't necessarily overlap), but not the other concerns. I'll look into putting it in a format I'm willing to share, and perhaps getting it re-hosted for test-takers.

[KaelThas Quilor]

Well, as conventionally defined, Independentism and Imperialism are actually related phenomena in NS.

I would argue a third axis might talk about the severability of military activity from R/D. Independents and Imperialists claim (accurately, for my money) that they exist beyond the R/D dichotomy. But Defenders (primarily) tend to lump independents and imperialists that, for various reasons, primarily raid (though Inds they primarily defend do and can exist) as merely 'Raiders' trying to mask themselves, essentially arguing the case of 'if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its a duck' whatever the dressed up logic and motivations.

So the set of questions could how much one sees military activity defined by actions (people who see R/D as just R/D) and how much military activity is defined by motivations and intent (Independents, Imperialists, other 'third way' people)

[Khronion]

In the end, R/D is one matrix of many that you can use to analyze gameplay. If you pick any single criteria, it's not hard to sort regions into binary categories. Independent regions tend to be "raider" just because being defender requires a relatively (or arguably, completely) pure view of military gameplay.

In the end, any choice of criteria already presupposes a certain interpretation on the data, implying that gameplay ideologies are well-described by those criteria. I suspect pure defenders would defend their choice of using raiding/defending as the most important criteria because in their view, it is the only one that matters. Likewise, Independents would attack that assumption, because in their worldview, the decision to defend or not is not the most important factor of gameplay.

[Zaolat]

Well, as conventionally defined, Independentism and Imperialism are actually related phenomena in NS.

Not disagreeing with you here Cerian, but stating something:

Independence isn't Imperialism, so Independence would be more Centrist if the scale is between Defenderist and Raiderist. Though on the other hand, Imperialism is a sub-branch of Independence that would in such scale lean towards the Raiderist side. It would also lean Regionalist mostly I think, given the Imperialist-sphere tends to be more inclusive to it's own or near similar ideology. The only time I'd see it go more Interregionalist if that is part of expanding influence of the main region. Independentism tends to be more Interregionalist rather than as Regionalist as Imperialism in comparison.

[KaelThas Quilor]

I didn't say they were the same, I said they were related, which is because they are.

I also think you can't quite shoe-horn Independence and Imperialism into either the R/D or the R/C spectrum. 'Defenderist' (in that they score high on the defenderist side of the scale) Imperialists are possible (its just very difficult to manage, due to the nature of defending) as are 'Defenderist' Independents (which are much easier to have existing than Defender Imperialists).

That's why I was talking about the issue of severability from R/D - actions v.s. intent

[KaelThas Quilor]

Independents would attack that assumption, because in their worldview, the decision to defend or not is not the most important factor of gameplay.

The decision to defend or not is not the decision Independents face. The decision is how best to use one's regional military to the furtherment of regional policy and promotion of the region's interests. Its not a binary.

[Zaolat]

I didn't say they were the same, I said they were related, which is because they are.

I also think you can't quite shoe-horn Independence and Imperialism into either the R/D or the R/C spectrum. 'Defenderist' (in that they score high on the defenderist side of the scale) Imperialists are possible (its just very difficult to manage, due to the nature of defending) as are 'Defenderist' Independents (which are much easier to have existing than Defender Imperialists).

That's why I was talking about the issue of severability from R/D - actions v.s. intent

I agree, but I was speaking in terms of poll system based on Unibot's. It doesn't factor these things.

[KaelThas Quilor]

I know, which is the reason why we were suggesting other axis that this could have.

[Nasania]

Here is a reworked part of the test. Anti-positions are included.

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

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

http://www.selectsmart.com/plus/select. ... mperialism

[KaelThas Quilor]

While I agree that there is more than just 'regionalism' and 'cosmopolitanism' as conventionally defined, I'm not sure anti-regionalism and anti-cosmopolitanism are really the terms for the others. This spectrum is simpler, I think.

Regionalism(NS nationalism) (100%)
Anti-Cosmopolitanism (83%)
Cosmopolitanism/Interregionalism (47%)
Anti-Regionalism (25%)

Unsurprising results.

Now, Anti-Defenderism and Anti-Raiderism is far more fitting - there are plenty of people that fall into the Anti-category, rather than one or the other, because the game has shown people have worked harder to find a nuance here than on R/C.

Raiderism (100%)
Anti-Defenderism (40%)
Defenderism (20%)
Anti-Raiderism (0%)

Also unsurprising, but 100% are too easy still. But its a limit of the format, I realize.

This third one will be the most interesting, I think.

I said no to some of the sovreigntist questions because I have problems with the ideology - but I'm fine with the definition used. We shouldn't be asked definitions - we should be asked consequences of those definitions. However, a very nice addition that helps establish the complex natures here. Also some slight sloppiness (or at least, apparent sloppiness) in terms of the terms 'region' and 'community' which describe different, albeit often related phenomena. There also weren't enough 'Zennyist' and 'Franocist' questions. One could argue that Francoism is an extreme form of Regionalism and Zennyism is essentially a socialist-flavored variation of Independence. But if you want to include them in this test, I think you need more questions related to both.

Imperialism (100%)
Independentism (87%)
Anti-Sovereigntism (48%)
Regional Sovereigntism (47%)
Zennyism (32%)
Anti-Imperialism (8%)
Anti-Zennyism (7%)
Anti-Francoism (0%)
Anti-Independentism (0%)
Francoism (0%)

Also unsurprising here.


Overall, I like the second test the most, and the third one is a very nice start, but it definitely needs a little polishing. Still, it is an excellent start. The first needs a lot more polishing to deal with what complexities there are on the R/C spectrum.


But definitely good work. Thanks for making this, Nasania. It isn't perfect, but its still a very good set of tests.

[Consular]

I noticed your third test has directly quoted the Independent Manifesto.

[Gradea]

I am somehow a Defender.

[Nasania]

Francoist/Zennyist test. Questions still need to be condensed in simpler form, and balancing of question number per faction. Highly imbalanced as of yet.
http://www.selectsmart.com/plus/select. ... ationalist

To Cerian: Maybe, Interesting that if one subtracts the Anti-regionalism(25%) from the Regionalism score, it almost equals the anti-Cosmopolitanism score(83%). Odd part is when subtracting the Cosmopolitanism score from the Regionalism score, yields 53% regionalism. The Solm version broke it down into 10 questions for Regionalism 10 questions for Cosmopolitanism. Actually did see someone advocating an Anti-position (anti-regionalist individualist, I think) a few months ago so I am trying to represent such. With the Solm version, the anti-Regs will be lumped in together with the Cosmos, which may not necessarily be true. RL parallel would be like lumping internationalists together with Anti-nationalists. I think they may be related but are not necessarily the same. Need to investigate further though.

Thanks and Yeah, the test is indeed limited(only allows 25 questions) . The effect this has is it is rounding the answer to a larger number. To get a more accurate result I would have to make a Raiderism test of 25 questions and a separate Defenderism test with same number. Drawback is it may be somewhat Inconvenient to test takers.

Wrt the 3rd test:agreed on the definitions. I was quoting from the manifestos as a start. In other issues, the test only allows 25 questions, so Francoism wasn't even measured. Francoism and Zennyism( and regionalism/cosmopolitanism)could be classified as independent. I suspect the Francoists would see R/D as a Userite bogeyman trumped up to secure their own power over a region. From what I understand, independentism means 'not R/D ideology'.

To Gradea: By how much and why do you think it scored as such? R/D is a separate dimension from R/C and Imperialism/independence so you may be a largely independent defender or defender leaning independent.

[KaelThas Quilor]

Cosmopolitianism and Regionalism are not military ideologies - they say nothing about the military at all.

And yes, it only allows 25 questions - so you should probably re-emphasize those questions away from definitions (perhaps define them at the top of the test) and present scenarios and ask how a region or person should respond. That will allow a better understanding of the persons ideology.


Then you probably should separate Francoism and Zennyism from the test, if there's no space to do them justice. And with all due respect to Zenny, her ideology hasn't been around long enough to belong on a test like this

[Zenya]

And with all due respect to Zenny, her ideology hasn't been around long enough to belong on a test like this

*shrugs* Wondered why it was, certainly didn't request it to be. All I can point to are results and statistics of the ideology.
And Zennyism isn't "my" ideology x)

[KaelThas Quilor]

Then change the name. If someone went around touting Quilorism, and it wasn't 'my' ideology, I'd ask them to change the name.

[Zenya]

Then change the name. If someone went around touting Quilorism, and it wasn't 'my' ideology, I'd ask them to change the name.

It was simply named after the person who thought it all up Its based around my thoughts and strategies, but it being "mine" means some kind of ownership over it, when I just wrote up some documents and put together a thesis on what I believe would create a successful region that I think has showed itself to work. And a lot of the ideas I've put out there have been adopted by many regions looking to move upwards, some even creating their own little sub-categories within Zennyism, taking the teachings and simply renaming it.

But yeah, I don't have some kind of copyright on it, its not mine to own. All I can say is yeah I thought it up. Marx doesn't own Marxism, Lenin doesn't own Leninism, Mao doesn't own Maoism. I dont feel an ideology relies on whos thoughts and ideas its based upon, but the thoughts and ideas themselves and how they translate into results. If I renamed it to anything else, the claim of it being mine would continue to stand, as I thought it up and actively promote it. The name of an ideology makes little difference to me. Plus I think Zennyism sounds better than anything else I could come up with A complete rebrand of the ideas doesn't make much sense to me at this point.

Edit: Even with all this said, its not like all my ideas are completely original. I took what I've learned over all my years and NS and also injected some of my own ideas into it. I took ideas from regionalists, independents, even injecting some of the things I'd read about from Quotations from Chairman Mao. I don't like conforming to one single school of thought, and I think the diversity I put into it is was makes it strong.

[KaelThas Quilor]

If you wrote it, it is your ideology, Zenny. That's how it works.

[Zenya]

If you wrote it, it is your ideology, Zenny. That's how it works.

Nonsense, then Independence would be owned by Euro and its allies since they wrote the manifesto.

[Letoilenoir]

Nas, if you ae interested you may want to contribute to the M.A.D project

This is a working prototype designed to assist people when choosing which region to opt for, but could be configured to determine ideological inclinations

The approach is to first determine the high level drivers and then branch out - eg if the respondent is inclined towards R/D,and tend towards raiding, instead of pointing them to a specific region after completing the first questionnaire they could instead to be directed to a second one which would determine whether TBR or Europeia would be more suited to them

The "You have scored" marker is there purely for testing purposes

If you or anyone else is interested please don't hesitate to get in touch

PS there is still some work to ensure that each question is a amswered before the submit button becomes active - I have the code somewhere!