children gambling - lack of reasonable middle ground?

[Dave Nation (Ancient)]

On the gambling issue, the only choices were allow all ages to gamble or ban all gambling.

Why is there a lack of middle ground here? Most countries in the world allow gambling but ban children from doing so.

The pot issue had the same problem. Allow smoking at work, or limit it to only the home. Umm, I can't drink at work but I can drink outside of the home. Can't pot be the same?

I understand that every choice can't be listed, but two option issues seem to be severely limiting.

[Flibbleites]

That's why theres always the "Dismiss" option.

[Boreway]

I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss the issue either, that would mean children could keep gambling exactly as much as they already were.

[Nation of Quebec]

Many of the issues Max wrote had have problems like this: we have to either dismiss the option or pick between two extremes.

Why not a third option that keeps gambling legal, but bans children from gambling and entering casinos through an age limit?

[Aescentia]

Many of the issues Max wrote had have problems like this: we have to either dismiss the option or pick between two extremes.

Why not a third option that keeps gambling legal, but bans children from gambling and entering casinos through an age limit?

While I agree that a third middle-option would be very nice, there's pretty much an unspoken law-of-god against modifying Max's original issues.

[Lucent Dawn]

I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss the issue either, that would mean children could keep gambling exactly as much as they already were.

Which is an undefined amount.

[Seperate Vermont]

Many of the issues Max wrote had have problems like this: we have to either dismiss the option or pick between two extremes.

Why not a third option that keeps gambling legal, but bans children from gambling and entering casinos through an age limit?

That's part of what makes the game fun, is it's extremes and taking your intent by choosing option 1 way out of context. That's also why the game admins were nice enough to include the dismiss option.

Or you can just turn issues off and decide for yourself.

[Bears Armed]

I don't think it is reasonable to dismiss the issue either, that would mean children could keep gambling exactly as much as they already were.

If they are...
You don't have to accept every issue as correct for your nation, it's perfectly legitimate to dismiss ones because you consider the actual questions involved -- and not just the potential answers provided -- inappropriate: So dismiss it, and say that it the question doesn't arise there because you've already got laws setting an age-limit for gambling, and that would be fine.

[Boreway]

If they are...

Well, the game flat out said that there were kids gambling at casinos and such, so it seems pretty clear that they are.

[Dukopolious]

I agree with your point but the simple fact is that they would need to edit the entire post using code, stopp it from being dispursed during this time and this would just take up too much time. Espicially when the technical fourm is full of suggestions. maybe they will get to it eventually but for now I think it would be best to leave it as it is. Also the fun of the game somtimes is just picking an issue like for example "ban gambling" and then because you want more adult freedoms do something else like legalize pot. That way the children would be banned like you said and the adult population wouldn't be as angry

[Hassett]

Many of the issues Max wrote had have problems like this: we have to either dismiss the option or pick between two extremes.

Why not a third option that keeps gambling legal, but bans children from gambling and entering casinos through an age limit?

Because that makes too much sense for a satire game like this.

Although unlikely, if there were a 3rd option added it would probably be even more extreme than the 2 sides presented in the issue.