Law of Unintended Consequences

[FreeJeffersonianStates]

I understand the law of unintended consequences, when making decisions on issues...but some of these results get quite ridiculous.

For example, when an issue regarding airline hijackings came up, I chose the option of allowing the passengers on airlines to carry concealed weapons.

The next day I look and it says "bombs are now allowed on planes 'for the security of passengers'."

That's preposterous. It isn't remotely related to the decision I made. A BOMB is an entirely different class of weapon than, for instance, a pistol. A pistol, particularly loaded with frangible ammo to avoid overpenetration, can be used to take out a hijacker. A BOMB is going to blow a hole in the airplane!

This sort of thing is annoying and is interfering with my enjoyment of this game. I understand some degree of UC, but taking it to silly lengths is, well... silly.

[Glen-Rhodes]

... A BOMB is an entirely different class of weapon than, for instance, a pistol.

But aren't they both weapons?

[Bears Armed]

M.A.D.

[Lord Tothe]

Half the fun of this game is seeing the absurd exaggerations resulting from my decisions. If anything, I'd like to see zanier results from all daily issues.

[Yekrut]

You do understand that this game is based on Max Barry’s book, Jennifer Government, and that there is a certain element of literary absurdity in said book, right?

Or did you think this was a “nation simulator”?

[Sibirsky]

My favorite.

Following new legislation in Random Nation: Elevator music has been replaced by trash metal played at maximum level.

[Yekrut]

I like how people are much more polite once you allow private citizens to own military-grade hardware...

Little kids singing “‘A’ is for Annulment” is pretty funny, too.

[FreeJeffersonianStates]

Never read the book Jennifer Government; knew nothing about it when I signed up. Yeah, some of the ridiculous results are funny, and I know this isn't a particularly serious game....still, it can be a little annoying sometimes.

Anyway...

[Socialist1]

Guns can be used as an offensive or defensive weapon and are usually targeted against individual persons. Bombs on the other hand are a weapon of mass destruction which can only be used as an offensive weapon causing massive destruction and a large number of casualties.

So there is a big difference between the two weapons.

[Lizapotamia]

I justify this is several ways depending on the issue and the nation I'm playing:

Option 1: You or some other government official(s) left a bunch of unfortunate legal loopholes in that new law you just made, and those loopholes lead to some bizarre legal scenarios where people try to take advantage of them.

Option 2: Your ruler is, ICly, insane. He or she takes things to extremes on a whim.

Option 3: You only have a limited effect on legislation. For example, you have the opportunity to suggest or veto certain bills, but most of the process is handled by your legislature. Things stray from your original intent as a result.

[Odhinnia]

Guns can be used as an offensive or defensive weapon and are usually targeted against individual persons. Bombs on the other hand are a weapon of mass destruction which can only be used as an offensive weapon causing massive destruction and a large number of casualties.

So there is a big difference between the two weapons.

If you use a bomb to Say create a landslide to make a barrier between you and someone pursuing you.... It could be defensive!

[Bears Armed]

If you use a bomb to Say create a landslide to make a barrier between
you and someone pursuing you.... It could be defensive!

Create a landslide aboard an airplane?!?

[Sirocco]

If everyone on board had a bomb to defend themselves then no one would get hurt.

Think before you post, man.

[Unibot]

If everyone on board had a bomb to defend themselves then no one would get hurt.

Think before you post, man.

But.. But...