[Issue] Heads Will Roll - Is this serious? (spoiler)

[Weedelia]

456

Earlier this week an entire chapter of the motorcycle gang Daughters of Disorder was involved in a nasty accident on one of @NATION@'s major highways, leaving several of them dead. After medical personnel later ascertained that the use of helmets could have saved their lives, your Minister of Health and Public Safety made a statement proposing a set of new security measures mandatory for all motorcycle riders. The initiative has sparked debate, and is facing strong opposition from motorcycle enthusiasts.

1. "This law would violate our religious right to wear our sacred top hats while riding motorcycles!" exclaims Mark Chandra, president of the Violetist Scooter Corps, as he points his ceremonial blade at your chest. "We have worn the top hat in times of war on the battlefield! Our protection comes from Violet herself! Require the ungodly heathens to wear helmets! Those who are chosen by Violet to ride will ride in style or die trying!"

2. "The stove pipe is right, helmets are lame!" agrees Dean James, your slacker nephew. "How am I going to impress any babes if I have helmet hair?" he asks, running his hand through his hair while checking out your secretary over his sunglasses. "Do the right thing boss; helmets are for losers."

3. "Don't listen to him, dear," says your sister, while she drags her son towards the door by the ear. "You had the right idea: everyone riding a motorcycle should wear a helmet, and a padded full body protective suit, and a reflective vest, and neck warmers and..." she continues listing security gear as she leaves the room with your nephew in tow.

4. "It's not enough!" screams one of your junior aides, a fragile and slightly confused soul who was particularly disturbed by the recent accident. "It's not just traffic! People slip in the shower every day, cans fall on their heads in supermarkets, disoriented birds; we're all exposed, at all times! If people are too stupid to realize that, we have to make them! There should be a helmet law for everyone! Wear a helmet or go to jail!"

The Issue says "After medical personnel later ascertained that the use of helmets could have saved their lives", the options given are ridiculous. The first 2 are identical and the forth is just non-sense. The only option that will make sense if I wanted to make helmets obligatory on motorcycles is the third and thus also making mandatory other measures that are just too strictly. Almost all the issues I've seen had at least one reasonable position.. this issue is just a joke. Besides, what the ... has to do "my" sister and nephew in all this.. anybody ?

[Sleep]

I can't speak to the edits that were made after the draft was submitted, but I can tell you that 1 and 2 are not identical options at all.

Option 1 - Helmet Exemption based on Religious Freedom (Helmets for everyone else) <- See Canada
Option 2 - No Helmets for anyone <- See most states in the US (people over 17yrs old not required to wear helmets)
Option 3 - Helmets required and additional protections as well <- See Puerto Rico
Option 4 - Helmets at all times. Helmets for Life (Option added by Issue Editor)

Your mileage may vary.

[Gnejs]

Sleep did a good job explaining the difference between the options. Other than that I'll just add that I don't believe issues should be about getting what you want; they should be about making a choice based on what you're offered. And sometimes fun and ridiculousness is kind of the point, you know.

[Trotterdam]

The issue editors often say that they like to force difficult decisions by avoiding any one choice that is too obviously right.

In reality, by doing so, they show bias. By avoiding the commonly-supported-in-real-life "helmets should be compulsory on motorcycles" option (which cannot achieved without choosing something more radical), while freely offering the also-commonly-supported-in-real-life "the government shouldn't interfere with people's freedom like that" option with no catch (in fact, it has a secondary positive, since the game admits that it does in fact make you look stylish), the editors are showing that they consider the former to be the ordinary, "obviously right" choice that everyone should pick if it were available, while implying that not having mandatory helmet laws is crazy enough in itself to already count as a radical position.

Practically though, NationStates likes exaggerations. Picking option 3 will probably affect your nation's stats similarly to a less extreme mandatory-helmet law, but with exaggerated narration for humor.

[Sanctaria]

In reality, by doing so, they show bias. By avoiding the commonly-supported-in-real-life "helmets should be compulsory on motorcycles" option (which cannot achieved without choosing something more radical), while freely offering the also-commonly-supported-in-real-life "the government shouldn't interfere with people's freedom like that" option with no catch

No option is right or wrong, and every option's stats include those which can be construed as "positive" and those with can be seen as "negative" or "a catch". Every option's stats. It may not allude in the text, and it may be subtle so you can't track it, but that's how we look at it.

[Trotterdam]

No option is right or wrong, and every option's stats include those which can be construed as "positive" and those with can be seen as "negative" or "a catch".

You're missing my point.

Of course option 2 has a downside (more people dying in motorcycle accidents, duh), but that's not a "catch" since that's exactly the tradeoff someone choosing that option would have accepted, in exactly the strength that a large number of people support in real life.

Option 3 has a downside that (at least in text) is stronger than what most people who support helmet laws in real life actually want. That's a "catch".

By writing it like this, you are implying that writing a weaker version of option 3 that mandates helmets but not a complete makeover would not have enough of a downside (as opposed to simply having a recognizable downside that some people choose to accept, like option 2 does). This shows political bias on your part. That's a simple fact.

It's not "players can never get exactly what they want". It's "players can never get exactly what the editors think they should want, but players whose political positions differ from the editors' biases can often get what they want just fine".

And I'm not just talking about this issue. The preceding paragraph applies to many issues in the game.

[Sanctaria]

*snip*

Sorry you see it that way, we work very hard to remain objective.

[Gnejs]

I think you're being a little unfair, Trotterdam. You're basing all that on a pretty narrow reading of option 2. "Helmets are for losers" is a fairly vague and ambiguous foundation for a policy decision; what's to say you're not about to completely ban helmets for everyone in the name of style? Sure, you never really know what you end up with when answering issues, but that is especially true for #2, making it having more of a "catch" than what you describe. The balance between #2 and #3 that you outline had occurred to me, believe it or not.

[Trotterdam]

I think you're being a little unfair, Trotterdam. You're basing all that on a pretty narrow reading of option 2. "Helmets are for losers" is a fairly vague and ambiguous foundation for a policy decision; what's to say you're not about to completely ban helmets for everyone in the name of style?

Hold on, let me check.

[effect]stylish juvenile delinquents are highly overrepresented in fatal motorcycle accidents

So no, other demographics have significantly less accidents, so they're still wearing helmets, unless stylish juvenile delinquents are just the only people riding motorcycles (granted, that sounds plausible...).

And while we're on the subject:

[effect]motorcycle riders are required to wear so much gear they've been nicknamed "Stay Pufts"

So option 3 does do what it threatens.

One option clearly states a catch and delivers. One option vaguely hints that there might be a catch if you squint just right, and it turns out not to be there after all.

You will, probably, argue that not all players have access to this data. But then, many players won't even notice there's something to be suspicious about. Issue options are usually at least somewhat clear on their main effect (if not the stats caused by that effect), so most players will assume that this is just an amusingly-written no-helmet-law option... and they'd be right.

As a side note, let me point out that the issue description is written under the assumption that your nation does not currently have helmet laws, so the options having a bias in favor of treating the no-helmet-law position as "average" would actually be justified, while the issue is in fact biased the other way. Even the dismiss button won't save you.

But let me reiterate myself here:

Practically though, NationStates likes exaggerations. Picking option 3 will probably affect your nation's stats similarly to a less extreme mandatory-helmet law, but with exaggerated narration for humor.

I don't think it's a huge bias, but it's still an unambiguously one-sided one.

I think I've said my piece. It's just one issue

[Sleep]

I think I've said my piece. It's just one issue

Well at least you didn't claim that the issue itself was a joke as the OP did. #hurtfeelings

[Drachmaland]

Practically though, NationStates likes exaggerations. Picking option 3 will probably affect your nation's stats similarly to a less extreme mandatory-helmet law, but with exaggerated narration for humor.

Actual test results:
Civil Rights 92 → 89
Employment 226 → 225
Ideological Radicality 35 → 34
Health 2 → 3
Lifespan 20 → 21
Income Equality 60 → 61
Most Pro-Market 74 → 73
Nudity 220 → 154
Obesity -1.599 → -14.599
Public Healthcare 47 → 46
Recreational Drug Use 118 → 117
Rudeness -12.6 → -12.7
Safety 7.677 → 8.977
Safety from Crime 3.625 → 4.125
Social Conservatism 8 → 11
Toxicity 53.548 → 51.548
Unexpected Death Rate -20 → -21
Wealth Gaps 140 → 139
Weaponization 71.374 → 70.874
Weather -30 → -27
Healthcare 12.1 → 11.9
Heart Disease 62.9 → 61.5
Old Age 24.0 → 25.1
Murder 6.6 → 6.7
Cancer 4.9 → 5.1
Acts of God 1.5 → 1.6

[Weedelia]

Well at least you didn't claim that the issue itself was a joke as the OP did. #hurtfeelings

I'm sorry to hurt your feelings it wasn't my intention. I have to admit that the whole issue is funny specially after reading at first "Minister of Health and Public Safety" and then only seeing some religious guy, my nephew, my sister and another guy discussing the Issue. Now that I'm re-reading the positions, I see that #1 and #2 are different (thanks).

At first, the description leaded me to think that my nation doesn't have obligatory helmets laws which would be something that I would like to change... I'm used to think that the Issue and its positions (the description as well) affect the whole nation... also without knowing the final effects it seemed to me like option one and two are just the same. Anyway, seems like I didn't fully understand the issue. Its a bit confusing at first but after re-reading I understand it like: There was an accident where some motorcycle gang without helmets (because of their religion) had some of its members killed and options are: keep it this way, make helmets lame, overdose protections on bikers or protect everybody from everything.

Anyway, religion in my nation is something I would like to eradicate and since the other options didn't convinced me, I had the issue dismissed.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, thank you guys for clarifying the Issue and sorry again for hurting your feelings =)

PD: The test results posted by Drachmaland are confusing =/

Regards.

[Conoistre]

Anyway, religion in my nation is something I would like to eradicate and since the other options didn't convinced me, I had the issue dismissed.

Same. This looks like an another issue that most of my puppets will have to dismiss.
The lack of valid options in newer issues is getting tiresome. Used to be that I didn't have to dismiss any issues, but nowadays it happens more and more often.

Could've used some option like... hiring someone to design a helmet that's so fashionable that everyone wants to wear one.

[Hexnet]

I choose option 1 and get boost in Civil Right and Health with no drop in safety.

[Western Revinalia]

Ancient thread but just wanted to voice my annoyance with this issue. No reasonable answers in this one and have to dismiss it which I really don't like to ever do. Can't continue on knowing that I've made motorcyclists wear tons of protection which lowers so many stats.

[The Free Joy State]

Ancient thread but just wanted to voice my annoyance with this issue. No reasonable answers in this one and have to dismiss it which I really don't like to ever do. Can't continue on knowing that I've made motorcyclists wear tons of protection which lowers so many stats.

If you ever think you've received unusual issue effects, this is the tread to ask on: viewtopic.php?p=35319266#p35319266 (read the OP first).

As for being "unable to continue", all stats change again when you keep answering issues. Even if you ever get an undesirable effect, you can recover.

EDIT: Worth saying that stats work differently on every nation. The results one nation receives don't guarantee the result on any other nation. They are the backstage code interacting with your own nation.

Also, old threads are highly inaccurate for stats anyway; in addition to rolling changes, my fellow editor CWA is doing a huge review of the stats and most -- including this one -- are being recoded in accordance with current practise over time.

[Starblaydia]

No need to bump a thread from almost three years ago, thankyou, and The Free Joy State has provided the best place to discuss this. iLock.