NationStates

I need a better title. Also I hope I'm using the

Draft 4:

Validity: Nation does not ban computers or the internet or videogames

Description: Your Minister of Anger Management, @@RANDOMNAME@@, is addicted to a videogame called Craftymine; specifically an online multiplayer server where @@HE@@ can kill other players. Unfortunately, @@HIS@@ username is known internationally, and @@HE@@ is being repeatedly targeted and killed by an opposing nation's leader, who is now streaming live and humiliating @@HIM@@ in front of millions. Enraged, @@HE@@ decided to take action and has already contacted multiple people, unfortunately including you, to help.

Option 1: @@HE@@'s contacted the server owner, who is now trying to talk to @@HIM@@ in the chat that is being spammed with messages denouncing @@HIS@@ gaming skills. The owner messages @@HIM@@, "so this other guy was hacking and killing u but he gave me lots of @@CURRENCY@@ to let him kill you over and over again so unless u give me more money then im not gonna do anythnig"

Result: the server is now rated the #1 in the world thanks to @@NAME@@'s generous 'donations'.

Option 2: In an effort to ban @@HIS@@ opponent, @@HE@@ messages a server moderator. Apparently, you see that this one is not one that cares much about their role as they reply back with, "haha too bad u noob u dont like it u can quit haha". Your minister slams his government funded keyboard, and you subtract the cost from @@HIS@@ salary.

Result: @@NAME@@'s politicians often rage quit over everything from politics to videogames.

Option 3: @@HIS@@ child, a much better gamer than @@HIM@@, has been playing next to the both of you and currently has a kill streak of ninety. "Just let me do it! I don't care if he has hacks, I'm still better!" @@HE@@ loudly comments as he gets a kill spree on the hacker, raising his streak to a hundred.

Result: @@NAME@@'s ministers are letting their children run the nation for the day.

Option 4: A message pops up on your screen. Another player! It reads, "hey if he's hacking u can hack. click on this link and u can download hax and kill him really ez. and the best thing is that no one can know ur using these ones and the owner wont ban u"

Result: @@LEADER@@ is declared the best gamer of the year.

Player autonomy is the biggest concern with this one. Basically, you can't assume anything about @@LEADER@@ (who is, for all intents and purposes, me).
It's a massive assumption to say that I play this "craftymine" game, let alone I'm "addicted to [it]", and it's a massive assumption that I've got a kid.

I agree with SherpDaWerp. A possible solution to avoiding the issue of infringing upon player autonomy, would be to have a number of the cabinet members/ministers be the target in games, instead of @@LEADER@@. That way there won't be any issues of player autonomy when you state that they play this game or are addicted to it. Instead of the kid being @@LEADER@@'s, you can make them the child of the minister facing this issue.

I'd also keep the specific mention of "son" vague and replace it with "child" or simply "kid", because I don't see why this character has to be male specifically. Leaving it ambiguous as to whether it's a he or she is better, I believe

done. Good idea.

why is this an issue for a national leader

Australian rePublic wrote:why is this an issue for a national leader

If the leader of a rival country was humiliating another country's politicians, they would probably take action. Especially if they're insulting them on a live stream, similar to one politician destroying another's argument on live TV. Of course, during these debates, everyone gets triggered and tries to scream over each other while ignoring their time limit to talk. Your minister of anger management also gets triggered, and doesn't think clearly because he's mad. So he goes to @@LEADER@@ and drags him/her into the issue.

It's been a week.
*bumps*

last bump

This doesn’t seem like it should be last call. I’d recommend slowing down a little, and bumping more often.

First off, it’s Minister of Anger Management, not minister of anger management.

Second, a server moderator wouldn’t act like that, and that option is far too short.

Third, why would 90 jump to 100?

Fourth, why does it say the child is better than both of you? Just make it ‘better than the Minister’.

Fifth, the validities should be ‘does not have No Videogames, does not have No Internet’

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:This doesn’t seem like it should be last call. I’d recommend slowing down a little, and bumping more often.

It's been up for a few weeks. I've bumped it and no one commented.

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:First off, it’s Minister of Anger Management, not minister of anger management.

got it.

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:Second, a server moderator wouldn’t act like that, and that option is far too short.

Do you play minecraft and/or multiplayer games like it? I do, and I know that they sometimes act like that. For example, one of the rules was to not target a player, and a moderator did just that.

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:Third, why would 90 jump to 100?

I need to word that more clearly.

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:Fourth, why does it say the child is better than both of you? Just make it ‘better than the Minister’.

What's wrong with 'both of you'?

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:Fifth, the validities should be ‘does not have No Videogames, does not have No Internet’

Those are polices that ban both videogames and the internet. So the validity is that the nation doesn't ban videogames or the internet. I get what you're saying, but they're the same thing.

Awesomeland012345 wrote:

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:This doesn’t seem like it should be last call. I’d recommend slowing down a little, and bumping more often.

It's been up for a few weeks. I've bumped it and no one commented.

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:First off, it’s Minister of Anger Management, not minister of anger management.

got it.

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:Second, a server moderator wouldn’t act like that, and that option is far too short.

Do you play minecraft and/or multiplayer games like it? I do, and I know that they sometimes act like that. For example, one of the rules was to not target a player, and a moderator did just that.

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:Third, why would 90 jump to 100?

I need to word that more clearly.

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:Fourth, why does it say the child is better than both of you? Just make it ‘better than the Minister’.

What's wrong with 'both of you'?

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:Fifth, the validities should be ‘does not have No Videogames, does not have No Internet’

Those are polices that ban both videogames and the internet. So the validity is that the nation doesn't ban videogames or the internet. I get what you're saying, but they're the same thing.

First off, I highly doubt that a government official would play on a server that has bad moderators and allows cheating.

Second, that’s a small breach of autonomy to say that that child is better than you. What if you’re actually the best Craftymine player? Yes, it’s nit picky, but it’s necessary to remove it.

Third, No Computers isn’t a policy. It’s not exactly the same thing.

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:First off, I highly doubt that a government official would play on a server that has bad moderators and allows cheating.

Government officials aren't very much different from regular people. There's no particular reason that a government official can not play on a bad server, "just that they should know better".

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:Third, No Computers isn’t a policy. It’s not exactly the same thing.

"No Computers" is a policy,

Westinor wrote:

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:First off, I highly doubt that a government official would play on a server that has bad moderators and allows cheating.

Government officials aren't very much different from regular people. There's no particular reason that a government official can not play on a bad server, "just that they should know better".

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:Third, No Computers isn’t a policy. It’s not exactly the same thing.

"No Computers" is a policy,

Ah, you’re right. No Video Games, No Computers, AND No Internet? Seems a little over the top, but hey.

Also, the issue makes it sound like the kid is in the same server as the official, so if they have an 100-kill streak, surely it’s around medium-size?

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:First off, I highly doubt that a government official would play on a server that has bad moderators and allows cheating.

Second, that’s a small breach of autonomy to say that that child is better than you. What if you’re actually the best Craftymine player? Yes, it’s nit picky, but it’s necessary to remove it.

Third, No Computers isn’t a policy. It’s not exactly the same thing.

The first point has already addressed by Westinor, but I think I understand your third point now; I just didn't understand earlier. There's also a 'no videogames' policy that I forgot to add to the validity. I looked at all the policies (took a bit, but was worth it.) and there is a no computers policy, no videogames policy, and no internet policy, all of which you need for this issue.

As for your second point, I understand now. I was assuming @@LEADER@@ wouldn't be good at playing videogames (as currently no prominent leader is, but that's probably going to change in the future), but it could be possible.

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:Also, the issue makes it sound like the kid is in the same server as the official, so if they have an 100-kill streak, surely it’s around medium-size?

Forgive me for my small brain, but I'm not sure I understand. Can you repeat that?

nevermind, I think I understand. The server is small. Technically, you can kill the same people over and over again, log out, get back on another day, and keep killing them. Difficult in a small server, but not impossible.

But why would the kid want to play in a small server that limits their potential kills over a large server? If they’re good enough to beat hackers, surely they’re good enough to beat normal people, right?

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:But why would the kid want to play in a small server that limits their potential kills over a large server? If they’re good enough to beat hackers, surely they’re good enough to beat normal people, right?

They are good enough to beat normal people. But sometimes, small servers are as fun as large servers.
(I promise this isn't me making up excuses to keep this)

Awesomeland012345 wrote:

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:But why would the kid want to play in a small server that limits their potential kills over a large server? If they’re good enough to beat hackers, surely they’re good enough to beat normal people, right?

They are good enough to beat normal people. But sometimes, small servers are as fun as large servers.
(I promise this isn't me making up excuses to keep this)

That doesn’t answer my question. If the kid’s really good, why wouldn’t they go on a server where they could get as many kills as possible?

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:

Awesomeland012345 wrote:
They are good enough to beat normal people. But sometimes, small servers are as fun as large servers.
(I promise this isn't me making up excuses to keep this)

That doesn’t answer my question. If the kid’s really good, why wouldn’t they go on a server where they could get as many kills as possible?

Well, the kid doesn't necessarily want lots of kills.

Just because the kid's good, it doesn't mean that they want to get as many kills as possible (I mean they could... but not necessarily).
Even if they do want to get lots of kills, they can just keep killing the same players over and over again. The kid might want to watch them rage over getting killed too much. (I've done this before. It's pretty funny.)
Also, maybe the kid just likes the small server better, just because. Why pick one server over another? Usually pvp servers are mostly the same.

Why would anyone choose anything other than Option 3?

La xinga wrote:Why would anyone choose anything other than Option 3?

Uh... because they want to?

option 3/4 aren't too bad if you want a nice nation.

option 1 is ok if you want a corrupt nation

option 2 is ok if you want a weird/funny nation

It just depends on what nation you want to create.