[SUBMITTED] @@NAME@@‘s Bark Worse Than Its Byte?

[Varanius]

Hey all! This is one I’ve been thinking about for a bit. Based loosely after the spread of Tetris from the USSR, but I’ve had fun messing around with it. So, please take a look.

(P.S. please let me know if I’m being a bit over the top with certain thematic elements. Wanted to make it kinda clear what various characters are going for, but I am worried I’m overdoing it. Thoughts on that one would be nice.)

Title: @@NAME@@'s Bark Worse Than Its Byte?

Validity: Autarky, Video Games

Description: The people of @@NAME@@ have entered an absolute craze over a new video game by @@DENONYM@@ game designer @@RANDOMNAME@@. Much to the chagrin of @@NAME@@'s policies forbidding the export of products, people of other nations have dared to enjoy the game as well.

[box]Option 1: "We need to show these clowns that we are NOT to be messed with!" shouts mountain of a man and thankfully retired general @@RANDOMNAME@@. "This game is our rightful property, and they’ve just stolen it like a princess from our castle. Demand that every other nation and their citizens hand over any and all versions of the game, or they’ll be eating our mortars!"

Effect: foreigners using @@DENONYM@@ made chess boards are quickly ended by the military’s secret combo

Option 2: "Surely we’re not that upset about a few silly trade regulations, right?” nervously chuckles @@RANDOMNAME@@, the game creator responsible for all the unsanctioned fun. “I mean, would it really be that bad if I could kee- I mean, start selling my game to foreigners? More money in my pocket means I can spend more money on pure @@DENONYM@@ goods! It will all trickle down to the people eventually I’m sure.”

Effect: the nation’s foreign policy is directed wherever the cash is greener

Option Validity: Has private markets

Option 3: "Surely we’re not that upset about a few silly trade regulations, right?” nervously chuckles @@RANDOMNAME@@, the game creator responsible for all the unsanctioned fun. “I mean, I know we take this whole ‘autarky’ business seriously, but I- I mean, we have a great opportunity here! Why not just have the government sell the game to foreigners? They can use the profits to fund government projects like welfare or my personal satisfaction. What could be more true to the socialist spirit?”

Effect: the nation’s moral compass points wherever the cash is greener

Option Validity: Does not have private markets

Option 4: "You guys are being total killjoys,” whines your acne-covered nephew. “This game rocks! We shouldn’t be trying to punish people for playing it or try to gatekeep it with a price tag, we should be helping as many people as possible get their hands on it. Plus, if we give the game away to foreigners for free, we can maintain our economic independence and keep our autarky! Win win, right?”

Effect: the extensive foreign aid program is quick to give starving children the latest video games

Title: @@NATION@@‘s Bark Worse Than Its Byte?

Validity: Autarky, Video Games

Description: The people of @@NATION@@ have entered an absolute craze over a new video game by @@DENONYM@@ game designer @@RANDOMNAME@@. Much to the chagrin of @@NATION@@‘s policies forbidding the export of products, people of other nations have dared to enjoy the game as well.

Option 1: “We need to show these clowns that we are NOT to be messed with!” shouts mountain of a man and thankfully retired general @@RANDOMNAME@@. “This game is our rightful property, and they’ve just stolen it like a princess from our castle. Demand that every other nation and their citizens hand over any and all versions of the game, or they’ll be eating our mortars!”

Effect: foreigners using @@DENONYM@@ made chess boards are quickly ended by the military’s secret combo

Option 2: “War is a game we’d be very sorry to play,” rebukes top hat wearing tycoon Theodore Spendington. “@@LEADER@@, surely you can see how much these other nations love this game? We play our cards right and we could be raking in a fortune. Sure it may mean loosening trade restrictions a bit, but think of all the money we’d be making!”

Effect: foreign policy is directed wherever the cash is greener

Option Validity: Has private markets

Option 3: “@@LEADER@@, surely you can see how much these other nations love this game?” implores would-be tycoon Theodore Spendington. “It’s time to admit that this socialism and autarky nonsense was a mistake, and return to the tried and true method I call ‘taking the rest of the world’s money’. The only thing we accomplish by refusing to take their money is hurting ourselves.”

Effect: nation’s moral compass points wherever the cash is greener

Option Validity: Does not have private markets

Option 4: “Dude, was anyone gonna ask what I think?” complains @@RANDOMNAME1@@, the acne-covered game designer responsible for all the unsanctioned fun. “Games are not for bloodthirsty warmongers or grubby little capitalists to get their hands on, they’re for helping people have some fun! In fact, we need to do our best to make sure everyone in the world can play, and not take a single @@CURRENCY@@ from them. That way we can maintain our economic independence and not change our policy on exports, while also making the world a happier place. Win win, right?”

Effect: the extensive foreign aid program is quick to give starving children the latest video games

Option Validity: Has private markets

Option 5: “Dude, was anyone gonna ask what I think?” complains @@RANDOMNAME1@@, the acne-covered game designer responsible for all the unsanctioned fun. “Games are not for bloodthirsty warmongers or wannabe capitalists to get their hands on, they’re for helping people have some fun! In fact, we need to do our best to make sure everyone in the world can play, and not take a single @@CURRENCY@@ from them. That way we can maintain our economic independence and not change our policy on exports, while also making the world a happier place. Win win, right?”

Effect: the extensive foreign aid program is quick to give starving children the latest video games

Option Validity: Does not have private markets

Title: @@NATION@@‘s Bark Worse Than Its Byte?

Validity: Autarky, Computers

Description: The people of @@NATION@@ have entered an absolute craze over a new video game by @@DENONYM@@ game designer @@RANDOMNAME@@. Much to the chagrin of @@NATION@@‘s policies forbidding the export of products, people of other nations have dared to enjoy the game as well. While an investigation is ongoing as to how the game got out in the first place, many have begun to question the enforcement and practicality of current trade prohibitions.

Option 1: “We need to show these clowns that we pack, man!” shouts mountain of a man and retired general “Bowsie the Couper”. “This game is our rightful property, and they’ve just stolen it like a princess from our castle. Demand that every other nation and their citizens hand over any and all versions of the game, or they’ll be eating the blue shells of our mortars!”

Effect: foreigners using @@DENONYM@@ made chess boards are quickly ended by the military’s secret combo

Option 2: “War is a game we’d be very sorry to play,” rebukes top-hat-touting tycoon turned financial advisor Theodore Spendington. “If we want to make clear that our inventions are not some community chest for these ruffians to just take from when they please, we need to take them to court! The international community will surely respect our harsh but peaceful approach, and we will surely respect how much more money we will have after suing everyone! Just let me have some little one on one time with the Judge, and this’ll be as easy as a bored walk in the park!”

Effect: citizens are instructed to ask who they can sue for government

Option 3: “Dude, was anyone gonna ask what I think?” complains @@RANDOMNAME1@@, the acne-covered game designer responsible for all the unsanctioned fun. “I didn’t make this game to start some international war or line anyone’s pockets, it was to help people have some fun! That’s what games are for! Not for grubby little warmongers or capitalists to get their hands on. In fact, we should do our best to make sure everyone in the world can play, and not take a penny from them. Shouldn’t making people happy be everyone’s goal?”

Effect: the extensive foreign aid program is quick to give starving children the latest video games

Title: @@NATION@@‘s Bark Worse Than Its Byte?

Validity: Autarky, Computers

Description: The people of @@NATION@@ have entered an absolute craze over a new video game by @@DENONYM@@ game designer @@RANDOMNAME@@. Much to the chagrin of @@NATION@@‘s policies forbidding the export of products, people of other nations have dared to enjoy the game as well. While an investigation is ongoing as to how the game got out in the first place, many have begun to question the enforcement and practicality of current trade prohibitions.

Option 1: “We need to show these clowns that we pack, man!” shouts mountain of a man and retired general “Bowsie the Couper”, who you could swear is carrying around an enormous turtle shell on his back. “This game is our rightful property, and they’ve just stolen it like a princess from our castle. Demand that every other nation and their citizens hand over any and all versions of the game, or they’ll be eating our blue shell!”

Effect: foreigners using @@DENONYM@@ made chess boards are quickly ended by the military’s secret combo

Option 2: “War is a game we’d be very sorry to play,” rebukes top hat touting tycoon Theodore Spendington. “@@LEADER@@, surely you can see how much these other nations love this game? We play our cards right and we could be raking in a fortune! Sure it may mean loosening restrictions a bit, but so long as we completely control the rights to the game, we can charge whatever we want and these suckers will eat it up.”

Effect: foreign policy is directed wherever the cash is greener

Option 3: “Dude, was anyone gonna ask what I think?” complains @@RANDOMNAME1@@, the acne covered game designer responsible for all the unsanctioned fun. “I didn’t make this game to start some international war or line anyone’s pockets, it was to help people have some fun! That’s what games are for! Not for grubby little warmongers or capitalists to get their hands on. In fact, we should do our best to make sure everyone in the world can play, and not take a penny from them. Shouldn’t making people happy be everyone’s goal?”

Effect: the extensive foreign aid program is quick to give starving children the latest video games

[Tair Grahana]

I'll turn the magic power of US

[Southland]

While I like the video game references in Option 1, some of their inclusions feel a little bit torturous. Specifically I would change "like a princess from our castle" to "like a princess from someone's castle", and "they’ll be eating our blue shell!" to something like "they’ll be eating the blue shells of our mortars!"

From a policy perspective, there's isn't that much of a difference between Option 2 and 3. The end result is that an aukarist(?) state would engage in trade in some capacity. My recommendation is to change one of the options to have them peacefully stop other countries via lawsuits (and the result line can include some crack at DRM or piracy protection).

[Australian rePublic]

If it's on the internet, of coarse it's going to leak overseas. Why is that a bad thing, though? More money for @@NAME@@

[Trotterdam]

All I have to say grammarwise is this:

top-hat-touting tycoon

acne-covered game designer

Add the indicated hyphens.

While I like the video game references in Option 1, some of their inclusions feel a little bit torturous. Specifically I would change "like a princess from our castle" to "like a princess from someone's castle"

Eh, I don't think whose castle it is is really important. Best to keep it short.

What I'm more concerned about is the "who you could swear is carrying around an enormous turtle shell on his back" part, because that's just not something people normally do, and it really needs some kind of explanation.

From a policy perspective, there's isn't that much of a difference between Option 2 and 3. The end result is that an aukarist(?) state would engage in trade in some capacity.

It's giving it away for free, not trading. Though note that #1185 already does that.

What's also problematic is how option 2 is supposed to work if the game designed him/herself has expressed the desire to share the game for free. I haven't heard of any cases of a government forcing people to pay for a product whose copyright owner already released it for free.

[Varanius]

New draft!

While I like the video game references in Option 1, some of their inclusions feel a little bit torturous. Specifically I would change "like a princess from our castle" to "like a princess from someone's castle", and "they’ll be eating our blue shell!" to something like "they’ll be eating the blue shells of our mortars!"

On the first point I think I’ll go with Trott’s suggestion re:keeping it shorter and sticking with “our”, but the mortar suggestion was a really good one, so thank you! That’s been added :>

From a policy perspective, there's isn't that much of a difference between Option 2 and 3. The end result is that an aukarist(?) state would engage in trade in some capacity. My recommendation is to change one of the options to have them peacefully stop other countries via lawsuits (and the result line can include some crack at DRM or piracy protection).

What's also problematic is how option 2 is supposed to work if the game designed him/herself has expressed the desire to share the game for free. I haven't heard of any cases of a government forcing people to pay for a product whose copyright owner already released it for free.

Both of these are good critiques. I’ve edited the second option to be more in lawsuit direction, while also making it more clear that the character is supposed to be monopoly man inspired (hence the nod towards wanting to play a different kind of game in his first line). This does mean I had to change the effect line, and I was hoping for a joke about passing go but nothing really stood out to me upon first brainstorm.

I’ve also decided to just remove the turtle shell line because I think the characterization is strong enough without it, and I’ve incorporated both of the grammar suggestions. Thanks!

If it's on the internet, of coarse it's going to leak overseas. Why is that a bad thing, though? More money for @@NAME@@

I mean, from my understanding that’s just what the “dismiss” button is for. Sure, a nation could be of the opinion that people breaking its rules isn’t all that big a deal and go on letting it happen, or they could discuss enforcement of their current policy, and maybe decide it’s not worth having.

[Verdant Haven]

This is a good topic for the autarkies – interesting reversal of the norm, to have it be looking at something that got out, rather than something trying to get in.

- Validity: Rather than computers in general, we can set this one for "Video Games" specifically (nations without computers will automatically not qualify for that, either)

- The description is reasonable, but if it can be tightened up to reduce wordiness that would be helpful.

- Option 1: This one is a bit on-the-nose with the video game references – probably stronger if it isn't trying as hard to force references in. I think "Stealing it like a princess from a castle" is solid, but the Pac-man, Bowser, and blue shell things fall a bit flat, imo. The language should make sense for people who don't get the joke, and shouldn't cause them to stop and say "Huh?"

- Option 2: Is "touting" the word you want? That tends to mean selling or advertising something. More importantly, how exactly is court going to work here? Presumably we're talking about citizens of foreign nations, living in their own countries, and they aren't exactly subject to your domestic courts. International courts are a possibility... but an autarky might not have much to do with them, and Leader wouldn't be able to provide time with the judge. Given that the whole point of an autarky is to not be financially beholden to outside influences, the money argument here seems odd. As a validity, be wary of the fact that some nations do not have courts.

- Option 3: A fair chunk of our autarkies of socialist – we shouldn't assume here (or in option 2, honestly) that the nation allows capitalism. I think the issue is interesting enough that we'd want to keep it available to both sides of the economic spectrum (and the original dilemma is from the USSR after all), so I'd encourage finding ways to avoid falling onto one side or the other. The option to spread the game without accepting money in return is actually a fascinating option for an autarky to take without violating its principles – another clever reversal of expectations.

[Varanius]

This is a good topic for the autarkies – interesting reversal of the norm, to have it be looking at something that got out, rather than something trying to get in.

Thanks! :>

- Validity: Rather than computers in general, we can set this one for "Video Games" specifically (nations without computers will automatically not qualify for that, either)

Huh, didn’t know that was a thing. Thanks!

- The description is reasonable, but if it can be tightened up to reduce wordiness that would be helpful.

Done! A line about how people are questioning it’s enforcement is probably redundant right after a line about how it breaks national policy lol.

- Option 1: This one is a bit on-the-nose with the video game references – probably stronger if it isn't trying as hard to force references in. I think "Stealing it like a princess from a castle" is solid, but the Pac-man, Bowser, and blue shell things fall a bit flat, imo. The language should make sense for people who don't get the joke, and shouldn't cause them to stop and say "Huh?"

That makes sense, I’ve taken out the more forced references you pointed out. Hoping keeping the term mortars without the blue shell is still workable (mortars are actual weapons after all, even if a little outdated ), but if you think that needs the bin too then I’d be fine with that.

- Option 2: Is "touting" the word you want? That tends to mean selling or advertising something.

Probably not, was trying to go for the alliteration but the simpler “wearing” probably works better. Trying too hard to be clever has probably led me astray a good few times now lol.

More importantly, how exactly is court going to work here? Presumably we're talking about citizens of foreign nations, living in their own countries, and they aren't exactly subject to your domestic courts. International courts are a possibility... but an autarky might not have much to do with them, and Leader wouldn't be able to provide time with the judge. Given that the whole point of an autarky is to not be financially beholden to outside influences, the money argument here seems odd. As a validity, be wary of the fact that some nations do not have courts.

Alright, so since you pointed out that it’s possible for option goodie two shoes to work without breaking autarkic principles by just giving it away, I’ll bring back the greedy capitalist for this option, whose position will be “get rid of autarky and take their money” (or “get rid of autarky and communism and then take their money” for the communist nation variant). This should work better since you’re right about a nation that’s an autarky probably not having much to do with international courts.

- Option 3: A fair chunk of our autarkies of socialist – we shouldn't assume here (or in option 2, honestly) that the nation allows capitalism. I think the issue is interesting enough that we'd want to keep it available to both sides of the economic spectrum (and the original dilemma is from the USSR after all), so I'd encourage finding ways to avoid falling onto one side or the other.

Good point. Decided to try and include that in the newest draft by making two possible options for options 2 and 3 based on their setup (though the only difference in 3 is “grubby little capitalists” vs “wannabe capitalists”). Hoping this works, but please do tell me if it doesn’t pan out.

The option to spread the game without accepting money in return is actually a fascinating option for an autarky to take without violating its principles – another clever reversal of expectations.

I hadn’t even considered the fact it could be worded as not violating autarky lol. Thanks a bunch!

My comments/responses on the above have been incorporated in the new draft! Enjoy #3 everyone!

[Trotterdam]

Alright, so since you pointed out that it’s possible for option goodie two shoes to work without breaking autarkic principles by just giving it away, I’ll bring back the greedy capitalist for this option, whose position will be “get rid of autarky and take their money” (or “get rid of autarky and communism and then take their money” for the communist nation variant). This should work better since you’re right about a nation that’s an autarky probably not having much to do with international courts.

While that fixes one problem, it unfortunately circles back to my previous point:

What's also problematic is how option 2 is supposed to work if the game designed him/herself has expressed the desire to share the game for free. I haven't heard of any cases of a government forcing people to pay for a product whose copyright owner already released it for free.

Making money off the game just shouldn't be an option - who'd you even pay it to if the person who made the game doesn't want money?

Of course, there are situations where the original creator of a work is not the current copyright owner, which can raise interesting ethical questions of its own... but that's a completely separate issue that doesn't have anything to do with autarkies.

Other than that, I think the only way to make both a money-grubbing and a charitable option work is if the game's maker does care more about making money than spreading fun, and it's some other, less important person who thinks video games should be free.

[Westinor]

I like the niche spot this issue takes, and the gaming references are great! There's still a little bit of dissonance to me on how the game managed to make it to other nations under the autarky policy - referring to this very briefly in the option instead of glazing over the fact feels like it would help.

I think I agree with Trott's analysis to an extent - if the game owner doesn't want money, it's hard to see why this violates Autarky. It could just be a simple change of heart from the game developer - "you know I wanted money, but seeing conflict over my creation has allowed me to see what games are really about - bringing people together!! wink nod"

Some smaller things - you may notice that you're using quotation marks and apostrophes that are a bit curvy - these are "smart quotes", and we don't use them for issues. I forget what the normal straight quotes that we use for NS are called, but they're the same ones you see here in the forums - replacing them with the straight quotes would be super helpful :^)

Effect lines for option 2 and it's doppelganger should probably both start with "the nation's..."

[Trotterdam]

There's still a little bit of dissonance to me on how the game managed to make it to other nations under the autarky policy - referring to this very briefly in the option instead of glazing over the fact feels like it would help.

Digital information is easy to transfer. So long as your nation is connected to the internet, it's pretty much guaranteed your games will make it beyond your borders, legally or otherwise. If you're not connected to the internet (or it's more of an intranet allowing access only to sites within your own nation), then it would require someone to physically smuggle floppy disks (or CDs, or USB sticks, or whatever people are using these days), but again, digital data is easy to copy, so you'd only need to smuggle out one, and then make copies once you're outside. Unless your autarky also bans emigration and tourism, this would be very easy to do by just pretending the disk is carrying private data for personal use, instead of economic goods. (Even autarkies aren't going to be crazy enough to insist that tourists travel naked to avoid taking any locally-made clothes out of the country.)

Really what it comes down to is that if your autarky doesn't also completely ban all forms of foreign communication and travel (possible, but considered separate policies under NationStates), it's impossible to prevent some goods from making it in or out. Mostly autarkies would only really be concerned with preventing the transfer of bulk goods, and consider the occasional minor item slipping through the cracks to not be a big deal. (The usual argument for autarky is stuff like "if we imported 50% of our food from foreign countries, we'd put themselves at their mercy because we'd starve if they decided to suddenly cut off their supply".)

Some smaller things - you may notice that you're using quotation marks and apostrophes that are a bit curvy - these are "smart quotes", and we don't use them for issues. I forget what the normal straight quotes that we use for NS are called,

They're called "straight quotes" Simple. Or "ASCII quotes", which is the real reason people use them so much.

Curvy ones aren't properly called smart quotes, either. "Smart quotes" refers to the misfeature of many word processing programs to automatically guess which quotes you mean and changes them to what the program thinks you should be typing. (This sometimes gets the wrong quote, as such software usually fails to understand the proper behavior for when a word starts with a contraction.) If you manually type a curvy quote, it's not a smart quote, because the computer didn't do any thinking. But almost nobody does that.

I dislike the tendency to refer to computers as "smart", because they're not. Computers are dumb. They're tools, and they function at their best when they work like tools: doing exactly what they're told and not trying to outguess the user's intentions.

My own software for recording NationStates issue titles/effect lines has the inverse behavior: it automatically recognizes curly quotes that are pasted into it and fixes them back into straight quotes, so I don't have to worry about paying attention to that manually. This is also a form of "smart quotes", except it's actually smarter because it's consistent and intentional behavior that always does what I want.

I am... unimpressed... that after all this time, the admins have been unable to implement similar smart quote behavior on the issue submission form.

[/completely inconsequential off-topic rant] (sorry)

[Varanius]

Alright, so since you pointed out that it’s possible for option goodie two shoes to work without breaking autarkic principles by just giving it away, I’ll bring back the greedy capitalist for this option, whose position will be “get rid of autarky and take their money” (or “get rid of autarky and communism and then take their money” for the communist nation variant). This should work better since you’re right about a nation that’s an autarky probably not having much to do with international courts.

While that fixes one problem, it unfortunately circles back to my previous point:

What's also problematic is how option 2 is supposed to work if the game designed him/herself has expressed the desire to share the game for free. I haven't heard of any cases of a government forcing people to pay for a product whose copyright owner already released it for free.

Making money off the game just shouldn't be an option - who'd you even pay it to if the person who made the game doesn't want money?

Of course, there are situations where the original creator of a work is not the current copyright owner, which can raise interesting ethical questions of its own... but that's a completely separate issue that doesn't have anything to do with autarkies.

Other than that, I think the only way to make both a money-grubbing and a charitable option work is if the game's maker does care more about making money than spreading fun, and it's some other, less important person who thinks video games should be free.

Apologies on that one, my entire brain must’ve slipped out somewhere on accident . I have decided to make it the video game creator who wants to sell it, because you are right that that’s really the only way that makes sense. Rewriting the back half of the issue in that way had the added bonus of letting me streamline things a bit, so option 2-4 are now also smaller and quicker to get to the point.

I like the niche spot this issue takes, and the gaming references are great! There's still a little bit of dissonance to me on how the game managed to make it to other nations under the autarky policy - referring to this very briefly in the option instead of glazing over the fact feels like it would help.

Initially I was a little hesitant on this point because I had difficulty coming up with a clean way include that without having to mess with the validity, but then I put my thinking cap on and have since made said nod in a way that actually makes some sense in option 2/3. So, thank you west!

Some smaller things - you may notice that you're using quotation marks and apostrophes that are a bit curvy - these are "smart quotes", and we don't use them for issues. I forget what the normal straight quotes that we use for NS are called, but they're the same ones you see here in the forums - replacing them with the straight quotes would be super helpful :^)

Done

Effect lines for option 2 and it's doppelganger should probably both start with "the nation's..."

And done!

With that, new draft!

[Australian rePublic]

New draft!

While I like the video game references in Option 1, some of their inclusions feel a little bit torturous. Specifically I would change "like a princess from our castle" to "like a princess from someone's castle", and "they’ll be eating our blue shell!" to something like "they’ll be eating the blue shells of our mortars!"

On the first point I think I’ll go with Trott’s suggestion re:keeping it shorter and sticking with “our”, but the mortar suggestion was a really good one, so thank you! That’s been added :>

From a policy perspective, there's isn't that much of a difference between Option 2 and 3. The end result is that an aukarist(?) state would engage in trade in some capacity. My recommendation is to change one of the options to have them peacefully stop other countries via lawsuits (and the result line can include some crack at DRM or piracy protection).

What's also problematic is how option 2 is supposed to work if the game designed him/herself has expressed the desire to share the game for free. I haven't heard of any cases of a government forcing people to pay for a product whose copyright owner already released it for free.

Both of these are good critiques. I’ve edited the second option to be more in lawsuit direction, while also making it more clear that the character is supposed to be monopoly man inspired (hence the nod towards wanting to play a different kind of game in his first line). This does mean I had to change the effect line, and I was hoping for a joke about passing go but nothing really stood out to me upon first brainstorm.

I’ve also decided to just remove the turtle shell line because I think the characterization is strong enough without it, and I’ve incorporated both of the grammar suggestions. Thanks!

If it's on the internet, of coarse it's going to leak overseas. Why is that a bad thing, though? More money for @@NAME@@

I mean, from my understanding that’s just what the “dismiss” button is for. Sure, a nation could be of the opinion that people breaking its rules isn’t all that big a deal and go on letting it happen, or they could discuss enforcement of their current policy, and maybe decide it’s not worth having.

Fine, but explain why it's such a big deal. The way it is now, it just seems like auturky with a soft power and economic bonus. I'm sure there's a reason why it's a bad thing, but explain it

[Varanius]

New draft!

On the first point I think I’ll go with Trott’s suggestion re:keeping it shorter and sticking with “our”, but the mortar suggestion was a really good one, so thank you! That’s been added :>



Both of these are good critiques. I’ve edited the second option to be more in lawsuit direction, while also making it more clear that the character is supposed to be monopoly man inspired (hence the nod towards wanting to play a different kind of game in his first line). This does mean I had to change the effect line, and I was hoping for a joke about passing go but nothing really stood out to me upon first brainstorm.

I’ve also decided to just remove the turtle shell line because I think the characterization is strong enough without it, and I’ve incorporated both of the grammar suggestions. Thanks!

I mean, from my understanding that’s just what the “dismiss” button is for. Sure, a nation could be of the opinion that people breaking its rules isn’t all that big a deal and go on letting it happen, or they could discuss enforcement of their current policy, and maybe decide it’s not worth having.

Fine, but explain why it's such a big deal. The way it is now, it just seems like auturky with a soft power and economic bonus. I'm sure there's a reason why it's a bad thing, but explain it

Because the…point of government policy is for it to be followed? Like, the point of being an autarky is to be economically independent of the rest of the world. If your economy is supported by people buying products from your citizens, you are not economically independent, and thus not really an autarky (or at least you’re a horribly ineffective one). If the nation does decide that they like the soft power and economic bonus of selling things to the rest of the world, they should get rid of the autarky policy as options 2/3 would do. Not having those bonuses of international trade is the con to not engaging in international trade. Having a government policy that no one follows because you let people just ignore it is not ideal. Also because, stats wise (solely the mechanical standpoint here, not the IC nation one), you don’t get any economic bonus from maintaining the status quo and dismissing the issue, so from that sense the point of “you can just take the economic boost and maintain the autarky policy” is moot because you would receive no economic boost, your nation would be unchanged from receiving the issue.

[Australian rePublic]

Fine, but explain why it's such a big deal. The way it is now, it just seems like auturky with a soft power and economic bonus. I'm sure there's a reason why it's a bad thing, but explain it

Because the…point of government policy is for it to be followed? Like, the point of being an autarky is to be economically independent of the rest of the world. If your economy is supported by people buying products from your citizens, you are not economically independent, and thus not really an autarky (or at least you’re a horribly ineffective one). If the nation does decide that they like the soft power and economic bonus of selling things to the rest of the world, they should get rid of the autarky policy as options 2/3 would do. Not having those bonuses of international trade is the con to not engaging in international trade. Having a government policy that no one follows because you let people just ignore it is not ideal. Also because, stats wise (solely the mechanical standpoint here, not the IC nation one), you don’t get any economic bonus from maintaining the status quo and dismissing the issue, so from that sense the point of “you can just take the economic boost and maintain the autarky policy” is moot because you would receive no economic boost, your nation would be unchanged from receiving the issue.

So this is more of a letter of the law kind of approach? Okay then

[Varanius]

Bumping this for last call. Lacking any game-changing feedback, I’ll submit on the 6th.

[Verdant Haven]

This is in a pretty good spot. Only two notes, I think:

- @@NATION@@ isn't a macro. I think you want @@NAME@@

- The socialist doppelganger currently is phrased in a way that would reverse both Autarky *and* Socialism, due to that whole private sales bit. Just a wee bit of a tweaking to have the designer suggest that the nation should sell the game for profit, rather than @@HE@@ @@HIM@@self, wouldn't go amiss. That would drop the corruption aspect, which isn't present in the capitalist version, and allow for a thematically suitable "it will boost the collective good" phrasing to the argument.

[Varanius]

This is in a pretty good spot. Only two notes, I think:

- @@NATION@@ isn't a macro. I think you want @@NAME@@

- The socialist doppelganger currently is phrased in a way that would reverse both Autarky *and* Socialism, due to that whole private sales bit. Just a wee bit of a tweaking to have the designer suggest that the nation should sell the game for profit, rather than @@HE@@ @@HIM@@self, wouldn't go amiss. That would drop the corruption aspect, which isn't present in the capitalist version, and allow for a thematically suitable "it will boost the collective good" phrasing to the argument.

Look at me inventing new Macros

Done

[Varanius]

This has been submitted. Thanks all!

[Rudastan]

Good luck!

[Australian rePublic]

Good Luck!

[TalAkMaChen]

Congrats, it's already published as Issue #1602

[Australian rePublic]

Congrats!