NationStates

[004] Weaponization

Proposed Change: Consider effect of compulsory military service. Reduce "gun explosion" effect whereby nations with more than 1 gun per capita tend to collect extreme numbers of guns. Reduce effect of opposition to Defense industry and anti-crime, especially when gun ownership is encouraged/mandatory.

I support this because my defense industry is desperately in need of a boost.

You mean to say that 200+ weapons per person wasn't realistic!? You're going to leave citizens across NS totally defenseless against intruders!

Mine would increase from 0.2 to 14.25, seems much more realistic in light of the fact that my nation has compulsory military service, as the current 0.2 number seems way off.

Can you better explain to me this beta? I don’t understand why it changes my stats by about 40%.

Fauxia wrote:Can you better explain to me this beta? I don’t understand why it changes my stats by about 40%.

You are mostly affected by the part described as "Reduce effect of opposition to Defense industry and anti-crime..." which I admit is pretty mysterious.

What it's referring to is that NationStates tracks all your decisions that would reduce crime, and the size of your Defense industry, and almost everything else, even if it's already effectively at zero. That is, we don't merely note that a nation has reached a zero-size Defense industry; if you continue to make decisions that oppose Defense, we track just how hostile to the existence of a Defense industry you have become. These are sometimes called "underlying" values.

Weaponization draws on the underlying values of Crime and Defense Industry. Which is fine, but a given decision will stimulate Weaponization by the same amount regardless of whether the nation is (for example) actually shrinking its Defense industry, or just increasing its opposition to an industry that doesn't even exist.

The beta does still draw on those two underlying values, but it places less weight on them once the real values fall below zero.

In your case, you have effectively no crime in real terms, and a strong anti-crime underlying value, which means it will take quite a bit of change for crime to reappear in your nation. The beta gives less weight to the anti-crime part, which means it's less able to offset other things, such as Fauxia's relatively lax gun controls.

Pencil Sharpeners 2 wrote:You mean to say that 200+ weapons per person wasn't realistic!? You're going to leave citizens across NS totally defenseless against intruders!

What will happen to nations that are actually trying to achieve something like that? I've got a few alts, and with at least one of them I am actually attempting to do that.

It will still be possible, but harder, e.g.: https://www.nationstates.net/page=beta? ... le_flowers

I have always explained to people in the past, when there was confusion about how the Weaponization stat works, that it is supposed to measure the number of weapons owned by civilians, excluding weapons owned by the government and used exclusively for police or military work. Is this still the intended meaning or is this changing?

Admittedly, in nations with compulsory military service or the like, the distinction could get blurry.

Trotterdam wrote:I have always explained to people in the past, when there was confusion about how the Weaponization stat works, that it is supposed to measure the number of weapons owned by civilians, excluding weapons owned by the government and used exclusively for police or military work. Is this still the intended meaning or is this changing?

Admittedly, in nations with compulsory military service or the like, the distinction could get blurry.

I don't know if there's a mechanic for this (I suspect not, but you never know), but I know the distinction gets even blurrier for countries where soldiers would be expected to buy their own weapons. Not much of a thing in modern times, but it was very prevalent historically.

This would bring down my weaponization, and that's one of my favorite stats.

Pax Nerdvana wrote:This would bring down my weaponization, and that's one of my favorite stats.

Everyone who has high weaponisation gets brought down, due to the rescaling.

Pencil Sharpeners 2 wrote:

Pax Nerdvana wrote:This would bring down my weaponization, and that's one of my favorite stats.

Everyone who has high weaponisation gets brought down, due to the rescaling.

I know, which makes me sad.

Trotterdam wrote:I have always explained to people in the past, when there was confusion about how the Weaponization stat works, that it is supposed to measure the number of weapons owned by civilians, excluding weapons owned by the government and used exclusively for police or military work. Is this still the intended meaning or is this changing?

That's still the idea. Compulsory Military Service familiarizes all citizens with weapons and thus makes weaponization more likely in the general populace.

Interesting - I support this as my weaponisation is very low vs defence spending & armed forces size. Presumably this will boost arms manufacturing? Also, when would you expect to implement? Thanks.

Without affecting my crime rate, it lowers my weaponization by 60 something percent.

*sigh*

I accept, since it makes sense, but these beta's are killin me.

rad, now I won't have less than 1 weapon per person with compulsory ownership lol.
⇡5,357%

This is going to increase my weaponization by a little bit, while Pacifism is going to drop so hard... Not only me though; all those pacifist nations like Kindjal and Tzo will also see tremendous drops.

Any idea why? For my nation, we don't have compulsory military service... heck, we don't even have a Defense Force.

Valentine Z wrote:This is going to increase my weaponization by a little bit, while Pacifism is going to drop so hard... Not only me though; all those pacifist nations like Kindjal and Tzo will also see tremendous drops.

Any idea why? For my nation, we don't have compulsory military service... heck, we don't even have a Defense Force.

Nations with extreme levels of Pacifism typically also have high levels of anti-Defense and anti-crime, as discussed here:

[violet] wrote:

Fauxia wrote:Can you better explain to me this beta? I don’t understand why it changes my stats by about 40%.

You are mostly affected by the part described as "Reduce effect of opposition to Defense industry and anti-crime..." which I admit is pretty mysterious.

What it's referring to is that NationStates tracks all your decisions that would reduce crime, and the size of your Defense industry, and almost everything else, even if it's already effectively at zero. That is, we don't merely note that a nation has reached a zero-size Defense industry; if you continue to make decisions that oppose Defense, we track just how hostile to the existence of a Defense industry you have become. These are sometimes called "underlying" values.

Weaponization draws on the underlying values of Crime and Defense Industry. Which is fine, but a given decision will stimulate Weaponization by the same amount regardless of whether the nation is (for example) actually shrinking its Defense industry, or just increasing its opposition to an industry that doesn't even exist.

The beta does still draw on those two underlying values, but it places less weight on them once the real values fall below zero.

In your case, you have effectively no crime in real terms, and a strong anti-crime underlying value, which means it will take quite a bit of change for crime to reappear in your nation. The beta gives less weight to the anti-crime part, which means it's less able to offset other things, such as Fauxia's relatively lax gun controls.

This will affect your Pacifism number, but since all the nations around you are similarly affected, as you observed, it may not have much effect on your world rank.

[violet] wrote:

Fauxia wrote:Can you better explain to me this beta? I don’t understand why it changes my stats by about 40%.

You are mostly affected by the part described as "Reduce effect of opposition to Defense industry and anti-crime..." which I admit is pretty mysterious.

What it's referring to is that NationStates tracks all your decisions that would reduce crime, and the size of your Defense industry, and almost everything else, even if it's already effectively at zero. That is, we don't merely note that a nation has reached a zero-size Defense industry; if you continue to make decisions that oppose Defense, we track just how hostile to the existence of a Defense industry you have become. These are sometimes called "underlying" values.
... .

Thank you for this illuminating post. If NS were to release a feature that charts all these underliers (call it My NationState: Pride and Prejudice) I think it will fast become the most popular thing evar.

I get it, but I love my 57 weapons per person.

So - wait, from this mine is supposed to go down despite compulsory military service? Welp I guess the next time compulsory gun ownership comes around and other weird laws come up I will go full tilt, considering my beta lifespan is only going to be 29 anyways might as well increase the number of guns back up to sixty once they go down.

But still... I loved having a non-military nation where only 1 out of every 7 citizens carried a weapon.

So, question, why will the Pacifism statistic be so effected by this change? My weaponization is set to go up by 0.03, while my pacifism takes a dive of 37.40. The only reason I could think this would happen is the compulsory military service I enabled 15 days ago (an issue I'm still trying to track down, as I didn't think the issue option I chose would start the policy of conscription), but that should be offset by the fact that weapons are still strictly banned in the country.

Equalsun Empire wrote:The only reason I could think this would happen is the compulsory military service I enabled 15 days ago (an issue I'm still trying to track down, as I didn't think the issue option I chose would start the policy of conscription),

This does indeed not sound very pacifist.

Pacifism doesn't just measure how unviolent your citizens are, but how opposed to violence they are. If they are in favor of the government committing violence on their behalf, then they're not pacifist, even if they're not directly joining in.

Plus, having conscription means that most people would have handled weapons at some point in their lives, while they were members of the military, even if they had to turn their weapons in when they were discharged from the military rather than being allowed to keep them as civilians Even if you picked the crazy option of banning guns even from military use, they'd still be using swords and various other implements whose primary purpose is to kill people.