by Hampton Island » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:44 pm
by Strike » Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:16 pm
by Blueflarst » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:45 am
by Borovan3 » Sun Jan 13, 2019 1:33 pm
by Hampton Island » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:29 pm
by Arxosa » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:39 pm
by Borovan3 » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:43 pm
by Merconitonitopia » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:14 pm
Hampton Island wrote:-- Implies I have had a recent skirmish. I have not RP'd that with my nation. This is a dismissal because it is not relevant to what I am currently doing with my nation.
-- Not an issue for a national leader. This gets resolved at the municipal level. Dismissed..
by Bagheera » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:26 pm
Hampton Island wrote:#426- Women In Uniform under fire....
-- Implies I have had a recent skirmish. I have not RP'd that with my nation. This is a dismissal because it is not relevant to what I am currently doing with my nation
by Bears Armed » Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:23 am
by Sacara » Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:58 am
The Spacefaring Federation of Sacara"Our Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
I spend most of my time in the Got Issues? sub-forum.
Issues That I've Authored (15)
Commended by SC #382
by Gandoor » Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:24 am
Sacara wrote:I’m on the other end of the spectrum — I think NationStates ought to get rid of the dismiss button, or at least add consequences to it.
by Sacara » Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:58 am
It's entirely unrealistic for @@LEADER@@ to just dismiss every issue they encounter. Sure, a few you could split under the rug, but many require a decision to be made. Dismissing issues should have certain consequences.Gandoor wrote:I, and other players, shouldn't be forced to answer issues that we don't want to or otherwise be punished for choosing to dismiss them.
The Spacefaring Federation of Sacara"Our Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
I spend most of my time in the Got Issues? sub-forum.
Issues That I've Authored (15)
Commended by SC #382
by Luna Amore » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:15 am
by Wrapper » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:17 am
Sacara wrote:It's entirely unrealistic for @@LEADER@@ to just dismiss every issue they encounter. Sure, a few you could split under the rug, but many require a decision to be made. Dismissing issues should have certain consequences.Gandoor wrote:I, and other players, shouldn't be forced to answer issues that we don't want to or otherwise be punished for choosing to dismiss them.
by Sacara » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:49 am
Wrapper wrote:Disagree. Dismissing issues is a decision in favor of status quo, and shouldn’t have an effect statistically.
The Spacefaring Federation of Sacara"Our Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
I spend most of my time in the Got Issues? sub-forum.
Issues That I've Authored (15)
Commended by SC #382
by Sacara » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:50 am
My thoughts are only allowing a certain amount of dismisses for a certain amount of time. Real life leaders cannot just dismiss every issue they are faced with without consequences.Luna Amore wrote:I can state with 100% certainty that the dismiss button isn't going to be removed.
The Spacefaring Federation of Sacara"Our Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
I spend most of my time in the Got Issues? sub-forum.
Issues That I've Authored (15)
Commended by SC #382
by Ru- » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:56 am
by The Transmondian Commonwealth » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:00 pm
Sacara wrote:I’m on the other end of the spectrum — I think NationStates ought to get rid of the dismiss button, or at least add consequences to it.
Sacara wrote:Wrapper wrote:Disagree. Dismissing issues is a decision in favor of status quo, and shouldn’t have an effect statistically.
There are certain issues in which a decision is needed -- such as the one with the drone hovering over a terrorist and @@LEADER@@ has to decide whether to authorize the strike or not. There are more than that, but I can't think of them off of the top of my head. Sometimes it makes absolutely no sense to dismiss an issue when a decision is required.
by Sapnu puas » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:07 pm
[violet] wrote:You can't earn cards by dismissing issues; you have to answer them.
by The Blaatschapen » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:10 pm
by Wrapper » Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:40 pm
The blAAtschApen wrote:I, myself, created two puppets who just pick the first choice in every issue. It will be interesting to see how they end up (both started without options picked in the beginning, ie. Inoffensive Centrist Democracy). After all, first choice is the best
by Gandoor » Mon Jan 14, 2019 6:58 pm
Sacara wrote:Wrapper wrote:Disagree. Dismissing issues is a decision in favor of status quo, and shouldn’t have an effect statistically.
There are certain issues in which a decision is needed -- such as the one with the drone hovering over a terrorist and @@LEADER@@ has to decide whether to authorize the strike or not. There are more than that, but I can't think of them off of the top of my head. Sometimes it makes absolutely no sense to dismiss an issue when a decision is required.
by Yaybor » Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:15 pm
Wrapper wrote:The blAAtschApen wrote:I, myself, created two puppets who just pick the first choice in every issue. It will be interesting to see how they end up (both started without options picked in the beginning, ie. Inoffensive Centrist Democracy). After all, first choice is the best
I’m doing the same thing! I have two puppets that always pick the first choice (they’re still ICDs)... and another one that always picks the last choice. That one’s currently Iron Fist Consumerists, but it’s changed a couple times.
by Yaybor » Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:19 pm
Gandoor wrote:Sacara wrote:There are certain issues in which a decision is needed -- such as the one with the drone hovering over a terrorist and @@LEADER@@ has to decide whether to authorize the strike or not. There are more than that, but I can't think of them off of the top of my head. Sometimes it makes absolutely no sense to dismiss an issue when a decision is required.
Except not every issue necessarily applies to how someone considers their nation to be 'in-character'.
I mean, the example you gave of the drone strike against a terrorist issue is a perfect example for me and this nation. With how I RP and play this nation in general, that's not a situation that my nation's leader would ever face because it doesn't fit in my nation's story. So why should I, under your hypothetical system, be 'forced' to answer an issue that, for RP purposes, is based around something that cannot happen in my nation.
And really that's why I disagree with your premise that there needs to be 'consequences' for dismissing issues, not every issue is going to be relevant to how someone plays their nation and the game shouldn't punish them for wanting to play their nation as they want.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Alcrosnia, Barbartopia, Ducky, Equestria-Atlantia, Isle Khronion, Merethin, National Coraland of Fishery, Neuebremen, Pyhdon, Reyo, Roydonk, Soveriegn, Sto Lat, Tape, Technocratic Norway, The High Academy of Aztec, The Hurricane, The Mazzars, The Plough Islands, The united capybaras, Tianjastan, Very totally free, West green Israel, Zucksland
Advertisement