Systemic flaws in the stats system?

[Zouayne Shyce]

As far as I'm aware, you haven't given any concrete suggestions besides "the way this game works is inherently flawed". This isn't a building, where having the wrong base can ruin it. This is a video game, where fun is subjective. Everyone on this website has their own way of having fun within the bounds of the parameters and rules. There's a difference between saying "here are some suggestions to improve fun" and "scrap everything and listen to how I want everyone to have fun". That's the purpose of them listening to criticism: so they can improve the game, not remake it to suit your whims.

I analyzed my observations and made a few very precise points what I think is wrong with it and why exactly. I actually also stated clearly how I would handle the stat changes, you obviously just didn't read it right, which is something I recommend that you do in the future before you make false allegations. No big deal, just saying. Anyway, even if I hadn't done that, it's absolutely legitimate to criticize something without giving an alternative solution. If my neighbour wants to propel a handcart with new year's eve rockets to get to the moon, I'll also tell him that this is a rather bad idea without having to tell him an alternative way to get to the moon. And I could give you a million more examples of that kind. Forget what they told you about "constructive criticism", it's a concept made up by people who actually want to immunize themselves against criticism or force people to be not adequately hard on them. If you have a solid point of criticism, make that point.

By the way, what do you even want me to do, present an alternative model of the entire game? I know roughly how I would do it, but if people don't even get my substantial point but instead throw red herrings, I see no point in presenting it. Why would I cast pearls before swine?

[Comfed]

Your first mistake was taking the stats so seriously in the first place.

[The Church of Satan]

Your first mistake was taking the stats so seriously in the first place.

This, honestly. The stats work fine just as they are, and the nonsense that results from them can be very funny, or downright confusing. The former is entertaining, and the latter makes me think. It's a win-win.

[Zouayne Shyce]

Your first mistake was taking the stats so seriously in the first place.

What do you know, really? I'm actually just a geek who likes to think about these things, I'm not even taking this discussion very seriously. I even had to laugh hard a couple of times when another guy came and seriously meant it was me who needed any "help" or "explanations" here, And I obviously had a lot of time today for that.

Beyond that, you're not really honest, in two ways even.
1. I know how games work psychologically, I know how gamers are. 99.9% of all gamers take it very seriously and get quite frustrated if things repeatedly don't go the way they want them to go, even if a game shouldn't be taken seriously at all, by its very nature as such. And I'm pretty sure people want to "achieve" something here as well and get frustrated when it doesn't go the way they want. All of them - sooner or later. If I compare myself to gamers I know, I can say that I never got even remotely as frustrated with these "stats" here as some players who just can't score at Fifa soccer or repeatedly mess up a mission at RDR2.
2. If you didn't take my thread seriously in a way, if it didn't make you think what I have to say at all, you wouldn't have felt the urge to post anything here at all. Posting is caring, indifference is invisible in forums.

To me it seems that what I had to say has left more people butthurt in a way I could never even care about all this. And to some point, I even understand you: I'll be gone again sooner or later and move on to other things. Many of you guys, on the contrary, have invested years in this game, of course you defend it tooth and nail and don't like it when somebody points out why it is basically nonsense. Nonsense in a way that it doesn't even do well what it is supposed to do well.

[The Church of Satan]

Your first mistake was taking the stats so seriously in the first place.

What do you know, really? I'm actually just a geek who likes to think about these things, I'm not even taking this discussion very seriously. I even had to laugh hard a couple of times when another guy came and seriously meant it was me who needed any "help" or "explanations" here, And I obviously had a lot of time today for that.

Beyond that, you're not really honest, in two ways even.
1. I know how games work psychologically, I know how gamers are. 99.9% of all gamers take it very seriously and get quite frustrated if things repeatedly don't go the way they want them to go, even if a game shouldn't be taken seriously at all, by its very nature as such. And I'm pretty sure people want to "achieve" something here as well and get frustrated when it doesn't go the way they want. All of them - soone ror later. If I compare myself to gamers I know, I can say that I never got even remotely as frustrated with these "stats" here as some players who just can't score at Fifa soccer or repeatedly mess up a mission at RDR2.
2. If you didn't take my thread seriously in a way, if it didn't make you think what I have to say at all, you wouldn't have felt to post anything here at all. Posting is caring, indifference is invisible in forums.

To me it seems that what I had to say has left more people butthurt in a way I could never even care about all this. And to some point, I even understand you: I'll be gone again sooner or later and move on to other things. Many of you guys, on the contrary, have invested years in this game, of course you defend it tooth and nail and don't like it when somebody points out why it is basically nonsense. Nonsense in a way that it doesn't even do well what it is supposed to do well.

We're trying to help you. Really. But you're not making it easy. xD

[Zouayne Shyce]

What do you know, really? I'm actually just a geek who likes to think about these things, I'm not even taking this discussion very seriously. I even had to laugh hard a couple of times when another guy came and seriously meant it was me who needed any "help" or "explanations" here, And I obviously had a lot of time today for that.

Beyond that, you're not really honest, in two ways even.
1. I know how games work psychologically, I know how gamers are. 99.9% of all gamers take it very seriously and get quite frustrated if things repeatedly don't go the way they want them to go, even if a game shouldn't be taken seriously at all, by its very nature as such. And I'm pretty sure people want to "achieve" something here as well and get frustrated when it doesn't go the way they want. All of them - soone ror later. If I compare myself to gamers I know, I can say that I never got even remotely as frustrated with these "stats" here as some players who just can't score at Fifa soccer or repeatedly mess up a mission at RDR2.
2. If you didn't take my thread seriously in a way, if it didn't make you think what I have to say at all, you wouldn't have felt to post anything here at all. Posting is caring, indifference is invisible in forums.

To me it seems that what I had to say has left more people butthurt in a way I could never even care about all this. And to some point, I even understand you: I'll be gone again sooner or later and move on to other things. Many of you guys, on the contrary, have invested years in this game, of course you defend it tooth and nail and don't like it when somebody points out why it is basically nonsense. Nonsense in a way that it doesn't even do well what it is supposed to do well.

We're trying to help you. Really. But you're not making it easy. xD

As I'm trying to help you. But you don't let me. If you did, the game would be way better pretty soon.

[The Church of Satan]

As I'm trying to help you. But you don't let me. If you did, the game would be way better pretty soon.

That's where we disagree. Your idea of fun and ours are clearly different. Nevermind that revamping the stats means revamping every issue ever written. All what, 1200+ of them? Your suggesting the entire system be changed because one person, you, thinks it should be different. So far, nobody seems to agree with you on that. More than that, one of NationStates' senior moderators has already said it isn't happening. Your suggestion died at that point. You'll just have to accept it. :-/

[Zouayne Shyce]

and the latter makes me think. It's a win-win.

If reading random stuff into badly modelled, random bs-stats inspires you, knock yourself out. If you like that kind of making sense of the senseless, I'd also recommend astrology and numerology.

As I'm trying to help you. But you don't let me. If you did, the game would be way better pretty soon.

That's where we disagree. Your idea of fun and ours are clearly different. Nevermind that revamping the stats means revamping every issue ever written. All what, 1200+ of them? Your suggesting the entire system be changed because one person, you, thinks it should be different. So far, nobody seems to agree with you on that. More than that, one of NationStates' senior moderators has already said it isn't happening. Your suggestion died at that point. You'll just have to accept it. :-/

First of all, I seem to be the only person of all the people debating here who even fully understands what's wrong with it and what's the reason for many other things people complain about time and again. Most people won't even understand my very point, because it takes a little bit of thinking and the patience to concentratedly read more than two sentences in a row. It's quite telling that nobody here ever responded anything to my points as to why I think the system is so bad in the first place. However, I'm not the only stats-hater here and I won't be the last. My gf, who runs the region with me, is annoyed with it as well.

And you, of course, should have fun as you damn please. But why don't you just do it instead of posting in my thread all the time? I actually seem to have hit a mark you would have preferred to never see being hit and feel compelled to debate it out of the world - or at least out of your head. Right? You'll say no, but I know it's approximately what's going on.

[The Church of Satan]

and the latter makes me think. It's a win-win.

If reading random stuff into badly modelled, random bs-stats inspires you, knock yourself out. If you like that kind of making sense of the senseless, I'd also recommend astrology and numerology.

That's where we disagree. Your idea of fun and ours are clearly different. Nevermind that revamping the stats means revamping every issue ever written. All what, 1200+ of them? Your suggesting the entire system be changed because one person, you, thinks it should be different. So far, nobody seems to agree with you on that. More than that, one of NationStates' senior moderators has already said it isn't happening. Your suggestion died at that point. You'll just have to accept it. :-/

First of all, I seem to be the only person of all the people debating here who even fully understands what's wrong with it and what's the reason for many other things people complain about time and again. Most people won't even understand my very point, because it takes a little bit of thinking and the patience to concentratedly read more than two sentences in a row. It's quite telling that nobody here ever responded anything to my points as to why I think the system is so bad in the first place. However, I'm not the only stats-hater here and I won't be the last. My gf, who runs the region with me, is annoyed with it as well.

And you, of course, should have fun as you damn please. But why don't you just do it instead of posting in my thread all the time? I actually seem to have hit a mark you would have preferred to never see being hit and feel compelled to debate it out of the world - or at least out of your head. Right? You'll say no, but I know it's approximately what's going on.

The people who write the issues, the very people who understand how it works, already proved you wrong in the other thread. I don't need to do it myself. You've made some misinterpretations, you were corrected, and you didn't accept that. That's entirely on you, and you won't achieve anything by telling everyone they're wrong when the facts say otherwise. Personally, I'm posting here because I like to help newbies settle into the game. I'd like to see you settle in as well, so you can really learn to enjoy it.

[Zouayne Shyce]

If reading random stuff into badly modelled, random bs-stats inspires you, knock yourself out. If you like that kind of making sense of the senseless, I'd also recommend astrology and numerology.





First of all, I seem to be the only person of all the people debating here who even fully understands what's wrong with it and what's the reason for many other things people complain about time and again. Most people won't even understand my very point, because it takes a little bit of thinking and the patience to concentratedly read more than two sentences in a row. It's quite telling that nobody here ever responded anything to my points as to why I think the system is so bad in the first place. However, I'm not the only stats-hater here and I won't be the last. My gf, who runs the region with me, is annoyed with it as well.

And you, of course, should have fun as you damn please. But why don't you just do it instead of posting in my thread all the time? I actually seem to have hit a mark you would have preferred to never see being hit and feel compelled to debate it out of the world - or at least out of your head. Right? You'll say no, but I know it's approximately what's going on.

The people who write the issues, the very people who understand how it works, already proved you wrong in the other thread. I don't need to do it myself. You've made some misinterpretations, you were corrected, and you didn't accept that. That's entirely on you, and you won't achieve anything by telling everyone they're wrong when the facts say otherwise. Personally, I'm posting here because I like to help newbies settle into the game. I'd like to see you settle in as well, so you can really learn to enjoy it.

This is simply wrong. I understand how the system approximately works, the other people here don't even question that. And the debate was never about how it works, so there was nothing to prove wrong there. I said what I think whythe system is bad and pointed out which rather inconvenient, silly, stupid, annoying or whatever effects it can cause. Nobody ever proved anything of that wrong, they rather all evaded the topic, probably because they wanted to avoid getting involved in a debate they wouldn't be able to win. Because they somehow know, see or at least feel that I'm having a point there. You really managed to get everything wrong one can get wrong about this whole debate. You'd better go and get some sleep, maybe?

By the way, forced condescencion ("I'd like to see you settle in...") only impresses intellectually rather challenged people, for others it's more a cause for vicarious embarrassment.

[Zouayne Shyce]

I'll call it a night now.

[SherpDaWerp]

I think you are confusing the liberties themselves with the reaction towards a policy affecting them. If they can’t use the internet, they can’t use the internet, wherever they are. It’s exactly the same restriction for Americans, Chinese or North Korean people, and it’s exactly the same “amount” of freedom taken away from them, no matter how free they are in other respects.

If America is at 80/100 "free internet" (on some objective scale) and they ban it entirely, then they go to 0/100 "free internet". The change of 80 pts is large and will cause a large effect.
If North Korea is at 20/100 "free internet" and they ban it entirely, they only lose 20 pts. This change is much smaller.

What that quote means is that "X position is associated with a certain actual point on the scale, and if you're far away from that point on the scale, you'll see a bigger change".

Lowering the civil rights again should have told a learning, intelligent system, that I am just reverting to the nature of my state. The “no buyers regret” should have applied. But no, every decision on civil rights had no or an extremely tiny effect. So one “unusual” decision about civil rights got my state reclassified, while, up to now, 16 (!!!) decisions in the opposite direction couldn’t fix that until now (that was a mistake: actually the 16th fixed the civil rights and caused a reclassification from FKB state to IFC).

There are god-knows-how-many backstage stats that make up civil rights. I've seen at least 8 referenced by editors (well, 7 plus the obsolete crime freedom), and there's likely more. What you're describing is a common occurrence, whereby all your rights are low (i.e. "free internet 10/100, women's rights 10/100, bodily autonomy 10/100", for a visible civil right score of 10) and you make a decision that causes a large change to only one of them (i.e. "free internet 10/100, women's rights 80/100, bodily autonomy 10/100", for a visible civil right score of 33.33). You then make a bunch of decisions that reduce your already-low "free internet" or "bodily autonomy" scores (i.e. "free internet 5/100, women's rights 80/100, bodily autonomy 10/100", for a visible civil right score of 31.66).

See how your civil rights is now primarily made up of women's rights? You can answer as many civil-rights-decreasing issues on other topics, but while your women's rights are that high, your decreases will be significantly smaller. However, note that this is not 100% accurate. Only the editors know the actual numbers, stats, & formulas to explain it, and they're sworn to not tell us. For example, it's likely that civil rights is not just a literal mean of values. But this is a general idea of what the model is doing and how it works; which - as far as I've played the game - is generally true.

concerning Economic Freedom

EF is the worst offender for this, I've found, because it often involves directly competing rights (e.g. business' right to oppress workers and workers' right to fair work). I've often wished it was even slightly more granularly visible, as I try to figure out which backstage right is keeping me away from the elusive classification-changing score of 67. But that's the game!

[The Church of Satan]

There ya go. Sherp explained it much better than I was about to. Your assertion was made from a misinterpreted understanding of how the stats work.

By the way, thanks, Sherp. ^_^

[Zouayne Shyce]

I think you are confusing the liberties themselves with the reaction towards a policy affecting them. If they can’t use the internet, they can’t use the internet, wherever they are. It’s exactly the same restriction for Americans, Chinese or North Korean people, and it’s exactly the same “amount” of freedom taken away from them, no matter how free they are in other respects.

If America is at 80/100 "free internet" (on some objective scale) and they ban it entirely, then they go to 0/100 "free internet". The change of 80 pts is large and will cause a large effect.
If North Korea is at 20/100 "free internet" and they ban it entirely, they only lose 20 pts. This change is much smaller.

What that quote means is that "X position is associated with a certain actual point on the scale, and if you're far away from that point on the scale, you'll see a bigger change".

In this particular example you are just redefining the problem. The example given in the introduction that I'm quoting obviously implies that the same change means something different depending where you start from. This is a clear thinking error they based their model on. If they had meant it the way you are redefining it now, they could simply have said that the internet was never as free in China as in the USA or can't be. But they didn't. If they meant what you say, why not just saying it?

And there is another thing that concerns the gaming logics. We are all getting the same issues, no matter where our states stand (except of the few you can't get at all if your state has certain characteristics). If the issues implied entirely different measures in each state without even stating that explicitly, that would make the game even more arbitrary, intransparent and thus even worse.

Maybe this even is the case, and the "model" you presented is true - bad is bad and stays bad. Let me explain why.

Lowering the civil rights again should have told a learning, intelligent system, that I am just reverting to the nature of my state. The “no buyers regret” should have applied. But no, every decision on civil rights had no or an extremely tiny effect. So one “unusual” decision about civil rights got my state reclassified, while, up to now, 16 (!!!) decisions in the opposite direction couldn’t fix that until now (that was a mistake: actually the 16th fixed the civil rights and caused a reclassification from FKB state to IFC).

There are god-knows-how-many backstage stats that make up civil rights. I've seen at least 8 referenced by editors (well, 7 plus the obsolete crime freedom), and there's likely more. What you're describing is a common occurrence, whereby all your rights are low (i.e. "free internet 10/100, women's rights 10/100, bodily autonomy 10/100", for a visible civil right score of 10) and you make a decision that causes a large change to only one of them (i.e. "free internet 10/100, women's rights 80/100, bodily autonomy 10/100", for a visible civil right score of 33.33). You then make a bunch of decisions that reduce your already-low "free internet" or "bodily autonomy" scores (i.e. "free internet 5/100, women's rights 80/100, bodily autonomy 10/100", for a visible civil right score of 31.66).

See how your civil rights is now primarily made up of women's rights? You can answer as many civil-rights-decreasing issues on other topics, but while your women's rights are that high, your decreases will be significantly smaller. However, note that this is not 100% accurate. Only the editors know the actual numbers, stats, & formulas to explain it, and they're sworn to not tell us. For example, it's likely that civil rights is not just a literal mean of values. But this is a general idea of what the model is doing and how it works; which - as far as I've played the game - is generally true.

How you modeled the model, if you will, is quite a good idea and comes closer to how I think the model should be. If you read my posts a attentively, you'll see that I made my argumentation dependent on having such a high value of 35+ in the first place. So I implied your model already, in a way. I just don't think this is how it works or not the whole story. There must be other, serious flaws in it that make it cause odd results and a bad gaming experience. If you look at my table and at all the various topics addressed by the issues in them, it is simply very unlikely that so few civil rights would already be listed as "not existent" in my country at such a high value. That was my point the whole time, probably to complicated for most people (most people don't understand conditions in arguments). Mandatory exercises, DNA harvesting, monitoring the internet, paddling students - all this are serious violations or limitations of civil rights and very different things as well. And changing all of them in a row should not change anything at all at such a high value? I think if I had already been at a value of 5 or 10, I would agree that your explanation could apply. I actually implied that I would see why there was no change in that case the whole time. But not in this particular case. If the game somehow concluded that I had already most of these policies running, that would be simply another flaw in the system, since I addressed all of these issues for the first time in this state. And in case of the DNA harvesting this was definitely NOT the case, btw, because the policy was newly introduced.

Now let's suppose that I maybe lowered the hidden "bodily autonomy" stat my introducing corporal punishment some weeks ago so that introducing the paddling of students didn't make a difference anymore. Amnd let's ignore the fact that the corporal punishment applies to criminals, not to students. Let's say the substat "bodily autonomy" was defined that way and at 0 now. Why do I get the issue then in the first place? If I get it, it implies that the teachers are asking for a new policy to be introduced. So that's what I mean by another flaw in the system. This would be a whole intransparent mess of arbitrarily defined values and substats, leaving the player to fish in muddy waters and never take any issue at face value whatsoever. If your model is true here, they obviously got totally lost in their network of definitions and interconnected stats. The result is just as bad, maybe partly for another reason than I thought, but just as bad.

I can only repeat myself: No matter how you slice it, it doesn't make sense. Even if other implications of policies lowered my "bodily autonomy" or whatever hidden stat to zero so that paddling students wouldn't make a difference, look at it at face value: getting offered such an extreme policy and then seeing nothing happed is also a lousy gaming experience, on top of all the other flaws that might or might not be at work here.


However, I imagine you are at least partly right with your model. But I was explicitly told several times that the change a certain issue causes varies with the current value of the stat as such, not that it was due to additive, concrete measures. Both can be true in a way that your model can cause a correlation between "added effect" of a policy and the "added value" of the face value stat. But, again, in my case it simply doesn't make sense. I mean, of course it adds up strictly mathematically, because this is how the model was coded. But this is not my point. It's unrealistic on a substantial level, it doesn't feel like making a plicy trhat actually applies to your state and thus causes a lousy gaming experience.


EDIT: There is actually also a thing why I think your "model of the model" can't be quite right. The game seems to weigh steps contradicting the "nature" of your state the game assumes way more than consistent ones and I think many people described it that way as well. If everything was strictly additive as you say, there can't be such a difference if you do something unusual. It would be the same amount of change either way (I'm not talking about changes in percentages, that's something different) unless you arrive at some extreme. If, to pick up your example, North Korea unbanned a certain internet page (inconsistent decision, +5 freedom of internet) and the USA as well (consistent decision, +5) the same change of +5 would apply to both global values in Civil Rights. Only if both countries totally unbanned or banned the internet completely, the respective inconsistent decision would contibute more to the global value (e.g. +80 for NK, +20 for the USA in case of complete unbanning). Either way, if I remember correctly this can hardly account for the massive differences between the effects of decisions considered consistent and the ones considered inconsistent by the model. So there must be some kind of weighting here - or it's simply a forced regression to the mean, where decisions towards the mean always matter more, as I stated earlier. Either way... bs.

Concerning Economic Freedom:

EF is the worst offender for this, I've found, because it often involves directly competing rights (e.g. business' right to oppress workers and workers' right to fair work). I've often wished it was even slightly more granularly visible, as I try to figure out which backstage right is keeping me away from the elusive classification-changing score of 67. But that's the game!

This is also because they confuse political freedoms (such as founding unions) with economic rights. It has a lot to do with the creators having no clue about real life politics (economic freedom). The very policy of most unions is to lower economic freedom in order to protect workers. The game actually "admits" that indirectly and by that contradicts itself. It correctly classifies the rather leftist states as states with rather low economic freedoms. Maybe there is a reason why in real life most workers' unions are associated with left wing parties? Bingo. Both want the same thing: lower economic freedoms for the big shots they can use to exploit people, e.g. more regulation of work contracts etc.

[Esternial]

and the latter makes me think. It's a win-win.

If reading random stuff into badly modelled, random bs-stats inspires you, knock yourself out. If you like that kind of making sense of the senseless, I'd also recommend astrology and numerology. :)

You really managed to get everything wrong one can get wrong about this whole debate. You'd better go and get some sleep, maybe?

Please dial down the sass a twinge.

A general recommendation for everyone: do not antagonize or condescend other posters for disagreeing with you, even if you're convinced they're unequivocally wrong. From experience I know that's not always as easy, but I request you please try.

[Zouayne Shyce]

There ya go. Sherp explained it much better than I was about to. Your assertion was made from a misinterpreted understanding of how the stats work.

By the way, thanks, Sherp. ^_^

Nope. It's only you who's still not getting his own naturalistic fallacy and who's missing the very point of the whole discussion. But let me help you by quoting myself from the opening post of this thread:

I know it’s not going to be changed any time soon anyway and I know that I don’t know the model. Since I can only judge what I see, some of my conclusions about how it works are maybe mistaken.

I have stated time and again that I can't be entirely sure about how the system works. That's irrelevant for my main point though, which is that however it works, it works badly in terms of realism, fun and (my) gaming experience... and yes, it's also losing the funny aspect over all that arbitrary mess.

And since I have invested some time in this game and I am, on top of that, even a site supporter, I'm feeling free to utter my opinion, however people might react, like or dislike it and whatever the consequences are. I know the game is not going to be improved any time soon. This is all just about sharing thoughts.

[Zouayne Shyce]

I'll drop by again later, for now I have to return to this inevitable inconvenience of life called work.

[The Church of Satan]

You can't be certain it works poorly if you don't understand it.

The nonsensical bits are quite fun. I recently answered an issue about the nation's IT infrastructure because a carrier pigeon delivering a USB drive was faster than broadband. I opted to upgrade the entire IT infrastructure, and as a result, the black market increased. What new product is now traded illegally? Black market carrier pigeons??? The notion is kinda hilarious. And that's the kinda thing that makes the current system so fun. The IT industry goes up, so now I have illegal pigeons. It makes zero sense, but it's very entertaining. ^_^

[Esternial]

You can't be certain it works poorly if you don't understand it.

The nonsensical bits are quite fun. I recently answered an issue about the nation's IT infrastructure because a carrier pigeon delivering a USB drive was faster than broadband. I opted to upgrade the entire IT infrastructure, and as a result, the black market increased. What new product is now traded illegally? Black market carrier pigeons??? The notion is kinda hilarious. And that's the kinda thing that makes the current system so fun. The IT industry goes up, so now I have illegal pigeons. It makes zero sense, but it's very entertaining. ^_^

You could reason that upgrading the entire nation's IT infrastructure would also enable less-than-legal storefronts to improve their (online) business.

[The Church of Satan]

You can't be certain it works poorly if you don't understand it.

The nonsensical bits are quite fun. I recently answered an issue about the nation's IT infrastructure because a carrier pigeon delivering a USB drive was faster than broadband. I opted to upgrade the entire IT infrastructure, and as a result, the black market increased. What new product is now traded illegally? Black market carrier pigeons??? The notion is kinda hilarious. And that's the kinda thing that makes the current system so fun. The IT industry goes up, so now I have illegal pigeons. It makes zero sense, but it's very entertaining. ^_^

You could reason that upgrading the entire nation's IT infrastructure would also enable less-than-legal storefronts to improve their (online) business.

Ooh, yes! I hadn't considered that! I was too fixated on illegal pigeons, lol.

[Zouayne Shyce]

Sometimes these things are fun, usually just plain stupid or contradictory. Actually the whole discussion here comes down to a simple thing: It sucks when you get asked to do something and then see no effect.

I gave you the example of paddling students. When you get this issue for the first time, you will, as a sane person with some sense of reality, assume, that this policy has not been introduced yet. Paddling students is certainly a concrete, clearly defined, new limitation of the students' civil rights, I think there can be no serious doubt about that. Yet introducing it didn't lower my civil rights at all. Yes, you can argue that the model somehow assumed that I had introduced paddling already by former decisions that had nothing to do with it but somehow affected similar rights. You can. But that actually means that the really interesting stuff is mostly happening behind the scenes, measured by stats that imply a million things, while you can't do much anymore when something is explicitly addressed. How lame is that for a game, please?

What it shows when you defend that kind of game design is that you are either so used to the obvious flaws of the game that you don't see them anymore or that you have serious problems concerning your concept of the real world and what civil rights mean in it. It actually comes close to judging reality by the logics of the model instead of the way more healthy other way round (as in: "Whatever the model does somehow fits something what happens in reality." - No, guys, I'm sorry, but it doesn't).

As I stated several times before, I had similar nonsensical - totally unfunny nonsensical, rather the totally lame kind of nonsensical - effects 15 times in a row. This is what happens in a badly designed game, whatever you do or say to gloss over it. That you can always come up with some ad hoc interpretation that somehow makes sense especially if you ignore half of the problem, is nothing special, that's always possible.

[The Church of Satan]

Sometimes these things are fun, usually just plain stupid or contradictory. Actually the whole discussion here comes down to a simple thing: It sucks when you get asked to do something and then see no effect.

I gave you the example of paddling students. When you get this issue for the first time, you will, as a sane person with some sense of reality, assume, that this policy has not been introduced yet. Paddling students is certainly a concrete, clearly defined, new limitation of the students' civil rights, I think there can be no serious doubt about that. Yet introducing it didn't lower my civil rights at all. Yes, you can argue that the model somehow assumed that I had introduced paddling already by former decisions that had nothing to do with it but somehow affected similar rights. You can. But that actually means that the really interesting stuff is mostly happening behind the scenes, measured by stats that imply a million things, while you can't do much anymore when something is explicitly addressed. How lame is that for a game, please?

What it shows when you defend that kind of game design is that you are either so used to the obvious flaws of the game that you don't see them anymore or that you have serious problems concerning your concept of the real world and what civil rights mean in it. It actually comes close to judging reality by the logics of the model instead of the way more healthy other way round (as in: "Whatever the model does somehow fits something what happens in reality." - No, guys, I'm sorry, but it doesn't).

As I stated several times before, I had similar nonsensical - totally unfunny nonsensical, rather the totally lame kind of nonsensical - effects 15 times in a row. This is what happens in a badly designed game, whatever you do or say to gloss over it. That you can always come up with some ad hoc interpretation that somehow makes sense especially if you ignore half of the problem, is nothing special, that's always possible.

Actually, on one side, it could be a matter of the student's rights, but in disallowing it, you also take away the right of the public school system to physically punish unruly students, and the parent's right to see their unruly children punished in a way they might prefer. So the gain of one right for one set of people is smaller than what it might have been. Then again, it's also not so radical a change in the vast pool of civil rights to pick from. In the case of that issue. I imagine the "behind the scenes" stats affected are something along the lines of the child's rights, the teacher's rights, parental rights, and the public education system's rights at minimum. One went up, but the other three went down, essentially resulting in a net loss of civil rights. In the real world, just as in this game, giving rights to one group can definitely mean taking rights away from another. The right to do something bad, perhaps, but a right nonetheless. From your perspective, this may not have even been a consideration, but it's how rights work. And realistically, perhaps how they work in NationStates.

[Zouayne Shyce]

This is an almost perfect example of a completely arbitrary, overly idiosyncratic interpretation of the effects, as I mentioned above. Really exactly that. If you go about it this way, you can also interpret an elephant as a somewhat chubby, oversized horse. You can also take apologetics to the point of absurdity.

What you seem not to have considered is that, according to this logic, you can always, really always construct cases in which the effects of a measure always add up to zero in the balance sheet. Give me any measure and I will construct such a case for you. I prefer a game in which what I do has a visible effect - and not one in which it is always explained to me afterwards why this is not the case. And this is has actually always been a crucial point of my criticism: If the game works this way, it's simply too clever by half. Apart from the fact that this interpretation of yours is really really absurd and in many parts not even logical. This partly due to your confusion between the freedom to do just anything and civil rights. There are very important differences between the both, philosophically and politically.

[Vistulange]

I prefer a game in which what I do has a visible effect - and not one in which it is always explained to me afterwards why this is not the case.

I don't get what's so difficult to understand. This isn't that game. This game was never intended to be so.

The site is literally a place where Max Barry advertises his books, and the issues are fun clicky things that make folks chuckle at the absurd consequences they get.

The bloody site doesn't take itself as seriously as you're taking it.

[Zouayne Shyce]

I prefer a game in which what I do has a visible effect - and not one in which it is always explained to me afterwards why this is not the case.

I don't get what's so difficult to understand. This isn't that game. This game was never intended to be so.

The site is literally a place where Max Barry advertises his books, and the issues are fun clicky things that make folks chuckle at the absurd consequences they get.

The bloody site doesn't take itself as seriously as you're taking it.

You are taking this the wrong way. I got the impression that something is not quite right, wanted to know more about it, made a conclusion and posted it here. It's all of you who can't stop dicussing. If you took it as lightly as you say, you wouldn't even post here. So you seem to have a problem with someone pointing out the weaknesses of this toy here. I would already have moved on, I really don't mind what you make of my criticism of all that. I wanted to understand it and share my thoughts. Apart from that, I enjoy debating as long as you gyus want to, especially in a foreign language. It helps me brush up my English. I also like to see how people debate, it's sometimes really insightful. In the end I'll forget about the game again like I did two times before, while you are actually seeing so much in all this that you've spent a decade here. Maybe it's you who is taking this criticism too much to heart?