Issues Need Some Help

[The First Union]

So I used to play this game... about a decade ago, and recently came back to it... and maybe it is just that I was younger and don't remember this place correctly, but...
have to say the Issues on this game are completely bonkers.
And by that I mean they have several problems.
The main problem is the about of options that are formatted as follows:

Text about issue here, minimal description and no real insight about how people are feeling about it or the proposed actual history other than the past 5 minutes.

1)Extremist View #1
2) Hippie View
3) Some sort of balance that is made to look bad by the character presenting it so you don't want to choose it.

The problems with the above is that it seems to want to draw in extremism that will only hurt a country, but punish the Leader for even considering a balanced approach. If a view is looking foolish then it shouldn't work, no matter how good it is because it will be discarded. Besides we all know their is writer bias, and if I feel the creator of the Issue is biased against something I feel I shouldn't choose it because they will have set it up against me.
So I have ad to accept dismissing issues, which hurts because of the long wait time between them....

Another problem I seem to have is how unbalanced some of the responses are. For example some of the Issues feel as follows:

Our country has had a recent outbreak of contaminated food.

1) Wait and watch
2) Remove sanctions so that farmers can do their job
3) Maybe but some sanctions in place?

Ok... so 3? ? Then I get this response:

The Nation has banned privatized farming!

And it just leaves me reeling and hesitant to choose options in the future.

Plus they have totally unrelated effects, like if I chose the last one somehow crime went up and foreign support wend down???


I know having a variety of options is important.... but maybe a bit more balancing and review would be nice.

Anyone else see what I see? (I actually know for a fact there are some)

[Gaazikumukh]

So I used to play this game... about a decade ago, and recently came back to it... and maybe it is just that I was younger and don't remember this place correctly, but...
have to say the Issues on this game are completely bonkers.
And by that I mean they have several problems.
The main problem is the about of options that are formatted as follows:

Text about issue here, minimal description and no real insight about how people are feeling about it or the proposed actual history other than the past 5 minutes.

1)Extremist View #1
2) Hippie View
3) Some sort of balance that is made to look bad by the character presenting it so you don't want to choose it.

The description is meant exactly not to do that. The way that people are reacting to the issue, the history of the issue, and how they feel on it are represented through the options, not in the description. History and viewpoints are obviously more biased, so the description is just supposed to be a brief "what happened" while the people in the choices try to sway you to their way of thinking.

The problems with the above is that it seems to want to draw in extremism that will only hurt a country, but punish the Leader for even considering a balanced approach. If a view is looking foolish then it shouldn't work, no matter how good it is because it will be discarded. Besides we all know their is writer bias, and if I feel the creator of the Issue is biased against something I feel I shouldn't choose it because they will have set it up against me.
So I have ad to accept dismissing issues, which hurts because of the long wait time between them....

I'm not at all sure what you mean by this. Issues ideally show the good and bad behind all options, and no matter what option you choose, there are consequences. If you're meaning stats, that's not handled by the issue drafters, and is an entirely different topic. If you mean the effect lines (the little one-sentence quips after every issue) then you shouldn't concern yourself over them. Those effect lines are purposefully over-exaggerated, and they always only show the negative side-effect. They have no effect on your actual stats or policies, so feel free to ignore them (they're basically just jokes).

Another problem I seem to have is how unbalanced some of the responses are. For example some of the Issues feel as follows:
Our country has had a recent outbreak of contaminated food.
1) Wait and watch
2) Remove sanctions so that farmers can do their job
3) Maybe but some sanctions in place?

Ok... so 3? ? Then I get this response:
The Nation has banned privatized farming!

See above

And it just leaves me reeling and hesitant to choose options in the future.

Plus they have totally unrelated effects, like if I chose the last one somehow crime went up and foreign support wend down???


I know having a variety of options is important.... but maybe a bit more balancing and review would be nice.

Anyone else see what I see? (I actually know for a fact there are some)

You aren't required to actually respond for every issue. There's tons of people who play and just dismiss every one they come across, or the ones they don't think they can answer well. In any case, most of the time your stats won't be hit too hard unless you choose a supremely massive decision (like banning democracy and installing a dictator) and they can usually be remedied over time. And, if that's not suiting for you either, a large number of people straight up ignore NS stats for roleplaying purposes. But again, it's all up to you, and is less the issue's fault for what you choose (unintended consequences are common)

[The First Union]

I'm not at all sure what you mean by this. Issues ideally show the good and bad behind all options, and no matter what option you choose, there are consequences. If you're meaning stats, that's not handled by the issue drafters, and is an entirely different topic. If you mean the effect lines (the little one-sentence quips after every issue) then you shouldn't concern yourself over them. Those effect lines are purposefully over-exaggerated, and they always only show the negative side-effect. They have no effect on your actual stats or policies, so feel free to ignore them (they're basically just jokes).

Yes, but they don't do that. I'm fine with consequences, but I want to feel that they're going to be fair. I don't want to feel like I'm playing a Bethesda storyline. I don't want to choose an option that says "Let's try to balance our eco footprint and economy", then have economy, eco footprint, and foreign trade and crime all get worse, while weaponization and nudity increase? What is going on there?? None of that makes sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The problems with the above is that it seems to want to draw in extremism that will only hurt a country, but punish the Leader for even considering a balanced approach. If a view is looking foolish then it shouldn't work, no matter how good it is because it will be discarded. Besides we all know their is writer bias, and if I feel the creator of the Issue is biased against something I feel I shouldn't choose it because they will have set it up against me.
So I have ad to accept dismissing issues, which hurts because of the long wait time between them....

I'm not at all sure what you mean by this. Issues ideally show the good and bad behind all options, and no matter what option you choose, there are consequences. If you're meaning stats, that's not handled by the issue drafters, and is an entirely different topic. If you mean the effect lines (the little one-sentence quips after every issue) then you shouldn't concern yourself over them. Those effect lines are purposefully over-exaggerated, and they always only show the negative side-effect. They have no effect on your actual stats or policies, so feel free to ignore them (they're basically just jokes).

So when I see options that are all absurd what do I do? Do I assume the stat response is going to be as extreme at the wild options(like they are half the time), or do I assume they are going to be a bit balanced (like they are the other half the time)?
Yes, "Issues ideally show the good and bad behind all options". That is my point. The problem is they do not. It is often two bad extremes and a balanced option made to look silly. That is a set of frustrating and badly designed options.

The point is I am asking for a bit of quality control in my Issue options. I want some actual insight as opposed to assuming that I'm surrounded my insane, stereotyped extremists.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You aren't required to actually respond for every issue. There's tons of people who play and just dismiss every one they come across, or the ones they don't think they can answer well. In any case, most of the time your stats won't be hit too hard unless you choose a supremely massive decision (like banning democracy and installing a dictator) and they can usually be remedied over time. And, if that's not suiting for you either, a large number of people straight up ignore NS stats for roleplaying purposes. But again, it's all up to you, and is less the issue's fault for what you choose (unintended consequences are common)

"it's less the Issue's fault for what you choose"? So making the response appropriate to the choice isn't a concern at all?
I want to play this game for the stats... that's the POINT. But if it isn't a MOD concern I'm out.

[Phydios]

NationStates started as a humorous satire of government, and so the issue results will be humorously exaggerated. This site, run by a player, can help people who want to know the effect of every option before choosing it... but my advice is to not bother. This isn't the right game for serious micro-management of your nation's stats, and there's a lot more to the game than issues these days.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

What you're basically criticising is the entire style of game construction, and asking for things to be completely different from how they are. What you'd like is for the people designing and creating this game to go with your vision of how the game should look, rather than their own.

Faced with that, you've got a few options.

One option is to change your expectations, and take it for what it is.

Another option is to incorporate yourself into the design process, and in doing so start to impose your own views on how things should be on the game design. That's the option I took. I wasn't happy with the shape of the game when I found it, so I basically stormed in and did my own thing with a lot of noise and bluster, and now the game looks a lot more like what I think it ought to look like. Along the way I've had to learn to play nice with others and not always get my own way, but mostly the changes I wanted to see have happened. As someone who has a good command of English, and strong opinions about game design, this might want to be an option you seriously consider.

Another option is to accept that the game as designed is not for you, and to go elsewhere. Lots of games out there.

Another option still is to use Nationstates, but to avoid Issues. Stick to other stuff, like rp, community building, General Assembly, and so on.

Another final option, of course, is to complain that you don't like how things are but expect someone else to change things, which actually won't change anything, but will continue to wind you up and make you feel irritated. I don't recommend that option, and that may actually run you afoul of the Bad Faith posting rules, which basically say "don't just generally gripe, be constructive instead".

I leave it to you to choose the direction you take.