|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Sept 26, 2004 5:29:18 GMT -5
The only freedom of religion issue I can remember or close to it, was the Nazi demonstration issue, and the options over wheter to allow or not.
TheFreeLandofAIM allowed, because it is free speech and to stop it would have stifled human rights.
I do think the game gives off the wrong impression at times, ie you have to be a capitalist corporate police state to have a strong economy.
|
|
Loe
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by Loe on Sept 27, 2004 17:15:52 GMT -5
How about trying to write some more serious environmental issues.
Today i got one concerning attacks upon people by our national animal, and none of the options even came close to radical environmentalism...
Some directly anarchistic ones could be written. Such as: Union power (i think i saw one there, but it didn´t have any good options), workers rights/workers control over factories, IBRD/WTO/IMF summits (of course with protesters). There are many clasical issues to choose from. I started playing last week, so i really don´t have a clue.....
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Sept 28, 2004 6:00:48 GMT -5
Welcome to ACA  |
|
Loe
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by Loe on Sept 28, 2004 15:24:50 GMT -5
Loe=Nature´s Revenge!!!
Sorry about the missunderstanding, i couldn´t write my countrys name, don´t ask me why.....
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Sept 29, 2004 4:35:57 GMT -5
Ah, my apologies.
Welcome all the same! ;D
|
|
Loe
New Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by Loe on Sept 29, 2004 5:34:43 GMT -5
Thanks!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Sept 29, 2004 8:28:51 GMT -5
No problem at all! |
|
|
|
Post by Sacco & Vanzetti on Oct 4, 2004 6:00:10 GMT -5
The Issue
Due to the recent capture of a foreign terrorist in Sacco and Vanzetti, high-level military officials want the government to authorize torture to extract information about other terrorist activities.
The Debate
1. "Torture is the only way that we can get these idiots to tell us anything," says General May Rubin of Sacco and Vanzetti's special forces division. "After all, violence is the only shared language we have with these scum."
[Accept]
2. "Are you kidding?" states political activist Melbourne King. "Torture never works. If anything, it should be outlawed. What do we want to become, genocidal maniacs?
[Accept]
3. "There's nothing wrong with torture, but we can't make it too obvious," says Secretary of Defense Zeke Fellow. "How about we simply ask them nicely, and then, if they don't tell us, we kill them? That's better just from the intimidation."
[Accept]
Obviously, many of the issues in NS try to trip people up to make them think properly about the potential outcomes of their decisions. But I arst you, what can an anarchist do with this? I've had this before and just dismiss it.
|
|
|
|
Post by claptonpond on Oct 4, 2004 9:22:58 GMT -5
I don't really see any problems with outlawing torture. I figure it'd be considered unacceptable in any anarchist society worthy of the name (although I've read somewhere that psychological warfare was used by anarchists in the Spanish civil war), which is effectively the same as being outlawed. If you're gonna play a game called NationStates as an anarchist, you can't be taking things too literally.
|
|
theyellowspot
Junior Member
still ignored, the fuse burned on...
Posts: 88
|
Post by theyellowspot on Oct 4, 2004 11:09:14 GMT -5
I don't really see any problems with outlawing torture. I'll second that emotion. if there's anything that i wouldn't mind the government doing, it's limiting it's power to fuck us over. |
|
|
|
Post by Sacco & Vanzetti on Oct 4, 2004 11:27:36 GMT -5
However, the way I play S&V, there is no structure to outlaw torture. People probably choose not to do it - and if it becomes known that someone has been using torture they would probably face communal sanctions, but we have no legislature.
|
|
|
|
Post by claptonpond on Oct 5, 2004 6:12:00 GMT -5
However, the way I play S&V, there is no structure to outlaw torture. People probably choose not to do it - and if it becomes known that someone has been using torture they would probably face communal sanctions, but we have no legislature. I just interpret those communal sanctions as 'outlawing' torture. The tricky thing about playing as an anarchist society is that you don't just have to RP a leader, or even a parliament, but an entire population. |
|
|
|
Post by Walter and Theodor on Oct 5, 2004 7:10:35 GMT -5
I just interpret those communal sanctions as 'outlawing' torture. The tricky thing about playing as an anarchist society is that you don't just have to RP a leader, or even a parliament, but an entire population. Exactly, there are certain things I think that W&T collectives would come to consensus on - for example the idea that torture is impermissable - I play as if any such consensus is the same as outlawing something. If the collective sees reason to change its mind then the 'law' is repealed when the opportunity arises. Our vegetarianism is a case and point, sometimes we are sometimes we aren't - if our environmental rating is in the trash we go veggie then relax it by eating puppies if we climb up a bit. I don't think the veggie thing necessarily effects the environmental rating but it should and so I play it. I think the point of free association is that the rules that govern a society are non-binding, malleable and moveable. Democracy has laws - radical democracy has agreements! |
|
|
|
Post by Sacco & Vanzetti on Oct 5, 2004 10:05:41 GMT -5
I think perhaps this is where I am awarded the Pig-Headed Wanker of the Month trophy...
I'm not sure a community can "ban" someone from committing torture. If someone is the kind of person who is capable of doing it and the opportunity and motive arise, ban or not, I believe they would do it.
A community can agree collectively to plant potatoes instead of corn, or to make buses instead of bicycles but can a community realistically impose moral standards simply through debate and discussion? Yes, it can probably do so through culture, but a culture which abhors human suffering and values human existence is not the same as merely "outlawing" certain acts.
Furthermore, doesn't the collective banning of such acts absolve individuals of the responsibility to behave in certain ways because such behaviour is the right thing to do rather than unacceptable behaviour being proscribed by the majority?
If I choose not to cause harm to others because I believe personally that to do so would be wrong then I believe I am a more responsible person than someone who does not harm others because he/she is obeying a law. Their only act is one of obedience to the collective thinking, whereas without the ban each person must decide the issue, and understand the arguments, for themself. Isn't that a stronger, more resilient community?
|
|
|
|
Post by Watfordshire on Oct 6, 2004 4:25:07 GMT -5
I generally find myself having to dismiss such issues.
The 'Law' is an ever-shifting standard in Watfordshire and I enjoy the idea of it being interpretative on an individual or communal level.
From the Shiree perspective, international law and UN resolutions are dealt with in the same manner.
The problem with many issues is inherent in their purpose - they are a method of generalisation and pigeon-holing* that won't fit with an anarchist/communist/federalist's idea of what they want their nation to be.
This has led me to treat issues and their results as guidelines rather than something to stick to. For instance: I've made uniforms compulsory for students. This is because students and workers in Watfordshire are issued with uniforms which vary according to their activity. If a student turns up naked or wearing something completely different, they wouldn't be chastised in any way - but I've decided that most students and workers will make use of the uniform insofar as they are designed to be the most practical garb for their application, and that different combinations of colours/ feathers / whatever are traditionally used to represent varying levels of achievement.
|
|
