Holy Strawman Fallacy, batman,
that wasn't my point at all!
my point is, this is a lighthearted political simulator. no simulator could ever hope to completely realistically portray the complex and unpredictable morass that is politics, except maybe one designed by a computer so advanced it's self-aware. even then, I don't think anyone or anything in this world could ever predict what a human will do next.
you can't honestly expect a political novelist to create a realistic portrayal of the risks of running a country in his spare time. you can't even expect a dedicated team of moderators and administrators to do so.
they know full well what their limits are on realism, so they've opted to ignore realism in favor of humor and fun. my little thing was to point out something important.
nearly everything here is exaggerated to humorous lengths. this is all an elaborate joke. the analysis categories are all made up at the drop of a hat. nobody can numerically rate the toxicity or eco-friendliness of an entire nation, and they certainly wouldn't do so in a "Kardashian Reflex Score" or "Dolphin Recycling Awareness Index."
None of this is even remotely close to realistic.
Nobody enters this expecting a realistic simulation.
now, maybe you like your games to be realistic. that's fine. and I apologize if any part of this post could be seen as rude or combative, as that is most certainly not my intent. I am only trying to clear things up.
Oh trust me I know its not meant to be entirely realistic because it couldnt be, you're entirely right it would be impossible to simulate realistically. However, based on reading the "About" and FAQ when I first joined up with nationstates a year and a half ago, and based on the questions it asks when you start, and based on the rigor of parliamentary procedure required for resolution writing in the WA, it
absolutely seems to be a simulator that, while it has no illusions of perfection,
does strive for realism. As such it is perfectly legitimate to criticize aspects that I feel are obviously wrong. Certain non-quantifiable things absolutely make sense to make something up for, and Im all for humor in these. When I read the one about the flag burning protesters, I laughed so hard my mouth hurt. But many of the economic relationships are much more well defined.
Holy Strawman Fallacy, batman,
Based on this I can see you're still upset. I admire the parallelism. But Strawman really doesnt apply here. A strawman argument would be if I were to deliberately misrepresent or caricature your (or another's) position in order to make it seem ridiculous and thus the task of presenting evidence against it easier.
I dont see how thats happened here at all. I might have gotten what you were saying incorrect, but that just means I missed your point or wasnt responding directly to you. This is a forum after all, and the majority of my posts are not strictly responses but also statements.
