I do not believe it's necessary for states to lose points due to political unrest, because the unrest itself should trigger certain effects within itself. It is not necessary to place further internationally recognized sanctions, through point loss, on a state when that state does not have a set population bound to it by citizenship.
When there is really too much political unrest, people will move to other states where they can live more comfortable and safe. The state is than in fact punished for the unrest in the country by losing its citizens. Without citizens it is useless to have a state, so the state will ensure that there remain enough citizens to keep the state 'going'. A necessary condition is of course that people all over the world/game are free to move wherever and whenever they want. Therefore, I don't think it is needed to have a higher authority above the states to punish them for political unrest. That is making extra levels in order to make extra levels. (how is that level than responsible for its actions..?)
states should not be negatively affected by social unrest because social unrest is not necessarily a bad thing. it can represent good change. since i would assume the point system is supposed to track the potential of a state, unrest, while it could have immediate negative effects, may benefit the state in the long run
When there is political unrest in a state I believe the state should, in some cases, lose points. When political unrest is so severe that the state is experiencing high levels of violence and death this is when points should be taken away from the state. In this way the taking away of points serves as a potential deterrent to severe violence within a state. If the people of the state understand that they will lose points if they create violence due to political unrest they may choose alternative outlets to violence.
However, I also agree with the previous comment that some social unrest is not necessarily a bad thing and can help bring about political change in certain states. Some states are negatively effected by political unrest in the short run but later benefit because of political changes made within the state. Therefore, I believe that states experiencing political unrest should only be punished in extreme cases.
I do not believe it's necessary for states to lose points due to political unrest, because the unrest itself should trigger certain effects within itself. It is not necessary to place further internationally recognized sanctions, through point loss, on a state when that state does not have a set population bound to it by citizenship.
When there is really too much political unrest, people will move to other states where they can live more comfortable and safe. The state is than in fact punished for the unrest in the country by losing its citizens. Without citizens it is useless to have a state, so the state will ensure that there remain enough citizens to keep the state 'going'. A necessary condition is of course that people all over the world/game are free to move wherever and whenever they want. Therefore, I don't think it is needed to have a higher authority above the states to punish them for political unrest. That is making extra levels in order to make extra levels. (how is that level than responsible for its actions..?)
states should not be negatively affected by social unrest because social unrest is not necessarily a bad thing. it can represent good change. since i would assume the point system is supposed to track the potential of a state, unrest, while it could have immediate negative effects, may benefit the state in the long run
When there is political unrest in a state I believe the state should, in some cases, lose points. When political unrest is so severe that the state is experiencing high levels of violence and death this is when points should be taken away from the state. In this way the taking away of points serves as a potential deterrent to severe violence within a state. If the people of the state understand that they will lose points if they create violence due to political unrest they may choose alternative outlets to violence.
However, I also agree with the previous comment that some social unrest is not necessarily a bad thing and can help bring about political change in certain states. Some states are negatively effected by political unrest in the short run but later benefit because of political changes made within the state. Therefore, I believe that states experiencing political unrest should only be punished in extreme cases.