Login to vote in this poll.
Personally I think that it is important to retain that randomness of being assigned a country where a player can initially belong. This is important in the fact that in real life people are born into a variety of different situations that influence how their life turns out and a major factor of that is the country in which they begin in. I feel as if that being grounded on who a person is helps in the upbringing of a stable personality and leads towards a healthier lifestyle.
Well, I think that people should be assigned to a country primarily because the moderators of the game will know how to proportionally distribute the population between all the countries and secondary because since players are allowed to choose citizenship, they should at least be assigned which country they begin in at first so that they choose their citizenship based on their experience there.
To elaborate on the primary; I'm assuming that the game should be fairly accurate in terms of population distribution and the only way to do that is to have the moderators choose who gets placed where, otherwise certain countries may contain a disproportionately large amount of players while others having a significantly low amount of players. Another issue that comes up when we let players choose is scenario may occur where there are too many players in a certain country and they all receive the same information and leading to a majority in something that realistically should not have a majority.
In my opinion, I don't think that the moderators choosing which country each player belongs to would lead to an equal population distribution. There would be equal population distribution at first because the moderators would make it equal, however I believe that eventually some countries will have a larger number of people and others few due to decree 1, citizenship by choice. Decree 1 gives players citizenship by choice and not birth, which means that every player is allowed to live wherever they want. This means that eventually, a majority of the players would move to the countries with the best economy,technology,etc. Every person would want to live in a society where they are offered the best living conditions. If we were given a choice, not many of us would want to live in a third world country and this would lead to huge populations in more advanced countries and little or very small population in not so advanced countries.
So it is not that i completely disagree with your whole argument per say, but I don't think that the moderators choosing the players' countries will lead to the equal distribution of population as you said because in the end, everyone will just move to the country they want to thus leading to this inequality of population among countries. With the first decree in place, I feel that it is impossible to control the equality of the population among countries because of the players' freedom of choice to move.
In my opinion, I think that players should be able to choose which country they will initially start off with. When playing a game, you wan't to stray away from the "real world" and have the options to decide things where you aren't able to in real life. If you were given the ability to decide, then you experience something where you don't have to be restricted. You can freely do as you please initially and that will give satisfaction to the player instead of assigning them to a country that they wouldn't like to be a part of.
For those of you who voted for the players to choose which country to which they will initially belong, ask yourself how much control you have over where you are born! At best, in this new social order, you might be stateless, but you will not be in any position to choose a state. The initial country should therefore be assigned, and then, according to Decree 1, that person may choose another country (assuming he has the resources to do so).
I agree with your argument, as you said you don't have control of where you are born so this should be assigned. You are in new social order that may be stateless, there is no real motivation to move other than free will, as stated in the decrees, there is no ownership of land or inheritance, that being said people should be able to move around with free will.
This is the first thing I thought of as well when reading this question. I did not choose where I was born, therefore why should I be able to choose which country I initially belong to?
There is a slight distinction though, In the context of this game we will not start as babies, thus a certain amount of time must have passed. During that time I would have been able to choose my citizenship (First Decree). For the purposes of realism, choosing your "starting" country is necessary.
Another useful side-effect of this choice would be seeing immigration information, assuming players make an informed decision of citizenship upon avatar creation. It would give insight into what players initially find alluring and then what they gravitate towards over time.
Players should be able to choose the country they belong to. Assigning players to countries would violate the 1st Decree that citizenship is determined by choice, not birth. Our birth--not choice--in "the real world" determines our citizenship. AgoraXchange's goal of creating an entirely new social environment would be advanced by allowing players to choose the state they want to live in. Because choosing our citizenship right off the bat is so different than the real world, it would be interesting to see where people choose to reside. The most appealing states would (most likely) attract the most players, revealing the wants, needs, and goals of players. Given this freedom, it would truly be intriguing to track the success of states and look at it as a reflection of humanity's real-world needs.
I don't agree with this. The 1st decree is saying that a player's citizenship is by choice but it does not state where a player should begin. The issue is that if we allow players to pick we can end up with a disproportionate population throughout the world and those clusters of players may end up making decisions solely because of the information and experience they get while being in that location. If the majority of the population has the same experience even though realistically a much smaller percentage of the population has said experience, then it creates a majority when there should not be one.
well since the decree gives a players citizenship by choice, wouldnt these clusters still exist when the player decides he wants to move? the disproportionate population would still exist. if the player really wanted to start at that place, he could restart the game until he is chosen to start there. why make a player struggle to get to the place he wants to move to? I voted to allow people to choose because we are talking about a game, and I feel that one reason people may play is to experience a life from a different country than where they are. and if thats their reason for playing, they should be allowed to do so. the disproportionate population doesnt seem like something that should be regulated, it should just be allowed to play out.
This may seem like an odd question, but are the countries in the game the same as in the real world? If so, I see the point that people will demonstrate their nationality and commit to the country they are citizens of, if given a choice. But is this such a bad thing? Who knows a country better than people who are citizens of it? And if someone is randomly assigned a country that they for some reason dislike, they may be inclined to make decisions based on false preconceptions or even cease participation. If the countries in the game were completely different from those in the real world, people could choose a country based on a profile, or maybe they wouldn't mind being randomly assigned, as they would have no national ties.
Do players initially belong to a certain state than? I would say that the players should be absolutely free to move to other states, which can mean that a player is first citizen of one state and later of another. The place where you live determines to which state you belong in my opinion, so if people want to move than they choose to stop their citizenship of the former country. Of course it must be easier in this game than in the real world to change citizenship/passports! I think the free movement of people/players over the world will give states an incentive to improve their performance in order to 'keep their citizens'. If a lot of citizens are moving, that just means a state is not performing good enough.
If one of the main premises of the game is absolute freedom in movement between borders it seems counter-intuitive to begin the game by forcing the user to begin in a specific location. I believe giving the user the freedom to choose will still create significant variation in country selection. If certain users have strong ties to specific countries they will move there immediatley after the game begins anyways, so why not let the rest of the users choose.
I don't think it's necessarily counter-intuitive to force the user to begin in a specific location. In the FAQ, the game is described as "offer[ing] a tangible political alternative to our current world order." Perhaps my perception of this description is wrong, but I believe that the use of the word "tangible" implies that the world in this game should have some realistic aspects, one of which would be the fact that people don't get to decide where they're born. To simulate this, players shouldn't get to decide where they live initially. This still allows freedom of movement that the game is aiming for, since, as you said, they can move to a different country after the game begins (assuming they have the resources to move). This is where it differs from today's society, in which we cannot necessarily easily move to another country because of laws/restrictions.
Players should be assigned to countries initially and then have the opportunity (a significant amount of time) afterwards to change their citizenship to a different country. If the hypothetical world were to exist, this is how citizenship would have to work since people must be born in a certain country by no choice of their own, but then be allowed to move freely to a different country later on when they are capable of doing so. Certainly, this mandatory assignment to a country will have some effects on players' movements to other countries. They may have established friendships and family and national pride to the country assigned to temporarily and may not want to leave. Other players will have negative experiences in their home country and feel they can further their character much farther in a different country and will want to move there. Allowing people to choose their country at the start diverges from reality and removes the conflict between staying loyal to one's home country or moving to a different one in search for better opportunities.
I think players should be assigned to which countries they will belong. If not, I think favoritism and nationalism will become a problem because the players of the game are obviously from certain countries and have certain perspectives about their own country and other countries as a result. This favoritism will cause problems in the game and lead to certain outcomes that would not have happened if players were assigned to countries.
I agree, with this in mind, many countries may experience disproportional populations making for a less accurate simulation overall. If we want to see how this alternative world works in comparison to ours, we want to have proper distribution and overall a player set that is overall as unbiased as it can be; regardless of any given players' real nationality.