Jump to content
270soft Forum

Scenario Creator's bias


Recommended Posts

I think there's an issue with people who create scenarios having a bias against a certain party or candidate.

The best example is in the United North America scenario...basically the entire Socialist party was created with an extreme bias. It's already been mentioned that the hammer and sickle is NOT the symbol for socialism! Jack Layton is not a "left-wing radical"!

Also, the majority of Socialist-oriented candidates should not be left on all issues.

There are other examples, but I can't think of them right now.

Please remember, when creating scenarios, to be objective and not use your bias, left or right, to alter things in a certain candidate or party's favour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i've always tried to be fair - will never submit a scenerio until I've won w/ all the major candidtes (never thought Debs could win, so CONGRATs to whomever it was won 1912 w/ him - incredible!!!!)

maybe a little left-bias in the candidate creation, maybe.

But, yes, I agree Appel, there is bias in some of the scenerios which distracts from the scenerios overall competitiveness - of course, we can alwys go in and tinker w/ them ourselves!

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm from Nova Scotia.

But, yes...I gather what you meant was the nature of political corruption in eastern europe.

There is a whole dramatic affair of election fraud going in Ukraine now.

Yes, I'm aware. Canada is sending a number of observers to the Ukraine runoff election, take 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's an issue with people who create scenarios having a bias against a certain party or candidate.

The best example is in the United North America scenario...basically the entire Socialist party was created with an extreme bias. It's already been mentioned that the hammer and sickle is NOT the symbol for socialism! Jack Layton is not a "left-wing radical"!

Also, the majority of Socialist-oriented candidates should not be left on all issues.

There are other examples, but I can't think of them right now.

Please remember, when creating scenarios, to be objective and not use your bias, left or right, to alter things in a certain candidate or party's favour.

Hi Appel, as you might be aware I am making an Ultimate United North America scenario that will include a different Socialist symbol(the hand holding the flower) as well as Mexico, Puerto Rico and Central America. I would appreciate you emailing me the candidates and the issues you felt they were unbiasly portrayed in and I will change them for my next update. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I always try to be as fair and unbias as I can when I make my scenarios.

For example, even though I am to the left and proud of it, in a couple of scenarios there is , if anything, a right wing bias in my NY NJ Scenario and in my Celebrity Challenge scenario. The reason is because Dems in NY NJ are more liberal than the national Dems, and likewise the Republicans are more moderate. With celebrities, the similar rules apply, generally speaking the Republican celebrities tend to be moderate, Arnold Schwarzenegger types, while the left leaning Celebrities tend to be more outspoken.

However, in both scenarios I did include moderate Democratic candidates (Torricelli in NY NJ) and far right republican candidates (Ted Nugent in Celebrity Challenge for instance) to even it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there's one thing in all of these scenarios that I've always found a little odd. It's actually from the original 2004 scenario as well. The liberalmost position on the issue of Terrorism is consistently "We should surrender to the terrorists." Does that strike anyone besides myself as being a little bit odd? I haven't heard a single person except, say, Osama bin Laden (or the like) saying that. Also, some others, like Soviet Aggression, do the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there's one thing in all of these scenarios that I've always found a little odd. It's actually from the original 2004 scenario as well. The liberalmost position on the issue of Terrorism is consistently "We should surrender to the terrorists." Does that strike anyone besides myself as being a little bit odd? I haven't heard a single person except, say, Osama bin Laden (or the like) saying that. Also, some others, like Soviet Aggression, do the same thing.

Yup! I also could not agree more! In fact, I spoke out about that in an earlier thread, suggesting the change for the far left position on terrorism could be: "We should negotiate with the terrorists" Don't agree with it but I think it sound a lot better! I changed it to that in a few of my scenarios as well! Glad to see I'm not alone in requesting that to be changed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...