[SUBMITTED] Here Be Dragons?

[Golgothastan]

I love it! It's so cool and interesting. You should really consider entering that in the issues contest that's happening right now. It's definitely a winner in my book.

I submitted this not long before the contest was announced, so unfortunately I can't, but I will be entering another issue.

Thanks all for the comments and help.

[Luna Amore]

I love it! It's so cool and interesting. You should really consider entering that in the issues contest that's happening right now. It's definitely a winner in my book. :p

I submitted this not long before the contest was announced, so unfortunately I can't, but I will be entering another issue.

Thanks all for the comments and help.

You are welcome to submit either issue. There's no rule (that I know of) against using a draft that has already been submitted to the normal queue.

[Golgothastan]

Hmm, thanks for noting that. I've got some thinking to do.

[Trotterdam]

Yay, this issue made it after all!

Despite being written great from the start, it never got pushed through even when Golgothastan was made an editor, then it suddenly resurfaces almost a year after Golgothastan vanishes into the aether.

[Trotterdam]

(EDIT: Ask and ye shall receive! Sometimes, anyway. The issue has now been edited to address my criticisms in my post, but I'm leaving them up for historical interest.)

...So it got held up in editing this long, and the most conspicious edit that did get made isn't for the best

[option]"Do we really have to go through this again?" sighs Education Minister @@RANDOMNAME@@. "The map was obviously just talking about lizards or something. Dragons aren't real! If the people really are this credulous, then it's just a sign that we need to give the Education budget another boost. If you need the funding, you can take it from Religion & Spirituality: it's that mumbo-jumbo that has people believing in imaginary creatures anyway."
[effect]young children are learning advanced physics to scientifically disprove the existence of Santa Claus

[option]"It most certainly is not!" protests Religious Affairs Minister @@RANDOMNAME@@. "@@FAITH@@ doesn't mention anything about dragons or such nonsense. If you want to find someone to blame, the fault is clearly those fantasy authors and TV producers, filling our young people's heads with garbage. Allow us to ban that stuff and promote some more approved literature, and this problem will go away."
[effect]fantasy bookstores are closing down and being replaced by churches

[option]"Do we really have to go through this again?" sighs Education Minister @@RANDOMNAME@@, while reading through a woefully inaccurate high school history textbook. "The map was obviously just talking about lizards, or something. Dragons aren't real! If the people really are this credulous, then it's just a sign that we need to give the education budget another boost. Children and adults need to rein in daydreaming and flights of fancy, to concentrate on concrete reality."
[effect]young children are learning advanced physics to scientifically disprove the existence of Santa Claus

[option]"These callous depictions of dragons and demons are an affront to everything we believe in!" protests Religious Affairs Minister @@RANDOMNAME@@. "If anyone is to be blamed for @@NAME@@'s moral decay, then the fault is clearly with those godless fantasy authors and television producers, filling our young people's heads with rubbish and anti-religious propaganda. We must censor works like that hedonistic 'Play of Crowns' series so that they can't corrupt our children!"
[effect]all fantasy fiction has officially been deemed non-canon

I liked how, in the original, both the scientist and the preacher were making valid points that fit their characters. The scientist is mostly right about hating superstition, but has a rather simplistic "all superstition is the same" view of religion ("religion tells people nonsense, dragons are nonsense, therefore religion tells people there are dragons" - can you spot the fallacy?). The religious character rightly counters that this superstition wasn't from their holy text, and contradicts @@FAITH@@'s doctrine just as much as it contradicts evidence-based science (real-life religious establishments generally don't like syncretic superstition that has nothing to do with their deity, and occasionally try to suppress it).

The religious character successfully making a retort to the scientific character, using rhetoric that's entirely faithful to what both types of people tend to use in real life, was one of my favorite parts of this draft.

Which is not to say that the scientist's position didn't have merit. Religion teaches people to distrust science, and that can lead to them believing in more unscientific stuff than just what the religious authorities meant for them to. My point is, both characters played off each other quite nicely, and sounded like real people who actually believe their positions, rather than caricatures.

Instead, option 1 lost the shot at religion (so incidentally, where is the funding coming from now? just raising taxes?), and option 2 got changed to another religious nutcase who just wants to ban things, bereft of any respectable ground to stand on, and the two speakers don't acknowledge each other at all despite the clear potential for rivalry.

I do like the new effect line for option 2.

[Australian rePublic]

Congrats!

[DragonReach]

Damn executive medling.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Mea culpa.

I was in an editorial minority that felt that there was enough "religion = anti-science" in NS already. NoQ thought this wasn't an issue and wanted to keep it closer to the original.

Feedback has been noted and acted on, of course, and its been reverted.

I stand by my opinion, but recognise its not the opinion of the majority.

OTOH, also responsible for the new effect line. Glad you liked it!

[Australian rePublic]

Mea culpa.

I was in an editorial minority that felt that there was enough "religion = anti-science" in NS already. NoQ thought this wasn't an issue and wanted to keep it closer to the original.

Feedback has been noted and acted on, of course, and its been reverted.

I stand by my opinion, but recognise its not the opinion of the majority.

OTOH, also responsible for the new effect line. Glad you liked it!

Who's OTOH?

[Bears Armed]

Who's OTOH?

It's an acronym for "On the other forepaw hand".

[Australian rePublic]

Who's OTOH?

It's an acronym for "On the other forepaw hand".

I see. Thanks!

[Golgothastan]

I was in an editorial minority that felt that there was enough "religion = anti-science" in NS already.

I somewhat agree with you in general; I just felt it was justified in the specific context of this issue.

In any case, I'm glad this issue made it in. Yay.

[Trotterdam]

I was in an editorial minority that felt that there was enough "religion = anti-science" in NS already. NoQ thought this wasn't an issue and wanted to keep it closer to the original.

The way I see it, in this issue, it's not a religious person opposing science - it's a scientist opposing religion, and the religious person denying the conflict.

[Tykadoro]

Yay, this issue made it after all!

Despite being written great from the start, it never got pushed through even when Golgothastan was made an editor, then it suddenly resurfaces almost a year after Golgothastan vanishes into the aether.

So it really can take almost a year for issues to get through?

Just wondering, since I submitted an issue of my own.

[Trotterdam]

There's no fixed acceptance time for issues. Sometimes they race the editors' gauntlet in a week, sometimes they're uncovered after collecting dust for years. It depends on what the editors feel like working on.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Absolutely, though for me I 50-50 between going for the oldest I can find that is workable, and grabbing a new one that is exciting me. Can't speak for how other editors approach things.

[Australian rePublic]

Yay, this issue made it after all!

Despite being written great from the start, it never got pushed through even when Golgothastan was made an editor, then it suddenly resurfaces almost a year after Golgothastan vanishes into the aether.

So it really can take almost a year for issues to get through?

Just wondering, since I submitted an issue of my own.

Almost a year?-They're still waiting on Issues from 2009 if I'm not mistaking

[Candlewhisper Archive]

So it really can take almost a year for issues to get through?

Just wondering, since I submitted an issue of my own.

Almost a year?-They're still waiting on Issues from 2009 if I'm not mistaking

Oldest issue is from January 2015.

[Australian rePublic]

Almost a year?-They're still waiting on Issues from 2009 if I'm not mistaking

Oldest issue is from January 2015.

Really? Not too long ago, I remember a different editor saying that they were are as far back as 2009, have you ckeared the log?

[Trotterdam]

It got culled.

[Australian rePublic]

It got culled.

That still doesn't explain 2011-2014

[Trotterdam]

Obviously, editors are continuing to review issues in the pool, so they keep getting pruned (or occasionally published).

Duh.

[Australian rePublic]

Obviously, editors are continuing to review issues in the pool, so they keep getting pruned (or occasionally published).

Duh.

Fair enough

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Yeah, when I do my scoop from the bottom of the pile to look for old issues I can publish, I often hit issues that have become redundant because they now duplicate issues, or which made it to the yes-pile but probably shouldn't have done, by modern standards. So there's a moderate amount of ditching going on. On my old issue reviews, I probably ditch one for every one I publish.

However, I've actually made an error here. The issue in the yes pile at the bottom of the pile is indeed from Jan 2015, but because when editors check out issues then put them back they go back on the top of the pile, there are in fact some older issues that have been picked up and put back at least once, which I missed. The pile is mostly chronological.

There's one issue in there from 2013, and two from 2014. That's as early as it goes, as far as I can tell.

Of course there's the "no" pile as well. That goes back further, and we sometimes pull from that, as minds sometimes change.

[Australian rePublic]

How long do they remain in the no pile?
And is there a different pile for "No way in hell" and "yea, maybe, but then again "nah!"
I mean, I can just imagine a whole pile full of n00b garbage from day 1