NationStates Issues **SPOILER ALERT**

[Trotterdam]

millions of cards

This is probably @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@.

[TalAkMaChen]

Oh wow. I have a puppet that had kept #910 banked for ages and where I kept checking back on it occasionally in the hopes of eventually unlocking option 3, and I never did. So it was a lost cause to begin with.

And, checking on that puppet just now... turns out it still doesn't qualify. Probably because it's a socialist nation, although it's too early for my data to give conclusive results.

Are there any other issue options that remain completely unreported more than, say, a year after release? If so, let me know, and I'll double-check there aren't any other similar situations. That's one of the toughest errors to catch, as nobody ever will see it to report it!

A bit of an unclear situation - the spoiler still has option 4 of #610 as uncertain. I assume that is wrong and every nation can receive this option?


Btw - @Valentine Z: The spoiler list has a formatting error around the title of 1616. The bold text is not closed properly.

[Trotterdam]

A bit of an unclear situation - the spoiler still has option 4 of #610 as uncertain. I assume that is wrong and every nation can receive this option?

My data contains no evidence for a validity on any option of #610. There could be validities my methods can't catch, but intuitively I don't see any reason for that option to be restricted from some nations. However, there have been past reports of people not getting the option, so either is must have a validity even if I don't see what it is, or the editors originally forgot to put it in and added it later (it's happened at least once).

For #910 option 3, I have more data now than I did when I posted about it a couple weeks ago, and it heavily supports the original hypothesis that the option is only available to nations that both are capitalist and allow gambling (equivalently, do not have the Socialism or No Gambling policies). I also haven't yet seen the option on any nation with the No Drugs policy, but since I see no logical reason for the option to have anything to do with drugs, this is probably a false positive resulting from limited sample size. Speaking of which... I just checked average policy frequencies in my data, and No Drugs is even rarer than Child Self-Rearing (2.69% versus 2.85%). I do not remember that being the case last time I looked. The only policy that is even rarer is Sortition (2.19%). Meanwhile, Geronticide (9.17%) is actually kinda common, moreso than such things as Vegetarianism or No Abortion.

Despite Verdant Haven claiming to have fixed it, I have still seen no trace whatsoever of #550 option 3. Resolved 12 posts below!

[TalAkMaChen]

A bit of an unclear situation - the spoiler still has option 4 of #610 as uncertain. I assume that is wrong and every nation can receive this option?

My data contains no evidence for a validity on any option of #610. There could be validities my methods can't catch, but intuitively I don't see any reason for that option to be restricted from some nations. However, there have been past reports of people not getting the option, so either is must have a validity even if I don't see what it is, or the editors originally forgot to put it in and added it later (it's happened at least once).

Ah right, I recall that being the reason for me to put that issue on my "watch list" - however, in over 1000 noted encounters over the last 1-2 years every nation had all four options. So my assumption is that option 4 may have been un-restricted a long time ago, or even added later. I didn't check the full history of that issue from the initial report in 2016 to ~2022 when I started noting things down.

For #910 option 3, I have more data now than I did when I posted about it a couple weeks ago, and it heavily supports the original hypothesis that the option is only available to nations that both are capitalist and allow gambling (equivalently, do not have the Socialism or No Gambling policies). I also haven't yet seen the option on any nation with the No Drugs policy, but since I see no logical reason for the option to have anything to do with drugs, this is probably a false positive resulting from limited sample size. Speaking of which... I just checked average policy frequencies in my data, and No Drugs is even rarer than Child Self-Rearing (2.69% versus 2.85%). I do not remember that being the case last time I looked. The only policy that is even rarer is Sortition (2.19%). Meanwhile, Geronticide (9.17%) is actually kinda common, moreso than such things as Vegetarianism or No Abortion.

That confirms when my suspicion was based on the text of that option. It can't just be "must allow private industry and gambling", though. On Jan 31 War Dogs CCI, a capitalist nation that allows gambling did not see option 3.

<POLICIES>
<NAME>State Press</NAME>
<NAME>Pledge of Allegiance</NAME>
<NAME>Sortition</NAME>
<NAME>No Marriage</NAME>
<NAME>Atheism</NAME>
<NAME>Euthanasia</NAME>
<NAME>Child Self-Rearing</NAME>
<NAME>Body Integrity</NAME>
<NAME>No Smoking</NAME>
<NAME>Cannibalism</NAME>
<NAME>Capital Punishment</NAME>
<NAME>Corporal Punishment</NAME>
<NAME>No Prison</NAME>
<NAME>Capitalism</NAME>
<NAME>Maternity Leave</NAME>
<NAME>No Computers</NAME>
<NAME>No Internet</NAME>
<NAME>No Automobiles</NAME>
<NAME>Prohibition</NAME>
<NAME>Affirmative Action</NAME>
<NAME>No Video Games</NAME>
<NAME>Nuclear Power</NAME>
<NAME>Metricism</NAME>
<NAME>No WMDs</NAME>
<NAME>Climate Treaty</NAME>
<NAME>No Emigration</NAME>
</POLICIES>

The only thing distantly related I could think of would be internet, computers, or even video games. Surely, political or social policies have no limiting effect there, at least I would see no logical connection to parents buying "scratch tickets" for their children's education chances.

Despite Verdant Haven claiming to have fixed it, I have still seen no trace whatsoever of #550 option 3.

That is another interesting aspect, people like Rocain Founder and me took it up to create highly specified nations that may qualify to receive #1581 with its elusive option 4. I assume the same could be done for 550, if only there was any hint as to what would be needed to qualify. Surely #550 requires some level of crime, internet, and if I am correct, either allows religion (option 2) or does not allow religion (either having a low rating as so often, or outright being atheist by policy) for option 3? If so, I'd wonder what the effect line be like. "Church and state" are one thing but "philosophy and state" doesn't have the ring to it quite so.

[Luna Amore]

My data contains no evidence for a validity on any option of #610. There could be validities my methods can't catch, but intuitively I don't see any reason for that option to be restricted from some nations. However, there have been past reports of people not getting the option, so either is must have a validity even if I don't see what it is, or the editors originally forgot to put it in and added it later (it's happened at least once).

Ah right, I recall that being the reason for me to put that issue on my "watch list" - however, in over 1000 noted encounters over the last 1-2 years every nation had all four options. So my assumption is that option 4 may have been un-restricted a long time ago, or even added later. I didn't check the full history of that issue from the initial report in 2016 to ~2022 when I started noting things down.

Looking through the logs, that option has never had a separate validity, but due to a minor mistake by Lenyo, it was unable to be seen until he corrected it about 2 hours after publishing.

[Trotterdam]

The only thing distantly related I could think of would be internet, computers, or even video games.

I can confirm that those are not part of the validity. I'd have detected them if they were.

So I guess it must be a hidden policy or stat threshold not tracked on the policy page. Those are hard to catch.

Looking through the logs, that option has never had a separate validity, but due to a minor mistake by Lenyo, it was unable to be seen until he corrected it about 2 hours after publishing.

Thanks!

[TalAkMaChen]

The only thing distantly related I could think of would be internet, computers, or even video games.

I can confirm that those are not part of the validity. I'd have detected them if they were.

So I guess it must be a hidden policy or stat threshold not tracked on the policy page. Those are hard to catch.

The easiest bet (pun? perhaps) would be that the stat of "industry: gambling" is of a sufficient value. The nation in question did not outlaw gambling, but had a value of -1.1 when receiving the issue.
However, that would be too easy. Another nation, War Dogs DVII, received option 3 while also having a negative value on that stat. Well, I might do some more comparisons there later today.

I compiled a set of data with 18 Capitalist nations that received (16) or didn't receive (2) #910.3 since the "activation" end of January. From the visible policies and stats I cannot determine any clear splits between nations that got it or didn't get it. Either I'm missing the obvious or it is something hidden. Btw, if anyone wants a copy of that table to check please send a telegram.

[TalAkMaChen]

#1621 The Space Between [Luna Amore; ed: Westinor]
The Issue
The government’s hard-line ban on cars and planes has drawn criticism in the aftermath of an emergency landing of a space shuttle that left the @@NAME@@ Space Agency with no other recourse than to collect the shuttle via a convoy of horse-drawn buggies.

The Debate
1. “It’s just not practical,” gripes @@RANDOM_NAME@@, the head of @@NAME_INITIALS@@SA, who reeks of something nasty. “We put together these multi-billion @@CURRENCY@@ missions, and when they’re over, we collect the shuttle with horse-drawn carriages. With luck, we can drag it to an existing rail system or port, but if not, we drag the whole damn thing back by buggy! If we’re really committed to our space program, we need to reconsider the ban on automobiles and aeroplanes — surely we can at least make an exception for an essential government program like this. It’s about time we get off our high horses and start thinking of the places we could go!”

*2. “Hold on, we can get creative here,” interjects Xenon Trust, the eccentric CEO of spacecraft developer StarY, confidently striding in wearing a jetpack that looks like something your niece made for her fifth birthday. “Taking things places with... minimal explosiveness... is the literal mission of spacecraft. When we shoot for the Moon, we should be able to land back safely and precisely where we want in @@NAME@@! Listen — my company has pioneered very well-tested, proprietary rocket tech that’ll give your vessels the ability to safely re-enter orbit and land anywhere without the usual rough landings. Pair that with my smart, ambitious, and very expansive project to place landing sites in safe zones all over the country and we won’t have to worry about future catastrophes!”

*3. “Hold on, we can get creative here,” interjects Xenon Trust, the eccentric CEO of spacecraft developer StarY, confidently striding in wearing a jetpack that looks like something your niece made for her fifth birthday. “Taking things places with... minimal explosiveness... is the literal mission of spacecraft. When we shoot for the Moon, we should be able to land back safely and precisely where we want in @@NAME@@! Listen — my company has pioneered well-tested, proprietary rocket tech that’ll give your vessels the ability to safely re-enter orbit and land anywhere without the usual rough landings. Pair that with my smart, ambitious, and very expansive project to place landing sites in safe zones all over the country and we won’t have to worry about catastrophes like the one in Cape @@NAME@@!”

*4. “What is with you people and insane solutions?” shrieks @@RANDOM_NAME@@, a flustered parent attempting to hold onto six grocery bags, two children, and a set of horse reins. “Life has been absolute H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks since the ban! Excuse my language, but do you realize how ridiculously hard it is to get four kids to and from school, take two dogs, a cat, and an irate ferret to the vet, and visit your miserable, good-for-nothing extended family on Maxxmas, all without a car or a plane? And now you’re telling me I have to watch out for this crackpot’s exploding ships every morning too? We ought to land all our stuff in other countries, and with a practical approach to transportation policy like unbanning cars and planes we can grab it all easily and go home happy — oh, Tommy, get back here!”

*5. “What is with you people and insane solutions?” shrieks @@RANDOM_NAME@@, a flustered parent attempting to hold onto six grocery bags, two children, and a set of horse reins. “Life has been absolute H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks since the ban! Excuse my language, but do you realize how ridiculously hard it is to get four kids to and from school, take two dogs, a cat, and an irate ferret to the vet, and visit your miserable, good-for-nothing extended family on Maxxmas, all without a car or a plane? The last bit isn’t much of a problem since you landed the Maxcelsior on top of their house, but that’s a whole new mess, isn’t it? We ought to land all our stuff in other countries, and with a practical approach to transportation policy like unbanning cars and planes we can grab it all easily and go home happy — oh, Tommy, get back here!”

6. “Woah, woah, woah, we still have a space program?” exclaims infamous anti-emissions protester @@RANDOM_NAME@@, who has finally returned from a demonstration in @@ANIMAL@@ City after a 72-day-long trek. “Those gas-spewing satellites and rockets need to go the way of the plane, car, and dodo. If they emit exhaust, they gotta go. We’ve come this far; one more tiny push and we can be the most environmentally friendly nation in @@REGION@@! Imagine that, right? So what if people have to walk everywhere? Everyone needs to slow down and take in the beauty anyway.”

Interesting validity check: options 2+4 appear for nations that did not (yet) choose option 1 in issue 361, options 3+5 appear for those who did. I just tested that with War Dogs XCIV who just happened to have both issue 361 and 1621 in their queue. What a coincidence.

[Minoa]

Hello,

Trumpton received Issue #1189 (Driven to Distraction) without option 3, even though the country allows private industry. Does anyone think it is tied to the fact that Trumpton bans the internet and computers?

[Trotterdam]

Trumpton received Issue #1189 (Driven to Distraction) without option 3, even though the country allows private industry. Does anyone think it is tied to the fact that Trumpton bans the internet and computers?

My data indeed supports the necessity of both capitalism and the internet and computers for this option.

Additionally, the entire issue is available only to nations that recognize marriage (presumably due to the first option not making sense otherwise and lacking a duplicate). Oddly, my data actually has more solid evidence for this than for that the issue requires automobiles to be legal, even though I would assume that to also be the case. Child Self-Rearing also doesn't currently seem to be a disqualifier, despite the mention of "mother and child"...

[TalAkMaChen]

Trumpton received Issue #1189 (Driven to Distraction) without option 3, even though the country allows private industry. Does anyone think it is tied to the fact that Trumpton bans the internet and computers?

My data indeed supports the necessity of both capitalism and the internet and computers for this option.

Child Self-Rearing also doesn't currently seem to be a disqualifier, despite the mention of "mother and child"...

The "Child Self-Rearing" policy is an odd one anyhow. Up to which age are they left "in the wild"? Uncertain, it has never been properly defined but some editors connect it with the schooling age at least, so perhaps the first 10 or so years, perhaps even up the age of early teens as issue #1547 seems to suggest. Also issue #910 can be received by nations with that policy active - which again contradicts previous statements, or at least shows the inconsistency of how that policy was taken over the years. Or they returned after 10ish years in the wild to complete homeschooling, we just cannot know.

If it weren't such a niche topic, perhaps a full clarification of the matter would be helpful, even if that meant all issues had to be checked/adjusted for mentions of children similar to the huge undertaking for Religion vs. Atheism last year.

[Trotterdam]

Up to which age are they left "in the wild"?

Even when they come back, it would be difficult to reunite them with their biological parents.

I get the sense that the answer is along the lines of "until society decides it has use of them" (which may vary depending on your child labor laws) or "until they're old enough to make an informed decision to move out of the real jungle and into the concrete one".

[Valentine Z]

Are there any other issue options that remain completely unreported more than, say, a year after release? If so, let me know, and I'll double-check there aren't any other similar situations. That's one of the toughest errors to catch, as nobody ever will see it to report it!

A bit of an unclear situation - the spoiler still has option 4 of #610 as uncertain. I assume that is wrong and every nation can receive this option?


Btw - @Valentine Z: The spoiler list has a formatting error around the title of 1616. The bold text is not closed properly.

It's almost always the bold tags. They are getting bold with their escapes from my watchful eyes!

Anyway, yeah sorry about that! >,< I will get that fixed soon.

[Rocain Founder]

Here is the new option 3 for issue #550, for very non-religious or atheist nations. The nation which received it did not have the Atheism policy, but did have a very high Secularism stat. Regrettably, the recipient dismissed the issue, so I do not have the talking point. Even though this is a doppelganger of option 2, it probably does not have the same talking point. Here is the text for option 3, with differences from option 2 underlined. I also note that the description of the speaker as a "frocked pastor" is not present. I have not attempted to macroize the speaker's name.

“There’s a moral sickness to this nation!” proclaims Sange Merkel, who seems to be dressed suspiciously like a priest. “We can only remedy this by proper schooling, with properly funded moral authorities imprinting a sense of right and wrong from an early age. Embrace the guiding hand of God, and when we have young people who are more interested in acting right rather than watching wrong, @@NAME@@ will be a better place.”

[Trotterdam]

Okay, so the alternate version is an atheism repeal. That explains why I hadn't spotted the new effect line: it's the same as the old effect line.

[TalAkMaChen]

I can confirm that those are not part of the validity. I'd have detected them if they were.

So I guess it must be a hidden policy or stat threshold not tracked on the policy page. Those are hard to catch.

I compiled a set of data with 18 Capitalist nations that received (16) or didn't receive (2) #910.3 since the "activation" end of January. From the visible policies and stats I cannot determine any clear splits between nations that got it or didn't get it. Either I'm missing the obvious or it is something hidden. Btw, if anyone wants a copy of that table to check please send a telegram.

Original part from the post of Feb. 17:
Anyhow, now with 3 Capitalist nations that didn't get the third option - if you want to check, here's the table. Feel free to comment. The data were taken between January 27 and February 11, i.e. after the issue was fixed.

Update Feb 22:
Apparently nations require to have Capitalism and must allow gambling, I now have 4 nations who did not get option 3. Three of them have a "No Gambling" policy but one does not have it (see the linked table). Yes, it has a low value on the Industry: Gambling but so do others that received option 3 (again, see the table).

I also checked the last dozen issues answered by that nation prior to answering #910. None of them are known to affect the "No Gambling" policy, and I usually don't keep issues queued for that long anyhow.

My best and currently only guess is: It must be a hidden stat/policy that prevented that nation from seeing #910.3. Some things may forever remain a mystery unless the Editors wish to shed a light on that. I call my hunt closed for I cannot see how I should be able to solve it.

[TalAkMaChen]

Well, back to the usual drill: New issues!

#1622 Border Burden [Ostrovskiy + Giovanniland; ed: Verdant Haven]
The Issue
The border between Bigtopia and @@NAME@@has long been a messy one, with several so-called ‘pene-exclaves’ — @@DEMONYM_ADJECTIVE@@ lands that can only be effectively accessed by passing through Bigtopia’s territory, and vice-versa. This challenge, brought on by the mountainous terrain, has been brought to the fore by an unexpected letter from Bigtopia’s ambassador.

The Debate
1. The messenger bearing the letter bows deeply, and presents the document for your perusal. It reads, “@@LEADER@@, these pene-exclaves negatively affect the lives of both our nations’ citizens, who often have to deal with border crossings and bureaucracy to fulfill their basic needs. They also cost a fortune to administer. On behalf of my nation, I propose we exchange these lands so that there will no longer be territories that can only be accessed by crossing a border. The affected citizens of each nation can then choose between moving to a new location in their home country, or beginning the citizenship process where they are.”

2. “Do we even care about these lands?” questions avaricious Minister of the Economy @@RANDOM_NAME@@, pointing at a map with scorn. “Only a few thousand @@DEMONYM_PLURAL@@ live there, yet we pay the high price of having to provide services. Did you know that their annual per capita tax revenue is only half the national average? If Bigtopia wants these areas, let it buy them off us and take care of the residents themselves, along with the ones in their own exclaves! We get a bit of cash, and it’ll allow the use of taxpayer money for better purposes, like lining our pockets... err, I mean focusing on the more prosperous parts of the country.”

3. “Are you insane? Think about our citizens!” cries @@RANDOM_NAME@@, your Minister of Foreign Affairs, who passed through three border checkpoints on the way to work today. “They’d have to give up their ancestral land in order to stay with us, or else suddenly wake up in a different country! Why don’t we just sign a mutual free border agreement with Bigtopia? If you live in an exclave, you’ll be able to travel without a visa to and from the mainland, and services such as the fire and police departments would be allowed to cross the border too. I’m sure we can trust that their citizens won’t exploit this to gain access to other parts of @@NAME@@.” @@HE@@ shakes the hand of the Bigtopian messenger, and quietly dismisses them.

4. “Is that Bigtopian rascal gone yet? Splendid! The elephant in the room is that we allow a weak nation like Bigtopia to push us around!” scoffs Minister of War @@RANDOM_NAME@@, tearing the letter and throwing it in the trash. “Why would we want to sign deals with them or sell our land? A far easier solution would be to intimidate Bigtopia into ceding the travel corridors we want! Run a series of military exercises along the borders where @@DEMONYM_PLURAL@@ need to cross, and inform those big-noses that we need freedom to move our troops back and forth to the exclaves for our own national security. See if we can get control of their exclaves too, to smooth this mess of a border.”

oops, typo fixed and Ostrovskiy added, thanks!

[Ostrovskiy]

Well, back to the usual drill: New issues!

#1622 Border Burden [Giovanniland; ed: Verdant Haven]
The Issue
Te border between Bigtopia and @@NAME@@has long been a messy one, with several so-called ‘pene-exclaves’ — @@DEMONYM_ADJECTIVE@@ lands that can only be effectively accessed by passing through Bigtopia’s territory, and vice-versa. This challenge, brought on by the mountainous terrain, has been brought to the fore by an unexpected letter from Bigtopia’s ambassador.

The Debate
1. The messenger bearing the letter bows deeply, and presents the document for your perusal. It reads, “@@LEADER@@, these pene-exclaves negatively affect the lives of both our nations’ citizens, who often have to deal with border crossings and bureaucracy to fulfill their basic needs. They also cost a fortune to administer. On behalf of my nation, I propose we exchange these lands so that there will no longer be territories that can only be accessed by crossing a border. The affected citizens of each nation can then choose between moving to a new location in their home country, or beginning the citizenship process where they are.”

2. “Do we even care about these lands?” questions avaricious Minister of the Economy @@RANDOM_NAME@@, pointing at a map with scorn. “Only a few thousand @@DEMONYM_PLURAL@@ live there, yet we pay the high price of having to provide services. Did you know that their annual per capita tax revenue is only half the national average? If Bigtopia wants these areas, let it buy them off us and take care of the residents themselves, along with the ones in their own exclaves! We get a bit of cash, and it’ll allow the use of taxpayer money for better purposes, like lining our pockets... err, I mean focusing on the more prosperous parts of the country.”

3. “Are you insane? Think about our citizens!” cries @@RANDOM_NAME@@, your Minister of Foreign Affairs, who passed through three border checkpoints on the way to work today. “They’d have to give up their ancestral land in order to stay with us, or else suddenly wake up in a different country! Why don’t we just sign a mutual free border agreement with Bigtopia? If you live in an exclave, you’ll be able to travel without a visa to and from the mainland, and services such as the fire and police departments would be allowed to cross the border too. I’m sure we can trust that their citizens won’t exploit this to gain access to other parts of @@NAME@@.” @@HE@@ shakes the hand of the Bigtopian messenger, and quietly dismisses them.

4. “Is that Bigtopian rascal gone yet? Splendid! The elephant in the room is that we allow a weak nation like Bigtopia to push us around!” scoffs Minister of War @@RANDOM_NAME@@, tearing the letter and throwing it in the trash. “Why would we want to sign deals with them or sell our land? A far easier solution would be to intimidate Bigtopia into ceding the travel corridors we want! Run a series of military exercises along the borders where @@DEMONYM_PLURAL@@ need to cross, and inform those big-noses that we need freedom to move our troops back and forth to the exclaves for our own national security. See if we can get control of their exclaves too, to smooth this mess of a border.”

I'm there too

nah its ok

[Umbratellus]

Te border

That an added typo or was that present in the published issue?

[Giovanniland]

Te border

That an added typo or was that present in the published issue?

Looks like an added typo, I did save a copy of the issue text when I received it and there it correctly says "The border".

And indeed, the submitting author was Ostrovskiy with me as co-author.

[Valentine Z]

Just to post once again that yes, I am indeed looking at this thread frequently and I will get an update in soon!

As always, thank you for the contributions and reports! ♥

[Trotterdam]

Hey. Did I finally manage to beat TalAkMaChen for once?

Had to make some hurried adjustments to my issue-formatting code, due to some security-related changes to the issue page's hidden HTML.

#1623 The Woman in the Iron Lung

The Issue

Liara Fitzgerald was given a medical ventilator in place of lungs, a hemodialysis machine in place of kidneys, and an artificial heart, all while suffering from paralysis, amnesia, and a wicked hangnail. Hospital administrators are concerned that this is just one of many cases where these limited resources could've been used to help people more likely to recover to a normal life. Your aides arranged a hospital visit to discuss this matter and score a few brownie points.

The Debate

1. "This one woman — who is barely even alive at this point — is costing @@NAME@@ a fortune," explains Romulus Matsenjwa, the head of the Northwest @@NAME@@ Hospital Fund while reading from a suspiciously ornate clipboard. "Despite her urge to stay alive, we think it's best for everyone if we pull the plug. Yes, it sounds cruel, but the resources would be better spent saving many more lives. Please, let us euthanize patients in conditions like these."

2. "N-nooo...I... grandchildren... nooo..." whimpers the faint old voice of Liara Fitzgerald before she passes out. Her nurse steps in after dispensing some hand sanitizer. "It is her wish to live, and it should be our job to see to it she lives. Are we really putting a price on someone's life? We can reallocate government funds from other departments, especially the military, to take care of our citizens. We need more life and less death."

3. "We wouldn't have this problem if only patients who are willing and able to pay up got treatment," argues a man in a three-piece suit who seems determined to stay as far away from everyone in the room as possible. "We shouldn't babysit those who haven't worked hard enough, or spent all their money on Pear Phones and avocado toast. If they can't afford it, they should have made better decisions when they were healthy. We need to ditch the universal healthcare system and only treat people who can pay. It takes care of our limited resource problem. Win-win."

Issue by Jutsa
Edited by Luna Amore

The draft thread suggests all names are random, although the man in a three-piece suit was changed from the draft and so may not be. (Three-piece suits are usually considered men's fashion, but you never know.) The fields highlighted in red are all refering to the same person.

EDIT: I realized I forgot to mark the gendered word in the title!

[TalAkMaChen]

Hey. Did I finally manage to beat TalAkMaChen for once?

Had to make some hurried adjustments to my issue-formatting code, due to some security-related changes to the issue page's hidden HTML.
That draft thread suggests all names are random, although the man in a three-piece suit was changed from the draft and so may not be. The fields highlighted in red are all refering to the same person.

You did I just got it too, interestingly with another set of names but the same genders. Only once though, so I cannot say they are set.

Edit: Now I found a male "protagonist" / speaker of option 2 and a female in option 3. So indeed fully randomized. Do you edit your post or shall I add all the lovely macros?

#1623 The @@MAN_1@@ in the Iron Lung [Jutsa; ed: Luna Amore]

The Issue
@@RANDOM_NAME_1@@ was given a medical ventilator in place of lungs, a hemodialysis machine in place of kidneys, and an artificial heart, all while suffering from paralysis, amnesia, and a wicked hangnail. Hospital administrators are concerned that this is just one of many cases where these limited resources could've been used to help people more likely to recover to a normal life. Your aides arranged a hospital visit to discuss this matter and score a few brownie points.

The Debate
1. "This one @@MAN_1@@ — who is barely even alive at this point — is costing @@NAME@@ a fortune," explains @@RANDOM_NAME@@, the head of the Northwest @@NAME@@ Hospital Fund while reading from a suspiciously ornate clipboard. "Despite @@HIS_1@@ urge to stay alive, we think it's best for everyone if we pull the plug. Yes, it sounds cruel, but the resources would be better spent saving many more lives. Please, let us euthanize patients in conditions like these."

2. "N-nooo...I... grandchildren... nooo..." whimpers the faint old voice of @@RANDOM_NAME_1@@ before @@HE_1@@ passes out. @@HIS_1@@ nurse steps in after dispensing some hand sanitizer. "It is @@HIS_1@@ wish to live, and it should be our job to see to it @@HE_1@@ lives. Are we really putting a price on someone's life? We can reallocate government funds from other departments, especially the military, to take care of our citizens. We need more life and less death."

3. "We wouldn't have this problem if only patients who are willing and able to pay up got treatment," argues a @@MAN@@ in a three-piece suit who seems determined to stay as far away from everyone in the room as possible. "We shouldn't babysit those who haven't worked hard enough, or spent all their money on Pear Phones and avocado toast. If they can't afford it, they should have made better decisions when they were healthy. We need to ditch the universal healthcare system and only treat people who can pay. It takes care of our limited resource problem. Win-win."

[Rocain Founder]

One of the issue options whose preconditions have not been solved up to now is option 3 of #1521. I haven't solved it either, but I do have a datum that might help someone find the solution. As far as I can remember, I have only received option 3 for fairly young nations. I don't think I've ever gotten it for a nation with a capital city, surely not one with enough population to get a custom pretitle. I have no idea how this might fit in with the text of the option - maybe it's just an accidental thing afflicting the kinds of puppets I tend to create. Still it might be an observation someone else could make sense out of (or refute, of course).

[Jutsa]

I can confirm the (wo)man in the iron lung and (wo)man in the three-piece suit are indeed random. Unless they're stat/policy-based somehow.

Thank you Luna for picking this up. My first one you've edited, I believe! Ngl I'm genuinely surprised this one made it. Then again I think that about all of mine