Help us fix old issues

[Luna Amore]

You know what? probably 3 out of 4 or more of these issues I get end up being dismissed because of the complete lack of answers to the problem that seem even halfway sane. We are supposed to be building and customizing our nations to fit our individual thoughts on issues, not some kind of "let's choose the least pants on head crazy "answer" method.

Example; the issue I got this evening (terrorist attack in capital city). No issue that just increases law enforcement efforts for anti-terrorism (an answer that doesnt result in radical civil rights or political freedoms changes) , just answers that range from "go to war", "kick minorities out of country", give in to terrorists", start warrantless wiretapping and indefinite holding of suspects", "legalize terrorism", and other STUPID answers like that.

I'll refer you to the FAQ:

Why is my nation so weird?

Everything is exaggerated a little. Well, okay, a lot. Your decisions affect your nation very strongly, so your country might seem like a more extreme version of what you were aiming for. Unless you have radical politics. In which case you probably think nothing's wrong.

My decision had unintended consequences!

Yeah, that'll happen. For one thing, see "Why is my nation so weird?" above. For another, pretty much every decision you make will involve a trade-off of some kind. It's kind of an exercise in choosing the best of a bunch of bad options. You might find this frustrating, especially if you're the kind of person who thinks the solutions to all the world's problems are obvious.

[California Prime]

I'll refer you to the FAQ:

Why is my nation so weird?

Everything is exaggerated a little. Well, okay, a lot. Your decisions affect your nation very strongly, so your country might seem like a more extreme version of what you were aiming for. Unless you have radical politics. In which case you probably think nothing's wrong.

My decision had unintended consequences!

Yeah, that'll happen. For one thing, see "Why is my nation so weird?" above. For another, pretty much every decision you make will involve a trade-off of some kind. It's kind of an exercise in choosing the best of a bunch of bad options. You might find this frustrating, especially if you're the kind of person who thinks the solutions to all the world's problems are obvious.

[/quote]

My point is more that most of the newer issues don't even have answers that are exaggerations of something I might do, and I was a member about 2 years ago and had 4 nations that all made it to at least the billion person population threshold and I don't remember having this problem then, it seemed like most issues had at least one answer that I could remotely live with, most of the newer issues....well I get 2 a day and have dismissed the last 3 or 4 days worth, I don't think I ever had to do that back then.

[Luna Amore]

My point is more that most of the newer issues don't even have answers that are exaggerations of something I might do, and I was a member about 2 years ago and had 4 nations that all made it to at least the billion person population threshold and I don't remember having this problem then, it seemed like most issues had at least one answer that I could remotely live with, most of the newer issues....well I get 2 a day and have dismissed the last 3 or 4 days worth, I don't think I ever had to do that back then.

Do you have any specific examples?

Your last example (Issue #222: Terrorists Strike City Centre) is an issue that's been in game at least 5 years and has more options than 97% of issues. If that issue doesn't offer a diverse enough amount of options, I think you may be to picky for this game. Or at least the issue answering side of this game.

[Christian Democrats]

Issue #222, Option 2

"Attacking another country isn't the answer," says Falala de Groot, director of the Christian Democrats Intelligence Agency. "The problem doesn't lie abroad, but within Christian Democrats itself! We should have more freedom to do our work. Protecting our nation from these cowardly scaremongers would be much easier if we had an inherent right to tap phones and other communications, get search warrants whenever we need, and detain suspects indefinitely. Remember, to prevent is better than to cure."

Use the new adjective macro here.

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

This is probably too specific to be worth doing anything about, but I got Issue #355 today. My national animal is the sabre toothed gold throated wood hamster, and the issue uses the macro: Sabre-toothed @@ANIMAL@@.

That means I got: "But there is a solution: back in their native Maxtopia, these pests are kept in check by the Sabre-toothed sabre toothed gold throated wood hamster."!!

Is there any way validity could exclude animals that have "sabre toothed" in them? Or, is that too fringe a case to be worthwhile? I'm not complaining if so, but thought I would flag it up anyway as the excessively toothy hamsters amused me.

[Christian Democrats]

Issue #133, Option 3

"I agree that we shouldn't kill them," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a famous lawyer. "But I don't think the owner should get away with breaking the law! This is clearly a case of 'intent to grievously harm' if I ever saw it. All citizens should be held accountable of their pet's actions as if they had done the act themselves. It's the only way to be fair - after all, they're just dumb animals."

This sentence needs to be fixed (somehow). Here are two suggestions:

"All citizens should be held accountable for their pets' actions as if they had done the acts themselves."
"Every citizen should be held accountable for his pet's actions as if he had done the act himself."

Also, the use of "citizen" here doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If a noncitizen's pet attacks someone, is he exempt?

[Howwitty]

and sociologists can charge whatever fee they like as the nation tried to find itself.

Can someone fix this? It's bugging me. Thank you.

[Bears Armed]

You could try pointing it out -- and maybe suggest a correction -- in this thread, too...

[Ballotonia]

You could try pointing it out -- and maybe suggest a correction -- in this thread, too...

Merged into that thread. To be picked up by editors.

Ballotonia

[Sanctaria]

Issue #133, Option 3

"I agree that we shouldn't kill them," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a famous lawyer. "But I don't think the owner should get away with breaking the law! This is clearly a case of 'intent to grievously harm' if I ever saw it. All citizens should be held accountable of their pet's actions as if they had done the act themselves. It's the only way to be fair - after all, they're just dumb animals."

This sentence needs to be fixed (somehow). Here are two suggestions:

"All citizens should be held accountable for their pets' actions as if they had done the acts themselves."
"Every citizen should be held accountable for his pet's actions as if he had done the act himself."

Also, the use of "citizen" here doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If a noncitizen's pet attacks someone, is he exempt?

Yeah, it should be "for their pets' actions".

As for the use of citizen - meh. It's a fairly non-issue and we generally don't make the distinction between citizens and residents when editing text.

[Wrapper]

Just got #240 (Plea Bargaining - Tipping the Scales of Justice?). My nation's overview consistently states that "crime is totally unknown" so this type of issue really doesn't fit. I dismissed it, no big deal, but I do wonder if validity should be adjusted for issues like this one, based on the Safety from Crime stat.

[Christian Democrats]

Issue #58, Option 2: Change "first born child" to "first-born child" or to "firstborn child."

[Sanctaria]

Issue #58, Option 2: Change "first born child" to "first-born child" or to "firstborn child."

Please or thanks wouldn't go amiss.

[Christian Democrats]

Issue #58, Option 2: Change "first born child" to "first-born child" or to "firstborn child."

Please or thanks wouldn't go amiss.

[Sanctaria]

Please or thanks wouldn't go amiss.

We're volunteers and busy people. "Change this" with no please is a little rude.

[Sedgistan]

Thanks for the spots/suggestions.

Issue #222, Option 2

"Attacking another country isn't the answer," says Falala de Groot, director of the Christian Democrats Intelligence Agency. "The problem doesn't lie abroad, but within Christian Democrats itself! We should have more freedom to do our work. Protecting our nation from these cowardly scaremongers would be much easier if we had an inherent right to tap phones and other communications, get search warrants whenever we need, and detain suspects indefinitely. Remember, to prevent is better than to cure."

Use the new adjective macro here.

Done.

This is probably too specific to be worth doing anything about, but I got Issue #355 today. My national animal is the sabre toothed gold throated wood hamster, and the issue uses the macro: Sabre-toothed @@ANIMAL@@.

That means I got: "But there is a solution: back in their native Maxtopia, these pests are kept in check by the Sabre-toothed sabre toothed gold throated wood hamster."!!

Is there any way validity could exclude animals that have "sabre toothed" in them? Or, is that too fringe a case to be worthwhile? I'm not complaining if so, but thought I would flag it up anyway as the excessively toothy hamsters amused me.

It's almost certainly technically possible, but it's such a rare occurrence that getting the admins to write code just for this is unlikely.

Issue #133, Option 3

"I agree that we shouldn't kill them," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a famous lawyer. "But I don't think the owner should get away with breaking the law! This is clearly a case of 'intent to grievously harm' if I ever saw it. All citizens should be held accountable of their pet's actions as if they had done the act themselves. It's the only way to be fair - after all, they're just dumb animals."

This sentence needs to be fixed (somehow). Here are two suggestions:

"All citizens should be held accountable for their pets' actions as if they had done the acts themselves."
"Every citizen should be held accountable for his pet's actions as if he had done the act himself."

Also, the use of "citizen" here doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If a noncitizen's pet attacks someone, is he exempt?

Changed of -> for. Agreed with Sanc on the use of "citizen".

and sociologists can charge whatever fee they like as the nation tried to find itself.

Can someone fix this? It's bugging me. Thank you.

Done.

Just got #240 (Plea Bargaining - Tipping the Scales of Justice?). My nation's overview consistently states that "crime is totally unknown" so this type of issue really doesn't fit. I dismissed it, no big deal, but I do wonder if validity should be adjusted for issues like this one, based on the Safety from Crime stat.

"Totally unknown" can be taken as a slight exaggeration. I've looked at the validity of the issue, and I'd prefer to leave it unchanged.

Issue #58, Option 2: Change "first born child" to "first-born child" or to "firstborn child."

Added a hyphen in.

[Schutzenphalia and West Ruhntuhnkuhnland]

This is probably too specific to be worth doing anything about, but I got Issue #355 today. My national animal is the sabre toothed gold throated wood hamster, and the issue uses the macro: Sabre-toothed @@ANIMAL@@.

That means I got: "But there is a solution: back in their native Maxtopia, these pests are kept in check by the Sabre-toothed sabre toothed gold throated wood hamster."!!

Is there any way validity could exclude animals that have "sabre toothed" in them? Or, is that too fringe a case to be worthwhile? I'm not complaining if so, but thought I would flag it up anyway as the excessively toothy hamsters amused me.

It's almost certainly technically possible, but it's such a rare occurrence that getting the admins to write code just for this is unlikely.

Fair enough. Thanks for considering it anyway.

[Christian Democrats]

We're volunteers and busy people. "Change this" with no please is a little rude.

please: adv. used in polite requests or questions [OED].

I'm responding to the request "Help us fix old issues" with a suggestion. If we're following any sort of semi-mandatory decorum here, it would be more appropriate for staff to say "please" and "thank you" and for respondents to say "you're welcome."

Staff member: Please help us fix old issues.
Respondent: Here's an error I've found.
Staff member: Thank you.
Respondent: You're welcome.

This discussion is rather silly, though, given that the whole point of this thread is just to point out (possible) errors.

[Sanctaria]

We're volunteers and busy people. "Change this" with no please is a little rude.

please: adv. used in polite requests or questions [OED].

I'm responding to the request "Help us fix old issues" with a suggestion. If we're following any sort of semi-mandatory decorum here, it would be more appropriate for staff to say "please" and "thank you" and for respondents to say "you're welcome."

Staff member: Please help us fix old issues.
Respondent: Here's an error I've found.
Staff member: Thank you.
Respondent: You're welcome.

This discussion is rather silly, though, given that the whole point of this thread is just to point out (possible) errors.

I asked for please or thank you and instead of saying sure, because please and thanks are nice and polite, you decide to go all dictionary definition on me to avoid saying them. Which says a lot.

Thanks for your comments.

[Christian Democrats]

I don't have to post here. I just think it's kind for players to help the volunteer issues editors find errors to edit.

To say "please" when you're providing help to somebody else just seems somewhat awkward to me.

In none of the other threads like this one do players and staff members commonly use "please" and "thank you."

Example: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2799&start=5825

I'm not in the mood to argue any further over something so infinitesimal as the way I worded a post early in the morning on an internet forum connected to a text-based browser game, so I'll exit this ridiculous conversation here; and, if I see any errors in issues in the future, I'll continue to offer suggestions, which you can choose to accept or reject whenever it is convenient for you.

[Sanctaria]

Ok, if you say so.

We appreciate any and all suggestions vis a vis fixing old issues.

[Wrapper]

Just got #240 (Plea Bargaining - Tipping the Scales of Justice?). My nation's overview consistently states that "crime is totally unknown" so this type of issue really doesn't fit. I dismissed it, no big deal, but I do wonder if validity should be adjusted for issues like this one, based on the Safety from Crime stat.

"Totally unknown" can be taken as a slight exaggeration. I've looked at the validity of the issue, and I'd prefer to leave it unchanged.

Fair enough, thanks for checking it out.

[Krigjorde]

On the issue A Question on Sport, in the fourth choice the person uses feet as a measurement. This could be different for a nation which converted to the metric system in a previous issue.

[Butballs]

Issue 297: Intersex athletes demand level playing field.

Option one: "And if it's too difficult to decide whether the athlete is a man or woman, then we shouldn't let them compete at all! Fair is fair is fair."

What's wrong: Fair is fair is fair.
It's doubled...

[Sanctaria]

Issue 297: Intersex athletes demand level playing field.

Option one: "And if it's too difficult to decide whether the athlete is a man or woman, then we shouldn't let them compete at all! Fair is fair is fair."

What's wrong: Fair is fair is fair.
It's doubled...

I did that on purpose.