Help us fix old issues

[Aibohphobia]

we might accidentally create killer bees like the dreaded Maxtopian hornet

Bees and hornets are two different insect types, as far as I know.

[Aculea]

Bees and hornets are two different insect types, as far as I know.

Depends on your point of view. Proper hornets are Vespidae, bees are Apidae, so yes, they're different. OTOH, humans have been naming insects for longer than science has been classifying them, so there are a few species of hornet commonly called bee, and possibly species of bee called hornets. It's terrain rich for getting your geek on.

I'm not sure that should be required reading for understanding an issue, though.

[Trotterdam]

I think the point was that the bees might became as dangerous as hornets, without necessarily resembling hornets in other respects.

However, I think the text would work better if it warned of the danger without referencing another species at all, really. The concern that we might create horrible monsters that turn on us would be more pointed if there weren't already similarly-horrible monsters elsewhere that you mention in the same breath.

[Traemont]

The second answer to #234 proposes allowing corporations to "run for office". This doesn't make much sense in a nondemocratic state where no one "runs" for office. Maybe the option should say "hold office" instead of "run for office", which could apply whether or not the government was democratic.

(Unless, of course, the option is meant to reintroduce democracy, but only for corporations, which would seem kind of weird.)

[Sanctaria]

The first option of #062 Oh, The Angst! gave me a point of corruption. I think this is a mistake.

1. "Although it is often dismissed as an irrelevant complaint, depression is a real disease; it isn't just 'all in your head'," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, depression sufferer. "Depression has significant effects on groups and individuals, especially amongst teenagers. Every day, more and more people commit suicide because of this disease, but this could all be stopped if this country had a decent level of funding for support and public awareness programs."

Result:

citizens are encouraged to report friends, family members or co-workers who seem depressed to the government for "counselling"

Whether or not I understand how the game works, I urge you to reconsider the tastefulness of linking mental healthcare with corruption. If the increase in corruption is driven by a hidden stat and not on the issue itself, I urge you to reconsider that connection as well. If you cannot remove the point of corruption from this issue, I beg you to include a clue that can be seen before the option is chosen indicating this depression sufferer does not have the nation's mental health first in their mind. The scare quotes around counselling are a little too late.

I'm wondering if the text has been changed, because the increase in corruption plus the quotes around "counselling" suggest that it's about brain washing rather than counselling - the text itself doesn't reference this so, so it's a little unfair. I'll edit it.

[Sanctaria]

I'm happy with how this sequence works out but I'm a little confused by a plot detail:

We should be able to airlift our best commandos into the capital without too much difficulty.

elite teams of assassins have been sent into Brasilistan

its remnants are continuing to attack your troops present in the country

First they're airlifted commandos, then they're assassins, then they're units large enough that they can dig in and hold off against insurgents continuing to attack them. What insurgents? The country isn't conquered yet, they've just assassinated the leaders. And where are they holed up that they can maintain a long term presence when they were airlifted in just big enough to take out the leadership and specifically not any of the grunts?

A few options lead to that issue so it can't be specific. It's a NS quirk, don't read too much into it.

[Sanctaria]

The second answer to #234 proposes allowing corporations to "run for office". This doesn't make much sense in a nondemocratic state where no one "runs" for office. Maybe the option should say "hold office" instead of "run for office", which could apply whether or not the government was democratic.

(Unless, of course, the option is meant to reintroduce democracy, but only for corporations, which would seem kind of weird.)

You kind of get it in the parentheses there.

We like to keep these issues valid for as many nations as possible. So in this instance, even if the nation doesn't hold elections for office, the wording would still be valid, and a corporation could still, legitimately, ask to allow them to run.

It would be weird, but there are a lot of strange countries out there!

[Frisbeeteria]

(Unless, of course, the option is meant to reintroduce democracy, but only for corporations, which would seem kind of weird.)

You kind of get it in the parentheses there.

We like to keep these issues valid for as many nations as possible. So in this instance, even if the nation doesn't hold elections for office, the wording would still be valid, and a corporation could still, legitimately, ask to allow them to run.

[threadjack] Game world example:

The Consolidated Oligarchy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States has used precisely that model since at least 2004. The 28 member corporations get a percentage of votes based primarily on their share of the nation's GDP. Since the Oligarchy Board answers all the national issues, such a choice would necessarily belong only to them. It may not be what you consider democracy, but it works for us. [/threadjack]

Now back to the reporting.

[Traemont]

The second answer to #234 proposes allowing corporations to "run for office". This doesn't make much sense in a nondemocratic state where no one "runs" for office. Maybe the option should say "hold office" instead of "run for office", which could apply whether or not the government was democratic.

(Unless, of course, the option is meant to reintroduce democracy, but only for corporations, which would seem kind of weird.)

You kind of get it in the parentheses there.

We like to keep these issues valid for as many nations as possible. So in this instance, even if the nation doesn't hold elections for office, the wording would still be valid, and a corporation could still, legitimately, ask to allow them to run.

It would be weird, but there are a lot of strange countries out there!

So does the game actually change the country to democratic, then?

I guess my real point is that, if I have an absolute monarchy, the closest cognate should be to allow the king to appoint corporations to office - kind of like the East India Company's power over India at times - but that would be holding office, not running for office. The issue of returning to democracy ought to be orthogonal.

[Trotterdam]

If you submit a resume to apply for a job opening, and try to actively convince the prospective employer of your suitability, then couldn't that be considered "running for" the position, even if there are no elections?

It's not the usual meaning of the term in modern nations, but then election-free dictatorships that allow corporations to hold office aren't usual to begin with.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

You kind of get it in the parentheses there.

We like to keep these issues valid for as many nations as possible. So in this instance, even if the nation doesn't hold elections for office, the wording would still be valid, and a corporation could still, legitimately, ask to allow them to run.

It would be weird, but there are a lot of strange countries out there!

So does the game actually change the country to democratic, then?

I guess my real point is that, if I have an absolute monarchy, the closest cognate should be to allow the king to appoint corporations to office - kind of like the East India Company's power over India at times - but that would be holding office, not running for office. The issue of returning to democracy ought to be orthogonal.

It all depends on where your country is on the freedom scales. If you keep giving corporations power while increasing personal/political freedoms it will become either Capitalist Paradise, Capitalizt or Corporate Bordello. If you keep freedoms low you could become either a Corporate Police State or Iron Fist Consumerists. Have you seen the three-way graphic showing all the possible government types?

At any rate, issues don't directly determine what kind of government you have, but they do affect your freedom rankings, which do determine your political system.

You kind of get it in the parentheses there.

We like to keep these issues valid for as many nations as possible. So in this instance, even if the nation doesn't hold elections for office, the wording would still be valid, and a corporation could still, legitimately, ask to allow them to run.

[threadjack] Game world example:

The Consolidated Oligarchy of Frisbeeterian Corporate States has used precisely that model since at least 2004. The 28 member corporations get a percentage of votes based primarily on their share of the nation's GDP. Since the Oligarchy Board answers all the national issues, such a choice would necessarily belong only to them. It may not be what you consider democracy, but it works for us. [/threadjack]

Hey, we do the same thing in Omigodtheykilledkenny! Except the corporations in our nation directly sponsor political candidates (the same way you'd sponsor athletes), and are "elected" if their candidates win. At least, that's the way we interpret that particular issue.

[Aculea]

I'm wondering if the text has been changed, because the increase in corruption plus the quotes around "counselling" suggest that it's about brain washing rather than counselling - the text itself doesn't reference this so, so it's a little unfair. I'll edit it.

A few options lead to that issue so it can't be specific. It's a NS quirk, don't read too much into it.

Thank you for both of these. How about:

We've softened them up, but that doesn't mean that an invasion will be easy for us", you military adviser says,

Should be you your military adviser.

[Sanctaria]

I'm wondering if the text has been changed, because the increase in corruption plus the quotes around "counselling" suggest that it's about brain washing rather than counselling - the text itself doesn't reference this so, so it's a little unfair. I'll edit it.

A few options lead to that issue so it can't be specific. It's a NS quirk, don't read too much into it.

Thank you for both of these. How about:

Should be you your military adviser.

Looks like someone already got to that.

[Aculea]

Looks like someone already got to that.

Thank you again. Or whomever.

[Mewlandia]

Issue 164, Licence To Breed

This is from a puppet; for some reason, the same problem doesn't arise for my main nation.

Option 2:

"This is madness!" screams Kirby Malik. "You can't deny perfectly good people the right to bring life into this world! swans manage it easily enough, and you can't tell me they've got more responsibility than your average upstanding citizen of Blessed Elua!"

The S in "Swans" (national animal) ought to be upper case.

[Luna Amore]

Issue 164, Licence To Breed

This is from a puppet; for some reason, the same problem doesn't arise for my main nation.

Option 2:

"This is madness!" screams Kirby Malik. "You can't deny perfectly good people the right to bring life into this world! swans manage it easily enough, and you can't tell me they've got more responsibility than your average upstanding citizen of Blessed Elua!"

The S in "Swans" (national animal) ought to be upper case.

Fixed, thanks!

[Traemont]

If you submit a resume to apply for a job opening, and try to actively convince the prospective employer of your suitability, then couldn't that be considered "running for" the position, even if there are no elections?

I suppose you could torture the wording to mean that. It would be so easy to reword and remove the need for torture, though.

So does the game actually change the country to democratic, then?

I guess my real point is that, if I have an absolute monarchy, the closest cognate should be to allow the king to appoint corporations to office - kind of like the East India Company's power over India at times - but that would be holding office, not running for office. The issue of returning to democracy ought to be orthogonal.

It all depends on where your country is on the freedom scales. If you keep giving corporations power while increasing personal/political freedoms it will become either Capitalist Paradise, Capitalizt or Corporate Bordello. If you keep freedoms low you could become either a Corporate Police State or Iron Fist Consumerists. Have you seen the three-way graphic showing all the possible government types?

I hadn't known about the graphic but I found this one - http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/ ... calmap.jpg - thank you. If there's a better one I'd be interested in it.

At any rate, issues don't directly determine what kind of government you have, but they do affect your freedom rankings, which do determine your political system.

I think nation type is a bit different from kind of government. I'm pretty sure the game explicitly tracks whether you've banned elections, just as it does whether you've banned the free market. I moved from Compulsory Consumerist state to Capitalist Paradise as a result of annexing Brasilistan. I guess I'll have to further clamp down on political freedom if I want to be a Benevolent Democracy.

I do have an alt which is Capitalizt with zero government; I was wondering what kept it from being Anarchy, but I guess there is still a voluntaryist government of sorts which just doesn't spend any money.

[Trotterdam]

I hadn't known about the graphic but I found this one - http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/ ... calmap.jpg - thank you. If there's a better one I'd be interested in it.

That looks like the one I'm familiar with. I suspect the statistical data may be out of date by now :)

I think nation type is a bit different from kind of government. I'm pretty sure the game explicitly tracks whether you've banned elections, just as it does whether you've banned the free market.

Yes, it does.

I'm pretty sure your "government category" (Compulsury Consumerist State, etc.) is purely cosmetic. It gives you a more intuitive sense of what a certain combination of freedoms mean, but has no direct influence on any of your other stats, and it can sometimes give descriptions which aren't entirely accurate to the stats the game actually uses in calculations.

I moved from Compulsory Consumerist state to Capitalist Paradise as a result of annexing Brasilistan.

According to your nation page, your government category changed as a result of allowing corporations to run for hold office, which makes more sense.

The change in question is a result of increasing political freedoms. I guess that possibly might happen as a result of annexing Brasilistan if you choose to be really nice to the annexed people (which I see you did), but it seems unlikely, and it certainly wasn't what pushed you over the edge.

I guess I'll have to further clamp down on political freedom if I want to be a Benevolent Democracy.

...You do mean Benevolent Dictatorship, right?

I do have an alt which is Capitalizt with zero government; I was wondering what kept it from being Anarchy, but I guess there is still a voluntaryist government of sorts which just doesn't spend any money.

Maybe there's a very small government that does nothing except maintain its own power?

That's actually a good idea. If your government isn't strong enough to put down some uppity new organization that claims it's the new government, you'd be unlikely to stay a true anarchy for long.

[Traemont]

I moved from Compulsory Consumerist state to Capitalist Paradise as a result of annexing Brasilistan.

According to your nation page, your government category changed as a result of allowing corporations to run for hold office, which makes more sense.

Thanks for pointing that out. I guess I hadn't taken note during the intervening 12 hours.

I guess I'll have to further clamp down on political freedom if I want to be a Benevolent Democracy.

...You do mean Benevolent Dictatorship, right?

Yes.

I do have an alt which is Capitalizt with zero government; I was wondering what kept it from being Anarchy, but I guess there is still a voluntaryist government of sorts which just doesn't spend any money.

Maybe there's a very small government that does nothing except maintain its own power?

Well, the "government" pie chart says, "complete abolition of government: 100%".

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the ... government

That's actually a good idea. If your government isn't strong enough to put down some uppity new organization that claims it's the new government, you'd be unlikely to stay a true anarchy for long.

I suspect stable anarchies are one of the ways in which NationStates doesn't match the real world.

[Trotterdam]

Well, the "government" pie chart says, "complete abolition of government: 100%".

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=the_ocean_floor/detail=government

"There is no government in the normal sense of the word; however, a small group of community-minded, liberal, pro-business individuals keep a keen eye out for any attempt to organize such a thing, and ruthlessly crush it."

Your citizens have the right to do pretty much anything they want except create a government, so they have imperfect political freedoms.

[Aculea]

What dependencies does this issue have?

#208: Mine Collapse Rocks @@NAME@@ [Emperor Matthuis; ed:Sirocco]

The Issue
A mine has collapsed in @@NAME@@ burying hundreds of workers. Calls have been made by the families to tighten up mining safety laws.

The Debate
1. "We need tighter laws to protect vulnerable miners!" moans @@RANDOMNAME@@, a family member of one of the victims. "The mines are being propped up by twigs, the hard hats might as well be made of polystyrene, and the inspectors are all bribed! New laws must be made and the people responsible for allowing this to happen brought to justice."

2. "These allegations are ludicrous and unfounded," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, CEO of the South @@NAME@@ Mining Company. "We use the finest twigs to build our mines and the last thing we need is the government tying us down with yet more rules. More safety laws means more expense means less profit and less profit means companies will look elsewhere to get their goods. You should leave us alone before you destroy thousands of jobs - do you really want that on your conscience?"

In my country, health, safety, lifespan, environmetal beauty, and scientific advancement have all been trending upward since my nation started. What hole am I crawling out of that we have only recently graduated to twigs and polysterene helmets? Furthermore, my compassion may be 0 but my corruption is finally negative, why are my inspectors accepting bribes that put people's lives in danger?

[Traemont]

What dependencies does this issue have?

#208: Mine Collapse Rocks @@NAME@@ [Emperor Matthuis; ed:Sirocco]

The Issue
A mine has collapsed in @@NAME@@ burying hundreds of workers. Calls have been made by the families to tighten up mining safety laws.

The Debate
1. "We need tighter laws to protect vulnerable miners!" moans @@RANDOMNAME@@, a family member of one of the victims. "The mines are being propped up by twigs, the hard hats might as well be made of polystyrene, and the inspectors are all bribed! New laws must be made and the people responsible for allowing this to happen brought to justice."

2. "These allegations are ludicrous and unfounded," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, CEO of the South @@NAME@@ Mining Company. "We use the finest twigs to build our mines and the last thing we need is the government tying us down with yet more rules. More safety laws means more expense means less profit and less profit means companies will look elsewhere to get their goods. You should leave us alone before you destroy thousands of jobs - do you really want that on your conscience?"

In my country, health, safety, lifespan, environmetal beauty, and scientific advancement have all been trending upward since my nation started. What hole am I crawling out of that we have only recently graduated to twigs and polysterene helmets? Furthermore, my compassion may be 0 but my corruption is finally negative, why are my inspectors accepting bribes that put people's lives in danger?

In situations like that, I always interpret the the issue as the press making a mountain out of a very rare molehill. Then I dismiss the issue unless I want to choose one of the responses for unrelated reasons.

[Italios]

@@CAPITAL@@, We Have a Problem

I just got this issue and I noticed a very slight mistake with the punctuation:

"We're going to take a hit on this no matter what", your Press Secretary moans morosely. "The more news cycles this one takes up, the worse we're going to look. Tell IASA to get our boys back on the ground NOW. They're going to whine about pushing safety margins to the limit, but there's always going to be a risk! Those space cowboys knew that when they signed on. We're simply out of options, Leader."

The quotation and punctuation should be switched. There were a couple more options which all had that same mistake. Otherwise, I did not find anymore mistakes and it was a good issue.

[Luna Amore]

@@CAPITAL@@, We Have a Problem

I just got this issue and I noticed a very slight mistake with the punctuation:

"We're going to take a hit on this no matter what", your Press Secretary moans morosely. "The more news cycles this one takes up, the worse we're going to look. Tell IASA to get our boys back on the ground NOW. They're going to whine about pushing safety margins to the limit, but there's always going to be a risk! Those space cowboys knew that when they signed on. We're simply out of options, Leader."

The quotation and punctuation should be switched. There were a couple more options which all had that same mistake. Otherwise, I did not find anymore mistakes and it was a good issue.

That's an American/British difference.

Differences in punctuation/spelling happen throughout the issue base.

[Phydios]

@@CAPITAL@@, We Have a Problem

I just got this issue and I noticed a very slight mistake with the punctuation:

"We're going to take a hit on this no matter what", your Press Secretary moans morosely. "The more news cycles this one takes up, the worse we're going to look. Tell IASA to get our boys back on the ground NOW. They're going to whine about pushing safety margins to the limit, but there's always going to be a risk! Those space cowboys knew that when they signed on. We're simply out of options, Leader."

The quotation and punctuation should be switched. There were a couple more options which all had that same mistake. Otherwise, I did not find anymore mistakes and it was a good issue.

That's an American/British difference.

Differences in punctuation/spelling happen throughout the issue base.

But at the end of the option, the punctuation comes before the quotation mark. Shouldn't punctuation and spelling at least be consistent within an issue?