Help us fix old issues

[New Axiom]

I got issue #157: sergeants are too nasty, say new recruits when I dont even have a military.

Sure you do, as long as you spend money on defense.
Considering my previous experience, that's how the "military" aspect of NationStates works. You don't need military factbooks or anything to officially have a military, again, that's what the defense spending is for.
Your military is very very tiny, but it's there. Kinda like, I dunno, Australia?

correct me if I'm wrong, mods

[Naasseners]

I got issue #157: sergeants are too nasty, say new recruits when I dont even have a military.

Sure you do, as long as you spend money on defense.

That seems accurate. This nation has had 0% defense spending for a long while, and hasn't got those issues. Whereas one of my puppets went from 0% to 0.1%, and is getting those again. (Not sure how. That nation supposed to be pacifistic, I'd never choose anything that's pro-war or pro-military for it.)

[Leppikania]

I got issue #157: sergeants are too nasty, say new recruits when I dont even have a military.

Sure you do, as long as you spend money on defense.
Considering my previous experience, that's how the "military" aspect of NationStates works. You don't need military factbooks or anything to officially have a military, again, that's what the defense spending is for.
Your military is very very tiny, but it's there. Kinda like, I dunno, Australia?

correct me if I'm wrong, mods

(Check the "puppets" in my sig; I'm the same player)
So, since when did I have a military in that nation? I remember stamping it out entirely.

[New Axiom]

Sure you do, as long as you spend money on defense.
Considering my previous experience, that's how the "military" aspect of NationStates works. You don't need military factbooks or anything to officially have a military, again, that's what the defense spending is for.
Your military is very very tiny, but it's there. Kinda like, I dunno, Australia?

correct me if I'm wrong, mods

(Check the "puppets" in my sig; I'm the same player)
So, since when did I have a military in that nation? I remember stamping it out entirely.

If you look at how much money your government spends on different stuff (that government building icon), Tornavia spends 0.9 percent of its money on its Defense, meaning it spends that money on a military. Leppikania does NOT spend ANY money on defense, therefore has no military whatsoever.

again, correct me if I'm wrong

[Leppikania]

(Check the "puppets" in my sig; I'm the same player)
So, since when did I have a military in that nation? I remember stamping it out entirely.

If you look at how much money your government spends on different stuff (that government building icon), Tornavia spends 0.9 percent of its money on its Defense, meaning it spends that money on a military. Leppikania does NOT spend ANY money on defense, therefore has no military whatsoever.

again, correct me if I'm wrong

I can see that, but how did I get it?

[Luna Amore]

If you look at how much money your government spends on different stuff (that government building icon), Tornavia spends 0.9 percent of its money on its Defense, meaning it spends that money on a military. Leppikania does NOT spend ANY money on defense, therefore has no military whatsoever.

again, correct me if I'm wrong

Yes, but how did I get it?

I have no idea which nation you are talking about at this point. Tornavia does spend some money on military. Leppikania does not.

[Leppikania]

Yes, but how did I get it?

I have no idea which nation you are talking about at this point. Tornavia does spend some money on military. Leppikania does not.

Tornavia. The one that got the military issue. How did it get a military?

[New Axiom]

I have no idea which nation you are talking about at this point. Tornavia does spend some money on military. Leppikania does not.

Tornavia. The one that got the military issue. How did it get a military?

It must have been one of those "unforeseen effects" Max Barry mentions in the general help page. It might go away, just keep choosing all of the extremly non militaristic options to your issues.

[Trotterdam]

There are some issue options that increase government spending to all departments across the board, which therefore includes military, even if you didn't have any before. That might be it.

However, military spending (and other government departments) can go "negative", in which case you need to spend quite some time boosting it back to positive before it starts counting, and I would really expect this to have been the case in such a determinedly-pacifist nation. So I'm not sure.

[Vortyd]

Typo in issue #449, option 3.

"There's always room for compromise," chimes in Bill Hendrikson, one of your top aides famous for diffusing tension in your office.

Should be "defusing".

[Phydios]

Typo in issue #449, option 3.

"There's always room for compromise," chimes in Bill Hendrikson, one of your top aides famous for diffusing tension in your office.

Should be "defusing".

"Diffusing" is a word. It means "spreading out", like the opposite of "concentrating".

[Vortyd]

"Diffusing" is a word. It means "spreading out", like the opposite of "concentrating".

So the top aide is spreading tension "in the office"? Not a very good compromiser, I say.
"Famous for diffusing tension" would've made sense. When it's inside my office (an enclosed space, no less - definitely not a case of "dispersing" tension), less so.

[Phydios]

"Diffusing" is a word. It means "spreading out", like the opposite of "concentrating".

So the top aide is spreading tension "in the office"? Not a very good compromiser, I say.
"Famous for diffusing tension" would've made sense. When it's inside my office (an enclosed space, no less - definitely not a case of "dispersing" tension), less so.

I'm not arguing the point. I'm just telling you that "diffusing" is a word. Maybe not the word the Issue Editors think is best to use, but still a word.

[New Axiom]

You should all add more chain events like Brazilistan, I've already had that chain twice.

[Trotterdam]

You should all add more chain events like Brazilistan,

You should help us write them.

[Leppikania]

You should all add more chain events like Brazilistan, I've already had that chain twice.

Currently in development.

[Aibohphobia]

Not sure if I've reported this one before.

a Aibohphobian native vacationing

[Luna Amore]

Not sure if I've reported this one before.

a Aibohphobian native vacationing

Fixed.

[Leppikania]

From my puppets:

Option 345.2:

scoffs Rancho Relaxo City's controversial mayor

Should be @@CAPITAL@@ here.

Option 484.2:

Nothing says ...and Boo is in the call! like the display

The @@SLOGAN@@ here should be in quotes.

[Aibohphobia]

We need to outlaw this underhanded 'reporting'

This should be "underhand", not "underhanded", I believe.
upd: both words seem to be used in the sense "something secret, hidden, etc.", but "underhanded" could also mean "not full; small in size; explained below".

[Luna Amore]

We need to outlaw this underhanded 'reporting'

This should be "underhand", not "underhanded", I believe.

Underhanded is correct.

[Aibohphobia]

This should be "underhand", not "underhanded", I believe.

Underhanded is correct.

Correct but ambiguous.

[Luna Amore]

Underhanded is correct.

Correct but ambiguous.

How?

'Underhanded reporting' is pretty straightforward.

[Sanctaria]

Correct but ambiguous.

How?

'Underhanded reporting' is pretty straightforward.

Agreed with Luna. Underhanded reporting is not ambiguous.

[Christian Democrats]

Issue #485, Option 1
The words "year round" should be hyphenated.

Issue #485, Option 2
"Better games that those" should say "better games than those."

Issue #486, Option 1
The words "five year" should also be hyphenated.

Issue #488, Description
The words "12 year old" should also be hyphenated.

Issue #488, Description
The 5 should be spelled out as five.

Issue #488, Option 1
The words "natural born" are usually hyphenated in the twenty-first century although they were unhyphenated in the past.

Issue #488, Option 2
The words "the CEO of Big Toys Inc." should be set off by commas.

Issue #481

Option 3: I think "economy student" should be changed to "economics student" or "political economy student."

Option 5: This sentence doesn't make any sense to me: "I'm responsible for hundreds of peoples life's [people's lives?] every day, from Down Town [downtown?] @@CAPITAL@@ up across a 110th street [up to 110th Street?]."

Fixed.

For the issues spoilers thread, how exactly were these options changed?