The Writers' Block

[Tokuopolis]

So as I pointed out in Technical, a lot of issues tend to assume @@FAITH@@ has certain stereotypical religious doctrines (often using it as the token anti-science or anti-gay option), rather than really allowing you to customize your religion in a meaningful way. (While, say, you can decide stuff over how @@LEADER@@ maintains power.)

It would be nice to have an issue that just comes out and outright asks you what your religion is really about. It could be framed as multiple denominations/subgroups/local priests of @@FAITH@@ within your nation arguing about the true meaning of their religion, and asking the government to make an official statement on what is the most important measure of a proper follower of @@FAITH@@.

Options could be:
1. having true faith in your deity, believing with all your heart rather than just going through the motions (raises happiness)
2. correctly following the prescribed rituals, regardless of whether you understand their purpose (raises social conservatism?)
3. contemplating the spiritual nature of the universe to gain enlightenment (raises intelligence)
4. treating your fellow human beings in a manner according with the morals prescribed in the holy text (raises compassion)
There are real-life religions that favor each of these (and the larger ones incorporate all or most in their various denominations).

A fifth option would be refusing to pick any side and encouraging all citizens to figure out what their religion means to them.

that sounds interesting.

BTW, I'm thinking of satirising the whitewashing controversy around "Gods of Egypt". Since there's already an egypt parody NPC nation (Maxtopia), it should be pretty easy to do. I'm might mix it with the whitewashing controversy in general

[Eaischpnaeieacgkque Bhcieaghpodsttditf]

So as I pointed out in Technical, a lot of issues tend to assume @@FAITH@@ has certain stereotypical religious doctrines (often using it as the token anti-science or anti-gay option), rather than really allowing you to customize your religion in a meaningful way. (While, say, you can decide stuff over how @@LEADER@@ maintains power.)

It would be nice to have an issue that just comes out and outright asks you what your religion is really about. It could be framed as multiple denominations/subgroups/local priests of @@FAITH@@ within your nation arguing about the true meaning of their religion, and asking the government to make an official statement on what is the most important measure of a proper follower of @@FAITH@@.

Options could be:
1. having true faith in your deity, believing with all your heart rather than just going through the motions (raises happiness)
2. correctly following the prescribed rituals, regardless of whether you understand their purpose (raises social conservatism?)
3. contemplating the spiritual nature of the universe to gain enlightenment (raises intelligence)
4. treating your fellow human beings in a manner according with the morals prescribed in the holy text (raises compassion)
There are real-life religions that favor each of these (and the larger ones incorporate all or most in their various denominations).

A fifth option would be refusing to pick any side and encouraging all citizens to figure out what their religion means to them.

This is a really good idea. I would love to draft this idea, but would need your permission if you are willing. I think that this could be big.

[Trotterdam]

This is a really good idea. I would love to draft this idea, but would need your permission if you are willing. I think that this could be big.

I wouldn't have posted it in this thread if I wasn't okay with others picking it up.

I had in fact been inspired in part by your aborted project here, which I felt was going about things the wrong way by making a fuss about miniscule details (seriously, red wine vs white wine?) that both has little political relevance and is way too explicitly Christian. So I've been thinking about what a good decide-what-your-religion-is-about issue could be like.

Also, thanks for wasting my telegram space when you were just going to ask in public too anyway. I hate that it's impossible to ever delete sent telegrams.

[New Leppikania]

I'm wondering what the status is of my first issue... It was the one about sanctions I submitted about a month ago.

(And maybe something about the issue my bro The Midwestern Atlantic Colonies submitted. And yes, that comes up as my nation, but that's only because they accidentally used the same computer like once...)

[Whovian Tardisia]

I think the mods put them in a pile of yeses or nos and then slowly implement the yeses when they feel like it. Don't quote me on that; not a mod.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I think the mods put them in a pile of yeses or nos and then slowly implement the yeses when they feel like it. Don't quote me on that; not a mod.

Got to admit, it'd be lovely to know which pile submitted issues are on.

While I enjoy writing issues in their own right, I'm currently on:

In Draft:
Deaf Note
Sound Judgement
Check Your Language

Submitted:
Dirty Little Minds
Twelve Years A Posteriori
A Question of Recession
12 Awful Crimes You Just Won't Believe!!
Hero to Zero
A Funny Way to Die
Park That Thought
For Want of a Nail
Pisciculos in Mare Magnum
Rent Asunder

Accepted:
Unpopular Opera --> The Show Must Go On


That's 1 in 14 so far that has made it through the system, and broadly drafts have been met with encouragement by issue editors. Personally I'd be in favour of a report being made back on submissions being accepted, rejected or pending examination.

[Eaischpnaeieacgkque Bhcieaghpodsttditf]

That's 1 in 14 so far that has made it through the system, and broadly drafts have been met with encouragement by issue editors. Personally I'd be in favour of a report being made back on submissions being accepted, rejected or pending examination.

That would be a good idea, but that would mean a lot of more work for the editors and could lead to false hopes.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Not a huge amount. You just need two skeleton replies.

1:
Many thanks for your recent issue submission. The editorial team have approved this for inclusion, and will be coding it as soon as possible. Please be aware that because of the number of submissions there is no fixed timeframe on this. You will be notified automatically when the issue is added to the game.

2:
Many thanks for your recent issue submission. The editorial team have decided not to include this issue in the game. Please do visit the Got Issues? forum, where issues drafts can be discussed with the community.

Append both with:
This is an automated reply, please do not respond directly to this telegram.


The benefit of replies, especially rejection replies, is that they indicate that a writer needs to go back and redraft the Issue. Otherwise, a hapless writer could send in dozens of submissions, never knowing that he is doing things wrong.

If the workload is too big, is there any reason why more Issue Editors can't be added?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

So, on a related subject, here's a cut and paste of something I put to my RMB recently:

Say there's 480 issues. By your second issue you've got a 1 in 480 chance of repeat, by the second 2 in 480, and so on.

By 26 issues, there's a 50% chance you'll have seen an issue that you've seen before. A mere 54 issues will make that a 95% chance, and 67 issues for 99% chance.

If you're getting 2 issues a day, then it'll be N/2 days before every issue you see is one you've seen before, where N is number of issues. (Okay, this is bad stats, as it doesn't account for repeats along the way, but its roughly true)

Of course, its not that straightforward. As Issues have validity criteria, the pool is actually smaller than expected, so you'll see repeats sooner.

Its hard to reduce the chances of seeing an issue you've seen before by much. Even if we were to increase the number of issues by another 50, you'd still more likely be seeing repeats than not.

What you can do, however, is drastically increase the odds you have of seeing an issue you've never seen before, in terms of relative probability. That is to say, changing chance of repetition from 99% to 98.5% isn't that noticeable, but changing chance of new issue from 1% to 1.5% is a 50% relative increase!

So how to do this?

1) Mess with your validity criteria. Pick answers that you didn't pick last time, and change your nation's shape. Go from excellent civil rights to terrible ones, and you'll see a load of issues that you weren't previously eligible for.
2) Add new issues. This is the best way, as the system guarantees that you'll see your own new issue at least once.

Amusingly, when I added my new issue, I got it as expected, then got it randomly again 3 issues later...

I made that post as someone was complaining they got an issue they'd seen before. As I note above, by 13 days in, its more likely than not that this will have happened at least once.

What I didn't mention there is that 480 issues isn't really very many, considering how many years this game has been going and how quickly submissions come in. While I understand that Issue Editors are unpaid volunteers, I personally think it would be sensible to significantly incresase the size of the Editors community, and thus speed the addition of Issues to the game. I'd say the goal ought to be several thousand issues by year end, and the way to achieve that is to open things up more widely to the community.

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

So, on a related subject, here's a cut and paste of something I put to my RMB recently:

Say there's 480 issues. By your second issue you've got a 1 in 480 chance of repeat, by the second 2 in 480, and so on.

By 26 issues, there's a 50% chance you'll have seen an issue that you've seen before. A mere 54 issues will make that a 95% chance, and 67 issues for 99% chance.

If you're getting 2 issues a day, then it'll be N/2 days before every issue you see is one you've seen before, where N is number of issues. (Okay, this is bad stats, as it doesn't account for repeats along the way, but its roughly true)

Of course, its not that straightforward. As Issues have validity criteria, the pool is actually smaller than expected, so you'll see repeats sooner.

Its hard to reduce the chances of seeing an issue you've seen before by much. Even if we were to increase the number of issues by another 50, you'd still more likely be seeing repeats than not.

What you can do, however, is drastically increase the odds you have of seeing an issue you've never seen before, in terms of relative probability. That is to say, changing chance of repetition from 99% to 98.5% isn't that noticeable, but changing chance of new issue from 1% to 1.5% is a 50% relative increase!

So how to do this?

1) Mess with your validity criteria. Pick answers that you didn't pick last time, and change your nation's shape. Go from excellent civil rights to terrible ones, and you'll see a load of issues that you weren't previously eligible for.
2) Add new issues. This is the best way, as the system guarantees that you'll see your own new issue at least once.

Amusingly, when I added my new issue, I got it as expected, then got it randomly again 3 issues later...

I made that post as someone was complaining they got an issue they'd seen before. As I note above, by 13 days in, its more likely than not that this will have happened at least once.

What I didn't mention there is that 480 issues isn't really very many, considering how many years this game has been going and how quickly submissions come in. While I understand that Issue Editors are unpaid volunteers, I personally think it would be sensible to significantly incresase the size of the Editors community, and thus speed the addition of Issues to the game. I'd say the goal ought to be several thousand issues by year end, and the way to achieve that is to open things up more widely to the community.

... and I'm guessing you are volunteering as tribute?

Personally I've lost track how many submissions I have sent in. There was one time I speculated IRL which of my submissions (at that time) I most wanted accepted. I had to narrow this to 20... and that naturally was not including the numerous ones which I submit but which I don't care about.

And of course, of all of my submissions only 5 have been implemented. So there's that.

[Sanctaria]

What I didn't mention there is that 480 issues isn't really very many, considering how many years this game has been going and how quickly submissions come in. While I understand that Issue Editors are unpaid volunteers, I personally think it would be sensible to significantly incresase the size of the Editors community, and thus speed the addition of Issues to the game. I'd say the goal ought to be several thousand issues by year end, and the way to achieve that is to open things up more widely to the community.

You're not an Editor and as such have no understanding of the work that goes in to putting an issue into the game, or the processes involved. Please don't throw around wild assumptions.

1. We don't get a thousand submissions a year, let alone a thousand good submissions, so your goal of several thousand is completely unrealistic. You also have no way of knowing how many submissions do come in daily, so I don't know where you're getting the authority to make such declarations.

2. It takes a few months to train up Editors, so simply expanding the team wouldn't actually work in the short-term because the other editors would be taken away from their duties to help teach these new Editors.

3. Being an Editor involves access to the game code and nation stats - we're not going to give this information to just anyone. There is a vetting process involved.

4. Team dynamics is also an issue - would this person fit the team well. Do any team members have history with this person that is negative. If so, why, and should that be held against them. Also, too many cooks spoil the broth etc. Every issue has a lead Editor, but every Editor is encouraged and expected to chime in with suggestions and edits. If you have 20 people coming at one individual issue, things get messy. That's a situation we haven't had yet, but are very conscious of happening.

5. Currently only the three Senior Editors (Sedge, Luna, myself) add issues to the game. That's unlikely to change right now for various reasons I'm not going into here. If we're too busy training up new Editors, reviewing the hundreds of good drafts you're expecting Editors to work on each week, we will actually have less time to add the issues to the game. Additions would become much more infrequent and so new issues may only be added in a bunch every few months as opposed to one or two weekly we currently do.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Thanks for replying: I'm sure its a topic you've had to speak about in the past.

Please be aware I'm not so much criticising the editors, more wishing that the system could be something different in future.

If there's good reasons you can't change things, then fair enough. I only observe that sometimes a more open approach to allowing access to code creates more rapid growth, and usually with less deterioration of quality than people expect. Look at wikipedia, or TVtropes. Or look at Firefox and Lunux. In terms of games, its not necessarily all about open code, but sometimes just about fully open contribution: Minecraft et al show that when people can actively engage and create, the community grows faster.

I'd say that generally there's a tendency towards status quo bias in online communities, but that it is the communities who embrace open and free user contribution that grow the fastest.

While I don't know the numbers and the processes, its certain that the rate limiting step is in issue editing. I'd consider fast growth of the game desirable, and think that's only attainable by addressing that step.

To be clear again, I'm not criticising your team or telling you you've got to work faster. Rather, I'm assessing the system, and looking at where the pinch point of time and motion is, and suggesting means to change this.

[Sanctaria]

Part of your premise is that we have a whole bunch of quality issues lying there, just waiting for Editors to edit them, and that us being delayed because there's not enough of editors is a problem.

We're always on the look-out for more editors, and we're a pretty good judge of when and if we need one. What you, and others, should be focused on is provided good quality drafts. We don't get those.

[Whovian Tardisia]

Right. I should probably brainstorm a cheese related incident now...

[Rejistania]

Would it be possible to have line breaks in issue settings and options?

Why do I ask? Because I know that there is issue 71 but there is no way to undo it. So I had an idea for an issue that works like this: EVERYTHING, title, setting, options, are in 2 languages. I was thinking English and Esperanto. The last option, which mirrors the third option in #71 would allow to make a distinct, constructed language, and I would have the proposal be in such a language, probably Rejistanian. Would that work?

[Eaischpnaeieacgkque Bhcieaghpodsttditf]

Would it be possible to have line breaks in issue settings and options?

Why do I ask? Because I know that there is issue 71 but there is no way to undo it. So I had an idea for an issue that works like this: EVERYTHING, title, setting, options, are in 2 languages. I was thinking English and Esperanto. The last option, which mirrors the third option in #71 would allow to make a distinct, constructed language, and I would have the proposal be in such a language, probably Rejistanian. Would that work?

OH MY GOD! THINK OF THE CODE! I am not a professional coder, but I am sure that having an issue written in a constructed language would probably be, like, a couple thousand lines of code PER language (maybe). I may be just a lonely little person addicted to the epicness that is NS and personally think this idea would be the best thing introduced since the game's creation, but the reality is not possible.

[Rejistania]

Would it be possible to have line breaks in issue settings and options?

Why do I ask? Because I know that there is issue 71 but there is no way to undo it. So I had an idea for an issue that works like this: EVERYTHING, title, setting, options, are in 2 languages. I was thinking English and Esperanto. The last option, which mirrors the third option in #71 would allow to make a distinct, constructed language, and I would have the proposal be in such a language, probably Rejistanian. Would that work?

OH MY GOD! THINK OF THE CODE! I am not a professional coder, but I am sure that having an issue written in a constructed language would probably be, like, a couple thousand lines of code PER language (maybe). I may be just a lonely little person addicted to the epicness that is NS and personally think this idea would be the best thing introduced since the game's creation, but the reality is not possible.

Oh, no, you were thinking much more awesome than me.

What I was thinking of was more static and only pertained to one issue. So that this issue which I tentatively named: Alklaki Unu Por Esperanto - Press Two for English had a [description] which was first in Esperanto and then after a line break in English. Same with the [option]s

[Sanctaria]

Not really feasible, sorry. I'm not even sure any of the staff speak Esperanto, so we'd have no way to check what you'd written wasn't "cock balls and f you Kanye".

[Rejistania]

Would another language work? I am fluent in German, and could get people on board who speak French, Tagalog, Russian, Hebrew or Hungarian?

[Sanctaria]

Would another language work? I am fluent in German, and could get people on board who speak French, Tagalog, Russian, Hebrew or Hungarian?

We're not going to do translations or other languages in issues.

[Rejistania]

Would another language work? I am fluent in German, and could get people on board who speak French, Tagalog, Russian, Hebrew or Hungarian?

We're not going to do translations or other languages in issues.

Can we do pretend like in the option of issue 71?

[Sanctaria]

We're not going to do translations or other languages in issues.

Can we do pretend like in the option of issue 71?

No.

[New Leppikania]

So, what happened to my original query? (That is, the status on the two issues I submitted.)

[Sanctaria]

So, what happened to my original query? (That is, the status on the two issues I submitted.)

We've broken it once or twice in the past, but we don't usually tell people the status of submitted issues.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Part of your premise is that we have a whole bunch of quality issues lying there, just waiting for Editors to edit them, and that us being delayed because there's not enough of editors is a problem.

We're always on the look-out for more editors, and we're a pretty good judge of when and if we need one. What you, and others, should be focused on is provided good quality drafts. We don't get those.

That's fair enough, but what constitutes a good quality draft?

Most of the drafts I've tabled here have had feedback from Chan Island, Leppikania and a few others, but notably very little comment from Issue Editors. Chan Island commented upthread that he's lost count of how many issues he has submitted, and that of all the issues he has submitted, five have made it into the game.

If you're telling me that you don't have a bunch of quality issues lying there, that basically implies that the remainder submitted are not quality issues. Likewise, if I've so far seen 1 of 11 get through the system, then that would imply that a good number of these weren't good enough.

The problem is, how do I improve on these issues unless I know they've been rejected?

You're entirely within your rights to reject whichever submissions you choose, but if you want to improve the quality of submissions, you have to let writers know that their submission is rejected.

I see that you say you don't generally do that. Can we re-examine that assumption?

Don't worry, I'll keep submitting issues regardless. However, you will likely find that they will be of better quality if you let me know which ones don't make the cut.