The Writers' Block

[Sedgistan]

We've got a little over 150 submissions in our "Pool" of promising issues that we may well work on in the future. Each Editor also has a few checked out that they're currently working on - so yes, there are plenty of good issues sitting around that we are likely to work on.

Giving feedback to authors: in an ideal world, we'd do that. If we didn't have a backlog, we certainly would. However, we're still a relatively small team of volunteers, and we don't have an unlimited amount of time. My advice to Editors has always been that their focus should be on the actual editing - our priority is to get more good issues added to the game; if Editors want to give advice publicly they can, but it's not a requirement of the job.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

That's very reasonable, and excellent and sensible advice.

But doesn't that bring us back full circle? My assumption was that there was a backlog of good quality issues, and that the rate limiting step was the size of the editorial team! You challenged those assumptions, but now you've confirmed that this is in fact the case.

You are, I'm sure, very correct that taking time out to train new editors would mean taking time out from actually publishing issues. Indeed, I'm very aware that my chattering here is taking time out from your busy schedule, and thus slowing issue publication in itself.

However, if the long term delay is in size of editorial team, then any short term investment of time in increasing the team size would - in the long run - be time well spent.

To be clear here, I'm not being as gauche here as to angle for a job: I'm new to the community, and frankly I have enough on my plate IRL without taking something like that on. Mostly I'm picking this apart partly because I love writing issues and would love to see them arriving sooner, and partly because time and motion in organisations is something of an obsession for me: the first thing I did when I joined my current practice was to challenge the status quo bias, examine the flow of movement of work, find the pinch-points and then open those up, which almost universally has improved how we work as a business. I poke the system because its a rare system that is running as efficiently as it could, and efficiency is almost always about moving resources about.

Maybe you could review the access of adding Issues to the game? You mentioned that only three senior editors are currently allowed to do so. Perhaps you have trusted existing editors that could be added to your triumvirate?

For the time being, I won't use up any more of your time, but rather just hopefully leave the idea sitting there: that changing the system may make everything work more smoothly in the long run. More editors with authority to change the game will create faster feedback in itself, and that in turn will encourage writers, and that in turn will give you more quality, more often. Most importantly though, it will make for an even better game in the long run.

Anyway, as I said, will let you get back to the role of being Issue Editor, and I will get back to writing and submitting more issues.

[Sedgistan]

But doesn't that bring us back full circle? My assumption was that there was a backlog of good quality issues, and that the rate limiting step was the size of the editorial team! You challenged those assumptions, but now you've confirmed that this is in fact the case.

I don't remember challenging that assumption, though another member of the team may have (thankfully we have a variety of opinions within the group). I don't think it's quite as simple as doubling the team to double our output, but certainly we could get more issues in-game if we had a larger team. That is something we're moving towards (it's not all that long ago when it was just myself, Luna, Sanc and Lenyo - we're now up from 4 to 7 active members of the team), but it's slow progress as we want to make sure we take the right people on board.

You are, I'm sure, very correct that taking time out to train new editors would mean taking time out from actually publishing issues. Indeed, I'm very aware that my chattering here is taking time out from your busy schedule, and thus slowing issue publication in itself.

However, if the long term delay is in size of editorial team, then any short term investment of time in increasing the team size would - in the long run - be time well spent.

Are you talking here about increasing the amount of Editors within the team, or improving the authoring skills of regular players? The latter was what you were talking about in your previous post, but in this post I'm not sure which you're suggesting. The amount of Editors in the team is increasing, and will continue to do so. Improving the authoring skills of regular players (i.e. through feedback) is less definite.

To be clear here, I'm not being as gauche here as to angle for a job: I'm new to the community, and frankly I have enough on my plate IRL without taking something like that on. Mostly I'm picking this apart partly because I love writing issues and would love to see them arriving sooner, and partly because time and motion in organisations is something of an obsession for me: the first thing I did when I joined my current practice was to challenge the status quo bias, examine the flow of movement of work, find the pinch-points and then open those up, which almost universally has improved how we work as a business. I poke the system because its a rare system that is running as efficiently as it could, and efficiency is almost always about moving resources about.

I don't mind people questioning how we do things, and you've done so politely enough. Obviously there are bits you can't see, but that doesn't mean we should be blind to commentary. I'll also note that yes, you have caught our eye as a potential Editor, but that we don't rush such decisions, so I wouldn't expect to hear anything about that in the near future (or necessarily at all).

Maybe you could review the access of adding Issues to the game? You mentioned that only three senior editors are currently allowed to do so. Perhaps you have trusted existing editors that could be added to your triumvirate?

This comes down to a balance of quantity and quality, and I err on the side of the latter here. Other Editors may gain the ability to add issues in the future, but only when it's right for them to do so. I also don't see this as a being as significant impediment to adding new issues as the size of the team.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Apologies, you're right. It was Sanctaria who challenged the assumption, not yourself. This was the post I misremembered as being yours:

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.

Obviously my commentary is blind, as I don't know what the inner workings are and what adding an issue to the game actually involves. I assumed - probably wrongly - that the software had some interface that allows editors to add issues to the game, rather than each one having to be html-coded from scratch. If adding issues is a process that takes months to learn, I presume this is not the case!

Likewise, I was only guessing the size of the backlog based on previous comments and explanations about delays in the processes, and by the volume of activity in this forum, where to my untutored eye we see a high volume of submissions with about 50% of them as good as issues already in the game. However, what I don't see is the number of undrafted submissions that are clicked through to you guys without any discussion here.

Without any knowledge of the system, I can only make guesses as to the process, unless you guys tell me otherwise. Thus its very much certain that a lot of my suggestions will seem impractical to implement for people already "behind the curtain".

I also don't know if there are any "not in the public interests" secrets that can never be revealed. Maybe there's a directive from Max Barry that insists that the game must be ultimately effect-neutral, with no issue ever creating a situation where the sum of +/- stats doesn't add up to the exact same number. Maybe that's his big joke - that government can't ultimately create net benefit or harm, it can just rejiggle priorities. Likewise I don't know if there's a secret briefing about the narrative of nationstates and the message its author wanted to subconsciously transmit, such as big business always being a destructive influence, or planned socialist government being the path to utopia. Only those in the know, truly know.

Hell, I don't even know which stats can be changed by Issues, and which are purely secondary stats derived from others. Are Corruption and Freedom of Corruption directly linked, or can one shift without the other? Is education level a different stat from education spending? Is Economy derived from population size, industry strengths and so on in any way, or is it just a separate stat?
These things can only be known to editors and programmers, of course.

I also don't know how the editing process works. Do Issues go in a general pile, then get picked off at will by Editors? Are they time and date stamped? Is there any rule about the order? Do Editors collaborate in editing? Are they obliged to do this?
These things again are part of a process that are invisible from the outside, and its not possible for me to make accurate suggestions as to changes without knowing these things.

I get this at work, of course, with patients suggesting to us doctors that we need to do this, or do that, without knowing the complex factors that have led us to a policy decision in the first place. What we can never do as doctors, of course, is dismiss the raised concerns simply because patients don't know how things work. Rather we take them as symptomatic of system flaws, and take that back and see if we can optimise the system in any way.

So its the same deal here - I'm a punter, in this case, not someone who knows what you're doing back there behind the scenes. I can make suggestions and observations, but I can't know whether they are ridiculous suggestions because I'm coming from a limited information angle.

I just think that its possible you may be missing out on creative submissions because the process is off-putting to writers. Essentially, its "send stuff in, we might use it, we might not, but we won't tell you either way till we do."

For people like myself (and Chan Island, from the looks of things) that will never stop us writing, because we write for its own sake. However, for many that lack of operant conditioned feedback may leave them unwilling to write.

I also think that lack of feedback to writers is a surefire way to lose quality of writing.

I guess all I can really do is flag this as something that is concerning from the outside, then leave it to you on the inside to decide what to do with that concern.

[Sedgistan]

We do have an Issues Control Panel that makes the actual physical editing easy, as well as giving us a host of useful tools like testing validities, monitoring dismissal rates and so on. What takes time to learn is various standards relating to text/format, but most of all the stats, which are not at all easy to pick up.

Regarding the submissions, the vast majority are not drafted here first. We've seen an uptick in the number drafted here over the last year or two, which I do think is somewhat related to the team being a bit more involved here. Like I said, I would like to see us able to give more feedback, but in our current state, I wouldn't prioritise it as highly as working on new issues. Maybe when there's 10 or 15 of us on board, that'd change.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Thanks for the informative replies.

As I said, I'll try not to keep you from actual editing any longer. Have just come up with a couple of new draft ideas, which I'll put up later today.

[Nation of Quebec]

We're pleased to announce that Sierra Lyricalia's draft has been chosen for the elusive #451. Expect to see it added soon.

Thanks to everyone who submitted their issues for #451.

[Sanctaria]

Apologies, you're right. It was Sanctaria who challenged the assumption, not yourself.

Just to clarify, the assumption I challenged was that we get enough good submissions to have "thousands" of issues added per year.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

We're pleased to announce that Sierra Lyricalia's draft has been chosen for the elusive #451. Expect to see it added soon.

Thanks to everyone who submitted their issues for #451.

!

I beam with joy!



Between the General Assembly and Real Life^TM, I thought I'd missed the window. Thanks for pickin' me! Now let's see about that IP trolling...

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Apologies, you're right. It was Sanctaria who challenged the assumption, not yourself.

Just to clarify, the assumption I challenged was that we get enough good submissions to have "thousands" of issues added per year.

Well, lets see how many I can turn out!

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Question: A lot of issues reference @@CAPITAL@@. What happens with these issues for nations that don't have a capital? Are they marked as being not valid for these issues?

I ask, because I have an idea for 2-3 issues that relate specifically to the impact of having or not having a capital, and I wondered if "Has a Capital city" and "Does not have a Capital city" are valid validity criteria.

[Chan Island]

Question: A lot of issues reference @@CAPITAL@@. What happens with these issues for nations that don't have a capital? Are they marked as being not valid for these issues?

I ask, because I have an idea for 2-3 issues that relate specifically to the impact of having or not having a capital, and I wondered if "Has a Capital city" and "Does not have a Capital city" are valid validity criteria.

In issues it says "@@NAME@@ City". So for example on this nation, I currently get all the issues affecting "Chan Island City", as this was the default given in the classification (and I haven't bothered changing it yet).

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Change of topic:

Last week I drafted this issue:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=367664

Its not a branching issue, but rather an issue that has a bunch of options for low economy nations, and a bunch of options for high economy nations. Essentially, the presented options change the narrative completely according to which of the two groups you fall into: neither group gets less options, but the ideas is that the Issue might look different when you come back to it with a puppet that has taken a different direction.

I was wondering if "two issues in one" had been done before, and if it is something that is welcome or unwelcome.

I have ideas for other issues of a similar sort (high or low political freedom, high or low religousness, and so on), but was wondering whether to proceed with drafting them.

[Sedgistan]

It hasn't been done before, but it's not a problem. If there's one or more options that are valid for all nations, generally we'd stick to one issue, but we'd look at it on a case-by-case basis - in some situations it would be better to split it into two separate issues.

[Lenyo]

NS lacks a dilemma specifically to legalize marriage. A quality draft on the topic would be appreciated.

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

NS lacks a dilemma specifically to legalize marriage. A quality draft on the topic would be appreciated.

I'm on it!

[Sedgistan]

A small announcement - unfortunately Golgothastan is stepping down as an Issues Editor. His nation CTEd a few months ago, and he's too busy in RL at the moment for NationStates. I'd like to thank him for his contribution to the team, wish him well for RL, and also note that if he does return, we're more than happy to bring him back onboard.

[Leppikania]

#490 spotted! I think I got all the macros, but please do check me.

The Long And Winding Halls Of @@CAPITAL@@

The Issue

Earlier this month, one of your aides stumbled upon a makeshift encampment of missing bureaucrats in the bowels of @@CAPITAL@@. Their discovery has prompted debate on whether the government has become too large and unwieldy.

The Debate

"Is this the government or a damned shanty town?" belts conservative leader @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ while slamming down his proposal on your desk. "We need to slash everything! Slash every department in half and rein this bloated government back in! Cut John Q. Taxpayer a break and ax our wasteful spending!"

"Now wait. Let's not be too hasty," cautions @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Department of the Interior's Interior. "Sure, maybe the government is a teensie bit too big, but why can't we solve this with scissors instead of a hatchet? Let's appoint a Minister in charge of Governmental Oversight to examine our budget and see what reasonable cuts can be made. Trust me, @@LEADER@@, you don't want to go axing such crucial departments without some investigation."

"What we have discovered is the bureaucrat's natural habitat," soothingly narrates renowned naturalist @@RANDOMNAME@@. "We have visited this tribal community several times since its discovery and have made great strides in understanding their unfamiliar ways. What was immediately clear to us was that this community would never be able to survive in our world. In the name of cultural preservation, we must protect their environment - in this case, the catacombs of @@NAME@@'s Capitol. Study and observe, but do not destroy, @@LEADER@@."

Issue by: The Self-Aware Colony of Luna Amore
Editor: Luna Amore

The last proponent, Nigel Verithorough, is not a @@random_name()@@. He is a renowned naturalist after all!

I would not expect an issue editor to get a macro wrong... Luna, you may have accidentally revealed an issue editing secret!

[Sanctaria]

:eyebrow: I would not expect an issue editor to get a macro wrong... Luna, you may have accidentally revealed an issue editing secret!

Not really - about 4 years ago we put through an issue omitting the final @ so nations who got that issue saw what Luna posted above. It was then posted in the fix issues thread.

Please still use @@RANDOMNAME@@, and not our internal reference.

[Trotterdam]

I've known about that since I saw Luna Amore's pretitle being set as "The Lunar Utopia @@random_name()@@ Occassionally Visits of Luna Amore". (If I recall, I was able to see the underlying macro because it didn't get processed in the HTML <title>. It got processed most other places, potentially causing the same nation to be displayed with two different pretitles on the same page.)

I've never tested if that works for mere mortals, or if you need special moderator powers to set a pretitle with at-signs.

[Luna Amore]

The last proponent, Nigel Verithorough, is not a @@random_name()@@. He is a renowned naturalist after all!

I would not expect an issue editor to get a macro wrong... Luna, you may have accidentally revealed an issue editing secret!

Minor minor tidbit of a secret.

In my defense, I've been solely using the more complicated one for over 4 years. Old habits die hard.

:eyebrow: I would not expect an issue editor to get a macro wrong... Luna, you may have accidentally revealed an issue editing secret!

Not really - about 4 years ago we put through an issue omitting the final @ so nations who got that issue saw what Luna posted above. It was then posted in the fix issues thread.

Please still use @@RANDOMNAME@@, and not our internal reference.

That slip up was my issue too... Maybe I just subconsciously want it out there.

I've never tested if that works for mere mortals, or if you need special moderator powers to set a pretitle with at-signs.

Gotta have them GM powers to throw macros places they ought not be.


Also, splitting this off to Writers' Block.

[Drachmaland]

I've known about that since I saw Luna Amore's pretitle being set as "The Lunar Utopia @@random_name()@@ Occassionally Visits of Luna Amore". (If I recall, I was able to see the underlying macro because it didn't get processed in the HTML <title>. It got processed most other places, potentially causing the same nation to be displayed with two different pretitles on the same page.)

I've never tested if that works for mere mortals, or if you need special moderator powers to set a pretitle with at-signs.

The first thing one would notice in a Mod's pretitle would be its length (exceeding the total number of characters available to common users), e.g. "The Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Moderator Simulator and Issues Imaginator of Luna Amore".
Then, a Mod would take it to the other extreme and have a minimal pretitle — but this time with characters not allowed in this field for common users, e.g. "The ! of Luna Amore".
Then, a Mod can start experimenting with macro fields (again not available to common users), e.g. "The @@random_name()@@ of Luna Amore".
Having proved the macro worked, a Mod can become more creative with the macro, e.g. "The Lunar Utopia @@random_name()@@ Occassionally Visits of Luna Amore".
Then a Mod can revert to a minimal pretitle again, but with a special character more distinctive than a plain exclamation mark, e.g. "The ● of Luna Amore".
After that the pretitle reverts to something less unique, and the cycle is ready to start all over again.

[Luna Amore]

You guys pay way too much attention to my pretitle. O_o

[Leppikania]

Now, I'm wondering if the mods can do this to other nations. So, perhaps a mod puppet that would appear to have the same custom fields as the nation viewing it?

[Bears Armed]

I've seen them change pretitles on one or two nations where they'd also just changed "inappropriate" mottoes, currencies, &/or national animals...