Let Young Nations Write Issues!

[The Intellocracy Utopia]

I created a topic to protest an injustice. Why can't Young Nations-nations with populations below 500 million, write issues?! The excuse given is that they have to be around for a while to understand the way issues are written to write a good one. But that makes no sense for 2 reasons. First of all, that's just not true. You kind of get the gist pretty quickly, if not, definitely way before 500 million. Also, if the young nations write bad issues, they simply won't be accepted. The good ones, however, will be. Just like the older nations. Maybe there's another reason I'm not aware of, or a way to counter these arguments. If so, say so. Please take this seriously, though.

[Sedgistan]

I've moved your thread to the Technical forum, which is where it belongs.

The population requirement, as far as I'm aware, has been there from the very start (i.e. since 2003), and was probably put in place because of concerns that brand new players wouldn't have a sufficient grasp on issues to be able to write good enough ones, resulting in the proposal submission queue being filled with spam (which wastes the time of those that have to sort through it).

I'm open to trying things without the population limit. It might be worth it for the occasional newcomer who can write a decent author, but I'm wary about a flood of spam coming through at the same time.

[Bears Armed]

Young nations can write issues -- and, hopefully, post their drafts in the 'Got Issues?' forum for discussion -- already; it's only submitting the issues that has to wait until they've been around for c. 3 months...

[The Intellocracy Utopia]

I've moved your thread to the Technical forum, which is where it belongs.

The population requirement, as far as I'm aware, has been there from the very start (i.e. since 2003), and was probably put in place because of concerns that brand new players wouldn't have a sufficient grasp on issues to be able to write good enough ones, resulting in the proposal submission queue being filled with spam (which wastes the time of those that have to sort through it).

I'm open to trying things without the population limit. It might be worth it for the occasional newcomer who can write a decent author, but I'm wary about a flood of spam coming through at the same time.

It doesn't take THAT long to recognize spam. If it does, it's not spam, just not such a good issue.

[The Intellocracy Utopia]

Young nations can write issues -- and, hopefully, post their drafts in the 'Got Issues?' forum for discussion -- already; it's only submitting the issues that has to wait until they've been around for c. 3 months...

What's the point of putting them in the forum if they can't be actual issues?

[Imperial Idaho]

I've moved your thread to the Technical forum, which is where it belongs.

The population requirement, as far as I'm aware, has been there from the very start (i.e. since 2003), and was probably put in place because of concerns that brand new players wouldn't have a sufficient grasp on issues to be able to write good enough ones, resulting in the proposal submission queue being filled with spam (which wastes the time of those that have to sort through it).

I'm open to trying things without the population limit. It might be worth it for the occasional newcomer who can write a decent author, but I'm wary about a flood of spam coming through at the same time.

It doesn't take THAT long to recognize spam. If it does, it's not spam, just not such a good issue.

When you consider how many people use NS it is a lot of proposals. And while it's not spam it's for the most part spammy with the amount of bad and unfinished issues that will get put through the system.

[Imperial Idaho]

Young nations can write issues -- and, hopefully, post their drafts in the 'Got Issues?' forum for discussion -- already; it's only submitting the issues that has to wait until they've been around for c. 3 months...

What's the point of putting them in the forum if they can't be actual issues?

Peer review/editing.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

What's the point of putting them in the forum if they can't be actual issues?

Peer review/editing.

This.

One of our best current writers (A Humanist Science) started drafting here before he hit 500 million. This was an excellent time to discuss how drafts are best structured and written, and to get his very first draft absolutely right.

Net result? He currently is 100% on for submissions to publications. I don't think anyone else can boast that. I mean, a lot of us have had more issues accepted or published, but none of us can claim that consistency of quality.

A vital thing I want all writers to be aware of is that this is not a process for auteurs. This is a collaborative project, with every issue built by many hands. Great issues start in the GI forum and get feedback from peers, which then sharpens and improves it. They then land backstage, where one editor will take the lead, but will always get continuous feedback from every editor on the team, with the discussion threads usually twice as long as the GI threads around the draft. This takes a while, as each editor only works a maximum of three issues at a time, and historically some issues can go several years before they reach publication. These days we're faster, and I'm proud to say that there's no issues from before 2015 in the pool, and the vast majority are far newer.

Even then, we're not done, as the eagle eyed playerbase report little errors that have crept through. unexpected effects and the like.

Simply, if you're serious about writing issues, then you have to have a few key qualities:
- a clear vision of what you want to write
- the ability to take criticism, and to improve from it
- patience

To me, if you can't wait three months to submit an issue, then you don't have the patience to engage in the collaborative effort of issue building, or to wait for the editing process to complete. Likewise, if you won't spend a month or two to find your place in the community, then you're not going to be someone who listens to feedback or works with rather than against other authors.

The 500 million requirement is a good thing. It should stay.

[The Intellocracy Utopia]

Peer review/editing.

This.

One of our best current writers (A Humanist Science) started drafting here before he hit 500 million. This was an excellent time to discuss how drafts are best structured and written, and to get his very first draft absolutely right.

Net result? He currently is 100% on for submissions to publications. I don't think anyone else can boast that. I mean, a lot of us have had more issues accepted or published, but none of us can claim that consistency of quality.

A vital thing I want all writers to be aware of is that this is not a process for auteurs. This is a collaborative project, with every issue built by many hands. Great issues start in the GI forum and get feedback from peers, which then sharpens and improves it. They then land backstage, where one editor will take the lead, but will always get continuous feedback from every editor on the team, with the discussion threads usually twice as long as the GI threads around the draft. This takes a while, as each editor only works a maximum of three issues at a time, and historically some issues can go several years before they reach publication. These days we're faster, and I'm proud to say that there's no issues from before 2015 in the pool, and the vast majority are far newer.

Even then, we're not done, as the eagle eyed playerbase report little errors that have crept through. unexpected effects and the like.

Simply, if you're serious about writing issues, then you have to have a few key qualities:
- a clear vision of what you want to write
- the ability to take criticism, and to improve from it
- patience

To me, if you can't wait three months to submit an issue, then you don't have the patience to engage in the collaborative effort of issue building, or to wait for the editing process to complete. Likewise, if you won't spend a month or two to find your place in the community, then you're not going to be someone who listens to feedback or works with rather than against other authors.

The 500 million requirement is a good thing. It should stay.

It's not an issue of patience. I could wait 3 months. There are plenty of other things on NS to keep me occupied. But if there is no reason to wait, why wait? Also, you can post drafts even when there is no population requirment. It also might take less than three months to write and improve a draft. Also, although the authors may have patience, do you want to keep the other users, the ones who the issues are created for, waiting for the next good issue? Not all of THEM have that patience.

[Drasnia]

Hi, regular of Got Issues here. Frankly, NS has a very odd and unique style for writing that takes some time to actually get done correctly. It's not nearly as simple as many newcomers think it is. There is a significant learning curve to issue writing.

I see what some nations post in Got Issues and it is pretty awful - I can only assume that it is much worse for the actual editors who have to slog through submissions on a daily basis. (Many people don't come to the forum to draft, which is really sad.) Having no cap would most definitely increase the number of low-quality submissions while having practical no change on workable drafts.

It really is important to post in Got Issues. I know my writing improves when I get feedback from others - especially so a few years ago when I too was fairly new to writing. I've learned a lot about writing and making better issues through drafting on Got Issues. It takes a lot of time - normally 2-4 weeks per draft from posting on the forum to submission. After that is a period of time as the editors decide whether your issue has merit (which you can usually gauge on the forum) followed by actual editing.

My first issue I ever submitted, Florists Blooming Mad, took about 3 years from submission to publication. It wasn't very good compared to my newer standards, but I know for a fact had I submitted it with the collaboration of Got Issues, it never would have been published. There are some great writers and editors there who love helping other people out, both with technical bits, such as grammar, as well as the more creative such as giving opinions on the direction and humor of the issue.

[A Humanist Science]

But if there is no reason to wait, why wait?

You've actually been given many reasons for this requirement.

The primary reason for the wait is that your initial issue draft will be complete garbage, and will almost certainly be rejected without serious work. This is true of all authors, including myself, and including those with greater than 500 mil population. If you don't believe me, then check out the discussion threads for my own published issues: https://www.nationstates.net/nation=a_h ... ok/id=main Four to seven drafts over a couple of months of discussion and work is the norm. It really is.

So, if anything, the population requirement exists in order to get authors into the habit of the extended drafting and editing process. That alone is enough reason to keep it.

You know, since we actually are concerned with providing players with high quality issues. And, if you look in the spoilers thread (Warning: Spoilers!), you'll see that the editing team publishes new, high quality issues almost every single day. Or two. Because even with the 500 mil population requirement and an authoring/editing process that is so intentionally slow, there are that many submissions.

The population requirement isn't slowing anything down. There is, seriously, nothing broken here.

Net result? He currently is 100% on for submissions to publications. I don't think anyone else can boast that. I mean, a lot of us have had more issues accepted or published, but none of us can claim that consistency of quality.

If this is true, it's only because the authoring and editorial process is very much set up to demonstrate how completely crap one's initial drafts actually are. It has to, if one's drafts are to become not-crap.

At any rate, given that I've thrown away half of my issue drafts on the basis of recieved feedback ("Recycle Bin," again at the above link), I'd say I'm actually around 50%

(and even lower still if we count all the issues submitted directly to queue without any drafting or editing, by previous incarnations lost to the sands of Antiquity...)

[A Humanist Science]

(Many people don't come to the forum to draft, which is really sad.)

I suspect this is due to some fear that ideas will get borrowed and/or stolen. Which, if the case, is a pretty silly reason to skip drafting in the forum since the forum provides an opportunity to put your name to your idea in the public record.

The population requirement, again, provides an opportunity to grab authors attention, direct them to the forum, and show them how the community is fully set up to prevent such things from happening.

[Reploid Productions]

Speaking from experience, even with the population requirement, the queue of issue submissions was always full of garbage. Prior to the addition of the Issue Editors team, back when it was just a handful of the mods doing it, you could easily get stuck waiting for more than two years for your submission to even be looked at because of the sheer volume of them. Removing the modest population restriction on submissions would not help that endless flood in the slightest.

[Luna Amore]

Also, although the authors may have patience, do you want to keep the other users, the ones who the issues are created for, waiting for the next good issue? Not all of THEM have that patience.

Lowering the limit for submission would not increase acceptance rates. We still have a pool of ~150 (I think, I'm rarely in there nowadays) non-staff drafts left.

[Mousebumples]

Speaking from experience, even with the population requirement, the queue of issue submissions was always full of garbage. Prior to the addition of the Issue Editors team, back when it was just a handful of the mods doing it, you could easily get stuck waiting for more than two years for your submission to even be looked at because of the sheer volume of them. Removing the modest population restriction on submissions would not help that endless flood in the slightest.

I would probably want to leave the population limit high enough that a brand new spam nation can't just submit things, but I could certainly understand lowing the limit to say 250m or 100m versus the 500m.

But, of course, I defer to those who spend more time Editing Issues. *nod*

[Bedetopia]

(Many people don't come to the forum to draft, which is really sad.)

I suspect this is due to some fear that ideas will get borrowed and/or stolen. Which, if the case, is a pretty silly reason to skip drafting in the forum since the forum provides an opportunity to put your name to your idea in the public record.

The population requirement, again, provides an opportunity to grab authors attention, direct them to the forum, and show them how the community is fully set up to prevent such things from happening.

From the GI FAQ:

What do I do if someone copies my issue when I post it in this forum?

Inform a moderator, in the Moderation forum. If a player has stolen your actual issue draft, they will be punished severely. If it's just your idea that's been stolen, however, there's not much we can do.

I wonder if there have been cases of players stealing drafts and submitting them themselves though.

[Nation of Quebec]

As an editor, I can tell you there's a lot of crap (for a lack of a better word) I have to delete on an almost daily basis. Some of what I see is barely above spam while some is outright spam.

Removing the population limit on issue submission would make that problem worse for us, not better.

My advice is to post your drafts in the Got Issues forum and take the time to get them polished up rather than rush to get them submitted. The GI forum is probably the friendliest one in all of NationStates. People will be happy to give you feedback Take your time in cultivating your skills and making your issues the best they can be. Rushing to get them submitted doesn't do anyone any good.

If someone steals your issue you can report them to the mods and chances are one of the editors will spot a stolen issue and not accept it anyway.

I say keep the population at its current 500m.

[Sedgistan]

I'm in disagreement with the other Editors here - most the issues I pick up for editing aren't written by a "regular" author who drafts in Got Issues - they're written by a normal player, usually quite new, who has a flash of inspiration and some flair, but probably never submits more than one or two issues. The basic style of NS issues is relatively relatively easy to grasp, and I reckon there'd be more issues of that sort submitted without the population requirement in place.

[Enfaru]

I say decrease the limit but note completely remove it.

To be honest. I just want more issues >.>

(It's nice to be able to paraphrase an existing issue).

[Emperyo]

I think young nations shouldn't write issues because they don't really have a grasp on how such issues are structured in NationStates.
But they can always help others who are creating issues by posting what could be improved on the issue.

[A Humanist Science]

I think young nations shouldn't write issues because they don't really have a grasp on how such issues are structured in NationStates.

Again, nothing actually stops sub-500 mil nations from writing issues. In fact, they are strongly encouraged to draft issues in the Got Issues? forum immediately, precisely so they can get a grasp on how issues work. I've always understood that to be the whole point of the population requirement. At any rate, I started writing my first two accepted issues way before I was even close to 500 mil.

[The Intellocracy Utopia]

I'm in disagreement with the other Editors here - most the issues I pick up for editing aren't written by a "regular" author who drafts in Got Issues - they're written by a normal player, usually quite new, who has a flash of inspiration and some flair, but probably never submits more than one or two issues. The basic style of NS issues is relatively relatively easy to grasp, and I reckon there'd be more issues of that sort submitted without the population requirement in place.

Good to know one of the mods agree with me. Although even I'M starting to think that it may be better to just lower the requirment, and not completely get rid of it.

[[violet]]

Implemented: You now only need 50 million people to submit an issue. We'll monitor what effect this has on submissions and revise again as necessary.

[Australian rePublic]

The issue editors are volunteers. They don't have time to trawl through millions of issues. By waiting 3 mlnths, it's hope that you would have learnt the structure by then

[Australian rePublic]

Implemented: You now only need 50 million people to submit an issue. We'll monitor what effect this has on submissions and revise again as necessary.

Wait. Is this serious?