The Writers' Block

[Jutsa]

Uh... then I have no idea.

[Socio Polor]

Uh... then I have no idea.

That's ok. I'm actually waiting for either one of the editors or Issue Mods to answer my concern because if you can have a issue about mind uploading and AGI, then we should be able to have an issue relating to the singularity. Not to mention it's believed AI will lead to the singularity. Also aside from all that I don't see why we shouldn't strech the boundary. I actually think it'll make the game more interesting and maybe even get people more into issues, plus above all else it makes sense. If you're gonna have a scientific advancement stat but always have issues dealing with modern scientific and technological topics what's the purpose in that. You guys have already stretched the boundary with mind uploading (and that's almost as sci-fi as you can get) so why stop there? Go all out with it, might as well.

[USS Monitor]

Pushing the boundries a little is fine. However, pushing the boundries a lot is far more controversial.
Why this is the case? I'm not really sure, but it is the case regardless.

Because the more sci-fi stuff we put in, the more there is a risk of creating nations where normal present-day issues are no longer relevant.

[Socio Polor]

Pushing the boundries a little is fine. However, pushing the boundries a lot is far more controversial.
Why this is the case? I'm not really sure, but it is the case regardless.

Because the more sci-fi stuff we put in, the more there is a risk of creating nations where normal present-day issues are no longer relevant.

The issues that discuss sci-fi topics will on apply to those nations who's scientific advancement is very high, like in the top 3% or if u guys really wanna make it so that the issues are challenging to get so that the present day ones don't become a minority; top 1%

[USS Monitor]

Because the more sci-fi stuff we put in, the more there is a risk of creating nations where normal present-day issues are no longer relevant.

The issues that discuss sci-fi topics will on apply to those nations who's scientific advancement is very high, like in the top 3% or if u guys really wanna make it so that the issues are challenging to get so that the present day ones don't become a minority; top 1%

This isn't open for debate. We are not going to accept a chain about "the singularity" -- particularly not from an author without a proven track record of writing well and being easy to work with. Please drop it.

[Luna Amore]

Reaching singularity would be the end of game. Issues would be wholly irrelevant. It isn't a dilemma.

Now an issue debating the increasingly steep slope of technological progress and what that means for @@NAME@@ might work, but you are kind of treading on 626's toes with that. That issue isn't about suddenly being able to upload a conscious to a computer. It's about a company who claims they'll be able to do it in 20 or 30 years.

AI as people while futuristic (kind of like the VAT people) is easy to imagine a dilemma with.

[Socio Polor]

The issues that discuss sci-fi topics will on apply to those nations who's scientific advancement is very high, like in the top 3% or if u guys really wanna make it so that the issues are challenging to get so that the present day ones don't become a minority; top 1%

This isn't open for debate. We are not going to accept a chain about "the singularity" -- particularly not from an author without a proven track record of writing well and being easy to work with. Please drop it.

I'm not trying to start a debate, just asking a simple question first of all.
Second of all I am in fact a good writer, maybe not particularly in writing issues for this site, but that's where practice comes in.
Thirdly, where do you of all people get off thinking I'm not easy to work with?

All I wanted to know is why can't we have an issue about the singularity when you guys have an issue discussing about mind uploading of all things. I also asked what's the point in having a scientific advancement stat when nations are going to be dealing with modern science and technology topics no matter how high or low the stat is regardless. On both questions I have not been given a straight answer. Now aside from that I want to state a few things. I am indeed a rookie issue writer and none of my ideas have been particularly original to this site I admit, but shouldn't you guys be more welcoming of rookie writers like myself. You just Sai I quote

particularly not from an author without a proven track record of writing well

I personally find this very discouraging and a little rude of you to say. I'm not good now yes, but maybe I'll get better in the future. You should never say you won't accept an issue from someone who doesn't write well to anybody. That's not only discouraging but rude. Instead of saying such things why don't y'all help me out so I can improve in my issue writing.
With that being said there's this statement you've made

without a proven track record of being easy to work with.

Now I'm not sure how you know I'm not a team player (which I am) sense neither you or anyone else on this site has ever worked with me either in RL or on this site. I feel as though you (which I don't see how sense me and you have never had any negative interactions) and the rest of the moderation team as some sort of bais against me. Now if you guys have some sort of problem with me I really need y'all to send me a TG (which I doubt you guys will) so we can discuss about it and hopefully set things straight between me and you guys, but that can't happen unless y'all contact me. But overall, back at my main problem at hand, I am in no such way trying to start a debate with y'all like you guys always seem to think. When I don't understand something I ask questions, because if I don't ask questions how will I be able to understand this site better. I really need you guys to communicate with me and answer my simple questions and if you guys do answer my questions and I don't get your response I'm gonna ask another question, that's simply how I am. I'm asking this of y'all in the nicest way possible. Thanks in advance

[Socio Polor]

Reaching singularity would be the end of game. Issues would be wholly irrelevant. It isn't a dilemma.

Now an issue debating the increasingly steep slope of technological progress and what that means for @@NAME@@ might work, but you are kind of treading on 626's toes with that. That issue isn't about suddenly being able to upload a conscious to a computer. It's about a company who claims they'll be able to do it in 20 or 30 years.

AI as people while futuristic (kind of like the VAT people) is easy to imagine a dilemma with.

Ah, I see. Now that you put it like that I can see how a singularity chain could potentially make issues useless. Thanks for making me understand, I didn't think of it that way

[Socio Polor]

You know want, Monitor ruined it for me. After this comment

We are not going to accept a chain about "the singularity" -- particularly not from an author without a proven track record of writing well and being easy to work with.

I'm not even going to write issues on this site no more, I give up. I was really getting into it to until USS Monitor came along with that statement and sucked all the remaining spirit and enthusiasm I had about issue writing, soo......yeah.....that's that, nothing else to say.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Wait, you can get salmonella from eggnog? o_o

... Good thing I'm not drinking that stuff this year. >_>

Also, I think CWA made something similar to that in one of his drafts.
You can try doing something like that, too, although you'll certainly have some hard competition. :3

Did I? I don't remember doing one... Can't seem to find one in the staff folder for sure.

However, issue 705 is about food poisoning. That may overlap.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

You know want, Monitor ruined it for me. After this comment

We are not going to accept a chain about "the singularity" -- particularly not from an author without a proven track record of writing well and being easy to work with.

I'm not even going to write issues on this site no more, I give up. I was really getting into it to until USS Monitor came along with that statement and sucked all the remaining spirit and enthusiasm I had about issue writing, soo......yeah.....that's that, nothing else to say.

That's a shame.

When it comes to chains, we're generally looking for an author that has at least ten issues published, as this will show that they know how issues work. Even then, that's not an absolute criteria. As yet, there are only three chains in the game, and both mine and NoQ's took many months and something like a thousand discussion posts to finalise, all in all. They're not small undertakings, so the main thing we look for is an ability to commit to the process.

As for the singularity, I don't think it's entirely a no-go area. However, the line between modern day and sci-fi needs to be straddled carefully. With AI, for example, we're always clear that there is no absolute proof that the AIs depicted are sentient, and no assumption that this is the case. Vat people and dinosaur resurrection are cases which - under modern guidelines - would probably be considered too far into science fiction, but they exist now, so we let them be.

The singularity happening would, of course, be far too far into scifi. However, what would be interesting is to explore the ideas around what could lead to a singularity, and the means to prevent or encourage that. That is, instead of looking at the posthuman state, focus on the prerequisites for transhumanism.

As for yourself, and quality of writing, you have admirable enthusiasm. Your draft submissions haven't quite made the cut yet, but I think with a little practice and work you will get a published issue. Sometimes it's not about writing skill, so much as its about skill at writing issues for this particular and specific context. On the three issues of yours I've seen, there's some weaknesses in storytelling that need to be improved upon, and a poor feel for issue form and balancing. There's also some minor grammar issues, and some weaknesses in creating evocative and humorous prose, but those things can easily be fixed: it's the overall issue shape and story form that need work.

If you want to keep at it, I'll gladly help you along with your drafts, but at present you're a little way off the required standard.

[Socio Polor]

You know want, Monitor ruined it for me. After this comment I'm not even going to write issues on this site no more, I give up. I was really getting into it to until USS Monitor came along with that statement and sucked all the remaining spirit and enthusiasm I had about issue writing, soo......yeah.....that's that, nothing else to say.

That's a shame.

When it comes to chains, we're generally looking for an author that has at least ten issues published, as this will show that they know how issues work. Even then, that's not an absolute criteria. As yet, there are only three chains in the game, and both mine and NoQ's took many months and something like a thousand discussion posts to finalise, all in all. They're not small undertakings, so the main thing we look for is an ability to commit to the process.

As for the singularity, I don't think it's entirely a no-go area. However, the line between modern day and sci-fi needs to be straddled carefully. With AI, for example, we're always clear that there is no absolute proof that the AIs depicted are sentient, and no assumption that this is the case. Vat people and dinosaur resurrection are cases which - under modern guidelines - would probably be considered too far into science fiction, but they exist now, so we let them be.

The singularity happening would, of course, be far too far into scifi. However, what would be interesting is to explore the ideas around what could lead to a singularity, and the means to prevent or encourage that. That is, instead of looking at the posthuman state, focus on the prerequisites for transhumanism.

As for yourself, and quality of writing, you have admirable enthusiasm. Your draft submissions haven't quite made the cut yet, but I think with a little practice and work you will get a published issue. Sometimes it's not about writing skill, so much as its about skill at writing issues for this particular and specific context. On the three issues of yours I've seen, there's some weaknesses in storytelling that need to be improved upon, and a poor feel for issue form and balancing. There's also some minor grammar issues, and some weaknesses in creating evocative and humorous prose, but those things can easily be fixed: it's the overall issue shape and story form that need work.

If you want to keep at it, I'll gladly help you along with your drafts, but at present you're a little way off the required standard.

Hmmmm, I'll maybe look into doing this if I change my mind about not writing issues again. But right now I'm not too sure, maybe.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Bump and update on sought issues:

Multiple gaps exist within the issue base. Please consider closing these with good quality issue drafts, which will be prioritised for publication:

Absolute primogeniture - Activated in 596, if you choose to have the eldest child inherit the throne regardless of gender. Cannot currently be reversed. Medium priority: Reversal issue needed please.
(SINGAPORENO2 HAS A DRAFT ON THIS AT PRESENT)

Body Modification - Body modification is banned. Medium priority: An issue that makes this legal again.

Dinosaur park - Activated by 474. Specifically that the nation has a theme park with real live dinosaurs in it. Can be reversed at present, but only as a side effect of closing all zoos. Low priority: Specific narrative reversal issue needed please.

Dinosaurs - Activated by 474, 556 and 655. Means that dinosaurs have been brought back to life. Can currently be reversed, but it's very roundabout and tricky to achieve. Low priority: Specific narrative reversal issue needed please.

ID Chips - Activated by 666. Subcutaneous id-chips are implanted under the skin of citizens. Note that both covert and overt implantation are treated the same by this policy. Cannot currently be reversed. Medium priority: Reversal issue needed please.
(SINGAPORENO2 HAS SUBMITTED, EDIT IN PROCESS)

Mccarthyism - Activated only in the CAPITALgate chain, and currently checked only there, but creates a persistent condition suggesting that the nation indulges in Mccarthy era witch-hunts for dissidents. Low priority: An issue reverses this policy.
(SINGAPORENO2 HAS A DRAFT ON THIS AT PRESENT)

Metric - Activated by 319. Indicates metric system is in use. Can't be reversed at present. Medium priority: Reversal issue needed please.

Monarchy - Activated by 461 and 527. Can be reversed in 596, but access to that issue is locked if you already have absolute primogeniture, which in turn cannot be reversed. So ideally we need an issue that can reverse both these in two options within a single issue. High priority.

National Healthcover - Nation has an NHS, activated and deactivated in lots of places. However deactivations are mostly by side effect, no specific deactivation. Low priority: Reversal issue that explicitly ends the NHS.

Piracy - Pretty much activated and deactivated in 201, this policy is never referenced anywahere else. Low priority: An issue that checks if this policy is active as a validity criteria.

Police Cars - The specific situation where even though cars are banned, the police are explicitly allowed to have police cars as per 357 and 625. This also acts as an entry check to 357, but has no reversal. Medium priority: An issue that reverts a nation to having no cars for the police OR the populace.

Term Limits - Activated in 54 and 306, elected officials have term limits. No reversal exists at present. Medium priority: An issue that reverses term limits.

Native Elections - Activated in 427, elected officials must be nativeborn. No reversal exists at present. High priority: An issue that reverses this.

No Cents - As per 343, small denomination coins have been withdrawn. One reversal exists at present, but requires you to have another rare policy active. Low priority: An issue that reverses this with non-stringent entry requirements.

No Courts - This policy indicates that lack of traditional courts, which basically means a judge, verbal arguments and evidence for prosecution and defence, and formal sentencing prior to punishment. There's actually three reversals in the game but they're all a little unsatisfactory, as they reverse the policy as a side effect of mentioning a solution that involves courts. I'd rather flag these as options not valid if you don't have courts, but to do that... High priority: An issue that reinstates courts.

No Senate - Triggered by aboloshing the upper house in 560. No reversal exists. High priority: An issue that reinstates the upper house.

No Zoos - As per 431 and 547. One reversal exists, but only as a side effect change. Low priority: An issue that specifically relegalises zoos.

So guys, don't feel you need to be of the calibre of SingNo2 to participate. The gaps need closing, and any quality admissions on the subjects will be fast-tracked.

[Singapore no2]

So guys, don't feel you need to be of the calibre of SingNo2 to participate. The gaps need closing, and any quality admissions on the subjects will be fast-tracked.

I am flattered! =')

[Jutsa]

You forgot to add my draft on dinosaurs...

Also, I think CWA made something similar to that in one of his drafts.

I can't remember either... what was I referring to?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

So guys, don't feel you need to be of the calibre of SingNo2 to participate. The gaps need closing, and any quality admissions on the subjects will be fast-tracked.

I am flattered! =')

Right sorry, let me rephrase that.

So guys, don't feel you need to be as poor in writing calibre as SingNo2 to participate. The gaps need closing, and any quality admissions on the subjects will be fast-tracked.

Phew!

[Jutsa]

Thinking about it, didn't someone submit a draft about the lack of a senate, as well?
They also made an issue about champagne, I believe.

[Bears Armed]

And, yes, you can stretch technology a bit in NS - the most controversial of such is the vat technology.

I'd consider the re-created dinosaurs to be even more of a stretch than the vat technology.

[Jutsa]

Ah, yeah, you have a point there.

You know, advanced technological stuff could probably be done as long as it creates new and engaging issues that don't make any other issues trivial.

[Shwe Tu Colony]

I briefly mentioned this before, but I'm considering writing an issue on how hard fruitcake supposedly is by having it fall on one of @@LEADER@@'s aides. In irrelevant news, I may also try to get some of those gaps covered at some point.

Edit: Am currently trying to make a quick draft for reversing the prohibition of zoos.

[Trotterdam]

I'd say that for determining whether speculative technology is a viable topic for NationStates issues, there are two important considerations:

1. How likely is a nation to actually choose to use this technology?
Even if vat technology exists, a lot of people are going to prefer to have sex. If omnipotent mastery of the universe exists, people probably aren't going to turn it down.

2. How much impact would it have on everyday life if this technology did get implemented?
If you clone dinosaurs, that means you'll have more interesting zoos, but not much else. Riding a Triceratops might be cool, but driving a truck is probably more practical.

If the answer to both questions is "high", then the technology is too disruptive to exist in NationStates. If the answer to either one or the other is "low", then is can potentially work, but of course, proceed with caution.

Actually, both questions can be boiled down to "How much would people make use of this technology, if doing so is voluntary rather than compulsory?". (The fact that you can make it compulsory, thereby significantly increasing usage, is not the point here, so long as most sane nations wouldn't.)

[Jutsa]

Am currently trying to make a quick draft for reversing the prohibition of zoos.

Yay :3c

Also, thank you, Trotterdam! You know, an issue (or chain) where an experiment like that goes horribly wrong could, on the other hand, be rather interesting.

[Shwe Tu Colony]

Hasty draft complete.

[USS Monitor]

This isn't open for debate. We are not going to accept a chain about "the singularity" -- particularly not from an author without a proven track record of writing well and being easy to work with. Please drop it.

I'm not trying to start a debate, just asking a simple question first of all.
Second of all I am in fact a good writer, maybe not particularly in writing issues for this site, but that's where practice comes in.
Thirdly, where do you of all people get off thinking I'm not easy to work with?

All I wanted to know is why can't we have an issue about the singularity when you guys have an issue discussing about mind uploading of all things. I also asked what's the point in having a scientific advancement stat when nations are going to be dealing with modern science and technology topics no matter how high or low the stat is regardless. On both questions I have not been given a straight answer. Now aside from that I want to state a few things. I am indeed a rookie issue writer and none of my ideas have been particularly original to this site I admit, but shouldn't you guys be more welcoming of rookie writers like myself. You just Sai I quote

particularly not from an author without a proven track record of writing well

I personally find this very discouraging and a little rude of you to say. I'm not good now yes, but maybe I'll get better in the future. You should never say you won't accept an issue from someone who doesn't write well to anybody. That's not only discouraging but rude. Instead of saying such things why don't y'all help me out so I can improve in my issue writing.
With that being said there's this statement you've made

without a proven track record of being easy to work with.

Now I'm not sure how you know I'm not a team player (which I am) sense neither you or anyone else on this site has ever worked with me either in RL or on this site. I feel as though you (which I don't see how sense me and you have never had any negative interactions) and the rest of the moderation team as some sort of bais against me. Now if you guys have some sort of problem with me I really need y'all to send me a TG (which I doubt you guys will) so we can discuss about it and hopefully set things straight between me and you guys, but that can't happen unless y'all contact me. But overall, back at my main problem at hand, I am in no such way trying to start a debate with y'all like you guys always seem to think. When I don't understand something I ask questions, because if I don't ask questions how will I be able to understand this site better. I really need you guys to communicate with me and answer my simple questions and if you guys do answer my questions and I don't get your response I'm gonna ask another question, that's simply how I am. I'm asking this of y'all in the nicest way possible. Thanks in advance

A key phrase in that post was "without a proven track record." If someone doesn't have a track record of being easy to work with, that doesn't necessarily mean they are a pain in the ass. It can also mean they haven't done enough to build up a track record of any kind.

FWIW, I shouldn't be writing chains either because I don't have enough issues experience and my attention span is too short.

And right this minute I shouldn't be writing much of anything because it's 3AM, I had a long day, and I'm starting to get snoozy.

[United Massachusetts]

So am I OK writing an issue about jury nullifcation?

The word nullification does not yet appear in the issue base. I *think* it would be an original topic. As far as is this subject matter ripe for an NS issue? I'd say totally.

Great! I call dibs