Help us fix old issues

[Waffle-munching Robots]

"While 'tis not my place," says Amish farmer Mark Cho, "I just thought I'd mention that we Amish don't have any of this so-called 'cyber-crime'. Aye, 'tis a boring life, and plowin' gets old, but abolishing all of those computer-machines would certainly solve thy problems. Perhaps ye should just abandon phones and fax machines, too. Then ye'll be on your way to livin' in an Amish paradise!"

Amish don't talk like this.

I should know. I live in Pennsylvania

[Frisbeeteria]

Amish don't talk like this.

The fact that he's citing "Weird Al Yankovic" should be a clue that it's stereotype humor.

[Lamebrainia]

Fixed! Also added 'Easter Egg' to the title of that issue. Thanks!

#77 probably needs that addition to the title as well.
Thank you for fixing that up.

[Luna Amore]

Fixed! Also added 'Easter Egg' to the title of that issue. Thanks!

#77 probably needs that addition to the title as well.
Thank you for fixing that up.

Fixed that title as well. Every Easter Egg should be properly labeled now.

[Lamebrainia]

Fixed that title as well. Every Easter Egg should be properly labeled now.

Same issue, option #3, HTML is breaking out:
"the <em>world</em>"
Option #5:
"book! <a href="http://www.maxbarry.com/jennifergovernment" target="_blank"><em>Jennifer Government</em></a>"
This only happens upon selecting a response, from what I've noticed. The way the issue is presented on page load is fine.

[Luna Amore]

Fixed that title as well. Every Easter Egg should be properly labeled now.

Same issue, option #3, HTML is breaking out:
"the <em>world</em>"
Option #5:
"book! <a href="http://www.maxbarry.com/jennifergovernment" target="_blank"><em>Jennifer Government</em></a>"
This only happens upon selecting a response, from what I've noticed. The way the issue is presented on page load is fine.

Since I'm not entirely sure how to fix that, I've just removed the links for now. I'll let the higher-ups know so the links can get repaired.

[Waffle-munching Robots]

Amish don't talk like this.

The fact that he's citing "Weird Al Yankovic" should be a clue that it's stereotype humor.

I've never heard that song of his, so, sorry

[Serrian]

Problem with issue #310, "Too Little Talk":

It's perfectly fine, right until you get up to Option 3, which is earth-quakingly long compared to every option I've ever seen in an issue. The solid wall of words, most of which are completely useless, repetitive, and repeating the exact same point a million times, needs severe shortening.

[Sedgistan]

That's the joke.

[Serrian]

That's the joke.

Yes, except it's not very funny. As a native English speaker, I found little issue with the vocabulary, but I pity anyone who isn't and gets that issue. Secondly, I don't quite think it's funny to weigh down an option with lots of meaningless mush; almost half of the reason I didn't choose it was purely out of spite for the annoyance that had developed when I finished reading it.

If it was a joke, it wasn't a very well done one, and if it is well done, only for a small group of people. Once again, I highly suggest it be (even slightly) shortened.

[Sedgistan]

It's not going to be changed. Not everyone appreciates every joke.

[Schiltzberg]

ISSUE #085, OPTION #1

"What we need to do is hack their computers and format their hard drives," says Ariel Eliot, recording industry representative. "People need to be taught to not mess with the law. This is theft, pure and simple. And they're not only halving our revenue to tune of billions of Schiltz Dollars, but you are also stealing a few hundredths of a Schiltz Dollar from the artist for every song they steal. THINK OF THE STARVING ARTISTS!"

This is a common error that we make all the time, but that does not mean that it should go uncorrected.

You will see in the parts that I have colored red that the speaker, while addressing the same audience, messes up the person when he goes from third person to second person and back to third person. This would be perfectly legal, except that the speaker seems to be speaking about the same group. I would change the "you" to a "they."

I hate to be a grammar nazi, but I guess that is what this forum is for .

EDIT: On rereading I realize that I may be mistaken. Is the "few hundredths of a currency" that "you" are stealing referring to government tax? If so, then the option is technically correct, though it should be phrased better; I do not believe this is what the author meant though.

[Jumblerise]

Hi all!

I was recently playing when I came across the national security issue. It said that an international incident happened and that I needed to shore up my intelligence agency. At first I wanted to dismiss the issue. I don't want my country to fight other countries, and I do not want to create any more international incidents. But, then I thought that it is best to not be so naive about other's countries dispositions towards mine.

So, I decided that of all the choices presented (use agents, rely on internet activists, etc,) it was safest to intercept international communications and decode them, so that I have a good idea of what other countries are planning. I was not aware that what I had really done was to authorize spying on my own citizens. I did not realize this until I saw:

8 hours ago: Following new legislation in Jumblerise, all telephone traffic is monitored for 'national security reasons'.

Personally, I think the wording on the issue is not very clear if this misunderstanding can take place. The issue references other countries several times, and it does not really say who you're spying on in the options. Can the issue be reworded to make it crystal clear that the traffic being monitored is the traffic of your own citizens and NOT the traffic of other countries?

[Khronion]

Typically, whatever choice you pick in any issue, you'll be given the most extreme possible implication. This is not on accident. NS is a game that, to a large extent, satirizes real life politics and policy making.

[The Grim Reaper]

Typically, whatever choice you pick in any issue, you'll be given the most extreme possible implication. This is not on accident. NS is a game that, to a large extent, satirizes real life politics and policy making.

For new issues, though, it is possible that rewordings could be required for answers that are the extreme possible implication of something that isn't really well described.

That being said, what's in the OP, seems to describe what is a fairly logical conclusion to the choice.

This is also the wrong Forum Board - you wanted this in Got Issues? and not Gameplay.

[Luna Amore]

Looks like this issue: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88#328

1."The best way to gain accurate intelligence is when it's in transit," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a communications technician from the @@NAMEINITIALS@@SA, while hunched over a computer. "Think of the information the @@NAME@@ Security Agency could get from telephone calls, emails, radio chatter, even internet browsing history! All we would need are satellites, servers, algorithms, and quality mathematicians to intercept them. It might be costly, but you don't want another embarrassing incident, do you?"

I should point out that issues aren't designed to be crystal clear. They frequently come with unintended consequences.

[Jumblerise]

Looks like this issue: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88#328

1."The best way to gain accurate intelligence is when it's in transit," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a communications technician from the @@NAMEINITIALS@@SA, while hunched over a computer. "Think of the information the @@NAME@@ Security Agency could get from telephone calls, emails, radio chatter, even internet browsing history! All we would need are satellites, servers, algorithms, and quality mathematicians to intercept them. It might be costly, but you don't want another embarrassing incident, do you?"

I should point out that issues aren't designed to be crystal clear. They frequently come with unintended consequences.

But, I thought about the possibility of spying on my own people when I was considering the issue. I was very concerned about it. I did not want to spy on my own people from the start. When I was making my decision, I was weighing the possibility of the issue being about spying on my own people against the possibility that the bill was about spying on other countries only. This means that I did not know what the issue was about, because it did not say who I was spying on.

When I made my choice, I made a gamble that I was spying on other countries, not on my own people. I guessed wrong. I do not believe that players should have to guess at things like this. Had I known that those options definitely included spying on my own people, then I would have dismissed it immediately, regardless of further consequence.

I realize that real life politicians will skew issues so that the public does not realize what the issue is really about. But, this game is not like real life. There is no political system here (outside of the forums.) Instead, you build your own nation state and make the final choices on everything. If you are the one who is making decisions, then it would be nice to know what you are getting whenever you make decisions on issues.

[Frisbeeteria]

I realize that real life politicians will skew issues so that the public does not realize what the issue is really about. But, this game is not like real life.

In one sense, the game is exactly like real life. The Law of Unintended Consequences works not just with the public, but also with the bureaucracy. If you give an agency (let's say NSA) broad powers, it's not unreasonable to expect them to take their remit far beyond what Congress and the President imagined when they passed the law. All it takes is one or two overzealous and well-positioned functionaries to totally screw up your intentions. No single Leader can possibly monitor all the activites of his thousands (or millions) of staffers, which is when the Law of Unintended Consequences comes into play every time.

[Jumblerise]

I realize that real life politicians will skew issues so that the public does not realize what the issue is really about. But, this game is not like real life.

In one sense, the game is exactly like real life. The Law of Unintended Consequences works not just with the public, but also with the bureaucracy. If you give an agency (let's say NSA) broad powers, it's not unreasonable to expect them to take their remit far beyond what Congress and the President imagined when they passed the law. All it takes is one or two overzealous and well-positioned functionaries to totally screw up your intentions. No single Leader can possibly monitor all the activites of his thousands (or millions) of staffers, which is when the Law of Unintended Consequences comes into play every time.

I suppose what really irks me about the issue is that i saw it coming and I felt I could do nothing to stop it. I wanted to prevent it, but I could not do so. I was not given the option only to spy on other countries. It was more "do you spy or not?" with the nsa spying on my own citizens the moment I said yes.

If I were a leader looking at this issue. I would immediately throw in a stipulation that says that "you may not spy on your own citizens." Yet, the game did not give me that option. In this way, the game is not like real life, because the options are constrained to only a few presented to you by the writers of the issue. When confronted with such choices, it would be nice to at least know exactly what you are getting, instead of having to guess at the writer's true intentions behind a stance of the issue.

And, unlike real life, you cannot modify the issue. there is no public outcry (that I know of) when you make a decision. There is no congress to convince. There is no filibuster when one chooses a controversial stance on an issue. There is no vetos. There is no "congress refuses to pass this bill" Instead, there is the player trying to see what the outcome would be if they took their country in such and such a direction. When the options are constrained and the player has ultimate authority (no public to convince,) then I do not believe that the issues should be poorly worded like this. Instead, it should be clear what actions the player is taking when they take a stance on the issue.

The fun comes when they realize their action brings with it interesting side effects. But, i do not believe it's fun when the player believes they made one choice when they actually made a completely different choice all together.

[Sanctaria]

In one sense, the game is exactly like real life. The Law of Unintended Consequences works not just with the public, but also with the bureaucracy. If you give an agency (let's say NSA) broad powers, it's not unreasonable to expect them to take their remit far beyond what Congress and the President imagined when they passed the law. All it takes is one or two overzealous and well-positioned functionaries to totally screw up your intentions. No single Leader can possibly monitor all the activites of his thousands (or millions) of staffers, which is when the Law of Unintended Consequences comes into play every time.

I suppose what really irks me about the issue is that i saw it coming and I felt I could do nothing to stop it. I wanted to prevent it, but I could not do so. I was not given the option only to spy on other countries. It was more "do you spy or not?" with the nsa spying on my own citizens the moment I said yes.

If I were a leader looking at this issue. I would immediately throw in a stipulation that says that "you may not spy on your own citizens." Yet, the game did not give me that option. In this way, the game is not like real life, because the options are constrained to only a few presented to you by the writers of the issue. When confronted with such choices, it would be nice to at least know exactly what you are getting, instead of having to guess at the writer's true intentions behind a stance of the issue.

And, unlike real life, you cannot modify the issue. there is no public outcry (that I know of) when you make a decision. There is no congress to convince. There is no filibuster when one chooses a controversial stance on an issue. There is no vetos. There is no "congress refuses to pass this bill" Instead, there is the player trying to see what the outcome would be if they took their country in such and such a direction. When the options are constrained and the player has ultimate authority (no public to convince,) then I do not believe that the issues should be poorly worded like this. Instead, it should be clear what actions the player is taking when they take a stance on the issue.

The fun comes when they realize their action brings with it interesting side effects. But, i do not believe it's fun when the player believes they made one choice when they actually made a completely different choice all together.

I am sure you've already been directed to the FAQs on the matter.

The extreme options and unintended effects are a classic part of NS issues. This is unlikely to change.

[Golgothastan]

the game is not like real life

No, it's not. The game is based on a book that stretches to a deliberately absurdist reality. A game based on 1984 or The Hunger Games would be equally wacky, no doubt.

If what you're interested in is political subtlety, I would suggest exploring the World Assembly (General Assembly). There the fine details of laws really are debated down to the minutiae, including the political realities, drawbacks, and consequences.

Furthermore, there's nothing stopping you developing a more sophisticated law set for your nation through roleplay and publishing a few Factbooks about it.

[Jumblerise]

Hi all!

I recently came across issue #297

#297: Intersex Athletes Demand Level Playing Field
The Issue
During the last @@NAME@@ Athletics Championship, a massive controversy arose following the revelation that double gold medalist Atlanta Johnson possesses both male and female sexual organs, despite being entirely female in external appearance. [Gior Altheriod; ed:Sanctaria]

I picked option number 2

2. "I think I see a solution to all this," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister for Solutions, whilst solving the crossword in your morning newspaper. "We should overhaul the entire sport system in @@NAME@@ so that people compete against each other based on skill, not gender. Sure, it might be expensive but it'd be worth it if we want everyone to be happy."

I thought that this would ban all gender segregation in sports. So, instead of there being two competitions (one for men and one for women) there would be one competition where men, women, and other genders compete against each other. The result would be that sports would be based on skill, not on gender. I was also wondering how this would cost the government more money, since it would reduce the number of competitions held instead of increasing them. I found why it would cost more when I checked what happened after the bill passed:

11 hours ago: Following new legislation in Jumblerise, the 'kind of scrawny' 500 meter hurdle is a popular event.

Then I reread the issue and realized that I implemented a match making system on my sports events. I'm not really complaining, rather I request that the language be updated to better reflect what the issue is really about. I suggest changing the language of the issue to this:

2. "I think I see a solution to all this," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister for Solutions, whilst solving the crossword in your morning newspaper. "We should implement a match making system in @@NAME@@, so that people compete against each other based on skill, not gender. Sure, it might be expensive but it'd be worth it if we want everyone to be happy."

[Qvait]

There is a grammar error on Issue #353, "Broadband Going To The Birds?". In option two, it says,

"You've got to be joking!" scoffs your Minister of Finance, Roxanne Smith. "The government have far more important problems at hand than dealing with trivial matters such as the internet speed. The people of Qvait have access to the internet. That's far better than most of the world. Leave the internet providers to run themselves and get back to the business of running the country."

Instead, it should say,

"You've got to be joking!" scoffs your Minister of Finance, Roxanne Smith. "The government has far more important problems at hand than dealing with trivial matters such as the internet speed. The people of Qvait have access to the internet. That's far better than most of the world. Leave the internet providers to run themselves and get back to the business of running the country."

[Luna Amore]

There is a grammar error on Issue #353, "Broadband Going To The Birds?". In option two, it says,

"You've got to be joking!" scoffs your Minister of Finance, Roxanne Smith. "The government have far more important problems at hand than dealing with trivial matters such as the internet speed. The people of Qvait have access to the internet. That's far better than most of the world. Leave the internet providers to run themselves and get back to the business of running the country."

Instead, it should say,

"You've got to be joking!" scoffs your Minister of Finance, Roxanne Smith. "The government has far more important problems at hand than dealing with trivial matters such as the internet speed. The people of Qvait have access to the internet. That's far better than most of the world. Leave the internet providers to run themselves and get back to the business of running the country."

Fixed. Thank you.

[Jumblerise]

If we think of a new solution to an existing issue (that isn't moderate, but an entirely new take on the issue), could we suggest the option be added to the issue instead of writing a new issue just to cover that one solution?