Help us fix old issues

[Golgothastan]

Yes, but NS has never pretended to be terribly realistic. IRL there is a very strong correlation between civil and political freedom, and the idea that a state could completely ban elections yet allow unlimited political dissent, freedom of expression and assembly, and all of the other freedoms the NS game mechanic places on the political spectrum just isn't terribly viable. Burma didn't ban Aung San Suu Kyi from taking office but then allow her supporters complete freedom to protest.

[Trotterdam]

the idea that a state could completely ban elections yet allow unlimited political dissent, freedom of expression and assembly, and all of the other freedoms the NS game mechanic places on the political spectrum just isn't terribly viable.

It's viable if you're doing a good enough job that very few citizens want to protest anyway (which, based on my nation's Happiness, Freedom from Corruption, etc. statistics, I am). Granted, that's rather difficult in real life too, but hey, Benevolent Dictatorship is a named nation category, let us play one! (Another quirk: Benevolent Dictatorship is the only category with either high economic freedoms or low political freedoms that has an optimistic long description, while all of its neighbors Libertarian Police State, Capitalizt, and Compulsory Consumerist State are described less sympathetically. Although I'm a lowercase-letter benevolent dictatorship, Left-Leaning College State suits me better when you look at what the numbers actually mean.)

Obviously we'll arrest them if they try violent protest, just like any non-politically-motivated violent crime, but that's rare enough to not be a real problem (Safety from Crime is also really good).

Also, it's not like our government never listens to the people's opinions, they might have good points (most issues have at least one option proposed by a normal Joe). We try to hear them out. We just reserve the final word on everything.

We still don't have elections, though.

[Christian Democrats]

Issue 404: Option 1

"Well it's not surprising, it is?" pipes up Cooper Patel from your entourage. . . .

I believe "it is" should say "is it."

[Luna Amore]

Issue 404: Option 1

"Well it's not surprising, it is?" pipes up Cooper Patel from your entourage. . . .

I believe "it is" should say "is it."

Fixed.

[Nerwarya]

#164: Licence To Breed?, Second option

"You can't deny perfectly good people the right to bring life into this world! wildebeests manage it easily enough (...)

I keep my national animal in lower-case, so it doesn't look weird capitalized in the middle of a sentence, although in this issue it's a complete opposite. I think I've seen issues' titles formatted properly, so I guess this functionality is implemented, just needs to be put here.

[Jafn]

nvrm

[Idzequitch]

Option #3 from the "Insurgents Resurgence" issue (#400) in the Issue Chain:

"Ah who cares about Brasilistan really", your National Security Advisor exclaims exasperatedly, throwing a pen across the desk. "I don't. It's causing us far much trouble, more than it's worth actually, and it's going to bankrupt us if we continue – and that's before we even think about colonisation. And even if we back out now, in a few years they'll retaliate once they've built up their strength. Let's nip this in the bud. Nuke them."

I'm assuming that it's supposed to say "far too much trouble."

[Lamebrainia]

"Affirmative Action in COUNTRY?"

I have a feeling that one of the later issues is a near-exact copy of this one. I don't remember its number or title, but it had 4 options.
I might be wrong, but I've been doing 2 issues a day since this nation's birthday, so the chances of that are fairly low.

Could you have a look?
Thank you.

[Golgothastan]

I think you're referencing Issue #315, which is not an "exact copy" but instead is deliberately meant to give people who have introduced affirmative action policies a chance to change their mind. We like to include "reversal" issues, such as the issues that react to banning elections, banning guns, banning cars, so that people don't get stuck: the fact there's no issue to reverse the decision to ban emigration means that at present any nation that's banned emigration is stuck, unable to receive the International Incident chain.

Could you have a look?

If that issue isn't the one you meant, then your query was too vague. We can't take a look at an issue if you don't know what the issue is.

[Trotterdam]

the fact there's no issue to reverse the decision to ban emigration means that at present any nation that's banned emigration is stuck, unable to receive the International Incident chain.

Hmm, we should write an issue for that then. Idea for a scenario that would bring it up: the ban on emigration has caused people to solicit help from smugglers to illegally leave the nation, causing problems with emigrants dying from people being packed tight into trucks like cargo, and being kidnapped and forced into slavery by untrustworthy smugglers. Obvious options are "in the name of compassion, we have to reinstate a more dignified and sanitary means to let people leave the country" and "these people brought this upon themselves by breaking the law, they deserve no better, and oh let's publicize knowledge of these horrible smugglers to convince the people that leaving is a bad idea and only we can look out for their safety", and preferably another option or two because two-option issues are boring (maybe "okay fine, leave, but if you do then we're never letting you back in" because #226 option 2 already expresses a sentiment in this vein).

[Luna Amore]

Option #3 from the "Insurgents Resurgence" issue (#400) in the Issue Chain:

"Ah who cares about Brasilistan really", your National Security Advisor exclaims exasperatedly, throwing a pen across the desk. "I don't. It's causing us far much trouble, more than it's worth actually, and it's going to bankrupt us if we continue – and that's before we even think about colonisation. And even if we back out now, in a few years they'll retaliate once they've built up their strength. Let's nip this in the bud. Nuke them."

I'm assuming that it's supposed to say "far too much trouble."

Fixed.

[Lamebrainia]

If that issue isn't the one you meant, then your query was too vague. We can't take a look at an issue if you don't know what the issue is.

I wish I could be more specific. My apologies. I just have a feeling there is an issue with very similar options (also something about education and someone not being admitted because of being from a social minority group).
I think, the last option for it was some janitor guy saying something around the lines of "Who needs 'em universities anyway?"
There's more than 400 issues at the moment. Finding the issue is just as hard for me as it is for you, I realize it perfectly well. I was hoping someone could remember it off the top of their head.

[Golgothastan]

That sounds like issue #209. I don't think it's too overlapping to be a problem: the affirmative action is more about access, whereas the latter is about people actually being able to pay for it: it's conceivable that even with affirmative action, someone might be admitted to an expensive college and then not be able to afford it.

[Mehistan]

The issue "Much Ado about Abortion" has fetus spelt worng. In the summary of the issue

Not sure if it counts as old, but wasn't sure where to ask

[Golgothastan]

The game uses both British and American English; foetus is the correct spelling in British.

[Voltrovia]

In the summary of Issue #128 (Ban The Burka?) it says, 'Minority groups and civil rights activists have expressed their outrage in protests outside the @@NAME@@ Parliament.'

It would probably be better to alter the grammar instead of simply making the name a demonym. I would correct it to: 'Minority groups and civil rights activists have expressed their outrage in protests outside the Parliament of @@NAME@@.'

[Czechostan]

In the summary of Issue #128 (Ban The Burka?) it says, 'Minority groups and civil rights activists have expressed their outrage in protests outside the @@NAME@@ Parliament.'

It would probably be better to alter the grammar instead of simply making the name a demonym. I would correct it to: 'Minority groups and civil rights activists have expressed their outrage in protests outside the Parliament of @@NAME@@.'

I think the issue implies that @@NAME@@ Parliament is a proper noun.

[Voltrovia]

In the summary of Issue #128 (Ban The Burka?) it says, 'Minority groups and civil rights activists have expressed their outrage in protests outside the @@NAME@@ Parliament.'

It would probably be better to alter the grammar instead of simply making the name a demonym. I would correct it to: 'Minority groups and civil rights activists have expressed their outrage in protests outside the Parliament of @@NAME@@.'

I think the issue implies that @@NAME@@ Parliament is a proper noun.

It would probably be best to add a variable for the nation's legislature but that would be a lot of work.

I s'pose it depends. The Parliament of Canada vs. the United States Congress. But 'the Parliament of @@NAME@@' would cover the most ground as a compromise.

[Jute]

4. "You know, we wouldn't have these problems if the population was more scientifically aware," muses amateur scientist @@RANDOMNAME@@ while pouring a vial of green liquid into a vial of purple liquid. "Movements like these are bred from ignorance and misinformation. If the government took an active role in promoting science and education this problem would go away. You could invest in real scientific studies and programs, make science classes mandatory in schools, and arrest any religious nuts who attempt to disrupt our work. @@NAME@@ would enter a new Golden Age!" The vials of liquid suddenly explode, covering your office with smoke and an unusually colored foam.[/box]

I honestly don't see the point of placing the term "religious nuts" in this particular issue. Religion isn't mentioned anywhere -- not once -- in this issue until the very end. To whom does option 4 refer? The issue description and options 1-3 say nothing about religion whatsoever; and, then, it pops into the issue out of the blue. In fact, many anti-vaccination activists are nonreligious.

Option four is about making science a priority for the government, promoting it, and removing barriers that get in the way of science. Historically and even to this day, religion and science are at odds. How many times has science been oppressed by religion or scientists killed or censored because of religion?

The scientist in the option sees religion as an obstacle to that goal of promoting science and a better understanding of vaccinations, so they want to turn the tables so to speak. Besides, this is Nation States. Issues are often meant to be exaggerated.

No no no, as a history major I heavily disagree. Before I go into lengthy details about how the church saved ancient records (and therefore made the renaissance and scientific revolution possible in the first place) and how it has provided much of the funding and education for Newton, Galileo and a lot of other scientists, please just read through this article: Link

the fact there's no issue to reverse the decision to ban emigration means that at present any nation that's banned emigration is stuck, unable to receive the International Incident chain.

Hmm, we should write an issue for that then. Idea for a scenario that would bring it up: the ban on emigration has caused people to solicit help from smugglers to illegally leave the nation, causing problems with emigrants dying from people being packed tight into trucks like cargo, and being kidnapped and forced into slavery by untrustworthy smugglers. Obvious options are "in the name of compassion, we have to reinstate a more dignified and sanitary means to let people leave the country" and "these people brought this upon themselves by breaking the law, they deserve no better, and oh let's publicize knowledge of these horrible smugglers to convince the people that leaving is a bad idea and only we can look out for their safety", and preferably another option or two because two-option issues are boring (maybe "okay fine, leave, but if you do then we're never letting you back in" because #226 option 2 already expresses a sentiment in this vein).

Sounds like a good idea. Are there options to reinstate a military as well?

[The Battleship Condescension]

Issue #350 (Queasy Cuisine) is missing some commas for dialogue. I've added them in in red. Answers with no issue have been left out. (Obviously these have pregenerated random names and my nation name included, but it should still work.)

1. "C'est terrible," bemoans Head Chef Stan Cruz of the Saveloy Grande Hotel. "Too many youngsters are eating zis awful fast food. Ze government must encourage haute cuisine to demonstrate to ze world that The Battleship Condescension is a country of beauty, love, and fine cooking. I suggest sautéed escargots avec garlic butter. Here - try one. Bon appétit!"

3. "Mornin'," calls out farmer Elizabeth Utopia, leading a cow into your office. "What do we care if some parboiled foreigners don't like our food? There's nothing better than good old-fashioned The Battleship Condescension-grown produce, cooked just the way me ol' ma would." Drawing a stun-gun and a cleaver from his dungarees, he continues, "Fancy a steak?"

4. "A good serving of sprouts is all I ever needed to grow up strong and healthy," says school dinner-lady Naki Goethe. Dolloping a mound of grey slop onto your plate, she continues, "Mashed cauliflower. The kids love it, and there's nothing better for growing the hair on your chest. Now eat it all up!"

6. "There, there," soothes your PA Faith Glub, proffering a bucket. "Our cuisine could use work, but there's so many dishes we'd have to fix… Oh, I know! You can't go wrong with pasta. Why not have everyone eat pasta? Only pasta." A plate of linguine appears on your desk.

[Militaries Sans Frontieres]

Not sure if this is an actual typo or a joke, to be honest, but here's Issue 297:

During the last Militaries Sans Frontieres 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.

3. "We can't just stop there!" protests well-known LGBTQQIA activist Sean Jones. "We should completely overhaul Militaries Sans Frontieres itself to make it less hostile to those like Ms. Johnson! Schools, hospitals, workplaces - they'll all need to be changed! There should be public toilets catered solely for the intersex too! You can't put a price on equality!"

Double the queer, double the fun?

[Golgothastan]

The second Q is for "Questioning".

[Lamebrainia]

Just getting through some of the punctuation...

COUNTRY and now look

should be

COUNTRY, and now look

weed, water, and sow

should be

weed, water and sow

cost the taxpayer but

should be

cost the taxpayer, but

SOME_DUDE an acquaintance

should be

SOME_DUDE, an acquaintance

generations, and by hickory we know how to do it best

should be

generations and, by hickory, we know how to do it best

thinking." notes socialist thinker

should be

thinking," notes socialist thinker

Overall, too much thinking in a line.

And with it, the proletariat

should be

And with it the proletariat

or

And with it — the proletariat

Yes, I am picky.

[The Battleship Condescension]

weed, water, and sow

should be

weed, water and sow

That's the Oxford comma! Not an error but a stylistic choice.

[Illik]

The issue: Gunman Kills Three

NationStates issues are supposed to have somewhat radical choices that make the game more interesting. I have to ask, who wrote the choices here, this is all one sided.
Option 1 gets rid of guns
Option 2 really gets rid of guns
Option 3 is a prequel to getting rid of guns

The issue for those who want to read it : Warning! Spoiler! : http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88#020

How about this for Option 4:
The head of the national security service @Random name@ voices concern: "I'm appalled that the government is seriously considering this fear monger agenda!" as he tosses a pile of statistics on your desk. "Hard research shows armed law abiding citizens decrease crime, and regularly use guns to defend themselves and others against these criminal wackos. Even the criminals admit they're not interested in robbing some poor old lady if she's going to pull a gun. Let's make gun ownership and training a requirement for all law abiding stable citizens of age who aren't directly opposed to guns."

RESULT:
Holsters are now offered as a feature on consumer products


(Gun ownership does NOT equal higher gun deaths. Look at Switzerland and Finland as just a few examples. Also in nations without guns, knives become the big killer.)
Suggested adjustments. If it's not listed there is no change. Some with no change are listed with a reason why there is no change.

Arms manufacturing +4
Economy +2
Authoritarianism -2
Averageness -5
Business subsidization 0 Because there is no market price support, direct support, or payments to factors of production. Further there are no loans or grants to companies.
Compassion 0 There is no change in compassion since possessing an item such as this does not intrinsically change a person. It's like carrying a hammer or a book.
Corruption ?
Defense Forces +2 Naturally you'll meet stiff resistance in a nation where everyone is armed.
Eco-friendliness 0 They're is no change to the environmental policy toward the environment here. Also weapons training still has to meet environmental containment policy.
Employment +2 Someone is building those guns and ammo and training those people.
Environmental Beauty 0 No change. Unless you'd like to argue that Switzerland and Finland with high gun ownership are real environmental garbage pits because of guns.
Freedom from corruption ?
Freedom from taxation: Small decrease for pro business nations as they would choose to privatize the citizen training, etc. larger jump for big government / gov control nations.
Government size ? would be a small increase in nations such as mine and a larger increase in big government nations
Happiness ? Not sure... happier with less crime?
Health: 0 Since this is related to general health of a nation. Less crime would also mean better health, but overall I thnk this would be a wash.
Ideological radicality: +5
Retail +1 Lots of gun product sales
Law Enforcement +3 These are law abiding citizens who would support the police. We didn't arm the criminals, they're already armed.
Lifespan: Possible increase due to less crime, and enhanced training with firearms.
Pacifism ?
Political Apathy ?
Safety +1
Safety from crime +2
Manufacturing +1
Social Conservatism: Increase
Taxation: Slight increase in pro business nations, Larger increase in government does all nations.
Toxicity: 0 No change again... Switzerland and Finland seem popular and pretty.
Unexpected death rate: Less unexpected death due to lower crime.
Weaponization: Large increase
Youth rebeliousness: Decrease


Because of the opt out clause and the fact it would guarantee the civilian population can exercise their civil and political freedoms. (As well as gun ownership rights being listed in the Bill of Rights for multiple nations.):
Civil rights +1
Political Freedom +3