Help us fix old issues

[Lamebrainia]

As you can read in this editoral

"editorial", perhaps?

Bar emergency medical reasons, you must make circumcision illegal in all circumstances.

Sounds a bit dubious, but I might be wrong. Does "bar" mean "except" or "even if there are"?

[Sanctaria]

As you can read in this editoral

"editorial", perhaps?

Bar emergency medical reasons, you must make circumcision illegal in all circumstances.

Sounds a bit dubious, but I might be wrong. Does "bar" mean "except" or "even if there are"?

Fixed the spelling error. Somehow made it through my spell-check!

[Aibohphobia]

Another demonym problem.

A Aibohphobian drone strike

[Sanctaria]

Another demonym problem.

A Aibohphobian drone strike

How are we supposed to know what letter of the alphabet your nation starts with? The same sentence goes to every nation valid for the issue, and the issue is manually written.

I can't fix this, it's a quirk of the game.

[Sanctaria]

Another demonym problem.

How are we supposed to know what letter of the alphabet your nation starts with? The same sentence goes to every nation valid for the issue, and the issue is manually written.

I can't fix this, it's a quirk of the game.

So I can fix this, apparently.

Sorry

[Aibohphobia]

How are we supposed to know what letter of the alphabet your nation starts with? The same sentence goes to every nation valid for the issue, and the issue is manually written.

I can't fix this, it's a quirk of the game.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make it sound like an accusation. I've merely assumed a/an problems should be reported, because they've been addressed previously.
Once again, I am terribly sorry if I did something wrong - I am only trying to help you out.

[Sanctaria]

How are we supposed to know what letter of the alphabet your nation starts with? The same sentence goes to every nation valid for the issue, and the issue is manually written.

I can't fix this, it's a quirk of the game.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make it sound like an accusation. I've merely assumed a/an problems should be reported, because they've been addressed previously.
Once again, I am terribly sorry if I did something wrong - I am only trying to help you out.

Yes, do report them.

[Christian Democrats]

Issue #432, Option 2

Maxford University demographer and suspected eugenicist @@RANDOMNAME@@ disagrees. "The fact is our nation is overflowing with young ne'er do wells. They commit more crimes, are more prone to rudeness, and worst of all are least likely to care about your good works, @@LEADER@@. We have to send the message that we are going to do something about the troublesome demographics, and a good place to start is by you staying childless. And if we really want to crack down on population growth, we need to double down on border security too."

The word "childless" was coined in the 12th or 13th century, and it carries a traditionalist connotation. Not having children is problematic.

Some time afterward, the word of YHWH came to Abram in a vision: "Do not fear, Abram! I am your shield; I will make your reward very great." But Abram said, "YHWH, what can you give me, if I die childless and have only a servant of my household, Eliezer of Damascus?" Abram continued, "Look, you have given me no offspring, so a servant of my household will be my heir." (Genesis 15:1-3)

In contrast, "childfree" was coined in the late 20th century and carries a distinctively modern connotation. Having children is problematic.

All of this leads me to wonder, why is our culture still so severely indoctrinated into believing that women must bear children simply because they can? Why are women's choices for their futures still harshly judged because they don't fit within outdated stereotypes? Why does the medical field still view a woman's choice to remain childfree as a passing phase? Is it not time to outgrow the idea of everyone living a cookie-cutter life? And to embrace a woman's right to live as she wishes? (Bri Seeley, The Huffington Post)

Given that the Maxford University demographer in this issue is clearly an opponent of childbearing, he would more likely use the word "childfree." His current use of the term "childless," although technically correct, just doesn't fit his outlook.

[Sanctaria]

It really doesn't matter that much.

[Aculea]

#127 Aging Concerns In Aculea

Option 3. "Woah, woah! Talk about hasty decisions here, man," says Kool Kal, one of your more hip advisors.

The historical spelling is whoa, but it's colloquial so whichever.

[Trotterdam]

The word "childless" was coined in the 12th or 13th century, and it carries a traditionalist connotation. Not having children is problematic.

In contrast, "childfree" was coined in the late 20th century and carries a distinctively modern connotation. Having children is problematic.

...So just out of curiosity, which term are you supposed to use if you think that having children or not having children is a choice and neither is inherently bad?

[Atomic Utopia]

#232 appears to be broken, women are demanding the right to vote just like men have... except I am a psychotic dictatorship where no people, men or women, can vote.

[Sanctaria]

#232 appears to be broken, women are demanding the right to vote just like men have... except I am a psychotic dictatorship where no people, men or women, can vote.

I've had a look at your stats and you still allow elections.

[Atomic Utopia]

#232 appears to be broken, women are demanding the right to vote just like men have... except I am a psychotic dictatorship where no people, men or women, can vote.

I've had a look at your stats and you still allow elections.

Strange... I do remember allowing them to vote for puppets, but I do not believe I explicitly banned women from voting.

[Sanctaria]

I've had a look at your stats and you still allow elections.

Strange... I do remember allowing them to vote for puppets, but I do not believe I explicitly banned women from voting.

The game makes the assumption based off some of your other decisions (particularly decisions regarding women).

[Trackeendy]

How? it seems like its two different sentences crammed into one. How can you read that and not find it odd?

Ordinarily you would uses commas a separators, but that causes problems when posted to the nation page. So we simply ignore the comma rule and post it as a run on sentence.

Actually, I've noticed one that has commas in it, and it seems to work just fine. (and citizens are encouraged to report friends, family members or co-workers who seem depressed to the government for "counselling")

[Sanctaria]

Ordinarily you would uses commas a separators, but that causes problems when posted to the nation page. So we simply ignore the comma rule and post it as a run on sentence.

Actually, I've noticed one that has commas in it, and it seems to work just fine. (and citizens are encouraged to report friends, family members or co-workers who seem depressed to the government for "counselling")

That's most definitely an exception to the rule.

[Aculea]

Is it intentional that #273: Is our children learning? isn't in title case? It's that way in the spoilers, so maybe it's a part of the joke?

[Luna Amore]

Is it intentional that #273: Is our children learning? isn't in title case? It's that way in the spoilers, so maybe it's a part of the joke?

It's intentional: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ej7ZEnjSeA

[Aculea]

Option 1 for #202 Guns Or Butter? explicitly proposes the military run things, and implies a coup: "So think about how they'd act when the military is in proper charge of the country? We'd say jump, and they'd jump, by jingo. Oh, and if you don't agree with me, consider this a coup."

I got the tag: politicians are often seen with soldiers pointing guns at their heads

I've just received #476 A Farewell To Raised Arms? It proposes a change to voting methods. The issues in between are below.

I can't imagine the validity of #476 being incorrect since it is a new issue being seen by a bunch of people, and none of the issues in between seem like they'd affect elections one way or another. From the tag I can just barely see #202:1 leaving elections intact, but I feel this interpretation clashes with the text. If it is the case that #202:1 does not cancel elections, could the text on it be updated? Or could it be changed to cancel elections? Otherwise, what happened to me?

The issues in between, reverse chronological order:

373:1 mantis shrimp studies is academia's fastest growing field
273:3 Aculea's schoolchildren are manufactured into a segregated bunch of soldiers, religious zealots, and computer technicians
372:1 troops are either deafened by gunfire or a hysterical voice screaming the Party manifesto
276:3 clowns are being rounded up and admitted to mental institutions
355:1 the government keeps introducing new foreign species to combat the previous ones it has introduced
352:3 anyone who so much as frowns is referred to a mental health unit
472:1 only AI know why the nation is rapidly increasing its semiconductor stockpile
298:3 young people crowd pizza parlors praying to 'The Supreme Pizza, His Immaculate Munchiness'
044:2 torture is illegal
202:1 politicians are often seen with soldiers pointing guns at their heads

[Sanctaria]

I think Egypt in recent times shows the military can coup, still hold elections, and still have a parliament with voting members. Not unusual.

[Lamebrainia]

I got this issue with my nation's category being "Capitalist Paradise". Was that supposed to happen? Because the options kind of imply running a socialist country.

[Aculea]

the military can coup

That waltzes straight into the logical conundrum of this issue: the coup shouldn't happen. That's why I said it is implied. A plain reading of the text predicates the coup on not agreeing with the field marshal. Choosing an option in NationStates strongly implies agreeing with the petitioner, hence: no coup. Choosing any of the other options makes the coup disappear, along with the field marshal, in a puff of game logic. I suppose a player could choose the first option while clapping her hands and believing that she does not agree with the field marshal, but it's sketchy to make that the primary interpretation.

The unpredicated statement in that option is that the military will be in proper charge. They would say jump, and people would jump. If you look up dictatorship in a collocation dictionary, you can see military on the list of common adjectives. If you look up democracy, military is not a common choice.

Imagining the first option as representing an Egyptian scenario is choosing to believe there was a coup when a coup is unlikely, then choosing to believe that the military being in proper charge implies a government other than that most common for military rule: dictatorship. The justification for these odd decisions is that a military cooperating with international observers to remove the government of a nation in revolt is similar to a commander of overwhelming force demanding authority over a country whose primary concern at the moment is a budget debate.

Which part is most troublesome about this? Changing the stats, changing the text, or something else? I can suggest: "No one even thinks to look at us funny now," says Field Marshall Lionel Mandrake as he taps a swagger stick against his hip. "The only thing holding us back is limp-wristed leadership. So we're going to be watching your decisions now, and if we don't like them, boom!"

Also, I no longer have the issue in front of me, but in the spoilers thread Field Marshal is spelled incorrectly as Field Marshall.

[Trotterdam]

I got this issue with my nation's category being "Capitalist Paradise". Was that supposed to happen? Because the options kind of imply running a socialist country.

Private enterprise is illegal in your nation.

It is somewhat difficult to be rated as having high economic rights (the thing that qualifies you for being called a Capitalist Paradise or Compulsory Consumerist State) in a nation where private enterprise is illegal, but it is possible, since there are other factors that go into that value.

I can't tell you exactly which issue caused you to abolish private enterprise, as nothing in your current history seems like it'd have that effect, so it was probably some time ago.

the military can coup

That waltzes straight into the logical conundrum of this issue: the coup shouldn't happen. That's why I said it is implied. A plain reading of the text predicates the coup on not agreeing with the field marshal. Choosing an option in NationStates strongly implies agreeing with the petitioner, hence: no coup.

In this case, it could just mean agreeing that you don't want to get shot.

Also, even if you're fully supportive of the military, there's still a coup, you're just in on it.

This just falls back to NationStates's surreality on what exactly @@LEADER@@ is. There is a certain detachment between @@LEADER@@ and how real leaderships works, since even in a democratic nation, you will never, ever be voted out of office. Nonetheless the game still treats democratic legislation as if it means something, and has it affect political freedoms and political apathy appropiately, rather than shrugging off any democracy in your nation as a sham because only one person ever seems to win. So by the same token, the game still treats an option that reads like a military coup as if it's an actual military coup, even if somehow @@LEADER@@ inexplicably stays in power anyway.

The unpredicated statement in that option is that the military will be in proper charge. They would say jump, and people would jump. If you look up dictatorship in a collocation dictionary, you can see military on the list of common adjectives. If you look up democracy, military is not a common choice.

#372 option 3 explicitly allows you to democratize your military. It's not something that's done a lot, but it's something that can be done.

Thus the game needs to have some allowance for a nation with democratic military rule, although admittedly it's not the most expected consequence from "well, your military just took over and you were a democracy before, so...".

[Lamebrainia]

I got this issue with my nation's category being "Capitalist Paradise". Was that supposed to happen? Because the options kind of imply running a socialist country.

Private enterprise is illegal in your nation.

It is somewhat difficult to be rated as having high economic rights (the thing that qualifies you for being called a Capitalist Paradise or Compulsory Consumerist State) in a nation where private enterprise is illegal, but it is possible, since there are other factors that go into that value.

I can't tell you exactly which issue caused you to abolish private enterprise, as nothing in your current history seems like it'd have that effect, so it was probably some time ago.

Thank you!
Yes, very strange indeed... I don't remember ever prohibiting anything. Could be letting companies run for government positions?