Help us fix old issues

[Lenyo]

But it's not wrong, Luna! He's Smalltopian and speaks with a thick accent

Ah, yes, of course.

I shouldn't be so quick to judge our Smalltopian brothers.

Changed back. >_>

Made my day, Luna, you made my day. Admittedly it's 8 in the morning, so my day just began.

[Agadin]

303.3 (Trafficked Tots Trouble): I got five newspaper headlines for this choice (repel parental licences). The first headline was completely blank, which seems like a bug.

[Lamebrainia]

You don't just get protein or iron in red meat and if we could make this clearer to everyone with a nationwide 'Getting to Terms with Vegetarianism' programme so the populace learns how to eat healthily we would see a difference.

I think there should be a comma before "and if we could" and another one - before "we would see".

[Enfaru]

Issue 244 appears to come up if you "abolish" the military, but Enfaru hasn't abolished it's military, it just forced it to go after its own funding. Abolishing state funding of the military and actually getting rid of it altogether are two different things. Yet it appears that for the government to "own" something it must "fund" it and that's really a bad way to do things. For example something can be government controlled, yet paid for by the private sector quite easily.

I suspect a change may need to be made. (Albeit I am thankful the issue came up as to be fair, I hadn't wanted to completely wipe out the military funding in the first place...)

[Aibohphobia]

Option 2 creates no outcome at all.
The "talking point" is present, so are newspaper headlines, but nothing gets changed in the process.
Was it meant to be this way?

[Sanctaria]

Option 2 creates no outcome at all.
The "talking point" is present, so are newspaper headlines, but nothing gets changed in the process.
Was it meant to be this way?

Yes, it's working fine. There just happened to be no outcome for you with this option on this particular occasion.

[Fin Dovah Junaar]

Sooooo....

Why does the second issue in "Where there's a will, there's a tax" abolish inheritance tax?

Even it supports that, and the only think hinting at it being abolished is what I presume to be a blunder in the last sentence.

[Mahdistan]

In issue 493, option three:

"I don't really understand what issue is," muses @@RANDOMNAME@@, a burly Smalltopian diplomat, from a couch in the executive lounge. "I watch sports to see best compete against best. Who cares if they take drug or drinking chemical to be stronger and faster? Give all athlete drug!" As he speaks, he is rapidly switching between three different sporting events on TV. "Stronger, faster, BETTER, if you ask me!"

Typo

[Luna Amore]

In issue 493, option three:

"I don't really understand what issue is," muses @@RANDOMNAME@@, a burly Smalltopian diplomat, from a couch in the executive lounge. "I watch sports to see best compete against best. Who cares if they take drug or drinking chemical to be stronger and faster? Give all athlete drug!" As he speaks, he is rapidly switching between three different sporting events on TV. "Stronger, faster, BETTER, if you ask me!"

Typo

It's intentional.

[Mahdistan]

In issue 493, option three:

"I don't really understand what issue is," muses @@RANDOMNAME@@, a burly Smalltopian diplomat, from a couch in the executive lounge. "I watch sports to see best compete against best. Who cares if they take drug or drinking chemical to be stronger and faster? Give all athlete drug!" As he speaks, he is rapidly switching between three different sporting events on TV. "Stronger, faster, BETTER, if you ask me!"

Typo

It's intentional.

Oh.

[Eluvatar]

Issue 244 appears to come up if you "abolish" the military, but Enfaru hasn't abolished it's military, it just forced it to go after its own funding. Abolishing state funding of the military and actually getting rid of it altogether are two different things. Yet it appears that for the government to "own" something it must "fund" it and that's really a bad way to do things. For example something can be government controlled, yet paid for by the private sector quite easily.

I suspect a change may need to be made. (Albeit I am thankful the issue came up as to be fair, I hadn't wanted to completely wipe out the military funding in the first place...)

This post was moved here from Technical.

[Lenyo]

Issue 244 appears to come up if you "abolish" the military, but Enfaru hasn't abolished it's military, it just forced it to go after its own funding. Abolishing state funding of the military and actually getting rid of it altogether are two different things. Yet it appears that for the government to "own" something it must "fund" it and that's really a bad way to do things. For example something can be government controlled, yet paid for by the private sector quite easily.

I suspect a change may need to be made. (Albeit I am thankful the issue came up as to be fair, I hadn't wanted to completely wipe out the military funding in the first place...)

Nations with low or no military spending can get #244. All is as it should be.

[New Glubbdubdrib]

Maybe this isn't what the thread is for, but I have a complaint about the issue 422 (Wounded Veterans Demand A Helping Hand).

There's three options, but very little variation: all options conclude that the nation should be helping the veterans. Which makes no sense for several of my puppets. This one, for instance: it opposes public healthcare and consider soldiers to be renewable resources that can be used and simply thrown away.

Feels like that issue is dictating the policy for me ('you'll have to take care of the veterans'), instead of the player deciding what's the best for the nation.

In short, it needs an option that doesn't raise Pubic Healthcare and Compassion. Either that, or make it unavailable for nations with non-existent healthcare.

[Bears Armed]

In short, it needs an option that doesn't raise Pubic Healthcare and Compassion. Either that, or make it unavailable for nations with non-existent healthcare.

What's wrong with the 'Dismiss' button?

[Trotterdam]

I don't know if this is intentional (religious nuts using antiquated grammar to sound sophisticated aren't necessarily well-educated about how it actually works), but issue #172 option 1 uses "shalt" incorrectly:

"If we don't rectify this problem immediately the ground shalt quake, the sky shalt turn blood-red, and the fields shalt turn to offal."

"Shalt" is correctly used in the second-person singular ("thou shalt"). These instances should, boringly, be "shall".

I also find that the effect line for that option ("atheists refusing to attend church are heavily fined by the government") is rather similar to the one for #070 option 4 ("atheists are heavily taxed"). Mere fines are honestly a bit underwhelming after such an impassioned speech.

Maybe this isn't what the thread is for, but I have a complaint about the issue 422 (Wounded Veterans Demand A Helping Hand).

There's three options, but very little variation: all options conclude that the nation should be helping the veterans. Which makes no sense for several of my puppets. This one, for instance: it opposes public healthcare and consider soldiers to be renewable resources that can be used and simply thrown away.

Feels like that issue is dictating the policy for me ('you'll have to take care of the veterans'), instead of the player deciding what's the best for the nation.

In short, it needs an option that doesn't raise Pubic Healthcare and Compassion. Either that, or make it unavailable for nations with non-existent healthcare.

I would think option 2 is the "we don't care about you" option, since it's passing the buck to private industry. Unless you hate veterans so much that you don't want them to get medical help even if they can afford it with money they raised on their own.

[Lamebrainia]

cries supercentenarian Party member @@NAME@@, who at one hundred and ten years old

Isn't this statement tautological?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

cries supercentenarian Party member @@NAME@@, who at one hundred and ten years old

Isn't this statement tautological?

Tautological would be something like "centadecarian" or "centadecanarian." "Supercentenarian" just means "over 100."

[Trotterdam]

It's a clarification. First you say "wow, he's old!", then you follow with "to be exact, this old".

[Lamebrainia]

Isn't this statement tautological?

Tautological would be something like "centadecarian" or "centadecanarian." "Supercentenarian" just means "over 100."

"Supercentenarian" means over 110 years old. And if the age is clarified in the next substatement, then having used the adjective was pointless.
Compare: "The greater-than-ten number is equal to thirteen". Why would anyone put a phrase this way?
Also, it is tautological, because the same bit of information is repeated two times with different levels of clarity. Dictionary entry.

It's a clarification. First you say "wow, he's old!", then you follow with "to be exact, this old".

Yes, it is. But a needless one. Please take a look at the numerical example given above.

[Lamebrainia]

cos if we don't it'll just come around again

There should be a comma after "we don't".

into tests that most likely won't work don't you think?

There should be a comma after "won't work".

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Tautological would be something like "centadecarian" or "centadecanarian." "Supercentenarian" just means "over 100."

"Supercentenarian" means over 110 years old. And if the age is clarified in the next substatement, then having used the adjective was pointless.
Compare: "The greater-than-ten number is equal to thirteen". Why would anyone put a phrase this way?
Also, it is tautological, because the same bit of information is repeated two times with different levels of clarity. Dictionary entry.

I know what a tautology is, thanks. Clearly the only thing I didn't know was "supercentenarian," so thanks (sincere this time) for defining that. In this context, the repetition may be intended to emphasize just how spectacularly elderly the guy is; though if they changed it in the way you suggest I wouldn't mourn heavily, for the exact reasons you've given.

[Lamebrainia]

I know what a tautology is, thanks. Clearly the only thing I didn't know was "supercentenarian," so thanks (sincere this time) for defining that. In this context, the repetition may be intended to emphasize just how spectacularly elderly the guy is; though if they changed it in the way you suggest I wouldn't mourn heavily, for the exact reasons you've given.

I can't see any reason for being ironical. Your definition of tautology is "saying the same thing two or more times", when the actual definition goes as far as to engulf statements around the lines of "X is greater than 10 and X is greater than 15". What you were thinking of is called "repetition", while "tautology" is a broader term. Yes, etymologically I'm wrong, but the word has gained a new meaning after centuries of philosophising and whatnot.
Obviously, I cannot be sure in assessing an issue from a semantic point of view, because I didn't write it. I'm not interested in blaming anyone or having quarrels. My main concern is epitomised in this thread's title - to help fix issues. That doesn't mean I'm right when I think something's a mistake, but no harm's done in highlighting something that's potentially wrong.

[Lamebrainia]

evidence based CBT

Should probably be "evidence-based".

[Tecton]

For issue 478, option two has Handel where I suppose handle is supposed to be.

[Phydios]

For issue 478, option two has Handel where I suppose handle is supposed to be.

It's an intentional reference to a famous composer. Google it.