Help us fix old issues

[Trotterdam]

In #907:

Is the use of "before it has taken off" in one version and "before it takes off" in another version of the same option intentional?

Should "Cycology" be "Cyclology"?

"Theft-proof" is correctly hyphenated in one version of an option but not another.

The communism-flip-flip option needs a serial comma, in both versions, though at different points: "theft-proof components, auto-locking mechanisms, and GPS tracking systems" / "auto-locking mechanisms, theft proof components, and other effective measures". (The cardboard option is already correct: "would surely save loads of money, are entirely safe, and are fully waterproof and fire-resistant".)

[Techolandia]

For issue #76, Suits in Protest, it seems like the part about the VP of Sales at SlothCorp (I'm using the exact phrase from the issue.) should be its own option but was accidentallly not separated from the lead.



By the way, the options seem short considering there are only four or five of them. I think that they should probably be longer than 1.5 lines.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

In #907:

Is the use of "before it has taken off" in one version and "before it takes off" in another version of the same option intentional?

It's what the author wrote, and as both were grammatically correct I saw no reason to change that.

Should "Cycology" be "Cyclology"?

Naa. It's meant to sound like "psychology". Google "cycology" and you'll see its a commonly used pun amongst bike-related corporations, though at time of writing there doesn't seem to be any business called Cycology Degrees.

"Theft-proof" is correctly hyphenated in one version of an option but not another.

Right you are, changed.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

For issue #76, Suits in Protest, it seems like the part about the VP of Sales at SlothCorp (I'm using the exact phrase from the issue.) should be its own option but was accidentallly not separated from the lead.

Stylstically, I'm not a fan of having a speaker in the opening description either, but this isn't an error, it's just an example of how things were written back then. I don't like it, but it's not the sort of thing that this thread is for.

By the way, the options seem short considering there are only four or five of them. I think that they should probably be longer than 1.5 lines.

Again, not what this thread is for. Rewrites of old issues should be proposed on their own threads. However, I suspect you need to establish some writer-credibility before being trusted with a task like that: five or six published issues of good quality and consistent high quality drafts is roughly where we'd expect you to be before accepting your rewrite proposals.

I'd agree that this issue, as written, probably wouldn't get published today. However, it was approved and published in the past, so the threshold for changing it is now higher.

[Bears Armed]

Is that the British foot or the American one? I know that there's actually a minute difference between their metricated definitions...

Not anymore. They fixed that in 1959. How old are you?

Not quite that old. (Born in 1960, actually...)

However, there is the US survey foot, which is used for certain geographical applications, which is slightly different from the foot used (including in the US) for all other applications, including geography in some US states.

Ah. Then presumably that is the 'American foot' that I'd read was different from the British one.

[Orepa]

Hi there !

a little message to report a "no effect" issue (if it's an error btw)

dilemma: 61, question about nobility.

i've chosen to say no to nobility, and i has no effect on any stat. Dunno if it's a bug, a mis or the standard behaviour.

regards

[The Free Joy State]

Hi there !

a little message to report a "no effect" issue (if it's an error btw)

dilemma: 61, question about nobility.

i've chosen to say no to nobility, and i has no effect on any stat. Dunno if it's a bug, a mis or the standard behaviour.

regards

Your end result depends on where you start. In your case, you had nowhere to move, so your stats didn't change. I tested it on several of my puppets, and got completely different results. The issue is working as intended.

In future, please report any effects you're unsure about on the Unusual Effects Megathread. This thread is for typos, and grammatical errors. Before you post any effects in the Megathread, why not look at the first post, and see if your question is answered there.

This is the answer from the FAQs in that first post of the Megathread regarding no stat change at all:

Corollary: If you see NO stat effects, the simulation isn't broken. Rather, the decision was in keeping with where your current stat model suggests you are ideologically and structurally, so no stat changes were needed.

Hope that helps.

[Sapnu puas]

Issue #579, Option 2 involves laptops, yet I have computers banned in my nation. Unless laptops are completely different than computers in the NS world, isn't this a problem?

[The Free Joy State]

Issue #579, Option 2 involves laptops, yet I have computers banned in my nation. Unless laptops are completely different than computers in the NS world, isn't this a problem?

Good point. I'll raise this backstage.

[Trotterdam]

This effect line uses a Sorcerer's Apprentice quote:
"he nation’s ambassadors often conduct their business in jail cells"
That's not even correct Unicode. The right single quote is ’.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

This effect line uses a Sorcerer's Apprentice quote:
"he nation’s ambassadors often conduct their business in jail cells"
That's not even correct Unicode. The right single quote is ’.

Good spot. Fixed.

[Trotterdam]

#912 option 1's internal formatting ends on a curly quote, and options 2 and 3 have a curly apostrophes. Again, I can tell because they use the character entity references for the Windows-1252 codes, whereas the server itself correctly uses Unicode (which &#___; references per definition always use, regardless of the document encoding).

Additionally, in the text itself:

I think that's a small price to pay for a little international embarrassment.

That doesn't make sense. I would expect it to be either:

I think a little international embarrassment is a small price to pay for that[Our job is to promote the nation's interests and help find new allies.].

or:

I think that[We need diplomatic immunity to ensure our safety as national envoys, guarantee our freedom of movement, and maybe let off some steam on the weekends.]'s a small price to pay for [something positive-sounding, like "international peace" or whatever]

(Where the blue parts mark previous things the speaker said that the word "that" could possibly be referring back to, with the latter box being a more recent reference and so more reasonable, aside from needing to ditch the "a little international embarrassment" text.)

[Jutsa]

Yeah I was a little confused by that, too.

[Pogaria]

Yes, I see how that could be a little confusing. We'll change it to:

I think a little international embarrassment is a small price to pay for that."

[Fauxia]

So I just got THAT-ISSUE-THAT-CANNOT-BE-NAMED (417) and picked option 2. This is a stat effect, but I’m putting it here because the simulation is clearly working correctly. See, I still lost 5.5 political freedom (7%). I thought that it was going to be changed? I still find it a gross player autonomy sin to assume you had the affair, but the issue clearly still does.

[He Qixin]

So I just got THAT-ISSUE-THAT-CANNOT-BE-NAMED (417) and picked option 2. This is a stat effect, but I’m putting it here because the simulation is clearly working correctly. See, I still lost 5.5 political freedom (7%). I thought that it was going to be changed? I still find it a gross player autonomy sin to assume you had the affair, but the issue clearly still does.

Why can't you name issue 417 here?

[The Gamma Monster]

Shouldn't 482.4 not be valid for primitive nations.

[Pencil Sharpeners 2]

I noticed issue 910: "A for Effort" did not capitalise the 'for', and wondered if that was standard. A quick search revealed that every 'for' in an issue title was capitalised with the exception of issues 27, 304, 865, 877, and of course 910.

[Jutsa]

I'm pretty sure it's standard, yeah - at least according to my own findings as to which words are capitalized in a title.

Before, for some reason, All Words Were Capitalized In The Headlines, which I thought was very odd.

[Ransium]

We changes our rules for capitalization from Every Word to Only where Appropriate in Headlines a couple months ago.

[Trotterdam]

Should I get #637 on a communist nation? Besides the implications of the word "chain", option 2 explicitly describes the enterprise as having a private "owner".

[Jutsa]

Hey, this is a quick question because I'm rather confused by how it's worded, but for option #183.4:

"If this technology lets us reduce genetic defects, then couldn't it work the other way? We could create ourselves an army of genetically superior soldiers!"

Assuming this wasn't already changed and just not found yet, I was wondering about how this option's phrased.
I mean, the issue is about destroying embryos until there's a desirable one,
but the way this option's written, it seems like the person's asking if you can make the population have more defects
- and, instead, it's proposing to create genetically superior super-soldiers?

How'd that work? I mean, I can see them being genetically superior to your nation if you're making everyone else worse,
but they're apparently stronger than other nations?

Erh, just wanted to ask for clarification - either for me or for the option.

[Trotterdam]

but the way this option's written, it seems like the person's asking if you can make the population have more defects
- and, instead, it's proposing to create genetically superior super-soldiers?

How'd that work? I mean, I can see them being genetically superior to your nation if you're making everyone else worse,
but they're apparently stronger than other nations?

The original way: filter out bad abnormalities, bringing people closer to normal in a good way.
The other way: design good abnormalities, bringing people farther away from normal in a good way.

[Jutsa]

Aaaah, ok. Many thanks.

Edit: Oh yeah, this appeared at the end of issue 919:

?"!

[The Free Joy State]

Should I get #637 on a communist nation? Besides the implications of the word "chain", option 2 explicitly describes the enterprise as having a private "owner".

Owner has been changed to "manager". However, communist countries can have chains, so that is the only change.

Edit: Oh yeah, this appeared at the end of issue 919:

?"!

I checked the issue backstage, and the error's not there.

But thanks for the report.