Help us fix old issues

[Marxist Germany]

Issue 1015 option 1, refers to the non existent World Assembly Criminal Court, the correct committee currently is the World Assembly Judiciary Committee. Also, this option shouldnt be available for nations not in the WA, but im not sure if thats the case because I am in the WA on this nation.

This issue has been amended. It no longer references the WA.

Well, that is certainly a better choice.

[The Winnish Warlands]

Should it be possible to receive Issue #175 on a country that has banned sex? Or a country that enforces atheism? Said issue is the one regarding adultery, and also utilizes sin as the reason why adultery is bad.

Issue Fulltext with Italicized References to Questionable Points

The Issue

The highly moral and religious pressure group ‘Cuckolds And Cuckqueans Anonymous’ has lobbied for the criminalisation of adultery.

The Debate

“Whatever happened to the sanctity of marriage?” asks Clint Kelly while wearing a T-shirt bearing the slogan ‘Marriage is for life, not just for anniversaries’. “Whatever happened to lifelong companionship? Whatever happened to simple faithfulness because of love?! Adultery seems to be more of a hobby than anything these days! The government must impose the utmost punishments on those who commit this sin. A good old-fashioned stoning should sort it!”

“I don’t agree with adultery either,” says Jane Rice, a passer-by. “But, uh... stoning? You don’t think that’s a little extreme? If we find someone guilty of fornication we can just lock them up in jail. That way no-one gets killed and the sinners get justice. It’s more expensive to the tax payers than a stoning of course, but I reckon it’s worth it.”

“With the greatest of respect, this is none of your business!” yells Sherlock Yew who is rumoured to have had more than a thousand lovers and even more children. “The government has no right to go about trying to dictate the laws of love and romance! Marriages break down, people move on - is it really the government’s place to make people stay put? You must recognise the fact that the law has no place within the bedroom!”

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Should it be possible to receive Issue #175 on a country that has banned sex?

It already isn't possible. Please limit reports to instances where you have spotted an error occurring, rather than presuming one exists.

Or a country that enforces atheism? Said issue is the one regarding adultery, and also utilizes sin as the reason why adultery is bad.

Atheists can use the word "sin", in the same way that non-adherents to the Dodekatheon still use the word "Herculean". It's just a word.

[The Winnish Warlands]

Should it be possible to receive Issue #175 on a country that has banned sex?

It already isn't possible. Please limit reports to instances where you have spotted an error occurring, rather than presuming one exists.

My apologies, I must not have been clear. I phoned this in because I received the above issue on this nation, which has indeed banned sex according to the policies page. If it is indeed impossible, am I reading the policies page wrong, or did an error occur?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Hmmm...

You're right, sorry.

Looks like a change we requested has not happened. We track nations that have banned all recreational sex with a policy called "No Sex". We also track nations that have banned reproductive sex called "Vat People". Your nation has banned biological reproduction but not recreational sex.

The banner "No Sex" triggers off the policy "Vat People", which it shouldn't, given than banning sex is something separate.

We've asked for the No Sex banner to be renamed, but it looks to be another pending task. Sorry for the confusion.

[The Winnish Warlands]

Hmmm...

You're right, sorry.

Looks like a change we requested has not happened. We track nations that have banned all recreational sex with a policy called "No Sex". We also track nations that have banned reproductive sex called "Vat People". Your nation has banned biological reproduction but not recreational sex.

The banner "No Sex" triggers off the policy "Vat People", which it shouldn't, given than banning sex is something separate.

We've asked for the No Sex banner to be renamed, but it looks to be another pending task. Sorry for the confusion.

You needn’t apologize. Glad I could see what’s up. Keep up the great work.

[Olde Carolina]

Issue 780 - whether to ban value added tax
I opted to end the tax, but the result was that taxes went up. How does this make sense? Ending a tax should lower taxes.

Issue 734 - Whether to allow beverage companies to use misleading advertising
The results from this one are also backwards. Beverage Companies are making lots of profits because they are falsely claiming to have health benefits. I opted for government regulation that would ban misleading health claims. This resulted in the newspaper article "soda sales see sweet surge," my beverage industry rating went up, and health went down.

[The Free Joy State]

Issue 780 - whether to ban value added tax
I opted to end the tax, but the result was that taxes went up. How does this make sense? Ending a tax should lower taxes.

Issue 734 - Whether to allow beverage companies to use misleading advertising
The results from this one are also backwards. Beverage Companies are making lots of profits because they are falsely claiming to have health benefits. I opted for government regulation that would ban misleading health claims. This resulted in the newspaper article "soda sales see sweet surge," my beverage industry rating went up, and health went down.

For future reference, this is the thread to ask about unusual issue effects.

Regarding 780, we are aware that taxation is a limitation in the simulation, relating only to income tax as explained in the OP of the correct thread under: "Why didn't tax / unemployment / black market do what I expected it to?"

Regarding 734, your beverage sales increased (which was a secondary effect, caused by other stats input -- correctly -- into the issue interacting with your own stats) fractionally, from 7,280.04 to 7,288.52 (or 0.12%). This is within the margin that is possible from this issue (other nations may fall or experience no chance). My records show that Health (also a secondary stat, which editors do not directly control) did not change as a result of this issue.

There is nothing unusual about these effects.

EDIT: When reporting to the correct thread, we need the name/number of the issue, the option you picked, the effect that may be unusual, the date (if not today) and the nation (if you answered by a puppet).

[The Wessex Islands]

Issue 656 option 3 reads: "we liberally irradiate the bank-notes, and watch as the hostage-takers, their associates and their families die from radiation poisoning."
However, irradiating the bank notes before delivering them would not do this, as the notes would not become radioactive (so the hostage-takers themselves would not actually be irradiated). Instead, the notes would have to be contaminated with radioactive material.

[The Free Joy State]

Issue 656 option 3 reads: "we liberally irradiate the bank-notes, and watch as the hostage-takers, their associates and their families die from radiation poisoning."
However, irradiating the bank notes before delivering them would not do this, as the notes would not become radioactive (so the hostage-takers themselves would not actually be irradiated). Instead, the notes would have to be contaminated with radioactive material.

Having conferred with a colleague, we feel that -- although not technically perfect -- "irradiate" is being used as generally understood in common parlance (which is acceptable, as speakers don't have to speak in perfect English), and comprehensible within the context of the option.

Another editor may see it differently. But, for now, no amendment has been changed.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Issue 656 option 3 reads: "we liberally irradiate the bank-notes, and watch as the hostage-takers, their associates and their families die from radiation poisoning."
However, irradiating the bank notes before delivering them would not do this, as the notes would not become radioactive (so the hostage-takers themselves would not actually be irradiated). Instead, the notes would have to be contaminated with radioactive material.

Having conferred with a colleague, we feel that -- although not technically perfect -- "irradiate" is being used as generally understood in common parlance (which is acceptable, as speakers don't have to speak in perfect English), and comprehensible within the context of the option.

Another editor may see it differently. But, for now, no amendment has been changed.

As the speaker is a scientist, I have no objection to it being changed.

"liberally contaminate the bank-notes with radioactive material" works fine for me, if that's okay for you, FJS.

[USS Monitor]

Having conferred with a colleague, we feel that -- although not technically perfect -- "irradiate" is being used as generally understood in common parlance (which is acceptable, as speakers don't have to speak in perfect English), and comprehensible within the context of the option.

Another editor may see it differently. But, for now, no amendment has been changed.

As the speaker is a scientist, I have no objection to it being changed.

"liberally contaminate the bank-notes with radioactive material" works fine for me, if that's okay for you, FJS.

Maybe take out "liberally" so it's less of a mouthful?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Okay done!

[Marxist Germany]

In 671 there is a large breach of player autonomy in the description.

While perusing the grand governmental libraries for the popular graphic novel, “Jee, Gnomes!”, you come across numerous documents pertaining to the field of genetic engineering — manipulating the genetic code that dictates the characteristics of all biological life. In a barely comprehensible scientific paper, you read of a proposal to allow the patenting of DNA sequences. Realising that the government has yet to take an official stance, you call together a number of experts in the field that are willing to debate the topic.
The Debate

[Sanctaria]

In 671 there is a large breach of player autonomy in the description.

While perusing the grand governmental libraries for the popular graphic novel, “Jee, Gnomes!”, you come across numerous documents pertaining to the field of genetic engineering — manipulating the genetic code that dictates the characteristics of all biological life. In a barely comprehensible scientific paper, you read of a proposal to allow the patenting of DNA sequences. Realising that the government has yet to take an official stance, you call together a number of experts in the field that are willing to debate the topic.
The Debate

Where is the breach in player autonomy.

[Marxist Germany]

The entire thing assumes you did X, discovered Y, so decided to do Z. Unless this is acceptable by IEs.

[The New California Republic]

In 671 there is a large breach of player autonomy in the description.

While perusing the grand governmental libraries for the popular graphic novel, “Jee, Gnomes!”, you come across numerous documents pertaining to the field of genetic engineering — manipulating the genetic code that dictates the characteristics of all biological life. In a barely comprehensible scientific paper, you read of a proposal to allow the patenting of DNA sequences. Realising that the government has yet to take an official stance, you call together a number of experts in the field that are willing to debate the topic.
The Debate

The entire thing assumes you did X, discovered Y, so decided to do Z. Unless this is acceptable by IEs.

Um...a lot of issues put the player in a scenario by describing something that they have done to get to that point...

[Marxist Germany]

In 671 there is a large breach of player autonomy in the description.

The entire thing assumes you did X, discovered Y, so decided to do Z. Unless this is acceptable by IEs.

Um...a lot of issues put the player in a scenario by describing something that they have done to get to that point...

But the guide says:

2) You the games-master, are not allowed to tell me what my character does or decides.

When you write or edit an issue, don't say what my character's actions or decisions are. The whole point of issues is for me to tell YOU that. You can describe that a meeting has been called, or that advisors have been summoned, but don't tell me that my character has called a meeting, or that my character has summoned my advisors.

viewtopic.php?p=32581709#p32581709

[Anglia-Saxia]

Issue ''Dial L for Loan'' (677) still happens in my nation,which outlawed gambling? Explain,how?

[The New California Republic]

Um...a lot of issues put the player in a scenario by describing something that they have done to get to that point...

But the guide says:

2) You the games-master, are not allowed to tell me what my character does or decides.

When you write or edit an issue, don't say what my character's actions or decisions are. The whole point of issues is for me to tell YOU that. You can describe that a meeting has been called, or that advisors have been summoned, but don't tell me that my character has called a meeting, or that my character has summoned my advisors.

viewtopic.php?p=32581709#p32581709

I don't think it is a hard rule. Lots of issues have the player doing something in the preamble.

[TalAkMaChen]

I don't think it is a hard rule. Lots of issues have the player doing something in the preamble.

Not to mention all the family the leader is presumed to have, like the somewhat mad brother lusting for blood.

[Fontenais]

I don't think it is a hard rule. Lots of issues have the player doing something in the preamble.

Not to mention all the family the leader is presumed to have, like the somewhat mad brother lusting for blood.

I think the idea is you can't choose your family so that's acceptable, even though, you're right, not everyone would have a brother/niece etc

[Candlewhisper Archive]

671 skirts the edge of player autonomy, and it'd certainly be at the level where the topic would be broached in the drafting process if written in that way now.

However, to me it's within acceptable limits, as you're only making enough assumptions to set up the narrative, rather than implying personality traits, policy preferences or background about LEADER.

So for example, it's definitely NOT okay to say "you've been furious over homosexual marriage being legal" or "six years ago when you were last divorced" or "a lady that you've always wanted to kiss", but it's probably okay to say "earlier today as you were walking down the street" or "in a novel that you recently read", as these are far more trivial autonomy over-rides.

Basically, use common sense. Failing that, use the editors' common sense.

[Marxist Germany]

Alright then, thanks for clarification!

[Lamebrainia]

Option #1:

become an endangered species

"becomes", perhaps?