Help us fix old issues

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Punctuation error in the description of Issue 208: Mine Collapse Rocks @@NAME@@. Highlight mine.

A mine has collapsed in Tien Nemh burying hundreds of workers. Calls have been made by the families to tighten up mining safety laws.

There should be a comma there.

Eh. Not mandatory.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

#1202: "The issue here is competition from emerging technology. These watches are outdated compared to the latest iPear models." Don't think we'd have iPears in a nation with No Computers...

Agreed, validity check added.

[TalAkMaChen]

Speaking of validity checks, in #405 the last option asks for nuking Brasilistan. Also nations that "oppose the use of nuclear weapons" (No WMD policy)?

[Trotterdam]

Speaking of validity checks, in #405 the last option asks for nuking Brasilistan. Also nations that "oppose the use of nuclear weapons" (No WMD policy)?

Choosing that option does result in repealing the policy. People can suggest courses of action that go against your current policies, even if you're not too likely to agree with them.

Realistically, it would be difficult for a nation that didn't already have nuclear weapons to suddenly produce some in order to nuke its enemies in the middle of a war (in some sense World War 2 did involve doing exactly that, but even then it took a while and the conventional war dragged on for quite a bit while the research on nuclear weapons was being done in the background, so it wasn't just randomly deciding "we'll nuke them, that'll solve everything"), but whoever wrote the Brasilistan chain seemed to feel that player choice was more important than perfect realism in this regard.

[The Sherpa Empire]

#1217 The comma in this sentence looks weird to me.

The legal world is in turmoil following the murder of zoo-keeper, Velma Sullivan.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Speaking of validity checks, in #405 the last option asks for nuking Brasilistan. Also nations that "oppose the use of nuclear weapons" (No WMD policy)?

Choosing that option does result in repealing the policy. People can suggest courses of action that go against your current policies, even if you're not too likely to agree with them.

Realistically, it would be difficult for a nation that didn't already have nuclear weapons to suddenly produce some in order to nuke its enemies in the middle of a war (in some sense World War 2 did involve doing exactly that, but even then it took a while and the conventional war dragged on for quite a bit while the research on nuclear weapons was being done in the background, so it wasn't just randomly deciding "we'll nuke them, that'll solve everything"), but whoever wrote the Brasilistan chain seemed to feel that player choice was more important than perfect realism in this regard.

Yeah, this.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

#1217 The comma in this sentence looks weird to me.

The legal world is in turmoil following the murder of zoo-keeper, Velma Sullivan.

Don't flag stylistic choices as errors, please.

No change made.

[TalAkMaChen]

Choosing that option does result in repealing the policy. People can suggest courses of action that go against your current policies, even if you're not too likely to agree with them.

Realistically, it would be difficult for a nation that didn't already have nuclear weapons to suddenly produce some in order to nuke its enemies in the middle of a war (in some sense World War 2 did involve doing exactly that, but even then it took a while and the conventional war dragged on for quite a bit while the research on nuclear weapons was being done in the background, so it wasn't just randomly deciding "we'll nuke them, that'll solve everything"), but whoever wrote the Brasilistan chain seemed to feel that player choice was more important than perfect realism in this regard.

Yeah, this.

While I mostly agree there, there are plenty of variants to go for nuclear war in that chain (multiple choices leading to #406), I still disagree with somebody being "head of the nation's nuclear program" in a nation opposing the usage of nuclear weapons/WMDs in general. If a player wants to choose such an option, there are plenty of choices to turn that path earlier, not just in #405. But maybe that's just me.



----

Another thing I noticed:
In #323 it is "Luke Zuckermann, founder of MyFace" while the same company was founded by "Marcus Sugarmountain, the founder of MyFace," in #975. I know editors were different, but couldn't the name reference be the same for both?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Another thing I noticed:
In #323 it is "Luke Zuckermann, founder of MyFace" while the same company was founded by "Marcus Sugarmountain, the founder of MyFace," in #975. I know editors were different, but couldn't the name reference be the same for both?

I never would have noticed that in a million years, good spot!

Changed 323 to Marcus Sugarmountain.

I mean, its a weird choice anyway, as Tom Anderson founded MySpace, and I would have expected a squishing together of the games of MySpace AND Facebook's founders, but I guess Facebook's founder took full precedence.

[Cameroi]

more issues then not, lack an option i would choose it if were available, and many of which i dismiss for this very reason.

if i wanted to obsess on trying to "fix" them though, i could probably spend my whole life doing that, to the neglect of my health and survival.

(if i even had the bandwidth to spend that much of my life on line)

still wish there was some way to have an "other" option on most if not all of them.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

That's not the purpose of this thread, please take it elsewhere.

[Trotterdam]

I mean, its a weird choice anyway, as Tom Anderson founded MySpace, and I would have expected a squishing together of the games of MySpace AND Facebook's founders, but I guess Facebook's founder took full precedence.

I think nowadaws Facebook is more popular while MySpace is a bit of a has-been? At least, I see Facebook mentioned much more often while I can't recall having encountered any MySpace links in a while, even though I'm active on neither. That was probably a motivating factor.

[The Legendary]

Issue #306 is offered to non eligible nations:
from the draft of issue #306:

Validity - Valid for nations with high amounts of apathy and who picked issues 2 through 5 in issue number 220.

The issue was offered to my nation despite the fact that my nation has one of the lowest amounts of apathy in the world...top 92% to be exact.And i have never encountered issue 220 either.

[Sedgistan]

Issue #306 is offered to non eligible nations:
from the draft of issue #306:

Validity - Valid for nations with high amounts of apathy and who picked issues 2 through 5 in issue number 220.

The issue was offered to my nation despite the fact that my nation has one of the lowest amounts of apathy in the world...top 92% to be exact.And i have never encountered issue 220 either.

NoQ was not an Issues Editor when that issue was drafted. What he suggested the validity be at the time does not necessarily translate to what the validity for the issue actually is.

[Sensorland]

It seems to me that #417 has the potential to remove the "No Adultery" policy. Particularly option 3. I was kind of surprised that it didn't. There really aren't enough issues that do that.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

#240: "Plea Bargains: Tipping the Scales of Justice?"

I don't think that one should be valid for nations with "No Prison" policy as it mentions a criminal being sentenced to 3 months of imprisonment. But it apparently is, I got it today.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Issue #1302 should be "The @@ADJECTIVE@@ Identity" not "The @@NAME@@ Identity"

For me, this shows up as "The The World Capitalist Confederation Identity", and is not correct.

[Rainy Swamphaven]

Issue #274 shouldn't be valid (or at least should be heavily modified) for nations with Vat-Produced Infants. The basic genetic health repercussions of the decision make no sense when ontogenesis and genetic drift is subject to central (or even semicentral, admitting organizational and inter-organizational variations) control.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

It seems to me that #417 has the potential to remove the "No Adultery" policy. Particularly option 3. I was kind of surprised that it didn't. There really aren't enough issues that do that.

I don't think that policy existed when that issue was written.

Maybe you could start a separate thread on a proposed new option for that issue which is presented instead of option 3 in nations with adultery banned? I'd be happy to look in there and see if it could work.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

#240: "Plea Bargains: Tipping the Scales of Justice?"

I don't think that one should be valid for nations with "No Prison" policy as it mentions a criminal being sentenced to 3 months of imprisonment. But it apparently is, I got it today.

Good spot. Again, the issue pre-dates the policy's introduction and was missed at that time.

Have now amended it.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Issue #274 shouldn't be valid (or at least should be heavily modified) for nations with Vat-Produced Infants. The basic genetic health repercussions of the decision make no sense when ontogenesis and genetic drift is subject to central (or even semicentral, admitting organizational and inter-organizational variations) control.

Good catch, fixed.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Issue #1302 should be "The @@ADJECTIVE@@ Identity" not "The @@NAME@@ Identity"

For me, this shows up as "The The World Capitalist Confederation Identity", and is not correct.

I'll let Ransium make the call on this one as it is his issue.

However, in editing it I felt that the use of the noun rather than the demonym was entirely intentional, echoing "The Bourne Identity". Also, the issue is about another nation using @@NAME@@ as their name, so we're not talking about "an identity of that nation's nationality" we're talking about "that nation's name, as an identity".

Ransium will let you know if that wasn't his intention, but as far as I'm concerned there's no error here.

[The United Universe]

Might be semantics, but in the issue titled “Healthcare Services Underfunded, Claim Patients” (#217), it personalizes the name of the health service in only the issue section, not the options section. In my case, it means that the healthcare service is sometimes the DNHS and sometimes the NHS. Shouldn’t this be consistent?

[The Free Joy State]

Might be semantics, but in the issue titled “Healthcare Services Underfunded, Claim Patients” (#217), it personalizes the name of the health service in only the issue section, not the options section. In my case, it means that the healthcare service is sometimes the DNHS and sometimes the NHS. Shouldn’t this be consistent?

It's not an error. The NHS in Wales is known as 'NHS Wales' and colloquially known as the "NHS". Ditto, the NHS in Scotland.

No change needed.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Issue #1302 should be "The @@ADJECTIVE@@ Identity" not "The @@NAME@@ Identity"

For me, this shows up as "The The World Capitalist Confederation Identity", and is not correct.

I'll let Ransium make the call on this one as it is his issue.

However, in editing it I felt that the use of the noun rather than the demonym was entirely intentional, echoing "The Bourne Identity". Also, the issue is about another nation using @@NAME@@ as their name, so we're not talking about "an identity of that nation's nationality" we're talking about "that nation's name, as an identity".

Ransium will let you know if that wasn't his intention, but as far as I'm concerned there's no error here.

I see what you mean, it just looks grammatically clunky.