Help us fix old issues

[Trotterdam]

and needless I say attractive female

"I say" should be set off from the rest of the sentence, like so:

and needless, I say, attractive female

No, that's wrong. "Needless I say" is one phrase, as in "I shouldn't need to say this because it's obvious".

[Aculea]

Issues are not realistic.

Actually, this issue is realistic. Cities arguing over street lights are a thing. They worry about the effects a lot, which the many links I posted show. Everyone in this issue has a reasonable suggestion, even the gal who wants more light. The only real problem is that the gal who wants more light is lying. Lying, too, is realistic, but it's also a bad idea for this issue, because it breaks some fundamental rules of game design.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1 ... php?page=2

• Focal point. Do I focus on what the petitioner is literally saying, or do I focus on the fact that what she is saying is false? Either answer would be okay, except over the course of several issues it seems to be split 80-20 between the two options. That breaks focus.
• Anticipation. Surprises are fine, but the perfect 50/50 split, in opposite directions, of what this option might do mean there is no way to anticipate its effects. Even after I see the result I can look back and see that the other way it could have gone is still believable. It's a train out of nowhere.
• Believable events and behavior. This is the one "Issues are not realistic" should be rolling around in. Science fiction and fantasy show that we're ready to believe many things that are not realistic, but there is still room for an issue to be unbelievable, whether realistic or not, and a petitioner so incompetent at defending the option she represents that she can't supply the least credible argument for it is unbelievable.

Little white lies, exaggerations, and other tricks of rhetoric are acceptable from nationstates characters. The setting of the game encourages them. In contrast, a petitioner standing up and speaking the direct opposite of the truth, especially when they are suggesting a realistic response to a realistic issue, is doing the attached option a disservice.

How about: "It's scientifically proven that the brightest lights have more health benefits than dimmer ones. We need to upgrade all of our street lamps to be twenty times stronger!" Now it's clear what the issue is going to do and it has a tether to reality, even if it's not very realistic itself. There's even room for unintended and/or unrealistic consequences that can still be marked as anticipated.

[Sanctaria]

"I say" should be set off from the rest of the sentence, like so:

No, that's wrong. "Needless I say" is one phrase, as in "I shouldn't need to say this because it's obvious".

That'd be needless-to-say, wouldn't it? I've never heard needless I say as one phrase.

Issues are not realistic.

*snip*

We have topics that are real. We have issues that deal with real things, but the results of the issues are exaggerated, and the speakers within the issues are parodies and satires of the real thing, they are not realistic.

[Aculea]

We have topics that are real. We have issues that deal with real things, but the results of the issues are exaggerated, and the speakers within the issues are parodies and satires of the real thing, they are not realistic.

Exaggerated implies something moves in the same direction, not opposite.

Parodies imply a resemblance to the thing parodied. Its dictionary definition even includes the word exaggerated.

A satire, even more than parody, implies a similarity with the original.

The best satires are realistic. See: Johnathan Swift, Poe's Law.

Your explanation is a non sequitur.

[Sanctaria]

We have topics that are real. We have issues that deal with real things, but the results of the issues are exaggerated, and the speakers within the issues are parodies and satires of the real thing, they are not realistic.

Exaggerated implies something moves in the same direction, not opposite.

Parodies imply a resemblance to the thing parodied. Its dictionary definition even includes the word exaggerated.

A satire, even more than parody, implies a similarity with the original.

The best satires are realistic. See: Johnathan Swift, Poe's Law.

Your explanation is a non sequitur.

Ok, thanks for your comments.

[Trotterdam]

That'd be needless-to-say, wouldn't it? I've never heard needless I say as one phrase.

I did indeed feel that it is an unconventional form of the common phrase, and is not how I would have worded it, but I prefer to retain the author's original style so long as it's properly punctuated, since it's still understandable (I'm parsing it as "needless that I say", with "that" omitted, as is pretty common to do in other contexts).

Of course, if you want to fix it to "needless to say", I won't object.

Regardless, the issue cannot be read in a way that suggests anything is needless other than the saying, so that has to be what it's referring to.

[Sedgistan]

Option 4 claims: It's been scientifically proven that more light means a happier, healthier population, reduces crime, and there's no need to worry about the night shift any more - you can work from dawn until, well forever!

None of these are proven.

Characters in issues can lie to you, exaggerate, and base their claims off dubious evidence. It's up to you to judge what to believe from them.

[Aibohphobia]

The simple solution would be to replace "scientifically proven" with "everyone knows," but I think the best solution would be to find a better justification for this option.

You bring joy to my heart.
But yes, Sanctaria and Sedgistan are right, issues are not meant to be scientifically correct - in fact, many options will represent outright lies and bigotry. That's the idea

That'd be needless-to-say, wouldn't it? I've never heard needless I say as one phrase.

Thank you!

[Sanctaria]

*snip*

Fixed some of these.

[Aculea]

Characters in issues can lie to you, exaggerate, and base their claims off dubious evidence. It's up to you to judge what to believe from them.

Thank you, I am much happier for hearing you say that. I like the game you describe, it sounds political. I like the game Sanctaria describes, too, it sounds fantastic (literally). Mixing them requires care.

If there is enough politics in the game that I can mistrust the characters, then I should be able to apply social intelligence to them. A character says something is scientifically proven. I show, by whatever device, that it is not scientifically proven. I should be able to conclude that the character is a liar. I should be able to conclude that a liar does not have my best interests at heart. I should be able to rely on picking that choice to have some negative, unanticipated effect. Otherwise it's not a political game. There's no reward for social intelligence.

If there is enough fantasy in the game that scientific research sometimes goes the other way as real life -- and it often does, in entertaining ways -- then either I can rely on what the characters say to have some connection to the outcome, or you have license to do literally anything you want. Talk up the benefits of healthy, 24/7 light, then throw out a tag about the polls being open longer and give me two points of political freedom -- with nothing else. No health, no lifespan. No reality to guide our expectations, that would be a political game.

Without knowing whether an editor was feeling fantastic or political the day they published an issue, I don't know if the easily exposed lie is a clue that I should not trust this man, or if the altered reality is a clue that I should forget what I know in real life. I could take the choice once, get the political result, have the issue come around again, play the same option twice, get the fantastic result, and it's equally justified both ways.

Replacing "scientifically proven" with "everyone knows" does fix this. Once I show that the character's claim of scientifically proven is a lie, the chain of thought ends in distrust. But if the claim of "everyone knows" can be shown to be false with a little googling, the character does not go down with the ship. People do know the difference between wrong and lying. They should see that this person might still have your best interests at heart. Now the player is allowed to feel doubt over the character. Should I trust that he has a plan, or should I assume I know better than him? Now I can pick the option and no matter what the outcome, the game can be labeled political, not fantastic. Either he had a plan that he didn't know how to explain, and I got what I wanted, or he's a dirty liar and I get the opposite of what he wanted.

[Askran]

I would like to state this Issue: "Organic Outburst" and I've taken the 2nd Option:

"I've heard enough of this treehugging, lefty nonsense," argues corporate spokesman @@RANDOMNAME@@. "The agricultural industry needs to use the most advanced technology available, it's the only way to keep @@NAME@@ competitive in food production. Besides, the studies we have commissioned prove that only a very small number of child deaths are due to our products, and surely that's an acceptable rate in the name of progress?"

I was to expect a boost in economy, but it went the other way. Lowering it, aside from Civil Rights and my Agriculture sector.

[Luna Amore]

I would like to state this Issue: "Organic Outburst" and I've taken the 2nd Option:

"I've heard enough of this treehugging, lefty nonsense," argues corporate spokesman @@RANDOMNAME@@. "The agricultural industry needs to use the most advanced technology available, it's the only way to keep @@NAME@@ competitive in food production. Besides, the studies we have commissioned prove that only a very small number of child deaths are due to our products, and surely that's an acceptable rate in the name of progress?"

I was to expect a boost in economy, but it went the other way. Lowering it, aside from Civil Rights and my Agriculture sector.

Looked over your stats and the issue and can confirm everything is working as intended.

[Shanopoia]

I'm having a hard time finding the issue number, but one of my recent issues resulted in homosexuals being put to death. I have no problem with this, but I would have liked there to be a further option. There should be an option for us to be sexist and ban homosexuality for one gender and not for another. In my matriarchal society, where cloning has reached the point of making males redundant, it makes sense for lesbianism to be acceptable, but sexual choice is not something I feel comfortable granting the men of my nation.

[Trotterdam]

Issue number is #218 option 3. But honestly, if the editors are interested in allowing such refinement, this sounds more like material for a followup issue, rather than something to be retroactively worked into the existing one (or every single homosexuality-related issue in the game). Maybe you can write it yourself.

I will note, by the way, the female homosexuality being more accepted than male homosexuality is not inevitably linked to matriarchy - many patriarchal societies also consider female homosexuality more acceptable (though often seeing it as a "stage" for teenage girls who are expected to grow out of it) because men think girl-on-girl is hot, and anyway, who cares exactly what your inferior sub-humans are getting up to? Similarly, it would be conceivable for a matriarchy to be more accepting of male homosexuality, though obviously that's not what you want to roleplay.

While we're on the subject of recreational extreme sexism, I've been thinking for a while about how #295 option 3 allows you to make nudity compulsory for women but not for men, but there's no analogous option anywhere for making nudity compulsory for men but not for women, or to do either of those things without first making nudity compulsory for everyone and then repealing it again for men only.

[Sanctaria]

Issue number is #218 option 3. But honestly, if the editors are interested in allowing such refinement, this sounds more like material for a followup issue, rather than something to be retroactively worked into the existing one (or every single homosexuality-related issue in the game). Maybe you can write it yourself.

Obviously it would depend on a few things, but I wouldn't have a problem accepting such a follow-on issue. I like chains. Though I think people know that.

Write one up and post it on Got Issues? pl0x.

[Shanopoia]

Issue number is #218I will note, by the way, the female homosexuality being more accepted than male homosexuality is not inevitably linked to matriarchy - many patriarchal societies also consider female homosexuality more acceptable (though often seeing it as a "stage" for teenage girls who are expected to grow out of it) because men think girl-on-girl is hot, and anyway, who cares exactly what your inferior sub-humans are getting up to? Similarly, it would be conceivable for a matriarchy to be more accepting of male homosexuality, though obviously that's not what you want to roleplay.

While we're on the subject of recreational extreme sexism, I've been thinking for a while about how #295 option 3 allows you to make nudity compulsory for women but not for men, but there's no analogous option anywhere for making nudity compulsory for men but not for women, or to do either of those things without first making nudity compulsory for everyone and then repealing it again for men only.

Totally agreed on the first point, though you are quite right that it's not what I'm up too: one of my main goals is to take every old double standard against women and reverse them. So men aren't allowed to perform onstage, have paying jobs, etc. I like the idea of allowing nudity to be compulsory for men only, though I doubt I'd take advantage of it. All-female nude military = huge advantage over any male dominated military.

On review of issue #295, perhaps we could genetically alter our populace to have marsupial-style pouches in their skin? That would solve the pocket issue, without altering clothing options for either gender. And why exactly do they assume that our women still carry purses?

[Bears Armed]

I like chains.

And there's an issue for that, too...
^_^

All-female nude military = huge advantage over any male dominated military.

Unless they're from a significantly different species, of course.

[Lamebrainia]

... uses both "adviser" (prior to listing any options) and "advisor" (option #2).

[Sanctaria]

... uses both "adviser" (prior to listing any options) and "advisor" (option #2).

Gah, this is what happens when you have editors who use British English and editors who use American English helping on the same drafts!

Fixed (to adviser, which is the correct one, obvs).

[Sanctaria]

Just an FYI - some people who have already completed The Chain (An International Incident) may receive it again.

If you do receive it again, that's totally fine, but it will definitely be the last time again.

This is due to an internal change on the repeat toggles.

[Pyrocynical]

I just got issue #463, (I presume this is a new issue because it's not on the list) and I noticed that the issue's author and editor was missing. Who wrote it?

[Luna Amore]

I just got issue #463, (I presume this is a new issue because it's not on the list) and I noticed that the issue's author and editor was missing. Who wrote it?

It was not wrote, nay! It descended from the heavens surround by a holy golden aura to be bestowed on us mere mortals.


Or Max wrote/edited it. One of the two.

[Aculea]

"The government, all the way up to Leader, has used this ban as a way to control parliament," declares Opposition Whip Robin Rubin, speaking from the Floor, "They're perfectly happy to let debates about the most inconsequential of matters rage on for hours, but when it comes to a serious discussion of Leader's murky ties to prominent members of the Information Technology industry or policies genuinely aimed at helping the general public, rather than a select few, the debate comes to a quick close. We must overturn the filibuster ban, post-haste. And I think it is clear to all who suffer from this. That's right, my friends, ladies and gentlemen, casual onlookers, convenient family members, cultural attachés, politically active tourists and constituents, both loyal and traitorous to the greater cause; the people. The people suffer the injustices of a government pandering to its corporate cronies, its oligarchic overlords, its necessary nepotists, if you will. They suffer the delirious - ah - deleterious effects of a government sans filibuster, sans fairness, sans freedom! This ridiculous policy ignores the fact that some things require longer and more serious deliberation - as does, indeed, this very issue. But I am diverging from my abundantly clear point, supported by the voices of a thousand-strong crowd outside this very building. And while we might quibble over the numbers - a thousand, I hear you cry? Tens - hundreds! - of thousands, surely? But this ignores the fundamental spirit of the times - zeitgeist, if you will - that we stand against this filibuster ban clearly and unwaveringly. Anyway, a discussion of the genuinely humanitarian policies my party espouses, which require a debate of adequate length for the complexities of which to be fully understood, are quickly relegated as the government trots out its latest quick-fix or vote-snatching policy. Now, to move onto my second point of four-hundred-and-thirty-eight of my first speech - I will, of course, pass over to my comrade on the bench in due course." The security guards by the door notice your discreet signal and step quietly towards the Whip's podium. "Perhaps we should investigate further... excuse me...?" stammers the Whip, as your guards gingerly carry her away. "Ah... yes, thank you for your time."

I had to get this issue three or four times before I sat down to read it top to bottom. I feel like I've been rewarded, it's clever how the speaker rides right on the edge of the rules. Unfortunately, that means I was paying attention to the rules.

genuinely aimed at helping the general public, rather than a select few,

The comma after public preps the reader to connect the second clause to what follows. I'm ready to hear something like:
They're happy to let debate rage... but when it comes to a discussion aimed at helping the public, rather than a select few, all should be allowed to speak as they wish.
And then I don't. It might be better without the comma.. heck, without either comma:
They're happy to let debate rage... but when it comes to a discussion aimed at helping the public rather than a select few the debate comes to a quick close
At least one person agrees with me but there are lots of style guides.

cause; the people

Since I'm here I'm wondering if this shouldn't be a colon, but semi-colons are a weak point for me.

But I am diverging from my abundantly clear point,

I'm amused at the many almost-on-the-spot uses of words and phrases in this speech, but I still think this one would look a lot better as digressing. Assuming the speaker knew what it meant and was intentionally using it properly, claiming to diverge is claiming she has undermined her own point. Big assumptions.

Anyway, a discussion of the genuinely humanitarian policies my party espouses, which require a debate of adequate length for the complexities of which to be fully understood, are is quickly relegated as the government trots out its latest quick-fix or vote-snatching policy.

Subject verb disagreement. Also, I have never heard relegate used except with an additional indirect object, to relegate to something. Since this gal's already had more than a few near misses, I looked this one up and I can't prove it either way. Dictionaries agree with me that the indirect object is valent but none will come out and say if it's mandatory. There are monotransitive examples, but they're all for a variation of the word that applies to people being relegated from a place, with Rome as the historical example.
So it makes me uncomfortable. That's all I got. Thank you for your time.

[Trotterdam]

The comma after public preps the reader to connect the second clause to what follows. I'm ready to hear something like:
They're happy to let debate rage... but when it comes to a discussion aimed at helping the public, rather than a select few, all should be allowed to speak as they wish.

...Huh? "But when [...] all should be allowed to speak" implies contrast with a previous part of the sentence where all being allowed to speak was not the case, when there is no such context. Oh, I get it now. You're saying "all, rather than a select few, should be allowed to speak", so you chose to connect the "rather than a select few" clause with the "all" immediately after instead of the "public" immediately before. This interpretation still fails to justify the "but" qualifier earlier, and I did not find it at all intuitive.

I see no problem with the usage of commas in this sentence, other than that it is a long run-on sentence (obviously intentionally) which can be tricky to parse even with optimal comma placement.

I think that at least the comma after "rather than a select few" should stay, even if the one before is removed. It frames the "but" clause. And the asymmetry would help clarify what the clause attaches to.

cause; the people

Since I'm here I'm wondering if this shouldn't be a colon, but semi-colons are a weak point for me.

I have a pathological resentment of semicolons and refuse to ever use them. Sure does make things simplert. Even if there are some situations where a semicolon could be slightly more preferable, there's never a case a semicolon would be called for that either a colon or a comma couldn't also work.

Outside of computer programming, that is.

But I am diverging from my abundantly clear point,

I'm amused at the many almost-on-the-spot uses of words and phrases in this speech, but I still think this one would look a lot better as digressing. Assuming the speaker knew what it meant and was intentionally using it properly, claiming to diverge is claiming she has undermined her own point. Big assumptions.

I'm not 100% sure "diverging" is incorrect here, but "digressing" sounds similar and would be more unambiguous, so might as well go for that.

Anyway, a discussion of the genuinely humanitarian policies my party espouses, which require a debate of adequate length for the complexities of which to be fully understood, are is quickly relegated as the government trots out its latest quick-fix or vote-snatching policy.

Subject verb disagreement.

This one I fully agree with. Clear error, clear solution.

An alternative would be to keep it plural but change the subject "all discussions".

Also, I have never heard relegate used except with an additional indirect object, to relegate to something. Since this gal's already had more than a few near misses, I looked this one up and I can't prove it either way. Dictionaries agree with me that the indirect object is valent but none will come out and say if it's mandatory. There are monotransitive examples, but they're all for a variation of the word that applies to people being relegated from a place, with Rome as the historical example.
So it makes me uncomfortable. That's all I got. Thank you for your time.

I agree it sounds awkward, but what would a better word be?

"Relegated" to me generally means reassigning a task, such as the legislature deciding to let a subcommittee or a different branch of the government finish the debate so you don't have to worry about it, not putting a stop to the debate entirely. The thing being relegated is still continuing, somewhere else. Occasionally I use the word figuratively/sarcastically ("relegated to the trash can"), but that's not what I consider the default meaning.

[Drachmaland]

Issue #448 has its 5th option worded in such a way, that it is not applicable to nations that have outlawed abortion and contraception and women labor.
Imho the wording of this option is not so great, effectively leading to nations having outlawed just one of the three conditions stated by the misogynist pastor to (possibly) fall out of validity.
So, my questions are these:
a. If a nation hasn't outlawed all three of the abortion-contraception-womenatwork triplet, does it maintain validity?
b. Even when a nation has indeed outlawed all three of these, wouldn't it be better if a proper wording was worked out in order to allow for this option to be valid/applicable to ultra-religious nations (since there's no other devout option)?