NationStates

Drachmaland wrote: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)?

I will have a look at this. I'll need to dig up the issue's editing history and go through it in case these points were raised and answered - I don't remember it off the top of my head.

Sanctaria wrote:I will have a look at this. I'll need to dig up the issue's editing history and go through it in case these points were raised and answered - I don't remember it off the top of my head.

Thanks a lot, Sanctaria, for looking into this!
I'm also TGing a nation that is option 448.5 non-valid, for you to check its status regarding all these three preconditions.

Drachmaland wrote:

Sanctaria wrote:I will have a look at this. I'll need to dig up the issue's editing history and go through it in case these points were raised and answered - I don't remember it off the top of my head.

Thanks a lot, Sanctaria, for looking into this!
I'm also TGing a nation that is option 448.5 non-valid, for you to check its status regarding all these three preconditions.

And fixed

Lenyo wrote:

Drachmaland wrote:Thanks a lot, Sanctaria, for looking into this!
I'm also TGing a nation that is option 448.5 non-valid, for you to check its status regarding all these three preconditions.

And fixed

I haven't edited it yet Lenyo, sheesh, give me a chance

Now it's fixed! Only nations that don't allow women to work won't get this option.

Sanctaria wrote:Now it's fixed! Only nations that don't allow women to work won't get this option.

Great, Sanctaria — thanks!

Issue #464, Option 2 -- If you're going to use "God" in the singular, then it should be capitalized. Alternatively, you could make the option polytheistic with "gods" or Violetist with the word "Violet."

Christian Democrats wrote:Issue #464, Option 2 -- If you're going to use "God" in the singular, then it should be capitalized. Alternatively, you could make the option polytheistic with "gods" or Violetist with the word "Violet."

We do this just to annoy you, you know.

Trotterdam wrote: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.

The first time I read this it stuck out to me as a cadence issue, but the cadence issues are what define this as a person trying to bloat a 438 point outline into a 36 hour speech off the cuff. It's right on the border of a punctuation issue, which is why I tried to do research on it to decide. I'm happy to walk away from it.

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

It's not the word that's wrong, it's how it's used. You did it right:

("relegated to the trash can")

It needs a "to" and an indirect object. At least, for ordinary people. Maybe politicians are different. It's been difficult to show.

Issue #384, Option 1 -- The comma after "row of dominoes" should be changed to a period.

Sanctaria wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Issue #464, Option 2 -- If you're going to use "God" in the singular, then it should be capitalized. Alternatively, you could make the option polytheistic with "gods" or Violetist with the word "Violet."

We do this just to annoy you, you know.

Argh, I'm going through my puppets right now, and Issue #454, Option 1 does the same thing!

Christian Democrats wrote:

Sanctaria wrote:We do this just to annoy you, you know.

Argh, I'm going through my puppets right now, and Issue #454, Option 1 does the same thing!

I'm not seeing it as actionable. Yes, it would be a proper noun if you believe God to be a person, place, or thing, but it's clear that he's using the vernacular and mild expletive, so I don't think it has to be changed.

Drachmaland wrote:

Sanctaria wrote:Now it's fixed! Only nations that don't allow women to work won't get this option.

Great, Sanctaria — thanks!

Someone remember to post the new version to the spoiler thread when you see it!

Sanctaria wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Issue #464, Option 2 -- If you're going to use "God" in the singular, then it should be capitalized. Alternatively, you could make the option polytheistic with "gods" or Violetist with the word "Violet."

We do this just to annoy you, you know.

I agree with this correction. It's a matter of grammar, regardless of how much respect you do or don't want to show to any given deity.

Singular nouns in English always take an article: "a god" or "the god", or sometimes a possessive like "my god". There has to be something indicating which god you're talking about.

If a noun in English does not take either an indefinite or definite article, then either it is a plural (which takes definite articles but not indefinite ones), an uncountable noun (like "water", which, again, takes definite articles but not indefinite ones), or a proper name (which is always capitalized). Treating "god" as an uncountable noun is pretty silly (four liters of god?), so when "God" is used standalone without any article or possessive, it's treating the word as a name rather than a description: referring to some specific individual who goes by the name God.

Trotterdam wrote:It's a matter of grammar, regardless of how much respect you do or don't want to show to any given deity.

We don't claim to be the AP style guide.

EDIT: Having said that, I've done some research, and it's perfectly fine to not capitalise it in "for god's sake" as it can be colloquial or idiomatic. So I'm going with that.

Issue #123, Option 4

"This is all abhorrent and aberrant!" declares @@RANDOMNAME@@, the High H'gradskas of the @@NAME@@ Unorthodox Church. "You can't just create meat. It's against God's will, and you'll find that pretty much every other religion will back me up on this one. Living things were designed to be born. Or hatched. Or germinated. And then there's mitosis of course, but that's not the point - the point is that there are some things that Men were not meant to meddle with. We should keep well away from the whole cloning business altogether."

I think you should use the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ macro instead.

Christian Democrats wrote:Issue #123, Option 4

"This is all abhorrent and aberrant!" declares @@RANDOMNAME@@, the High H'gradskas of the @@NAME@@ Unorthodox Church. "You can't just create meat. It's against God's will, and you'll find that pretty much every other religion will back me up on this one. Living things were designed to be born. Or hatched. Or germinated. And then there's mitosis of course, but that's not the point - the point is that there are some things that Men were not meant to meddle with. We should keep well away from the whole cloning business altogether."

I think you should use the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ macro instead.

Fixed.

Sanctaria wrote:

Trotterdam wrote:It's a matter of grammar, regardless of how much respect you do or don't want to show to any given deity.

We don't claim to be the AP style guide.

EDIT: Having said that, I've done some research, and it's perfectly fine to not capitalise it in "for god's sake" as it can be colloquial or idiomatic. So I'm going with that.

So I slept on it, and decided to remove god altogether and changed it to Violet.

I assume the change is being made on #454 and #464, right?

(I'm asking for the sake of the issues spoilers thread.)

Note to self: when editing future issues, don't include "for god's sake". While I don't view the "g" as a problem myself, I can't believe I put that into two issues.. Where's the variety, Gnejs?!

Christian Democrats wrote:I assume the change is being made on #454 and #464, right?

(I'm asking for the sake of the issues spoilers thread.)

Wherever was pointed out to me in this thread.

Luna Amore wrote:

Gnejs wrote:When picking option 2 on #441 I got the effect "epipen sales have skyrocketed". It took me a second or two to get that, because I'm used to it being written "EpiPen". So, nothing wrong really, just an observation. Maybe it's that way because effect lines are never capitalized?

Hadn't even given it a second thought. Corrected the capitalization.

Wasn't there the rule that "no part of the real world exists in NationStates"?

I'd like to make a suggestion for your consideration regarding Issue #124:
To add a 4th option, valid to nations that haven't outlawed religion, where the Arts are acceptable as something one can be engaged in only as long as the subject of said engagement remains strictly dedicated to religious fields.
As a matter of fact, it is an approach similar to option 293.4 (where musicians can do their thing only within the boundaries of the Military).
Such a potential option is believable, because all religions can employ Arts one way or another, and it doesn't get in the way of the three existing options of the issue.

Drachmaland wrote:I'd like to make a suggestion for your consideration regarding Issue #124:
To add a 4th option, valid to nations that haven't outlawed religion, where the Arts are acceptable as something one can be engaged in only as long as the subject of said engagement remains strictly dedicated to religious fields.
As a matter of fact, it is an approach similar to option 293.4 (where musicians can do their thing only within the boundaries of the Military).
Such a potential option is believable, because all religions can employ Arts one way or another, and it doesn't get in the way of the three existing options of the issue.

That's not what this thread is for. You're fixing typos and validity errors, not adding new options.

Leppikania wrote:That's not what this thread is for. You're fixing typos and validity errors, not adding new options.

I believe I've seen this kind of discussions here, that's why I posted this suggestion.
If the Issues Team feels removing it to another place, that'd be perfectly OK.

Option 443.2 should use "@@DEMONYMPLURAL@@" instead of "@@DEMONYM@@s".