NationStates

Zaluzianskya wrote:I just got issue 321 even though previously I chose option 3 of 670. If I have completely open borders, how is there such a thing as "illegal aliens" in my country?

"Completely open borders" is one of the many things the game doesn't track. Or rather it's not done as an on-off policy switch, but tracked through a complex series of stats.

Having said that, I may see what the team thinks about limiting 321 to nations that have stats that suggest closed borders, when we get to #321 on my current issue by issue review of old issues.

Option 284.5 sounds like the perfect drug-use option, but my Recreational Drug Use descended from a record high of 515.20 to last-week levels of 514.40 as a result. Why is this?

Tinhampton wrote:Option 284.5 sounds like the perfect drug-use option, but my Recreational Drug Use descended from a record high of 515.20 to last-week levels of 514.40 as a result. Why is this?

It decreased your Civil Rights.

What determines validity for 527? I just got it for a puppet nation that is already a monarchy.

(...and my login switching didn't work. Great. I hate you cookies. But yeah, it was for this nation, which as you can see is literally called "The Kingdom of Katimaracel".)

Katimaracel wrote:What determines validity for 527? I just got it for a puppet nation that is already a monarchy.

(...and my login switching didn't work. Great. I hate you cookies. But yeah, it was for this nation, which as you can see is literally called "The Kingdom of Katimaracel".)

Monarchies don't receive that issue.

Katimaracel is not a monarchy, at least as far as issues are concerned. You have to have answered an issue that declares you to be a monarchy for this to be the case.

Changing your pretitle does not change your nation's in-game status. For example, North Korea is neither democratic, nor a republic. Candlewhisper Archive isn't actually omniscient and doesn't actually move.

Sometimes we do use pretitles to check against validities, but not to establish whether a nation's government is of a particular type.

Option 447.3 currently reads "“What utter nonsense!” rebuffs @@RANDOMNAME@@, a former Member of Parliament who lost their seat to a suspected arsonist."

Should that be converted to "...a former Member of Parliament who lost @@HIS@@ seat to a suspected arsonist", or will old references to "them" and "their" be grandfathered in?

Fixed.

Option 492.2: "Just imagine the ‘The Fall of St. Barrysburg’ hanging on the walls of the Maxtopian National Museum in the very room where it was painted by Whilhelm Winston Stewart as the noises of war reached his ears from outside his study."

Should that just be "Just imagine 'The Fall of St. Barrysburg'...", or is that deliberate on the part of Lav or Sleep?

267 still has @@NAME@@ian instead of @@DENONYM@@

Australian Republic wrote:267 still has @@NAME@@ian instead of @@DENONYM@@

Not on the backend.

Tyu wrote:Option 492.2: "Just imagine the ‘The Fall of St. Barrysburg’ hanging on the walls of the Maxtopian National Museum in the very room where it was painted by Whilhelm Winston Stewart as the noises of war reached his ears from outside his study."

Should that just be "Just imagine 'The Fall of St. Barrysburg'...", or is that deliberate on the part of Lav or Sleep?

Good spot. Fixed.

The outcome for the final option of issue 761: As Seen on TV seems to have a spelling error.

"Religious terrorism is considered to be a Act of God by insurance companies."

It should be "an Act of God". They forgot the n.

Anollasia wrote:The outcome for the final option of issue 761: As Seen on TV seems to have a spelling error.

"Religious terrorism is considered to be a Act of God by insurance companies."

It should be "an Act of God". They forgot the n.

Good one. Fixed.

"The Velvet Mile" or whatever it's named having a choice of death penalty types, but it's sorely lacking "Firing Squad" choice, Please add this as a choice.

Deimosan wrote:"The Velvet Mile" or whatever it's named having a choice of death penalty types, but it's sorely lacking "Firing Squad" choice, Please add this as a choice.

Have discussed this before, long ago.

With issues, and especially with "list issues" there are always cries that one option or another is needed for a comprehensive approach. For this issue, there are many ways of killing folk that the issue never mentions, such as crushing by elephant, scaphism, the guillotine, the blood eagle, burning at the stake, and so on...

The thing is, the goal is not comprehensiveness. The goal is to give a sufficient breadth of options that choices exist, and to structure it so that there's no easy or obvious answer. Ultimately, the goal is a good story, and in the context of issues, brevity is often the best path to quality.

In narrative terms, firing squads and a slaughterhouse bolt gun are functionally identical. The goal is a cheap and clean execution method. The main difference is that the latter is more of a mentally evocative image, and thus better for the issue's entertainment value.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:In narrative terms, firing squads and a slaughterhouse bolt gun are functionally identical. The goal is a cheap and clean execution method. The main difference is that the latter is more of a mentally evocative image, and thus better for the issue's entertainment value.

Well, firing squad is often seen as a "respectful" form of execution: you're dying like a soldier. In a way, it means that you're being recognized as an enemy combatant rather than a mere pest.

For a memorable example, Saddam Hussein, when he was convicted, was offended at being sentenced to hanging like a common criminal, and angrily demanded to die by firing squad instead. (He didn't get his wish.)

By contrast, being killed by a slaughterhouse bolt gun sends the opposite message: you're being treated like animals.

Sure, in terms of practical efficiency they're similar, but the symbolism and cultural baggage is very different.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

Deimosan wrote:"The Velvet Mile" or whatever it's named having a choice of death penalty types, but it's sorely lacking "Firing Squad" choice, Please add this as a choice.

Have discussed this before, long ago.

With issues, and especially with "list issues" there are always cries that one option or another is needed for a comprehensive approach. For this issue, there are many ways of killing folk that the issue never mentions, such as crushing by elephant, scaphism, the guillotine, the blood eagle, burning at the stake, and so on...

The thing is, the goal is not comprehensiveness. The goal is to give a sufficient breadth of options that choices exist, and to structure it so that there's no easy or obvious answer. Ultimately, the goal is a good story, and in the context of issues, brevity is often the best path to quality.

In narrative terms, firing squads and a slaughterhouse bolt gun are functionally identical. The goal is a cheap and clean execution method. The main difference is that the latter is more of a mentally evocative image, and thus better for the issue's entertainment value.

What about death by snu-snu?

Issue #717, Description: The word "have" should be changed to "has" because "coalition" is singular.

Christian Democrats wrote:Issue #717, Description: The word "have" should be changed to "has" because "coalition" is singular.

It's one of those UK/American differences. Other side of the pond views collective nouns as either singular or plural.

Trotterdam wrote:

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:In narrative terms, firing squads and a slaughterhouse bolt gun are functionally identical. The goal is a cheap and clean execution method. The main difference is that the latter is more of a mentally evocative image, and thus better for the issue's entertainment value.

Well, firing squad is often seen as a "respectful" form of execution: you're dying like a soldier. In a way, it means that you're being recognized as an enemy combatant rather than a mere pest.

For a memorable example, Saddam Hussein, when he was convicted, was offended at being sentenced to hanging like a common criminal, and angrily demanded to die by firing squad instead. (He didn't get his wish.)

By contrast, being killed by a slaughterhouse bolt gun sends the opposite message: you're being treated like animals.

Sure, in terms of practical efficiency they're similar, but the symbolism and cultural baggage is very different.

Agree, and the baggage of the latter is what stops it being an auto-select option. As it is, it's the leading option at 28%, with option 1 trailing at 22%. The issue also has an exceptionally low dismissal rate.

All in all, these stats make me disinclined to make the last option any more appealing, and actually dissuade me that change of any sort is needed.

Issue #767 should not come up for nations that have "avowedly heterosexual" populations.

Greater Hunnia wrote:Issue #767 should not come up for nations that have "avowedly heterosexual" populations.

A few things:

1) "Avowedly hetrosexual" is not a validity criteria we can check against. In fact, there is no measure of a nations heterosexuality, though we can check a nations openness to diversity.

2) This issue DOES check that criteria. You have to have high levels of freedom with relation to self-expression, and high levels of diversity. This currently excludes 61% of the player population from this.

3) Sexuality is NOT the same thing as gender identity. Think of it as being different axes of identity.

Sexuality is which gender you feel attraction to.
Gender identity is which gender you identify as.

The two interact, but are not interchangeable. You can have an avowedly heterosexual nation that has full gender fluidity.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

Greater Hunnia wrote:Issue #767 should not come up for nations that have "avowedly heterosexual" populations.

A few things:

1) "Avowedly heterosexual" is not a validity criteria we can check against. In fact, there is no measure of a nations heterosexuality,

You can check against previous issues tho, can you not? Just check for the issues that result in avowedly heterosexual population.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:2) This issue DOES check that criteria. You have to have high levels of freedom with relation to self-expression, and high levels of diversity. This currently excludes 61% of the player population from this.

I assume the first one means Political Freedom in terms of in-game stats, but what is diversity? Surely it can't be Inclusiveness, as I have that very low yet I got the issue.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:3) Sexuality is NOT the same thing as gender identity. Think of it as being different axes of identity.

Sexuality is which gender you feel attraction to.
Gender identity is which gender you identify as.

The two interact, but are not interchangeable. You can have an avowedly heterosexual nation that has full gender fluidity.

Gender theory does not receive much, if any credit in countries where homosexuality is still criminalized, or considered to be a mental illness. So perhaps it would be a better idea to look for these real life examples. Examples include most Western countries until the second half of the 20th century, Islamic countries, as well as many others. Another example could be Russia's anti-gay propaganda laws. You cannot seriously believe that a country where homosexuality is cracked down on by the force of law will allow people to be openly "gender fluid".

Right, it looks like I made the inclusiveness check ridiculously lax on accident. I was wondering why this issue's stats were coming out so unbalanced, give how I thought I had set up the validity criteria. I'll ask to have this fixed. Thanks for pointing it out.

Greater Hunnia wrote:Gender theory does not receive much, if any credit in countries where homosexuality is still criminalized, or considered to be a mental illness. So perhaps it would be a better idea to look for these real life examples. Examples include most Western countries until the second half of the 20th century, Islamic countries, as well as many others. Another example could be Russia's anti-gay propaganda laws. You cannot seriously believe that a country where homosexuality is cracked down on by the force of law will allow people to be openly "gender fluid".

I mean, there's Iran, where being trans is legal and gay isn't -- to the point that cis gay people sometimes have to transition to a gender they don't identify as.