Help us fix old issues

[Affairs]

Issue 42, option 2 is intended to be merely a no-censorship, hands-off approach, as reflected in its stat effects, but the phrase "promote the arts" makes it sound like endorsements or funding would be involved. This last line is best deleted to avoid confusion.

[Jutsa]

I just got #346 in a super-economically-free though private-industry-is-banned economy,
and it was certainly not a state-run variation.

The issue is coded to exclude nations where capitalism is banned, so if the nation has banned capitalism, then there must be a technical error.

Exact nation name and date please?

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=isowiget_phector on the exact same day I posted that; pretty sure it was the 13th.

Seriously I have no idea how it became such a capitalist state-run nation but there it is.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Issue #721 appears to have the word "distain" in Option 4. I suppose it should have been "disdain," right?

I thought it was intentional, both mocking the common misspelling, and also making a play on words. As in, you discolour and stain them by spitting on them.

Maybe Luna can confirm, as the editor of the time.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

The issue is coded to exclude nations where capitalism is banned, so if the nation has banned capitalism, then there must be a technical error.

Exact nation name and date please?

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=isowiget_phector on the exact same day I posted that; pretty sure it was the 13th.

Seriously I have no idea how it became such a capitalist state-run nation but there it is.

A quick check shows that nation has banned capitalism, and on testing is invalid for that issue. However, the log also shows you did have that issue assigned to you.

This is therefore a technical error, and I will flag it.

[Trotterdam]

"Little League matches are often attended by riot police with water cannon... just in case": shouldn't "cannon" be plural?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Cannon IS plural.

Or it can be, if an author prefers. Which I do.

Example of use in real journalism:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-afri ... -off-plans

[Luna Amore]

Issue #721 appears to have the word "distain" in Option 4. I suppose it should have been "disdain," right?

I thought it was intentional, both mocking the common misspelling, and also making a play on words. As in, you discolour and stain them by spitting on them.

Maybe Luna can confirm, as the editor of the time.

That issue was a bit of a pain deciding which misteaks to keep. I don't remember each one, but it was probably intentional.

*Actually, just looked over it. I wrote that option and that seems like a stupid mistake I would make. Changed.

The issue is coded to exclude nations where capitalism is banned, so if the nation has banned capitalism, then there must be a technical error.

Exact nation name and date please?

https://www.nationstates.net/nation=isowiget_phector on the exact same day I posted that; pretty sure it was the 13th.

Seriously I have no idea how it became such a capitalist state-run nation but there it is.

That nation looks like he CTEd a while ago. Are you sure that issue wasn't received before you CTEd? I ask because CTE nations remember the issues they have in queue. I think your nation CTEd before that requirement was added to #341 by CWA last year.

If you resurrected and that issue and 4 others were already waiting, then that's the answer. That copy was a relic. It belonged in a museum!

[Trotterdam]

#966 option 1 ends on

''

rather than

"

Option 3 fails to have a closing quote at all. Option 3 also includes a broken em dash (—, should be —).

[Jutsa]

Ah, that's entirely possible. It actually was reborn for some time, but hasn't recieved issues until probably about that time.
It was on my quest for the missing issue options!

Thank you, Luna.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

#966 option 1 ends on

''

rather than

"

Option 3 fails to have a closing quote at all. Option 3 also includes a broken em dash (—, should be —).

Fixed, thanks. Pogaria is normally the editor who catches those, ergo the existence of said errors must be Pogaria's fault.

[Jutsa]

Hey, I got #958(which is awesome) on this nation just yesterday when I explicitly prohibited political donations four days ago.

I'm pretty sure I didn't reverse that flag* since then.

[Affairs]

The choices for issue 247 make no sense as presented. Options 1 and 4 are both presented as basically "get the government out of fire protection and let the private sector handle it", in which case there would be no reason for them to be different options. However, the stat effects and verbally stated results of option 1 are more consistent with a government monopoly being "farmed out" to a private firm... which would make sense as its own option if it was presented that way, but it isn't.

Am I even in the right thread for reporting that kind of thing?

[Jutsa]

Yeah, I think you're in the right thread. That's about all I can answer, though.

[Luna Amore]

The choices for issue 247 make no sense as presented. Options 1 and 4 are both presented as basically "get the government out of fire protection and let the private sector handle it", in which case there would be no reason for them to be different options. However, the stat effects and verbally stated results of option 1 are more consistent with a government monopoly being "farmed out" to a private firm... which would make sense as its own option if it was presented that way, but it isn't.

Am I even in the right thread for reporting that kind of thing?

They are different variations. The basic options are:

1. Private fire service
2. Govt only fire service
3. Govt + prevention methods
4. No fire services. You have only yourself to blame if you burn.

1 & 4 both get govt out of fire services. 4 doesn't replace it though.

[Affairs]

169.3: "tranquilizers" is misspelled, unless the extra l is part of the British spelling.

The choices for issue 247 make no sense as presented. Options 1 and 4 are both presented as basically "get the government out of fire protection and let the private sector handle it", in which case there would be no reason for them to be different options. However, the stat effects and verbally stated results of option 1 are more consistent with a government monopoly being "farmed out" to a private firm... which would make sense as its own option if it was presented that way, but it isn't.

Am I even in the right thread for reporting that kind of thing?

They are different variations. The basic options are:

1. Private fire service
2. Govt only fire service
3. Govt + prevention methods
4. No fire services. You have only yourself to blame if you burn.

1 & 4 both get govt out of fire services. 4 doesn't replace it though.

Then option 4 is the one that makes no sense, unless it is rewritten to explicitly ban private fire-suppression businesses.

[Trotterdam]

4 says "The government should keep out of this if you ask me.". That doesn't do anything to prevent private firms from stepping up. Unless private enterprise is banned, the market will act to fill demand.

[Luna Amore]

In context of the other options, it's clear that there is no fire services period for #4. Whichever option you pick is the will of the people. The people don't want no stinkin' fire department, so there isn't one.

[Affairs]

4 says "The government should keep out of this if you ask me.". That doesn't do anything to prevent private firms from stepping up. Unless private enterprise is banned, the market will act to fill demand.

Trot is 100% correct. It's a rule of economics that the private sector will take a crack at anything that isn't banned, and a pretty good chunk of what is banned. Fire-control will happen, whether it takes the form of a government-run monopoly, a government-sanctioned private monopoly, a bunch of private firms competing in a market, or masked vigilantes running around with Super Soakers.

"The will of the people" is a non-starter because "the people" never unanimously agree on anything, which is the whole reason why both government and free markets exist in the first place.

[Pogaria]

#966 option 1 ends on

''

rather than

"

Option 3 fails to have a closing quote at all. Option 3 also includes a broken em dash (—, should be —).

Fixed, thanks. Pogaria is normally the editor who catches those, ergo the existence of said errors must be Pogaria's fault.

Well, if every issue was correctly formatted, Trotterdam would just get bored and use his computer skills to create a sentient issue-analyzing AI that goes rogue and ends up destroying all of humanity. We can't have that, can we?

[Techolandia]

In option #1 of issue #557, it should say "whom to fine".

[Ab Humanitatis Scientiam]

In option #1 of issue #557, it should say "whom to fine".

Technically true, however, the informal use of "who" is actually extremely common in everyday language. In the same way a tweed-wearing professor stringently adhering to the correct use of "whom" would surprise no one, a relatively blue-collar rescue worker using "who" here is not unexpected.

(EDIT: although it's weird that this wasn't one of the things argued about originally)

[Feria-Alkaline]

"Before you report any spelling or grammar error, its worth checking if it is a British/American thing."

CWA, I think you used the wrong "its" in the thread's first post...

[Candlewhisper Archive]

"Before you report any spelling or grammar error, its worth checking if it is a British/American thing."

CWA, I think you used the wrong "its" in the thread's first post...

ha! My old favourite error, returning to haunt me. Fixed, thanks.

[Fluffard]

In issue 553, option 2, there is "allowing our precious natural spaces and native species remain unblemished". "Remain" should be "to remain", or "allowing" should be a different word.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Okay done.