NationStates

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Re: effect line #986, it was simply a double-space instead of a single-space at the start of the effect line. Now fixed.

#977 option 3 also has this.

Turns out there was a bug in the code I had to catch these. The library function that I used to parse character entities ("Dàguó", etc.) also mangled spaces. Now fixed, so I'll be able to report future cases as they happen. (Probably not past ones, though - I had to turn that feature off due to too many false alarms resulting from trailing spaces in custom fields.)

Goldwater wrote:On Saturday I answered two issues back to back that seemed to conflict with one another. Following the advice of Mod Ransium here I thought I'd pass along the conflict.

First, I think I answered issue #224 which involved deciding whether or not to create a minimum wage. Then the very next issue I came to was issue #30 that had an option to abolish the minimum wage. And before you ask, in the first issue I chose option 3 which did not create an artificial price floor on labor, but issue #30 was already queued before I even answered the issue. So it wasn't that my response from issue #224 made me valid for #30.

I think the last option on #30 should not be valid for the nations for which #224 is valid.

Yes, I can see where our backstage records demonstrate that you answered #224.3 (to refuse to pay a living wage) and then #30.3 (to not invest in manufacture, get rid of import tariffs and let the market sort itself out), on the 12^TH.

I don't see conflict between those two options; it's very possible that the same leader who refuses to invest in manufacturing will be the same leader who slashes minimum wage. However, we accept that sometimes, conflict can occur within issues. Often it occurs when two previously valid issues are dropped into a players' inbox and one becomes invalid with the answer of the first.

There's not much that can be done about that, save to dismiss the issue that doesn't work with your narrative.

It's worth pointing out here that not every outcome that can occur in an issue is tracked as a policy (although an ever-increasing number are). This can cause conflicts to occur, and preventing this is one of the main causes of new policies being added. So we welcome you to continue to raise any apparent conflicts so we can check them out.

Trotterdam wrote:

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Re: effect line #986, it was simply a double-space instead of a single-space at the start of the effect line. Now fixed.

#977 option 3 also has this.

Turns out there was a bug in the code I had to catch these. The library function that I used to parse character entities ("Dàguó", etc.) also mangled spaces. Now fixed, so I'll be able to report future cases as they happen. (Probably not past ones, though - I had to turn that feature off due to too many false alarms resulting from trailing spaces in custom fields.)

Fixed. Thanks.

The Free Joy State wrote:Yes, I can see where our backstage records demonstrate that you answered #224.3 (to refuse to pay a living wage) and then #30.3 (to not invest in manufacture, get rid of import tariffs and let the market sort itself out), on the 12^TH.

I don't see conflict between those two options; it's very possible that the same leader who refuses to invest in manufacturing will be the same leader who slashes minimum wage. However, we accept that sometimes, conflict can occur within issues. Often it occurs when two previously valid issues are dropped into a players' inbox and one becomes invalid with the answer of the first.

There's not much that can be done about that, save to dismiss the issue that doesn't work with your narrative.

I didn't choose the option that caused the conflict.

I think you're missing that Issue 30, second option is to repeal the minimum wage. So when I logged in I had two issues (at the same time). One of which gave me the option to repeal a minimum wage that I apparently had implemented in the past, and the other that gave me the option to institute a minimum wage that I did not currently have.

The text of 30 assumes I have a minimum wage, the text of 224 assumes I do not have a minimum wage. That seems to me to be a black and white conflict.

Goldwater wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Yes, I can see where our backstage records demonstrate that you answered #224.3 (to refuse to pay a living wage) and then #30.3 (to not invest in manufacture, get rid of import tariffs and let the market sort itself out), on the 12^TH.

I don't see conflict between those two options; it's very possible that the same leader who refuses to invest in manufacturing will be the same leader who slashes minimum wage. However, we accept that sometimes, conflict can occur within issues. Often it occurs when two previously valid issues are dropped into a players' inbox and one becomes invalid with the answer of the first.

There's not much that can be done about that, save to dismiss the issue that doesn't work with your narrative.

I didn't choose the option that caused the conflict.

I think you're missing that Issue 30, second option is to repeal the minimum wage. So when I logged in I had two issues (at the same time). One of which gave me the option to repeal a minimum wage that I apparently had implemented in the past, and the other that gave me the option to institute a minimum wage that I did not currently have.

The text of 30 assumes I have a minimum wage, the text of 224 assumes I do not have a minimum wage. That seems to me to be a black and white conflict.

Oh, I see. It's option two of #30, not option three!

As I explained, the issue was already there (which can happen, as they are assigned entirely randomly -- except if you write an issue, when you receive it automatically to your issues inbox), so there's nothing that could have been done (in this instance) to prevent any narrative inconsistency, save to dismiss.

We have no straightforward on-off policy to track minimum wage. However, I can certainly take it backstage, and see what we can do to prevent this happening again.

Thank you for the report.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Goldwater wrote:I didn't choose the option that caused the conflict.

I think you're missing that Issue 30, second option is to repeal the minimum wage. So when I logged in I had two issues (at the same time). One of which gave me the option to repeal a minimum wage that I apparently had implemented in the past, and the other that gave me the option to institute a minimum wage that I did not currently have.

The text of 30 assumes I have a minimum wage, the text of 224 assumes I do not have a minimum wage. That seems to me to be a black and white conflict.

Oh, I see. It's option two of #30, not option three!

As I explained, the issue was already there (which can happen, as they are assigned entirely randomly -- except if you write an issue, when you receive it automatically to your issues inbox), so there's nothing that could have been done (in this instance) to prevent any narrative inconsistency, save to dismiss.

We have no straightforward on-off policy to track minimum wage. However, I can certainly take it backstage, and see what we can do to prevent this happening again.

Thank you for the report.

Forgive the double-post (and self-quoting), but I'd just like to note that -- further to discussion backstage -- a restriction has been put on option two of Issue 30, to prevent nations without a minimum wage receiving this option.

Again, thank you, and please continue to report conflicts.

As an addendum to that, it's not a policy flag we're using on that, so the nation's position is based on a general measurement of employment laws, and can shift dependent on minimum-wage unrelated issues.

However, it shouldn't be possible now to be assigned both issues without changing position inbetween.

Thank you two!

Trotterdam wrote:

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Re: effect line #986, it was simply a double-space instead of a single-space at the start of the effect line. Now fixed.

#977 option 3 also has this.

I managed to catch #972 2 as another offender.

Trotterdam wrote:

Trotterdam wrote:#977 option 3 also has this.

I managed to catch #972 2 as another offender.

Fixed.

Don't know the issue number yet, but "␣it is considered unpatriotic to learn a foreign language".

Trotterdam wrote:Don't know the issue number yet, but "␣it is considered unpatriotic to learn a foreign language".

Fixed.

2 things in 997:

1) not sure if this is actually a problem or stylistic choice, but:
argues Officer @@RANDOMNAME@@, of the @@CAPITAL@@ Police Department.
should a comma be after @@RANDOMNAME@@?

2) 10-year old matured Famous Moose .
Moose .

idk if that was a copy/paste error on the person's side but I suspect not...

Note that "Moose" is actually "@@ANIMAL@@", however, the extraneous space is an error in the issue proper and not in that nation's custom field.

Fixed both, and the title case.

#999.4:

‘@@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@.’

Shouldn't this be ‘@@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@’. ?

Jutsa wrote:#999.4:

‘@@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@.’

Shouldn't this be ‘@@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@’. ?

Well spotted. Fixed.

How's that for service? Your editor in five minutes or less, or your pizza's free (one time offer).

Actually that one isn't a fixed grammar rule, but varies by locality.

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/educa ... tion-marks

However, as both approaches are "correct", there's no need for me to unfix this fix either, so I'll leave it as it is.

Option 2 should be that the terrorists got their ideas from the media, make sure the media gets their content approved by the government before they publish it.

I just received issue #306, "A Matter of Trust". Option two puts in place term limits to regain the public's trust, however, I already have term limits in my nation. I'm wondering if this is a missing validity because the issue is somewhat old, or if there is something going on that I do not understand? Thanks in advance.

Reardenland wrote:Option 2 should be that the terrorists got their ideas from the media, make sure the media gets their content approved by the government before they publish it.

This is not a thread for proposing subjective changes that you would like to see to issues' narratives.

This thread is for objective spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, typos, punctuation, or suspected problematic validities and macros.

If you wish to see a subjective change to the narrative of an issue, I suggest posting about it on The Writer's Block, and seeing if anyone supports your idea. If none of the players supports it, it would be pretty certain that none of the editorial team would either.

However, I must tell you that it is unlikely that extensive changes will be made to an existing option.

Sacara wrote:I just received issue #306, "A Matter of Trust". Option two puts in place term limits to regain the public's trust, however, I already have term limits in my nation. I'm wondering if this is a missing validity because the issue is somewhat old, or if there is something going on that I do not understand? Thanks in advance.

Thanks for reporting. That option seems to be missing a validity. I'll fix it.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Sacara wrote:I just received issue #306, "A Matter of Trust". Option two puts in place term limits to regain the public's trust, however, I already have term limits in my nation. I'm wondering if this is a missing validity because the issue is somewhat old, or if there is something going on that I do not understand? Thanks in advance.

Thanks for reporting. That option seems to be missing a validity. I'll fix it.

Very quick response.

I really have to keep my eyes on this thread...

so many things I could be fixing my list with, and I overlook.

A few issues I've brought up in the past but I don't really think were actually adressed:

565.3 + 760.2: Is there no-smoking alternatives to these options? If not, should there be?
217.3: Is there a non-alcoholic version of this option? If not, should there be?
850.3 + 858.4: Are there socialist versions of these options? If not, should there be?
602.1 + 602.7: Are these only available for nations where sports are banned? If not, should they be restricted?
984.3: Shouldn't this option not exist for nations where computers are banned? If not, then... well, banning computers doesn't do nearly as much as I thought.
200: there appears to be no consideration made for "religion is banned" nations (which wasn't relevant until the change, anyway) [Trotterdam's words]

Sorry if these have been answered or if I'm being a nuisance, but I honestly couldn't find any reply to any of these anywhere.

Jutsa wrote:A few issues I've brought up in the past but I don't really think were actually adressed:

565.3 + 760.2: Is there no-smoking alternatives to these options? If not, should there be?

There already is for 565.

Probably should be for 760. Changed it.

217.3: Is there a non-alcoholic version of this option? If not, should there be?

850.3 + 858.4: Are there socialist versions of these options? If not, should there be?

I'll take these up backstage

602.1 + 602.7: Are these only available for nations where sports are banned? If not, should they be restricted?

Yes, that should probably be changed. Amended.

984.3: Shouldn't this option not exist for nations where computers are banned? If not, then... well, banning computers doesn't do nearly as much as I thought.

That's fine as is. You don't need a computer to have a smartphone.

200: there appears to be no consideration made for "religion is banned" nations (which wasn't relevant until the change, anyway) [Trotterdam's words]

I'll take that backstage.

Well, I was just about to ask if #988 3 is supposed to be available for nations without computers, but...

The Free Joy State wrote:

984.3: Shouldn't this option not exist for nations where computers are banned? If not, then... well, banning computers doesn't do nearly as much as I thought.

That's fine as is. You don't need a computer to have a smartphone.

If you don't even think smartphones count as computers, then e-books aren't significant by comparison.

A "smartphone" is far more computer than phone. Phoning people is far from the primary purpose that people use them for, nowadays.

"Having a keyboard and a mouse" is not the defining characteristic of a computer... and as you should well know, while smartphones don't have those in hardware, they do emulate their functions (onscreen virtual keyboard, and tapping the touchscreen to perform the equivalent actions of mouse clicks).