NationStates

Australian rePublic wrote:Issue 0000 is a bit bias against elderly gun nuts, especially considering that we have issues in favour of said gun nuts

This isn't a thread to suggest subjective narrative changes. It's for objective errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation and suspected errors with macros and validities.

If you think a narrative could be improved somehow, I suggest you first test the water in The Writer's Block. If you find that people agree with you, you might want to start a new thread later. Although the bar for changing the first 30 issues is exceptionally high. Though it has been done, if necessary.

That said, if you mean that one reference in option #2, it should be reiterated that all speakers in options have an internal bias in favour of their own viewpoint. I fail to see why this one option is a problem.

#587.3 doesn't imply AI citizenship?

(I suppose it doesn't have to, but I'm still disappointed)

Wrong thread....

I see that [the recently-modified] #231 still describes malaria explicitly as a "tropical" disease, but that isn't really the case. It used to be endemic at least as far north as southern England (where its names included "the London Ague", or just "the Ague"), within recorded history, until temperatures dropped below the level at which the mosquitoes involved could survive here regularly... and its return is considered a very possible consequence of global warming.

Bears Armed wrote:I see that [the recently-modified] #231 still describes malaria explicitly as a "tropical" disease, but that isn't really the case. It used to be endemic at least as far north as southern England (where its names included "the London Ague", or just "the Ague"), within recorded history, until temperatures dropped below the level at which the mosquitoes involved could survive here regularly... and its return is considered a very possible consequence of global warming.

Sure, that's technically true, though the CDC and WHO describe it as a disease of tropical and subtropical regions it is acknowledged that it is a potential threat in temperate regions, and that it is primarily public health development that keeps it at bay rather than climate. Additionally, the WHO definition of a tropical disease is a disease that thrives in tropical regions, not a disease that is limited to tropical regions. From a UK point of view, the study of malaria is considered a subset of Tropical Medicine, and the NHS describes it as a tropical disease in its online resources.

I think that "tropical disease" is a sufficiently accurate description of its current epidemiology, and of its category as applied in medicine. While the historical contexts and future concernes you mention are valid, it remains a linguistically reasonable description of the condition.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:I see that [the recently-modified] #231 still describes malaria explicitly as a "tropical" disease, but that isn't really the case. It used to be endemic at least as far north as southern England (where its names included "the London Ague", or just "the Ague"), within recorded history, until temperatures dropped below the level at which the mosquitoes involved could survive here regularly... and its return is considered a very possible consequence of global warming.

Sure, that's technically true, though the CDC and WHO describe it as a disease of tropical and subtropical regions it is acknowledged that it is a potential threat in temperate regions, and that it is primarily public health development that keeps it at bay rather than climate. Additionally, the WHO definition of a tropical disease is a disease that thrives in tropical regions, not a disease that is limited to tropical regions. From a UK point of view, the study of malaria is considered a subset of Tropical Medicine, and the NHS describes it as a tropical disease in its online resources.

I think that "tropical disease" is a sufficiently accurate description of its current epidemiology, and of its category as applied in medicine. While the historical contexts and future concernes you mention are valid, it remains a linguistically reasonable description of the condition.

I'm not sure how many other NS players would actually look to the WHO for definitions, but... okay.

I suspect that if you have sufficient interest and knowledge to know whether "tropical disease" is an accurate description of malaria, then you have sufficient interest and knowledge to look to the CDC or WHO. An easier option for a layman would be to trust the local doctor to know these things, which as it turns out, is me.

I just got "The End Was Nigh," and I think there are some typos or borked macros affecting the gender of pronouns:

48 hours ago, Lieutenant Colonel Brenda Capulet of the Sherpa Air Defence Force received a nuclear missile detection alert advising him that an ICBM from the hostile nation of Blackacre was inbound for Lukla-Namche. According to military protocol, he should have reported this immediately, which would have led to a nuclear counter-strike. However, she suspected a false alarm, and did not alert anyone of her findings until later. Subsequent investigations showed that the system had actually detected a red balloon.

The Sherpa Empire wrote:I just got "The End Was Nigh," and I think there are some typos or borked macros affecting the gender of pronouns:

48 hours ago, Lieutenant Colonel Brenda Capulet of the Sherpa Air Defence Force received a nuclear missile detection alert advising him that an ICBM from the hostile nation of Blackacre was inbound for Lukla-Namche. According to military protocol, he should have reported this immediately, which would have led to a nuclear counter-strike. However, she suspected a false alarm, and did not alert anyone of her findings until later. Subsequent investigations showed that the system had actually detected a red balloon.

Thanks for spotting. Fixed.

719.1 should have a comma after the "no".

Fluffard wrote:719.1 should have a comma after the "no".

Fixed. Thanks.

611.1 : She tries to wave a copy of the Feria-Alkaline Defense Regulations Volume 4 at you for emphasis, the sheer bulk of the tome forces her to resort to instead slamming the book onto your desk.

First, wouldn't the nation name be conjugated into the adjective form, not only there but in the description as well? Second, and what I noticed first, was that you need a but or some sort of fix after the word emphasis, because otherwise the sentence is bulky and run-on. Perhaps get rid of the instead instead.

611.3 : Having too many government committees, unnecessary departments, and too many soldiers can only lead to more debacles like this.

More stylistic, but I don't understand why there are two "too many"s... You could cut out the one before soldiers.

Take these with a grain of salt, of course XD

Feria-Alkaline wrote:611.1 : She tries to wave a copy of the Feria-Alkaline Defense Regulations Volume 4 at you for emphasis, the sheer bulk of the tome forces her to resort to instead slamming the book onto your desk.

First, wouldn't the nation name be conjugated into the adjective form, not only there but in the description as well? Second, and what I noticed first, was that you need a but or some sort of fix after the word emphasis, because otherwise the sentence is bulky and run-on. Perhaps get rid of the instead instead.

611.3 : Having too many government committees, unnecessary departments, and too many soldiers can only lead to more debacles like this.

More stylistic, but I don't understand why there are two "too many"s... You could cut out the one before soldiers.

Take these with a grain of salt, of course XD

Thank you for your suggestions. If anything looks objectively wrong with spelling, grammar or macro use, please do raise it.

Unfortunately, we can't alter @@NAME@@, except by making it into the initials, and @@NAME@@ seems to fit better than @@DEMONYN@@ or @@NAMEINITIALS@@ here. With the latter part of the sentence, I think adding a word might make it bulkier, but have changed "the sheer bulk of the tome forces her to resort to instead slamming the book onto your desk" to "the sheer bulk of the tome forcing her to resort to instead slamming the book onto your desk" so that it reads better.

The "too many" change is purely stylistic, and we don't do subjective, stylistic changes on this thread.

Hi.

An issue came up in which I allowed forced marriage of women, and this enabled "slavery" as a policy. This is just factually incorrect. Slavery is an economic policy, forced marriage is women's rights policy. India, for example, has forced marriage, but not widespread slavery. The United States had slavery, but there was not widespread forced marriage of slaves to owners.

This was issue 593. Issue 136 also enables "slavery" when a one child policy in enacted.

This is, again, a reproductive / women's rights issue, and different from the sort of "slavery" that built the pyramids.

The option reads as follows:

All women should be forced to cover themselves head-to-toe while in public, and should not venture out of the home without permission. They should obey their husbands or male relatives in all things, including their clothing choices.

The underlined part explains why slavery is triggered - being obliged to obey in all things constitutes slavery, I reckon.

However, we're discussing this policy backstage at present regarding a separate issue, and I'll add this to the mix. We're trying to pin down a more concrete definition for the policy for grey area cases like this.

MercuriusEudoro wrote:India, for example, has forced marriage, but not widespread slavery.

India has arranged marriages, but not [legally] forced marriage: There's a difference.

I have no prisons in this nation, yet the first option for issue 420 mentions something about "getting away with things that would put us regular folk in jail". Should this be changed? I think there are two different possible results for this first option (sent to jail or as I got, to rehab), suggesting it has been identified previously, but should the wording here be amended for those without jails?

Tomandell wrote:I have no prisons in this nation, yet the first option for issue 420 mentions something about "getting away with things that would put us regular folk in jail". Should this be changed? I think there are two different possible results for this first option (sent to jail or as I got, to rehab), suggesting it has been identified previously, but should the wording here be amended for those without jails?

I've altered the wording so it no longer mentions "jail" in the No Prison option.

Thanks for spotting this.

Why does option #3 (compulsory drinking) decrease recreational drug use?

Lamebrainia wrote:Why does option #3 (compulsory drinking) decrease recreational drug use?

Firstly, please report unusual stat effects in this thread in future. The "Help Us Fix Old Issues" thread is for objective errors in spelling and grammar, and suspected errors with macros and validities.

This effect is due to a secondary stat. The game automatically links lower civil rights (as may occur when forcing people -- including children -- to drink, as this option does; and which occurred with your nation) with lower recreational drug use. It's a known bug.

I just got issue 496 Rock ‘n’ Roll Suicide and I was wondering about the meaning of this line

Suicide must be made illegal, and only the ultimate punishment will deter people from this sin. We need to teach our children that life, regardless of how much you’re suffering, is always the answer.”

What would be the ultimate punishment in this case? Normally I would use this to refer to capital punishment but since this is dealing with a suicide offender this doesn't seem to fit.
(This might be the wrong forum but I don't know where I would put a comment like this)

New Ladavia wrote:I just got issue 496 Rock ‘n’ Roll Suicide and I was wondering about the meaning of this line

Suicide must be made illegal, and only the ultimate punishment will deter people from this sin. We need to teach our children that life, regardless of how much you’re suffering, is always the answer.”

What would be the ultimate punishment in this case? Normally I would use this to refer to capital punishment but since this is dealing with a suicide offender this doesn't seem to fit.
(This might be the wrong forum but I don't know where I would put a comment like this)

Yes, this is referring to capital punishment. Yes, death penalty for suicide is silly. That's the joke.

It even says this in issue 0. I don't find it that funny but to each there own.

I just had a funny encounter in issue 528. It's possible it is pure coincidence, but given the odds, I'm guessing it may be a macro with crossed wires.

Option 1 started with “Ain’t nobody got the right to spy on my kin!” shouts Nelson Black..."

Option 2 started with “Wait, what? What’s your beef with drones?” says Nelson Black..."

Funny if true, but those two random names might be linked by mistake.

Head Vicuna wrote:I just had a funny encounter in issue 528. It's possible it is pure coincidence, but given the odds, I'm guessing it may be a macro with crossed wires.

Option 1 started with “Ain’t nobody got the right to spy on my kin!” shouts Nelson Black..."

Option 2 started with “Wait, what? What’s your beef with drones?” says Nelson Black..."

Funny if true, but those two random names might be linked by mistake.

You're right.

It's because the actual options 1 and 2 are doppelganger options but some editor with a desire for consistency decided to make option 2 use the same name as option 1. Of course, if only option 2 is generated for a nation, then the @@name(1)@@ check instead looks forward to the first randomised name which would then be option 3.

Have fixed this by disconnecting the names in the two doppelgangers, making them random and separate.

Do mention if you see this sort of duplication elsewhere. While coincidental matching is possible its extremely unlikely.

Great, thanks CWA, and will do! (obo Head Vicuna, one of my alts).