NationStates

Sensorland wrote:It seems to me that #417 has the potential to remove the "No Adultery" policy. Particularly option 3. I was kind of surprised that it didn't. There really aren't enough issues that do that.

If @@LEADER@@ is unmarried, then an affair with @@LEADER@@'s secretary would not be adultery. (Although it's something that many conservatives would consider similarly bad as adultery.)

#323 was eligible for my socialist nation, even though it's clearly private industry.

Instead of barring a very fun issue to socialist nations, can you guys amend the language to make MyFace less definitely a corporation? This also might include an alternate for option 2.

Thanks!

Issue #238 shouldn't be eligible for socialist nations, it's about a private business producing an unusually large pizza.

A socialist doppelganger to the issue might be appropriate for socialist nations with unusually developed interests in food and/or retail, but it'd have to be a whole new issue, since the setup to #238 starts with reference to the recurring corporation "Papa Pallocci's" and is thus pretty intrinsically based on private industry.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Issue #1302 should be "The @@ADJECTIVE@@ Identity" not "The @@NAME@@ Identity"

For me, this shows up as "The The World Capitalist Confederation Identity", and is not correct.

I'll let Ransium make the call on this one as it is his issue.

However, in editing it I felt that the use of the noun rather than the demonym was entirely intentional, echoing "The Bourne Identity". Also, the issue is about another nation using @@NAME@@ as their name, so we're not talking about "an identity of that nation's nationality" we're talking about "that nation's name, as an identity".

Ransium will let you know if that wasn't his intention, but as far as I'm concerned there's no error here.

You changed the title, my original title was “Their Name is Our Name Too”. I don’t have strong opinions about whether it’s wrong or not though.

I'm usually a stickler for using adjectives rather than names, but in this case I think it actually isn't called for, exactly because of this:

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Also, the issue is about another nation using @@NAME@@ as their name, so we're not talking about "an identity of that nation's nationality" we're talking about "that nation's name, as an identity".

My recommendation with these kind of things, as always, is to not just question it in the abstract, but actually try out how it sounds with an example nation name that has a well-accepted separate demonym. I like using Spain for this, since "Spain", "Spanish", and "Spaniard" are all clearly distinct words. So what sounds better: "The Spain Identity" or "The Spanish Identity"? Normally I'd favor the latter, but the underlined part makes a good case for the former in this specific situation.

Slight issue with #1311, An Acquired Taste. This line:

These officials cite VODAIS, ebola and coronavirus as examples of diseases that were originally contracted by humans after eating bushmeat.

is worded in a way that suggests "coronavirus" is the name of a specific pathogen, which is not the case. Quoth the info-box you receive upon Googling "define coronavirus",

co·ro·na·vi·rus
/kəˈrōnəˌvīrəs/
noun
any of a group of RNA viruses that cause a variety of diseases in humans and other animals.

The coronavirus currently under the spotlight is known as the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) or the Wuhan Coronavirus. I recommend that in the text "coronavirus" either be swapped for a proper noun or dropped entirely.

Vox Solanaceae wrote:Slight issue with #1311, An Acquired Taste. This line:

These officials cite VODAIS, ebola and coronavirus as examples of diseases that were originally contracted by humans after eating bushmeat.

is worded in a way that suggests "coronavirus" is the name of a specific pathogen, which is not the case. Quoth the info-box you receive upon Googling "define coronavirus",

co·ro·na·vi·rus
/kəˈrōnəˌvīrəs/
noun
any of a group of RNA viruses that cause a variety of diseases in humans and other animals.

The coronavirus currently under the spotlight is known as the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) or the Wuhan Coronavirus. I recommend that in the text "coronavirus" either be swapped for a proper noun or dropped entirely.

Coronaviruses are a large group of viruses. The WHO does not capitalise when talking about them as a general group, and that's a good enough source for me.

No change will be made.

The Free Joy State wrote:Coronaviruses are a large group of viruses.

Exactly, coronaviruses. It is gramatically incorrect to use it in the singular without prefixing it with an article ("a" or "the"), because that gives the impression that it's the name of a specific disease, which it's not. In this context, either pluralizing it or swapping it for a more specific name would clearly make more sense than prefixing it with an article. Vox Solanaceae never said anything about capitalizing it, don't make stuff up.

While you're at it, also add a serial comma.

Trotterdam wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Coronaviruses are a large group of viruses.

Exactly, coronaviruses. It is gramatically incorrect to use it in the singular without prefixing it with an article ("a" or "the"), because that gives the impression that it's the name of a specific disease, which it's not. In this context, either pluralizing it or swapping it for a more specific name would clearly make more sense than prefixing it with an article. Vox Solanaceae never said anything about capitalizing it, don't make stuff up.

While you're at it, also add a serial comma.

This is not a discussion thread, Trott, despite your apparent wish that it were.

This is a thread where suspected errors are reported and a decision is made, and that is it.

There is no error. This is not about the Novel Coronavirus -- it was written well before Novel Coronavirus; we cannot see into the future. And it does not need to be pluralised:

What is the virus causing illness in Wuhan?
It is a member of the coronavirus family that has never been encountered before.

No change will be made.

And a serial comma is a stylistic change. We never make those.

Kindly consider this query closed.

Issue #492: The Artwork in the Attic, should not be valid for nations with the "No Immigration" policy.

Sensorland wrote:Issue #492: The Artwork in the Attic, should not be valid for nations with the "No Immigration" policy.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

The validity has been amended.

In the issue titled, Cramping Our Style, their is a grammar error in the first choice, third sentence. In the third sentence it sates, I have been crippled by my cycle for years, and if that man had had suffer like me, he wouldn’t have wanted a lecture — he’d have wanted a bloody medal! The grammar error is when it says had had.

Good spot - fixed.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=enact ... lemma=1021 "Room and Board Games"

"Monocled merchants with funny accents are applying for citizen of Thistledom citizenship in droves."

Instead of "citizen of Thistledom citizenship" could just say "Thistledom citizenship"

Thistledom wrote:"Monocled merchants with funny accents are applying for citizen of Thistledom citizenship in droves."

This is a consequence of your custom fields, which you can change in your settings. What you have entered now is not how the fields are meant to be used, so it's no surprise that issue texts will look off.

It also manifests anywhere else your demonyms get used, even your main nation page: "The frighteningly efficient citizen of Thistledom economy, worth a remarkable 7,790 trillion euros a year, ...".

Trotterdam wrote:This is a consequence of your custom fields ...

Ack! Sorry for the false alarm!

Ransium wrote:

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
I'll let Ransium make the call on this one as it is his issue.

However, in editing it I felt that the use of the noun rather than the demonym was entirely intentional, echoing "The Bourne Identity". Also, the issue is about another nation using @@NAME@@ as their name, so we're not talking about "an identity of that nation's nationality" we're talking about "that nation's name, as an identity".

Ransium will let you know if that wasn't his intention, but as far as I'm concerned there's no error here.

You changed the title, my original title was “Their Name is Our Name Too”. I don’t have strong opinions about whether it’s wrong or not though.

LOL, I forgot that was my addition. No wonder I'm happy with it.

The issue is, Expats Plea for Help in War-Torn Country. The error is in option two. The sentence that contains error is, The expats should be allowed to come back but only if they stay. Their should be a comma between back and but.

Narnia123456 wrote:The issue is, Expats Plea for Help in War-Torn Country. The error is in option two. The sentence that contains error is, The expats should be allowed to come back but only if they stay. Their should be a comma between back and but.

That's more of a stylistic choice than an error. No need to change, though for the record I would personally have preferred a comma there.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

Narnia123456 wrote:The issue is, Expats Plea for Help in War-Torn Country. The error is in option two. The sentence that contains error is, The expats should be allowed to come back but only if they stay. Their should be a comma between back and but.

That's more of a stylistic choice than an error. No need to change.

just checking.

Issue #483, Option #1 cites a pubescent protester as the source of a claim about working for their families. This should likely get a bit of inspection for potentially updating the wording and/or validity of the text.

Firstly, pubescent workers shouldn't be at the restaurant unless child labor is enacted. Secondly, pubescent workers shouldn't become prominent over slaving away to support their families unless 1) parenting standards in the nation are tyrannical, and/or 2) teenage pregnancy rates are remarkably elevated.

Polis Diamonil wrote:Issue #483, Option #1 cites a pubescent protester as the source of a claim about working for their families. This should likely get a bit of inspection for potentially updating the wording and/or validity of the text.

Firstly, pubescent workers shouldn't be at the restaurant unless child labor is enacted. Secondly, pubescent workers shouldn't become prominent over slaving away to support their families unless 1) parenting standards in the nation are tyrannical, and/or 2) teenage pregnancy rates are remarkably elevated.

Not really. "Pubescent" is the age of puberty -- typically around adolescence. It's not unusual for adolescents to work, and fast food restaurants are one of the places that have typically employed adolescents.

As for teenagers "supporting their families"... in some nations that has historically been the case. In some nations, especially due to poverty, it is still the case that adolescents turn over a percentage (sometimes sizable) of the money they earn.

I don't see any need to make a change.

In option 3 of issue 72 the speaker is a "pleasantly plump computer programmer" despite the fact that this nation has the "no computers" policy.

Isle Willte wrote:In option 3 of issue 72 the speaker is a "pleasantly plump computer programmer" despite the fact that this nation has the "no computers" policy.

Good spot, fixed. He's now a pleasantly plump former computer programmer.

Issue #1315 shouldn't be valid in a nation with legal internet and legal airplanes, due to the ease of looking up long-distance travel information and booking flights. "No boycott after all" - a week-long delay in forming the parliament when such technologies are available should be impossible sans a boycott.

Since TalakMaChen reported the issue while having both legal internet and legal airplanes, I suspect I'm on solid grounds noticing the impossibility factor.

PS: while I'm talking about an issue whose title references a sortition boycott, an issue where a sortition parliament gets boycotted sounds genuinely clever. Someone should make that. Every -x% of the public invested in anti-democratic campaigning because they'd prefer purchasable electoral oligarchies and the restoration of corrupt psuedodemocracy should represent approximately -x% chance that a sortition rolls under the threshold. If 50% of the public preferred electoral oligarchy over democracy, you could have as high of a coin flip chance that each allotment would get boycotted in the event that someone tried! If the public hates having the public's voice in power and would prefer a government of rich people and their purchased celebrity pets, they might really boycott sortition!