NationStates

Bears Armed wrote:If they're vegetarian rather than outright vegan then maybe they're using the fish as a [phosphate-rich] fertiliser for their crops? 'Fishmeal' is used in RL, after all

That's not a vegetarian/vegan difference. Even if you're not eating the fish directly, you're still using dead fish, rather than products like milk or eggs. (Hmm, does that mean that caviar technically could be vegetarian, so long as you're careful not to let the eggs get fertilized?)

I guess it comes down to why you banned meat-eating. If you banned it out of animal rights concerns (which is by far the most commonly cited reason for doing such a thing, and tends to be assumed by issues such as #1213), then you should really apply the same rule to any use of dead animals, including export, crop fertilizer, leather/fur clothing, etc. If you merely think that animals aren't fit for human consumption (because of health concerns or something), then you might still be using meat for, say, pet food.

In #1476 "Known Unknowns":

"In the aftermath of a series of high-profile, violent crimes, Terrabod is reeling at the revelation that the identities and plans of the perpetrators had already been discovered well in advance of their crimes."

The comma after "high-profile" separates cumulative adjectives, so its use here is incorrect.

Terrabod wrote:In #1476 "Known Unknowns":

"In the aftermath of a series of high-profile, violent crimes, Terrabod is reeling at the revelation that the identities and plans of the perpetrators had already been discovered well in advance of their crimes."

The comma after "high-profile" separates cumulative adjectives, so its use here is incorrect.

I would call that a stylistic choice, not an objective error.

In Issue No. 1137 "A Really Sour Lemon", the description of option 2 for nations that ban private industry (Socialism) says:
"... the stand itself could promote imperialist revolutionaries..."

Wouldn't it be better to use "imperialist counter-revolutionaries" in the description? It would be more consistent with the typical language of socialist countries and the option's own result, which says:
"government bureaucrats shut down teenage yard-raking businesses for being counter-revolutionary."

Brezzia wrote:In Issue No. 1137 "A Really Sour Lemon", the description of option 2 for nations that ban private industry (Socialism) says:
"... the stand itself could promote imperialist revolutionaries..."

Wouldn't it be better to use "imperialist counter-revolutionaries" in the description? It would be more consistent with the typical language of socialist countries and the option's own result, which says:
"government bureaucrats shut down teenage yard-raking businesses for being counter-revolutionary."

I wouldn't say that's an error that has to be fixed.

I got issue #1199 in this fully communist nation and the second option reads

“We’ve spent decades protecting the privacy of our users by encrypting their data, and breaking that would be a massive breach of people’s right to privacy,” objects the CEO of Pear Inc. Steve Task, putting the finishing touches on a data-collection algorithm for targeted advertising. “The government can’t be trusted — you’ll be spying on whoever you want, even law-abiding citizens. In fact, a back door would make our devices more vulnerable to terrorists and hackers. Besides it’s a basic civil right for crime suspects to not be forced into self-incrimination by the state: you and the police should not be allowed to force Mr. Cox to unlock his phone.”

Maybe you should add a communist variant, something like

“We’ve spent decades protecting the privacy of our users by encrypting their data, and breaking that would be a massive breach of people’s right to privacy,” objects the head of technology manufacturing Steve Task, putting the finishing touches on a data-collection algorithm for targeted advertising. “The government can’t be trusted — you’ll be spying on whoever you want, even law-abiding citizens. In fact, a back door would make our devices more vulnerable to terrorists and hackers. Besides it’s a basic civil right for crime suspects to not be forced into self-incrimination by the state: you and the police should not be allowed to force Mr. Cox to unlock his phone.”

Targeted advertising also doesn't seem like something the communist ideal would support.

Although gathering data on people's purchase habits would be useful for improving the economy's central planning...

Issue Number - 1488
Issue Name - First, Do No Harm
Type of Error - Prerequisite Fault?

Summary -
Just recently, one of my alt nations (Naturnia) received a military oriented issue. The problem is nothing within the issue itself, but the fact that I had even received this issue to begin with. I have analysed over the years of answering issues on a daily basis, many of them repeating at least 5 or 6 times, that certain types of issues will only appear if you have the required prerequisites. In this case, I used to have a positive Defense Forces rank on all five alts, and therefore received a lot of these military related issues on each one. However, ever since I have converted all five of my alts to a negative Defense Forces rank, pretty much every military issue has stopped cycling through my issue rotations and had never seen them again. At least up until now with this new one. I feel that whoever implemented this issue in may have missed the positive Defense Forces rank prerequisite when implementing this issue into the rotations? As it would not make sense to have this issue if a military does not even exist in the nation to begin with.

Many thanks.

Thanks, fixed.

On Issue #96, I chose option 3 which was removing dams and irrigation projects. Why did I get the effect line "Riots have broken out as a water shortage threatens Random Country 453632's stability"? I don't get it

Issue #661, option 2 reads (emphasis mine):

“Scouting is a hobby, nothing more,” grumbles notoriously unit-pinching auditor Nuru Rubio. “What’s next, are we going to start giving subsidies to model aircraft building clubs? Knitting circles? Mustache enthusiasts? Treasury funds are for essential projects only. If the Scouts can’t get by without state support, then they should go out of business like any other private organization would.”

In a Socialist nation like mine, it seems odd talking about a private organization going out of business. This option could have a text doppelganger for socialist nations.

Issue #222 'Terrorists Strike City Centre' mentions in the preamble that a car was used.

All of @@NAME@@ has been in an uproar since yesterday when a car exploded in the middle of @@CAPITAL@@, killing dozens and injuring hundreds...

This is in contradiction of the 'No Automobiles' policy which bans all cars.

Random Country 453632 wrote:On Issue #96, I chose option 3 which was removing dams and irrigation projects. Why did I get the effect line "Riots have broken out as a water shortage threatens Random Country 453632's stability"? I don't get it

If you mean you don't get the joke, its worth bearing in mind that many early issues didn't provide effect lines with a view to wit or humour, but rather just stated a consequence. Even these days it's not mandatory, just encouraged.

If you mean you don't see why getting rid of dams and irrigation projects would threaten water supplies: well, its very hard to build a reservoir without a dam, and very hard to provide reliable water supply without reservoirs.

Aryax wrote:In a Socialist nation like mine, it seems odd talking about a private organization going out of business. This option could have a text doppelganger for socialist nations.

Fair point. Changed.

Zinertia wrote:Issue #222 'Terrorists Strike City Centre' mentions in the preamble that a car was used.

All of @@NAME@@ has been in an uproar since yesterday when a car exploded in the middle of @@CAPITAL@@, killing dozens and injuring hundreds...

This is in contradiction of the 'No Automobiles' policy which bans all cars.

Hmm, interesting one. Would a legal ban on cars stop terrorists from using a car bomb? I mean, bombs in general aren't legal either...

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Hmm, interesting one. Would a legal ban on cars stop terrorists from using a car bomb? I mean, bombs in general aren't legal either...

How would they obtain the car, though? It's a lot easier to hand-concoct an IED than an entire, functioning automobile...

Technically, a car ban just means it's illegal to drive cars. You could probably still set up a car museum or something if you wanted to.

The real issue is that the reason car bombs work so well is that cars are sufficiently common and ordinary sights that they tend to slip beneath notice, so one of them could be hiding a bomb and nobody would have a reason to be suspicious until it actually explodes. In a nation where almost nobody has cars, even if some particular terrorist group managed to get a hold of a car through illegal or legal-loophole-abusing means, it would be hard to park that car anywhere in public without it sticking out like a sore thumb, or indeed attracting police inspection over your already-lawbreaking activity of driving the car there, which makes it a lot more likely that your bomb would be discovered before it goes off.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

Zinertia wrote:Issue #222 'Terrorists Strike City Centre' mentions in the preamble that a car was used.


This is in contradiction of the 'No Automobiles' policy which bans all cars.

Hmm, interesting one. Would a legal ban on cars stop terrorists from using a car bomb? I mean, bombs in general aren't legal either...

Does the no automobiles policy extend to all other vehicles like buses, trucks, delivery vans, etc.? Cause if not, then those terrorists could use those vehicles instead.

It should apply to all private motor vehicles (except maybe really wimpy ones like electric wheelchairs). Public transportation like buses might still exist, but the "public" part makes them really bad places to hide a bomb, and terrorists don't control where they get parked.

Trotterdam wrote:Technically, a car ban just means it's illegal to drive cars. You could probably still set up a car museum or something if you wanted to.

But then they've still got to break into the car museum and steal the car (which would get noticed very quickly, so they'd hopefully get apprehended), and as you've noted, a car is generally a pretty impossible thing to conceal. Or even, maybe the "display pieces" in the museum are required to have key valves welded shut so as to be un-driveable, like how firearms museums generally don't store working models.

Anyway, while you might be able to get a car by some obscure means, if it sticks out like a sore thumb in every step of the process then it's nearly impossible that the plot would succeed, and at some point it becomes a more realistic decision to downsize the bomb (or make multiple) and stuff it in a backpack.

It's not like the car is absolutely key to the story of #222, either, it looks pretty easy to change.

Not exactly an old issue but still: issue number 1135 has this quote in one of the options: “It’s not my fault a pretty woman decided to wear a flattering dress to the meeting,”.

However, Sevae has compulsory nudity and as such probably shouldn't be eligible for such an issue

Sevae wrote:Not exactly an old issue but still: issue number 1135 has this quote in one of the options: “It’s not my fault a pretty woman decided to wear a flattering dress to the meeting,”.

However, Sevae has compulsory nudity and as such probably shouldn't be eligible for such an issue

Technically, several of the options are okay for nations with compulsory nudity. It seems a shame to lose a good issue, so I've added a doppelganger for nations with compulsory nudity for this option.

In the issue, "A Pretty Pass", in option 1 it is "schoolteacher" when it is supposed to be school teacher.

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:In the issue, "A Pretty Pass", in option 1 it is "schoolteacher" when it is supposed to be school teacher.

It can still be written as schoolteacher without the space.

Outer Sparta wrote:

Republic Of Ludwigsburg wrote:In the issue, "A Pretty Pass", in option 1 it is "schoolteacher" when it is supposed to be school teacher.

It can still be written as schoolteacher without the space.

I doubt the person writing the issue intended that.