The Writers' Block

by **Drayxaso** » Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:36 am

Noahs Second Country wrote:
Ransium wrote:Yes, yes, I know, I'm now an editor and I have a tendency towards silly typos. I'm not proud to be the most typo prone editor on the team (and perhaps in the world) but I think we all know I have strengths elsewhere. Sometimes I post under a time crunch, but let's face it, I also just mess up sometimes. You all are going to have to move on eventually.

Sorry. The mistake was just so blatant I HAD to point it out.

I know you are a great writer, don't worry.

He's also a great editro, like the rest of the team.

by **Trotterdam** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:58 am

A Technical thread brought my attention to the fact that there are some issues which can ban religion: #070 option 3, #196 option 5, #333 option 5. (This is not counting issues that merely purge religion from some particular government-controlled environment, like schools or the military. Nor issues that enact policies discouraging religion without banning it.)

Has anyone given thought to a followup?

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:19 am

It's actually an odd one, as we do record those decisions in-engine, but don't record it in the same way that we measure a lot of "ban effects". Net result is that actually only about 1-2% of nations at any one time can be said to have banned religion, and actually this generally doesn't stop religious-themed issues from appearing.

So you could create an issue as one for nations that have banned religion, but the number of nations applicable for it would likely make it not worthwhile.

by **Bears Armed** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 11:49 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:It's actually an odd one, as we do record those decisions in-engine, but don't record it in the same way that we measure a lot of "ban effects". Net result is that actually only about 1-2% of nations at any one time can be said to have banned religion, and actually this generally doesn't stop religious-themed issues from appearing.

So you could create an issue as one for nations that have banned religion, but the number of nations applicable for it would likely make it not worthwhile.

One with an un-banning option?

by **Ransium** » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:56 am

Good news everyone! [violet] has made some new macros for us to play with:

[violet] wrote:@@HE@@ for "he" or "she"
@@HIS@@ for "his" or "her"
@@HIM@@ for "him" or "her"
@@HERS@@ for "his" or "hers"

When I suggested the macros use @@ZE@@ and @@VIR@@ [violet] implied I was a monster. Editing is going great!

Although this may change in the future, the macros will currently assign gender based on the gender of the last @@randomname@@. So no more assigning gender just to avoid the ambiguity of gender in random name.

So "@@randomname@@ picked up @@HIS@@ water glass." will work. It would produce "Larry Johnson picked up his water glass." or "Samantha Johnson picked up her water glass."

But "While picking up @@HIS@@ water glass, @@RANDOMNAME@@ said" won't work.

If the current way the macro works holds, if your careful, you could use this to refer to the gender of the last speaker. So:

option1: "I'm the greatest leader there ever was!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@.

option2: Famous psychiatrist Siegfried Roy yells, "Don't listen to @@HIM@@ he's nuts!"

Would work. But:

option1: "I'm the greatest leader there ever was!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@.

option2: Famous psychiatrist @@RANDOMNAME@@ yells, "Don't listen to @@HIM@@ he's nuts!"

Wouldn't.

Time permitting we will be cleaning up previous issues to randomize name gender where this new macro allows.

by **Bears Armed** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:54 am

When submitting an issue, using the page linked to from the nation's own 'Issues' page, how do I specify validity limits for individual options?

by **Luna Amore** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:32 am

Bears Armed wrote:When submitting an issue, using the page linked to from the nation's own 'Issues' page, how do I specify validity limits for individual options?

You can just include it at the end of the option in the stat effects.

by **Bears Armed** » Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:35 am

Luna Amore wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:When submitting an issue, using the page linked to from the nation's own 'Issues' page, how do I specify validity limits for individual options?

You can just include it at the end of the option in the stat effects.

Okay, thanks.

by **Flanderlion** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:47 am

How would we approach getting a way to know if an issue has been rejected? Doesn't need to have a reason attached, or whatever other manual things might be involved, just a way to see that your issue has been discarded from the pile (flagged when the issue is discarded automatically, so no difference for issues team hopefully). It's popped up most times I've seen discussions with submitted issues, but a way to see if your issue didn't make it or if there is still hope would be perfect.
'Sadly this text was burned by interns to protect the world. Some issues are too good for this world, and others are not ones @@LEADER@@ should be confronted with. The text was burned in the honour of [violet] at the crack of dawn.'

Evidently it was discussed in the past, but as far as I know it didn't make it for the issues submission page's recent revamp. viewtopic.php?f=13&t=339873

Covo that sparked this post:

by **Tykadoro** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 7:37 am

I'm thinking of a silly issue where some scientist (who may or may not be a little nuts) goes around saying that the color of a liquid can cause it to have unusual effects on the drinker. The people of your nation begin getting into a frenzy, especially about their medicine and drinks. A small group of people casually enter your office, then proceed to pelt you with unopened bottles of apple juice until the situation is handled.

Not sure of a name yet.

by **Ransium** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:01 am

Flanderlion wrote:How would we approach getting a way to know if an issue has been rejected? Doesn't need to have a reason attached, or whatever other manual things might be involved, just a way to see that your issue has been discarded from the pile (flagged when the issue is discarded automatically, so no difference for issues team hopefully). It's popped up most times I've seen discussions with submitted issues, but a way to see if your issue didn't make it or if there is still hope would be perfect.
'Sadly this text was burned by interns to protect the world. Some issues are too good for this world, and others are not ones @@LEADER@@ should be confronted with. The text was burned in the honour of [violet] at the crack of dawn.'

Evidently it was discussed in the past, but as far as I know it didn't make it for the issues submission page's recent revamp. viewtopic.php?f=13&t=339873

Covo that sparked this post:
[7:48 PM] I need a better name: @The Glitter Gam Glam Grim Reaper if we were wanting a notice for nations when their issue got rejected from the queue, where/who would we ask?
[7:48 PM] I need a better name: Is it a got issues thing or a tech thing, or do we just bring it up with Sedge/the team
[7:49 PM] The Glitter Gam Glam Grim Reaper: the Writers' Block is the best place for it
[7:49 PM] The Glitter Gam Glam Grim Reaper: which is a thread in Got Issues
[7:50 PM] I need a better name: Yep, familiar with it - thanks. And btw. personal thoughts on it? I'm guessing most of the team will be against it.

[removed 2 unrelated messages by others]

[9:23 PM] The Glitter Gam Glam Grim Reaper: freddy: personal thoughts? it's a fairly beefy burden to do manually and I have no idea how well it'd work as an automated thing
[9:23 PM] The Glitter Gam Glam Grim Reaper: I believe that it is accurate to say doing so would have value, the question is how much value
[9:30 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: Maybe instead of active feedback
[9:31 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: Have a page that has them listed in some way that they can be ID'd but not by author by a third party for politeness reasons
[9:31 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: And that just shows status
[9:31 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: Accepted/pending/rejected
[9:31 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: You could even do it by number and return them an auto generated number when they submit one
[9:32 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: Then they could check that page for status
[9:32 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: If you wanted to get real fancy, you could make it so you just search your number instead of listing a ton
[9:33 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: And then maybe accepted ones could even give the author feedback like how many times it has been answered when searched
[9:33 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: Sorta like the system for tgid's and templates and shit if that makes a little sense
[9:41 PM] The Glitter Gam Glam Grim Reaper: these are great suggestions that would look great in the writer's block thread \o/
[9:42 PM] The Glitter Gam Glam Grim Reaper: that being said, I would say that for technical reasons I'm not certain how feasible this is
[9:42 PM] The Glitter Gam Glam Grim Reaper: the minging connection between the forums and the gameside is fairly notorious, and I fear that similar may be said for the issues repository
[9:53 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: I mean
[9:53 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: It doesn't technically have to be connected at all for all but them stats
[9:53 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: Wherever you submit, generate a code and say "save this code if you want to check the progress of your submission"
[9:54 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: Then slap up a page wherever you like that returns the status of the submission
[9:54 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: Assuming you have a basic system in place already for tracking status
[9:54 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: Or can incorporate it in
[9:55 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: Approved, approved, denied, denied, neither, pending review
[10:25 PM] I need a better name: @Ever-Slaughtering Souls @The Glitter Gam Glam Grim Reaper all good if I copy paste this?
[10:25 PM] Ever-Slaughtering Souls: ye
NEW MESSAGES
[10:25 PM] The Glitter Gam Glam Grim Reaper: o/

I think the main issue with telling authors their status is not a technical one, but a much harder to solve human one. We reject a lot of issues. Even if only 1-20 people who had their issue rejected took to GI to complain, I think it would be filled with such topics. Furthermore, if people knew their issue was in the pool for months they might also complain (it happened in a thread about a month ago when CWA told a nation their issue was accepted actually). In fact, I'm not really sure it's more humane to know that your issue is in the pool for a year only to find out it was ultimately deleted, as happens to quite a few marginal issues that squeaked into the pool. I remember when I first started writing (it was actually only 4 months ago) how badly I wanted to know whether the drafts I produced were up to standard or not, so I feel you, but I think overall for the team the cons out weigh the pros. Just my opinion, but it's one I think is shared with most of the higher ups.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:37 am

Yeah, when I was added to the team, I was dead surprised to find almost all my issues were sat in the pool, waiting for processing, as I'd gotten back so little feedback. Of course, they still are all sat in the pool, waiting for processing...

Regardless, while I can see that it'd be nice to get positive feedback, I think that the sheer volume of crap we get (well over 95% of submissions) mean that we reject almost always, and a lot of the people submitting (invariably without drafting) just don't seem to have any clue just how bad they are, writing huge blocks of badly written text. A good number of those will end up complaining.

If you want to get your issue submitted, the best thing to do is as follows:

1) Always draft in GI.
2) Don't submit too soon. Ideally wait for comments from at least one editor.
3) React to and incorporate comments.
4) Don't be annoying. Bad attitude is the worst thing, but recurrent thread bumping is pretty irritating too.

If your draft drops 2 pages down with no comments, it's probably because it wasn't interesting or good enough to draw comment, and it gets a bit of a downer to be telling people they're writing badly. If you're in reach of being publishable, then GI regulars and editors will let you know that, and help you reach that bar. Once you've done an extended drafting process and had lots of feedback, the odds of getting onto the yes-list change from 1 in 25 to 99 out of 100.

by **Ransium** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:42 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:If your draft drops 2 pages down with no comments, it's probably because it wasn't interesting or good enough to draw comment, and it gets a bit of a downer to be telling people they're writing badly.

Often times yes, but I was about to nix "A Cloak and Syringe Operation" because of this and a week later it was in the game. But it's true most of the time.

by **Drasnia** » Mon Feb 20, 2017 1:51 pm

And also to add, if you're not getting much feedback, some people are willing to take a look if you shoot them a TG. I'm anyways glad to do so if you ask. I just don't have the time to read every draft thread and respond because of RL and other obligations in game.

EDIT: autocorrect

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:12 am

Drasnia wrote:And also to add, if you're not getting much feedback, some people are willing to take a look if you shoot them a TG. I'm anyways glad to do so if you ask. I just don't have the time to read every draft thread and respond because of RL and other obligations in game.

EDIT: autocorrect

Not me, btw. Please don't send me TGs guys. I read every thread that comes through this forum, and I comment on the ones I am willing to comment on.

by **Flanderlion** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:32 am

Not sure how to reconcile people complaining about their issues being rejected (on the forum is alright due to the mod team, but the list of editors is pretty public and I don't really want anyone getting hate mail due to a feature).

Even just if it was after one year thing being able to see that your issue was rejected would be good, and the vast vast vast majority of people who would complain would have most likely CTEd or forgotten about the issue.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:55 am

That idea has got merit, for sure, though its not set in stone, the status of an issue. Sometimes an issue will sit accepted for several years, and then get deleted. Sometimes a rejected issue will be pulled out of purgatory several years later/

by **Nation of Quebec** » Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:11 am

The suggested issues list has been updated, and we're especially looking for a some reversals on specific issues and topics.

by **Bears Armed** » Thu Feb 23, 2017 7:05 am

Would there be room for an issue on 'food miles'? A quick search suggests that that hasn't been covered so far...

by **Frisbeeteria** » Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:38 pm

Flanderlion wrote:How would we approach getting a way to know if an issue has been rejected?

The only way this will ever happen is if there's an automated telegram sent out, or a player-visible Issues Pool page gets introduced. That's been on [violet]'s To-Do list for several years now, but it's just not a high priority. There's a limited time available in her schedule, and most of that ends up going to routine maintenance and back-office security stuff you'll never hear about.

As has been pointed out in this thread already, 95% of the submissions are spam or utter crap. It's definitely not worth asking the IEs to send personal telegrams and getting into involved exchanges with players who have no hope of ever becoming publishable. And those authors would doubtless be pissed when (not if) they got added to the IE's Ignore list.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:21 am

Frisbeeteria wrote:
Flanderlion wrote:How would we approach getting a way to know if an issue has been rejected?

The only way this will ever happen is if there's an automated telegram sent out, or a player-visible Issues Pool page gets introduced. That's been on [violet]'s To-Do list for several years now, but it's just not a high priority. There's a limited time available in her schedule, and most of that ends up going to routine maintenance and back-office security stuff you'll never hear about.

We actually discussed this automated idea before, but we decided we weren't too keen, as issues move in and out of the Pool, get accepted then deleted years later, and get "deleted" then picked up for publication. All in all, it might create a false expectation,

As has been pointed out in this thread already, 95% of the submissions are spam or utter crap. It's definitely not worth asking the IEs to send personal telegrams and getting into involved exchanges with players who have no hope of ever becoming publishable. And those authors would doubtless be pissed when (not if) they got added to the IE's Ignore list.

That's it.

However, I know how you guys feel. When I was writing I felt there was a brick wall of silence, and that there was nowhere to get any feedback. I could write an issue, get a load of feedback from GI regulars, submit it and never know if it was good enough or not. I hung on every word that Gnejs dropped into these threads, as they were my only indication that I was on track.

I think personally there's only two solutions:

One is complete game transparency, with players seeing pretty much everything editors can, including the game engine, the backroom editing process, the movement and position of issues, and so on. That's never going to happen, I think, but I personally see that as my utopian ideal.

The second is to have editors who have a high presence in this forum, so that almost every draft gets at least some editorial comment, and where there's a constant conversation about what we want and what we're looking for. That, I think, is very much where we've ended up, compared to how it was when I was a writer. I comment on as many drafts as I have time to, as do many other editors, and I think ultimately that's the best way to create a feedback loop.

by **Caracasus** » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:45 am

I know that similar ideas/concepts have been floated around in the past, but is anyone up for drafting a new issue chain? I've been wracking my brains about what possible issues could be drawn out here and at present I've got a few ideas.

1. some form of cold war style drama.

(Areas/options to explore = de-escalation or aggression, MAD, cultural war/propoganda, spying etc)

2. space race

(Areas/options to explore - probes - are you going to work with others or go it alone? Colonies in space? Space stations?)

3. environmental stuff - climate change etc.

(areas/options to explore - degrowth v.s technological solutions. Other nations not abiding by international treaties. Pollution from other countries affecting own. How to industrialize developing nations w/o harming environment)

Literally just thinking out loud at present, but if anyone would be interested in collaborating I'd like to know.

by **Ransium** » Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:34 am

If your editor shopping, there's a lot going on backstage at the moment I don't want to speak for the other, more experienced editors, but I'm not sure the most active would have time to work on a chain at this moment. Personally I would love to edit an environmentally related chain, but I think I need several more months and like 15 more successful edits before I'd begin to be confident enough to oversee a chain. So I guess I'm saying, if your editor shopping, now isn't great, the somewhat distant future might be.

by **Caracasus** » Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:47 am

Editors, writers... I don't know really. At present just some ideas.

I've got to say, as I was writing it, the ecological one appealed to me the most as well. There's a plethora of military stuff that's been done...

I'm more than willing to take a long term view as well - I don't plan on going anywhere anytime soon!

by **Ransium** » Fri Feb 24, 2017 7:00 am

If it's an environmentally related chain, you might want to bring it up in a certain region that is chaulked full of writing talent and environmental concern's RMB as well.

The Writers' Block

Who is online