The Writers' Block

[Valentine Z]

Mind The Gap.

Checking the edit notes, I note you'd had a telegram conversation with Caracasus about Hello, Darkness, so it's formally "in edit", of course. Having said that, some editors are more active than others. Maybe remind him with a TG that he was editing your issue?

Ahh, so I did submit that. Thought I abandoned it, ah well. Stll, thanks for the help! I hate to be a bother, so I will wait and maybe ask him one day.

[Jutsa]

I just got 1160, and I'm once again in sheer appreciation for it.

Not only does it adress oligopoly, but it also has an option giving out milk to the poor.

I had attempted both of those things long ago, but to no avail.
All I can say is I'm thrilled to see them both in the base, now.

Thank you, FuF

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Do you think I can write an issue based on this?

https://www.inverse.com/article/53324-n ... arks-study

[Kylarnatia]

Do you think I can write an issue based on this?

https://www.inverse.com/article/53324-n ... arks-study

I might be wrong, but wouldn't there be a tiny bit of overlap with #575? Granted that's more about work spaces than work hours, but I interpret Option 4 as essentially implying "employees should be able to work when and where it suits them, so long as they do the work".

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Do you think I can write an issue based on this?

https://www.inverse.com/article/53324-n ... arks-study

I might be wrong, but wouldn't there be a tiny bit of overlap with #575? Granted that's more about work spaces than work hours, but I interpret Option 4 as essentially implying "employees should be able to work when and where it suits them, so long as they do the work".

Hmm, no, I'd say that is a very weak connection to be a cause for concern.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I was going to point to 575.4 as well.

Additionally, 1056 discusses maximum hours worked.

Overlap is weak in both, only worth considering, not a block.

Having said that, I think there's definitely an issue possible about shift work. There's a vast body of medical evidence about how bad shift work is for people's health.

[Kylarnatia]

I might be wrong, but wouldn't there be a tiny bit of overlap with #575? Granted that's more about work spaces than work hours, but I interpret Option 4 as essentially implying "employees should be able to work when and where it suits them, so long as they do the work".

Hmm, no, I'd say that is a very weak connection to be a cause for concern.

I wasn't saying there was a "cause for concern", I did say "tiny bit of overlap" so as to simply bring it to your attention. :p

In any case, as a night owl myself, I'm intrigued to see what you come up with. :)

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Great, I am gonna post a draft soon!

[Hediacrana]

I suspect that this draft of mine (on third gender identification documents) did not make the cut, and I was wondering whether it would be worth my while to try again with a revised submission. Any advise on whether that might be a good use of my time?

[USS Monitor]

I suspect that this draft of mine (on third gender identification documents) did not make the cut, and I was wondering whether it would be worth my while to try again with a revised submission. Any advise on whether that might be a good use of my time?

That was picked up by an editor, but then dropped because it needed a heavier edit than they wanted to deal with.

So, a couple things that were raised:

Grouping all non-binary people together as "a third gender" is not really the best choice of words. There are different kinds of non-binary folks, and some people want gender identification to be more open-ended than just male/female/third gender. This is being targeted at a progressive audience because the validity limits it to people that allowed transgender people to be recognized as their identified gender, so you should write for that audience and treat the different kinds of non-binary as being distinct identities -- e.g. treat "androgynous," "agender," etc. as distinct from each other rather than lumping them together.

It also would be good if we had something that addresses the bureaucratic messes that transgender people have to deal with when they legally transition. Personally, I am not sure if that belongs here or in another issue, but it was brought up and I'm passing it along for you to think about. For example, if you are trying to look up medical records, pre-transition records might not come up because they have the wrong name/gender.

[Hediacrana]

I suspect that this draft of mine (on third gender identification documents) did not make the cut, and I was wondering whether it would be worth my while to try again with a revised submission. Any advise on whether that might be a good use of my time?

That was picked up by an editor, but then dropped because it needed a heavier edit than they wanted to deal with.

So, a couple things that were raised:

Grouping all non-binary people together as "a third gender" is not really the best choice of words. There are different kinds of non-binary folks, and some people want gender identification to be more open-ended than just male/female/third gender. This is being targeted at a progressive audience because the validity limits it to people that allowed transgender people to be recognized as their identified gender, so you should write for that audience and treat the different kinds of non-binary as being distinct identities -- e.g. treat "androgynous," "agender," etc. as distinct from each other rather than lumping them together.

It also would be good if we had something that addresses the bureaucratic messes that transgender people have to deal with when they legally transition. Personally, I am not sure if that belongs here or in another issue, but it was brought up and I'm passing it along for you to think about. For example, if you are trying to look up medical records, pre-transition records might not come up because they have the wrong name/gender.

Thanks for your answer, that's helpful! I think I could easily accommodate the first point through including an additional option. Not so sure what to do about the second point (as you indicate, that seems good material for a separate issue). Were there other editing issues that were raised that I should be aware of before I start draft 2.0?

[USS Monitor]

That was picked up by an editor, but then dropped because it needed a heavier edit than they wanted to deal with.

So, a couple things that were raised:

Grouping all non-binary people together as "a third gender" is not really the best choice of words. There are different kinds of non-binary folks, and some people want gender identification to be more open-ended than just male/female/third gender. This is being targeted at a progressive audience because the validity limits it to people that allowed transgender people to be recognized as their identified gender, so you should write for that audience and treat the different kinds of non-binary as being distinct identities -- e.g. treat "androgynous," "agender," etc. as distinct from each other rather than lumping them together.

It also would be good if we had something that addresses the bureaucratic messes that transgender people have to deal with when they legally transition. Personally, I am not sure if that belongs here or in another issue, but it was brought up and I'm passing it along for you to think about. For example, if you are trying to look up medical records, pre-transition records might not come up because they have the wrong name/gender.

Thanks for your answer, that's helpful! I think I could easily accommodate the first point through including an additional option. Not so sure what to do about the second point (as you indicate, that seems good material for a separate issue). Were there other editing issues that were raised that I should be aware of before I start draft 2.0?

The writing is decent, but it didn't pop as much as it could have. If you think of anything that would make it funnier, that would be a plus.

[Bears Armed]

I know that we have an issue about @@ANIMAL@@ meat being found in a supermarket chain's [supposedly] beef lasagna, but is there also room for an issue about 'ethnic' restaurants of some kind openly serving the meat of some animal that most @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ think of as as a pet -- guinea pigs, for example -- instead of as food?

[Trotterdam]

For example, if you are trying to look up medical records, pre-transition records might not come up because they have the wrong name/gender.

That sounds like it'd be just as likely to happen with people who legally change their names for other reasons.

[USS Monitor]

I know that we have an issue about @@ANIMAL@@ meat being found in a supermarket chain's [supposedly] beef lasagna, but is there also room for an issue about 'ethnic' restaurants of some kind openly serving the meat of some animal that most @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ think of as as a pet -- guinea pigs, for example -- instead of as food?

We already have #825 about eating bugs, and several issues that deal with various forms of culture clash, but I can't think of any that has that exact premise and I'd love to see some Peruvian stuff in the issues base. I heard from someone that used to keep guinea pigs as pets that they made her sign a form when she bought them saying she understood they were being sold as pets, not food.

For example, if you are trying to look up medical records, pre-transition records might not come up because they have the wrong name/gender.

That sounds like it'd be just as likely to happen with people who legally change their names for other reasons.

OK. It's still a problem that is prevalent in the trans community.

[Ainu Mexico]

I suspect that this draft of mine (on third gender identification documents) did not make the cut, and I was wondering whether it would be worth my while to try again with a revised submission. Any advise on whether that might be a good use of my time?

That was picked up by an editor, but then dropped because it needed a heavier edit than they wanted to deal with.

So, a couple things that were raised:

Grouping all non-binary people together as "a third gender" is not really the best choice of words. There are different kinds of non-binary folks, and some people want gender identification to be more open-ended than just male/female/third gender. This is being targeted at a progressive audience because the validity limits it to people that allowed transgender people to be recognized as their identified gender, so you should write for that audience and treat the different kinds of non-binary as being distinct identities -- e.g. treat "androgynous," "agender," etc. as distinct from each other rather than lumping them together.

It also would be good if we had something that addresses the bureaucratic messes that transgender people have to deal with when they legally transition. Personally, I am not sure if that belongs here or in another issue, but it was brought up and I'm passing it along for you to think about. For example, if you are trying to look up medical records, pre-transition records might not come up because they have the wrong name/gender.

As a trans person, that sounds odd to me. Hediacrana's issue proposal mirrors actual legislation that has been proposed and passed in some places. As far as I know, no legislation has ever been introduced that offers more specific gender identities on identification. The issue lumps them together in the same way that real governments do, which...makes sense for a nation state simulator.

While trans people are aware of more specific identities, we're also somewhat starved for legal respect...all the non-binary people I know are excited about third-gender options that are proposed in real life. We're also not stupid? We understand the bureaucratic issues in even asking for dozens or hundreds of more specific identities to be included. Non-binary is a community-accepted blanket term, in general.

[The Free Joy State]

That was picked up by an editor, but then dropped because it needed a heavier edit than they wanted to deal with.

So, a couple things that were raised:

Grouping all non-binary people together as "a third gender" is not really the best choice of words. There are different kinds of non-binary folks, and some people want gender identification to be more open-ended than just male/female/third gender. This is being targeted at a progressive audience because the validity limits it to people that allowed transgender people to be recognized as their identified gender, so you should write for that audience and treat the different kinds of non-binary as being distinct identities -- e.g. treat "androgynous," "agender," etc. as distinct from each other rather than lumping them together.

It also would be good if we had something that addresses the bureaucratic messes that transgender people have to deal with when they legally transition. Personally, I am not sure if that belongs here or in another issue, but it was brought up and I'm passing it along for you to think about. For example, if you are trying to look up medical records, pre-transition records might not come up because they have the wrong name/gender.

As a trans person, that sounds odd to me. Hediacrana's issue proposal mirrors actual legislation that has been proposed and passed in some places. As far as I know, no legislation has ever been introduced that offers more specific gender identities on identification. The issue lumps them together in the same way that real governments do, which...makes sense for a nation state simulator.

While trans people are aware of more specific identities, we're also somewhat starved for legal respect...all the non-binary people I know are excited about third-gender options that are proposed in real life. We're also not stupid? We understand the bureaucratic issues in even asking for dozens or hundreds of more specific identities to be included. Non-binary is a community-accepted blanket term, in general.

Monitor was passing on comments regarding the original draft from the Editing Team.

Whether to take them on board or not is Hediacrana's decision.

NationStates nations do not have to run exactly as an RL government does. As long as issues have grounding, nations can run better (or worse). In either case, players are free to choose.

[Valrifell]

Are there any issues dealing with the consequences of sacrificing people?

So, a consequence follow-up to Issue 58 option 1 and 2? Doesn't look like there's any issue directly addressing the fallout, so go for it. Caution: in terms of story, you'll have to keep the narrative more nuanced than "Human Sacrifice Bad, Plz Ban It Again." There are some interesting ways to take this, so don't just go for the low-hanging fruit. Hope to see what you come up with.

Sacrificing and improper disposal of "chosen" would be (probably) a public health hazard. That, I think, could be an interesting angle to go with.

[Revolutionary Atlantica]

I answered an issue about "should political candidates be populists or not" or whatever, and one of my choices was to just appoint experts to carry out the polled wishes of voters directly. So I picked it, and now apparently I'm an Autocracy? Uhh no, it's called direct democracy. Maybe the answer doesn't phrase it in the best way but it's still it is. I'm aware most of the issues aren't adapted to see that as a possibility but that's hardly my fault. I went from top 5% political freedoms to 50%. This issue needs to be either changed or made more clear or something. I want my 'excessive' rating back!

[The Free Joy State]

I answered an issue about "should political candidates be populists or not" or whatever, and one of my choices was to just appoint experts to carry out the polled wishes of voters directly. So I picked it, and now apparently I'm an Autocracy? Uhh no, it's called direct democracy. Maybe the answer doesn't phrase it in the best way but it's still it is. I'm aware most of the issues aren't adapted to see that as a possibility but that's hardly my fault. I went from top 5% political freedoms to 50%. This issue needs to be either changed or made more clear or something. I want my 'excessive' rating back!

Unusual Issue Effects belong in this thread in future. Please state the name/number of the issue and option you picked.

However, as I'm here, I'll answer this now.

You answered #1082 ("It's Hard to Separate Truth from Entertainment"), option three. And the option makes it clear you're getting rid of voting:

"Even if Tulsi Haggard stops parading around half-naked, Lisbeth Burrows stops talking about her fry bread recipe, and Ernie Flanders stops conducting symphonies, that won't stop voters from getting duped," sulks your Foreign Secretary, Hillary Smoochinger. "As long as elections are a popularity contest, personality politics are going to get in the way of choosing the most qualified candidates. We should just conduct surveys to find out what policies our citizens want, and you could appoint the most qualified experts to implement them. It's still democracy, except that people are recommending policies instead of voting for candidates."

There is no democracy when the @@LEADER@@(the "you" in the first bolded portion) is directly appointing the people they choose to posts, and there is no voting. Also "people recommending policies" does not mean that their recommendations can't be ignored -- it's down to @@LEADER@@.

Issue working as intended.

[Bears Armed]

I know that we have an issue about @@ANIMAL@@ meat being found in a supermarket chain's [supposedly] beef lasagna, but is there also room for an issue about 'ethnic' restaurants of some kind openly serving the meat of some animal that most @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ think of as as a pet -- guinea pigs, for example -- instead of as food?

We already have #825 about eating bugs, and several issues that deal with various forms of culture clash, but I can't think of any that has that exact premise and I'd love to see some Peruvian stuff in the issues base. I heard from someone that used to keep guinea pigs as pets that they made her sign a form when she bought them saying she understood they were being sold as pets, not food.

Thank you. I'll start preparing a draft.
As far as I can recall we don't have a 'Peru' equivalent in the NPC nations used for issues so far, so I'll call it a Titicacan restaurant -- referencing the lake or the same name -- which is also a reference to British classic series radio 'The Goon Show' (at least one episode of which included a 'Titicacan Legation' in London; they made occasional jokes about Peru, or 'Peruvia',as well, because one of the original Goons -- although he'd left the series before the episodes for which I have recordings -- was half-Peruvian...).

[Digedingdangdong]

I know we have an issue about what people can name their kids. Are there any issues about whether people are allowed to change their names? Or if politicians are allowed to use nicknames on the ballots?

There was a politician in Kentucky several years ago who tried to put something like "Honest Johnson" on the ballot, but the election officials wouldn't allow it, so then he tried to change his legal name.

Posting from a new puppet got me thinking about how names and things can influence the way people see you, and I thought of that story about the guy trying to call himself "Honest" on the ballot.

[Australian rePublic]

Any issues about televangelists?

[The Free Joy State]

I know we have an issue about what people can name their kids. Are there any issues about whether people are allowed to change their names? Or if politicians are allowed to use nicknames on the ballots?

There was a politician in Kentucky several years ago who tried to put something like "Honest Johnson" on the ballot, but the election officials wouldn't allow it, so then he tried to change his legal name.

Posting from a new puppet got me thinking about how names and things can influence the way people see you, and I thought of that story about the guy trying to call himself "Honest" on the ballot.

Not that I can find. The only issue I can find directly about names is "What's In A Name", which is about what legal names people can give their children.

I can't find anything about people being allowed to change their names or politicians using nicknames.

Any issues about televangelists?

Televangelists are mentioned in a few issues (there's one televangelist option that I recall in "Commercial Tidings Well in Advance", for example). But I don't recall any issue specifically about televangelists.

[Trotterdam]

Televangelists are mentioned in a few issues (there's one televangelist option that I recall in "Commercial Tidings Well in Advance", for example). But I don't recall any issue specifically about televangelists.

#665 also has a televangelist option (as in one that is explicitly pro-televangelism, not just one which is suggested by a televangelist, of which there are more).

#891 addresses street preaching, which isn't the same as televangelism, but does bear some relation.