The Writers' Block

[Mzeusia]

Is there an updated list I can see about issue ideas that have yet to be done?

[Sanctaria]

Haven't we already got an issue about somebody (A television programme-maker?) stumbling across a secret government site?

Yup. #755.

Ah perfect.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Is there an updated list I can see about issue ideas that have yet to be done?

The list in post 2 of this thread remains up to date. Have updated the review date to clarify that.

[Tsandonown]

Haven't we already got an issue about somebody (A television programme-maker?) stumbling across a secret government site?

Yup. #755.

Instead of a TV presenter finding it I was thinking what they could do to prevent someone from finding it like people online are planning to raid it but haven't gotten inside yet. The concept might be slightly different what with the idea of prevention rather than prosecution? More like the Area 51 raid plans and what the government could to to prevent it.

[Trotterdam]

Seriously, the government needs to do something to prevent it?

It's already a high-security military base patrolled by sentries with guns. It was that even before a bunch of idiots with no espionage training started talking about "raiding" it. That's why they became suspicious enough of what's going on there to think of raiding it.

"Yes, top-secret military bases should be guarded" is not a difficult decision.

[Tsandonown]

Seriously, the government needs to do something to prevent it?

It's already a high-security military base patrolled by sentries with guns. It was that even before a bunch of idiots with no espionage training started talking about "raiding" it. That's why they became suspicious enough of what's going on there to think of raiding it.

"Yes, top-secret military bases should be guarded" is not a difficult decision.

Yes but if they raid what are the consequences of each option? If you increase protection more weaponisation and death. If you move the tech and play it off as there was never anything there youth rebelliousness may fall. Stuff like that. If you release the tech and discoveries then information technoloy rises. Things like that. Obviously I don’t choose the effects, but I think if worded right options could be clear.

[Artsotska]

How many issues are there exactly? And what is the funniest one? Pick a number as well. This is related to what I'm going to do. How, you'll find out soon when you get an issue.

[The Free Joy State]

How many issues are there exactly? And what is the funniest one? Pick a number as well. This is related to what I'm going to do. How, you'll find out soon when you get an issue.

1. There are currently 1258 issues. This may change any day, as there are several currently being edited. We cannot tell you how many.
2. Definitions of "funny" are subjective, and it will never be possible to get a definition of "a funniest issue" to which everyone agrees.
3. Meta-issues (that is issues based on the issues) are highly unlikely to be accepted. If you want to write an issue, I suggest you start by looking for a topic that would confront a real leader. I suggest, before you write anything, you start by reading "How to Write Issues for NationStates".

Submitting a draft does not guarantee acceptance, but you can increase your chances by working on your draft here in Got Issues.

[Chan Island]

Recently been looking into ww2 Japan's army-navy rivalry and how they each were at each other's throats almost as much as they were at the allies'. Been fascinated at the idea of a government divided and the leader having to either mediate, pick a side or encourage that kind of conflict.

Because there is already a military spending issue, it's boiled down to an idea about 2 minister's hating each other... but what could really be a good source of conflict? Class would just see most players side with the non-aristocrat minister, ideology would be taking the focus off the rivalry itself and having it be over department spending feels cheap.

Been considering it be simple personality too, but that just makes it a "which of these random 2 people do you like better?"

[Trotterdam]

Rivalry between different branches of the military is very common in many nations, even if it's more extreme in some than in others (if you're lucky, it just takes the form of friendly ribbing).

In some nations, such as Nazi Germany, this has been deliberately encouraged in order to ensure loyalty. The idea is that if you have several military branches which all hate and distrust each other and are united only by technically serving the same nation, if any one of them gets any ideas about rising up and overthrowing the government, the other branches will stop them. (Nazi Germany was also motivated by the Social Darwinist idea that competition would lead the survivors to become stronger.)

It's also possible that there isn't deliberate rivalry, so much as there's just insufficient communication, with one branch being caught off-guard by something that the other branch knew but considered classified information, or even too trivial to bother mentioning.

Instead of making the issue about "do we support branch A or branch B?" (which #147 already covers), I suggest making it about "how do we get the different branches to play nice with each other?", with the token crazy option for deciding that you actually don't want them to play nice with each other. (Most things Nazi Germany did qualify as crazy options.)

(Also compare #1144 for a weirder take on the subject. Well, weirder by modern standards.)

[Chan Island]

Rivalry between different branches of the military is very common in many nations, even if it's more extreme in some than in others (if you're lucky, it just takes the form of friendly ribbing).

In some nations, such as Nazi Germany, this has been deliberately encouraged in order to ensure loyalty. The idea is that if you have several military branches which all hate and distrust each other and are united only by technically serving the same nation, if any one of them gets any ideas about rising up and overthrowing the government, the other branches will stop them. (Nazi Germany was also motivated by the Social Darwinist idea that competition would lead the survivors to become stronger.)

It's also possible that there isn't deliberate rivalry, so much as there's just insufficient communication, with one branch being caught off-guard by something that the other branch knew but considered classified information, or even too trivial to bother mentioning.

Instead of making the issue about "do we support branch A or branch B?" (which #147 already covers), I suggest making it about "how do we get the different branches to play nice with each other?", with the token crazy option for deciding that you actually don't want them to play nice with each other. (Most things Nazi Germany did qualify as crazy options.)

(Also compare #1144 for a weirder take on the subject. Well, weirder by modern standards.)

The communication angle would be an interesting one, but probably one that won't age to be very relevant.

Meanwhile, this idea about being "oh let's get everyone to play nice" sounds like a route to have a bean bags and ping pong tables option. Not sure if that's a way I want to go though...

Will have to think about it.

[Trotterdam]

The communication angle would be an interesting one, but probably one that won't age to be very relevant.

Some communication problems are inevitable in any scenario of two or more organizations (or even two or more people) having any overlap whatsoever in responsibilities. It might be more serious in some times and places and others, but it's unlikely to ever go away.

Someone in the Navy knows something that would be useful for someone in the Army to know, but nobody in the Navy realizes that anyone in the Army would be interested, and nobody in the Army realizes that anyone in the Navy is worth asking. Can happen pretty easily.

[Australian rePublic]

Are there any issues about @@NAME@@'s national animal being mythical? Lots of countries have mythical animals. Greece has the pheonix, Scotland has the unicorn, just to name a few. I think an issue about mythical national animals would be interesting, and there, as such, if it doesn't exist, I'm placing it on my list of issue ideas you can steal

[Trotterdam]

Are there any issues about @@NAME@@'s national animal being mythical?

Numerous existing issues assume @@ANIMAL@@ to be a really-existing animal that is native to your nation (although you can drive it to the brink of extinction). Parsing the field to recognize all of the numerous keywords that would suggest a mythical animal would probably be impractical.

[Australian rePublic]

Are there any issues about @@NAME@@'s national animal being mythical?

Numerous existing issues assume @@ANIMAL@@ to be a really-existing animal that is native to your nation (although you can drive it to the brink of extinction). Parsing the field to recognize all of the numerous keywords that would suggest a mythical animal would probably be impractical.

Why? Lots of issues contradict eachother. For example, we have numerous issues which explicately state that the ethnic majority are the native population (as is the case with much of Europe and Asia). And we also have many issues which assume that the native population are an ethnic minority. (As is the case with Australia and the Americas). Both assumptions are contradictory and mutually exclusive, and yet both assumptions could be recieved as issues by the same nation simultaneously

[Pogaria]

Numerous existing issues assume @@ANIMAL@@ to be a really-existing animal that is native to your nation (although you can drive it to the brink of extinction). Parsing the field to recognize all of the numerous keywords that would suggest a mythical animal would probably be impractical.

Why? Lots of issues contradict eachother. For example, we have numerous issues which explicately state that the ethnic majority are the native population (as is the case with much of Europe and Asia). And we also have many issues which assume that the native population are an ethnic minority. (As is the case with Australia and the Americas). Both assumptions are contradictory and mutually exclusive, and yet both assumptions could be recieved as issues by the same nation simultaneously

We have no way of checking whether the text in a custom field is something that actually exists. A list of all real-world animal species would be an enormous file. Comparing custom fields against this list would be a waste of server resources. It's not worth it for one issue.

[Australian rePublic]

Why? Lots of issues contradict eachother. For example, we have numerous issues which explicately state that the ethnic majority are the native population (as is the case with much of Europe and Asia). And we also have many issues which assume that the native population are an ethnic minority. (As is the case with Australia and the Americas). Both assumptions are contradictory and mutually exclusive, and yet both assumptions could be recieved as issues by the same nation simultaneously

We have no way of checking whether the text in a custom field is something that actually exists. A list of all real-world animal species would be an enormous file. Comparing custom fields against this list would be a waste of server resources. It's not worth it for one issue.

You've failed to see my point here. If we can assume that @@ANIMAL@@ does exist, why can't we assume it doesn't?

[Luna Amore]

We have no way of checking whether the text in a custom field is something that actually exists. A list of all real-world animal species would be an enormous file. Comparing custom fields against this list would be a waste of server resources. It's not worth it for one issue.

You've failed to see my point here. If we can assume that @@ANIMAL@@ does exist, why can't we assume it doesn't?

Because it does exist. It's right there on every nation's main page.

[Australian rePublic]

You've failed to see my point here. If we can assume that @@ANIMAL@@ does exist, why can't we assume it doesn't?

Because it does exist. It's right there on every nation's main page.

Right, right, forgot about that

[Candensia]

I noticed this several days ago, but it seems Luna is now the Issues Moderator. We are in good hands, as always.

Additionally, it seems USS Monitor decided a few days ago to hang up the red, and drape herself in gold. Though nothing has really changed, I dare say she looks better than before.

[Australian rePublic]

Geez, noone's updated the big spoiler list since 1219! Which issue are we up to?

[Trotterdam]

Issues up to #1257 have been posted to the spoiler thread, even if they haven't been edited into the main list in the first few posts.

#1258 exists too, but has not yet been reported because it has an obscure validity.

You need to be a nation that practices slavery, then choose to abolish it (using any of the three issue options that allow you to do so).

[Australian rePublic]

Issues up to #1257 have been posted to the spoiler thread, even if they haven't been edited into the main list in the first few posts.

#1258 exists too, but has not yet been reported because it has an obscure validity.

You need to be a nation that practices slavery, then choose to abolish it (using any of the three issue options that allow you to do so).

I'm still only seeing up to 1219. Thanks anyway

[SherpDaWerp]

AFAIK, there hasn't been an issue on habitat fragmentation yet. I'll do up a draft tomorrow sometime, thinking something along the following lines:

Urban green spaces are actually contributing to detrimental environmental effects by fragmenting native @@ANIMAL@@ populations.
1. Connect them all up, making a fully "green city" where everything has plants
2. What are you talking about, we have plenty of green spaces. Just move all the animals outside the city and they can live there.
3. That's too expensive, we don't need animals anyway!

[Trotterdam]

AFAIK, there hasn't been an issue on habitat fragmentation yet.

The subject sounds suspiciously familiar, but it may have been an old draft that never made it into the game.

Ah, it's amazing what you can find with the right search terms. Doesn't look to have ever even been submitted. Also it wasn't actually about habitat fragmentation, but rather another problem whose solutions might cause habitat fragmentation instead if you're not careful.