The Writers' Block

[Westinor]

Are there any issues that deal with leader encountering resistance after implementing an autocratic rule/would that be viable?

[Phydios]

Are there any issues that deal with leader encountering resistance after implementing an autocratic rule/would that be viable?

Depending on what kind of resistance you mean, Issue #11 might apply.

[Westinor]

Are there any issues that deal with leader encountering resistance after implementing an autocratic rule/would that be viable?

Depending on what kind of resistance you mean, Issue #11 might apply.

Ah, I see. Thanks! I was looking towards something more along the lines of immediate resistance by an outside group after @@LEADER@@ attempts to name themselves dictator, but I'll work around that.

[Antibuda]

Quick question: what is the replacement for YouTube in the issues canon?

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Quick question: what is the replacement for YouTube in the issues canon?

WhoTube

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Is there an issue on co-education vs. gender segregation in schools?

I still have this question. Searching for some keywords in the issues base did not turn up anything, but it seems kinda too basic to not have been covered.

[The Free Joy State]

Is there an issue on co-education vs. gender segregation in schools?

I still have this question. Searching for some keywords in the issues base did not turn up anything, but it seems kinda too basic to not have been covered.

This issue still remains uncovered within the base.

I think an issue on gender segregation vs. co-education in schools could definitely work.

[Australian rePublic]

--EDITED-OUT--

[Australian rePublic]

Is there an issue on co-education vs. gender segregation in schools?

I still have this question. Searching for some keywords in the issues base did not turn up anything, but it seems kinda too basic to not have been covered.

Sorry. I didn't consider that the person who asked this question was a different person to the one who wrote this draft. I thought that you wrote the draft, and thus no longer needed an answer:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=486842

[Jolx]

I have a quick question. If I create a nation to use in an issue, should I also create the nation in the game?

[Westinor]

Not as far as I know

[SherpDaWerp]

I have a quick question. If I create a nation to use in an issue, should I also create the nation in the game?

Always consider the existing "NPC" nations before creating a new one; often one of them will fit what you're looking for. Here's a list of them for you.

[Westinor]

Is the player's nation generally parliamentary or presidential?

[Honeydewistania]

Is the player's nation generally parliamentary or presidential?

It is assumed to be bicameral, and there is no mention of a Head of State/PM so they assume it to be Presidential I Guess.

[The Free Joy State]

Is the player's nation generally parliamentary or presidential?

It is assumed to be bicameral, and there is no mention of a Head of State/PM so they assume it to be Presidential I Guess.

Erm… not quite. We try not to make any assumptions about the leadership structure, at all, because people can have their leader be anything "Eternal Dictator", "King"/"Queen", "Prime Minister" (I have a nation with a PM), "Grand Empress"...

So, in short, we make as few assumptions about the nation as possible.

Also worth mentioning that "parliament" is mentioned in numerous issues (just a few #14, #54, #360, #438, 1261...); but (simultaneously), so are "senators" and the word "federal" (#57, #587).

So, try not to assume is the advice. But if your issue needs you to use the word "parliament", use it.

Likewise, we are still looking for an issue to reverse the ban on the upper house (but the issue that introduces the ban does not specify the nature of the system [although the argument that the upper house is elitist kind of implies the House of Lords, in my British mind] -- and, indeed there can be an upper house in both systems -- so anyone looking to tackle that would have to be as nonspecific as possible).

[Honeydewistania]

Interesting. Thanks for the info!

[Westinor]

It is assumed to be bicameral, and there is no mention of a Head of State/PM so they assume it to be Presidential I Guess.

Erm… not quite. We try not to make any assumptions about the leadership structure, at all, because people can have their leader be anything "Eternal Dictator", "King"/"Queen", "Prime Minister" (I have a nation with a PM), "Grand Empress"...

So, in short, we make as few assumptions about the nation as possible.

Also worth mentioning that "parliament" is mentioned in numerous issues (just a few #14, #54, #360, #438, 1261...); but (simultaneously), so are "senators" and the word "federal" (#57, #587).

So, try not to assume is the advice. But if your issue needs you to use the word "parliament", use it.

Likewise, we are still looking for an issue to reverse the ban on the upper house (but the issue that introduces the ban does not specify the nature of the system [although the argument that the upper house is elitist kind of implies the House of Lords, in my British mind] -- and, indeed there can be an upper house in both systems -- so anyone looking to tackle that would have to be as nonspecific as possible).

Yeah, that was what I was trying to look into. I've been looking towards perhaps bringing back the upper house through exposing the weaknesses of the lower house system, which sort of vary depending on the governmental system. Good to know, thanks!

[Noahs Second Country]

Do we have an issue that parallels the annexation of Hawaii?

Effectively a bunch of corporate dudes taking over the country without much real US involvement beyond a few corrupt officials blocking investigations or attempts to stop it.

[Honeydewistania]

Do we have an issue that parallels the annexation of Hawaii?

Effectively a bunch of corporate dudes taking over the country without much real US involvement beyond a few corrupt officials blocking investigations or attempts to stop it.

No, and I think it’s in Jutsa’s ideas dispatch.

[Westinor]

Want to confirm a few ideas I've had, just in case

Are there any issues involving
-hermit crabs sheltering in garbage
-radiation entering the Jetstream
-armed citizens crossing the border into a different country (during hunting season on accident)
-Falling chandeliers
-gun duels (Honeydew already answered this though I've checked and I might be wrong but I still can't seem to find one about gun duels?)
-

[The Sakhalinsk Empire]

Finally got my own issue on my puppet nation. It feels good.

If you are wondering, it was "Dirty Laundry" #1190

[Transbiansylvania]

Issue 592, decision 2, makes explicit reference to creating a code of conduct for the media (to prohibit the extensive platforming of terrorists). However, the results instead act as though I had prohibited the society any access to unethical things, including prohibiting history classes from discussing the holocaust. This is completely out of line with what the option describes, and seemingly applies almost entirely to sectors of society that the proposed solution would not impact. I am usually on guard against ripple effects caused by a decision, but this doesn't seem to be that. Either the impact of the decision should be altered to be more in line with the proposed solution, or the option should be rewritten to better describe what it is actually doing. I had not intended to turn my nation into a bunch of holocaust-deniers.

[SherpDaWerp]

Issue 592, decision 2, makes explicit reference to creating a code of conduct for the media (to prohibit the extensive platforming of terrorists). However, the results instead act as though I had prohibited the society any access to unethical things, including prohibiting history classes from discussing the holocaust. This is completely out of line with what the option describes, and seemingly applies almost entirely to sectors of society that the proposed solution would not impact. I am usually on guard against ripple effects caused by a decision, but this doesn't seem to be that. Either the impact of the decision should be altered to be more in line with the proposed solution, or the option should be rewritten to better describe what it is actually doing. I had not intended to turn my nation into a bunch of holocaust-deniers.

First; you're looking for this thread. The Writers' Block is for issues-related chatter and ideas, reporting problems with existing issues go elsewhere.

Second,

"With that haircut, I'm surprised YOU aren't the one we're condemning," jokes fellow panellist @@RANDOMNAME@@, to thunderous audience applause. "In all seriousness though, it's not right that we're playing right into this terrorist's hands, spreading his message of hate and making him a celebrity. People died, man! We should have an enforced code of conduct, asking the media to be responsible in reporting. After all, publicising an agenda of hate is the same as promoting it. Consign these killers and their whack-job thoughts to the oblivion of history where they belong."

genocide is seen as a topic best avoided in history lessons

Here's the option.

While it can seem a bit of a leap from enforcing a code of conduct to avoiding genocide, it makes sense. The option explicitly says killers and terrorists should not be promoted, publicised, or talked about in the media. It's not flat-out holocaust denial, but when you're forbidden from talking about killers and terrorists it's not far off. Look at the whole option, in-context, rather than the single operative sentence where the speaker makes their request.

You're correct that it's unreasonable to go from "We should have an enforced code of conduct, asking the media to be responsible in reporting." to avoiding genocide, but the option has much more context than just that sentence, and it's the context that makes the effect line reasonable.

Finally; note that effect lines are exclusively reserved for overstatements, humor, or otherwise non-serious content. Effect lines are designed with the express purpose of highlighting an interesting way of thinking about the decision you just made. They fade into oblivion after you answer 4-5 more issues, and the stat effects accompanying any given option are never written based off the effect line.

[Transbiansylvania]

First; you're looking for this thread. The Writers' Block is for issues-related chatter and ideas, reporting problems with existing issues go elsewhere.

Except that the opening of that thread states "This thread should not be used to propose rewrites of issues, or to complain about issue bias. Those discussions can occur in The Writer's Block (viewtopic.php?f=13&t=159868), then subsequently in their own threads as needed. Yes, I know the Writers Block thread says not to do that. Don't worry - that's now our catch-all miscellaneous conversation place, and nobody is going to worry what posts go on there, so long as they're Issue-related discussions, and within normal forum rules (viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044)." Given what I'm looking at, that made this the right forum.

While maybe you can look at the final results and see elements of them in the issue, I find it very hard to see any way I would have predicted this outcome from the issue, given the primary changes seem to be things not addressed in the issue or its effects. If the primary effect is going to be reflected through the education system and not even mention the media, then why is only the media mentioned in the issue and its options?

[SherpDaWerp]

First; you're looking for this thread. The Writers' Block is for issues-related chatter and ideas, reporting problems with existing issues go elsewhere.

Except that the opening of that thread states "This thread should not be used to propose rewrites of issues, or to complain about issue bias. Those discussions can occur in The Writer's Block (viewtopic.php?f=13&t=159868), then subsequently in their own threads as needed. Yes, I know the Writers Block thread says not to do that. Don't worry - that's now our catch-all miscellaneous conversation place, and nobody is going to worry what posts go on there, so long as they're Issue-related discussions, and within normal forum rules (viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044)." Given what I'm looking at, that made this the right forum.

In my experience, most discussions about problems with issues would go in one of the dedicated megathreads for fixing old issues, but I have no power to enforce that so take my opinion with a healthy pinch of salt.

While maybe you can look at the final results and see elements of them in the issue, I find it very hard to see any way I would have predicted this outcome from the issue, given the primary changes seem to be things not addressed in the issue or its effects. If the primary effect is going to be reflected through the education system and not even mention the media, then why is only the media mentioned in the issue and its options?

The option is proposing to not speak about serial killers or terrorists. That's a step down from genocide, but the seed of "don't speak about the bad stuff" is still there, and "don't speak about the bad stuff" can extend to education as well as the media.

Also, you are mistaking the effect line for the "primary effect". It's not the primary effect, it's the one that is the most interesting or amusing way of presenting the option. The primary effect is reflected in the stat changes from the option, not the effect line.