The Writers' Block

[Tinhampton]

NationStates does not have a word filter. You are allowed to say the word "porn" without self-censoring. Issues #52 "Is It Art Or Is It Porn," #323 "Get Teens out of MyFace?", #335 "Log us Back On?" and #1,090 "I Ain't Afraid of No Girls" all use the word "porn" in full.

[Australian rePublic]

Here's an idea for an issue- mob justice. This would be espcially applicable to Anarchies and/or countries with a high crime to law enforcement ratio

[Edush]

NationStates does not have a word filter. You are allowed to say the word "porn" without self-censoring. Issues #52 "Is It Art Or Is It Porn," #323 "Get Teens out of MyFace?", #335 "Log us Back On?" and #1,090 "I Ain't Afraid of No Girls" all use the word "porn" in full.

Oh, okay. Thank you! I wasn't sure if NS does or doesn't have a word filter, so I didn't want to risk myself. But still, do you, or anyone else, think this is a good premise for an issue?

[Southland]

In general, what is considered violating the autonomy of the leader? I was thinking about a hypothetical issue involving a town similar to Umoja in Kenya, but I'm thinking that my proposed framing of it (Leader's car breaks down after a summit, and goes to the nearest town to get it fixed) would violate the autonomy too much.

[Verdant Haven]

In general, what is considered violating the autonomy of the leader? I was thinking about a hypothetical issue involving a town similar to Umoja in Kenya, but I'm thinking that my proposed framing of it (Leader's car breaks down after a summit, and goes to the nearest town to get it fixed) would violate the autonomy too much.

The three primary points we emphasize are:

1) Don't tell people what they feel.
2) Don't tell people what they do or decide.
3) Don't tell people what their history, nature or past is.

Stating that Leader chooses to go to X to get their car fixed would violate autonomy, but there's an easy fix in this case. If you state that Leader's driver or staff diverted the car there for repairs, then there's no problem. World leaders have staffs to deal with stuff like this - the President or the PM wouldn't be involved in picking what garage to visit! Now if we're being honest, the president or the PM would have alternate arrangements that do not involve being present when repairs are done, as their security details would whisk them away with a back-up at the first sign of car trouble, but that's boring :-D

[Sedgistan]

The Free Joy State hasn't been around for a while, so we're having a small switch-around on the team, and Verdant Haven is taking over her role as Senior Issues Editor. We aren't retiring Joy yet, as we're still hopefull she'll be back with us again soon.

[Federationalism]

The Free Joy State hasn't been around for a while, so we're having a small switch-around on the team, and Verdant Haven is taking over her role as Senior Issues Editor. We aren't retiring Joy yet, as we're still hopefull she'll be back with us again soon.

Oh my god! Congrats Verdant! I know you've worked so hard for this! By the way Sedge, not being nitpicky here, but you spelled "hopeful" wrong. But thanks so much for the info and your work!

[Sedgistan]

I put typos in all my posts to keep the Issues Editros on their toes.

[Federationalism]

I put typos in all my posts to keep the Issues Editros on their toes.

Issues Editors! lol it also keeps me on my toes

[Bear Connors Paradiso]

Just curious since the contest is going on - when would people know if their issue got approved? Like do you guys look over them as they come in, do you wait until the end of the contest period ?

I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather know I got rejected and for what reason than to be sitting around waiting.

[Ottterland]

there probably are, but is there any issues about women's clothing prudism, specifically, pants?

That's the first idea, women and pants.

The second one is about the pocket size on them (pointed out by my friends), or the nonexistent pockets (like in some skirts). This one I would need some some way of making this a government issue (or have it be such a problem that Leader gets word of it [from someone like their chauffeur, barista, or secretary]).

[Verdant Haven]

Just curious since the contest is going on - when would people know if their issue got approved? Like do you guys look over them as they come in, do you wait until the end of the contest period ?

I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather know I got rejected and for what reason than to be sitting around waiting.

The contest submissions will all be gathered together and held until the submission period ends, at which point the IE team will review them and select the winners. Winners will be announced when known - typically the latter half of July. Non-winning submissions that are of good quality can still be added to the pool of potential future issues, and the others will be discarded.

Non-winners fall under the same rules as non-contest submissions. We receive literally thousands of submissions each year, and are not able to provide status updates or "rejection notices" for each one.

there probably are, but is there any issues about women's clothing prudism, specifically, pants?

That's the first idea, women and pants.

The second one is about the pocket size on them (pointed out by my friends), or the nonexistent pockets (like in some skirts). This one I would need some some way of making this a government issue (or have it be such a problem that Leader gets word of it [from someone like their chauffeur, barista, or secretary]).

There are numerous issues about prudism related to women's clothing - issues 101, 504, and 593 in particular have relevant elements. I'm not familiar with a specific issue about pockets for women's clothing. That would indeed require some effort to make it a government issue, but it could be done. Perhaps something related to gender discrimination, or personal safety, or something like that.

[Federationalism]

Just curious since the contest is going on - when would people know if their issue got approved? Like do you guys look over them as they come in, do you wait until the end of the contest period ?

I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather know I got rejected and for what reason than to be sitting around waiting.

The contest submissions will all be gathered together and held until the submission period ends, at which point the IE team will review them and select the winners. Winners will be announced when known - typically the latter half of July. Non-winning submissions that are of good quality can still be added to the pool of potential future issues, and the others will be discarded.

Non-winners fall under the same rules as non-contest submissions. We receive literally thousands of submissions each year, and are not able to provide status updates or "rejection notices" for each one.

there probably are, but is there any issues about women's clothing prudism, specifically, pants?

That's the first idea, women and pants

The second one is about the pocket size on them (pointed out by my friends), or the nonexistent pockets (like in some skirts). This one I would need some some way of making this a government issue (or have it be such a problem that Leader gets word of it [from someone like their chauffeur, barista, or secretary]).

There are numerous issues about prudism related to women's clothing - issues 101, 504, and 593 in particular have relevant elements. I'm not familiar with a specific issue about pockets for women's clothing. That would indeed require some effort to make it a government issue, but it could be done. Perhaps something related to gender discrimination, or personal safety, or something like that.

I remember one specific one if you have compulsory nudism, you get it, and it asks for pockets or like an option for pockets or something. Issue #295

[Edush]

Is there any issue about the treasure of another nation being kept by your nation? As in, Brancaland (or any other non-player nation) is going through a hard war, and their Foreign Ministry asks for your nation to keep their national treasury. As the war ended, your advisors now give you suggestions on what to do with that treasure: actually give it back to that nation, keep it, or maybe just give them a part of it. Or give it to them in parts, over time. I haven't thought of the options yet, but I just wanted to see how you guys think this idea sounds like.

[Trotterdam]

Is there any issue about the treasure of another nation being kept by your nation? As in, Brancaland (or any other non-player nation) is going through a hard war, and their Foreign Ministry asks for your nation to keep their national treasury. As the war ended, your advisors now give you suggestions on what to do with that treasure: actually give it back to that nation, keep it, or maybe just give them a part of it. Or give it to them in parts, over time. I haven't thought of the options yet, but I just wanted to see how you guys think this idea sounds like.

There are issues about ancient treasures that arguably rightfully belong to another nation, like #287 and #492. We don't have one specifically about the situation of another nation temporarily giving you custody of their valuables for safekeeping during a war, but that feels like less of a dilemma to me. It's hard to justify not upholding your end of the deal if that was part of the terms for receiving the stuff in the first place. One possible situation might be if the original government lost and the rebels won a civil war, and you have to decide if being the victors make them the rightful government that you now owe stuff to, or if you are no longer obliged to uphold your contract because the government that you signed it with is gone and can't collect. Although personally, I thing that scenario would probably lead to more pertinent problems than what to do with some symbolic national treasure. (Is deliberately loaning your national treasure to another nation for safekeeping something that nations even do?)

[Verdant Haven]

We don't have one specifically about the situation of another nation temporarily giving you custody of their valuables for safekeeping during a war, but that feels like less of a dilemma to me. It's hard to justify not upholding your end of the deal if that was part of the terms for receiving the stuff in the first place. One possible situation might be if the original government lost and the rebels won a civil war, and you have to decide if being the victors make them the rightful government that you now owe stuff to, or if you are no longer obliged to uphold your contract because the government that you signed it with is gone and can't collect. Although personally, I thing that scenario would probably lead to more pertinent problems than what to do with some symbolic national treasure. (Is deliberately loaning your national treasure to another nation for safekeeping something that nations even do?)

I agree with your suggestion that having the original government lose makes for a good solid dilemma, and would make it actually similar to at least one real thing that has happened:

When imperial Russia got hit with the communist revolution, Grand Duke Georgii Mikhailovich was czar Nicholas II's... uncle, I think it was. More importantly, he was in charge of the state museum, to which he had donated his own incredibly impressive coin collection. Seeing the writing on the wall as the revolution continued, he had the coin collection boxed up and smuggled by loyalist soldiers to his wife Grand Duchess Maria Georgievna, who was safely abroad.

After the revolution, the new Bolshevik government first asked for, then demanded, then sued internationally for the return of the coin collection, claiming they now owned the contents of the state museums. The Duchess fought back in court, arguing that they were usurpers, and that the coins had been personal property of her husband who had merely "loaned" them to the museum. The government she was staying with did not recognize the communists as legitimate, and so the courts sided with her that she could keep them. She did so, and after she passed her daughters sold the collection at auction, where it was bought by a member of the Rockefeller family and given to the Smithsonian, which now has one of the world's best imperial Russian coin collections as a result.

---
Edit:

World War 2 provides several examples of when the "depositing" country wins. Norway evacuated its gold reserves - 50 tonnes worth - to the UK to escape Nazi seizure during the occupation, from which it was then shipped to the new world. They sold bits of it to finance their government in exile, and then the restored government after the war. The last of it was returned to Norway in 1987! The UK itself sent most of its gold reserves across the ocean as well!

[Edush]

We don't have one specifically about the situation of another nation temporarily giving you custody of their valuables for safekeeping during a war, but that feels like less of a dilemma to me. It's hard to justify not upholding your end of the deal if that was part of the terms for receiving the stuff in the first place. One possible situation might be if the original government lost and the rebels won a civil war, and you have to decide if being the victors make them the rightful government that you now owe stuff to, or if you are no longer obliged to uphold your contract because the government that you signed it with is gone and can't collect. Although personally, I thing that scenario would probably lead to more pertinent problems than what to do with some symbolic national treasure. (Is deliberately loaning your national treasure to another nation for safekeeping something that nations even do?)

I agree with your suggestion that having the original government lose makes for a good solid dilemma, and would make it actually similar to at least one real thing that has happened:

When imperial Russia got hit with the communist revolution, Grand Duke Georgii Mikhailovich was czar Nicholas II's... uncle, I think it was. More importantly, he was in charge of the state museum, to which he had donated his own incredibly impressive coin collection. Seeing the writing on the wall as the revolution continued, he had the coin collection boxed up and smuggled by loyalist soldiers to his wife Grand Duchess Maria Georgievna, who was safely abroad.

After the revolution, the new Bolshevik government first asked for, then demanded, then sued internationally for the return of the coin collection, claiming they now owned the contents of the state museums. The Duchess fought back in court, arguing that they were usurpers, and that the coins had been personal property of her husband who had merely "loaned" them to the museum. The government she was staying with did not recognize the communists as legitimate, and so the courts sided with her that she could keep them. She did so, and after she passed her daughters sold the collection at auction, where it was bought by a member of the Rockefeller family and given to the Smithsonian, which now has one of the world's best imperial Russian coin collections as a result.

---
Edit:

World War 2 provides several examples of when the "depositing" country wins. Norway evacuated its gold reserves - 50 tonnes worth - to the UK to escape Nazi seizure during the occupation, from which it was then shipped to the new world. They sold bits of it to finance their government in exile, and then the restored government after the war. The last of it was returned to Norway in 1987! The UK itself sent most of its gold reserves across the ocean as well!

Exactly!

Also, to add to the examples: Romania sent its national treasure to Russia in WW1, since chances for losing the war were huge for Romania. Then, the Bolsheviks came and that's how the Romanian gold reserves haven't been retrieved to this day.

[Australian rePublic]

So we've been having a discussion around NSG, and I reacon it would make a good idea for an issue

The premise: Due to lack of monetary incentive, under socialism, no body wants to maintain sewers:
Options:.
1. Bring monetary incentives to unpleasent jobs- make unoleasent jobs pay more
2. Force people to do sewer work beyond their will. Essentially, slavery
3. Who needs sewers anyway? Let the robots do what can be done and anything that needs specific human intervention is not worth doing

[Federationalism]

So we've been having a discussion around NSG, and I reacon it would make a good idea for an issue

The premise: Due to lack of monetary incentive, under socialism, no body wants to maintain sewers:
Options:.
1. Bring monetary incentives to unpleasent jobs- make unoleasent jobs pay more
2. Force people to do sewer work beyond their will. Essentially, slavery
3. Who needs sewers anyway? Let the robots do what can be done and anything that needs specific human intervention is not worth doing

Decent start, and an interesting topic. Firstly, your country needs to exhibit habits of socialism. I believe there should also be an option to not care and do your business anywhere or one about diapers. This would be decently amusing and it'd add more mass to the options. Just my random ideas though.

[Southland]

Is there an issue that deals with armed clashes between far-right militas and Antifa-esque groups? Sedgistan just locked up a thread that had a sorta similar concept because the OP was being needlessly combative, and I think that would be a good follow up when the contest is over. I even came up with the perfect name for it: "Bloc Party"

[Jibuti]

Hello! My nation has just recently qualified for making an issue so I wanted to ask:
Is there an issue/draft related to a building being built under a burial ground?

Here's how it would go:

Title: @@NAME@@ Six Feet Under
Description: After an extensive review of land records, @@RANDOM_NAME@@, your Minister of Real Estate, has uncovered that the @@DEMONYM_ADJECTIVE@@ Capitol Building is built under [Demonym of Nation's Predecessor] burial lands. This has sparked controversy within the building, as workers complain about paranormal activity.

Don't have it fully fleshed out yet, but the options will be:

Option 1: Workers demand pay raise for compensation against ghosts.
Option 2: Minister of Real Estate suggests we move to a different building.
Option 3: Minister of Hard Truths tries to convince you that ghosts aren't real.
Option 4: Violet priest barges in and throws holy water around the place, and asks you to host an exorcism.
Option 5: A ghost whispers in your ear that they demand rights.

...How does it look?
_{BTW, THE NATIONS PREDECESSOR BRACKET IS BECAUSE I HAVE NOT FOUND AN NPC NATION THAT IS THE DIRECT ANCESTOR FOR YOUR NATION, OK}

[Trotterdam]

Is there an issue/draft related to a building being built under a burial ground?

Do you mean on a burial ground? It would be logistically challenging to build a building under a burial ground

There's #719, which is about the discovery of a burial ground and who has the rights to the bones. (Interestingly, "let the bones stay in the ground" isn't actually one of the options, even though that would seem to be the intent of whoever buried them there...) Technically there's no building involved, it was found during a camping trip, but that doesn't make a big difference.

#143 is about workers uncovering an ancient temple, which is similar in spirit. The debate is about archeologists who want to cancel the building project to preserve the temple.

This has sparked controversy within the building, as workers complain about paranormal activity.

It's better if issues are about things that actually exist.

[Jibuti]

Do you mean on a burial ground? It would be logistically challenging to build a building under a burial ground

My bad, didn't catch the error.

It's better if issues are about things that actually exist.

How would this new description sound?

Description: After an extensive review of land records, @@RANDOM_NAME@@, your Minister of Real Estate, has uncovered that the @@DEMONYM_ADJECTIVE@@ Capitol Building is built over [Demonym of Nation's Predecessor] burial lands. This has sparked controversy within the nation, as reports of "strange" occurrences in @@CAPITAL@@ increase.

Also I think iIm gonna merge Option 1 & 2

Option 1: "I'm telling you, one of those ghost really clogged the toilet, honest." says the Minister of Denial. "Ghosts were definitely the one who accidentally started the nearby bushfires." the Minister of Clumsiness interjects. @@RANDOM_NAME1@@, the Minister of Real Estate then says "This is why we need to relocate the building, preferably in the west outskirts...", @@HE1@@ mumbles "Maybe then those rental properties raise in value.."

Again, feedback is appreciated!

[Eunopiar]

Hi all,

is there an issue on preserving content on social media, or from the internet in general? I'm inspired by the British National Library preserving tweets, and I'm thinking about writing something to that effect.

Thanks in advance! .

[Spratly Islands]

Are there any issues about people being aggressive towards students?