The Writers' Block

[Australian rePublic]

So I wish to write an issue, but this is what I have so far:

[spoiler=][title] A Man in a Park

[desc] A man was verbally abused by a group of mothers, and called a "creep" and "pervert" for sitting on a park bench, near a playground. As it turns out, the man had taken his daughter to play at the playground, and a bunch of angry men's rights activists have gathered around your office demanding that you take action to prevent such things from happening in the future

[validity] Adults only

[option] "Here we go again! Men whinging about "oppression" again" states @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, one of the mothers in question "There are creeps and perverts out there who pray on young children, and how was I to know that this was one of the few guys who isn't? I am just trying to protrect young girls across @@NAME@@ from these filthy old men"
[effect] men walking with their daughters must carry a birth certificate or adoption papers with them

[option] "This is a disgusting breach of men's rights!" complains @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ "Once again, these extreme feminists have abused an innocent man to satisfy their myth of male privlidge[/spoiler]

[Luna Amore]

There's the germ of a good idea there, but it's poorly executed. The 'dilemma' isn't fleshed out (the easiest way to ramp it up would be to include a camera) and the options are a bit paint-by-numbers caricature. The dilemma needs focusing and then the rest will follow I think.

No matter what, it's going to need a new thread. I wouldn't post it until you have a complete draft.

[Australian rePublic]

There's the germ of a good idea there, but it's poorly executed. The 'dilemma' isn't fleshed out (the easiest way to ramp it up would be to include a camera) and the options are a bit paint-by-numbers caricature. The dilemma needs focusing and then the rest will follow I think.

No matter what, it's going to need a new thread. I wouldn't post it until you have a complete draft.

A camera, why didn't I think of that. All of your feedback is excellent!

[Jutsa]

Hmm, I don't think we have that exactly, but we do have plenty of issues for forcing your religion / religion in general on citizens (for example #070, #172, #219). What do you have in mind?

Well, just that, really, about a state so religious that someone who even questioned the faith got arrested and it's up to you to see it's gone too far or if it's exactly what should be enforced.

It does come close to 70 and 172, but this is more about so much as questioning anything within faith that's already more-or-less mandatory, rather than making
people follow a faith or attend church. Still, I don't know if that's really different enough to warrant its own issue.

[Trotterdam]

Well, just that, really, about a state so religious that someone who even questioned the faith got arrested and it's up to you to see it's gone too far or if it's exactly what should be enforced.

It does come close to 70 and 172, but this is more about so much as questioning anything within faith that's already more-or-less mandatory, rather than making
people follow a faith or attend church. Still, I don't know if that's really different enough to warrant its own issue.

"Questioning" is such a case could also mean someone disagreeing with a point of doctrine based on a different interpretation of the holy texts, rather than actually not believing in the religion itself.

[Jutsa]

Say, now that's something I didn't consider... think that's a good idea for an issue?

[Trotterdam]

I might point you at a previous suggestion of mine:

So as I pointed out in Technical, a lot of issues tend to assume @@FAITH@@ has certain stereotypical religious doctrines (often using it as the token anti-science or anti-gay option), rather than really allowing you to customize your religion in a meaningful way. (While, say, you can decide stuff over how @@LEADER@@ maintains power.)

It would be nice to have an issue that just comes out and outright asks you what your religion is really about. It could be framed as multiple denominations/subgroups/local priests of @@FAITH@@ within your nation arguing about the true meaning of their religion, and asking the government to make an official statement on what is the most important measure of a proper follower of @@FAITH@@.

Options could be:
1. having true faith in your deity, believing with all your heart rather than just going through the motions (raises happiness)
2. correctly following the prescribed rituals, regardless of whether you understand their purpose (raises social conservatism?)
3. contemplating the spiritual nature of the universe to gain enlightenment (raises intelligence)
4. treating your fellow human beings in a manner according with the morals prescribed in the holy text (raises compassion)
There are real-life religions that favor each of these (and the larger ones incorporate all or most in their various denominations).

A fifth option would be refusing to pick any side and encouraging all citizens to figure out what their religion means to them.

Since I posted this, #665 has come to do something similar, but most of its options are different and it's more about what politicians should be doing about religion rather than common people.

[Fauxia]

I might point you at a previous suggestion of mine:

So as I pointed out in Technical, a lot of issues tend to assume @@FAITH@@ has certain stereotypical religious doctrines (often using it as the token anti-science or anti-gay option), rather than really allowing you to customize your religion in a meaningful way. (While, say, you can decide stuff over how @@LEADER@@ maintains power.)

It would be nice to have an issue that just comes out and outright asks you what your religion is really about. It could be framed as multiple denominations/subgroups/local priests of @@FAITH@@ within your nation arguing about the true meaning of their religion, and asking the government to make an official statement on what is the most important measure of a proper follower of @@FAITH@@.

Options could be:
1. having true faith in your deity, believing with all your heart rather than just going through the motions (raises happiness)
2. correctly following the prescribed rituals, regardless of whether you understand their purpose (raises social conservatism?)
3. contemplating the spiritual nature of the universe to gain enlightenment (raises intelligence)
4. treating your fellow human beings in a manner according with the morals prescribed in the holy text (raises compassion)
There are real-life religions that favor each of these (and the larger ones incorporate all or most in their various denominations).

A fifth option would be refusing to pick any side and encouraging all citizens to figure out what their religion means to them.

Since I posted this, #665 has come to do something similar, but most of its options are different and it's more about what politicians should be doing about religion rather than common people.

Can you look at my draft Trott? (not on this topic)

[Australian rePublic]

I have an idea for an issue, but need help. Families split by a civil. What I'm think of here is something like families who were split by the Berlin War, or the Korean War, or what not

[Fauxia]

I have an idea for an issue, but need help. Families split by a civil. What I'm think of here is something like families who were split by the Berlin War, or the Korean War, or what not

Hmm, I'll help you here if something comes to mind.

[Trotterdam]

Perhaps a followup to one of those issues about people wanting to secede from your nation?

Seems unlikely the issue'd come up otherwise, except as a neutral party called in to mediate between NPC nations, which isn't much fun.

[Fauxia]

Perhaps a followup to one of those issues about people wanting to secede from your nation?

Seems unlikely the issue'd come up otherwise, except as a neutral party called in to mediate between NPC nations, which isn't much fun.

We already have the one issue where the one-man secessionist country is formed, and there might be more than just that.

[Trotterdam]

We already have the one issue where the one-man secessionist country is formed, and there might be more than just that.

You could have a situation about, say, a father declaring his household to be independent, and his daughter (in the same house) being upset that she's now living in a different country from her boyfriend and has to go through all sorts of annoying customs every time she goes to visit him (and it's probably even worse when he comes to visit her...). That would be an amusing way to parody the "split families" thing in the context of micronations.

Of course, if individual nations are allowed to secede, it's not unreasonable that you might have larger secessionist blocs too. (Perhaps they stick together by, ironically, forbidding their members from seceding. Hey, the United States seceded from Britain but was then rather upset when the Confederate States tried to re-secede...) Note that normal secession is already in canon, for example #067 1.

[Australian rePublic]

We already have the one issue where the one-man secessionist country is formed, and there might be more than just that.

You could have a situation about, say, a father declaring his household to be independent, and his daughter (in the same house) being upset that she's now living in a different country from her boyfriend and has to go through all sorts of annoying customs every time she goes to visit him (and it's probably even worse when he comes to visit her...). That would be an amusing way to parody the "split families" thing in the context of micronations.

Of course, if individual nations are allowed to secede, it's not unreasonable that you might have larger secessionist blocs too. (Perhaps they stick together by, ironically, forbidding their members from seceding. Hey, the United States seceded from Britain but was then rather upset when the Confederate States tried to re-secede...) Note that normal secession is already in canon, for example #067 1.

Yea, well during the Cold War, families on the communist side of divided nations were forever seperated from their families on the capitalist side, and being commies and all, travelling to the capitalist side wasn't exactly an option. I know that I'm a few decades too late for the Cold War, but still think it makes for an interesting issue

[Australian rePublic]

NOW that Ransium has the shits with me, how do I know that he Won't intentionally & maliciously delete my issues?

[Luna Amore]

NOW that Ransium has the shits with me, how do I know that he Won't intentionally & maliciously delete my issues?

The simplest answer is because he won't. We extensively vet players before they become IEs. In some ways it's more strenuous than Forum Mod vetting because you get direct access to the code.

This is on top of the fact that we have over a dozen IEs, Mods, and Admins with access to the CP. A good deal of whom keep tabs on the intake. Someone would notice if an IE was deliberately canning a single player's drafts regardless of quality. We watch GI. We watch the incoming queue. If there's a draft an editor is waiting on from a GI thread, you can bet they'd raise an eyebrow if it was submitted but nowhere to be found. There's methods and logs in place for accountability. But the most crucial piece is what I said before, we don't hand out IE jackets lightly. Accusations of that level of misconduct shouldn't be thrown around lightly so please don't without serious evidence.

[Australian rePublic]

NOW that Ransium has the shits with me, how do I know that he Won't intentionally & maliciously delete my issues?

The simplest answer is because he won't. We extensively vet players before they become IEs. In some ways it's more strenuous than Forum Mod vetting because you get direct access to the code.

This is on top of the fact that we have over a dozen IEs, Mods, and Admins with access to the CP. A good deal of whom keep tabs on the intake. Someone would notice if an IE was deliberately canning a single player's drafts regardless of quality. We watch GI. We watch the incoming queue. If there's a draft an editor is waiting on from a GI thread, you can bet they'd raise an eyebrow if it was submitted but nowhere to be found. There's methods and logs in place for accountability. But the most crucial piece is what I said before, we don't hand out IE jackets lightly. Accusations of that level of misconduct shouldn't be thrown around lightly so please don't without serious evidence.

I appologise for making such accusations. I suppose I should stop talking now before I make myself look like more of an idiot

[Fauxia]

NOW that Ransium has the shits with me, how do I know that he Won't intentionally & maliciously delete my issues?

The simplest answer is because he won't. We extensively vet players before they become IEs. In some ways it's more strenuous than Forum Mod vetting because you get direct access to the code.

This is on top of the fact that we have over a dozen IEs, Mods, and Admins with access to the CP. A good deal of whom keep tabs on the intake. Someone would notice if an IE was deliberately canning a single player's drafts regardless of quality. We watch GI. We watch the incoming queue. If there's a draft an editor is waiting on from a GI thread, you can bet they'd raise an eyebrow if it was submitted but nowhere to be found. There's methods and logs in place for accountability. But the most crucial piece is what I said before, we don't hand out IE jackets lightly. Accusations of that level of misconduct shouldn't be thrown around lightly so please don't without serious evidence.

Or maybe you are all conspiring against Aussie

[Drasnia]

The simplest answer is because he won't. We extensively vet players before they become IEs. In some ways it's more strenuous than Forum Mod vetting because you get direct access to the code.

This is on top of the fact that we have over a dozen IEs, Mods, and Admins with access to the CP. A good deal of whom keep tabs on the intake. Someone would notice if an IE was deliberately canning a single player's drafts regardless of quality. We watch GI. We watch the incoming queue. If there's a draft an editor is waiting on from a GI thread, you can bet they'd raise an eyebrow if it was submitted but nowhere to be found. There's methods and logs in place for accountability. But the most crucial piece is what I said before, we don't hand out IE jackets lightly. Accusations of that level of misconduct shouldn't be thrown around lightly so please don't without serious evidence.

Or maybe you are all conspiring against Aussie

It's a conspiracy!

[Fauxia]

Or maybe you are all conspiring against Aussie

It's a conspiracy!

We know you're in on it Drasnia!

[Trotterdam]

"It's not paranoia to think that everyone is out to get you. That's normal. They are. Paranoia is to think they're conspiring."

[Helaw]

Personally, I still vehemently believe in the Editing team's secret agenda for the oppression of the word 'bobble'.

[Drasnia]

Personally, I still vehemently believe in the Editing team's secret agenda for the oppression of the word 'bobble'.

'Bauble' is still perfectly fine, correct? Uh, asking for a friend.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Hey, has there been an issue about the Black Friday shopping frenzy (or it's NS version, which I might call Frenzied Friday or something). If not, do you think this would be a good issue topic?

P.S. This idea was brought to my mind when I read the draft with the title "Sacred Sunday Shopping" in the GI forum. I thought it was about Black Friday, but it turned out the author was problematizing religious people trying to ban people from shopping on Sunday. So I guess there would be no overlap here.

[Tinhampton]

Hey, has there been an issue about the Black Friday shopping frenzy (or it's NS version, which I might call Frenzied Friday or something).

Yes. Issue #651 "Black Days For @@NAME@@".