NationStates

United Massachusetts wrote:

Ransium wrote:
The word nullification does not yet appear in the issue base. I *think* it would be an original topic. As far as is this subject matter ripe for an NS issue? I'd say totally.

Great! I call dibs

Not how it works

Anyone wanna co-author an issue about bike sharing?

Australian Republic wrote:Anyone wanna co-author an issue about bike sharing?

Speaking of that, I’m a go bump the issue I’m co-authoring with you.

I seem to remember already seeing a draft about something like that, but I have no idea what happened to it. The topic doesn't really grasp me, I'm afraid.

Jutsa wrote:I seem to remember already seeing a draft about something like that, but I have no idea what happened to it. The topic doesn't really grasp me, I'm afraid.

My draft on bike sharing.

Fauxia wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:Great! I call dibs

Not how it works

Just for clarification, there's no dibs-calling.

I am thinking about writing an issue on race and intelligence.


What do you think?

Could work. Flesh it out, I guess. Kind of horrific as a topic, but I guess no more so than honour killings or terrorism.

This wouldn't happen to be inspired by the comment sections on Crash Course Social Science's latest two videos, would it?

You have to remember that averages are just that. Even if completely objective unbiased impeccable flawless research (haha, yeah right) finds that Moltoveans are, on average, 10% smarter than Maxtopians, the smartest Maxtopians are still going to be a lot smarter than the dumbest Moltoveans, or even average Moltoveans. Judging people by their race, rather than by their individual performance, will still give fundamentally incorrect results. While significantly fewer Maxtopians than Moltoveans might be able to pass your university's entrance exam, rejecting the few Maxtopians that do manage to pass it simply because they're Maxtopians is still racist, and also stupid.

Whilst I agree with that, I can't tell you how many people will actually choose options 1 and even 3 regardless of scientific facts.

It's shameful how little Social "Darwinists" and other eugenicists actually understand about Darwinian evolution.

Of course, they're hardly the only ones having trouble on that front.

It seems both the people for and against Darwinism are completely bonkers and debating strawmen. (Or maybe strawwomen, I don't want to discriminate here.)

USS Monitor wrote:

Socio Polor wrote:Snip

A key phrase in that post was "without a proven track record." If someone doesn't have a track record of being easy to work with, that doesn't necessarily mean they are a pain in the ass. It can also mean they haven't done enough to build up a track record of any kind.

FWIW, I shouldn't be writing chains either because I don't have enough issues experience and my attention span is too short.

And right this minute I shouldn't be writing much of anything because it's 3AM, I had a long day, and I'm starting to get snoozy.

I see. I wasn't clear to me what you were trying to say. As I said in my previous post I didn't mean to start a debate or anything, just wanted to get an answer to my question.

Say, I have a question. Should I add "implements/removes X policy" to my draft options, should I not, or does it matter?

Jutsa wrote:Say, I have a question. Should I add "implements/removes X policy" to my draft options, should I not, or does it matter?

Shouldn't matter. You can include it in the drafting process, if you think it clarifies your intentions, then leave them off the submission as there's no box for stat or game engine suggestions any more. Players don't have the policy master list anyway, so it's not that useful a thing to do without editorial access.

We always think on policies triggers anyway, and always read the GI drafting threads during the edit.

Would an issue for world assembly nations that have not voted on anything for a rather long time be a) an interesting idea and b) possible?
(It also would be interesting to see what a dictatorship would have to say about the subject)

Jutsa wrote:Would an issue for world assembly nations that have not voted on anything for a rather long time be a) an interesting idea and b) possible?
(It also would be interesting to see what a dictatorship would have to say about the subject)

To my knowledge, that's not possible.

Ah well. Thanks

Trotterdam wrote:It's shameful how little Social "Darwinists" and other eugenicists actually understand about Darwinian evolution.

Darwin apparently had arguments with one of his own cousins, eugenicist Francis Galton, about this...

So are the "nonstop" & "strong central democracy" lines in this option a reference to the Hamilton musical's song "Non-Stop" or it is just a coincidence?

Hello!

I'm thinking of writing an issue for vegetarian nations that is not about reversing it as suggested by Nation of Quebec. What do you think?

Amjedia wrote:Hello!

I'm thinking of writing an issue for vegetarian nations that is not about reversing it as suggested by Nation of Quebec. What do you think?

Go for it.

Do we have a reversal to the "no sex" policy..?

We have a reversal for vat-grown citizens.

I believe we may have a "no sex" option or two that's more vague about what it plans to use instead, so I'm not sure about that.

Yeah, Issue 364 has an option to ban it in favor of artificial insemination. Think a reversal to that would be a good issue?