Page 105 of 345

PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 12:10 pm
by Trotterdam
In theory, there are three different ways to "ban sex". The game has issue options which imply all three of them, but I do not believe it actually tracks the difference.
1. Make sex illegal, but don't do anything to directly prevent it, leading to, as one effect line puts it, "underground copulation clubs" springing up.
2. Sterilize all your citizens, making reproductive sex impossible (this is effectively banning sex in biological terms), but in a way that doesn't remove their sex drive so that they can still have non-reproductive sex, which you don't really care about anymore at this point.
3. Neuter all your citizens in a way that largely removes their sex drive (castration for males and oophorectomy for females).
(You could also do both 1 and 2 at the same time, but I see little reason why anyone would do that but not go all the way to 3.)

#123 5 wants to "sterilize everybody", implying method 2 (although it could be interpreted as 3 if taken loosely), instead growing people in vats.
#168 2 advocates celibacy and results in "people have to sneak out of the country in order to have sex", suggesting method 1. Although the purpose here is to prevent STDs (and no alternative method of reproduction is advocated), so one might realistically expect limitations like this only applying to unmarried people, no such thing is ever mentioned in the text.
#358 4/5 wants newborns "neutered", implying method 3 (although it could be interpreted as 2 if taken loosely), but does not say how children will be produced instead (possibly vats, but possibly implantation of test tube babies into people's wombs).
#364 3 bans sex, while advocating artificial insemination as an alternative (making it clear that people's sex organs are still biologically functional), and therefore explicitly uses method 1.
#486 5 creates "asexual grunts", implying method 3, with soldiers being grown in vats instead. Apparently it is currently coded as also doing this to the rest of your populace, even though that outcome isn't clear from the option text.

Additionally, these may be done to only certain classes of people, such as those who fail their parenting licenses (#300 1, using method 3) or convicted sex offenders (#075 1, using method 3).

#279 is a reversal for vats. I do not believe there is currently a reversal for mandatory artificial insemination or for neutering of unfit parents. (Shouldn't people who fail the test be allowed to study up and retake it next year?)

PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 2:53 pm
by Jutsa
Say, uh, question: Do bills proposed by politicians die out if they're booted out of office,
or are they picked up or dismissed by their predecessors, or does it just keep circulating even after they get the boot? :?

PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 6:26 am
by Bears Armed
On a separate topic, surely there's potential for an issue based on [& using] the song-title "What Shall We Do With A Drunken Sailor?"...

PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 7:40 am
by Fauxia
Bears Armed wrote:On a separate topic, surely there's potential for an issue based on [& using] the song-title "What Shall We Do With A Drunken Sailor?"...
What a great song that is.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:19 am
by Australian rePublic
I know there were recent stat changes, so I want to know, is tourism still linked to environment? In an issue about neither, environment went up, tourism down

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 6:06 am
by Candlewhisper Archive
Australian Republic wrote:I know there were recent stat changes, so I want to know, is tourism still linked to environment? In an issue about neither, environment went up, tourism down


That's still in beta. No change yet.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:25 am
by Leutria
How would an issue about another nation asking @@NAME@@ to lift it's ban on meat in exchange more trade go over? The recent draft by Amjedia made me wonder what are some other ways a nation might be asked to repeal it's ban on meat, and I came up with the idea of the United Federation asking us to repeal the ban and accept beef imports from them in exchange for loosening their own restriction on @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ (Although if that can still come up as tourism maybe I will be more vague about increasing trade, or them threatening to put up trade barriers if we don't repeal the ban?)

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:03 am
by USS Monitor
Leutria wrote:How would an issue about another nation asking @@NAME@@ to lift it's ban on meat in exchange more trade go over? The recent draft by Amjedia made me wonder what are some other ways a nation might be asked to repeal it's ban on meat, and I came up with the idea of the United Federation asking us to repeal the ban and accept beef imports from them in exchange for loosening their own restriction on @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ (Although if that can still come up as tourism maybe I will be more vague about increasing trade, or them threatening to put up trade barriers if we don't repeal the ban?)


Sounds like a viable idea to me. Try writing it up.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:43 pm
by Australian rePublic
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
Australian Republic wrote:I know there were recent stat changes, so I want to know, is tourism still linked to environment? In an issue about neither, environment went up, tourism down


That's still in beta. No change yet.

Thanks

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:51 pm
by Shwe Tu Colony
Say, do we have an issue on replacing a person on @@NAME@@'s currency & people complaining about it? It did happen in the United States, although the Hamilton musical prevented it from happening.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:29 pm
by Singapore no2
Shwe Tu Colony wrote:Say, do we have an issue on replacing a person on @@NAME@@'s currency & people complaining about it? It did happen in the United States, although the Hamilton musical prevented it from happening.

I doubt so, but assuming from the start that the currency already had a person on their note is a tad presumptuous.

Why don't you make an issue like this:
Desc- You want to make a new big denomination bank note. People are coming up with ideas to be unique.

Option 1: We'll make it have whatever weird design.

Option 2: We'll just add a portrait of @@LEADER@@ like other countries.

Option 3: Why do we even need a bigger note?

Of course, being the author of How To Print Money?, I may be biased in thinking that this would be a bit of an overlap.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:19 am
by Candlewhisper Archive
We had a couple of submissions a while back about putting a face on banknotes, one about there being no women represented on banknotes, the other being a more general list issue of things you could put on banknotes.

After some discussion it was agreed neither of them was very good, so they're long gone.

Basically, go for it, and do it well.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:00 am
by Australian rePublic
Are there any issues about Milo Yiannopoulos type figures?

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:09 am
by Fauxia
Australian Republic wrote:Are there any issues about Milo Yiannopoulos type figures?
Waddya mean by that? What thing about him?

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 1:30 pm
by Australian rePublic
Fauxia wrote:
Australian Republic wrote:Are there any issues about Milo Yiannopoulos type figures?
Waddya mean by that? What thing about him?

Radical right-winged figures who give SJWs a run for their money, and leading to protests on the street

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:04 pm
by United Massachusetts
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
Fauxia wrote:Not how it works


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

I know, it was a joke.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:10 pm
by Fauxia
United Massachusetts wrote:
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
Just for clarification, there's no dibs-calling.

I know, it was a joke.
I know that, just messing around with you, UM

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:19 pm
by United Massachusetts
Fauxia wrote:
United Massachusetts wrote:I know, it was a joke.
I know that, just messing around with you, UM

I've posted the draft, BTW

PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:24 pm
by Fauxia
United Massachusetts wrote:
Fauxia wrote:I know that, just messing around with you, UM

I've posted the draft, BTW
No, you’ve killed us all! :p

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:09 am
by Australian rePublic
You know you spend too much time in GI when you forget that "Violtist" is not a real word. Also, I think I know where CWA's signiture comes from:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ldT2g2qDQNQ

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:22 am
by Singapore no2
Australian Republic wrote:Also, I think I know where CWA's signiture comes from:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ldT2g2qDQNQ

4:25.

Issue authors like submitting garbage more than most people.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:25 am
by Jutsa
I'm very proud of my garbage!

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:35 am
by Singapore no2
Jutsa wrote:I'm very proud of my garbage!

You might as well call me The Trashman!

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:37 pm
by Democratic Socialist Uruguay
Has anyone made any issue pertaining or similar to that recent Broadway theater adaptation of '1984' that has caused people to literally faint, throw up or scream at the actors from their seats and whatnot.

Has it been done in any capacity whatsoever?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:52 pm
by Australian rePublic
Singapore no2 wrote:
Jutsa wrote:I'm very proud of my garbage!

You might as well call me The Trashman!
Singapore no2 wrote:
Australian Republic wrote:Also, I think I know where CWA's signiture comes from:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ldT2g2qDQNQ

4:25.

Issue authors like submitting garbage more than most people.

If you call what you submit garbage, then you definately don't want to stop in mine...