The Writers' Block

[Bears Armed]

The next idea that I plan on trying to draft about, after that, will be for capitalist nations in which cars are legal, there are no speed restrictions, and nuclear power is legal: 'Atomic Batteries to Power, Turbines to Speed!'

I think you would have a hard time building a nuclear reactor small enough to fit in a car.

Batteries, not a reactor...

In any case, power is already not the main limiter on car speed anyway. Worry about strapping chemical-powered JATO rockets to cars before you start considering making them nuclear-powered.

power over time: JATO rockets tend to burn out rather quickly...

And you didn't recognise the reference, did you?

[Trotterdam]

Batteries, not a reactor...

Atomic batteries produce very little power. Their utility is for keeping low-powered devices going for extremely long periods of time in places where you can't easily refill a fuel tank, like on Mars.

A plain old petrol engine will work better if you can refill it once in a while.

[Chan Island]

I'll try to get back to work on the 'Vanilla' draft shortly: Unfortunately RL has been rather busy lately, and the GA submissions list not much less so....

The next idea that I plan on trying to draft about, after that, will be for capitalist nations in which cars are legal, there are no speed restrictions, and nuclear power is legal: 'Atomic Batteries to Power, Turbines to Speed!'

I swear safety is a bigger problem than whether it can be done when it comes to nuclear power in cars. Since nuclear fission material doesn't tend to react very well to physical collisions, it's understandable very few people want to risk a mini-Chernobyl every time there is a fender bender.

[Bears Armed]

Batteries, not a reactor...

Atomic batteries produce very little power. Their utility is for keeping low-powered devices going for extremely long periods of time in places where you can't easily refill a fuel tank, like on Mars.

Ah, but these would be 'atomic Bat-batteries'...

More seriously, maybe the atomic batteries used in RL work like that because that's what they're specifically designed for? Even if we stick to the limits of RL possibility in this situation (unlike, for example, the "cloning dinosaurs" situation), even as a non-physicist I can think of two or three ways in which it might be possible to increase power output at the expense of reduced safety:
1/ Use more "active" isotopes;
2/ Put most of the shielding around the battery compartment as a whole, rather than around each battery individually, which potentially lets you fit more 'battery' into the same space (if you were previously using two or more separately-shielded batteries rather than just a single, larger one) and saves a bit on weight;
3/ Use a small part of the power that's produced to run a system for firing neutrons or other particles into the main battery in order to trigger faster breakdown of the atoms there.

Also, part of the car-designers' argument here for using nuclear batteries instead of 'conventional' ones would be to reduce the stress that most owners of electrical or hybrid cars wanting to recharge their vehicles' batteries during the same periods of time places on the electricity supply system. ("Same battery time: same battery channel!")

[Trotterdam]

Since nuclear fission material doesn't tend to react very well to physical collisions,

Only in the sense that any toxic material reacts badly to being spread across the accident area when its container is cracked open. You won't get a nuclear explosion by accident.

More seriously, maybe the atomic batteries used in RL work like that because that's what they're specifically designed for? Even if we stick to the limits of RL possibility in this situation (unlike, for example, the "cloning dinosaurs" situation), even as a non-physicist I can think of two or three ways in which it might be possible to increase power output at the expense of reduced safety:
1/ Use more "active" isotopes;

Regardless of the exact internal details, in the end it comes down to heat. Atomic batteries use radioactive decay to generate heat, and then generate electricity (or if you want for this scenario, motive power, which might be more efficient if you do it directly without going via electricity) from that heat using old-school technology.

Notice something? Standard petrol-based car engines also work through heat. Petrol is actually an extremely mass-efficient way to store energy, so long as you don't need to go for months without refuelling.

The heat is generated through different ways, but in the end, it's still heat and you can do the same stuff with it.

So in order for your atomic battery to produce more power than a conventional car engine, it would have to be hotter than an engine that works by setting an extremely-flammable substance on fire. And since atomic batteries can't be turned off, it would be that hot all the time.

Actual nuclear reactors run even hotter... and that leads to some really complicated and heavy cooling systems. (Remember Fukushima? The problem wasn't radioactive fallout. The problem was dumping enough water on the site to get the thing to cool down a little. They call it a "meltdown" for a reason.)

Wikipedia does mention some kinds of atomic batteries that work through a mechanism other than heat, but I admit to not knowing as much about those as they don't seem to be very common. Betavoltaics, at least, are mentioned in that article to also be low-power. Optoelectric nuclear batteries are given a more optimistic description, beaing said to match (but not actually exceed) air-breathing fuel engines... with downsides including "a failure of containment in this form of device would release high-pressure jets of finely-divided radioisotopes".

[Altmer Dominion]

Does anyone have any good medieval riffs on the @@CAPITAL@@ name? 'As You Don't Like It' took place in Lower @@CAPITAL@@-Upon-Tyne, but other issues haven't been as inventive. Developing a good stockpile of quaint @@CAPITAL@@ names would streamline further nobility/feudalism issues going forward.

[The Free Joy State]

Does anyone have any good medieval riffs on the @@CAPITAL@@ name? 'As You Don't Like It' took place in Lower @@CAPITAL@@-Upon-Tyne, but other issues haven't been as inventive. Developing a good stockpile of quaint @@CAPITAL@@ names would streamline further nobility/feudalism issues going forward.

More place name ideas:

-->@@CAPITAL@@-de-la-Zouch (named after the UK's Ashby-de-la-Zouch, also, the fictional Countess of Ashby-de-la-Zouche was one of the heroines of a series of Restoration mysteries I read once).
--> @@CAPITAL@@-Under-Lyme (For Ashton-Under-Lyme)
--> @@CAPITAL@@-le-Dale (for Thornton-le-Dale; although there's a lot of other "le-Dale"s that I forgot)/ @@ANIMAL@@ could also work
--> @@CAPITAL@@-on-Tees (for Thonaby-on-Tees)/@@ANIMAL@@ could also work

You could always mix and match, of course. @@CAPITAL@@-Under-Dale or -on-Lyme might conjure some interesting images (but I'm not sure de-la-Zouch/e works as anything but de-la-Zouch/e )

[Shwe Tu Colony]

Would you issue editors say that there's still some palpable benefit to writing & submitting issues even when they don't make it in?

[The Marsupial Illuminati]

Would you issue editors say that there's still some palpable benefit to writing & submitting issues even when they don't make it in?

If you did research when you wrote the issue, you would have learned something. When I write an issue, I read several articles about the topic to understand it and to find anecdotes, details, supporting arguments, and positions to include in the issue.

[The Free Joy State]

Would you issue editors say that there's still some palpable benefit to writing & submitting issues even when they don't make it in?

What MI said, and that -- the more you write -- the more you can use the feedback you receive to hone your storytelling abilities, which will strengthen your future drafts.

[Australian rePublic]

I have an idea for the absolute primogeniture, please tell me what you think- the guy who is 175th in line for the throne goes on a regicidal killing spree, killing everyone in line in front of him, leaving just himself and the current monarch. What do you think?

[The Free Joy State]

I have an idea for the absolute primogeniture, please tell me what you think- the guy who is 175th in line for the throne goes on a regicidal killing spree, killing everyone in line in front of him, leaving just himself and the current monarch. What do you think?

There are some player autonomy problems.
--> You can't assume that the primogeniture is passed on through the male (or female) line (we can't code for that)
--> Players might be seriously annoyed if you wipe out their entire monarchal line in an issue, leaving only the reigning monarch and a homicidal psychopath.

However, an absolute primogeniture issue based around an heir being completely unsuitable for the throne could work. Perhaps -- to sidestep autonomy problems -- it's the 175^TH heir in another country that went axe-crazy and slaughtered their family, and your advisors would like to point out that the monarch's heir's been doing some slightly -- but less extreme -- strange things recently.

[Australian rePublic]

I have an idea for the absolute primogeniture, please tell me what you think- the guy who is 175th in line for the throne goes on a regicidal killing spree, killing everyone in line in front of him, leaving just himself and the current monarch. What do you think?

There are some player autonomy problems.
--> You can't assume that the primogeniture is passed on through the male (or female) line (we can't code for that)
--> Players might be seriously annoyed if you wipe out their entire monarchal line in an issue, leaving only the reigning monarch and a homicidal psychopath.

However, an absolute primogeniture issue based around an heir being completely unsuitable for the throne could work. Perhaps -- to sidestep autonomy problems -- it's the 175^TH heir in another country that went axe-crazy and slaughtered their family, and your advisors would like to point out that the monarch's heir's been doing some slightly -- but less extreme -- strange things recently.

Buy guy, I was being generic. I meant person. Either case, thanks

[Jutsa]

Fun fact: I actually never use guy to refer to males; in fact, I mostly say "male". I always use guy to refer to people or little critters.
I'd use it for critters larger than humans, but I don't know of any personally.

[Australian rePublic]

Any issues about white man's burden? I mean, I know we have one titled such, but that's unrelated to the concept

Fun fact: I actually never use guy to refer to males; in fact, I mostly say "male". I always use guy to refer to people or little critters.
I'd use it for critters larger than humans, but I don't know of any personally.

Elephants, whales, kangaroos, dinosaurs, dragons...

[Trotterdam]

Any issues about white man's burden? I mean, I know we have one titled such, but that's unrelated to the concept

As in, the idea that it is advanced civilizations' "duty" to guide and enlighten lesser primitives?

I don't think there's anything that quite calls it out, but do look at, for example, #129, particularly option 2/3.

For a milder form, look at any issue that addresses foreign aid.

Elephants, whales, kangaroos, dinosaurs, dragons...

I assume Jutsa meant he doesn't interact with any individuals of those species in his life, not that he is unaware those species exist (or don't exist, for dragons).

[Jutsa]

Dragons don't exist? Then why did I write that issue about them!

Ftr I'm about 98% certain that one didn't make the cut

[Australian rePublic]

Any issues about white man's burden? I mean, I know we have one titled such, but that's unrelated to the concept

As in, the idea that it is advanced civilizations' "duty" to guide and enlighten lesser primitives?

I don't think there's anything that quite calls it out, but do look at, for example, #129, particularly option 2/3.

For a milder form, look at any issue that addresses foreign aid.

Elephants, whales, kangaroos, dinosaurs, dragons...

I assume Jutsa meant he doesn't interact with any individuals of those species in his life, not that he is unaware those species exist (or don't exist, for dragons).

Thanks

[Baggieland]

I've got an idea bouncing around inside my brain at the moment:

Validity: only for nations with capital punishment.

Description: @@NAME@@'s executioner just died (in a bizarre way), who will replace him?

Volunteer 1: I will only use the most humane way - lethal injection.

Volunteer 2: an old timer who wants to bring back the good old days of hanging.

Volunteer 3: the sadist who wants all the horrific methods of biblical times.

So basically it's an issue on what method of exection the state wishes to choose.

[Zwangzug]

I think that's 631? Although "the executioner died in a bizarre way" is new, and amusing

[Trotterdam]

Yes, sounds too similar to #631.

Also, unless your nation only very rarely uses the death penalty, you would have more than one executioner.

Although "the executioner died in a bizarre way" is new, and amusing

I think it would only be amusing if he died of being convicted of a capital crime.

[Baggieland]

Thanks, I had a feeling it was covered already, but wasn't sure.

However, while googling 'bizarre ways to die', I came across the case of a guy in England who, while watching an episode of The Goodies (British comedy show from the 70s), laughed continuously for the entire 25 minutes, the died of a heart attack due to the strain on his heart.

How about an issue on banning comedy?

I know there are a few options out there with a grumpy old guy persona who want to ban fun things, but a whole issue on banning all forms of comedic entertainment? Will it fly?

[Trotterdam]

However, while googling 'bizarre ways to die', I came across the case of a guy in England who, while watching an episode of The Goodies (British comedy show from the 70s), laughed continuously for the entire 25 minutes, the died of a heart attack due to the strain on his heart.

How about an issue on banning comedy?

I read about that one.

Mind you, his wife sent the series' makers a thank-you letter for making his last moments happy ones.

He was already 50 years old at the time, and was later concluded to have had a genetic condition that made his heart weak, so he was probably due to go one of these days anyway.

[The Free Joy State]

Thanks, I had a feeling it was covered already, but wasn't sure.

However, while googling 'bizarre ways to die', I came across the case of a guy in England who, while watching an episode of The Goodies (British comedy show from the 70s), laughed continuously for the entire 25 minutes, the died of a heart attack due to the strain on his heart.

How about an issue on banning comedy?

I know there are a few options out there with a grumpy old guy persona who want to ban fun things, but a whole issue on banning all forms of comedic entertainment? Will it fly?

I don't see why not. We have one on banning breathing. My very first published draft had an option to completely ban laughter (another option in the issue cracked down on joviality in working hours).

Extreme banning issues are always fun.

[Sanctaria]

Just as a quasi-PSA, apropos to Baggieland's post, now that we've surpassed 1,000 issues in-game, the team are more open to issues that are very niche or that do display limited overlap.

Obviously it's going to be on a case-by-case basis, so we can't issue general guidelines on this, but other contributors telling you that there's already something similar on the books or that the issue would probably only be valid for a hundred or so nations shouldn't really stop you from doing up a couple of drafts.

The benefit to this is that us Editors can see where your mind is going on a topic, and we're better placed to tell you if the overlap is too significant for publication or if the topic is way too niche or something @@LEADER@@ just wouldn't bother with. And, of course, the more drafts you do the better. Even if it's not accepted because of the aforementioned, or even other, problems, it's good practice.