The Writers' Block

[The Free Joy State]

On a side note, if I remember correctly, having your citizens be made in vats also bans biological reproduction, right? If so, is there an issue that lets you keep vat grown citizens while reversing the ban on sex? Or are these completely unrelated? Also, I was going to start drafting issues based on policies. Is there a list of all known policies in NS?

Having vat-grown citizens does not ban sex, merely reproductive sex.

Issue #1113 clarifies that.

[The Sherpa Empire]

Okay, I have been WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too gone for far too long (brain cancer if wondering) and as such I have really been inactive on what has been drafted/authored since like a year ago. Has there been anything drafted along the lines of a brexit-like issue?

Wow, glad you survived the brain cancer. Welcome back.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I'm okay for now. I just want to get back in the drafting grove to make me feel better for the time being. Being away from NS really started depressing me more than I already was.

Good to see you back, we've missed you.

[Trotterdam]

On a side note, if I remember correctly, having your citizens be made in vats also bans biological reproduction, right? If so, is there an issue that lets you keep vat grown citizens while reversing the ban on sex?

Yes or no, depending on what you mean by "sex".

I suspect one problem with this is that the idea of vat-grown people is a kind of radical-science-fiction concept that the editors half-regret putting in the usually-modern-day-tech game. Allowing it to exist in nations that aren't totally crazy by banning normal reproduction entirely would mean that far too many nations would pick it as a "might as well" option just to raise their scientific advancement.

There has, however, been an issue on the permissibility of non-reproductive sex in nations that use vats. Oddly, it doesn't even acknowledge the sterilization mentioned in vat-introducing options and assumes that your citizens can still reproduce sexually, but are simply punished by law for doing so.

Is there a list of all known policies in NS?

Over here.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Don't go ascribing motivations to the editors, Trotterdam.

I've certainly personally expressed the opinion that vat people might not have been the sort of scifi that fits the NS game, but that was my personal opinion, and also it was something that happened before I was even a player of the game.

I certainly don't speak for the editing teams collective regrets or half-regrets, so you probably shouldn't do so either.

Personally, even with my reservations over whether it fits the game's tech level and stories, I'm still entertained by it, of course. Enough so, in fact, that I've wrote #1003, an issue conditional on that tech's existence, which FJS kindly published.

[Trotterdam]

Okay, fine. So you tell me. Is there room in the game for a way to allow vat-grown people as well as reproductive sex in the same nation?

Because if so, #1028 3 should have this outcome. It has already been the subject of repeated complaints from players who did not expect from its text that it would ban sexual reproduction rather than merely offering an alternative.

[Bears Armed]

I see that the 'black market 'stat still hasn't been fixed. Roumberre just received issue 1141 'The trolley Problem'. and chose option #1: Let a panel vet the suggested names for suitability before the pubic gets to vote... and the nation's black market increased.

A black market in unofficial names for trolley-cars?!?

[Sanctaria]

I see that the 'balck market 'stat still hasn't been fixed. Roumberre just received issue 1141 'The trolley Problem'. and chose option #1: Let a panel vet the suggested names for suitability before the pubic gets to vote... and the nation's black market increased.

A black market in unofficial names for trolley-cars?!?

This is NationStates.

Don't go giving me crazy new industry ideas.

[Sanctaria]

On a side note, if I remember correctly, having your citizens be made in vats also bans biological reproduction, right? If so, is there an issue that lets you keep vat grown citizens while reversing the ban on sex?

I had an idea that I honestly can't be bothered to write (I iz lazy, soz GI).

Quoting myself because I don't wanna retype it:

I think an issue where the lack of biological/genetic differences is causing problems, maybe in blood/organ supply, but the vat people would be good for stuff like manual labour/army etc would be interesting
you'd inadvertently unlock the slavery, and possibly conscription, policies.

[Eaischpnaeieacgkque Bhcieaghpodsttditf]

I think an issue where the lack of biological/genetic differences is causing problems, maybe in blood/organ supply, but the vat people would be good for stuff like manual labour/army etc would be interesting
you'd inadvertently unlock the slavery, and possibly conscription, policies.

That honestly sounds like something I can work with. Is it okay if I ask for your permission to use your idea to create a draft on that concept?

[USS Monitor]

That honestly sounds like something I can work with. Is it okay if I ask for your permission to use your idea to create a draft on that concept?

That is from a conversation the team had on Discord, and I believe it was intended to be something you could use.

[Australian rePublic]

Brain cancer. Shit man! Are you okay?

I'm okay for now. I just want to get back in the drafting grove to make me feel better for the time being. Being away from NS really started depressing me more than I already was.

I wish you all the best.

[Australian rePublic]

Based on CWA's post:
viewtopic.php?p=35242951#p35242951

K
I want to do an issue about inappropriate hugging (Titled "That was Cold"). I don't know about whether @@LEADER@@ should hug a foreign leader, a foreign leader should hug @@LEADER@@, or two drafts in parallel. If two drafts in parallel, maybe one could be titled "I feel a warm spot". Also, finally an oppertunity for a Greek cultural issue to come out. What do you guys think?

Further, any issues about which colour that you can paint your house (similar to Greek islands)?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Sorry, I meant that I was going to draft on that topic, and indeed I just have done...

Re: housepainting, that sounds new to me. There's an issue about repainting the city in general I think and one about allowing creatively hideous architecture, but not about limiting what colours are allowed.

[Australian rePublic]

Sorry, I meant that I was going to draft on that topic, and indeed I just have done...

Re: housepainting, that sounds new to me. There's an issue about repainting the city in general I think and one about allowing creatively hideous architecture, but not about limiting what colours are allowed.

Hmm... maybe I could work on that. At one published issue about my Greek culture will probably shut me up about the lack of issues about my Greek culture (the more I have, the more likely I am to shut up about it)

[Australian rePublic]

Any issues about multicultralism?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Any issues about multicultralism?

Um... lots and lots of them? There's a whole stat relating to inclusiveness, and around half the time it's referring to multicultural inclusiveness.

[Jutsa]

Alright, I have a big question: would anyone (editors and authors) be up for collaborating on an issue draft for commended/condemned nations?

I had written a little draft a short while ago. I personally think it's good!
... but only "good".

I feel like if it's this specific an issue, it oughta be as well-polished and humorous as possible,
cause otherwise I'm sure the editors wouldn't want to add something so niche.
As such, I was wondering if maybe the fellow authors here on-site would be interested in collaborating on such an idea.

Of course, I'd rather not do that without an editor's green light, so I also'd like to ask the editors if:
a) this idea's even OK to go with and b) if it's OK for non-editors to work on such an idea.
Cause more than anything, if something like this were permitted to be added, I'd want this to be of some of the highest quality.

[Chan Island]

Alright, I have a big question: would anyone (editors and authors) be up for collaborating on an issue draft for commended/condemned nations?

I had written a little draft a short while ago. I personally think it's good!
... but only "good".

I feel like if it's this specific an issue, it oughta be as well-polished and humorous as possible,
cause otherwise I'm sure the editors wouldn't want to add something so niche.
As such, I was wondering if maybe the fellow authors here on-site would be interested in collaborating on such an idea.

Of course, I'd rather not do that without an editor's green light, so I also'd like to ask the editors if:
a) this idea's even OK to go with and b) if it's OK for non-editors to work on such an idea.
Cause more than anything, if something like this were permitted to be added, I'd want this to be of some of the highest quality.

Yeah, I'm up for such a colab.

[Poiob]

Hey! Relative newcomer to NationStates here! I've been reading that this is the place to to talk about improving existing issues, so here I am!
I'm still getting my bearings around the social side of things, but I've definitely enjoyed my first few weeks on NationStates.

So I had a big shock to my nation recently. Poiob had a very strong Civil Rights score ("Frightening") as well as very high (no pun intended) Recreational Drug Use, Nudity, and Crime scores.
I encountered issue No. 638, and chose the second option (allow children into the military).

My main issue is that this invoked the 'Conscription' policy, and I don't think having orphans in the military has anything to do with having a nationwide requirement for all citizens to be in the military. That seems like a non-sequitur. I suspect that my receiving the 'Conscription' policy is the primary reason why Recreational Drug Use, Nudity, and Crime all fell so drastically in addition to some other effects (like it seems that Law Enforcement rose substantially).
A more minor issue is that I received a major hit to my civil rights' score too in addition to the large aforementioned score drops, none of which I have managed to recover from yet to my flustered but amused chagrin (Maybe my civil rights' score is harder to raise now because I have conscription?), whereas I thought I was taking an extreme pro- civil rights stance by treating children like adults, not unlike extreme pro- civil rights choices I'd been making on other issues. I didn't choose option 3, but I'm guessing it invokes the Child Labor policy and that its malices are similar to or the same as option 2's but that its benefits are improvements to economic factors rather than Law Enforcement and Defense Forces.

Granted, I may not have been interpreting the choices correctly. I read the choices as either: (1) put the orphans on welfare so they don't starve and die, (2) allow them into the military so they don't starve and die, and (3) allow them to get jobs and receive paid wages so they don't starve and die. So I read both option 2 and 3 as being technically non-compulsory, since the orphans would have a "choice" about whether to be in the military or the labour market, whereas before they were stuck on the streets with no opportunity because the orphanages were non-functional, and of course option 1 is compulsory in the extremely technical sense but who doesn't want free money?
Of course, in reality the orphans wouldn't have much of a choice in any case because (A) the alternative is extreme poverty and (B) they're children and therefore not mentally developed enough to make the same kind of decisions adults do. Still, I saw options 2 and 3 as endorsements of "excessive" personal freedom and civil rights, because they were offering choices and alternatives to people who wouldn't otherwise have choices and be instead left in extreme poverty (except, again, these people are children and aren't qualified to consent to these choices, but alas the hilarious extremism of NationStates). Even if choosing any of these options didn't result in an increase of Civil Rights, at the very least they shouldn't have led to a decrease since, like in option 1, the children are now being supported and have more life prospects than previously (again leaving aside whether it is moral to allow children into either industry or the military).

That being said, I could totally see how if my nation already had either 'Conscription' or 'Slavery' as policies then the assumption would be, with option 2, that orphans across the nation would be automatically conscripted into military combat units (or even that the age of mandatory recruitment would drop for all citizens generally) due to society seeing Conscription as normal and, with option 3, that the children would be forced into a form of paid indentured servitude due to society already endorsing Slavery, in both cases warranting a reduction in the civil rights' score. But my country's government didn't have either policy til I made my choice and is so laid-back and hands off that it often allows freedom to the point of negligence. I mean, Poiob allows cannibalism "as long as it's consensual".

So my suggested fixes to the issue are these:

(1) There should be a new policy called 'Child Soldiers' or 'Child Combat' to mirror 'Child Labor'. This new policy would refer to the presence of children in the military and could exist alongside or independent from the policies of Conscription, Child Labor, and Slavery. Not sure if it could co-exist with 'Child Self-Rearing'.

(2) The issue should be re-written to include six options instead of three.
(a) Option 1 would be the same: prop up the orphans with welfare money.
(b) Option 2 would be broken down into two different options: (i) the option with the description we already have, and (ii) a new option to additionally start recruiting all the nation's citizens at the same age as the orphans.
(c) Option 3 would also be broken into two different options: (i) an option to offer jobs to the orphans and pay them, and (ii) to force the orphans into labor without pay.
(d) The last option could be to drop them off far away from civilization to fend for themselves (this option could be limited to nations with substantially intact wilderness).

(e) The options would have the following effects:
(i) Option 1's effects would be presumably the same (I didn't pick it so I have no idea what the effects are).
(ii) Option 2-1 would not affect Civil Rights either way, but it would introduce the Child Soliders/Combat policy if the nation doesn't already have it. Option 2-2 would have a penalty to Civil Rights and would introduce both Child Soliders/Combat and Conscription if the nation didn't have the policies before.
(iii) Option 3-1 would not affect Civil Rights either way, but it would introduce the Child Labor policy if the nation doesn't already have it. Option 3-2 would have a penalty to Civil Rights and would introduce both Child Labor and Slavery if the nation didn't have the policies before.
(iv) Finally, option 4 would include in its effects activating 'Child Self-Rearing', a policy I haven't encountered yet but which sounds hilarious.

So in conclusion, I totally misread what kind of effects each choice was supposed to have. I hope I've made a good case about why the choices and their effects are pretty confusing. I would be very willing to edit or re-write the issue if given the opportunity; I've never done that before (like I said, I'm new) so I'd need to be walked through the steps. That being said, I have the interest to do it and it would be no hassle on my part. Also, nice to meet you all!

[The Free Joy State]

*snip*

Hello, Poiob,

Welcome to Got Issues?

It's nice that you've taken an interest in NationStates issues. We're keen to welcome interested players.

1) "Conscription" refers to compulsory military service. The orphans are being compelled to serve in the military, so this is not misnamed. It does not have to be national, but can be -- and often is -- based on gender or age.

Your civil rights change will be better explained in this post, especially under "Why did my civil rights / political freedom / economy move the wrong way?"

Basically, civil rights in the game are solely freedom from government control. The conscription is coerced, which lowered civil rights. The Unusual Effects Thread is the place to ask about unexpected changes to stats in future, but always read the opening post first.

2) A new Child Soldiers policy. That may potentially be viable, if only as a backstage policy (not all policies are visible). I suggest that -- if you want to see that -- you write a new issue that would necessitate such a policy. Right here in GI would be the best place.

You couldn't submit yet, but that gives you plenty more drafting time.

We have lots of experienced Issues authors and editors here in GI to help you. I suggest you look in Jutsa's excellent spoiler list of current issues, to avoid overlapping with current issues before you begin.

New policies are only added by consensus and as necessary.

3) Rewriting #638. We're hesitant to rewrite old issues, unless for a decided and obvious benefit to the story (or -- in the case of technological issues -- if the original is widely felt out-of-pace with current developments). And adding multiple options to an issue will never be popular (the usual maximum length of an issue -- except very short "list issues" -- is five options; and most issues have three or four).

I feel the issue tells a very complete story as-is.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Alright, I have a big question: would anyone (editors and authors) be up for collaborating on an issue draft for commended/condemned nations?

I had written a little draft a short while ago. I personally think it's good!
... but only "good".

I feel like if it's this specific an issue, it oughta be as well-polished and humorous as possible,
cause otherwise I'm sure the editors wouldn't want to add something so niche.
As such, I was wondering if maybe the fellow authors here on-site would be interested in collaborating on such an idea.

Of course, I'd rather not do that without an editor's green light, so I also'd like to ask the editors if:
a) this idea's even OK to go with and b) if it's OK for non-editors to work on such an idea.
Cause more than anything, if something like this were permitted to be added, I'd want this to be of some of the highest quality.

I'm not sure the code exists for that validity check, you might want to ask in Technical first.

In narrative terms though, I'm not averse to the concept, though of course it'd have to meet the same bar of writing quality that any other issue needs to meet to warrant inclusion.

[The Blaatschapen]

Did Luna mod-eject a puppet to test this back in the day?

On the playground mirror site, yeah. If you give me a button, I'm totally going to press it.

There are safeguards against a mod clearing TRR (or any other major region) on the main site.

Yeah, unfortunately.

Clearing TRR was always one of my favourite modly hypotheticals.

[Jutsa]

I'm not sure the code exists for that validity check, you might want to ask in Technical first.

In narrative terms though, I'm not averse to the concept, though of course it'd have to meet the same bar of writing quality that any other issue needs to meet to warrant inclusion.

I seem to recall... I think it was Ransium, saying it was possible, but it would definitely be a good idea to check.
Besides, I could be completely misremembering and Ransium may've never said that in his wildest dreams;
don't wanna accidentally say someone said something if they didn't, let alone a mod.

Glad to read you'd be alright with it, though.

Yeah, I'm up for such a colab.

Sweet! Lets do this thing >:3
(well after I check technical)

[Poiob]

*snip*

Hello, Poiob,

Welcome to Got Issues?

It's nice that you've taken an interest in NationStates issues. We're keen to welcome interested players.

Hello, Joy! It's nice to be welcomed!

1) "Conscription" refers to compulsory military service. The orphans are being compelled to serve in the military, so this is not misnamed. It does not have to be national, but can be -- and often is -- based on gender or age.

The text of Conscription says: "A period of military service is compulsory for all citizens." Letting child orphans into the military, possibly voluntarily, isn't the same as forcing all citizens to join the military. Clearly, I think we need another policy that refers to child soldiers.

Your civil rights change will be better explained in this post, especially under "Why did my civil rights / political freedom / economy move the wrong way?"

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! I did actually read that thread before I wrote my post.

Basically, civil rights in the game are solely freedom from government control. The conscription is coerced, which lowered civil rights. The Unusual Effects Thread is the place to ask about unexpected changes to stats in future, but always read the opening post first.

I understand where you're coming from, but does that mean that choosing any option on this issue lowers civil rights because fewer orphans are being let alone to be "free" on the street? I'm not convinced that's the case.
At least I don't think the issue has anything to do with civil rights or freedom from government, or at most none of the choices ought to lower civil rights.

An analogous situation would be if the government hires the homeless to help clean up a polluted environment. Technically the government is "coercing" them by offering them jobs, and there may even be some risk involved, but their personal freedom isn't really any lower since their freedom can't be said to have been more before the government took action, especially due to them previously having fewer opportunities. For personal freedom to go down, the government needs to be rescinding recognition of a specific freedom, like the right to privacy, the right to take drugs, the right to eat meat, the right to dress a certain way, etc., leaving the citizens fewer choices than before, whereas in this case the people involved are child orphans who under the law don't have any of the freedoms of adults til the state starts offering them some, so it's hard to argue that their personal freedom becomes less by the government taking any of the proactive stances in this situation.

To use another example, suppose an issue comes up about the unhappiness of children with school uniforms. The first choice is to remove the requirement for school uniforms, the second choice is to discipline students who make fun of the uniform, the third choice is to change the school uniform to something else, the fourth choice is to ban wearing the currently required uniform, and the fifth choice is to move children who don't like the uniforms to a different school. In the first choice, the civil rights of the children are clearly being increased, since at the start of the scenario being schoolchildren they had to wear the school uniform whereas now it's optional for them to wear it. The second choice could lower the children's civil rights, because they previously had the freedom to make fun of the school uniform but now they'll be punished for it, but only slightly because this isn't far outside the school's existing regimen for disciplining students. The third choice is a net neutral, since even though they have lost the freedom to wear the original uniform they now have the freedom to wear a different uniform. The fourth choice is lowering the children's personal freedom, since children that liked wearing the school uniform now can't. And finally the fifth choice, even though it's the most drastic, is also a net neutral, because being schoolchildren they were being required to go to school anyway, so changing the school they go to even though it's a big change instigated by the government isn't decreasing or increasing their freedom; in fact, if moving to the new school is being offered as optional rather than mandatory then the fifth choice could even result in a small net increase in personal freedom, since the children now have a choice they didn't have previously.

The fifth choice is analogous to the choices being presented in issue 638. The children are moving from one kind of situation to a different kind of situation, but being children they had fewer rights than adults to start with and had previously been living in a situation of life-threatening endangerment and little personal choice. You could make the case that letting them into the military or letting them work in factories is going to be dangerous to them and constitutes child endangerment (which it most certainly does constitute), but so is dismissing the issue and leaving them alone unsupervised and uncared for in a situation of extreme poverty, which may possibly be even worse; so the level of child endangerment isn't clearly being increased in the children's new situations and may even be decreased depending upon their exact circumstances (plus it's not clear in the issue's wording whether or not any of the children can "opt out" of changing their situation).

2) A new Child Soldiers policy. That may potentially be viable, if only as a backstage policy (not all policies are visible). I suggest that -- if you want to see that -- you write a new issue that would necessitate such a policy. Right here in GI would be the best place.

You couldn't submit yet, but that gives you plenty more drafting time.

We have lots of experienced Issues authors and editors here in GI to help you. I suggest you look in Jutsa's excellent spoiler list of current issues, to avoid overlapping with current issues before you begin.

New policies are only added by consensus and as necessary.

Very cool. I'm in no rush to be honest.

That being said, I think the policy of Conscription is a very poor substitute for a hypothetical policy of Child Soldiers, and the fact that I now have Conscription has caused me to gain issues that don't make any sense. For example, I got an issue about adult conscientious objectors (issue 313) which clearly doesn't make sense if the people being assumedly coerced to join my military are exclusively orphan children. And again, the child orphans enlisting in the military could be joining up voluntarily as a means to escape destitute poverty; it's not clear from the wording of the choices presented in issue 638 that orphans can't opt out if they really want to.

3) Rewriting #638. We're hesitant to rewrite old issues, unless for a decided and obvious benefit to the story (or -- in the case of technological issues -- if the original is widely felt out-of-pace with current developments). And adding multiple options to an issue will never be popular (the usual maximum length of an issue -- except very short "list issues" -- is five options; and most issues have three or four).

I feel the issue tells a very complete story as-is.

I agree that having a re-write isn't absolutely necessary; the silver lining is that the wording's lack of clarity about the proposals may allow the situation to be interpreted differently by different nations (for example, nations getting the issue which already have Conscription or Slavery), thus "adapting" the issue to different kinds of societies. That being said, I obviously think that some of the effects of the choices should be reviewed since I believe they make unwarranted assumptions, such as about the nature of the recruitment of the orphans, and I'm not at all convinced that given the current presentation of issue 638 that gaining the Conscription policy makes sense given Conscription's description of affecting "all citizens" and the kind of issues that are sent to the player as a result of having the policy.