NationStates

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:36 am**

People without senses of humour shouldn't play games based on humour.

Or to put it another way, if you've got a stick in your bum, don't sit on a whoopee cushion.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:13 am**

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Or to put it another way, if you've got a stick in your bum, don't sit on a whoopee cushion.

This made me laugh way too hard.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:42 am**

Got some inspiration from the "Casino Ahoy" draft.

Bears Armed wrote:Too hard to do legally without banning all boats from leaving the nation's waters (which, admittedly, could be the basis of an additional issue)?

My idea was to have a boat go missing, then have people discuss ideas to prevent that from happening again.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:26 pm**

Quick question: AI Personhood is synonomous with citizenship, and thus obligation and protection under the law, yes?

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:20 pm**

The Super Fork wrote:My idea was to have a boat go missing, then have people discuss ideas to prevent that from happening again.

Something like the Bermuda Triangle could be an interesting take on this. :lol:

For sure, safety of fishermen and cruise liners is an interesting idea.
Hypothetically an option banning them for environmental reasons among other things could be kinda funny. :lol:

(hypothetically wouldn't affect oil rigs or navy vessels)

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:20 pm**

Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners wrote:Quick question: AI Personhood is synonomous with citizenship, and thus obligation and protection under the law, yes?

From what I could tell, yes.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:02 pm**

Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners wrote:Quick question: AI Personhood is synonomous with citizenship, and thus obligation and protection under the law, yes?

The description of the policy is: "Artificial beings are legally recognized citizens." The options for introducing it say "These beings have just as much of a right to citizenship as the rest of us," and "Our androids won't be sold as slaves. Instead, they shall be free as and equal to any other @@DEMONYMNOUN@@". So I'd say yes.

Posted: **Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:32 pm**

Jutsa wrote:
Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners wrote:Quick question: AI Personhood is synonomous with citizenship, and thus obligation and protection under the law, yes?

From what I could tell, yes.

Trotterdam wrote:
Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners wrote:Quick question: AI Personhood is synonomous with citizenship, and thus obligation and protection under the law, yes?
The description of the policy is: "Artificial beings are legally recognized citizens." The options for introducing it say "These beings have just as much of a right to citizenship as the rest of us," and "Our androids won't be sold as slaves. Instead, they shall be free as and equal to any other @@DEMONYMNOUN@@". So I'd say yes.

Cool, thanks. That description also leave some narrative room to explore exactly what "free" and "equal" mean, too...

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 9:47 am**

Gonna run by two rather odd ideas to see if either are remotely pursuable:

1) An issue about a male minister having a rather "awkward" situation due to labido (which is kinda similar to #799 but a different problem regardless)
and
2) An issue about @@LEADER@@ getting sick just before an important meeting (should he go and possibly get everyone else sick or should he stay home and miss it)

idk, just kinda thought about both after coming out from a nap and I'm having trouble judging them rn.

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 10:50 am**

413 is quite old. Given that the description says that measles was wiped out "50 years ago", it might have since been 55 or even 60 (let's increase by intervals of 5). Does this need an update? In either case, this matter will come up sooner or later, I think it might be easier to just say "decades ago"

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:18 pm**

Is the "State Surveilance" policy no longer a thing?

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:24 pm**

Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners wrote:Is the "State Surveilance" policy no longer a thing?

Nope.

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:40 pm**

Trotterdam wrote:Nope.

Trotterdam wrote:...I'm guessing it's because of the policy's narrative unreliability, as it was really a pseudo-policy assigned to nations with very low privacy rights (even if those low privacy rights were due to the ability of corporations or other citizens to spy on each other, rather than the government doing so).

I see. I was wondering, given possible implications for having SAL9000 appear in one of my drafts. Although I suppose SAL isn't really the state, per se, so having him spy on everyone doesn't really imply State Surveillance either.

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:43 pm**

I always figured SAL was a girl's name. To the degree gender can be applied to robots.

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:46 pm**

Funnily enough SAL9000 is the canon successor to HAL9000.

Also ^^^^^^

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:04 pm**

Jutsa wrote:Funnily enough SAL9000 is the canon successor to HAL9000.

Also ^^^^^^

Trotterdam wrote:I always figured SAL was a girl's name. To the degree gender can be applied to robots.

It's short for Sallyvador, yes?

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:43 pm**

Could be a reference, but SAL9000 and HAL9000 were both computers appearing in 2010 The Year We Make Contact,
which itself was a sequel to 2001 Space Odyssey (which in of itself was made after a book I believe; HAL9000 was in this one)

I've never watched the second movie ftr, but I do know SAL9000 is canon. And pretty much just as chilling, from that one scene I've seen of it.

Posted: **Thu Apr 11, 2019 7:52 pm**

Jutsa wrote:Could be a reference, but SAL9000 and HAL9000 were both computers appearing in 2010 The Year We Make Contact,
which itself was a sequel to 2000 Space Odyssey (which in of itself was made after a book I believe; HAL9000 was in this one)

I've never watched the second movie ftr, but I do know SAL9000 is canon. And pretty much just as chilling, from that one scene I've seen of it.

Oh, I see. Sorry, I though you meant NS canon. :oops:

I have seen 2010 but apparently it was as forgettable as I remember.

Posted: **Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:22 am**

I've seen both the movie and the book of 2001, but not any of the sequels. As usual, the book was way better - despite that in this case the book actually came out slightly after the movie (they were made in parallel).

Posted: **Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:54 am**

The movie was........

well......

yeah. :rofl:

Posted: **Fri Apr 12, 2019 7:27 pm**

So I do have a somewhat silly issue idea.

Basically, it would be based on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke#Backlash

Premise: The total switch of the national soft drink by the company manufacturing the drink, has caused an uproar in the rural communities. Demanding the government forces the company to continue the old receipt.

Is this a somewhat palatable premise?

Posted: **Fri Apr 12, 2019 7:35 pm**

Seems kinda silly, but I really like it.

Thing is, we already have at least 3 cola corporations (Addison Cola, Eckie-Cola, and Eckie-Ecola; yes those are all canonically different.),
so I'd either pick another drink or, weirdly, a fourth cola.
Using an existing name would pose complications with other issues, and having anything not soda-related would be less satire-feeling.

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:09 am**

What would you think of the following issue ideas:
1. Safe seats get no ignored, whilst pollies bend over backward for marginal seats?
2. @@LEADER@@ wasting @@HIS@@ time dealing with a local issues meant for a local MP, because @@HE@@ too is an MP?
3. A foreign country claiming @@DENONYM@@ heritage and/or land due to ansestral heritage (e.g. Palestinians claiming Jebusite heritage, Turks claiming Hittite ansestry, North Macedonians claiming ancient Macedonian heritage), similar to my botched "Save Jeevoosh" proposal

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 6:28 am**

Australian rePublic wrote:1. Safe seats get no ignored, whilst pollies bend over backward for marginal seats?

Depending how it was executed and what options were presented, I could see that being an interesting issue with lots of Political Freedom implications.

2. @@LEADER@@ wasting @@HIS@@ time dealing with a local issues meant for a local MP, because @@HE@@ too is an MP?

I don't think there's any way to make the assumption necessary for this to work. I'm not aware of a "Leader is MP" flag or issue.

3. A foreign country claiming @@DENONYM@@ heritage and/or land due to ansestral heritage (e.g. Palestinians claiming Jebusite heritage, Turks claiming Hittite ansestry, North Macedonians claiming ancient Macedonian heritage), similar to my botched "Save Jeevoosh" proposal

I feel like maybe there's something like this out there? It would have to be sufficiently different from the other issues related to native culture rights.

Posted: **Sat Apr 13, 2019 6:44 am**

Verdant Haven wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:1. Safe seats get no ignored, whilst pollies bend over backward for marginal seats?

Depending how it was executed and what options were presented, I could see that being an interesting issue with lots of Political Freedom implications.

Thanks

2. @@LEADER@@ wasting @@HIS@@ time dealing with a local issues meant for a local MP, because @@HE@@ too is an MP?

I don't think there's any way to make the assumption necessary for this to work. I'm not aware of a "Leader is MP" flag or issue.

That's the Westminster System.

3. A foreign country claiming @@DENONYM@@ heritage and/or land due to ansestral heritage (e.g. Palestinians claiming Jebusite heritage, Turks claiming Hittite ansestry, North Macedonians claiming ancient Macedonian heritage), similar to my botched "Save Jeevoosh" proposal

I feel like maybe there's something like this out there? It would have to be sufficiently different from the other issues related to native culture rights.

Nope. Different. Palestine claims Israel by claiming that they're decendants of the Jebusites, who, according to the Old Testament, were driven out of Jerasulem by God post Exodus. The difference between natives and Jebusites is that we know who's decendant from natives. We don't know if the Jebusites existed, much less whose decendant from them. Plus, colonisation of native land is only a few centuries old at most, whilst conquest of Jebus happened millenia ago, and thousands of years of history have passed since the conquest.
__________________________
I also have three more ideas for issues... I don't wanna do them, so someone else can
1. Slave shortage
A. Kidnap peasents from @@NAME@@
B. Kidnap people from less powerful countries
C. Start A War to enslave people
D. Abolish slavery

2. What to do with released slaves
A. Intograte them into society
B. New country (i.e. Liberia)
C. Reenstate slavery

3. People occupied @@NAME@@ before the indigenous @@DENONYM@@ did, but were driven out by the Indigenous @@DENONYM@@. What does this mean for the Indigenous @@DENONYM@@
1. They pose their rights
2. They keep their rights
3. Sweep it under the rug

NationStates

The Writers' Block