NationStates

Trotterdam wrote:That does appear to be the only issue that specifically addresses nations with sortition, although several other issues can remove the Sortition policy as a result of people complaining about not having democracy in general, which are assigned to both sortition-using nations and autocracies, or as a result of switching to autocracy.

Good to know! I had an idea or two for issues that target nations with Sortition/Lottocracy specifically, so now I know there's room to operate

If a Nation has the 'No Judiciary' policy, and someone was accused of a crime, would the Nation have an Administrative Tribunal or something, under the Executive power, where the accused could make arguments and present evidence, but with no lawyers involved?

Going by the issues that ban the courts, the assumption is that the policy means there are no argument-based courts at all, and that guilt is determined by other means. What those other means are could vary, from police dispensing summary justice, to trial by combat, to TV-based mass voting. Regardless, due process doesn't exist.

In terms of issue writing, the best bet is to make no narrative assumption other than the absence of courts. You can't write as if you know what system has taken its place.

Herr's an issue idea for whoever wants it

I've seen a countryball animation which I thought would make an excellent NS issue. Picture a Hindu nation at war. The nation's enemy decides to march 5000 weaponised ox carts across the boarder. The weapons are pretty weak, but can cause a lot of damage. The only way, however, to do anything anything to prevent the weapons from causing damage is to kill the oxen, but you can't kill the oxen because they're sacred. What do you do?
Apparently, this has happened in the real world too, in ancient times. As cats were considered sacred in Ancient Egypt, the Persians shielded themselves with cats when fighting against Egypt

Australian rePublic wrote:Herr's an issue idea for whoever wants it

I've seen a countryball animation which I thought would make an excellent NS issue. Picture a Hindu nation at war. The nation's enemy decides to march 5000 weaponised ox carts across the boarder. The weapons are pretty weak, but can cause a lot of damage. The only way, however, to do anything anything to prevent the weapons from causing damage is to kill the oxen, but you can't kill the oxen because they're sacred. What do you do?
Apparently, this has happened in the real world too, in ancient times. As cats were considered sacred in Ancient Egypt, the Persians shielded themselves with cats when fighting against Egypt

That's an interesting idea. Perhaps it could be written out using the nation's national animal? And maybe it wouldn't affect nations that aren't highly religious/superstitious...

That's basically a lighter and softer version of the more universal question of what to do if your enemy employs child soldiers.

I've had some ideas about an issue along those lines ever since someone suggested it in passing a long time ago, but was held back by the feeling that it's a violation of player autonomy to just suddenly say your nation is in a major war without any buildup, and I don't have enough material to justify an entire issue chain (plus the editors have said that they're really not looking for a second war-based one anyway).

I'm not sure this scenario really applies in modern day warfare. There's so many ways to deliver an explosive payload, it just makes no sense to send it at walking speed.

The modern day equivalent ethical dilemma would be when enemy insurgents are planting their AA missile launchers on top of hospitals or civilian tower blocks, preventing you from making strikes against them because of the "human shield" factor.

In the mean time worked on a rewrite of a poorly written issue quite some months ago and am now almost satisfied with the draft, wanting to tweak some lines still before posting the draft. The only thing I want to ask advice about is the title.

The working title is 'Ill Drill' because 'Ill' meaning poor in quality and 'drill' meaning systematic training by multiple repetitions. Wondering if it was possible, and advisable, to only use the word 'Drill' with and exclamation mark and putting an emphasis on 'ill', so something like DRILL! Thoughts.

1263, why is @@LEADER@@ signing his/her niece's permission slips when @@LEADER@@ is not her guardian?

The Rhein States wrote:In the mean time worked on a rewrite of a poorly written issue quite some months ago and am now almost satisfied with the draft, wanting to tweak some lines still before posting the draft. The only thing I want to ask advice about is the title.

The working title is 'Ill Drill' because 'Ill' meaning poor in quality and 'drill' meaning systematic training by multiple repetitions. Wondering if it was possible, and advisable, to only use the word 'Drill' with and exclamation mark and putting an emphasis on 'ill', so something like DRILL! Thoughts.

How about Drilling Ill ? Something quirky that's kinda like working hard

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I'm not sure this scenario really applies in modern day warfare. There's so many ways to deliver an explosive payload, it just makes no sense to send it at walking speed.

There's other stuff you can do at walking speed, though...

Look up the Iran-Iraq War if you feel you haven't been depressed enough lately.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:The modern day equivalent ethical dilemma would be when enemy insurgents are planting their AA missile launchers on top of hospitals or civilian tower blocks, preventing you from making strikes against them because of the "human shield" factor.

Incidentally, this is similar to #973.

Japanese Schoolgirls wrote:How about Drilling Ill ? Something quirky that's kinda like working hard

Haha, I am not a quirky person. A simple reversal could work. Diligently Drilling? Meager Manouvers? Or The biggest drill @@LEADER@@ has ever seen.

What on Earth... are these University graduation things... by 'Muruegia Ravock'... in Got Issues?

Spam, naturally. I'm sure the forum mods will clear them up and sort out the offending spammer.

Don't respond to those threads, yah?

Yeah, I know we're better off ignoring those. Still, I have to wonder why we keep getting so much spam in Chinese. They're not going to be selling us anything if we can't even understand what they're saying.

The Rhein States wrote:

Japanese Schoolgirls wrote:How about Drilling Ill ? Something quirky that's kinda like working hard

Haha, I am not a quirky person. A simple reversal could work. Diligently Drilling? Meager Manouvers? Or The biggest drill @@LEADER@@ has ever seen.

Ill With The Drill?

Japanese Schoolgirls wrote:

The Rhein States wrote:Haha, I am not a quirky person. A simple reversal could work. Diligently Drilling? Meager Manouvers? Or The biggest drill @@LEADER@@ has ever seen.

Ill With The Drill?

I will store that name. Thanks for your suggestions, Japanese Schoolgirls.Trying to improve my writting with Duolingo and first wanting to make the current issue pool worthy.

Hello my lovely GI community- here's an issue idea you can steal- poor/lower middle class right wing electorates who vote for left wing parties solely and exclusively for their economic policies, whilst they disagree almost entierly with their other policies. This is very much the case in my home city of Western Sydney, Australia. Conversly, very wealthy electorates who vote for left wing parties for their environmental/social policies, and either disagree with their economic policies or agree with them as long as it hypocritically doesn't apply to them.

Anorher idea would be rich people who vote for policies as long as the consequences affect any electorate but their own (e.g. wind turbines, immigration detention centres, etc.)

Do you mean people voting against their own interests?

There's possible issue ideas here, but you'd be best off trying to put these ideas onto paper yourself, Aussie, rather than expecting someone to build off an unclear suggestion.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Do you mean people voting against their own interests?

There's possible issue ideas here, but you'd be best off trying to put these ideas onto paper yourself, Aussie, rather than expecting someone to build off an unclear suggestion.

No. Not what I mean

Best thing to do is make the issue, and we'll see what you mean.

Australian rePublic wrote:Hello my lovely GI community- here's an issue idea you can steal- poor/lower middle class right wing electorates who vote for left wing parties solely and exclusively for their economic policies, whilst they disagree almost entierly with their other policies. This is very much the case in my home city of Western Sydney, Australia. Conversly, very wealthy electorates who vote for left wing parties for their environmental/social policies, and either disagree with their economic policies or agree with them as long as it hypocritically doesn't apply to them.

It sounds like the problem with that is the lack of political parties, so there aren't any candidates who perfectly match a voter's views and any vote you cast will be compromising on your principles somehow. This is obviously the worst in two-party states like the US, but it happens to some degree in any democracy. The main countermeasures are (A) encouraging the formation of more political parties, even small ones, to properly represent the spectrum of possible political opinions, and (B) have more issues resolved through referendum, so people can directly vote on what they agree with rather than voting for a person/party that they hope will represent their interests.

I also note that you seem to only be paying attention to people voting left-wing when they maybe shouldn't. Surely the opposite also happens? Like in the US you have libertarians who vote for the right-wing Republicans because they support gun rights and economic freedom even though they don't otherwise agree with their moralistic attitude on civil issues.

Australian rePublic wrote:Hello my lovely GI community- here's an issue idea you can steal- poor/lower middle class right wing electorates who vote for left wing parties solely and exclusively for their economic policies, whilst they disagree almost entierly with their other policies. This is very much the case in my home city of Western Sydney, Australia. Conversly, very wealthy electorates who vote for left wing parties for their environmental/social policies, and either disagree with their economic policies or agree with them as long as it hypocritically doesn't apply to them.

Anorher idea would be rich people who vote for policies as long as the consequences affect any electorate but their own (e.g. wind turbines, immigration detention centres, etc.)

This could work as an issue for nations using majoritarian electoral systems. However, it would have to be broader, as perhaps something along the lines that people are annoyed that they can't realistically vote for a party that agrees with them on most things.

I have an idea of an economic depression as an issue. Has this already been an issue?

Dangine wrote:I have an idea of an economic depression as an issue. Has this already been an issue?

Probably. In fact, it's such a vague premise that I'm sure we have lots of issues that fall in that general category. I'd strongly advise coming up with something more specific before even trying it.