The Writers' Block

[Dragonisia]

Why is it you get punished in the flat earth issue for telling your citizens their earth is flat?

Nationstates Earth is very flat.. in fact.. you could say its a 2 d narrative. Why must I lie to my citizens to be scientifically advanced?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Why is it you get punished in the flat earth issue for telling your citizens their earth is flat?

Nationstates Earth is very flat.. in fact.. you could say its a 2 d narrative. Why must I lie to my citizens to be scientifically advanced?

Don't you have a globe in your flag?

Anyway. NS isn't flat. It's been around since February 2003!

[Dragonisia]

But I'm reading it right now, it's totally flat.. 2D. Why do we diminish our pixel citizens lives simply because they are dimension-ally challenged? They deserve the truth!

The flag is from another dimension. *chortle* That "globe" is also flat! I mean.. run your finger over the flag. Technically it's the cross section of a sphere with the impression of one of the sphere's side.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

But I'm reading it right now, it's totally flat.. 2D. Why do we diminish our pixel citizens lives simply because they are dimension-ally challenged? They deserve the truth!

The flag is from another dimension. *chortle* That "globe" is also flat! I mean.. run your finger over the flag. Technically it's the cross section of a sphere with the impression of one of the sphere's side.

You're mistaken. You're just not pushing hard enough.

Jab your finger on your screen as hard as you can. No, harder than that. HARDER.

See? Break the surface, and the glorious third dimension is right there.

[Trotterdam]

That also sounds like a good way of exploring what lies under the three-dimensional structure of your finger.

[RantSpot]

I was thinking of writing an article about a stream of big-budget remake movies or TV shows as a commerce vs art, originality vs cookie cutter issue. I see there's 1090 I Ain't Afraid of No Girls, which seems to be more focused on gender-bending in remakes/adaptations, which I think is a separate social issue. Would there be room for a new issue with that much similarity but a different focus?

[Australian rePublic]

Here's an issue I have no intention of writing about and the idea is up for grabs. I have no idea how true it is, and whether or not it's truthful is irrelevant.

Apparently in China, Good Samaritans who help people that were injured in whatever situation are financially liable for damages. E.g. let's say a passerby sees a person who's fallen on the side of the road, and decides to help them up, the passerby is liable for damages. This has lead to both- conartists who pretend to be injured in order to sue Good Samaritans who help them, and injured people who have been left to die because passer bys were scared of the consequences of helping them. Apparently, it goes even further. Apparently, there was a court case where a passerby was forced to pay for the damages of someone who was injured through no fault of the injured person, as "no innocent would want to help anyone" or some bullshit like that. Apparently now, there people will refuse to help passerbys unless they admit to the phone camera that they concent to being helped, and that helper was uninvolved in the incident. If you wish to write this issue, go for it.

[Chan Island]

Here's an issue I have no intention of writing about and the idea is up for grabs. I have no idea how true it is, and whether or not it's truthful is irrelevant.

Apparently in China, Good Samaritans who help people that were injured in whatever situation are financially liable for damages. E.g. let's say a passerby sees a person who's fallen on the side of the road, and decides to help them up, the passerby is liable for damages. This has lead to both- conartists who pretend to be injured in order to sue Good Samaritans who help them, and injured people who have been left to die because passer bys were scared of the consequences of helping them. Apparently, it goes even further. Apparently, there was a court case where a passerby was forced to pay for the damages of someone who was injured through no fault of the injured person, as "no innocent would want to help anyone" or some bullshit like that. Apparently now, there people will refuse to help passerbys unless they admit to the phone camera that they concent to being helped, and that helper was uninvolved in the incident. If you wish to write this issue, go for it.

Don't we already have that issue about the shepherd who administers CPR by jumping up and down on the person? This seems like this would be a consequence issue of choosing the 'go after him' option... but even then, we already have that issue where a dying man is ticketed by police for being a nuisance. Or is there something I'm not getting?

I was thinking of writing an article about a stream of big-budget remake movies or TV shows as a commerce vs art, originality vs cookie cutter issue. I see there's 1090 I Ain't Afraid of No Girls, which seems to be more focused on gender-bending in remakes/adaptations, which I think is a separate social issue. Would there be room for a new issue with that much similarity but a different focus?

Try it. Bear in mind we already have an issue where critics complain about all the bad films being made so make sure to skirt around that.

[Australian rePublic]

Here's an issue I have no intention of writing about and the idea is up for grabs. I have no idea how true it is, and whether or not it's truthful is irrelevant.

Apparently in China, Good Samaritans who help people that were injured in whatever situation are financially liable for damages. E.g. let's say a passerby sees a person who's fallen on the side of the road, and decides to help them up, the passerby is liable for damages. This has lead to both- conartists who pretend to be injured in order to sue Good Samaritans who help them, and injured people who have been left to die because passer bys were scared of the consequences of helping them. Apparently, it goes even further. Apparently, there was a court case where a passerby was forced to pay for the damages of someone who was injured through no fault of the injured person, as "no innocent would want to help anyone" or some bullshit like that. Apparently now, there people will refuse to help passerbys unless they admit to the phone camera that they concent to being helped, and that helper was uninvolved in the incident. If you wish to write this issue, go for it.

Don't we already have that issue about the shepherd who administers CPR by jumping up and down on the person? This seems like this would be a consequence issue of choosing the 'go after him' option... but even then, we already have that issue where a dying man is ticketed by police for being a nuisance. Or is there something I'm not getting?

That's different. The issue you're describing is "this guy tried to do good, but he ended up dping bad"
What I'm suggesting is "He chose to get involved instead of ignoring it, therefore he must have caused it"
Very different.
Say for example, Jason hit Tanya with his car. Bob, an univolved bystamder, sees the car accident and has two options, Bob can either try to help the woman, or Bob can walk away as if nothing happened. Now let's assume Bob chooses to help the woman. What you're describing is Bob tries to help the woman, however, he makes matters worse, and accidently kills her. However, what I'm proposing is that the police (or insurance company or whatever) sees Bob trying to revive the woman, and therefore Bob is accused of causing the accident, based on the idiotic and untrue claim that because Bob cares about the dying woman, he is the one who hit her.
So in situation 1- Bob, the bystander, tries to help and Bob makes the problem worse
In situation 2- Bob, the bysterstander, tries to help, so, therefore, according to the authorities, it's his fault for causing the incident in the first place.
Bob sees the dying woman on the street and tries to revive her but fails vs Bob sees the dying on the street and tries to revive her, leading the authorites to (incorrectly) blame Bob for putting her with his car.

Just to make it clearer. Jason hit Tanya with the car. Bob had no car as he was on a walk. However, Bob tries to help Tanya, so the police blammed Bob for hitting her with the car, even though Bob wasn't driving. Bob is now financially liable
The two situations are very different.
In the first scanario, Bob would be held liable for unintentionally killing the woman who was hit by a car, but he wouldn't have but he was not blammed for hitting her with his car, whilst in the second scanario, Bob would've been held liable for hitting her with his car, despite being innocent of such a crime.

Imagine Bob was on a walk, and he sees a car crash victim, so he tries to help the car crash victim. Because he got involved, the authorities assume that he caused the crash, even though he wasn't actually driving. That's what my issue is about.


Sorry for not being clearer in the first place. If I've still explained it wrong, let me know.

[Australian rePublic]

Here's an idea that's up for the taking- social credit ratings

[Chan Island]

Don't we already have that issue about the shepherd who administers CPR by jumping up and down on the person? This seems like this would be a consequence issue of choosing the 'go after him' option... but even then, we already have that issue where a dying man is ticketed by police for being a nuisance. Or is there something I'm not getting?

That's different. The issue you're describing is "this guy tried to do good, but he ended up dping bad"
What I'm suggesting is "He chose to get involved instead of ignoring it, therefore he must have caused it"
Very different.
Say for example, Jason hit Tanya with his car. Bob, an univolved bystamder, sees the car accident and has two options, Bob can either try to help the woman, or Bob can walk away as if nothing happened. Now let's assume Bob chooses to help the woman. What you're describing is Bob tries to help the woman, however, he makes matters worse, and accidently kills her. However, what I'm proposing is that the police (or insurance company or whatever) sees Bob trying to revive the woman, and therefore Bob is accused of causing the accident, based on the idiotic and untrue claim that because Bob cares about the dying woman, he is the one who hit her.
So in situation 1- Bob, the bystander, tries to help and Bob makes the problem worse
In situation 2- Bob, the bysterstander, tries to help, so, therefore, according to the authorities, it's his fault for causing the incident in the first place.
Bob sees the dying woman on the street and tries to revive her but fails vs Bob sees the dying on the street and tries to revive her, leading the authorites to (incorrectly) blame Bob for putting her with his car.

Just to make it clearer. Jason hit Tanya with the car. Bob had no car as he was on a walk. However, Bob tries to help Tanya, so the police blammed Bob for hitting her with the car, even though Bob wasn't driving. Bob is now financially liable
The two situations are very different.
In the first scanario, Bob would be held liable for unintentionally killing the woman who was hit by a car, but he wouldn't have but he was not blammed for hitting her with his car, whilst in the second scanario, Bob would've been held liable for hitting her with his car, despite being innocent of such a crime.

Imagine Bob was on a walk, and he sees a car crash victim, so he tries to help the car crash victim. Because he got involved, the authorities assume that he caused the crash, even though he wasn't actually driving. That's what my issue is about.


Sorry for not being clearer in the first place. If I've still explained it wrong, let me know.

That is truly insane, and I wonder how China can even work with such a mindset? And I assume that the fire brigade gets an exemption of some kind, because that might be a fun crazy option to add in.

Will definitely have to look into this.

Thanks for the heads up!

[Australian rePublic]

That's different. The issue you're describing is "this guy tried to do good, but he ended up dping bad"
What I'm suggesting is "He chose to get involved instead of ignoring it, therefore he must have caused it"
Very different.
Say for example, Jason hit Tanya with his car. Bob, an univolved bystamder, sees the car accident and has two options, Bob can either try to help the woman, or Bob can walk away as if nothing happened. Now let's assume Bob chooses to help the woman. What you're describing is Bob tries to help the woman, however, he makes matters worse, and accidently kills her. However, what I'm proposing is that the police (or insurance company or whatever) sees Bob trying to revive the woman, and therefore Bob is accused of causing the accident, based on the idiotic and untrue claim that because Bob cares about the dying woman, he is the one who hit her.
So in situation 1- Bob, the bystander, tries to help and Bob makes the problem worse
In situation 2- Bob, the bysterstander, tries to help, so, therefore, according to the authorities, it's his fault for causing the incident in the first place.
Bob sees the dying woman on the street and tries to revive her but fails vs Bob sees the dying on the street and tries to revive her, leading the authorites to (incorrectly) blame Bob for putting her with his car.

Just to make it clearer. Jason hit Tanya with the car. Bob had no car as he was on a walk. However, Bob tries to help Tanya, so the police blammed Bob for hitting her with the car, even though Bob wasn't driving. Bob is now financially liable
The two situations are very different.
In the first scanario, Bob would be held liable for unintentionally killing the woman who was hit by a car, but he wouldn't have but he was not blammed for hitting her with his car, whilst in the second scanario, Bob would've been held liable for hitting her with his car, despite being innocent of such a crime.

Imagine Bob was on a walk, and he sees a car crash victim, so he tries to help the car crash victim. Because he got involved, the authorities assume that he caused the crash, even though he wasn't actually driving. That's what my issue is about.


Sorry for not being clearer in the first place. If I've still explained it wrong, let me know.

Here:

That is truly insane, and I wonder how China can even work with such a mindset? And I assume that the fire brigade gets an exemption of some kind, because that might be a fun crazy option to add in.

Will definitely have to look into this.

Thanks for the heads up!

Here:
https://medium.com/shanghai-living/4-31 ... 0972e28a82

Between this, social credit ratings and those guys who pretend to be Chinese cops I feel like we could have a whole series of issues inspired by China. I'm suprised that nobody has tackled the social credit score. If you wish to do so, then do so from the perspective of a government enforcing it and a private company enforcing it. I'd write the credit score issue myself, but it'd be lacking in humour

[Trotterdam]

Here's an issue I have no intention of writing about and the idea is up for grabs. I have no idea how true it is, and whether or not it's truthful is irrelevant.

Apparently in China, Good Samaritans who help people that were injured in whatever situation are financially liable for damages. E.g. let's say a passerby sees a person who's fallen on the side of the road, and decides to help themup, the passerby is liable for damages. This has lead to both- conartists who pretend to be injured in order to sue Good Samaritans who help them, and injured people who have been left to die because passer bys were scared of the consequences of helping them. Apparently, it goes even further. Apparently, there was a court case where a passerby was forced to pay for the damages of someone who was injured through no fault of the injured person, as "no innocent would want to help anyone" or some bullshit like that. Apparently now, there people will refuse to help passerbys unless they admit to the phone camera that they concent to being helped, and that helper was uninvolved in the incident. If you wish to write this issue, go for it.

Huh, and I thought the US was sue-happy.

Here's an idea that's up for the taking- social credit ratings

#1211 Free Credit Reports With Monitoring

[Fontenais]

I was thinking of writing an article about a stream of big-budget remake movies or TV shows as a commerce vs art, originality vs cookie cutter issue. I see there's 1090 I Ain't Afraid of No Girls, which seems to be more focused on gender-bending in remakes/adaptations, which I think is a separate social issue. Would there be room for a new issue with that much similarity but a different focus?

I think this might be too similar to issue 440 which is about people complaining about movie sequels, remakes and spin-offs

[Servilis]

An issue where a nerd jumps in to ask if the nation can be more RPG-like...
So umm..... everyone carries a weapon, wears armor and also class systems....

[Candlewhisper Archive]

An issue where a nerd jumps in to ask if the nation can be more RPG-like...
So umm..... everyone carries a weapon, wears armor and also class systems....

There's an issue about roleplaying games at present, 634 A Role to Play.

Beware of any overlap with that.

As to the idea you've suggested, in itself it doesn't sound much like an issue, but sounds more like an issue option. As in, it's the sort of oddball thing that might be suggested by a "crazy third option" but doesn't have enough to stand up on its own as an issue premise.

[Trotterdam]

There are already plenty of issues for legalizing weapons. How would this be different?

[Techolandia]

I'm considering what topic to make an issue about next. I've thought of perceived musical contamination, but I'm not sure whether or not that could be notable enough, and there are other concerns as well.

[Fontenais]

I'm considering what topic to make an issue about next. I've thought of perceived musical contamination, but I'm not sure whether or not that could be notable enough, and there are other concerns as well.

What is perceived musical contamination?

[Fontenais]

Also, does anyone know if there is an issue about self-incriminating statements in court?

[Trotterdam]

Also, does anyone know if there is an issue about self-incriminating statements in court?

Well, we have some issues about self-incriminating statements before court, including during police interrogations and in artistic expression.

[Chan Island]

An issue where a nerd jumps in to ask if the nation can be more RPG-like...
So umm..... everyone carries a weapon, wears armor and also class systems....

Well, the more interesting angle I suppose if we were going that way would be questioning what to do with real-life RPG characters.

Because no matter what class you choose, let's be honest.... you roleplay as a murder-hobo for most of them.

[Techolandia]

I'm considering what topic to make an issue about next. I've thought of perceived musical contamination, but I'm not sure whether or not that could be notable enough, and there are other concerns as well.

What is perceived musical contamination?

Basically, Latin American music, some of which uses the harmonic minor, is becoming popular in @@NAME@@, but @@NAME@@'s classical composers don't like it.

[Fontenais]

What is perceived musical contamination?

Basically, Latin American music, some of which uses the harmonic minor, is becoming popular in @@NAME@@, but @@NAME@@'s classical composers don't like it.

It sounds like you know a lot about music.
I think you'd have to avoid talking about how Latin American music is a 'bad influence' or similar because #42 covers that with heavy metal music, but I think I gather you want to approach this from an artistic perspective. I honestly don't know if a similar issue exists or not.

[Fontenais]

Also, does anyone know if there is an issue about self-incriminating statements in court?

Well, we have some issues about self-incriminating statements before court, including during police interrogations and in artistic expression.

I was thinking of an issue where a witness refuses to testify in a murder trial because their evidence would be self-incriminating. Would it be reasonable to assume that the principle of self-incrimination already exists in Nation?