NationStates

Fontenais wrote:

Techolandia wrote: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.

It's also going to have elements of racism (specifically anti-Semitism and xenophobia), and one of the options will probably be the government sponsoring "good" music.

With the recent anti-mask law being implemented in Hong Kong, I wonder if there's an already an issue on an anti-mask law.

Assyrania wrote:With the recent anti-mask law being implemented in Hong Kong, I wonder if there's an already an issue on an anti-mask law.

Not that I recall, or that I can find on a quick search of the database.

The only issue that substantially mentions masks is in relation to masks worn for the purpose of public shaming -- #487.

If you did want to write an issue, we'd always suggest you start by drafting here in the Got Issues subforum, to (while not guarantee it) give your issue the best chance of acceptance.

#511 endorses "Anyone who wears a mask and doesn't register can be assumed to be a villain, and must be met with zero tolerance." as a way of controlling vigilantes, though this is clearly based on the stereotype of superheroes wearing masks and arguably isn't meant to be taken completely literally if someone is wearing a mask for a different reason.

#128 is titled "Ban the Burka?", and the face-concealing nature of that costume is often cited as a reason to ban it in real-life discussions, but the actual issue doesn't mention burkas at all and just talks about banning all symbols of religious affiliation (which a burka technically isn't, but whatever).

It is about time I try my luck at writing issues.

Heres an idea: for nations with a monarchy, a baseborn (illegitimate) child of @@@LEADER@@@'s father claims the throne on the basis of them being older and starts a rebellion in the country, would this be possible as an issue and has it been covered?

Marxist Germany wrote:It is about time I try my luck at writing issues.

Heres an idea: for nations with a monarchy, a baseborn (illegitimate) child of @@@LEADER@@@'s father claims the throne on the basis of them being older and starts a rebellion in the country, would this be possible as an issue and has it been covered?

All issues use a situation in order to frame policy debate. What would actually be debated here? From what it looks like, we've skipped the debate stage, and advanced right into the guns, torches, and pitchforks part, which makes a political discussion...interesting.

Candensia wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:It is about time I try my luck at writing issues.

Heres an idea: for nations with a monarchy, a baseborn (illegitimate) child of @@@LEADER@@@'s father claims the throne on the basis of them being older and starts a rebellion in the country, would this be possible as an issue and has it been covered?

All issues use a situation in order to frame policy debate. What would actually be debated here? From what it looks like, we've skipped the debate stage, and advanced right into the guns, torches, and pitchforks part, which makes a political discussion...interesting.

Would scaling back in time to negotiations be more workable?

Marxist Germany wrote:

Candensia wrote:

All issues use a situation in order to frame policy debate. What would actually be debated here? From what it looks like, we've skipped the debate stage, and advanced right into the guns, torches, and pitchforks part, which makes a political discussion...interesting.

Would scaling back in time to negotiations be more workable?

Several autonomy concerns. NS does have the monarchy policy. However, Issues should not determine whether or not @@LEADER@@ is the monarch, or merely a Head of Government. Your idea implies that @@LEADER@@ is the monarch, and I believe this is a non-starter. Writing this issue would be very difficult, I feel, and makes for a player autonomy minefield nightmare that might very well sink it.

If you're looking to get into issue writing, I'd steer clear of the Monarchy policy; it's more difficult to write around than it appears. I hear that novel ideas in Public Transportation and Foreign Aid attract editor interest.

Welp, thanks for the help, Ill try to come up with a better idea.

Assyrania wrote:With the recent anti-mask law being implemented in Hong Kong, I wonder if there's an already an issue on an anti-mask law.

There was a draft some time back that never got submitted on this topic, but it's definitely something that needs covering.

Of course, would also be a tough one to implement and would need a new policy, as there's many many masked protestors currently in issues. Don't let that stop you, but be sure to write an issue that's good enough to justify the workload.

I've been looking through the Issues List and I haven't found anything about the idea of Compulsory Community Service/Volunteer work (I may have missed it, if there is one). I've been thinking about the idea of people being required to a certain amount of community service per year (10 hours or something) as long as they're physically able.

I have looked through the issues list and it looks like there doesnt exist a reversal issue for #560 which abolishes the upper house, I am going to try my luck at that, unless there already exists a draft or a submission under review?

Edit: I see there are multiple drafts currently, however, they deal with ridiculous bills getting passed; I plan on going with a representation issue (smaller states/counties less represented than before), something similar to the US Senate, is this possible?

Marxist Germany wrote:

Candensia wrote:

All issues use a situation in order to frame policy debate. What would actually be debated here? From what it looks like, we've skipped the debate stage, and advanced right into the guns, torches, and pitchforks part, which makes a political discussion...interesting.

Would scaling back in time to negotiations be more workable?

It could be done, but you'd have to work the wording in such a way as to not say whether this illegitimate child is the son of @@LEADER@@'s father or the son of the actual monarch, just leave it vague. It's a very fun issue idea though, and could have some humorous options.

Marxist Germany wrote:I have looked through the issues list and it looks like there doesnt exist a reversal issue for #560 which abolishes the upper house, I am going to try my luck at that, unless there already exists a draft or a submission under review?

Edit: I see there are multiple drafts currently, however, they deal with ridiculous bills getting passed; I plan on going with a representation issue (smaller states/counties less represented than before), something similar to the US Senate, is this possible?

Good luck. Many have tried to write that reversal, but none of have succeeded. A representation issue could well be a good angle to go down though, but careful in assuming that everyone is running a USA style system.

I've been presented an issue where an Option that aligns with Social Conservatism values/ideology has a negative effect on the Social Conservatism stat.

"To Catch a Beef" http://www.mwq.dds.nl/ns/results/1170.html

Social Conservatism effects for Option #1 shows a range from -16.5 to 0

For an Option that is classic Socially Conservative and includes removing "Gun Control" policy, shouldn't the effect be the reverse?

I'm seeing this also with Death By Chocolate / Option #2 (http://www.mwq.dds.nl/ns/results/882.html)

UPDATE: Another example just presented

"I Shot the Sherrif" http://www.mwq.dds.nl/ns/results/698.html
Option #1 lowers SocCon...which should raise it
Option #2 increases SocCon...which should lower it.

What's going on here?

The description of the issue makes it clear that the leader does not have children, which specifies something about the player's character's family choices.

Cascadiana wrote:I've been presented an issue where an Option that aligns with Social Conservatism values/ideology has a negative effect on the Social Conservatism stat.

"To Catch a Beef" http://www.mwq.dds.nl/ns/results/1170.html

Social Conservatism effects for Option #1 shows a range from -16.5 to 0

For an Option that is classic Socially Conservative and includes removing "Gun Control" policy, shouldn't the effect be the reverse?

I'm seeing this also with Death By Chocolate / Option #2 (http://www.mwq.dds.nl/ns/results/882.html)

UPDATE: Another example just presented

"I Shot the Sherrif" http://www.mwq.dds.nl/ns/results/698.html
Option #1 lowers SocCon...which should raise it
Option #2 increases SocCon...which should lower it.

What's going on here?

This is covered in the opening FAQ of the Unexpected Effects megathread, but essentially social conservatism doesn't actually measure conservatism, it measures lack of personal freedom - i.e. the opposite stat of civil rights. The name of the stat is misleading, I agree, but it isn't coded directly by editors in any way, it's just a mirror of civil rights.

My proposed fix was to rename it Social Control. No movement on that though.

Also, that unexpected effects thread is the place to report unexpected effects.

Techolandia wrote:The description of the issue makes it clear that the leader does not have children, which specifies something about the player's character's family choices.

Yeah, I agree. Group consensus in the past has been to leave it alone anyway. We'll talk it over again if we get the chance.

As I learn more about NS I'm interested propose a draft Issue, as a way of learning a lot more I think.

I have a question related to Issues.

Does Gameplay (i.e. issues, nation primary & secondary stats) provide for foreign affairs matters that occur between player run Nations or across/within their Regions?

For example, is there any provision for bilateral & multilateral agreements like those below to affect relevant Nation stats?

free / preferred trade agreements --> Economy, Economic Output, Employment
Tax treaties --> Taxation, Economy
Defense treaties/alliances --> Foreign Aid, Pacifisim
Foreign Arms Sales --> Arms Industry, Foreign Aid
Climate Treaties --> Economy, Economic Freedom, Employment, Eco-Friendliness
Conservation zones/marine sanctuaries --> Tourism, Environmental Beauty

I haven't seen anything like this so far. I assume all the nations listed in the Issues I'm presented have been fake.

Are international agreements between nation Leaders decoupled from Gameplay nation stats? Or do they have effects?

Gameplay doesn't affect your nation's stats, no. (Issue text can say "many nations in YOUR REGION HERE are experiencing drought and look to you for aid, but all the countries mentioned by name are NPCs.)

If you join the WA, general assembly resolutions will influence your stats based on category and strength.

Zwangzug wrote:Gameplay doesn't affect your nation's stats, no.

Appreciate the clarification on WA General Assembly.

However I thought ONLY Gameplay affected stats?

Which is why I asked clarification if international agreements were completely decoupled from stat effects.

Cascadiana wrote:

Zwangzug wrote:Gameplay doesn't affect your nation's stats, no.

Appreciate the clarification on WA General Assembly.

However I thought ONLY Gameplay affected stats?

Which is why I asked clarification if international agreements were completely decoupled from stat effects.

sorry, only issues and the ga affect stats--not regional gameplay such as who you do or don't endorse, and not roleplay such as treaties signed on the forums.

How long after submitting is it safe to assume that your issue didn't make the cut?

Jutsa wrote:#548: Appointment Of A Science Advisor [Golgothastan; ed:Lenyo]

[2]. "Now now, you're not going to listen to all that tree-hugging nonsense, are you?" cajoles chemist @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, introduced to you at a cocktail party thrown by one of your biggest corporate donors. "The government needs to be partnering up with industry, not making things harder for them. If I'm appointed, I'll make sure the government promotes innovation and invention - and if that means loosening up some of those silly environmental laws, then so be it!" [Must have private industry]

It seems like a shame for communist nations to not be abe to select a pro-industry option (plus it's a little weird that the next option complains about a "boys' club" if there's only been one boy so far). I think a variant option could be suitable made for communist nations with very little tweaking, for example:

"Now now, you're not going to listen to all that tree-hugging nonsense, are you?" cajoles chemist @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, introduced to you at a cocktail party thrown by one of your biggest political supporters. "The government needs to be running industry efficiently, not making things harder for them. If I'm appointed, I'll make sure the government promotes innovation and invention - and if that means loosening up some of those silly environmental laws, then so be it!"

The Pharcyde wrote:How long after submitting is it safe to assume that your issue didn't make the cut?

For non-staff players, there's no fixed time period, but currently the accepted issues pool is tiny (compared to historic levels), with two issues from 2018 and 31 from 2019. Hazed and Confused cleared the first hurdle, but hasn't been picked up yet. If it's not picked up by the time it becomes one of the oldest issues, I'll likely review and delete it, but right now it is there in potentia as a future issue.

For staff players, there's many issues which are much older, including 8 from 2016. However, we're undertaking a gradual peer review process which is weeding out about half of the staff-written issues, running chronologically through all staff submissions, so not all those old issues will reach the game.

Do keep submitting issues, though. You're a decent writer, and a thoroughly drafted issue by yourself is always going to have high odds of making the cut.

The Free Joy State wrote:

SherpDaWerp wrote:Ok, it's not guaranteed. Wasn't it that for the first month, nations could only receive issues #0-#30? If that nation answers 1 issue per day, they should get all of them.

That is not the case.

Newly formed nations can receive any issue they're eligible for.

Trotterdam wrote:Quite a long time ago already, the game was changed so issue answers were processed immediately rather than at a fixed update time, and at the same time so that we'd get up to four issues a day instead of two, and more for very new nations. Since a mere 31 issues (not all of which every nation qualifies for) wouldn't last the week at that rate, the system was changed. Issues #0-#30 now hold no special status, even for brand-new nations.

I didn't want to bring up an abandoned draft thread to make this point, so I put it here instead. Evidently my thought that nations used to only recieve #0-#30 is no longer true, but I found out where I got that idea from - the Got Issues FAQ & How To Write An Issue sticky. Under repetition it says

In addition, new nations only receive the original 31 issues in the early days of their existence.

If this is no longer the case, it would probably be a good idea to remove this from the FAQ.