NationStates

When I first started looking into this, I did actually have an idea for an issue spring into my head almost fully formed, complete with a couple jokes.

We Can't "Keep On Trucking" Without Trucks

A filthy man in a straw hat stumbles up to you. "I was turned back when I tried to deliver my vegetables into the city with my truck. They said you had banned private vehicles from using the roads! I came to ask for help as soon as I heard!"

"Please!" says farmer @@LASTNAME@@ as his legs give out from under him "I can't make a living if I can't deliver my vegetables, but my farm is in the middle of nowhere. I've been walking for so long to get here. Please, revoke the ban and let your poor citizens use the roads again!"

"you've been driving a filthy truck around your farm!?! shouts your chief of police, as his face turns an ugly shade of purple. "Seize that man!"

"No, he has a point." says @@RANDOMNAME@@, the head of the department of agriculture, as @@HE@@ munches on a carrot. Private farmers should have an exemption from the ban, as they perform an important service for the nation."

"You could always give a horse and cart to every farmer." says the head of the @@CAPITAL_CITY@@ equestrian society as she dismounts from her massive Clydesdale. "Horses don't burn oil, and they provide excellent fertilizer!"

"no, what we need is more Iron Horses." interjects @@RANDOMNAME@@ from the department of transportation. "I've been saying for years that our nation's farms and industries needed better rail access."

"And why stop there?" burst out @@HIS@@ excitable assistant. "Build rail lines all over the nation, not just to the factories, but to every town, village, and lonely house in the forest! Who wouldn't love to have trains passing by at all hours of the day and night?"


for the one liner things, I'd have legislation is repealed at the slightest protest, internal combustion is a capital offense, citizens start vegetable gardens so they can drive, wishes are horses, half @@NAME@@'s supply of steel is going into new rails, and children take the train to the ice cream factory

Obviously needs some editing, and I'm not sure if I used all the commands correctly, but the only reason I haven't already submitted that is that I don't have a high enough population to. The title could do with changing too.

how can you see the issue you made?
Cuz I just made an issue and I wanna see it

South Pacifican Kilendjj wrote:how can you see the issue you made?
Cuz I just made an issue and I wanna see it

I Don't think your Able to see your issue after you Sent it.

Araznan wrote:

South Pacifican Kilendjj wrote:how can you see the issue you made?
Cuz I just made an issue and I wanna see it

I Don't think your Able to see your issue after you Sent it.

Awww really?

[Never mind]

Here's an idea for anybody who wants to use it: Should lawyers be allowed to work on a "no win, no fee" basis, or not? (Does the game already presume a default answer for this?)

N.B. If nobody else takes this up before I've finished my next 2 topics then I reserve the right to have a go at it myself...

Which NS metric could be used best to measure McCarthyism?
Basically, which NS stat would best measure how much the government makes accusations of subversion and treason against socialism and socialists.
I need it for the validity in my draft since Verdant Haven suggested I do so. However, I have been unable to find an NS stat that fits the criteria above.

Verdant Haven wrote:- I would probably put a validity on the entire issue to prevent it from going to nations that already have McCarthyistic committees.

Any suggestions on which NS stat to use?
Also, is there any other way to measure McCarthyism?

NOTE: I accidentally deleted this post, lol. I thought I had accidentally posted this in a draft rather than in the Writer's Block.

RedBrickLand wrote:Which NS metric could be used best to measure McCarthyism?
Basically, which NS stat would best measure how much the government makes accusations of subversion and treason against socialism and socialists.
I need it for the validity in my draft since Verdant Haven suggested I do so. However, I have been unable to find an NS stat that fits the criteria above.

Verdant Haven wrote:- I would probably put a validity on the entire issue to prevent it from going to nations that already have McCarthyistic committees.

Any suggestions on which NS stat to use?
Also, is there any other way to measure McCarthyism?

NOTE: I accidentally deleted this post, lol. I thought I had accidentally posted this in a draft rather than in the Writer's Block.

We've got the means to figure it out. I'd simply put "not for nations with McCarthyistic committees", as Verdant suggested.

If it gets accepted, the editor who picks it up can work from there.

EDIT: For future reference you could have posted this in the draft thread; it's about that draft.

The Free Joy State wrote:We've got the means to figure it out. I'd simply put "not for nations with McCarthyistic committees", as Verdant suggested.

If it gets accepted, the editor who picks it up can work from there.

EDIT: For future reference you could have posted this in the draft thread; it's about that draft.

Oh, well I certainly made things more complicated. I should've just used Verdant Haven's exact wording lol. Thanks a lot!
Also, I'll be sure to post this in the draft thread next time. Thanks!

Are there issues that complain about the strictness of immigration customs security regulations (like not being able to bring shampoo or other stuff etc)

To my knowlede, no. The only thing I could find is #1360 but it is about the nation's strict immigration standards that prevent foreigners from becoming citizens without proper education in the nation's culture and history. This is not about which stuff you're allowed to bring.
(Although, obviously you wouldn't be able to bring illegal stuff, but shampoo definitely isn't illegal .)
I'll keep searching to see if I find anything.

Customs is likely to be an issue for anyone entering the nations, including tourists, businesspeople, etc., not just immigrants. As such, the relevant overlap is with airport security issues such as #248.

West Barack and East Obama wrote:Are there issues that complain about the strictness of immigration customs security regulations (like not being able to bring shampoo or other stuff etc)

I think there's room for a separate issue on this, but also keep in mind #1428.

#1428 is very specifically about whether diplomatic immunity should exempt diplomats from the customs inspections that apply to everyone else. It has nothing to do with deciding what the normal customs inspection rules are.

Trotterdam wrote:#1428 is very specifically about whether diplomatic immunity should exempt diplomats from the customs inspections that apply to everyone else. It has nothing to do with deciding what the normal customs inspection rules are.

Yes, that's what I was saying. If the issue is about normal customs inspections (rather than special cases), then there won't be any overlap.

Idea One: Shrinking the Military
-While I’ve seen the usual ‘slash the military’ options in regular issues, as of now, I haven’t encountered an issue all about shrinking the military due to a wave of pacifism, be it by an activist or a singer-songwriter. The concept of having a small or non-existent military also brings me to..

Idea Two: Defense Without a Military
-While issues like #244 come close, the concept I have in mind wouldn’t be another nation invading territory, but rather the idea of a foreign invasion and how it can be stopped (i.e, Rebuilding the Military, Guerilla Warfare, Diplomacy)

Idea Three: The Fate of Former Monarchs
-Though unrelated to the other two, I’ve also the fallout of abolishing the monarchy, specifically what happens to the monarchs and/or their properties. For Reference, here’s an article of what would happen to the Royal Family in Britain if the monarchy is abolished.

Alright I got a question
to name a person do I put @@Name@@?

South Pacifican Kilendjj wrote:Alright I got a question
to name a person do I put @@Name@@?

Hello there, and welcome to Got Issues! Check out the "How to Write an Issue" FAQ thread over here for this and many other helpful tidbits: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=424657

Short answer - @@NAME@@ will give you the name of the player's nation. @@RANDOMNAME@@ will give you the name of a person.

Verdant Haven wrote:

South Pacifican Kilendjj wrote:Alright I got a question
to name a person do I put @@Name@@?

Hello there, and welcome to Got Issues! Check out the "How to Write an Issue" FAQ thread over here for this and many other helpful tidbits: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=424657

Short answer - @@NAME@@ will give you the name of the player's nation. @@RANDOMNAME@@ will give you the name of a person.

Oh I already looked at it
by the way, thanks I am in the middle of writing an issue

Hello, I would like to ask whether using the word "gerrymander" is allowed or not since it is named after a real human being. I need to find out because I am making a draft on whether "benevolent" gerrymandering is legal or not. Basically, gerrymandering with the intentions of giving representation to an under-represented group. In my case, the Bigtopians.

The word already appears in at least one existing issue (pun in the issue text, actual word in an effect line).

#775 option 2 also relates to gerrymandering without using the word. And, umm, exactly the scenario you're proposing here.

Trotterdam wrote:#775 option 2 also relates to gerrymandering without using the word. And, umm, exactly the scenario you're proposing here.

Here's the description and my issue idea. Let me know if you think it's different enough. If I get the green light, I'll continue working on it. It's currently at a very basic stage.

VALIDITY: Invalid for nations that ban immigration, have proportional representation, and don't have elections.

Recently, citizens of a state in Southwestern @@NAME@@ were outraged when they found out that an electoral district within their state had been purposefully gerrymandered to guarantee that a Bigtopian candidate would be elected. The committe in charge of the state's district boundaries claimed that they had done a noble act by allowing an under-represented group to have representation. Both sides have demanded that you weigh in on the matter.

Option 1 would be against the committee's actions. It would outlaw gerrymandering, noble or not and allow the people to decide their electoral districts.
Option 2 would support the committee's actions. It would allow gerrymandering if done with good intentions.
Option 3 would establish proportional representation.
Option 4 would ban immigration and/or establish the Native Representation policy(I have not decided which policy to focus on).

I got a new issue in the woodworks. Can we say "crap" in issues?

Australian rePublic wrote:I got a new issue in the woodworks. Can we say "crap" in issues?

No problem with that given appropriate context.

(Two precedents: "we'll just bomb the crap out of them" in #1285, and "they get fed crap and are left in the dark" in #1314)