NationStates

Trotterdam wrote:Take note of #590, which is in fact about this exact premise (too many people getting lost in the wilderness). However, due to limitations of the current game system, even options that seem like they would reduce those deaths don't necessarily actually do so. Reducing the environment is the only way that works. (It doesn't have to be timber industry specifically - other industries can also worsen the environment, as can nonprofit mismanagement - but that is an effective way.)

Perhaps it could be triggered if the % of people lost in the wilderness increases to a larger number, then? Make more out of the situation?

Null

Null

I have an issue idea where your nations faces rising sea levels, and one of your coastal major cities flood, so you have to decide what to do.

I also have another idea for a issue where a nearby country that your nation hasn’t liked for a while wants you to annex them and join your nation, so you have to decide wether to accept or not.

Null

Null

I've two issues ideas and would like input on whether they're sufficiently unique.

The first would be trolley problem inspired (though likely not using trolleys. Hot air balloons maybe?) Roughly along the lines of "Resident is being hailed as a hero after pulling the lever on an out of control (not)trolley and saving five lives. Unfortunately this did result in the death of one person who was not previously in the path of the (not)trolley and debate has arisen..."
1 - Pulling the lever was the right response.
2 - Pulling the lever was the wrong response.
3 - Pulling the lever was wrong and the puller should be jailed for murder (or) jailed for defying gods will.
4 - Pulling the lever was right and what's more we should hold a national lottery on killing randomly selected healthy individuals to redistribute their organs.
5 - We should invest in improved infrastructure so this doesn't happen again (or) all vehicles should be controlled by hyperintelligent AI to make these decisions instead.

The closest I can find is issue 564, but that's focused more on intentions so I think this might be separate enough.

The second is inspired by Star Wars but would be (mostly) sci-fi free and would be for nations with small/medium sized militaries and no WMDs. Something like "You recently approved a daring raid on a Maxtopian military facility that hosted (wmd super weapon) that had a fatal flaw revealed through captured plans. While the mission was a success questions are arising on what to do with the plans..."
1 - Use the plans to build our own super weapon for defensive purposes but without the fatal flaw.
2 - Do not build the super weapon.
3 - Sell the plans to the highest bidder.
4 - Publish the plans so any nation, person, or institution with sufficient resources can build their own super weapon.
5 - (Space program nations only) Build the superweapon in outer space and use it to attack other nations.

Obviously there are a few issues with WMDs but so far I've not found anything like this. If it's too close to another issue I suppose it might also be switched to the question of whether or not to launch the raid.

For the first one, part of the challenge will be to clarify what government decision is being made in the first few answers. Simply saying "that was the right response" and not doing anything more doesn't really seem like government policy by itself, nor does the reverse. That's still just within the realm of philosophical thought experiments. Choosing to prosecute is the kind of action that does make a valid option, and I think that would be the upshot of any "this was the wrong choice" decision the player makes. That's also a world apart from "avoiding excess deaths is good, so let's hold a lottery to randomly execute people," which makes no sense whatsoever as a conclusion from deciding what was done was right. I would probably try to pitch that side as encouraging the announcement of some sort of legal immunity for those making complex life and death decisions. The final one, about improving infrastructure (by whatever means) to avoid the scenario entirely would work as a third option, I think.

The Star Wars suggestion runs afoul of player autonomy – simply telling a player that they recently authorized an act of war against a non-hostile nuclear-armed country is a bit much. If one could suggest that the plans fell into your hands through other means, there might be room to play with it. One would probably have to explain a bit about what this weapon is and how the fatal flaw functions, as we both can't assume folks are familiar with the Death Star, and super weapons like the Death Star are not credible within the canon of what has been published (so it would have to be some other kind of much-lesser weapon).

So, I went to a ski resort in Australia, and my parents bought me the accomodation for my birthday, but at AU$500 per night, it was a tiny, shitty hotel room above a pub which played music all night. I thought that was bad until I found out that in Mykonos and Santorini, Greece, they're charging upwards of €600 for a plate of octopus and a glass of ouzo per serving. It's gotten so bad that the government wants to get involved. This now begs the question of price gouging at tourist resorts. This would be different to regular price gouging, because the former is a result of a disaster and the later is a result of tourism supply and demand

I’m thinking of making a NS issue similar to the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370. I have some questions though, what’s a good title (I’m using @@NAME@@ Airlines flight 968 as the plane on the issue) and is the issue already existent?

Staaria wrote:I’m thinking of making a NS issue similar to the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370. I have some questions though, what’s a good title (I’m using @@NAME@@ Airlines flight 968 as the plane on the issue) and is the issue already existent?

Issue #652 "Mayday! Mayday!" was, I believe, inspired by MH370, but is generalized enough to also be relevant for AF447 and some other "lost at sea" flights. Depending on how you approached it, you might be able to edge another issue in that is very particular to that incident, but it would need to be pretty creative, or looking at some aspect other than strictly the mysterious loss of an aircraft at sea.

Be aware as well that deliberate pilot involvement/suicide (which is one of the dominant MH370 theories) is already covered as well, with Issue# 1343 "Feeling Down" being written based on Germanwings 9525.

Verdant Haven wrote:

Staaria wrote:I’m thinking of making a NS issue similar to the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight 370. I have some questions though, what’s a good title (I’m using @@NAME@@ Airlines flight 968 as the plane on the issue) and is the issue already existent?

Issue #652 "Mayday! Mayday!" was, I believe, inspired by MH370, but is generalized enough to also be relevant for AF447 and some other "lost at sea" flights. Depending on how you approached it, you might be able to edge another issue in that is very particular to that incident, but it would need to be pretty creative, or looking at some aspect other than strictly the mysterious loss of an aircraft at sea.

Be aware as well that deliberate pilot involvement/suicide (which is one of the dominant MH370 theories) is already covered as well, with Issue# 1343 "Feeling Down" being written based on Germanwings 9525.

Issue 652 was designed to be a general plane crash one where a passenger aircraft crashed into the ocean and then safety measures are presented to best prevent future accidents. Although it doesn't follow traditional means of "investigation and then safety measures," the options presented are more common mechanisms of improving safety. I guess there haven't been many other aviation safety issues that have a narrow focus on the type of incident (besides the pilot suicide). Not sure if hijackings are covered, but there has been one about airport security.

Outer Sparta wrote:
Issue 652 was designed to be a general plane crash one where a passenger aircraft crashed into the ocean and then safety measures are presented to best prevent future accidents. Although it doesn't follow traditional means of "investigation and then safety measures," the options presented are more common mechanisms of improving safety. I guess there haven't been many other aviation safety issues that have a narrow focus on the type of incident (besides the pilot suicide). Not sure if hijackings are covered, but there has been one about airport security.

Thanks for the clarification, OS. Based on the timing and the general disappearance at sea aspect of it, I figured MH370 was the most likely proximal inspiration, but as you say - it is a fairly general topic.

As far as issues related specifically to aviation safety and security, I can identify fairly rapidly that we've got a broad-based "beef up airport/airplane security due to hijackings and bombings" issue, an airship/Hindenburg disaster issue, your plane crash at sea issue, an issue for an emergency landing caused by engine failure (object ingestion), a series of military aircraft accidents, an issue on air rage, an issue based on Ryanair 4978 related to false diversion to target a dissident, the pilot suicide/Germanwings issue, and a non-aviation issue that happens to be set up by a near-miss/ATC distraction scenario. There are also several others that are less about safety and more about passenger rights, including one on larger people needing to buy multiple tickets, and one for a passenger being violently removed from a flight after being bumped (based on United 3411).

It's a crowded space, but it's also an extraordinarily complex subject, so there's always room for more - especially with good specifics.

Verdant Haven wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:
Issue 652 was designed to be a general plane crash one where a passenger aircraft crashed into the ocean and then safety measures are presented to best prevent future accidents. Although it doesn't follow traditional means of "investigation and then safety measures," the options presented are more common mechanisms of improving safety. I guess there haven't been many other aviation safety issues that have a narrow focus on the type of incident (besides the pilot suicide). Not sure if hijackings are covered, but there has been one about airport security.

Thanks for the clarification, OS. Based on the timing and the general disappearance at sea aspect of it, I figured MH370 was the most likely proximal inspiration, but as you say - it is a fairly general topic.

As far as issues related specifically to aviation safety and security, I can identify fairly rapidly that we've got a broad-based "beef up airport/airplane security due to hijackings and bombings" issue, an airship/Hindenburg disaster issue, your plane crash at sea issue, an issue for an emergency landing caused by engine failure (object ingestion), a series of military aircraft accidents, an issue on air rage, an issue based on Ryanair 4978 related to false diversion to target a dissident, the pilot suicide/Germanwings issue, and a non-aviation issue that happens to be set up by a near-miss/ATC distraction scenario. There are also several others that are less about safety and more about passenger rights, including one on larger people needing to buy multiple tickets, and one for a passenger being violently removed from a flight after being bumped (based on United 3411).

It's a crowded space, but it's also an extraordinarily complex subject, so there's always room for more - especially with good specifics.

I also briefly once made a draft that was inspired by the Boeing 737MAX controversy and safety concerns but never got to working on it again. That could be a potential new angle, but I don't know if it would already be covered in present issues.

Outer Sparta wrote:Issue 652 was designed to be a general plane crash one where a passenger aircraft crashed into the ocean and then safety measures are presented to best prevent future accidents. Although it doesn't follow traditional means of "investigation and then safety measures," the options presented are more common mechanisms of improving safety. I guess there haven't been many other aviation safety issues that have a narrow focus on the type of incident (besides the pilot suicide).

There's one where your armed forces have, due to a case of mistaken identity, shot the plane down...

Hey - odd question: Do we have an issue about book burning? I'm thinking, like, at least one large and perhaps-renowned community had taken it up, and you can choose whether to punish them appropriately, legalize it (but maybe subsidize book publishing), or have the government actively burn books.

This of course might be irrelevant for nations which have computers... maybe? Not sure. Although theoretically a fourth option of "Might as well just bring technology back. What're they gonna do, burn iPears?" or something, with the effect line of "iPear bon fires light the countryside" or something.

Anyhow, just some odd idea I had. Not sure if I'd actually pursue it if it looks good and isn't covered, but I thought I'd ask anyway ^^

Jutsa wrote:Hey - odd question: Do we have an issue about book burning? I'm thinking, like, at least one large and perhaps-renowned community had taken it up, and you can choose whether to punish them appropriately, legalize it (but maybe subsidize book publishing), or have the government actively burn books.

This of course might be irrelevant for nations which have computers... maybe? Not sure. Although theoretically a fourth option of "Might as well just bring technology back. What're they gonna do, burn iPears?" or something, with the effect line of "iPear bon fires light the countryside" or something.

Anyhow, just some odd idea I had. Not sure if I'd actually pursue it if it looks good and isn't covered, but I thought I'd ask anyway ^^

#451 is explicitly about book-burning.

Other issues such as #3 and #1066 also address religious censorship of books without explicitly mentioning fire.

Keep in mind that although, historically (and in some of the crazier NationStates), some religious organizations had enough authority to round up every copy of a book they didn't like and burn them all, nowadays they generally can't do that kind of thing and so most modern book-burnings are symbolic. This has the interesting corollaries that (A) the existence of digital books is irrelevant, they can still burn one of the few hardcopies of a book even if most copies are digital (and in any case, plenty of people still prefer reading paper books even today), and (B) book-burners need to legally buy the books they're setting on fire to avoid getting in trouble with secular law, meaning that they're effectively supporting the authors/publishers of the books they disapprove of even if they're symbolically doing the opposite.

Jutsa wrote:Hey - odd question: Do we have an issue about book burning? I'm thinking, like, at least one large and perhaps-renowned community had taken it up, and you can choose whether to punish them appropriately, legalize it (but maybe subsidize book publishing), or have the government actively burn books.

This of course might be irrelevant for nations which have computers... maybe? Not sure. Although theoretically a fourth option of "Might as well just bring technology back. What're they gonna do, burn iPears?" or something, with the effect line of "iPear bon fires light the countryside" or something.

Anyhow, just some odd idea I had. Not sure if I'd actually pursue it if it looks good and isn't covered, but I thought I'd ask anyway ^^

That issue would only work in a democracy. Otherwise, the government would ban books as it is

So, I was thinking of an issue of the impacts finally directly hurting @@NAME@@, too much snow in some places, desertification in others, increased rainfall and flooding. I know that my issue "Snowed Under" didn't work, because as CWA suggested, "we weren't prepared for snow" isn't an issue, but would it work from this angle? Many types of climates, exacerbated by climate change?

Also, are there any issues about renaming cities, towns or other communities to give them Indigenous names? Something which does occassionally occur

Also, any issues about what Donald Trump has ALLEGEDLY done? I.e. leader's predecessor stealing national security files? Or if not leader's predecessor, then some other high ranking former cabinet minister?

Trotterdam wrote:

Jutsa wrote:Hey - odd question: Do we have an issue about book burning? I'm thinking, like, at least one large and perhaps-renowned community had taken it up, and you can choose whether to punish them appropriately, legalize it (but maybe subsidize book publishing), or have the government actively burn books.

This of course might be irrelevant for nations which have computers... maybe? Not sure. Although theoretically a fourth option of "Might as well just bring technology back. What're they gonna do, burn iPears?" or something, with the effect line of "iPear bon fires light the countryside" or something.

Anyhow, just some odd idea I had. Not sure if I'd actually pursue it if it looks good and isn't covered, but I thought I'd ask anyway ^^

#451 is explicitly about book-burning.

Other issues such as #3 and #1066 also address religious censorship of books without explicitly mentioning fire.

Keep in mind that although, historically (and in some of the crazier NationStates), some religious organizations had enough authority to round up every copy of a book they didn't like and burn them all, nowadays they generally can't do that kind of thing and so most modern book-burnings are symbolic. This has the interesting corollaries that (A) the existence of digital books is irrelevant, they can still burn one of the few hardcopies of a book even if most copies are digital (and in any case, plenty of people still prefer reading paper books even today), and (B) book-burners need to legally buy the books they're setting on fire to avoid getting in trouble with secular law, meaning that they're effectively supporting the authors/publishers of the books they disapprove of even if they're symbolically doing the opposite.

Except, anyone crazy enough to host a book burning wouldn't be thinking of any of that. I saw a video about a pastor in the USA holding a book burning where he told his congregation to burn Ougi Boards and the like. Considering that he specifically told his congregation to avoid breathing it in, and considering that he is deranged under normal circumstances, I don't think he was thinking of any of that

I would like to sincerely thank whoever wrote option 4 for issue 1328, I wasn’t expecting to have such an on-theme for my nation option in that issue.

Is there already an issue that had to do with enforced time limits of children's devices?

Hello GI people and Editors,

Is there an existing issue similar to what I have put down below and what do you think?

I plan to make the issue roughly as such:
[desc]At a recent protest staged by your opposition, many of your supporters began counterprotesting and the protest erupted into violence. The result were the deaths of many @@DEMONYM_PLURAL@@ on both sides. Now, many are beginning to think counterprotests only result in more violence.[desc]

1. The protest was only violent because of the counterprotesters, counterprotesting bad.
2. We just voiced out our opposition to support our glorious leader and counterprotesting should be a political right.
3. Let people counterprotest, just make sure to give police more funds to prevent violence in these protests no problemo.
4. Use your own big bad group of counterprotesters to crush any protests against your regime or your decisions, etc.

We have issues about protests turning violent, such as #153. I don't think we have one that's specifically about counterprotests, although the word "protest" appears so often in issues (usually in the context of explaining why a political issue has made it to your desk, rather than the protest itself being the issue) that it's impractical to check them all.

Free Jeililand wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:[*]I only know of one issue that has ever been removed, and I think that was something ridiculous to do with a pony-led coup of @@NAME@@.[/list]

I'm sorry but that last one is hilarious, I can only focus on that right now

#408
Sedge wrote it as a joke, and issued it only to Mods & Admins & Editors (to troll those of them that were pro-Pony, as he knew some were: It contained only anti-Pony options...)
Later on, it was also given to Trotterdam who posted it in this forum, and then it went into wider use too for at least a while.