Help us fix old issues [discussion threadjack]

[4stan]

Issue 548 has four options:

- kneel to environmentalist wackos
- kneel to corporate cronyism and corruption
- kneel to feminist wackos
- kneel to religious wackos

I can think of at least three options missing from this list:

- get the government out of science entirely and let the free market determine what's worth researching
- emphasize military applications
- more "pure" science with no restrictions and no idea what the future practical applications might be

[4stan]

Issue 247

Option 1 is "privatize the fire department". Option 4 is "get the government out of the firefighting business".

What the hell is the difference?

[Phydios]

Issue 247

Option 1 is "privatize the fire department". Option 4 is "get the government out of the firefighting business".

What the hell is the difference?

Option 1: privatized fire department
Option 4: no fire department

[Drasnia]

Issue 548 has four options:

- kneel to environmentalist wackos
- kneel to corporate cronyism and corruption
- kneel to feminist wackos
- kneel to religious wackos

I can think of at least three options missing from this list:

- get the government out of science entirely and let the free market determine what's worth researching
- emphasize military applications
- more "pure" science with no restrictions and no idea what the future practical applications might be

Issues aren't meant to be comprehensive. If they were, they'd balloon in size and make editing each on immensely harder. Because there are only a few choices, it makes the decision harder. If it were longer, more people would feel like dismissing it so they just don't have to read the whole thing.

If you truly think an issue needs new options or a rewrite, post a new thread about it here explaining why you believe it needs what you're proposing along with the relevant changed text.

[4stan]

Issue 247

Option 1 is "privatize the fire department". Option 4 is "get the government out of the firefighting business".

What the hell is the difference?

Option 1: privatized fire department
Option 4: no fire department

Having no fire department would require banning private fire departments, which is mutually exclusive with getting government out of the issue entirely.

Issues aren't meant to be comprehensive. If they were, they'd balloon in size and make editing each on immensely harder. Because there are only a few choices, it makes the decision harder.

I'm not asking for issues to be comprehensive. But if choices are to be meaningful, then they need to suck in unique and meaningful ways. These options all suck in the exact same way for the exact same reason.

[Ransium]

*snip*

4stan, as both myself and Drasnia have previously said, this thread is not for major reworking of issues. It's for identifying minor typos and the like. If you want an issue majorly reworked make a new thread about it. Continued posting of major changes to issues in this thread is not on topic nor is it going to move anyone to do anything. Remember when creating such threads that it is going to require an editor devoting serious time and effort to implement any change you suggest, so you need to make a convincing (and respectful) argument.

[Luna Amore]

Split out the threadjack.

[Noahs Second Country]

I'm not asking for issues to be comprehensive. But if choices are to be meaningful, then they need to suck in unique and meaningful ways. These options all suck in the exact same way for the exact same reason.

If you are going to complain, please be respectful, at least. We spend time and effort making issues in GI, and for somebody like you to simply come in and say "all the issues suck," you aren't going to get anywhere. I'd suggest rephrasing your arguments in a more respectful way.

[Nation of Quebec]

I'm not asking for issues to be comprehensive. But if choices are to be meaningful, then they need to suck in unique and meaningful ways. These options all suck in the exact same way for the exact same reason.

If you are going to complain, please be respectful, at least. We spend time and effort making issues in GI, and for somebody like you to simply come in and say "all the issues suck," you aren't going to get anywhere. I'd suggest rephrasing your arguments in a more respectful way.

Agreed. Acting rude to the people who write and edit issues isn't going to get you anywhere, and if anything, will make us less likely to listen to your requests.

[Trotterdam]

4stan did not say that "all the issues suck". He said that the options on a particular issue "suck", and from context it is clear that he meant "suck" in the sense of "have political downsides to discourage you from choosing them" (an intentional design feature in NationStates), not "are badly written". The complaint is not that they "suck" - by his own words, they're meant to - but that they "suck" in exactly the same way rather than being interestingly different.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

548 is a potential list issue, so the fact that it has 4 good options doesn't stop it from being to accommodate more. However, such an edit would have to go beyond just adding extra options, as there's the overall shape and length of the issue to consider. 4stan if you want to draft a proposed rewrite, would be happy to discuss that draft. Just be aware that the threshold for rewriting is slightly higher than the threshold for inclusion of a new issue, as it's important to respect the work of the original author. It can be done, but just bear in mind that your proposed draft will have to be really good to instigate a change.

I think, however, that I broadly agree with Drasnia. There's nothing about this issue that to me suggests an edit is needed. It looks to me to be well written and complete.

[Noahs Second Country]

4stan did not say that "all the issues suck". He said that the options on a particular issue "suck", and from context it is clear that he meant "suck" in the sense of "have political downsides to discourage you from choosing them" (an intentional design feature in NationStates), not "are badly written". The complaint is not that they "suck" - by his own words, they're meant to - but that they "suck" in exactly the same way rather than being interestingly different.

Ah. Makes sense.

[Trotterdam]

Issue 548 has four options:

- kneel to environmentalist wackos
- kneel to corporate cronyism and corruption
- kneel to feminist wackos
- kneel to religious wackos

I can think of at least three options missing from this list:

Okay, so...

- get the government out of science entirely and let the free market determine what's worth researching

I think the "corporate cronyism" option has this one covered pretty well. It may not be exactly the same, but it's still lettering scientific objectives be subordinate to the market's wishes. Different implementation, same result.

- more "pure" science with no restrictions and no idea what the future practical applications might be

Though it doesn't explicitly say so, the feminist option tends to work this way in practice in my experience, since it's about getting more people into science without being too concerned with what they're researching. I tend to pick it for that reason rather than being specifically concerned about gender issues.

While the speaker's "girls outperform boys in science at every grade in school" claim marks her a mild "wacko", as you put it, this is basically a bluff as I haven't been disappointed by the stats.

I still could see this working as a separate option, but it would likely require some change to the feminist option to establish what not-pure-science application that option wants to pursue to differentiate them. Alternatively, the feminist option could be tweaked slightly to make the research-whatever angle more explicit.

- emphasize military applications

This has the most merit among your suggestions. Not every issue needs a military option, but it would at least be a meaningful addition not similar to options already present.

Issue 247

Option 1 is "privatize the fire department". Option 4 is "get the government out of the firefighting business".

What the hell is the difference?

Having no fire department would require banning private fire departments, which is mutually exclusive with getting government out of the issue entirely.

This, I agree with. I just looked at the issue myself, and though option 4 uses more superficially hostile language, it doesn't actually propose a different course of action. Both involve the government not paying for firefighting, but private organizations still being able to do so if they wish (and can obtain the funding from elsewhere).

[Drasnia]

My question for the editors is how often each option is picked and how often it's dismissed. Is it already well balanced?

[Helaw]

My question for the editors is how often each option is picked and how often it's dismissed. Is it already well balanced?

It is very well-balanced in terms of how often each option is chosen, and it is not dismissed often.

[Phydios]

This, I agree with. I just looked at the issue myself, and though option 4 uses more superficially hostile language, it doesn't actually propose a different course of action. Both involve the government not paying for firefighting, but private organizations still being able to do so if they wish (and can obtain the funding from elsewhere).

I think the difference is that option 1 privatizes the existing fire department (selling it off), while option 4 just abolishes it. Personally, I don't think that's enough of a distinction, but it is a distinction.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I agree, I think. Option 4 could go altogether. Will suggest it back stage.