[REVISITED, DRAFT 4] Don't Look Down

[Lansaka]

You should have this issue only be gor nations who have the WMD Policy.

I do, it's already mentioned right after the description

[Lansaka]

New draft! Thoughts?

[Federationalism]

New draft! Thoughts?

I don't quite remember... is @@HE@@ the right macro, or @@RANDOMNAMEMALE2@@?

[Cataleenia]

New draft! Thoughts?

I don't quite remember... is @@HE@@ the right macro, or @@RANDOMNAMEMALE2@@?

If I understand you correctly, I think you are trying to say that the macros used are incorrect, and if that is what you are saying, well all drafts use the incorrect macros, I’ll leave you with this quote:

The macros that the editors use backscreen are different from the ones players are told about anyway, so don't worry about it too much. Just use whatever notation unambiguously demonstrates your intent, and the editors will figure out the rest.

The notation that's commonly used in draft threads and the spoiler thread is actually one that I came up with while knowing fully well that it's not how things really work, with the intent of being human-readable rather than computer-readable.

[Federationalism]

I don't quite remember... is @@HE@@ the right macro, or @@RANDOMNAMEMALE2@@?

If I understand you correctly, I think you are trying to say that the macros used are incorrect, and if that is what you are saying, well all drafts use the incorrect macros, I’ll leave you with this quote:

The macros that the editors use backscreen are different from the ones players are told about anyway, so don't worry about it too much. Just use whatever notation unambiguously demonstrates your intent, and the editors will figure out the rest.

The notation that's commonly used in draft threads and the spoiler thread is actually one that I came up with while knowing fully well that it's not how things really work, with the intent of being human-readable rather than computer-readable.

Okay.

[Lansaka]

So does anyone have actual feedback on this draft?

[Verdant Haven]

The movie worked the way it did because the threat was credible and easy to understand for viewers: there was a comet, the physics explaining its path were not in question, and its scale was sufficient to cause the destruction that was threatened. Viewers didn't have to think about whether or not the threat was credible - they just got to watch the reactions of people facing it. If I'm receiving this issue as a player however, I'm dismissing it out of hand, because the entire thing is based on accepting junk science with no plausible explanations provided. I don't care what any of the speakers are saying, because I'm still stuck on the description making claims that cannot be supported.

Earthquakes cannot be predicted¹. Probabilities can be calculated and vulnerable areas identified², but earthquakes are not predictable by any means known to man, nor has any notable earthquake ever been successfully predicted. There are warning systems that detect when earthquakes start, and can flash warnings to others in the area using electronic communications that move faster than the leading P-wave³, but that is merely detection, not prediction. This issue does pointedly have the alleged seismologists "claiming" that something is going to happen, opening the door for this very point to be made, but it seems like all the options assume that they are correct. Unlike in the movie, this assumption cannot be used.

A good rule of thumb for dealing with technical topics (science, engineering, economics, etc) in NS issues is that while we don't need all of the correct details, the details included need to be correct. At present, there are all sorts of problems with the science being presented, and I keep coming back to the fact that the science needs to make sense before the issue will.

¹ https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/can-you-predict-earthquakes
² https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/top ... babilities
³ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... arthquake/

[Lansaka]

Earthquakes cannot be predicted + some other stuff snip snip

I believe this is just poor wording on my part. What I meant to say was that they believed an earthquake of that caliber had a chance of happening if the nuclear tests continued at that spot and at that frequency. I'll reword this to make more sense in the next draft, and I may change the profession from seismologists to something more fitting

This issue does pointedly have the alleged seismologists "claiming" that something is going to happen, opening the door for this very point to be made, but it seems like all the options assume that they are correct.

I was going to say that Option 3 does give a direct opportunity to dismiss the information given as false, though I did just realize it actually essentially dismisses it as propaganda. Should I add an additional option that questions the plausibility/validity of the claim and gives an option to just dismiss it as incorrect?

At present, there are all sorts of problems with the science being presented

Any chance you could go a bit more into detail about any additional issues with the science aside from "earthquakes can't be predicted"? It would make it a lot easier to figure out what needs to be changed and if the issue as a whole will work.

[Lansaka]

Released a new draft finally after like a year, and I took a lot of the advice into consideration and rewrote some stuff. Let me know if option 3 is too on-the-nose or if the sciency stuff still needs work

[Lansaka]

Bump!

[Verdant Haven]

I'm still perplexed by the premise. Why is nuclear testing being done in the ocean? Islands make sense, but in the ocean itself? Having it in the ocean also seems like it would diminish, if not completely eliminate, the seismic impact of the tests, which would be minimal anyway, with studies demonstrating no link between nuke tests and larger or more distant quakes. I could definitely see concerns about detonating directly on top of a newly-discovered supervolcano, but then I'm wondering why the answer isn't just "fine, do it a couple kilometers to the north."

The premise of the source material was that the impending disaster was going to happen unless humanity took unified action to prevent it, and it's very difficult to get people to do that. The premise in this issue doesn't work, because it is that the disaster might happen if a single nation takes unilateral action to cause it, and frankly, it is very easy for Leader to avoid doing that with almost no impact to ongoing operations.

I think the complexity of the premise is running away from the issue. What this challenge needs so that it works in this context is to be: A) straightforward, B) imminent *unless* action is taken, and C) technically believable.