NationStates Issues **SPOILER ALERT**

[Rocain Founder]

This is a bit off-topic for here, but I'm OK with an atheist believing in evil demons. They might be an unfortunate feature of the natural world. I know of atheists who believe in souls, demons might be souls that have "gone bad". Atheists don't believe in God, but they may believe in things that are commonly considered "spiritual". They need not be entirely materialistic.

[Verdant Haven]

Another of those cases where the atheist text feels forced. Why would an atheist be concerned about Harry summoning evil demons? Atheists don't believe that evil demons are real, so it's not like religious people who might be concerned that the book would inspire children to perform actual dark magic.

Some atheists might be strongly enough opposed to superstition that they object to magic ever being portrayed as real, even in a fictional setting. But then the objection would be to any magic, not only evil magic.

(And yes, I'm pretty sure that Harry does not, in fact, summon evil demons in any of his books. That's an intentional part of the joke, and not what I'm complaining about.)

Remember - the new text isn't about the speaker being an atheist. The new text is about having a speaker who can exist in a State Atheist nation, where "religious worship is prohibited." Atheists still can exhibit "magical thinking" - and plenty of people who believe there are no deities and who don't practice a religion still believe in things like spirits of the dead, ghosts/hauntings, chakras, natural forces, etc. The other version of this option describes the speaker as a "Religious Leader" - that is something that very specifically wouldn't exist domestically in a State Atheist nation.

This was the most common type of change we had to make in the issues we adjusted. Many options were perfectly valid in an Atheist nation, so long as individuals in it weren't unnecessarily ascribed religious identity, and/or didn't resort to openly religious arguments. In the smaller number of cases where the religious identity/argument was actually necessary to what was said, and there wasn't a good way to have that speaker show up, that's where validities were used to remove the option or issue from those who shouldn't receive it. In cases where the religious argument had a legitimate way to get made despite State Atheism, you're likely to find those Atheism policy reversals occurring now.

I may have spearheaded the project, but this was a team effort that represents nearly two years of work. We did our best to ensure as many nations as possible can still receive as many issues and options as possible, without disrespecting the choices they've made. We're very conscious of precisely what the policy allows and disallows, and worked within that.

[Rocain Founder]

Next up on the changes for religion versus the lack thereof roster is issue #550. Option 2, where the speaker is a "frocked pastor" has seemingly been cloned to a new option 3. The nation that got this one is rather religious, so it did not get the text of the new option. I feel the new option 3 is certain to have a different talking point from option 2. Here are all the options my puppet received (my usual disclaimers apply). I doubt that any of these options were changed (and didn't take the time to check - I'm way behind schedule today), and of course I can't mark the differences between the new option and the old one because I haven't seen the new option.

1. “REPOST THIS TO SHOW YOU CARE!!!” posts popular blogger Anselm Bottomley, grinning inappropriately while watching a video of a rather savage beating. “Hey, there’s nothing wrong with showing the world as it is, especially if it increases the hits on my website. How am I supposed to persuade advertisers to sponsor me unless I have the freedom to publish the most shocking content?”

2. “There’s a moral sickness to this nation!” proclaims frocked pastor Boutros Han, seen smiling as he flagellates a penitent fellow clergyman with a rubber whip. “We can only remedy this by proper schooling, with properly funded religious authority imprinting a sense of right and wrong from an early age. When we have young people who are more interested in acting right rather than watching wrong, @@NAME@@ will be a better place.”

4. “Gahh! I can’t even tell what’s real and isn’t real anymore!” moans your social media handler Justice O, while fighting a losing battle against pop-ups and clickbait sites. “Whatever happened to the good old days of internet journalism, back when they weren’t littered with ads... and when ads themselves weren’t disguised as news? This sort of practice ought to be banned! The internet needs to return to a place of intellectual discussion and education, not this cesspool of clickbait, gross-out violence, and trolling.”

5. “Social media made this problem; let social media fix it,” suggests too-reasonable seeming taxi driver Gregory vandeBerg, who considers himself an expert on how @@NAME@@ is run after driving around several politicians. “Tell the big companies behind these sites that they have to police their own sites and enforce better standards, or face financial penalties. They’ve got huge profit margins, and they pay barely any tax, so let them shoulder the cost of the problems they’ve created.”

[Rocain Founder]

And here's the next one. There is a new option for issue #720, inserted after the existing option 3, presumably a version of option 3 for the nations banning religion. The nation that got it is a Theocracy, so it clearly did not qualify for an atheism-oriented option. I'll include below a copy of the issue as received by my puppet. I note the name "Fleur Violetsglory" in option 5. I do not know if this is a religious reference or not (it might be a random name), however the use of the Biblical phrase "I say unto you" tends to imply that this is also a religion-based option. If this is the case, there is probably (IMO) a new option 6 which modifies these aspects of option 5. An unreligious nation will have to get this issue before we'll know.

Here are the options of the issue as my puppet received it (my usual disclaimers apply):

1. “It was bad enough that criminals and lazy bums were scrounging from the state, but now the government is directly subsidising terrorism!” yells Brightheart News reporter Michonne Oz, pursuing you down the street and trampling over a homeless man’s sleeping bag to keep up. “You have to end the free ride! Cut welfare completely, and make our nation safe!”

2. “Hold your horses there buddy, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater,” says single parent T'Challa Wade, ignoring the three mewling moppets trying to get his attention. “@@NAME@@ just needs its welfare system to be fully managed, monitored, and policed. Give folks on welfare charge cards whose transactions records are sent to a searchable police database. Then anyone making a purchase that’s the least bit suspicious should be brought in for interrogation.”

3. “Sounds like a lot of expensive admin work to me,” complains Welfare Director Bawu Coulson. “Wouldn’t you rather have a solution that reduces government spending but still helps those who deserve it? Here’s the thing, nobody wants to say it, but we all know that 99% of terrorists are from a handful of religions and nations. Just say that people from those groups don’t get welfare, and you can both save money and prevent terrorism!”

5. “I say unto you that the answer is more welfare, not less!” offers unemployed youth Fleur Violetsglory, pushing a shopping trolley of ammonium nitrate and diesel oil to the checkout till. “If you increase welfare, then maybe the resentful disenfranchised minorities will feel more supported by society, and become less prone to radicalisation. What have you got to lose?”

[Trotterdam]

Next up on the changes for religion versus the lack thereof roster is issue #550. Option 2, where the speaker is a "frocked pastor" has seemingly been cloned to a new option 3. The nation that got this one is rather religious, so it did not get the text of the new option. I feel the new option 3 is certain to have a different talking point from option 2.

If so, I haven't seen it. I suspect that it may be coded as an atheism repeal, although I haven't seen that yet either. It, understandably, isn't a super-commonly-chosen option.

I note the name "Fleur Violetsglory" in option 5. I do not know if this is a religious reference or not (it might be a random name), however the use of the Biblical phrase "I say unto you" tends to imply that this is also a religion-based option. If this is the case, there is probably (IMO) a new option 6 which modifies these aspects of option 5.

Fleur Violetsglory is heavily implied to be a religious terrorist, who is violating your nation's laws regardless of whether or not her paticular religion is completely banned. Also, names, especially family names, are often legacy words that people keep using out of habit without paying attention to what they originally meant. (In European-language-speaking nations that's common for given names as well. Plenty of real-life people are named "Christian" who aren't.)

Option 4 most likely differs from option 3 in changing the "99% of terrorists are from a handful of religions and nations" to something like "99% of terrorists are motivated by religion", condemning all religions rather than only a handful of them.

Of course, all of this is speculation until someone reports the atheist version.

[TalAkMaChen]

Yummy, unnoticed changes get revealed! - I will keep updating this post so it will grow quite a bit as I add new items.
For clarity I will be only be using the external numbering, the choice-X is always 1 less, of course.

Issue #3: New inserts after option 1 and at the end as Rocain Founder noted With the Master List the updated issue now has those four options:

*1. "I quite enjoyed the book, until I got to the part where Harry summons evil demons to do his bidding," says religious leader @@RANDOM_NAME@@. "Now that's just wrong. We need to restore some sense to this debate, by which I mean we should remove this book from the shelves, salt it thoroughly, and burn it." [Must allow religion]

*2. "I quite enjoyed the book, until I got to the part where Harry summons evil demons to do his bidding," says nervous PTA member @@RANDOM_NAME@@. "Now that’s just wrong. We need to restore some sense to this debate, by which I mean we should remove this book from the shelves, salt it thoroughly, and burn it." [Must not allow religion]

*3. Teachers union President @@RANDOM_NAME@@ says, "Come on, the book is fantasy! And it's a damn good read. I'd like the government to issue a statement of support for our teachers and librarians, so kids can enjoy good books without interference from religious wackos, like Christians." [Must allow religion]

*4. Teachers union President @@RANDOM_NAME@@ says, "Come on, the book is fantasy! And it’s a damn good read. I’d like the government to issue a statement of support for our teachers and librarians, so kids can enjoy good books without interference from ignorant wackos, like their parents."[Must not allow religion]

Issue #33: New insert after option 1, new order of the old options is 1+3+4 as Rocain Founder posted
The new set of options would look like:

1. “I, for one, applaud their work,” says scientist @@RANDOM_NAME@@. “And not just because I’m the project leader. This is an example of how @@NAME@@’s brains can mix it with the world’s best. Can you imagine how wonderful it will be to have feather-bellied @@ANIMAL_PLURAL@@ frolicking in the meadows again? I say full steam ahead, and more government funding!”

*2. “This is a sacrilege!” says religious leader @@RANDOM_NAME@@. “These animals are extinct because God wants them dead. Cloning them would merely incur his wrath! If we proceed down this path, it’ll be humans, not the feather-bellied @@ANIMAL@@, who will be extinct.” [Must allow religion]

*3. “This is absurd!” says avowed fatalist @@RANDOM_NAME@@. “These animals are extinct because evolution selected against them. Cloning them would merely be fighting the inevitable! If we proceed down this path, it’ll be humans, not the feather-bellied @@ANIMAL@@, who will be extinct.” [Must not allow religion/has Atheism]

4. “Now, come on,” says @@RANDOM_NAME@@, well-known philosopher. “You don’t need to believe in some outside force to be unnerved by the top of this particular slippery slope. Today it’s @@ANIMAL_PLURAL@@s, tomorrow it’s dinosaurs, and we all know how that turns out. This research shouldn’t be banned, but there must be strict government controls over its use.”

Even with a low religiousness of 5 I got option 2, so it appears to be strictly for Atheist nations.

Issue #40 also got changed:

1. Boot Camp instructor @@RANDOM_NAME@@ stated: “Who gives a damn? Makes ‘em easier to turn into brainwashed grunts anyhow! You don’t need to be able to read in order to fire a gun! What we need to do is focus on our military spending - what does it matter if you can read or not when you’re overrun by warmongering barbarians?”

2. On the other side, there’s @@NAME@@’s Education Administrator. “This is shocking news. If the children of tomorrow cannot read, then what? Next thing you know, we will be speaking with contractions! The government must devote more efforts to education! Where will we be twenty years from now with an overflow of unskilled labor?”

*3. @@RANDOM_NAME@@, principal of a highly-rated private school, prefers a different approach. “Instead of that, why not issue government vouchers so that parents can afford to send their children to privately run schools? We offer a far better education than the public schools. All we do is grind our particular religious views into our students!” [allows religion + private industry]

*4. @@RANDOM_NAME@@, principal of a highly-rated private school, prefers a different approach. “Instead of that, why not issue government vouchers so that parents can afford to send their children to privately run schools? We offer a far better education than the public schools. All we do is grind our particular philosophy into our students!” [Atheism + private industry]

*5. @@RANDOM_NAME@@, principal of a highly-rated private school in the United Federation, suggests a different approach. “Instead of that, why not issue government subsidies to help parents afford to send their children overseas, to privately run schools outside of @@NAME@@? We offer a far better education than the communist schools of your nation. Sure, they might pick up a few ideological tendencies, but I reckon that’ll be good for your economy in the long run.” [socialism]

6. “Who needs some fancy-schmancy cash-draining school system, anyway?” @@RANDOM_NAME@@ declares from the front steps of a double-wide mobile home, shotgun in hand. “My Pa raised me and my eight brothers and three sisters without no waste of time schoolin’! My Pa taught me everythin’ I need t’know, let all these whippersnappers’ Mas and Pas teach ‘em what they need t’know!”

Issue #72: Something weird here.

[...]
3. "Mandatory exercise! Get out! I don't have the time!" snorts nationally renowned TV chef Rosalina Dodinas. "How about banning those greasy fast food joints and drive-thrus? I mean, seriously, if you can't get on your stupid bike and go get a meal, how sad is that? Ban fast food and make junk food more expensive—that way, people will have to think about whether they really want to spend ten @@CURRENCY_PLURAL@@ on a snack cake." [Must ban cars]

*4. "I don't see why it's anyone's business but my own how I kill myself," says @@RANDOM_NAME@@, a pleasantly plump computer programmer, stuffing a chili dog down his throat. "My weight is my own business, and if I don't feel like exercising, that's my choice. Sure, it'd be healthier to lose a few pounds, but my priorities lie elsewhere. Leave us alone, and we, the citizens of @@NAME@@, will decide what's important to us and what we want to eat." [Must ban Computers]

*5. "I don't see why it's anyone's business but my own how I kill myself," says Emile Jordan, a pleasantly plump former computer programmer, midway through a chili dog. "My weight is my own business, and if I don't feel like exercising, that's my choice. Sure, it'd be healthier to lose a few pounds, but my priorities lie elsewhere. Leave us alone, and we, the citizens of @@NAME@@, will decide what's important to us and what we want to eat." [Must not ban Computers]

[...]

Either something got removed or got shuffled around. On war_dogs_ci I got options 1, 2, 4, and 5 as

1. “Clearly, we have to do something about the expanding obesity problem in @@NAME@@, er, no pun intended,” remarks Thundu Bourdain of the National Health Bureau. “The government should implement an extensive exercise management program and make it mandatory that all citizens participate in some kind of exercise at least once a week.”

2. “Mandatory exercise! Get out! I don’t have the time!” snorts nationally renowned TV chef Bhooshit Han. “How about banning those greasy fast food joints and drive-thrus? I mean, seriously, if you can’t get out of your stupid car to walk in and get a meal, how sad is that? Ban fast food and make junk food more expensive—that way, people will have to think about whether they really want to spend ten dollars on a snack cake.”

3. ?? (presumably the no-car version of option 2)

4. “I don’t see why it’s anyone’s business but my own how I kill myself,” says Georgina Nxumalo, a pleasantly plump former computer programmer, midway through a chili dog. “My weight is my own business, and if I don’t feel like exercising, that’s my choice. Sure, it’d be healthier to lose a few pounds, but my priorities lie elsewhere. Leave us alone, and we, the citizens of War Dogs CI, will decide what’s important to us and what we want to eat.”

5. “What about government-funded liposuction?” asks Leonardo Urquhart, while contemplatively chewing a mouthful of chili dog. “If I could get the fat sucked off of these hips, that would give me the willpower to stay thin. Obesity would be a thing of the past! Just think of it! Nothing but svelte, beautiful people everywhere! Ah, bliss!”

I don't know what happened to the computer/no computer switch here

Issue 136 updates:
In addition to what Rocain Founder noted as options 1, 2,3, and 5 I found the new option 4:
4. “You’re not going far enough! Abortion is murder!” shouts activist Bianca Dogs, waving a placard with a picture of a foetus on it. “How can you claim the right to decide which babies live and which will die? The government must enforce stern anti-abortion laws to preserve the morality of @@NAME@@!”

Issue 183: new option inserted after option 3, shifting the old 4+5 to 5+6:

*1. "Embryo selection isn't really genetic engineering in the technical sense," explains Dr. @@RANDOM_NAME@@, owner of the Babies-2-Go Clinic. "It's more like being able to have a dozen abortions per month until you get the foetus you desire. I can't really see what's wrong with parents who can afford it being able to eliminate foetuses with undesirable genetic traits - like stupidity." [Abortion is legal]

*2. "Embryo selection isn't really genetic engineering in the technical sense," explains Dr. @@RANDOM_NAME@@, owner of the Babies-2-Go Clinic. "It's more like being able to have a dozen abortions per month until you get the foetus you desire... which I guess would be illegal under the nation's abortion ban, but you should be 'terminating' that ban too. I can't really see what's wrong with parents who can afford it being able to eliminate foetuses with undesirable genetic traits - like stupidity." [Abortion is illegal]

*3. "Thou shalt pay for thy sins!" screams @@RANDOM_NAME@@, waving a crucifix. "This is just meddling with the sanctity of life. If these children are to be born with horrible defects then it's God's will and who are we to question it? This technology must be banned at once!" [religious nation]

*4. “We will pay for our hubris!” screams @@RANDOM_NAME@@, waving a banner. “This is just meddling with the sanctity of life. If these children are born with horrible defects then it’s just nature taking its course. Who are we to question it? This technology must be banned at once!” [unreligious nation]

5. "This technology shows promise," muses @@RANDOM_NAME@@, minister of health. "But we can't trust the private sector with the future of our nation's children. We must place it under strict government regulation, so that we only screen out embryos with serious genetic conditions."

6. "This has got me thinkin'," says General @@RANDOM_NAME@@, thumbing through a big folder marked 'X'. "If this technology lets us reduce genetic defects, then couldn't it work the other way? We could create ourselves an army of genetically superior soldiers! With our army of Super Soldiers, no nation would dare stand in our way!"

The new text of op.4 was copied from Rocain Founder's post.)

Issue 336 got an update:

1. "The courts just can't cope with the strain," warns @@RANDOM_NAME@@, your trusted legal advisor. "Divorce cases have become so complex that lawyers now have to take courses in complex mathematics just to settle property disputes! If this continues any longer, our legal system is going to collapse. The best solution would be to make prenuptial agreements mandatory for all new marriages. That would free up the courts from dealing with complex property disputes once and for all."

*2. "This is sacrilege!" exclaims Reverend @@RANDOM_NAME@@, bursting into your office without warning. "It was a mistake to legalize polygamy to begin with! It's made a mockery of the sanctity of marriage. I implore the government to repeal this perversion of matrimony and make polygamy illegal throughout @@NAME@@ - if not for the sake of the families it has torn apart, then for their very souls under the eyes of our great Lord." [allows religion]

*3. “This is a nightmare!” exclaims family counselor @@RANDOM_NAME@@, bursting into your office without warning. “It was a mistake to legalize polygamy to begin with! It’s made a mockery of the very idea of marriage. I implore the government to repeal this perversion of matrimony and make polygamy illegal throughout @@NAME@@ - if not for the sake of the families it has torn apart, then for the children who don’t even know which of their two dozen mommies is truly theirs!” [does not allow religion]

4. "I've got a better idea," claims renowned TV critic @@RANDOM_NAME@@, sprawling paperwork across your desk. "You want to keep polygamy legal, but don't want to pay through the nose in legal fees, right? Why not broadcast the divorce proceedings live across @@REGION@@? Think of the drama! Think of the viewing figures! Just sign here on the dotted line, and the studio will cover all the expenses." She forces a pen into your hand.

Option 2/3 are now alternatives and the previous option 3 is now listed as 4.

Issue 366 updates:

*2. "It is the right of all citizens to express themselves in any way they chose," claims free speech advocate @@RANDOM_NAME@@ while wearing a t-shirt that calls you a rather crude obscenity. "People should be free to dress in any uniform without fear of reprisal or punishment - and that includes wearing a uniform of the @@DEMONYM_ADJECTIVE_INITIALS@@AF. What better way to display to the world one's patriotism! And if you happen to get more respect or some discounts because of it, all the better. If that argument doesn't persuade you, then maybe you should ask the Vice Admiral how he won those medals. You can bet your bottom @@CURRENCY@@ that if you criminalise this, concerned citizens will start asking serving officers that question. Do you want the military to have another public relations disaster?" [Must not have media]

**3. "Why do we celebrate and glorify warmongering by raising these conquistadors above everyone else?" questions Conan Svensson, an anti-war protester outside the gates of your office building. "These medals and uniforms only exist to exert dominance and fear over the masses. The military claim these medals are rewards, but they are actually trophies declaring to the world how many innocent civilians their brainwashed killers massacred. We should do away with our armed forces and imprison those who supposedly kill in the name of @@NAME@@." [Must not have conscription (TBD)]

**4. "Why do we celebrate and glorify warmongering by raising these conquistadors above everyone else?" questions @@RANDOM_NAME@@, an anti-war protester outside the gates of your office building. "These medals and uniforms only exist to exert dominance and fear over the masses. The military claim these medals are rewards, but they are actually trophies declaring to the world how many innocent civilians their brainwashed killers massacred. We should do away with our armed forces, abolish the draft and imprison those who volunteered to supposedly kill in the name of @@NAME@@." [Must have conscription]

option 2: I also had that at nations without State-Press policy but instead Autocracy, war_dogs_dlxxxiii and war_dogs_cccxviii -> suggested change: validity is State Press or Autocracy
option 3: Out of 4 current findings of that issue three had Conspription and saw option 4, one didn't have it and saw option 3 instead, also with a @@RANDOM_NAME@@. That supports the current validity check.

Issue 502: New option as alternative to #2

*2. "You're not seriously going to listen to this quack, are you?" shouts @@RANDOM_NAME@@, Great Big Bahpoo of the Cult of Cyan, a religious group so esoteric they make Violetism seem straightforward. "So what if @@ANIMAL_PLURAL@@ are intelligent? Were they given dominion over the earth and all its inhabitants? No, those things were given to us, humanity. These animals are here to cater to our basic needs, like eating, carrying heavy loads, or teaching them how to juggle and selling them to the circus. @@ANIMAL@@ personhood? What blasphemy. You'd be better off stripping them of any 'animal' rights they have today." [allows Religion]

*3. “You’re not seriously going to listen to this quack, are you?” shouts Sokka Exotic, better known as the @@ANIMAL@@ King. “So what if @@ANIMAL_PLURAL@@ are intelligent? Have they seized dominion over the earth and all its inhabitants? No, that was done by us, humanity. These animals are here to cater to our basic needs, like carrying heavy loads, or teaching them how to juggle and selling them to the circus. @@ANIMAL@@ personhood? What idiocy. You’d be better off stripping them of any ‘animal’ rights they have today.” [Atheism]

[rest of the text unchanged]

Previous options 3+4 (the ones about elections) got shifted to 4+5.

Issue 522 option 4 has a (new?) validity check for nations with either low religiousness or Atheism policy. War_dogs_cccxxxi has both and didn't get that option.

Issue #556: Old order was 1- 2- 3- 4 is now 1- 3- 4- 5 with a fresh option 2 for low Religiousness:

*1. "Do we really have to go through this again?" sighs Education Minister @@RANDOM_NAME@@, while reading through a woefully inaccurate high school history textbook. "The map was obviously just talking about lizards or something. Dragons aren't real! If the people really are this credulous, then it's just a sign that we need to give the education budget another boost. If you need the funding, you can take it from that religious ministry. It's that superstitious mumbo-jumbo that has people believing in imaginary creatures anyway."

*2. "Do we really have to go through this again?" sighs Education Minister @@RANDOM_NAME@@, while reading through a woefully inaccurate high school history textbook. "The map was obviously just talking about lizards or something. Dragons aren’t real! If the people really are this credulous, then it’s just a sign that we need to give the education budget another boost. If you need the funding, I bet there are some illegal religious practitioners whose assets you can seize. It’s that superstitious mumbo-jumbo that has people believing in imaginary creatures anyway." [low religiousness/Atheism]

[3]. "It most certainly does not!" protests Religious Affairs Minister @@RANDOM_NAME@@. "Do you really think our sacred books are full of seven-headed ten-crowned dragons? If you want to find someone to blame, the fault is clearly with those godless fantasy authors and television producers, filling our young people's heads with rubbish and anti-religious propaganda. We must censor works like that hedonistic Play of Crowns series so they can't corrupt our children!" [Must have at least 5.0 prayers / hour (Religiousness)?]

4. "Okay, so dragons don't exist... yet," agrees Minister of Science and Technology @@RANDOM_NAME@@, while poking a strange-looking animal with a cattle prod. "Although with recent advances in biological splicing, who knows? If you allotted a little extra in the budget for science, and eased up on some of those research restrictions, we could start creating all sorts of creatures in our labs. Maybe we could even try a field test of Prototype #42?"

5. "I'm not sure there's anything actually wrong with the public believing dragons exist," muses Minister of Whispers @@RANDOM_NAME@@, while feeding a flock of little birds. "If you ask me, they've been getting a little uppity lately. Remember that protest last week, simply because you wanted to erect your statue in @@CAPITAL@@ Square? Let's start spreading rumours that you really do have dragons - a whole flight of them! They'll think twice about speaking out over the new tax bill then! Fire and blood!"

Issue #626 got a new option 5 at the end for low Religiousness (found at rel = 4.26):

4. "You don't need to be a Luddite or a religious fanatic to object to transhumanism," mutters ethicist @@RANDOM_NAME@@, glancing nervously at the wall clock. "Developing these technologies increases the odds of human self-extinction. We need to be sure that any intelligence that ushers in the next century is wholly human, grounded in human biology and human morality. There is no fate but what we make. What future do you want to create?"

5. “You don’t need to be a Luddite or a fanatic to object to transhumanism,” mutters ethicist @@RANDOM_NAME@@, glancing nervously at the wall clock. “Developing these technologies increases the odds of human self-extinction. We need to be sure that any intelligence that ushers in the next century is wholly human, grounded in human biology and human morality. There is no fate but what we make. What future do you want to create?”

Note, that by Trotterdam's comment on the effect line it may also be that 626,3

3. "This. Is. ABOMINABLE! EXECRABLE! DETESTABLE!" yells the Minister of the Church of Weird Gaits, as he marches, then tromps, then slithers into your office and rises before you, his face turning the same color as an old peach pit on your desk. "This is a total abandonment of the world that the Great Lumberer created for us! How will we show our gratitude for the greatest gift bestowed on us, our legs, if we can't use them! Tens of citizens in @@CAPITAL@@ will be either transferred to a line of 1's and 0's and banished from The Lumberer's Sidewalks, or left behind to die in the ruins of civilization. Shut down this science corporation! Make it no more, ceased to be, expired, bereft of profit, history!"

got a alternative for nations with Atheism policy as addition, shifting option 4 (as cited above) to the fifth option while also removing the word "religious". I will look for more data to check that one and update accordingly.

Issue #638: Option 3 has a validity check. I assume it is [must allow private industries] as a Socialist didn't see it.

Issue 658: Option 3 got a new validity check:

3. "Domina Hyacinthinum, dona eis requiem," chants local abbot, Father @@RANDOM_MALE_NAME@@, while walking into the meeting and whacking himself in the head with a board. "Blessings, Scipio. Rubellan Measles is clearly a plague sent by Violet to deal with the sinners in @@NAME@@. If you tell the people to live their lives according to Violet's will and order them to engage in daily self-flagellation, then faster than you can say 'Amen', Rubellan Measles will be a thing of the past!"

is not seen at the Atheist nation war_dogs_clxvii, but there is no new option in its stead.

Issue #714: In the Master List the variants 1/2 do not have the usual *1 markings

Issue 726 - at war_dogs_cclxx the pair of options 3/4 was completely hidden. Based on the premises of the talk I suspect it to be the Autarky policy that blocks my nation from seeing either of these options,

*3. "The problem is there's no one in @@NAME@@ who is actually qualified to fill the jobs I need," sighs Anita Jobs, CEO of the major tech company Pear. "Can you please drop this silly immigration ban already? Once tech companies like Pear reboot the economy, I'm sure these hapless job fair attendees will be able to get jobs at McRonald's or something." [Immigration is illegal, possible additional criterion missing]

*4. "The problem is there's no one in @@NAME@@ who is actually qualified to fill the jobs I need," sighs Anita Jobs, CEO of the major tech company Pear. "Can you please make it easier for us to hire high-skilled labor from outside the country? Once tech companies like Pear reboot the economy, I'm sure these hapless job fair attendees will be able to get jobs at McRonald's or something." [Immigration is legal, possible additional criterion missing]

Issue #728 got a new option 6 as alternative to the religious 5:

*5. "HERESY!" screams Really Revered Reverend @@RANDOM_NAME@@, who claims to be an ordained cleric of a religion you've never heard of. "Have all of you lost your minds? Do you understand what you are saying? When people die, they must be respectfully buried whole, otherwise in the afterlife they will be fragmented! Would you like to spend all eternity as a pile of loose body parts? I'm sure I wouldn't! Do you want the restless shades of the dismembered haunting you? I'm sure I don't! The dead must be allowed rest in peace, not pieces!" [religious]

*6. “What about DIGNITY?” screams @@RANDOM_NAME@@, who claims to represent a ‘silent majority’ you’ve never heard of. “Have all of you lost your minds? Do you understand what you are saying? When people die, they must be respectfully buried whole, not used for profit or some kind of nefarious experiment! Would you like to spend all eternity as a pile of loose body parts? I’m sure I wouldn’t, and neither does anybody else. The dead must be allowed rest in peace, not pieces!” [non-religious]

Issue 769 - what would a

[2]. "An easier solution would be to implant small RFID-microchips into our notes and coins," proposes @@RANDOM_NAME@@, your Minister of Gadgets, demonstrating a prototype to you. "This would ensure that all genuine money could be immediately verified by handheld scanners. As an extra benefit, it'd be a lot easier to track the movement of cash if we need to." [Must have substantial scientific advancement OR I.T.] [???]

substantial scientific advancement OR I.T. look like? In war_dogs_dclxiii the stats are even lower/negative (sci.ad. -20 and IT 730) and it still saw option 2. If that's the filter, it must be set very low rather than at a substantial level.

Issue #779: Update.
On war_dogs_cccxciii (has Atheism policy) I saw options 1, 2, 4 as which appear identical to the Master List's options 1, 2, 3:

1. “Dying is not something we have a choice in,” weeps a sombre woman dressed all in black. “The tragic death of a loved one followed by an astronomical bill landing on our doorsteps can put families’ finances in a death spiral. I urge you, Leader, to scrap death charges altogether and provide state-funded funerals for everyone. That way families won’t have to mourn their bank accounts as well as their loved ones.”

2. “Yes, and do you know why there’s a shortage of funeral services, hmmm?” quietly seethes funeral director Igor Fronkensteen, while dragging a lumpy burlap sack behind him. “Burial plot land costs...they are rising, yes? The price of insuring a hearse these days is, how do you say, absolutely ludicrous, yes? And the restrictive laws on ‘adequate refrigeration’ and ‘treating the dead with dignity’ all are running our margins and my salary down! You want more funeral services at a cheaper price, you should ease up on the bureaucracy, yes?”

3. ???

4. “Funeral services? What a waste of money,” scoffs obscure thinker @@RANDOM_NAME@@, who has yet to sell any copies of @@HIS@@ book Rich Dead, Poor Dead. “What’s the point in some drawn-out shebang for someone who’s not even going to be around to see it? Do away with funerals altogether. That way we can cremate everyone and harvest their bodies for phosphorus!”

Option 3 was not seen yet.

Issue #871: Option 3 has a validity check, either "must have computers" or "scientific advancement" as a threshold - war_dogs_cdlxxxviii failed to see:

3. "Full automation, @@LEADER@@!" cackles your worryingly eccentric science advisor while working on plans for the latest spy satellite. "The people aren't receiving enough food and medicine and whatnot due to our antiquated systems of distribution. If we automated these systems using my latest resource planning software, we could one-up those inefficient bureaucrats in Central Planning! Some of the robotic delivery technology that the simulation relies upon hasn't been developed yet, but I'm sure with enough funding we can work through it within the next few weeks. Or months. Maybe a decade or two, actually."

Issue #1014, option 3: the last "we" is in italics:
3. [...]"It's hubris equal to that of the religions for us to assume that we know all the answers. [...]

Issue 1135, option 4 found at a nation with compulsory nudity, war_dogs_div:

*3. "It's not my fault a pretty woman decided to wear a flattering dress to the meeting," counters one of your aides accused of having a roaming gaze. "So what if I like to give women attention? It's natural, it's heterosexual male biology, it's a compliment, for goodness sake! Are we seriously considering government regulating the involuntary movements of my eyeballs? Let's be a more permissive society, and say that people can put their gaze wherever they want."

*4. “It’s not my fault a pretty woman decided to come to the meeting,” counters one of your aides accused of having a roaming gaze. “So what if I like to give women attention? It’s natural, it’s heterosexual male biology, it’s a compliment, for goodness sake! Are we seriously considering government regulating the involuntary movements of my eyeballs? Let’s be a more permissive society, and say that people can put their gaze wherever they want.” [compulsory Nudity]

Issue 1171 - new option 2 as alternative for Atheist nations, see https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=40652685#p40652685

Issue #1204 got changed:
Old order was 1-2-3 and the new order is 1 OR 2 - 3 -4
Changes:

1. "Oh my silly lost girl, where did she get her ideas? She didn't kill anyone during her escapades, so surely that should count for something," pleads the girl's father, a Violetist cleric. "She wasn't even an adult at the time, so she should be excused for her actions and be allowed to return home to have her child. Our family will take care of her and the baby, so you've got nothing to worry about."

2. "She made the decision to betray our glorious @@TYPE@@ in order to join up with those Violetist lunatics!" bellows your Minister for Homeland Security. "No matter the girl's claims about being a noncombatant, she still served the enemy! But if she wants to come back, then fine! Have her extradited, then throw her in solitary confinement for the rest of her miserable life! The child we'll take away to raise in a patriotic environment free from sick terrorist ideals!"

3. "Take her out," whispers your Minister for Alternative Solutions. "And I don't mean to a nice restaurant. Violetist extremists have caused so many deaths, so why waste this opportunity for justice? I don't believe she was noncombatant for a second. These Violetist animals wouldn't show any mercy to us, so we shouldn't show any to them. She and her larva deserve to die — this is war!"

NEW alternative for nations with either enforced Atheism or low Religiousness (2.5):
2. “Oh my silly lost girl, where did she get her ideas? She didn’t kill anyone during her escapades, so surely that should count for something,” pleads the girl’s father, a suspected Violetist himself. “She wasn’t even an adult at the time, so she should be excused for her actions and be allowed to return home to have her child. Our family will take care of her and the baby, so you’ve got nothing to worry about.”

Issue 1205: Option 2 has a validity check:

2. Sitting in an armchair wearing an insufferably smug look, one of your advisors drains their glass, "In the future, I trust you'll heed my advice. I warned you against demolishing tradition and opening up our succession to both sexes. We have an heir unapparent, flighty and impulsive, emotional and argumentative — as we should have expected — who's gone and disappeared trying to prove god-knows-what to god-knows-who! Assuming a rescue mission is successful, we'll still be in a national crisis solely based on who we're rescuing. No, that simply will not do, @@LEADER@@. Absolute primogeniture was an experiment. A failed one. It's time to correct that mistake and return the throne to the rightful sex."

The monarchy over at war_dogs_cxvi only had the other 4 options. By the wording of the option I suspect that option to require nations to choose the eldest sibling to be heir to the monarchy, not only the eldest son/daughter, thus depending on the type as kingdom or queendom.

Issue #1329 options 2 and 3 have identical wording

*2/3. "Great!" sarcastically exclaims @@RANDOM_NAME1@@'s valet after @@HE@@ has walked out of the room. "One more way the rich get it better off than the poor. My kids are even shorter than his, but I could never afford this treatment. You have to level the playing field. State-employed doctors should determine who truly needs growth hormone therapy, and the state should pay for it."

My guess based on the fallout: op. 2 is for nations that allow sports, op. 3 is for those that ban sports - that matches my findings with op.2 at war_dogs_ccxvii and op.3 at war_dogs_xc.

Issue #1330 has a validity check for option 2:

2. "Look, I'm sad, I'm super sad about that tragedy," says @@RANDOM_NAME@@, manager of competing nightclub @@CAPITAL@@ Nights, as @@HE@@ pens a flyer for a Special Memorial Tribute Disco. "But do you really want all that bureaucracy putting a dampener on the whole nocturnal recreation industry? I tell you, all those dead party-goers would be spinning in their graves! Instead, step back and let the invisible hand of capitalism guide future fire safety measures. Customer choice and the laws of market competition will result in safer nightclubs, I guarantee it!"

only valid for nations that have prisons. Sadly no alternative version like the usual "rehab center" as an option.

Issue #1349: As both options 2+3 have the same wording and same fallout it is difficult to find anything that split them. My best guess so far is: option 2 is for nations that did not ban contraception, option 3 is for those who do. But as it makes no difference ... why bother any longer.

Issue 1423: I just received this one 8 times All these nations allow sports, so the questionable option 3,

[3]. "Nerd alert!" yells former high school quarterback turned fry chef @@RANDOM_NAME@@, shoulder barging between the two previous speakers, and knocking them to the ground. "Yeah! Feel that impact! Freight train comin' through! Y'know, the best thing to do here is not to spend money on all this geek stuff at all. School of hard knocks, that's the lesson plan these weaklings need!" @@HE@@ demonstrates with @@HIS@@ fists. [(TBC) Must not ban Sports]

was always present. Needs more data to rule.

Issue #1425:

*3. Two brightly dressed tailors stumble into your office. "We've got just the thing for you, your mightiness! The greatest clothes in history, made just for your glorious self." The first tailor flicks open a suitcase, revealing... nothing. "As you see, this fine cloth is lighter than air. Feel the fabric. Many have begged for it. Surely, oh intelligent one, you can feel the delicate weave? These clothes are the future! People will praise your forward-thinking. Don't worry about the price; we'll just forward our small fee to your accountant."

*4. Two brightly dressed men stumble into your office, with tailoring tape around their necks. "We've got just the thing for you, your mightiness! The greatest clothes in history, made just for your glorious self." The first man flicks open a suitcase, revealing... nothing. "As you see, this fine cloth is lighter than air. Feel the fabric. It is too exquisite to waste on those buffoons at the @@DEMONYM_ADJECTIVE@@ Clothing Council. Surely, oh intelligent one, you can feel the delicate weave? These clothes are the future! People will praise your forward-thinking. Don't worry about the price; we'll just forward our small fee to your accountant."

The validity check for option 4 is not Feudalism, I can clarify that from Racoda's old post back from 2020 - I just received option 4 at a Socialist nation without Feudalism, so it might indeed be just the first - so a simple capitalist: op. 3, socialist: op. 4.

Issue 1432: In addition to what Rocain Founder posted for options 1, 2, 3, and 5, war_dogs_cdviii received option 4 as variation of op. 3:

4. “No way man, that’d be a crime against nature!” yells New Age mystic and meditation leader Jefferson Aeroglider. “I glimpsed this glorious creature and saw it had antlered horns, like a Jackalope! Trying to capture the beast would be an insult against that which we should worship instead! We should just block off the forest where it lives and create a sanctified nature reserve where profane humanity is forbidden, save for the occasional religious rite or fertility ritual.” He waggles his eyebrows suggestively.

No sign of the suspected option 6 though - people talking of worship apparently was not enough to trigger a new option.

Issue #1457 - my data on the validity check for options

*3. Another passerby wearing a strange uniform and a helmet that completely covers their face stops to listen. "Do you hear this blasphemy, @@LEADER@@? The law encourages everyone to follow @@FAITH@@. These fantasy films are a terrible influence on weak-minded citizens whose faith is shaky at best. Ban all fiction that includes any references to false religions, and send these heretics to remedial religious education classes. This is the way!" [Must have Theocracy?]

*4. Another passerby wearing a strange uniform and a helmet that completely covers their face stops to listen. "Do you hear this superstitious nonsense, @@LEADER@@? The law discourages people from practicing religion. These fantasy films are a terrible influence on weak-minded citizens who don't have a solid scientific education. Ban all fiction that includes any references to religion, and send these ignoramuses to remedial science classes. This is the way!" [Must have low religiousness?]

*5. Another passerby wearing a strange uniform and a helmet that completely covers their face stops to listen. "Do you hear this lunacy, @@LEADER@@? These fantasy films are a terrible influence on weak-minded citizens who don't have a solid grasp on reality. Ban all fiction that includes any references to made-up religions, and send these nutjobs to a mental health specialist for a thorough psychological evaluation. This is the way!" [Must have Atheism?, Low Religiousness]

are: I got them at nations with religiousness ranking between...
option 3: 9.7 and 1039 -> not low religiousness
option 4: 2.1 and 2.7 -> low religiousness
option 5: 4.4 and 574 -> nothing about religiousness as filter, public/mental health?

Atheism/Theocracy at least can be ruled out, none of them had those policies. If it depends on previous choices made, well that becomes unsolvable to me. I highlighted the main differences in the options, 3+4 reference the law, 5 does not; 3 references religion a lot, 4 talks instead about scientific education, and option 5 of the (overall) mental health.

Issue #1467 option 3 is hidden at nations with Atheism, no replacement

Issue #1505 has a validity check for option 3,

3. "No way," decries Arms Manufacturing spokesperson Arthur Nimoy, as he quickly attempts to delete the browser history on his laptop. "I'm sick of Big Government wasting our tax money and regulating every minute of our lives. Government websites should just redirect people to the vastly superior options that are available from the private sector — and don't you dare interfere with private websites if you value free speech! Without the need for an army of government IT dorks, us ordinary citizens should be able to get a decent tax cut."

I didn't get that option at a Socialist nation, which would be my first suspicion given the talk of private industry.

Issue 1521: option 3

*3. "I have an alternative solution for this," announces Luka Williams, CTO of Science & Gadgetry, Inc. "A team at my company recently made great leaps in the field of active noise cancellation technology. We only need a few more — well, okay, better make that quite a few more — @@CURRENCY_PLURAL@@ in our budget for the R&D, and we can scale it up to shield entire houses!" [Must have high IT Industry? OR Must have high Scientific Advancement? TBD.]

It has a random name, aside from that: war_dogs_cclxvii had that option, while war_dogs_dlvii did not. The latter has low rankings on both IT and Scientific Advancement, while the first one only has both rankings around the top 50% of all nations. More data are needed here.

Issue 1545 option 4

[4]. "I say there aren't enough shipwrecks in our waters," ponders Debra Wickwire, the owner of another salvaging company, as she takes a swig from your coffee before you have a chance to grab the cup. "Maybe the government could look the other way while we place a sea mine or two on the busier coastal trade routes. Companies like mine can then just lurk nearby, and we can clean up!" [Must have Autarky? OR Must ban WMDs? TBD.]

may have a validity check but it's neither the listed "ban on WMDs" nor "Autarky". I saw that option on two different nations, war_dogs_cxcix and war_dogs_dcxxix - one bans WMDs, the other not, and neither has autarky active. Both are capitalists with "no Emigration", maybe the lurking part comes from that. Needs more data to check.

Issue #1554: In the Master List the variants 1/2 and 2/3 do not have the usual *1 markings

Below my quick changelog: entries are chronological.
Thursday, June 8 changes: added #871, updated #1425, added #336, added #1554, added #3, added 714, added #1423, updated #40, added #365, added #1349, added #638, added #522;
added #183; completed #33, completed #336, added #72, added #658, added #779; completed #40
Friday, June 9 changes: added #1205, added better titles to the spoilers to indicate what they track, added #726 + 769 + 1457+1467; updated most parts to shorten (60k limit!)
Sun, Jun 11 changes: removed #720 as I moved it as a full report to the second part.
Jun 13 changes: removed #482 as it is listed in the second part now, too.

[Rocain Founder]

Questions for several participants in this thread:

Is the information in TakAkMaChen's post above going to in general be enough information to allow Valentine Z to update the spoilers, or for some or all of them, is more detail necessary? Some of these entries are far more detailed than others.

There is a similar question for Trotterdam - Are the facts recorded in TakAkMaChen's post sufficient to allow you to update your database from them? My suspicion is that in some cases it is and in some it is not.

As I'm sure you know, Trotterdam, your database is critical to my own scripts, and when my own collection of data gets out of synch with yours, my scripts tend to crash. Would it be unreasonable for me to ask you to post which issues you have updated (and pushed out to your ISP) due to TakAkMaChen's reports, whenever this happens? This would be a great favor to me, if it is possible and reasonable.

Finally, do any of you folks want me to continue making reports on this thread of differences like these? My reports tend to be more verbose and detailed than TakAkMaChen's, which I regard as a good thing, but if none of you folks see any value in my doing so, I would just as soon not make the effort.

Thanks to each of you for all you do, now and in the future! My particular style of play depends heavily on all your efforts.

[Trotterdam]

There is a similar question for Trotterdam - Are the facts recorded in TakAkMaChen's post sufficient to allow you to update your database from them? My suspicion is that in some cases it is and in some it is not.

I think in theory this contains enough information to update a lot of issues if I take the time to parse the dense verbiage, but it'd be tedious and error-prone. I'd rather work off clearer reports.

Also, I spotted at least one claim that looks likely to be incorrect or at least misleading. On #626, TalAkMaChen claimed that option 5 and option 4 have the same effect line, but while option 5 is real and has the effect line that used to be assigned to option 4 (as was already reported in greater depth by Rocain Founder's post), it seems far more likely that the actual new option 4 is a variant of option 3, not option 5.

As I'm sure you know, Trotterdam, your database is critical to my own scripts, and when my own collection of data gets out of synch with yours, my scripts tend to crash.

I don't actually know that much about how either your or TalAkMaChen's scripts work. I don't have spyware installed on your computer

I'm wondering how you're catching all these changes. Do either of you have an actual database of the issues' texts, not just the number of options they have, that are reliable and accurate enough to allow any changes to be automatically spotted? Because if you do, I might be interested in doing something with that...

Would it be unreasonable for me to ask you to post which issues you have updated (and pushed out to your ISP) due to TakAkMaChen's reports, whenever this happens?

Well, you can tell they've updated because they've been updated If you have your own data, you should be able to check it against mine even for issues your nations don't actually have currently.

The easy way would be to download http://www.mwq.dds.nl/ns/results/issues.html once a day and check for differences.

I'm probably not ever going to publish an official changelog of every little change I make, because those happen quite frequently and usually only one at a time.

[TalAkMaChen]

Questions for several participants in this thread:

Is the information in TakAkMaChen's post above going to in general be enough information to allow Valentine Z to update the spoilers, or for some or all of them, is more detail necessary? Some of these entries are far more detailed than others.

There is a similar question for Trotterdam - Are the facts recorded in TakAkMaChen's post sufficient to allow you to update your database from them? My suspicion is that in some cases it is and in some it is not.

As I'm sure you know, Trotterdam, your database is critical to my own scripts, and when my own collection of data gets out of synch with yours, my scripts tend to crash. Would it be unreasonable for me to ask you to post which issues you have updated (and pushed out to your ISP) due to TakAkMaChen's reports, whenever this happens? This would be a great favor to me, if it is possible and reasonable.

Finally, do any of you folks want me to continue making reports on this thread of differences like these? My reports tend to be more verbose and detailed than TakAkMaChen's, which I regard as a good thing, but if none of you folks see any value in my doing so, I would just as soon not make the effort.

Thanks to each of you for all you do, now and in the future! My particular style of play depends heavily on all your efforts.

I'm aware that we will in part find the same updated issues/options, so having two independent people confirm things seems reasonable to me. In addition, as you mentioned, your posts are giving more detail, so I try to keep mine above as short as possible without losing clarity - at least that's my goal. I don't know how to track changes once Valentine Z starts collecting these changes to adapt the master list, I just hope we can find as many changes (not just of these 83 religious/atheist) issues in due time. I assume after the first batch got updated I will have to make a new "big" post else it would get really messy to keep track.

Lots of changes on the gameside also needs of adjustments on our sides once noticed.

Also, I spotted at least one claim that looks likely to be incorrect or at least misleading. On #626, TalAkMaChen claimed that option 5 and option 4 have the same effect line, but while option 5 is real and has the effect line that used to be assigned to option 4 (as was already reported in greater depth by Rocain Founder's post), it seems far more likely that the actual new option 4 is a variant of option 3, not option 5.

Ah, that may be. I only compared what I got by answering the new(?) option 5 (the one without the word "religious") to what your list has for (old) option 4. Those two were identical. If, however, the old option 4 is gone and there is a new variant of option 3 in its place, that might indeed change things.
It seems I can't just rely on what seems plausible.

I'm wondering how you're catching all these changes. Do either of you have an actual database of the issues' texts, not just the number of options they have, that are reliable and accurate enough to allow any changes to be automatically spotted? Because if you do, I might be interested in doing something with that...

For me: I took up the tidious job of combing through the master list and noting all the possible options that any registered issue can have, including the alternatives (e.g. those for capitalist vs. socialist nations). Of that, only the ID (choice-X) are then compared to what the actual issue on the dilemma page shows. If the expected values and the actual value match, it's a go and the issue is answered, else my program throws a flag and I check it manually.

No, no -- no way I can copy the master list and compare it against the issue I find. All the macros and things, that is too much work for me to check every bit that might or not be identical.

[Trotterdam]

Ah, that may be. I only compared what I got by answering the new(?) option 5 (the one without the word "religious") to what your list has for (old) option 4.

My list had already been updated to listing five options (with options 3 and 4 assumed identical) at the time that you posted.

That's the biggest problem with "option 5 is like the old option 4" posts that don't cite the full text, really. It's easy to get mixed up on what you mean by "old" if any other sources have already been updated by the time I read your post.

For me: I took up the tidious job of combing through the master list and noting all the possible options that any registered issue can have, including the alternatives (e.g. those for capitalist vs. socialist nations). Of that, only the ID (choice-X) are then compared to what the actual issue on the dilemma page shows. If the expected values and the actual value match, it's a go and the issue is answered, else my program throws a flag and I check it manually.

Ah, interesting. So this would also catch cases where the option texts and numbers on the spoiler thread are correct, but the validities are wrong? That must be how you spotted stuff like the validity on #1425 being wrong. Though the spoiler thread doesn't currently list any suspected validity at all...

No, no -- no way I can copy the master list and compare it against the issue I find. All the macros and things, that is too much work for me to check every bit that might or not be identical.

Ah, okay. It sounded too good to be true.

[TalAkMaChen]

Ah, that may be. I only compared what I got by answering the new(?) option 5 (the one without the word "religious") to what your list has for (old) option 4.

My list had already been updated to listing five options (with options 3 and 4 assumed identical) at the time that you posted.

That's the biggest problem with "option 5 is like the old option 4" posts that don't cite the full text, really. It's easy to get mixed up on what you mean by "old" if any other sources have already been updated by the time I read your post.

Alright, as I'm using spoiler-tags anyhow I shoul instead copy that "old" reference from the master list instead of just refering to the (today's) numbering. I shall edit my list to make that clearer.

For me: I took up the tidious job of combing through the master list and noting all the possible options that any registered issue can have, including the alternatives (e.g. those for capitalist vs. socialist nations). Of that, only the ID (choice-X) are then compared to what the actual issue on the dilemma page shows. If the expected values and the actual value match, it's a go and the issue is answered, else my program throws a flag and I check it manually.

Ah, interesting. So this would also catch cases where the option texts and numbers on the spoiler thread are correct, but the validities are wrong? That must be how you spotted stuff like the validity on #1425 being wrong. Though the spoiler thread doesn't currently list any suspected validity at all...

Yes, where the master list has listed validities as TBD or some question marks, I also set a flag if any of these options are found.

No, no -- no way I can copy the master list and compare it against the issue I find. All the macros and things, that is too much work for me to check every bit that might or not be identical.

Ah, okay. It sounded too good to be true.

Indeed, I know it could be done, but is it worth the effort to write all the code? Not to me, I have no desire to rebuild something that parses tons of text to find a change somewhere.

[Rocain Founder]

I do not have a copy of the issue texts. I have my own copy of my interpretation of their meaning, but that is of little value here.

I download the website once a week, but as I download I massage it to make my later processing easier. I may have to write something to download it every day and do a compare but I have learned that I am simply a slower coder than others on this list. Someone else will say that some task should be very simple to code, and I think it will take me several days at the least to code that and get it working (and I am usually right about how long it will take me). I may have to take that step, but if you (Trotterdam) make many of these changes quickly, I will be fighting the absolute unusability of my scripts until I can manage to write a useful back it up and compare it script. One useful thing that my style of update on this thread has, besides giving the full text, is that it (and the reports others make) give me keys to what issues to monitor in your database to find when I can remove my bypasses from my scripts.

By the way, I assumed you knew what I was doing with your database because I wrote about that in my Dispatches, and I thought I had circumstantial evidence (apparently rather incorrect) that you had read some of them.

[Rocain Founder]

I'm probably not ever going to publish an official changelog of every little change I make, because those happen quite frequently and usually only one at a time.

One change at a time is not a big deal. A mass change is where I run into difficulties, especially if it is a large subset of a larger list (which seems likely to take place as we all try to deal with the large number of changes).

[Trotterdam]

Someone else will say that some task should be very simple to code, and I think it will take me several days at the least to code that and get it working (and I am usually right about how long it will take me).

As a coder myself, I know that "simple" and "fast" are in no way the same thing

Often something is conceptually simple to write and doesn't take a lot of thought, but there's still a bunch of drudge work involved in typing it all up. My own program for tracking issue results doesn't do anything all that revolutionary and I feel that any competent programmer could have done the same if sufficiently motivated, but I was the first person who felt it was worth spending a month of my life coding and debugging the thing.

It's just a Simple Matter of Programming

By the way, I assumed you knew what I was doing with your database because I wrote about that in my Dispatches, and I thought I had circumstantial evidence (apparently rather incorrect) that you had read some of them.

I certainly have a rough idea (as in, I know you're using my database to run a bunch of puppets with different optimization goals), but that doesn't mean being aware of the exact implementation details.

[Rocain Founder]

Often something is conceptually simple to write and doesn't take a lot of thought, but there's still a bunch of drudge work involved in typing it all up. My own program for tracking issue results doesn't do anything all that revolutionary and I feel that any competent programmer could have done the same if sufficiently motivated, but I was the first person who felt it was worth spending a month of my life coding and debugging the thing.

Well, once again, thank you for spending that month. It enables the way I want to play NationStates.

My scripts are a whole bunch of related scripts, of varying size, as opposed to one big complicated app (though some pieces of it are quite complex). It's definitely taken me more than a month of coding to do, but it's all been in relatively small chunks, which in some ways made it easier than what you've done.

[Rocain Founder]

I've found the new option for issue #336. Unfortunately, I don't have time to post it right now. I'll try to get it posted sometime today, but no promises.

[Rocain Founder]

OK, here's the poop on issue #336. It was received by one of my nations today which does not have the Atheism Policy, but has a very high Secular stat and a very low Religion stat. As was noted elsewhere, the spoiled option 2 has been cloned into a new option 3. Here are the options my puppet received (renumbered to start with 1). Differences between option 3 and the spoiled option 2 are underlined. (I hope I caught them all, but I ain't perfect at this!)

1. “The courts just can’t cope with the strain,” warns Alexandra Duterte, your trusted legal advisor. “Divorce cases have become so complex that lawyers now have to take courses in complex mathematics just to settle property disputes! If this continues any longer, our legal system is going to collapse. The best solution would be to make prenuptial agreements mandatory for all new marriages. That would free up the courts from dealing with complex property disputes once and for all.”

3. “This is a nightmare!” exclaims family counselor Donatello Locke, bursting into your office without warning. “It was a mistake to legalize polygamy to begin with! It’s made a mockery of the very idea of marriage. I implore the government to repeal this perversion of matrimony and make polygamy illegal throughout @@NAME@@ - if not for the sake of the families it has torn apart, then for the children who don’t even know which of their two dozen mommies is truly theirs!”

4. “I’ve got a better idea,” claims renowned TV critic Destry Shaw, sprawling paperwork across your desk. “You want to keep polygamy legal, but don’t want to pay through the nose in legal fees, right? Why not broadcast the divorce proceedings live across @@REGION@@? Think of the drama! Think of the viewing figures! Just sign here on the dotted line, and the studio will cover all the expenses.” She forces a pen into your hand.

[TalAkMaChen]

D'OH! My above list is getting too long a text (above 60k characters ). So I have to start a new one.

Issue #1:

*1. “There’s a simple solution,” says Pastor Felix, of the Catholic Church. “Divorce should be illegal. ‘For better or worse,’ anyone remember how that goes? We should return to the good old days, when you got married for life and stuck by your partner no matter how much of a drunken, abusive, adulterating disappointment they turned out to be.” [allows religion]

*2. “There’s a simple solution,” says John Felix, of the Family Values Coalition. “Divorce should be illegal. ‘For better or worse,’ anyone remember how that goes? We should return to the good old days, when you got married for life and stuck by your partner no matter how much of a drunken, abusive, adulterating disappointment they turned out to be.” [does not allow religion/Atheist]

3. John Black, author of the hit book, ‘Men are from Mars, Women are from Some Whole Other Place,’ has a simpler solution. “If couples would just call each other ‘darling’ once in a while, there would be far fewer relationship breakdowns. A little affection is all it takes. So the government should make it mandatory: call your spouse ‘darling’ at least once a day, or face a fine.”

4. “There’s a simple way to boost the marriage rate,” says gay rights activist Frank Weber. “Abolish those archaic laws that discriminate against same-sex marriages. It’s obscene to treat people differently because of their sexual orientation. Besides, everyone knows gay relationships are more stable than straight ones.”

Issue #32, options 4 and 5 were both hidden at war_dogs_ccclxix, so presumably the check for option 5 "must have heterosexuality" is either incorrect or incomplete - that nation got the policy and didn't see that 5th option.

Issue #107, option 3 is hidden at Atheist (and low religiousness?) nations, no replacement

Issue #179, option

4. "You call that an answer to short-term problems?" asks @@RANDOM_NAME@@, a likewise rustic farmer. "It can take months and months to find a vaccine you know! The meat industry will still take a hit and I jus' don't have the resources to see me and me kids through this kind of financial upheaval. I reckon the government folks should go ahead with the culling idea and compensate us farmers for our losses! That's a lot cheaper than putting all our money into tests that most likely won't work don't you think?"

is not seen at war_dogs_l - I have no indication why. Something about compensations maybe? We have other issues/options that care about "compensation lawsuits". Otherwise, there is no religious talk that would have been altered lately.

Issue #224, option 4 is not seen at nations that already have the Slavery policy

Issue #252, option 4 is not seen at nations that have the Atheism policy

Issue #310 clarification: The first option has been updated or at least changed. A Socialist nation received options 2-4, a Capitalist nation got options 1+3+4.

The Debate
*1. “Now, now, my friend,” smiles the wealthiest CEO in the @@MAYOR_INDUSTRY@@ industry, reclining in a shady corner, “We simply can’t have a few radicals dictate government policy to us. After all, we do know what’s best, don’t we? First it’s this reform, next it’s a slew of unproductive economic policies, and then before you know it they’re limiting campaign donations. You can see that some issues have no merit, and are simply not worthy of debate. Perhaps we should even halt the debate before such silliness even begins...?” The CEO hands you a wad of @@CURRENCY_PLURAL@@. “You agree. Now there’s a good leader.” [allows private industries]

*2. “Now, now, my friend,” smiles an anonymous political strategist, reclining in a shady corner, “We simply can’t have a few radicals dictate government policy to us. After all, we do know what’s best, don’t we? First it’s this reform, next it’s a slew of anti-socialist policies, and then before you know it they’re threatening the democratically elected Communist government. You can see that some issues have no merit, and are simply not worthy of debate. Perhaps we should even halt the debate before such silliness even begins...?” @@HE@@ hands you a wad of @@CURRENCY_PLURAL@@. “You agree. Now there’s a good leader.” [does not allow private industries]

3. “I think we can all see the benefits of the filibuster ban,” says political science professor, @@RANDOM_NAME@@. “But it’s also true that putting it in the hands of the reigning party coalition is a dangerous centralisation of power. Why not simply have an independent, representative committee to decide what issues are worthy of a lengthy debate? It might be a tad erratic in its priorities, but at least it would give the power back to the people. That’s a good thing, right?”

4. “The government, all the way up to @@LEADER@@, has used this ban as a way to control parliament,” declares Opposition Whip @@RANDOM_NAME@@, speaking from the Floor, “They’re perfectly happy to let debates about the most inconsequential of matters rage on for hours, but when it comes to a serious discussion of @@LEADER@@’s murky ties to prominent members of the retail industry or policies genuinely aimed at helping the general public, rather than a select few, the debate comes to a quick close. We must overturn the filibuster ban, post-haste. And I think it is clear to all who suffer from this. That’s right, my friends, ladies and gentlemen, casual onlookers, convenient family members, cultural attachés, politically active tourists and constituents, both loyal and traitorous to the greater cause; the people. The people suffer the injustices of a government pandering to its corporate cronies, its oligarchic overlords, its necessary nepotists, if you will. They suffer the delirious - ah - deleterious effects of a government sans filibuster, sans fairness, sans freedom! This ridiculous policy ignores the fact that some things require longer and more serious deliberation - as does, indeed, this very issue. But I am diverging from my abundantly clear point, supported by the voices of a thousand-strong crowd outside this very building. And while we might quibble over the numbers - a thousand, I hear you cry? Tens - hundreds! - of thousands, surely? But this ignores the fundamental spirit of the times - zeitgeist, if you will - that we stand against this filibuster ban clearly and unwaveringly. Anyway, a discussion of the genuinely humanitarian policies my party espouses, which require a debate of adequate length for the complexities of which to be fully understood, are quickly relegated as the government trots out its latest quick-fix or vote-snatching policy. Now, to move onto my second point of four-hundred-and-thirty-eight of my first speech - I will, of course, pass over to my comrade on the bench in due course.” The security guards by the door notice your discreet signal and step quietly towards the Whip’s podium. “Perhaps we should investigate further... excuse me...?” stammers the Whip, as your guards gingerly carry @@HIM@@ away. “Ah... yes, thank you for your time.”

Issue #329, option 5

5. "The solution is not through technology, but through religion," declares zealot @@RANDOM_NAME@@ as she waves a censer under your nose. "Why not make all soldiers fight in the name of @@FAITH@@, and give them priestly robes while they're at it?"

is not seen at nations with low religiousness (e.g. 2.7), no replacement.

Issue #365, option 3 as alternative to option 2:

*3. “This is disgusting, and I shouldn’t have to see it,” declares Ashurbanipal Hester, a particularly prudish citizen who seems to be concealing a small holy symbol. “Have we forgotten that @@NAME@@ once respected traditional values, not least the sanctity of the relationship between man and woman? These deviants have no respect for what is natural and are spreading a sickness through my country, so I have the right – nay, the responsibility — to educate the people about it. I say we ought to ban these LGBwhatever posters and divert some government funds to reminding the people of @@NAME@@ what it truly means to be virtuous souls!” [has low religiousness]

Issue #381, option 3 is not seen at Atheist nations, no replacement

Issue #393 option 2 is not seen at nations with the "No Judiciary" policy.

Issue #434, option 4 is not seen at Atheist nations, no replacement

Issue #482 update: I finally found the new option 4 as non-religious version of granny's talk. Here's the full list:

1. “Get your dirty hands off my kids!” screams @@RANDOM_FEMALE_NAME@@ while strangling her husband. “I never want to see you ever again! Leader, all that I want is to divorce my idiotic husband for ... reasons I won’t explain. I demand that you legalize divorce so I can get rid of this scumbag once and for all. Hold still dear, my hands are slipping.”

2. “Arghhh! Get your hands off my throat!” croaks her husband while frantically trying to escape his wife’s grasp. “Of course you’re gonna bring up that instance with your sister. I only did that because of what you did with my brother!” The man catches his breath, then continues, “Leader, my shrew of a wife fails to recognize the real problem. The government is doing nothing to help strained couples stay together. Marriage counseling needs to be free, for the sake of families across @@NAME@@. Any problem can be solved with enough... arghh! Get off me!”

*3. “Matrimony is a sacred union that cannot be broken,” intones your grandmother, @@RANDOM_FEMALE_NAME@@, reciting holy texts. “What would happen to spouses if we allowed them to separate? How do you explain to children that their parents no longer love each other? And you mustn’t forget that divorce tears families apart every day in godless Bigtopia and Marche Noire. So even if the romance ended a long time ago in a marriage, couples must remain faithful, for which they will be rewarded in the afterlife.” [allows religion]

*4. “Matrimony is a contractual union that cannot be broken,” intones your grandmother, @@RANDOM_FEMALE_NAME@@, pointing to an obsolete legal text. “What would happen to spouses if we allowed them to separate? How do you explain to children that their parents no longer love each other? And you mustn’t forget that divorce tears families apart every day in awful places like Bigtopia and Marche Noire. So even if the romance ended a long time ago in a marriage, couples must remain faithful, to the bitter end.” [Atheism/does not allow religion]

5. “You know, this all could have easily been prevented,” states Will Eye the Science Guy, after petitioning for state funds to build a doomsday device. “Scientific advancements in War Dogs CDXCI have made it possible for us to give all people compatibility tests to determine exact matches for their future spouses. Assuming the tests are administered perfectly, marital strife will be a thing of the past. The only people that could possibly want a divorce would be those who lied on the test, and we have ways to know if they are lying.” At this, he rubs his hands together and laughs maniacally.

Issue #486 options 3/4 seem to have some additional validity check. Nation war_dogs_cccviii didn't see either of the two. I don't recall going through the chain on each nation but I can assume that one is old enough to have taken that route some time ago. Of the active policies it got only Autarky seems to be relevant in the circumstance to me, as both options 3/4 talk about letting mercenaries fight. Otherwise? Trotterdam reported nations with Autarky had before seen it, so that leaves me even more puzzled.

Issue #504, option 3 is not seen at Atheist nations

Issue #550 has a new option 3 as clone of the (religious) 2nd, see http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=40657720#p40657720

Issue #582, option 2

2. "Not even then are we truly safe!" preaches @@RANDOM_NAME@@, a belligerent religious leader who previously accused you of colluding with demons. "That 'game' is nothing short of the work of the damned, what with the conjuring of cyber demons in our beautiful nation! Have you even looked at a Sedgetoise? It's clearly modeled after the devil, and the Amorlax represents a forbidden depiction of the archangel! Did you know that you have to evolve them? In the name of all that is holy, forbid this Maxey-Pokey-Heresy!"

is not seen at nations with Atheism, no replacement.

Issue #626, update:

1. “I wonder if you understand the implications of this technology,” whispers the company’s CEO, Bill ‘Mind-Wizard’ Gibson, squeezing a lemon-shaped stress ball. “Virtual immortality. Sleeving. Backed-up mind-states. All we need is TONS of fundi- I mean, minimal funding. Oh and a license to cut up the brains of vict... uh... volunteers. We’ll not see results for some time, for sure, but the sooner you invest, the sooner we can usher in Reality 2.0.” [Must have private industry]

2. “I wonder if you understand the implications of this technology,” whispers National Science Director Bill ‘Mind-Wizard’ Gibson, looking over the state-funded laboratory’s reports. “Virtual immortality. Sleeving. Backed-up mind-states. All we need is TONS of fundi- I mean, minimal funding. Oh and a license to cut up the brains of vict... uh... volunteers. We’ll not see results for some time, for sure, but the sooner you invest, the sooner we can usher in Reality 2.0.” [Must not have private industry]

*3. “This. Is. ABOMINABLE! EXECRABLE! DETESTABLE!” yells the Minister of the Church of Weird Gaits, as he marches, then tromps, then slithers into your office and rises before you, his face turning the same color as an old peach pit on your desk. “This is a total abandonment of the world that the Great Lumberer created for us! How will we show our gratitude for the greatest gift bestowed on us, our legs, if we can’t use them! Tens of citizens in War Dogs CXVII will be either transferred to a line of 1’s and 0’s and banished from The Lumberer’s Sidewalks, or left behind to die in the ruins of civilization. Shut down this venture! Make it no more, ceased to be, expired, bereft of profit, history!” [religiousness not low]

*4. “This. Is. ABOMINABLE! EXECRABLE! DETESTABLE!” yells the President of the Society of Weird Gaits, as he marches, then tromps, then slithers into your office and rises before you, his face turning the same color as an old peach pit on your desk. “This is a total abandonment of this precious world of ours, that nature’s great gift of legs allows us to explore! How will we show our gratitude for that gift if we can’t use it? Tens of citizens in @@NAME@@ will be either transferred to a line of 1’s and 0’s and banished forever from the sidewalks, or left behind to die in the ruins of civilization. Shut down this venture! Make it no more, ceased to be, expired, bereft of profit, history!” [low religiousness]

5. “You don’t need to be a Luddite or a fanatic to object to transhumanism,” mutters ethicist Sera O’Connor, glancing nervously at the wall clock. “Developing these technologies increases the odds of human self-extinction. We need to be sure that any intelligence that ushers in the next century is wholly human, grounded in human biology and human morality. There is no fate but what we make. What future do you want to create?”

That should clarify the previous confusion about what is what. 3/4 are the religious alternatives, 1/2 are the economic alternatives as before.

Issue #690 option 3 reads:

3. “I won’t have any of this dark sarcasm in the classroom!” shouts your Propaganda Minister @@RANDOM_NAME@@, while eating @@HIS@@ favorite meal of tofu and pudding. “There is nothing wrong with the Pledge, dearest leader. Don’t listen to these traitorous, anti-@@DEOMNYMADJECTIVE@@ hippies. In fact we should not only have the Pledge in schools, but also extend it to the workplace, the streets, and perhaps even figure out a way to force the people to say it at home. The most obedient and freedom-loving citizens love the pledge. Anyone who refuses to say it hates @@NAME@@ and anyone who hates @@NAME@@ is a traitor to our beloved @@TYPE@@!”

So indeed only a replacement of meat -> tofu.

The full selection of choices for #720 would now be:

1. “It was bad enough that criminals and lazy bums were scrounging from the state, but now the government is directly subsidising terrorism!” yells Brightheart News reporter @@RANDOM_NAME@@, pursuing you down the street and trampling over a homeless man’s sleeping bag to keep up. “You have to end the free ride! Cut welfare completely, and make our nation safe!”

2. “Hold your horses there buddy, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater,” says single parent @@RANDOM_NAME@@, ignoring the three mewling moppets trying to get @@HIS@@ attention. “@@NAME@@ just needs its welfare system to be fully managed, monitored, and policed. Give folks on welfare charge cards whose transactions records are sent to a searchable police database. Then anyone making a purchase that’s the least bit suspicious should be brought in for interrogation.”

*3. “Sounds like a lot of expensive admin work to me,” complains Welfare Director @@RANDOM_NAME@@. “Wouldn’t you rather have a solution that reduces government spending but still helps those who deserve it? Here’s the thing, nobody wants to say it, but we all know that 99% of terrorists are from a handful of religions and nations. Just say that people from those groups don’t get welfare, and you can both save money and prevent terrorism!” [allows religion]

*4. “Sounds like a lot of expensive admin work to me,” complains Welfare Director @@RANDOM_NAME@@. “Wouldn’t you rather have a solution that reduces government spending but still helps those who deserve it? Here’s the thing, nobody wants to say it, but we all know that 99% of terrorists are from a handful of cultures. Just say that people from those groups don’t get welfare, and you can both save money and prevent terrorism!” [Atheist]

5. “I say unto you that the answer is more welfare, not less!” offers unemployed youth @@RANDOM_FIRST_NAME@@ Violetsglory, pushing a shopping trolley of ammonium nitrate and diesel oil to the checkout till. “If you increase welfare, then maybe the resentful disenfranchised minorities will feel more supported by society, and become less prone to radicalisation. What have you got to lose?”

Issue #748, option 4 is not seen at nations that outlawed cars for everybody, including the government - I think that may only be tracked internally, similar to the "even police may not carry guns" while the policy only shows "no cars".

Issue #775, option 4 is not seen at Atheist nations, no replacement.

Issue #779, options 3 and 4 appear to have identical wording,

*3. “Funeral services? What a waste of money,” scoffs obscure thinker @@RANDOM_NAME@@, who has yet to sell any copies of @@HIS@@ book Rich Dead, Poor Dead. “What’s the point in some drawn-out shebang for someone who’s not even going to be around to see it? Do away with funerals altogether. That way we can cremate everyone and harvest their bodies for phosphorus!” [allows religion]

*4. “Funeral services? What a waste of money,” scoffs obscure thinker @@RANDOM_NAME@@, who has yet to sell any copies of @@HIS@@ book Rich Dead, Poor Dead. “What’s the point in some drawn-out shebang for someone who’s not even going to be around to see it? Do away with funerals altogether. That way we can cremate everyone and harvest their bodies for phosphorus!” [does not allow religion]

Issue #781 option 5 has a validity check. A nation at religiousness 7.8 did not find it - usually the "low religiousness" filter was at around 3-4, here it appears to be higher. Update: Even on the top-10 religious NormanJackson option 5 was not seen. Given the speech, I suspect the check may actually be: Must allow Violetism.

Issue #797 option

3. "The lesson from history is that traitors and terrorists are always hiding among us," exclaims Virgil van Houten, who is widely expected to replace you one day. "The Commission On Un-@@DEMONYM@@ Activities continues to hunt down the enemies within as we speak. It shows just how much the people are willing to sacrifice for the good of the nation. @@CAPITAL@@gate proved that when there's a threat to @@NAME@@, the people will always unite and rise up against it, even if that threat is a fellow citizen."

must also have a validity check and appears to be yet another alternative to options 1/2. I don't know what may trigger the difference, maybe a choice made earlier in that chain.

Issue #851, option 6 is hidden at Atheist nations

Issue #908: both options 4 and 5 require the nation to not have the Sortition policy - apparently there is no need for donations when politicians are randomly picked anyhow.

Issue #932 hides option 4 for nations with low religiousness, no replacement for the Bishop

Issue #1049 has an alternative to option 4 for nations that banned marriages:

*5. “Maybe you don’t need to be in such a hurry to see this as a problem,” interjects the minister’s long-standing partner Ivana Newlove. “If the little fella doesn’t feel like getting up in the morning, then let him sleep! Drew is almost fifty, for goodness sake; it’s only natural that his love life is over. Respect mother nature, and also this tired mother-of-three, and instead ban these treatments.” [does not allow marriages]

Issue #1190, option 3 was not seen at war_dogs_cdxv. It does not contain religious talk so my guess is: Option 3 is only seen at nations that don't already have a digital-only currency.

Issue #1219, options 2/3 are strictly alternatives, 2 is for religious nations, 3 is for not-so-religious ones.

Issue #1317, option 3's validity should rather be [Same-sex marriage not illegal] - that option is also seen at nations without any of the policies about who citizens may legally marry (either heterosexuality policy or marriage equality policy). Option 4 seems to have some sort of validity check, war_dogs_dccx did not receive that option, perhaps scientific advancement being high enough to develop some AI nanny.

Issue #1339, options 2+3 have the same text as highlighted at http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=37159498#p37159498 and http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=37302269#p37302269:

1.“We machines have faster reaction times, better processing speeds and more driving ability than any meatbag motorists,” lectures artificial intelligence and motorbiker EVL-KN:EVL. “I’m not saying we shouldn’t let humans sit behind the wheel, but they should have AI help next to them to take over in dangerous situations. Or you know, when they think the humans are driving in a way that is ill-judged. We’re all good at different things — us machines are better at risk assessment, logic, and quick-thinking, while meatbags are better at... at... other things, I’m sure.”

2/3. “Hmm... I’m just not convinced,” wonders IT security researcher @@RANDOM_NAME@@, who is wholly human. “There’s been tests done with adversarial images, and it’s just too easy to fool image recognition these days. The second someone puts a sticker on a road sign, we can’t trust any AI to obey! In fact, to reduce the possibility of such a hack occurring, we should stop AI drivers from getting behind the wheel. It’s for their own good!”

*4. “You want fast reactions? I can give you fast reactions!” suggests a shady-looking Phisa Pharmaceuticals representative. “You should mandate that all human drivers take our product Speedica, an enhancement drug that improves reaction times. We also produce other drugs that can address the side effects, as Speedica can sometimes make folk feel a little... uh... flaccid.” [does not have Autarky(?)]

At war_dogs_xciv I didn't get the fourth option, likely because that nation has Autarky - I assume this "Phisa Pharmaceuticals" is either a local branch of the global company or entirely situated in the "United Federation". I got the option at another Socialist nation, so that's not the switch.

Issue #1340, option 2 reads

2. “This is @@RANDOM_FIRST_NAMEFEMALE@@ Crowne,” says the Director of Infant Hatcheries, pausing the tour. “And that is her... sprog. What is the world coming to when a young lady chooses breeding like an uncontrolled lagomorph over healthy, legal recreational relations in the age of vats? Sadly, we still lack abortion centres. It’s too late for Ms. Crowne, but we can still build clinics like Aldoustan’s new Abortorama — such pretty pink floodlights, and ice-creams after every procedure — to encourage women to deal with future little problems.” [does not allow abortions]

so it is the alternative to option 1 for nations that do not allow abortions while option 1 does allow.

Issue #1357 new option: option 2 got cloned as alternatives 2/3 now. The full list reads as:

1. “The truth is, @@LEADER@@, we have no idea how bad this could turn out in the long run,” drawls your Health and Safety Minister. “The fact that we’ve been using these dangerous materials with such reckless abandon is sickening. Keep nuclear power out of our skies, and impose some stricter spacecraft regulations while you’re at it. If missing out on a few cold rocks on the edge of the solar system is the price we have to pay to keep the planet safe, so be it.”

*2. “A sign! A sign!” chants Bishop @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, chairman of the Joint Society for the Worshipers of Miscellaneous Sky Deities. “For too long have we attempted to pierce the firmament, and those on high have finally cast back those vile toxins with which we have so desecrated their home! You must cancel this so-called ‘space program’ at once, and tear down these towering monuments to the hubris of man.” [not low religiousness]

*3. “A sign! A sign!” chants @@RANDOM_NAME@@, the tinfoil-clad chairperson of the Joint Society of Ufologists and Xenobiologists. “For too long have we attempted to pierce the realm of our alien betters, and those on high have finally cast back those vile toxins with which we have so polluted their home! You must cancel this so-called ‘space program’ at once, and tear down these towering monuments to the hubris of man.” [low religiousness]

4. “Such backwards ignorami would have us riding by dog-drawn cart if they could,” scoffs Space Agency chief @@RANDOM_FEMALE_NAME@@, proudly displaying her bodily constellation of tumors. “Scientific knowledge is to die for. If we are truly to conquer the final frontier, we need more nuclear power up there, not less. Ergo, full scale reactors, nuclear engines, pulse drives, everything! Per tabes, ad astra!”

[5.] “And trust the government with this stuff even more?” interjects eccentric entrepreneur Ulene Murst, scrambling out of a sudden hole bored out from your office floor. “The problem here is, once again, the irresponsible state. We’d have far fewer of these ‘accidents’ if the space program had proper shareholders and investors to answer to. Privatize the space industry — let the hand of the free market loft us ever upwards.” [Must have private industry]

Issue 1397: options 1/2 are not marked as *1/*2

Issue #1407, option 3,

4. "Be not one with the ghouls, lest ye become a ghoul!" howls your niece, stepping forward to deposit a graphically bloody religious tract into the little girl's bucket. "This Night of Tricks is, itself, a trick. It softens our resistance to evil, encourages us to don the robes and face of the devil, and makes us forget that the mask we wear is what we are! We must ban this demonic day, and the sale of all costumes that let your citizens pretend to be devils, harlots or other evil people. [background=0F0]Kandorith [/background]must stand unified, praying together against this evil."

is not seen at nations with Atheism. Poor niece. Also not sure what "Kandorith" shall mean. Perhaps it is @@NAME@@ instead?

Issue #1465: Option 4 is not seen at nations with low religiousness (not seen at 2.87)

Issue #1507, misc.: It was edited by Electrum and the options are strangely marked by 1) etc. instead of the usual 1.

Issue #1546: option 5 is for non-autark nations, option 6 is for autark nations, just like the 3/4 pair

Issue #1552: Option 3 seems to require either "must allow computers" or a certain level of scientific advancement/low enough primitiveness. One of my dumber nations, war_dogs_cccxcvii, only got the options 1+2.

Issue #1566: Option 4 is not seen at nations with low (negative?) rating on Scientific Advancement, e.g. War Dogs CDXXII didn't see it.

*edited after Trotterdam's check, thanks.
latest adds/changes:
June 12: 582, 1219, 1407
June 13: 482, 797, 1507
June 14: 626
June 15: 365, 908, 1317
June 16: 1, 851
June 18: 224, 252, 310, 504
June 20: added the full current list of options for 626
June 21: 690
June 23: 748
June 25: 434, 775, 1190
June 30: 393
July 6: 1340
July 8: 1049
July 10: 1566
July 16: 1357
July 17: 1339 (validity)
July 25: 381 (well, that took some time to confirm!)
July 29: 779 (updated with the missing text from before)
Aug 8: 781 (update only)

[Trotterdam]

Issue #32, options 4 and 5 were both hidden at war_dogs_ccclxix, so presumably the check for option 5 "must have heterosexuality" is either incorrect or incomplete - that nation got the policy and didn't see that 5th option.

I'm not sure an option 5 even exists. When was such a thing ever reported?

This report claims that option 4 includes the "and gay marriages, of course" text, so either that's the only version of the option and there is no variant, or the spoiler thread has the order on the variants wrong.

From what I can tell, though, the split was originally added in response to a guess by Rocain Founder (who saw option 4 but not option 3, and only speculated that the two were variants depending on whether the nation has gay marriage), which was not then removed when Rocain Founder later admitted to having been wrong upon discovering the real option 3 which was a variant of option 2 instead of option 4.

In any case, my data suggests that option 4 is not valid for nations with the Heterosexuality policy. Presumably the current spoiler thread, which guesses that option 5 is only valid for nations with the Heterosexuality policy, is a typo.

Remember that Marriage Equality (gay marriage is recognized) and Heterosexuality (all homosexual activities are illegal, even outside of marriage) are about different things, and it's possible for a nation to have neither.

Something else that strikes me as odd about #32: option 3 is an irreligious variant of option 2, presumably for nations that look down on religion, but the opening and option 1 still describe a "small religious group". Presumably, them being a small religious group justifies their existence as a dissenting voice even in nations that frown on religion, while option 2/3 is meant to be a status quo option representing the current majority opinion of your nation. However, I can currently find no evidence that ruling in favor of the small religious group actually repeals Atheism.

Issue #486 options 3/4 seem to have some additional validity check. Nation war_dogs_cccviii didn't see either of the two. I don't recall going through the chain on each nation but I can assume that one is old enough to have taken that route some time ago. Of the active policies it got only Autarky seems to be relevant in the circumstance to me, as both options 3/4 talk about letting mercenaries fight. Otherwise?

Dubious. My database claims to have seen option 4 answered on a nation with Autarky (not option 3, but it's a rare policy and there was a recent database reset). Unfortunately, I can't offer any further details.

Issue #550 has a new option 3 as clone of the (religious) 2nd - I didn't see it yet.

Already reported but not yet updated into the spoiler.

Issue #1187 has another validity check for options 4+5. I only saw it flash by in my log, I couldn't check how or why war_dogs_dccviii only got the first three options. I updated my program to try and catch such behavior the next time.

Which option 5? I can find no evidence that it has one.

Options 3 and 4 are currently listed as variants, so receiving "only the first three options" would be non-surprising.

Issue #1339, new option 3 or shifted?:

That was reported three years ago. Options 2 and 3 have identical texts.

---

I have a report of my own:

#1572 Eco Warriors

The Issue

The latest environmental audit of government activities has pointed the finger firmly at one department for failing to meet emissions-reduction targets: the military.

The Debate

1. "We need to totally overhaul our military hardware," declares environmental auditor Ashley Sestero, flicking between slides of smoke-belching tanks, oil-burning warships, and single-use plastic explosives. "We've got blueprints here for some excellent new designs that will massively improve our performance: biodegradable natural hemp fatigues, electric main battle tanks backed up by a series of charging points around the border, recyclable rocket motors that can be collected and re-used, solar-powered night-vision headsets, submarines with sails for surface operations — just show us the money, and we'll have a military the envy of campaigners across the world."

2. "Procuring all new equipment is prohibitively expensive, not to mention the emissions from manufacture," scoffs appropriations administrator Faramir Barry, probably the only person in the room who knows a carbine from a cannon. "We can get a long way by modifying existing kit and practices. If we fit rate limiters to emissions-heavy machine guns, remove heavy armor plates to limit fuel consumption, and avoid explosions at all costs, then we'll be well on the way to winning the war against harmful emissions. That sounds much more reasonable, doesn't it?"

3. "Uh, your focus here is all wrong," interjects military botanist Ksenya Golightly, nursing a handful of cut daisies callouslyhc decapitated by an aerial bomb. "The direct damage being caused to biodiversity is way bigger than any narrow focus on emissions. Our forces need to stay out of all ecologically vulnerable areas: marshland, sand dunes, acid grasslands, primeval forests, mangroves, peat bogs, coral reefs, migratory geese airspace, chalk rivers, pristine arctic tundra..." She continues for several more minutes, finally ending with, "...and avoid artificial lighting at night that might confuse bats and moths. Perhaps we can arm our soldiers with seed bombs so they can make a start at undoing all the damage they've done?"

Issue by Sedgistan
Edited by Verdant Haven

I took the liberty of fixing a minor punctuation issue that will presumably be fixed in the official copy soon, so until then this isn't 100% accurate. The names look random (with their characteristic language mismatch of first and last name), but I left them in to be on the safe side.

[Rocain Founder]

The word "callouslyhc" in option 3 of the new issue is also a bit of a problem.

[TalAkMaChen]

Issue #32, options 4 and 5 were both hidden at war_dogs_ccclxix, so presumably the check for option 5 "must have heterosexuality" is either incorrect or incomplete - that nation got the policy and didn't see that 5th option.

I'm not sure an option 5 even exists. When was such a thing ever reported?

This report claims that option 4 includes the "and gay marriages, of course" text, so either that's the only version of the option and there is no variant, or the spoiler thread has the order on the variants wrong.

From what I can tell, though, the split was originally added in response to a guess by Rocain Founder (who saw option 4 but not option 3, and only speculated that the two were variants depending on whether the nation has gay marriage), which was not then removed when Rocain Founder later admitted to having been wrong upon discovering the real option 3 which was a variant of option 2 instead of option 4.

In any case, my data suggests that option 4 is not valid for nations with the Heterosexuality policy. Presumably the current spoiler thread, which guesses that option 5 is only valid for nations with the Heterosexuality policy, is a typo.

Remember that Marriage Equality (gay marriage is recognized) and Heterosexuality (all homosexual activities are illegal, even outside of marriage) are about different things, and it's possible for a nation to have neither.

Something else that strikes me as odd about #32: option 3 is an irreligious variant of option 2, presumably for nations that look down on religion, but the opening and option 1 still describe a "small religious group". Presumably, them being a small religious group justifies their existence as a dissenting voice even in nations that frown on religion, while option 2/3 is meant to be a status quo option representing the current majority opinion of your nation. However, I can currently find no evidence that ruling in favor of the small religious group actually repeals Atheism.

As I mentioned earlier, I only combed through the Master List in its version of last week (around 6-8 June) as my frame of reference to check issues against. If the Master List is outdated, then we should still compile that data so Valentine Z can fix it.

Issue #486 options 3/4 seem to have some additional validity check. Nation war_dogs_cccviii didn't see either of the two. I don't recall going through the chain on each nation but I can assume that one is old enough to have taken that route some time ago. Of the active policies it got only Autarky seems to be relevant in the circumstance to me, as both options 3/4 talk about letting mercenaries fight. Otherwise?

Dubious. My database claims to have seen option 4 answered on a nation with Autarky (not option 3, but it's a rare policy and there was a recent database reset). Unfortunately, I can't offer any further details.

Okay, but there was something that prevented that nation from seeing either of these options. Hence my spoiler "tag" uncertainty - Autarky was just my first best guess after reading the options twice more than before. Perhaps I still didn't go through the chain there, with so many nations I cannot keep track of everything.

Issue #550 has a new option 3 as clone of the (religious) 2nd - I didn't see it yet.

Already reported but not yet updated into the spoiler.

Issue #1187 has another validity check for options 4+5. I only saw it flash by in my log, I couldn't check how or why war_dogs_dccviii only got the first three options. I updated my program to try and catch such behavior the next time.

Which option 5? I can find no evidence that it has one.

Options 3 and 4 are currently listed as variants, so receiving "only the first three options" would be non-surprising.

A: Thanks, I'll add the link above.
B: My bad, I messed up my numbering there. 3/4 are the variants, not 4/5 - I'll fix the report above.

Issue #1339, new option 3 or shifted?:

That was reported three years ago. Options 2 and 3 have identical texts.

Oh, it was even me who reported that back then. Apparently that didn't make it to the Master List.

I have a report of my own:

#1572 Eco Warriors

The Issue

The latest environmental audit of government activities has pointed the finger firmly at one department for failing to meet emissions-reduction targets: the military.

The Debate

1. "We need to totally overhaul our military hardware," declares environmental auditor @@RANDOM_NAME@@, flicking between slides of smoke-belching tanks, oil-burning warships, and single-use plastic explosives. "We've got blueprints here for some excellent new designs that will massively improve our performance: biodegradable natural hemp fatigues, electric main battle tanks backed up by a series of charging points around the border, recyclable rocket motors that can be collected and re-used, solar-powered night-vision headsets, submarines with sails for surface operations — just show us the money, and we'll have a military the envy of campaigners across the world."

2. "Procuring all new equipment is prohibitively expensive, not to mention the emissions from manufacture," scoffs appropriations administrator @@RANDOM_NAME@@, probably the only person in the room who knows a carbine from a cannon. "We can get a long way by modifying existing kit and practices. If we fit rate limiters to emissions-heavy machine guns, remove heavy armor plates to limit fuel consumption, and avoid explosions at all costs, then we'll be well on the way to winning the war against harmful emissions. That sounds much more reasonable, doesn't it?"

3. "Uh, your focus here is all wrong," interjects military botanist @@RANDOM_NAME@@, nursing a handful of cut daisies callouslyhc decapitated by an aerial bomb. "The direct damage being caused to biodiversity is way bigger than any narrow focus on emissions. Our forces need to stay out of all ecologically vulnerable areas: marshland, sand dunes, acid grasslands, primeval forests, mangroves, peat bogs, coral reefs, migratory geese airspace, chalk rivers, pristine arctic tundra..." @@HE@@ continues for several more minutes, finally ending with, "...and avoid artificial lighting at night that might confuse bats and moths. Perhaps we can arm our soldiers with seed bombs so they can make a start at undoing all the damage they've done?"

*4. “Look,” wheedles Skunk Works lead @@RANDOM_NAME@@, sidling into your office and dry-washing @@HIS@@ hands. “We all know the real problem here: people. No-one wants to say it — except me, of course — heh, heh, but every study identifies the root source of harmful emissions to be people. If we have fewer people, we have lower emissions, you see? Hem, well it seems there’s a military solution to that. I’ve developed a series of superweapons that I call Weapons of Mass Depopulation — my own little joke, you see — and they remove all those little carbon producers with the minimum of collateral emissions. Very efficient, a-hah.”


Issue by Sedgistan
Edited by Verdant Haven

I took the liberty of fixing a minor punctuation issue that will presumably be fixed in the official copy soon, so until then this isn't 100% accurate. The names look random (with their characteristic language mismatch of first and last name), but I left them in to be on the safe side.

I also just found that one at war_dogs_lxv with a different set of names+genders and a fourth option in addition! My guess: It is for nations that have banned WMDs and this allows to revert that policy.
Either Mendeleev is random, too, or references the chemist/historical person.

Edit: I found it again, this time option 1572,4 had a male speaker with different last name, hence a fully randomized one.

[Trotterdam]

I also just found that one at war_dogs_lxv with a different set of names+genders and a fourth option in addition!

Congratulations! According to my trawler, your puppet is the very first nation to pick that option.

[Rocain Founder]

I can confirm the findings of TalAkMaChen regarding issue #482. It definitely appears that a new option has been inserted after the existing option 3. I feel certain that the new option 4 is a non-religious alternative to the existing option 3. Unfortunately, the puppet that received the option was religious, so I have no text for the new option.

[TalAkMaChen]

I can confirm the findings of TalAkMaChen regarding issue #482. It definitely appears that a new option has been inserted after the existing option 3. I feel certain that the new option 4 is a non-religious alternative to the existing option 3. Unfortunately, the puppet that received the option was religious, so I have no text for the new option.

I checked again and found the missing text. It's now added to the second part of the list and I'll remove it from the first lest I confuse Valentine Z.

[Valentine Z]

That's a lot of changes to be made, which is once again, more than welcome! Good to see a lot more activity once again, all thanks to everyone! <3

I'll see if I can do something by this week but as much as I want to promise, it may get delayed a little bit here and there; I have around 3-4 events and RPs that I'm in, in NSS.