NationStates

Huh. I just realized that demonymnoun(plural) is actually reported pretty often,
so it actually appears alongslide demonym(plural). TIL.

Trotterdam wrote:Aww dammit. And I forgot to check if it's @@NAME@@ or @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@. (The latter is more appropiate.)

I can confirm it’s @@NAME@@. I think @@NAME@@ is appropriate because its naming an actual agency/organization, rather than describing it, or at least that’s how i interpreted it.

Then again, the reverse is also true.


EDIT: <3 Jutsa

Eh, it was reported with @@NAME@@ so I'm going to assume that's what it is...

Jutsa wrote:Hey, Minoa, I cross-check with you and work on this; would it be possible for me to make pages on NSIndex for new issues?
Maybe even go through old ones and update them with stuff I've found on here?

(With Trotterdam's issue data gathering thing, we could also add the effect lines of said options... )

Hi Jutsa, just request an account on NSindex and I will activate it as soon as possible. I recently introduced a new account registration system due to a persistent vandal earlier this month. I know NSindex could do better in terms of adding more analysis and expanding the lead section.

Jutsa wrote:(With Trotterdam's issue data gathering thing, we could also add the effect lines of said options... )

Just so you know, those effect lines aren't automated. I have to enter them manually

Jutsa wrote:I suspect #972 will be a while, though; pretty sure it chains from another issue,

Ah, maybe. I'll start tracking it now to check.

I want my sparkly rainbows!

#965 Like a Bull in a Dàguó Shop

The Issue

While attending an art exhibition of pieces lent by Dàguó, your advisor accidentally knocked over an ancient Dàmíng dynasty vase, shattering it.

The Debate

1. "Harken, all! That vase was an irreplaceable treasure of great national importance, and to lose it is a severe blow to our cultural heritage and history," proclaims the High Eunuch of the Dàguó Imperial Court, reading intently from a scroll. "Our virtuous and benevolent ruler shall extract a small sum of eight million @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ in restitution. Denial of the Celestial Emperor's wishes shall be repaid with severe sanctions for @@NAME@@."

2. "I can't... I mean, the treasury can't afford that!" wails @@RANDOMNAME@@, the advisor in question, knocking over a priceless Moltovean ornament while entering your office. "Whoops! Did you forget that compensation of any sort is outlawed in @@NAME@@? There's a good reason for that &#151; if we had it, citizens and businesses alike would be at the mercy of greedy claimants, and nobody would dare sell anything due to the risk of having to pay damages. Instead of me paying for the vase, I suggest that we issue a state apology to Dàguó and simply hope for the best."

4. "I have a better idea, one that won't cost us a single @@CURRENCY@@!" claims @@RANDOMNAME@@, the State Treasurer. "We could just decide who is right with a duel! The claimant and the person who supposedly caused the damage will fight to the death, and whoever survives gets the other person's stuff as spoils and remuneration for wasting their time! In our scenario here, we'll either get rid of that incompetent advisor or that snobbish emperor. A win-win for us all, except for the one that dies."

Issue by Singapore no2
Edited by The Marsupial Illuminati

Note: "compensation of any sort" is not banned here. In fact, the very concept of banning compensation is absurd. You can abolish any legally mandatory compensation, but that isn't "banning" compensation. Though we didn't do that either.

Am I safe to assume that option 3 is TBD, then?

The "no compensation" policy does look to be a little wonky in execution.

A formal review has been started on this, with Marsupial Illuminati overseeing. We'll keep you posted.

#975 Paparazzi Parents

The Issue

A teenager recently made headlines when he filed a lawsuit against his parents who had shared his photos on MyFace without his consent, prompting a discussion on whether parents have the right to post their kids’ pictures without their permission.

The Debate

1. “This is a shameless infringement of my client’s privacy!” thunders Rosalina Takei, the lawyer of the teenage plaintiff, while she spreads an array of her client’s intimate childhood pictures on your desk. “You see, these irresponsible parents have unscrupulously documented the most private moments of my client, taking shots of him while he sat upon a potty chair, or ran around in his diapers, and then they shared them on their MyFace account! I don’t even need to mention the weirdos who may now have access to these sensitive pictures. Distributing any pictures of minors online, or offline, should be a criminal offense!”

2. “Frankly, I don’t understand why this is even an issue,” grumbles Agatha Carr, the mother of the disgruntled teenager, as she snuggles up to you and pouts her lips to #TakeASelfieWithTheLeader. “I mean, what is more natural for a mother than to take the pictures of her pretty little pumpkin and his adorable chubby bum, and to share them with her friends? We can’t take the tantrums of a pubescent kid high on hormones seriously, can we? As legal guardians, parents should be allowed to dispose of their kids’ pictures as they like.”

3. “Ahem, I say we don’t have to think in binary terms,” chips in Declan Howell, the administrator of the government’s largest social media network, while he nervously scans your room with wide, bulging eyes. “I would first like to assure you that our app is very safe. Nobody would ever need to fear a data leak or any breach of security on our part. But if half-naked photos of kids are a problem, in order to safeguard our profile, we could simply program a bot to sift through all photos in our database and to tag and remove the ones in which too much flesh is exposed. What do you think?”

Issue by Frieden-und Freudenland
Edited by Nation of Quebec

My 11th issue!

Congrats, Fuf! Welcome back.

Added! I'm wondering if the teenager is fixed as male or not... I know it wasn't in the drafting thread, but I still wonder.

Jutsa wrote:Congrats, Fuf! Welcome back.

Added! I'm wondering if the teenager is fixed as male or not... I know it wasn't in the drafting thread, but I still wonder.

Yes, he is. Blame my misogynistic prudery on that one, as I felt it worked better if...

Ah, let me just quote my own words from backstage.

whether we like it or not, the nudity privacy of women is in our society considered to be inherently more triggery and less funny than the nudity privacy of men. While that might reflect a societal deficit in gender attitudes, I think our number one priority in issue editing is the quality of humour and story, and the humour and story to me works best with a male subject here.

Yeah I kinda figured. Thanks for confirming that, though. :3

Plus, frankly, I imagine mothers sharing pictures of their sons more easily than sharing their daughters.
Maybe that's another deficit in gender attitudes?

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

Jutsa wrote:Congrats, Fuf! Welcome back.

Added! I'm wondering if the teenager is fixed as male or not... I know it wasn't in the drafting thread, but I still wonder.

Yes, he is. Blame my misogynistic prudery on that one, as I felt it worked better if...

Ah, let me just quote my own words from backstage.

whether we like it or not, the nudity privacy of women is in our society considered to be inherently more triggery and less funny than the nudity privacy of men. While that might reflect a societal deficit in gender attitudes, I think our number one priority in issue editing is the quality of humour and story, and the humour and story to me works best with a male subject here.

Jutsa wrote:Yeah I kinda figured. Thanks for confirming that, though. :3

Plus, frankly, I imagine mothers sharing pictures of their sons more easily than sharing their daughters.
Maybe that's another deficit in gender attitudes?

There is definitely some sexism going on there, but I wouldn't call it "misogynistic prudery." I don't think it is related to misogyny at all.

Rather, I think it is related to the hypersexualization of the female body.

Male nudity need not be perceived as "sexual," and therefore if a mother shows the naked pictures of her son to his friends and they make fun of him, etc., what we see is just derision, ridicule, or perhaps peer bullying at most. But not sexual harassment. Switch the gender of the child, however, and things take a dark turn. Because female nudity is not funny, but sexual.

Of course, as an extension of this idea, you CAN say that there is misogyny here, because hypersexualizing women is inherently misogynistic. I have no objections to that.

NSindex has the socialist options for #970 and #971 now, though somewhat poorly formatted (they're overloading italics to indicate both stuff that's italics in the actual issue and which parts are different between option variants, plus whoever entered #971 2 messed up on the table layout). It does confirm that the validity for #970 1/2 is socialism, rather than banning cheese.

Meanwhile, I am now quite certain that #972 is chained from #633 option 1, and specifically option 1 and not any of the other options (contrary to my suggestion that the issue would be more controversial in nations where the anthem wasn't intended to be chauvinistic to begin with). Unsurprisingly given that, the pro-fascism option is the most popular one.

No sparkling rainbows for me

Oh, oh man... thank you Trotterdam! I'll be sure to add these. >:D

I'm starting to love how issue 972 has just become this open secret where everybody knows what the issue is, but nobody has access to the actual copy yet.

Let's see how long this lasts.

EDIT: And before somebody cheeky goes to it's draft page, I can confirm it has been significantly altered so you're not going to get the authentic experience.

Chan Island wrote:I'm starting to love how issue 972 has just become this open secret where everybody knows what the issue is, but nobody has access to the actual copy yet.

Let's see how long this lasts.

Eh, #911 is in the same boat. Beat that.

(It's this, and it chains off #317 3.)

Chan Island wrote:EDIT: And before somebody cheeky goes to it's draft page, I can confirm it has been significantly altered so you're not going to get the authentic experience.

Meh. If I can't make my anthem be about sparkling rainbows, I don't care.

Trotterdam wrote:

Chan Island wrote:I'm starting to love how issue 972 has just become this open secret where everybody knows what the issue is, but nobody has access to the actual copy yet.

Let's see how long this lasts.

Eh, #911 is in the same boat. Beat that.

(It's this, and it chains off #317 3.)

Chan Island wrote:EDIT: And before somebody cheeky goes to it's draft page, I can confirm it has been significantly altered so you're not going to get the authentic experience.

Meh. If I can't make my anthem be about sparkling rainbows, I don't care.

Don't worry. The sparkly rainbows are very much still there.

Trotterdam wrote:NSindex has the socialist options for #970 and #971 now, though somewhat poorly formatted (they're overloading italics to indicate both stuff that's italics in the actual issue and which parts are different between option variants, plus whoever entered #971 2 messed up on the table layout). It does confirm that the validity for #970 1/2 is socialism, rather than banning cheese.

Meanwhile, I am now quite certain that #972 is chained from #633 option 1, and specifically option 1 and not any of the other options (contrary to my suggestion that the issue would be more controversial in nations where the anthem wasn't intended to be chauvinistic to begin with). Unsurprisingly given that, the pro-fascism option is the most popular one.

No sparkling rainbows for me

Don't worry, I got it.

Trotterdam wrote:

Chan Island wrote:I'm starting to love how issue 972 has just become this open secret where everybody knows what the issue is, but nobody has access to the actual copy yet.

Let's see how long this lasts.

Eh, #911 is in the same boat. Beat that.

(It's this, and it chains off #317 3.)

Chan Island wrote:EDIT: And before somebody cheeky goes to it's draft page, I can confirm it has been significantly altered so you're not going to get the authentic experience.

Meh. If I can't make my anthem be about sparkling rainbows, I don't care.

How many months ago was it added, anyways?

Chan Island wrote:Don't worry. The sparkly rainbows are very much still there.

Oh, I know, but the only way to reach that point is to first make your anthem be about literally spitting at foreigners. No way am I doing that.

The people who like the idea of sparkly rainbows aren't the ones who are going to get the issue. (My data confirms this, with currently 23 data points for the pro-fascism option, 12 data points for the "nothing to see here, move along" option, and only 1 data point for the sparkling rainbow option. Usual disclaimer that not all sightings get successfully processed into data points, but it's a reasonably representative sample.)

...And yes, there's no "nothing to see here, move along" option in the draft. I guess that's what you meant by "significantly altered".

Drasnia wrote:How many months ago was it added, anyways?

Shouldn't you know? It's your issue.

About two, looks like.

Trotterdam wrote:

Chan Island wrote:Don't worry. The sparkly rainbows are very much still there.

Oh, I know, but the only way to reach that point is to first make your anthem be about literally spitting at foreigners. No way am I doing that.

The people who like the idea of sparkly rainbows aren't the ones who are going to get the issue. (My data confirms this, with currently 23 data points for the pro-fascism option, 12 data points for the "nothing to see here, move along" option, and only 1 data point for the sparkling rainbow option. Usual disclaimer that not all sightings get successfully processed into data points, but it's a reasonably representative sample.)

...And yes, there's no "nothing to see here, move along" option in the draft. I guess that's what you meant by "significantly altered".

Drasnia wrote:How many months ago was it added, anyways?

Shouldn't you know? It's your issue.

About two, looks like.

I was CTE'd when it was added.

Afraid he's got you beat there, Trot.

Issue #975: Paparazzi Parents

The Issue

A teenager recently made headlines when he filed a lawsuit against his parents who had shared his photos on MyFace without his consent, prompting a discussion on whether parents have the right to post their kids’ pictures without their permission.

The Debate

“This is a shameless infringement of my client’s privacy!” thunders @@RANDOMNAME@@, the lawyer of the teenage plaintiff, while she spreads an array of her client’s intimate childhood pictures on your desk. “You see, these irresponsible parents have unscrupulously documented the most private moments of my client, taking shots of him while he sat upon a potty chair, or ran around in his diapers, and then they shared them on their MyFace account! I don’t even need to mention the weirdos who may now have access to these sensitive pictures. Distributing any pictures of minors online, or offline, should be a criminal offense!”

“Frankly, I don’t understand why this is even an issue,” grumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, the mother of the disgruntled teenager, as she snuggles up to you and pouts her lips to #TakeASelfieWithTheLeader. “I mean, what is more natural for a mother than to take the pictures of her pretty little pumpkin and his adorable chubby bum, and to share them with her friends? We can’t take the tantrums of a pubescent kid high on hormones seriously, can we? As legal guardians, parents should be allowed to dispose of their kids’ pictures as they like.”

“Ahem, I say we don’t have to think in binary terms,” chips in Marcus Sugarmountain, the founder of MyFace, while he nervously scans your room with wide, bulging eyes. “I would first like to assure you that our app is very safe. Nobody would ever need to fear a data leak or any breach of security on our part. But if half-naked photos of kids are a problem, in order to safeguard our profile, we could simply program a bot to sift through all photos in our database and to tag and remove the ones in which too much flesh is exposed. What do you think?”

Issue by The Democratic Island Federation of Frieden-und Freudenland

Edited by Nation of Quebec

Edit: Not sure whether the last name is random or not.

Trotterdam wrote:

Chan Island wrote:Don't worry. The sparkly rainbows are very much still there.

Oh, I know, but the only way to reach that point is to first make your anthem be about literally spitting at foreigners. No way am I doing that.

It actually chains from two options of the original issue...

EDIT: The options that linked to this issue weren't chosen for pro-fascism, per se, but rather because this issue called for an original composition that could be misused. Originally, it was going to link from three options, then we realised that the option wasn't suggesting an original composition (which is implied by this issue).

2^ND EDIT: RE #975 Marcus Sugarmountain is non-random. He is the set name given to the CEO of MyFace.