#539 All My Bits Are Belong to You

[Dopestan]

hi i think this one issue is poorly made, human resembling work robots is totally not something outstanding or mindblowing today yet here you end up with 4 Radical options 1)ban2)cyberpunk3)cyberpunk4)ban, seems like a no win situation to me. Why not just have an option allowing manufactoring these "wives" like nowadays world produces sex dolls or voice assistants or remote vacuum cleaners or whatever and not extend this near-future ordinary situation to such an extreme

[Awesomeland012345]

you should probably post this in the got issues forum

[Trotterdam]

NationStates has more advanced robotics technology than real life, so it makes some sense that more pressing issues would develop around how to handle it. These aren't just real-life sex dolls under debate.

What I don't like about the issue is how it's framed as a feminist issue with option 2 being implied (particularly by the counterpoint in option 3) to be sexist and only producing female sex robots. Even if their company only produces female models, on an open market someone is going to start selling male ones. Besides, people being able to buy robot spouses means less need to sexually objectify actual humans.

[Dopestan]

These aren't just real-life sex dolls under debate

these are product merely branded "robowife"(c)TM while being somewhat of voice assistant + advanced manipulator, and its up to customers sanity how to treat and call it. i just want to say there is no reason here for extreme solutions only

[Awesomeland012345]

you end up with 4 Radical options 1)ban2)cyberpunk3)cyberpunk4)ban, seems like a no win situation to me.

you could just dismiss the issue.

[The New California Republic]

i just want to say there is no reason here for extreme solutions only

Extreme larger-than-life options are kind of a thing with many issues, it's entirely intentional.

[Dopestan]

you could just dismiss the issue.

its boring and unroleplaying

[Daarwyrth]

you could just dismiss the issue.

its boring and unroleplaying

Well, in that case I have to say that it's your own problem. If you don't want to make use of the Dismiss Button which has been put there for you to use, in case you don't want to answer a particular issue, there is little else that can be done. There literally is an alternative to answering the issue, but you're simply choosing not to take it.

[Dopestan]

There literally is an alternative to answering the issue, but you're simply choosing not to take it.

There literally is much better alternative as to change option#2 because #2 and #3 are basically the same now and all 4 are excessively drastic for such a simple situation

[The New California Republic]

There literally is an alternative to answering the issue, but you're simply choosing not to take it.

There literally is much better alternative as to change option#2 because #2 and #3 are basically the same now and all 4 are excessively drastic for such a simple situation

Just dismiss the issue.

[Daarwyrth]

There literally is an alternative to answering the issue, but you're simply choosing not to take it.

There literally is much better alternative as to change option#2 because #2 and #3 are basically the same now and all 4 are excessively drastic for such a simple situation

So, an issue should be changed just because 1 person doesn't like one of the issue options? Yeah, no, I don't see the issue editors doing that. You have a Dismiss Button. If you don't like the issue, use it.

[Dopestan]

So, an issue should be changed just because 1 person doesn't like one of the issue options? Yeah, no, I don't see the issue editors doing that. You have a Dismiss Button. If you don't like the issue, use it.

got it, must keep me shut because 2 persons like it. dont you realize this is what oppressive editors do to keep us common users away from their issue fun?
anyway "If you think a rewrite is needed on an existing issue, then discuss it in The Writer's Block first viewtopic.php?f=13&t=159868 and see what the community makes of the idea." are you that deciding community or should i address my concerns to like the author

[Daarwyrth]

So, an issue should be changed just because 1 person doesn't like one of the issue options? Yeah, no, I don't see the issue editors doing that. You have a Dismiss Button. If you don't like the issue, use it.

got it, must keep me shut because 2 persons like it. dont you realize this is what oppressive editors do to keep us common users away from their issue fun?
anyway "If you think a rewrite is needed on an existing issue, then discuss it in The Writer's Block first viewtopic.php?f=13&t=159868 and see what the community makes of the idea." are you that deciding community or should i address my concerns to like the author

No, I am not a deciding community, but I am not the only one who is pointing out the dismiss button to you. And no, the editors are not oppressive, as I have worked with them in the past and they're good people.

I would not bother the author with your demands, because the author of an issue doesn't have any ability to edit or change things once an issue proposal is submitted or published. Only the issue editors can do that.

[Westinor]

So, an issue should be changed just because 1 person doesn't like one of the issue options? Yeah, no, I don't see the issue editors doing that. You have a Dismiss Button. If you don't like the issue, use it.

got it, must keep me shut because 2 persons like it. dont you realize this is what oppressive editors do to keep us common users away from their issue fun?
anyway "If you think a rewrite is needed on an existing issue, then discuss it in The Writer's Block first viewtopic.php?f=13&t=159868 and see what the community makes of the idea." are you that deciding community or should i address my concerns to like the author

No one says you must keep your mouth shut. If you have concerns about how an issue has been written, then bring it up, like you've done here. The usual response is that the community will voice their opinions, and if the editors feel it is worthy of a change, that change will be made. This is by no means a way to say "you are wrong and should never voice criticism ever again".

Normally, issues are only edited after publishing if there's significant controversy over a particular subject of the issue. That, or there's a severely outdated reference in the issue. Changes made after publishing are not made lightly, so there definitely needs to be a strong case made for a change to occur. I'm not an editor though, so don't take my word as law.

[The New California Republic]

So, an issue should be changed just because 1 person doesn't like one of the issue options? Yeah, no, I don't see the issue editors doing that. You have a Dismiss Button. If you don't like the issue, use it.

got it, must keep me shut because 2 persons like it. dont you realize this is what oppressive editors do to keep us common users away from their issue fun?

Weird statement.

anyway "If you think a rewrite is needed on an existing issue, then discuss it in The Writer's Block first viewtopic.php?f=13&t=159868 and see what the community makes of the idea." are you that deciding community or should i address my concerns to like the author

Then formulate some suggestions and present them. All I have seen in this thread thus far is complaining about how bad the issue is, without any reasonable suggestions regarding how to remedy it.

It needs to be said that it's odd though that in all the years that the particular issue has existed that nobody has complained so broadly about its options until now...

[Dopestan]

wow guys one by one please thanks for answers
1)sure editors arent thats easy joke
2)so whos editor in charge?
3)my suggestion stands in the first post: remove legalizing from #2 because it basically duplicates #3 now with little to no difference in variety of products offered, while on the other hand #1 and #4 despite being similar too represent voices of different groups say "feminists" and "luddites" with different outcome that is ban of branch / ban of industry
4) glad no one cares

[Drasnia]

wow guys one by one please thanks for answers
1)sure editors arent thats easy joke
2)so whos editor in charge?
3)my suggestion stands in the first post: remove legalizing from #2 because it basically duplicates #3 now with little to no difference in variety of products offered, while on the other hand #1 and #4 despite being similar too represent voices of different groups say "feminists" and "luddites" with different outcome that is ban of branch / ban of industry
4) glad no one cares

Hi, welcome to Got Issues! GI is a very collaborative forum so there really isn't one person in charge; rather it's an entire community working together towards a common goal.

If you feel very strongly about your proposed changes, I'd recommend posting a re-edited version of the issue in full in this thread. You can find the full text right here. If you do go through with it, also post a commentary with it discussing why you made every single change that you did. The editors are pretty active here and probably have already seen this thread, so don't worry about attracting their attention

[The New California Republic]

so whos editor in charge?

The list of Editors is here: viewtopic.php?p=32581708#p32581708

my suggestion stands in the first post: remove legalizing from #2 because it basically duplicates #3 now with little to no difference in variety of products offered

Read options 2 and 3 again, they are very different. Option 2 is pretty much making robots slaves in everything but name, while option 3 is treating them as equals, leading to the policies of AI Personhood and Marriage Equality being enacted.

[Dopestan]

policies of AI Personhood and Marriage Equality being enacted.

source? arent effects undisclosed, what are those of #2 ?

[The New California Republic]

policies of AI Personhood and Marriage Equality being enacted.

source? arent effects undisclosed, what are those of #2 ?

https://nsindex.net/wiki/NationStates_I ... e_outcomes

There are no policies enacted for option 2.

[Daarwyrth]

I agree with Drasnia. If you feel you can write issue #539 better yourself, do so and post it in here with a clear motivation as why you made the changes you made.

[Dopestan]

https://nsindex.net/wiki/NationStates_Issue_No._539#Issue_outcomes

first this and http://www.mwq.dds.nl/ns/results/ better be made more noticeable in FAQ section in case they provide coorect information, overlooked it my fault
maybe change section "Is there a list with all the statistical effects of the issues?" to
"No. These are kept secret deliberately. partial info can be seen here and there"

[Drasnia]

https://nsindex.net/wiki/NationStates_Issue_No._539#Issue_outcomes

first this and http://www.mwq.dds.nl/ns/results/ better be made more noticeable in FAQ section in case they provide coorect information, overlooked it my fault
maybe change section "Is there a list with all the statistical effects of the issues?" to
"No. These are kept secret deliberately. partial info can be seen here and there"

Issue results aren't officially published because that's the point of the game. The original intent of the game is to make you confront a dilemma and try to solve it, causing unintentional side effects. It's not a spreadsheet simulator. If you want that go play something like Cybernations (is that even still around?).

All databases like NSIndex and Trotterdam's which you linked are unofficial and potentially inaccurate. There have and will continue to be cases where people use those databases and still get unexpected results, which then causes them to report them here. NS's simulation, while in some instances is still relatively basic, can have some complexities to it so no database can ever fully represent possible outcomes of issues. (Trott's does the best from what I've seen, though.)

[The New California Republic]

https://nsindex.net/wiki/NationStates_Issue_No._539#Issue_outcomes

first this and http://www.mwq.dds.nl/ns/results/ better be made more noticeable in FAQ section in case they provide coorect information, overlooked it my fault
maybe change section "Is there a list with all the statistical effects of the issues?" to
"No. These are kept secret deliberately. partial info can be seen here and there"

Precise issue effects are offsite because the point of issues isn't to know exactly what happens with each one.

But then again the issue effects often can and do vary depending on the nation that has the issue, so the issue effect on the third party sites are there as a rough guide, they aren't intended to be totally accurate in terms of what will happen stats-wise. The only thing that can be said with any reliability is what policies an option will enable or disable, as those are set in stone.

But anyway, this is all detracting from my main point: options 2 and 3 are substantially different in terms of what they do.

[Trotterdam]

But then again the issue effects often can and do vary depending on the nation that has the issue, so the issue effect on the third party sites are there as a rough guide, they aren't intended to be totally accurate in terms of what will happen stats-wise.

Worth noting is that my site is designed to be "fail-broad": while glitches might cause it to report something can happen when in fact it can't happen or is only very rare, it is much less likely for it to report that something can't happen when in fact it can happen, even if only in relatively outlying nations. Most issue options have hundreds of data points, meaning that the probability of any nation getting a result that is outside of the listed range is extremely low, and the probability of being more than a tiny fraction of a point outside of the listed range is even lower.

Most claims of "inaccuracy" are from people who don't understand the concept of minimum and maximum changes, and conclude that getting a result which is in the opposite direction from what I list as the average change means my data is wrong, even when it explicitly said that could happen.

The only thing that can be said with any reliability is what policies an option will enable or disable, as those are set in stone.

Not always. Some of the listed policies are psuedo-policies that you get for having a numerical stat within a certain range, so an issue option will only sometimes assign/remove those policies depending on how close you were to the threshold before. My site also aims to accuracy list this variance by describing the policy changes in question as "sometimes" happening, and still tries to apply the fail-broad principle here, although there is somewhat more risk of it failing by something that can theoretically happen not being reported due to being rare enough to have never been sighted (for example, the site does not currently report #6 3 as removing the Theocracy policy even though it is known to do that, because it is nearly unheard of for theocratic nations to choose this option to begin with). Stats, which have a range of effects rather than being all-or-nothing, suffer less from this.