The Writers' Block

[SherpDaWerp]

I'm moving this query out of my ranking thread because I'm nearly 100% sure at this point it's not a problem with any of the lists.

The badge on Pogaria's nation page states "Issues Author (x36)". Pogaria has said that they wrote 37 issues:

Officially, I have 37

and every count I've done of the spoiler thread (both Val's human-readable version and my computer-readable version) has confirmed that Pogaria has 37 authorships.

For the record, here are the issue IDs of issues that the spoiler(s) credit Pogaria with:
695, 747, 1041, 1197, 1219, 1275, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1380 (unreported but confirmed to be part of MADness), 1381, 1382, 1383, 1384, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1393, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399, 1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, and 1405; this adds up to 37 issues.

The list Pogaria themselves provided was:
695, 747, 1041, 1197, 1219, 1275, +31 chain issues (1375-1405); this also adds up to 37 issues.

Can someone please check up on the backstage list and find out what's going on here?

[Fauxia]

It's hardly unprecedented for the displayed number on the nation page to be incorrect.

Off the top of my head, The Rejected Realms Issue Committee is not displayed as having multiple issues but has written 4.

It's also possible that that Baggieland is credited as lead author for 1041.

I think the issue here is assuming that the displayed total on the nation page is exactly right. It usually is but sometimes, funky things happen.

[Pogaria]

I'm moving this query out of my ranking thread because I'm nearly 100% sure at this point it's not a problem with any of the lists.

The badge on Pogaria's nation page states "Issues Author (x36)". Pogaria has said that they wrote 37 issues:

Officially, I have 37

and every count I've done of the spoiler thread (both Val's human-readable version and my computer-readable version) has confirmed that Pogaria has 37 authorships.

For the record, here are the issue IDs of issues that the spoiler(s) credit Pogaria with:
695, 747, 1041, 1197, 1219, 1275, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1380 (unreported but confirmed to be part of MADness), 1381, 1382, 1383, 1384, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1393, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397, 1398, 1399, 1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, and 1405; this adds up to 37 issues.

The list Pogaria themselves provided was:
695, 747, 1041, 1197, 1219, 1275, +31 chain issues (1375-1405); this also adds up to 37 issues.

Can someone please check up on the backstage list and find out what's going on here?

Here's your answer.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

I just read online that the QAnon Shaman's mom said in court that her son allegedly has not eaten anything since Friday, because his request for organic food was declined. While I was basically making fun of this tough (!) guy being a snowflake, it occurred to me - some people who are in jail might actually have legitimate special diet requests, and are they actually accommodated? I was thinking of writing an issue on this, but does this overlap with an existing issue in a substantial way?

[Trotterdam]

I just read online that the QAnon Shaman's mom said in court that her son allegedly has not eaten anything since Friday, because his request for organic food was declined. While I was basically making fun of this tough (!) guy being a snowflake, it occurred to me - some people who are in jail might actually have legitimate special diet requests, and are they actually accommodated? I was thinking of writing an issue on this, but does this overlap with an existing issue in a substantial way?

We have an issue about food in prisons, but it's about general quality rather than special diet requests.

A variant I've heard about once (not from a reliable source): Since only a minority of prisoners need kosher food, it's often cheaper for prison cooks to just buy it off existing catering services rather than making their own... and since these catering services exist primarily to cater to non-prisoners, their food is often of higher quality than the normal mass-produced slop prisoners get fed. As a result, a suprising number of people with a Jewish ancestor several generations back suddenly become very religious after going to jail...

[Jutsa]

Hello, everyone. o/

So, it's been a little while since I've done anything in Got Issues?. Originally it was mostly because of work, but I think it's basically come down to "I'm just not interested in writing anymore".

Now, I may return - I've got a long history of having manic bursts of activity followed by either a total dropoff or prolonged fizzles. And, perhaps as I plan to be taking college courses I might actually be good at English for a change (we can dream), which might inspire me to flex my new vocabularical prowess, but until then, I've just got too many other things I both need and want to do.

So, this is sort-of a farewell of sorts. I'd certainly like to try to comment on others' drafts, but I wouldn't even do that while active. >.>
I'll still be in discord and all that junk though, feel free to tg me, etc. I'll still be active (or, well, vaguely attentive) in the East Pacific.

As for my poor drafts... uh. Well. Feel free to recycle them for material I guess.

Weeping Widows is actually alright and I admit I might eventually come back round to this.
The next three I'm actually in the process of moving to "abandoned" outright
Invasive Maneuvers was added under a different name (thank goodness)
Fishy Business is still workable, although, keep in mind, I've recently realized it rights a bell or two with that existing issue about Tasmanian birds.
Nickel and Diming... agh. Again. I like this one, might eventually come back to it if nobody else uses it, but idk how tight a premise it is.
Class in Ethics I like. No complaints, I just honestly don't feel like working on it.
Lastly, Affirmation Bias... I mean, the concept I think is alright but I didn't work very hard on it for reasons stated both there and here.

Also, please do flip through my list of issues ideas. I'd encourage this even if I were still remotely active.
(note: some if not most premises may have faulty wiring)

That's all for now. Again, might eat my words, we'll see, but I'd kinda rather that than simply fade out of existence. Again, just ping or tg me if you wanna communicate at any time.

[Fauxia]

Sometimes you don’t feel like writing ever. I get that.

Good luck, Jutsa! I’ll miss seeing you around (as much)

[The Free Joy State]

Hello, everyone. o/

So, it's been a little while since I've done anything in Got Issues?. Originally it was mostly because of work, but I think it's basically come down to "I'm just not interested in writing anymore".

Now, I may return - I've got a long history of having manic bursts of activity followed by either a total dropoff or prolonged fizzles. And, perhaps as I plan to be taking college courses I might actually be good at English for a change (we can dream), which might inspire me to flex my new vocabularical prowess, but until then, I've just got too many other things I both need and want to do.

So, this is sort-of a farewell of sorts. I'd certainly like to try to comment on others' drafts, but I wouldn't even do that while active. >.>
I'll still be in discord and all that junk though, feel free to tg me, etc. I'll still be active (or, well, vaguely attentive) in the East Pacific.

As for my poor drafts... uh. Well. Feel free to recycle them for material I guess.

Weeping Widows is actually alright and I admit I might eventually come back round to this.
The next three I'm actually in the process of moving to "abandoned" outright
Invasive Maneuvers was added under a different name (thank goodness)
Fishy Business is still workable, although, keep in mind, I've recently realized it rights a bell or two with that existing issue about Tasmanian birds.
Nickel and Diming... agh. Again. I like this one, might eventually come back to it if nobody else uses it, but idk how tight a premise it is.
Class in Ethics I like. No complaints, I just honestly don't feel like working on it.
Lastly, Affirmation Bias... I mean, the concept I think is alright but I didn't work very hard on it for reasons stated both there and here.

Also, please do flip through my list of issues ideas. I'd encourage this even if I were still remotely active.
(note: some if not most premises may have faulty wiring)

That's all for now. Again, might eat my words, we'll see, but I'd kinda rather that than simply fade out of existence. Again, just ping or tg me if you wanna communicate at any time.

Take care, Jutsa. You contributed so much to GI, and you'll be much missed around here.

Good luck in real life!

[Electrum]

When I first started in this forum around 8 months ago, you always stood out to me as being a pillar of the GI community with your positivity, eagerness to write and your mentorship of others. You've done a lot for everyone on the forums, including me, so I do you'll drop in whenever you have the time

[Westinor]

Hello, everyone. o/

So, it's been a little while since I've done anything in Got Issues?. Originally it was mostly because of work, but I think it's basically come down to "I'm just not interested in writing anymore".

Now, I may return - I've got a long history of having manic bursts of activity followed by either a total dropoff or prolonged fizzles. And, perhaps as I plan to be taking college courses I might actually be good at English for a change (we can dream), which might inspire me to flex my new vocabularical prowess, but until then, I've just got too many other things I both need and want to do.

So, this is sort-of a farewell of sorts. I'd certainly like to try to comment on others' drafts, but I wouldn't even do that while active. >.>
I'll still be in discord and all that junk though, feel free to tg me, etc. I'll still be active (or, well, vaguely attentive) in the East Pacific.

As for my poor drafts... uh. Well. Feel free to recycle them for material I guess.

Weeping Widows is actually alright and I admit I might eventually come back round to this.
The next three I'm actually in the process of moving to "abandoned" outright
Invasive Maneuvers was added under a different name (thank goodness)
Fishy Business is still workable, although, keep in mind, I've recently realized it rights a bell or two with that existing issue about Tasmanian birds.
Nickel and Diming... agh. Again. I like this one, might eventually come back to it if nobody else uses it, but idk how tight a premise it is.
Class in Ethics I like. No complaints, I just honestly don't feel like working on it.
Lastly, Affirmation Bias... I mean, the concept I think is alright but I didn't work very hard on it for reasons stated both there and here.

Also, please do flip through my list of issues ideas. I'd encourage this even if I were still remotely active.
(note: some if not most premises may have faulty wiring)

That's all for now. Again, might eat my words, we'll see, but I'd kinda rather that than simply fade out of existence. Again, just ping or tg me if you wanna communicate at any time.

Hey Jutsa. I'm sorry to see you go - you really are an amazing figure here in GI! That lack of motivation to write certainly is familiar. Good luck in all your future endeavors! Should you ever return, we'll always welcome you back with open arms. Thanks for all you've done

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

It has recently come to my attention, while I was killing time dropping the little orange guy on Google Earth in random places in Europe and fooling around, that most of Germany is not covered by Google Street View. I was curious if this was some kind of bug, I Google'd it and realized that it is because Germany does not allow this type of documentation due to strict privacy laws. Of course, somehow some cities could be mapped to a limited scale (e.g., Berlin), but if you want to virtually explore small German villages here and there, you are out of luck.

I was wondering if this could be a valid issue. The structure I have in mind is basically as follows.

Description: A private company from United Federation (NS equivalent of Google) releases Street View and it is all the rage. Should @@NAME@@ allow volunteers to drive around with 3D cameras to record @@DEMONYM@@ streets to be made available online?

Option 1: Yes, it will be awesome and might motivate some tourists to visit @@NAME@@.
Option 2: No, it will be terrible for privacy (e.g., I don't want my house to be recorded).
Option 3: Compromise - we can record pictures of all streets, but can remove certain buildings etc. upon request
Option 4: Either a crazy option about espionage (this is a trick that UF is using to spy on us!) or an idea about misusing the street view for counterespionage activities, or maybe for misleading info (e.g., let us take the camera to some kind of Potemkin village etc.)


What do you think?

P.S. This also happens to be my 2000th post on NS forums!

[Miku the Based]

Can never write more than a paragraph without going off on a tangent and not actually forming a cohesive argument or train of events/thoughts. My words per minute is too slow and it just get more aggravating the more I try.

[Trotterdam]

@Frieden-und Freudenland: Sounds like a perfectly reasonable premise to me.

For your crazy option 4 I would think your second suggestion works better than your first, because wanting privacy from foreign spies is already covered by wanting privacy from everyone in option 2.

Another possibility for a compromise option would be allowing taking the photos but requiring that the photographs be carefully timed to only capture long-lasting structures like buildings when there are no actual people on the streets, and maybe give residents warning in advance that their street is going to get photographed so they can close their curtains, etc. (Or decorate their houses with silly pranks right when the photographer is going to come around, because you know people are going to do that.)

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Is there a follow-up issue for Option 3 of Issue #165, which says that the government should arrange marriages?

Also, is there an issue that specifically tackles domestic violence and/or femicides?

[Trotterdam]

Is there a follow-up issue for Option 3 of Issue #165, which says that the government should arrange marriages?

Not that I can recall.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Not that I can recall.

Oh, thanks.

How about my second question? (Sorry, you dropped by just when I edited my post. )

[Trotterdam]

How about my second question? (Sorry, you dropped by just when I edited my post. )

Also, is there an issue that specifically tackles domestic violence and/or femicides?

#632 comes to mind, though it's a really bad issue. A few other issues dabble in the subject, like #482 and #943, but those don't reallly put the topic front and center. What were you thinking of?

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

How about my second question? (Sorry, you dropped by just when I edited my post. )

Also, is there an issue that specifically tackles domestic violence and/or femicides?

#632 comes to mind, though it's a really bad issue. A few other issues dabble in the subject, like #482 and #943, but those don't reallly put the topic front and center. What were you thinking of?

Basically an issue where the main problem would be intimate partner violence directed at women, and what should be done to counter it.

[The Free Joy State]

#632 comes to mind, though it's a really bad issue. A few other issues dabble in the subject, like #482 and #943, but those don't reallly put the topic front and center. What were you thinking of?

Basically an issue where the main problem would be intimate partner violence directed at women, and what should be done to counter it.

We've had a few attempts at intimate partner violence (I would ask if it had to be gendered, as intimate partner violence can happen against men and women) but none that have come to fruition. So the coast is clear if you want to try to tackle this issue.

[Trotterdam]

Calling it "intimate partner violence" sounds like you're trying to tiptoe around the subject with euphemisms rather than actually explain what you're talking about. I get that it's a delicate issue, but you can't address it without actually confronting it. What actually is the problem here?

One problem, compared to other forms of abuse, is that it's harder to escape abuse by a family member who lives in the same house as you, because there's nowhere safe to run to, and even trying to call the police can lead to further punishment if your abuser finds out.

Another problem is when there are prevailing social attitudes that you have a "right" to abuse your spouse in some ways. This can be sexist (a belief that wives belong to their husbands, who are entitled to beat them if they behave out of line), but at least in the case of marital rape, it doesn't have to be: both partners gave their wedding vows, and someone might perceive that as constituting consent in perpetuity. (I would expect marital rape to be more of an issue in cultures that stigmatize divorce and/or adultery - if there's only one person you're legally allowed to have sex with, and that person isn't cooperating, then I can see why you might decide this "consent" thing is overrated - but I have no idea if real-life statistics bear out this expectation.)

A third problem is martyr syndrome / Stockholm syndrome, where despite suffering something most would call abusive, the victim actually has real feelings for her abuser, and so doesn't want to call in outside help because she's afraid that will result in losing him entirely. This can lead to such situations remaining unreported for years - in the most tragic cases until the victim finally dies from taking one too many beatings. (Pronouns can be flipped, of course, but it's easier to keep examples straight when I make assumptions.)

Then for female-on-male violence specifically, there is the issue that a man who got "beaten up by a girl" is a wuss, so that embarrassment can serve as another reason for not reporting an incident to the police.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Calling it "intimate partner violence" sounds like you're trying to tiptoe around the subject with euphemisms rather than actually explain what you're talking about. I get that it's a delicate issue, but you can't address it without actually confronting it. What actually is the problem here?

I am specifically interested in femicides, where women are killed by their partners. Every year hundreds of women get killed like this in Turkey, and it seems it keeps getting worse, probably because the government is encouraging it by giving very mild punishments to the perpetrator. (A guy can kill his wife, then say that he killed her because of jealousy because she was cheating on him, etc. This is a common tactic that defendants employ in order to get a punishment reduction due to "extenuating circumstances" - more often than not, there is no solid evidence for infidelity, it is just the guy making some unsupported claims. And the dead woman's ghost can obviously not appear in court to deny what her husband is saying. At the end, the guy gets a short jail term for a few years and can even be released earlier than that if he shows "good conduct.")

Sometimes women can get beaten or killed for utterly ridiculous reasons, like not putting enough salt in a dish. (Which makes Joy's issue 'A Woman's Roll' not sound too surreal in a Turkish context.)

Apparently such things also happen in India. (The following news story is from India, but it is in Turkish.) It is about a guy who killed his wife because she served his dinner late.

https://tr.sputniknews.com/yasam/201707 ... olduruldu/

Anyways...

According to the idea I have in mind, we won't be focusing on a single woman who got subjected to violence; rather the issue will be presented as a common problem in @@NAME@@. Each of the "reasons" you mention can be an angle to tackle the problem in an option.

For example,

Option 1: give deterrent punishments to wife-killers, like capital punishment or imprisonment for life
Option 2: open re-education/rehabilitation centers where men have to go before getting married with a woman, to be educated about gender equality
Option 3: regularly send social workers to the homes of each married couple to "check on them" and look for signs of abuse; so abuse can be discovered even if a woman is afraid of reporting it for whatever reason

I know that my issue is very woman-centric, but aiming for gender equality here erases the gender-dependence of the intimate partner violence in real life, at the expense of women. Men are not killed for being men. But women ARE killed for basically being women who want to be on equal terms with men. So I am also averse to bringing in issues of violence directed at men into it. I am not saying it is non-existent, but I'd rather let it be the topic of another issue. It is not widespread enough to merit attention, that's all I've got to say.

[Terrabod]

It is not widespread enough to merit attention, that's all I've got to say.

I have started work on an issue about the barriers male victims face to accessing domestic abuse support, so thanks very much for this inspiration. Men make up an estimated 45% of domestic violence victims but are three times less likely than female victims to report the abuse they endure. Furthermore, a man who calls the police to report domestic abuse is three times more likely to be arrested than his female abuser - and I think institutional problem is where my focus will lie. Hopefully nothing similar exists at the moment - I certainly can't find anything.

It is, of course, a different problem to the cultural violence you have discussed, but I believe it is deserving of attention.

EDIT: Credit where credit's due, thanks Trotterdam for raising the issue.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

It is not widespread enough to merit attention, that's all I've got to say.

Men make up an estimated 45% of domestic violence victims

The question here is, who is the perpetrator? Are male victims of domestic violence heterosexual men who are being abused by their female romantic/sexual partners? I wonder what that percentage would look like if we removed gay men abused by male partners, or men who are abused by male family members who are not intimate partners (e.g., men beaten by their abusive fathers) from the equation?

I found this paper from 2020 (so quite recent) and it says:

"Men represent as much as 15% of all cases of domestic partnerviolence. Male victims are also less likely to seek medical care so the incidence may be underreported. These victims may have a history of child abuse."

So when we specifically focus on domestic partner violence, women outnumber men wildly. (And there is no split based on sexual orientation, so it is still possible some of these are gay men abused by other men.)

I don't know where your 45% statistic comes from and how it is measured.

Edit:

There is also some interesting data from Canada here.
https://globalnews.ca/news/6536184/gend ... men-women/

"The way men are murdered almost always has “nothing to do with [intimate] relationships and power-based crime,” Moghadami says, which is why violence against women warrants a national action plan as opposed to an action plan that doesn’t distinguish between genders."

[Terrabod]

Men make up an estimated 45% of domestic violence victims

The question here is, who is the perpetrator? Are male victims of domestic violence heterosexual men who are being abused by their female romantic/sexual partners? I wonder what that percentage would look like if we removed gay men abused by male partners, or men who are abused by male family members who are not intimate partners (e.g., men beaten by their abusive fathers) from the equation?

According to the CDC, approximately 97.1% of female victims of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in the US had only male perpetrators, and approximately 96.9% of men who experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner had only female perpetrators. Of course gay men are most commonly abused by a male partner, and lesbian women are most commonly abused by a female partner, but as you can see these groups largely do not impact the perpetrator-victim gender ratio in any particular direction. Abuse that is not intimate partner violence, including abuse by relatives, is not included in any of these domestic abuse statistics.

I found this paper from 2020 (so quite recent) and it says:

"Men represent as much as 15% of all cases of domestic partner violence. Male victims are also less likely to seek medical care so the incidence may be underreported. These victims may have a history of child abuse."

So when we specifically focus on domestic partner violence, women outnumber men wildly. (And there is no split based on sexual orientation, so it is still possible some of these are gay men abused by other men.)

I don't know where your 45% statistic comes from and how it is measured.

The 45% statistic comes from research performed by the CDC in 2015 as part of the US National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. 43.6 million women in the US have experienced intimate partner violence in their lifetime, and so have 37.3 million men. See my above point regarding gay and lesbian victims of domestic violence.

I'll make myself very clear here - I am not arguing that women don't need or deserve support as victims of domestic abuse. I am just arguing that men do need and deserve support. I think an issue about men struggling to access support is therefore acceptable.

[The Free Joy State]

I agree with Terrabod. An issue about the specific hurdles faced by men in reporting/accessing support when they are domestically abused does seem like something NS should have. Full Fact suggests that one third of domestic abuse victims are male. The National Centre for Domestic Violence notes that females can be, not uncommonly, perpetrators. Research suggests men may be less likely to call the police, and so that male domestic abuse rates may be underreported. Research also suggests that highly abusive women more be likely to abuse with implements.

Absolutely, the number of women dying due to domestic violence is an absolutely worthwhile subject (though avoiding overlap with the honour killing issue is worth considering), but we shouldn't let any men on NS who have experienced this (as is very possible when tackling a sensitive subject of this nature) feel that their experience is not considered important (by omission).