The Writers' Block

[Random Country 453632]

Not really an editor, but I think you can do that by labelling the macros?
like @@RANDOMNAME1@@ is a girl and speaker 3 uses @@HE1@@?

Im not really sure, just check the issues help

I'd already checked there, and as far as I could see the issues help doesn't say.

Maybe you can just use @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ or @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@ and put he or she without macros

Bla bla, complains @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, bla bla. Bla bla bla.

"That idea of his is insane!" rants @@RANDOMNAME@@. Bla bla bla.

[Bears Armed]

I'd already checked there, and as far as I could see the issues help doesn't say.

Maybe you can just use @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ or @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@ and put he or she without macros

Bla bla, complains @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, bla bla. Bla bla bla.

"That idea of his is insane!" rants @@RANDOMNAME@@. Bla bla bla.

That occurred to me, too, but I haven't done so so far because I haven't thought of a good reason (other than this point) why that character should be specifically of either sex.

[Verdant Haven]

That occurred to me, too, but I haven't done so so far because I haven't thought of a good reason (other than this point) why that character should be specifically of either sex.

We can actually set up most name and pronoun macros to refer forward or backward to a specific character if needed. If you want to use a @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@ in the first option for example, you could put @@HE(1)@@ in a later option to call back to that first speaker's gender (same with things like @@MAN@@, @@HIM@@, @@HIS@@, etc). Likewise if you want to call back to just that specific speaker's first or last name by itself, we should also be able to do that.

[Bears Armed]

That occurred to me, too, but I haven't done so so far because I haven't thought of a good reason (other than this point) why that character should be specifically of either sex.

We can actually set up most name and pronoun macros to refer forward or backward to a specific character if needed. If you want to use a @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@ in the first option for example, you could put @@HE(1)@@ in a later option to call back to that first speaker's gender (same with things like @@MAN@@, @@HIM@@, @@HIS@@, etc). Likewise if you want to call back to just that specific speaker's first or last name by itself, we should also be able to do that.

Thank you. I'll use the "(1)" method.

[Jutsa]

"As mysteriously as they came back... they were gone again."
...

So I get this isn't really the place to post a "Leave of Absence", but I figured in case anyone was curious why I suddenly stopped drafting, a few reasons. I get no one asked but I don't care I'm posting this anyway.

1) Taking an English course which already has a lot of writing and reading, plus two other reading-heavy courses. (It's also why I stopped participating in the WA; every time I get super into GI, near the end I go there and then disappear. smh.)
2) Got involved with other parts of NS; first GA/SC a bit, then RP (another reading/writing-heavy thing), then issue answering and card collecting and now cartographer of Forest (much less word-heavy)
3) A plethora of non-NS related things yadda yadda no one cares about this last thing.

Simply put, I'll likely be out for a while - like quite possibly until 2022 kind of out-for-a-while.
I still look forward to checking out issues and trying to update my lists of nations and religion, though.
Hope to see you all around. (and I absolutely will if you're on the GI discord.)

[Random Country 453632]

Are there any issues about residential house cleanliness?

[Thousand Branches]

Have there been any issues in the past discussing price gouging? I’ll bet there is but I have a good enough idea that I may as well ask

[Bears Armed]

Have there been any issues in the past discussing price gouging? I’ll bet there is but I have a good enough idea that I may as well ask

There's one about ticket touts, if that's what you mean.

[Thousand Branches]

Have there been any issues in the past discussing price gouging? I’ll bet there is but I have a good enough idea that I may as well ask

There's one about ticket touts, if that's what you mean.

I mean like the unfair increase in prices by companies in response to a sudden increase in demand. Like for instance, at the beginning of the pandemic when a lot of companies made products like hand sanitizer and cleaner ridiculously expensive despite not having any massive shortages in product, just because suddenly they knew that even if they increased the prices, people would still buy them.

It’s a phenomenon that I find is generally employed in the face of a crisis so like a pandemic or quite a bit around natural disasters as well. Another example is hurricane Katrina when there were oil corporations that purposely inflated the prices of oil to ridiculously high margins because without power in New Orleans, a lot of people needed fuel.

And to some degree, prices often just naturally go up in the face of sudden demand, but price gouging is artificially making those “naturally increasing” prices go up way too high.

I hope that explains the concept well, it’s a pretty common legal grey area, especially in America because it’s so hard to rule on whether the prices inflated naturally or artificially, but it’s something you almost always see in court around natural disasters or big crises

[Nova Catania]

There's one about ticket touts, if that's what you mean.

I mean like the unfair increase in prices by companies in response to a sudden increase in demand. Like for instance, at the beginning of the pandemic when a lot of companies made products like hand sanitizer and cleaner ridiculously expensive despite not having any massive shortages in product, just because suddenly they knew that even if they increased the prices, people would still buy them.

It’s a phenomenon that I find is generally employed in the face of a crisis so like a pandemic or quite a bit around natural disasters as well. Another example is hurricane Katrina when there were oil corporations that purposely inflated the prices of oil to ridiculously high margins because without power in New Orleans, a lot of people needed fuel.

And to some degree, prices often just naturally go up in the face of sudden demand, but price gouging is artificially making those “naturally increasing” prices go up way too high.

I hope that explains the concept well, it’s a pretty common legal grey area, especially in America because it’s so hard to rule on whether the prices inflated naturally or artificially, but it’s something you almost always see in court around natural disasters or big crises

I think there is

[Verdant Haven]

Have there been any issues in the past discussing price gouging? I’ll bet there is but I have a good enough idea that I may as well ask

Issue 1264 (Flooding the Market) is likely the one you're looking for - price gouging for basic necessities in the wake of a natural disaster.

There are also issues related to pharmaceutical price gouging (a la Martin Shkreli) and funeral industry gouging of vulnerable survivors, as well as the one BA mentioned.

[Thousand Branches]

Have there been any issues in the past discussing price gouging? I’ll bet there is but I have a good enough idea that I may as well ask

Issue 1264 (Flooding the Market) is likely the one you're looking for - price gouging for basic necessities in the wake of a natural disaster.

There are also issues related to pharmaceutical price gouging (a la Martin Shkreli) and funeral industry gouging of vulnerable survivors, as well as the one BA mentioned.

Ah oh well, that’s pretty much what I was expecting. No harm in asking though, thank you so much for your time ^-^

As usual, have a spectacular day!

-A

[Jerboistan]

Is specifying one's religious affiliation necessary for getting a religious exemption? I've drafted up an issue that deals with religious exemptions and a specific breed of quackery but it started to collect dust not long after being posted. My current draft presumes that religious exemptions are granted only to members/adherents of a registered church/religion only and precludes philosophical exemptions. I have thought about rewriting the issue but I think that rewriting the issue to be about introducing religious exemptions in general might make it a duplicate.

[Verdant Haven]

Is specifying one's religious affiliation necessary for getting a religious exemption? I've drafted up an issue that deals with religious exemptions and a specific breed of quackery but it started to collect dust not long after being posted. My current draft presumes that religious exemptions are granted only to members/adherents of a registered church/religion only and precludes philosophical exemptions. I have thought about rewriting the issue but I think that rewriting the issue to be about introducing religious exemptions in general might make it a duplicate.

Taking a quick glance at the draft, the problem is the assumption that religious exemptions are allowed in the first place. There isn't any grounds for a blanket assumption along those lines either in the game or in real life, and I'm not familiar with any issues that currently allow the decision to create such a thing.

In game, there are three particularly relevant issues you'd want to consider if you do want to look at writing an issue introducing religious exemptions:

- Issue 92 is about mandatory vaccination
- Issue 413 is about anti-vaxxers
- Issue 658 is a consequence of supporting anti-vax behaviors

Basically, I don't think the premise of cynically claiming religion to get an exemption works yet, because I don't think religious exemptions formally exist. That might be a worthy topic for an issue, as you've said, but I'd suggest taking a good look at those three above and deciding if and how it fits amongst them. I could see your current "characters" - the cynically religious - existing in that kind of issue as a counter-argument, claiming "Oh yeah? If you're handing out exemptions for religions, then that's what we are! And while we're at it, our scripture says we don't have to pay taxes!" This could be inspired by the real-life tactics used by activists to combat special treatment of religions in the US, in very much the same way. What is a religion? If the government can't exclude those they don't like, they'll sometimes abandon the effort.

Jumping back to the first half of your question, about whether proof of membership is required in places that have religious exemptions... it varies. Again using the United States as an example, there are some states that don't allow religious exemptions, some that allow them with proof of membership, some that allow them without proof, and some that just outright allow "philosophical" exemptions without any claims to religion. Around the world there are positions that range from "it's a free choice for everybody, always" all the way to "anybody refusing vaccination without a valid medical reason goes to jail." There's no single answer.

[Bears Armed]

Is specifying one's religious affiliation necessary for getting a religious exemption? I've drafted up an issue that deals with religious exemptions and a specific breed of quackery but it started to collect dust not long after being posted. My current draft presumes that religious exemptions are granted only to members/adherents of a registered church/religion only and precludes philosophical exemptions. I have thought about rewriting the issue but I think that rewriting the issue to be about introducing religious exemptions in general might make it a duplicate.

Taking a quick glance at the draft, the problem is the assumption that religious exemptions are allowed in the first place. There isn't any grounds for a blanket assumption along those lines either in the game or in real life, and I'm not familiar with any issues that currently allow the decision to create such a thing.

In game, there are three particularly relevant issues you'd want to consider if you do want to look at writing an issue introducing religious exemptions:

- Issue 92 is about mandatory vaccination
- Issue 413 is about anti-vaxxers
- Issue 658 is a consequence of supporting anti-vax behaviors

Basically, I don't think the premise of cynically claiming religion to get an exemption works yet, because I don't think religious exemptions formally exist. That might be a worthy topic for an issue, as you've said, but I'd suggest taking a good look at those three above and deciding if and how it fits amongst them. I could see your current "characters" - the cynically religious - existing in that kind of issue as a counter-argument, claiming "Oh yeah? If you're handing out exemptions for religions, then that's what we are! And while we're at it, our scripture says we don't have to pay taxes!" This could be inspired by the real-life tactics used by activists to combat special treatment of religions in the US, in very much the same way. What is a religion? If the government can't exclude those they don't like, they'll sometimes abandon the effort.

Jumping back to the first half of your question, about whether proof of membership is required in places that have religious exemptions... it varies. Again using the United States as an example, there are some states that don't allow religious exemptions, some that allow them with proof of membership, some that allow them without proof, and some that just outright allow "philosophical" exemptions without any claims to religion. Around the world there are positions that range from "it's a free choice for everybody, always" all the way to "anybody refusing vaccination without a valid medical reason goes to jail." There's no single answer.

The closest that I can think of is the issue about businesses redefining themselves as churches to gain the immunity to taxation that one option in an earlier issue gives to those...

[Verdant Haven]

The closest that I can think of is the issue about businesses redefining themselves as churches to gain the immunity to taxation that one option in an earlier issue gives to those...

Good shout. That's issue 695, and is a result of making a specific previous decision that mandates tax exemptions for churches. That would be another one worth looking at for inspiration/comparison with any planned issues on the subject of religious vaccine exemptions and cynical exploitation of such loopholes.

[Random Country 453632]

Are there any issues about residential house cleanliness?

Why does absolutely no one ever answer my questions?

[Bears Armed]

Are there any issues about residential house cleanliness?

Not as fa as I know: If there are then they would have been drafted & introduced at some stage between late March 2020 & the middle of May 2021, when I was inactive here, so you need to check only the issues from that period.

[Outer Sparta]

There definitely has been an issue about the risk of concussions in sports like @@ANIMAL@@ball, but I was thinking of taking that one step forward and making one about an entire sporting league covering up concussions and CTE in former players on a systemic level. It would be distinct from #415 because that one simply talks about concussions in schools and not in a much bigger setting such as a sporting league.

[Terrabod]

There definitely has been an issue about the risk of concussions in sports like @@ANIMAL@@ball, but I was thinking of taking that one step forward and making one about an entire sporting league covering up concussions and CTE in former players on a systemic level. It would be distinct from #415 because that one simply talks about concussions in schools and not in a much bigger setting such as a sporting league.

I don't see it - in my view, upping the ante from school level to professional level isn't enough of a difference to warrant a new issue. Not sure if there's anything on it already, but what if you refocused on sports teams covering up institutional abuse (like the USA gymnastics sex abuse scandal)? Seems like this sort of scandal keeps popping up in the news, so it's certainly relevant.

[Outer Sparta]

There definitely has been an issue about the risk of concussions in sports like @@ANIMAL@@ball, but I was thinking of taking that one step forward and making one about an entire sporting league covering up concussions and CTE in former players on a systemic level. It would be distinct from #415 because that one simply talks about concussions in schools and not in a much bigger setting such as a sporting league.

I don't see it - in my view, upping the ante from school level to professional level isn't enough of a difference to warrant a new issue. Not sure if there's anything on it already, but what if you refocused on sports teams covering up institutional abuse (like the USA gymnastics sex abuse scandal)? Seems like this sort of scandal keeps popping up in the news, so it's certainly relevant.

A professional sporting league as big as the NFL repeatedly denying that the sport causes concussions or covering up that evidence is clearly a big deal. When the CTE investigations went on, it was a very big deal at the time and still continues to be.

[Terrabod]

A professional sporting league as big as the NFL repeatedly denying that the sport causes concussions or covering up that evidence is clearly a big deal. When the CTE investigations went on, it was a very big deal at the time and still continues to be.

I never said it wasn't. It's just that we already have an issue on sports concussions, so I felt that if you were going to write about institutional corruption you'd be better focusing elsewhere.

[Outer Sparta]

A professional sporting league as big as the NFL repeatedly denying that the sport causes concussions or covering up that evidence is clearly a big deal. When the CTE investigations went on, it was a very big deal at the time and still continues to be.

I never said it wasn't. It's just that we already have an issue on sports concussions, so I felt that if you were going to write about institutional corruption you'd be better focusing elsewhere.

That issue on sports concussions doesn't go deeper especially when you take a look at the links between American football and CTE. I still think it would be a good premise to have that sort of idea. As for the gymnastics one, it would have to either implicate the collegiate level or the Olympic organizing body.

[Terrabod]

As for the gymnastics one, it would have to either implicate the collegiate level or the Olympic organizing body.

It's your issue. As an aside, most RL nations have a national gymnastics authority and run national competitions beyond the collegiate level. There's nothing stopping us from referring to a national gymnastics body in an issue. It doesn't have to be supranational, but I suppose it could.

[Outer Sparta]

As for the gymnastics one, it would have to either implicate the collegiate level or the Olympic organizing body.

It's your issue. As an aside, most RL nations have a national gymnastics authority and run national competitions beyond the collegiate level. There's nothing stopping us from referring to a national gymnastics body in an issue. It doesn't have to be supranational, but I suppose it could.

I want to know what an editor thinks of my NFL CTE idea in whether or not it's basically too similar to 415 or whether it opens up a new angle.