The Writers' Block

[Anarchals]

I've got an idea for an issue.
It's about a protest group that wants to return to a hunter-gatherer system. The issue would require moderate-high environmental beauty and moderate primitiveness.
The first option is to endorse them and allow this to be an option as a way of life.
The second option is to ban this way of life entirely to stop primitivity in its tracks.
The third option is to add technologies to this way of life to keep the country from becoming too primitive.
The fourth option is to make this the ONLY way of life, essentially turning the country into one big tribe.
Is this too similar to an existing issue? If not, I'd like some help developing it fully.

[Trotterdam]

See #454 option 4, and its followup, #460.

[Steelfeather Rapture 1]

Issue #463 (Smart Cars Driving Regulators Up the Wall) really shouldn't correlate with obesity. I highly doubt that there's an association IRL between policy preferences on this issue and obesity rates, and I don't think that it would represent "health policy" either. It shouldn't make nations thinner to prefer utilitarian smart cars. What is that supposed to represent, people cycling more because they don't want to ride in self-driving cars? I don't think they would.

This is a separate complaint, but I also think the issue is basically ill-founded. I don't think that the cars would be unpopular at all with that setup. I think people would just accept it as rational safety strategy and keep trying to make them safer over time.

[Umbratellus]

Issue #463 (Smart Cars Driving Regulators Up the Wall) really shouldn't correlate with obesity. I highly doubt that there's an association IRL between policy preferences on this issue and obesity rates, and I don't think that it would represent "health policy" either. It shouldn't make nations thinner to prefer utilitarian smart cars. What is that supposed to represent, people cycling more because they don't want to ride in self-driving cars? I don't think they would.

This is a separate complaint, but I also think the issue is basically ill-founded. I don't think that the cars would be unpopular at all with that setup. I think people would just accept it as rational safety strategy and keep trying to make them safer over time.

Obesity is basically the inverse health stat; when an issue raises one the other usually goes down. I don't have the solid data graphs that Valentine Z could provide but just looking at my region it's basically an inverse there too. I don't think it's that deep.

[Dexterra]

It shouldn't make nations thinner to prefer utilitarian smart cars. What is that supposed to represent, people cycling more because they don't want to ride in self-driving cars? I don't think they would.

I truly hate to say this, but obese people up to and beyond a certain size can't physically fit in certain smart cars. I don't think your nation is becoming thinner because of its preference of smart cars. Rather, I think your nation's preference of smart cars is a sign that it is becoming thinner

[Outer Sparta]

Issue #463 (Smart Cars Driving Regulators Up the Wall) really shouldn't correlate with obesity. I highly doubt that there's an association IRL between policy preferences on this issue and obesity rates, and I don't think that it would represent "health policy" either. It shouldn't make nations thinner to prefer utilitarian smart cars. What is that supposed to represent, people cycling more because they don't want to ride in self-driving cars? I don't think they would.

This is a separate complaint, but I also think the issue is basically ill-founded. I don't think that the cars would be unpopular at all with that setup. I think people would just accept it as rational safety strategy and keep trying to make them safer over time.

You might want to check if it has a health validity to it. That might play a role.

There could also be an issue to reverse the implementation of smart cars if you chose an option that allows for smart cars (one ramification could be it could cause a higher risk of accidents or they are not programmed well).

[Aikoland]

So I've noticed that many (the majority?) of specifically socialist issues are written from the POV that nations with the Socialism policy will have similarities to the USSR/other Cold War-era socialist states (having a state-owned and state-ran centrally-planned economy, the implications of there being some sort of vanguard Communist/Socialist Party in power, being involved in a cold war opposed to capitalist countries).

Now I understand that the Socialism policy does state 'Industry is owned and run by the government in a centrally planned economy.' (which is annoying, but I'm not here to complain about the simplistic definitions of socialism and capitalism used in this game), but would some issues that have a more distinctly libertarian or democratic socialist bent be a good idea to add more ideological variety to the crop of socialist issues already in the game?

This is just off the top of my head here, but one basic issue idea could be your nation's leader gets caught in the middle of an argument between the leaders of socialist countries in favour of a more authoritarian-flavour of socialism and government and the leaders of socialist countries in favour of a more libertarian-flavour of socialism and government and you'd have to decide which side you'd want to support (of course, there'd be more than just 'I/My nation supports the authoritarian socialists' and 'I/My nation supports the libertarian socialists', this is obviously just a basic idea.)

Or for nations with both the Socialism and Devolution policies, how about an issue about localised economic planning? AFAIK there's no issues covering that topic (at least I don't think there are, if there are any, please tell me).

[Verdant Haven]

So I've noticed that many (the majority?) of specifically socialist issues are written from the POV that nations with the Socialism policy will have similarities to the USSR/other Cold War-era socialist states (having a state-owned and state-ran centrally-planned economy, the implications of there being some sort of vanguard Communist/Socialist Party in power, being involved in a cold war opposed to capitalist countries).

Now I understand that the Socialism policy does state 'Industry is owned and run by the government in a centrally planned economy.' (which is annoying, but I'm not here to complain about the simplistic definitions of socialism and capitalism used in this game), but would some issues that have a more distinctly libertarian or democratic socialist bent be a good idea to add more ideological variety to the crop of socialist issues already in the game?

This is just off the top of my head here, but one basic issue idea could be your nation's leader gets caught in the middle of an argument between the leaders of socialist countries in favour of a more authoritarian-flavour of socialism and government and the leaders of socialist countries in favour of a more libertarian-flavour of socialism and government and you'd have to decide which side you'd want to support (of course, there'd be more than just 'I/My nation supports the authoritarian socialists' and 'I/My nation supports the libertarian socialists', this is obviously just a basic idea.)

Or for nations with both the Socialism and Devolution policies, how about an issue about localised economic planning? AFAIK there's no issues covering that topic (at least I don't think there are, if there are any, please tell me).

I think exploring those topics would be quite worthwhile! From a statistical perspective, we have far more "Socialist" nations that are not Autocracies than we do those that are, so I'm sure they would appreciate more content that looks at their chosen economic system from their own political perspective as well. We do also have a sufficient number of Devolved Socialist nations to support that kind of issue as well - good looking out.

[Jutsa]

Or for nations with both the Socialism and Devolution policies, how about an issue about localised economic planning? AFAIK there's no issues covering that topic (at least I don't think there are, if there are any, please tell me).

Ah, that said we do have an issue relating to devolution and socialism - namely: #339: The Bear Necessities.

Just keep an eye out for overlap with that one xD That said your other idea, as far as I'm aware, is completely uncovered and could be quite interesting.

[Juansonia]

Has the topic of (notable randomname) dying in a car crash been overused in issues?

[Fachumonn]

Has the topic of (notable randomname) dying in a car crash been overused in issues?

Too many things like it. Not exact, but the same issue except now it's car crashes doesn't really do anything.

[Juansonia]

Has the topic of (notable randomname) dying in a car crash been overused in issues?

Too many things like it. Not exact, but the same issue except now it's car crashes doesn't really do anything.

Would having most of the options be centered around road safety policies/reforms make it something, or is someone's death just too common a cliché?

[Podium]

I have the beginnings of an issue in the works, but I'm beginning to worry that the exclusivity inherent in the issue's prerequisites make it not worth the effort.

For some context, Issue #80 is an Easter Egg issue where aliens land in your nation and offer to trade their babies for your pizzas. Yes, really.

Because I went on an egg-collecting spree not too long ago, I naturally came across that very issue through those efforts, and the concept stuck with me ever since. I soon got the idea to create a sort-of sequel to #80 which centred around the consequences of those who had accepted the trade deal. Interesting concept, I'm sure you're saying to yourself, but then what's the rub?

Checking the NS Issue Results page for #80 reveals that a staggering 75 nations have chosen to accept the trade deal since the site went online, with a further 18 backing Bubba in his quest to beat back the belligerent Brutes, for a grand total of 93 nations who have, at the very least, answered Issue #80.

Obviously, with so few nations even being eligible for my sort-of sequel issue, I'm concerned that the entire endeavour is just too much effort for too little reception. Is NSstats telling the truth here? If so, are there any other issues involving aliens I could build off of?

[Trotterdam]

My site does get reset from time to time, to clear out old out-of-date data. (In fact, it might be due for another round of maintainance...) So while it's good for a rough estimate of how common certain issue answers are, it's not quite "since the site went online".

That said, I don't think followups to easter egg issues are something we have any call for. The entire point of easter egg issues is that they're weird, one-off gags that go against the usual rules for issue writing. Exploring an easter egg narrative in more depth than can fit in one issue would be giving it undue significance compared to what's supposed to be the main game.

There are a few non-easter-egg issues that mention crackpot conspiracy theorists thinking aliens are nearby, but none that actually confirm aliens really are around, which I think wouldn't fit the general tone of NationStates canon. At least, when it comes to "aliens" in the sense of "extraterrestrials". There's plenty of issues about immigrants or foreigners.

[Podium]

I see, shame that my idea doesn't quite fit, but thanks for the clarification regardless!

[Attack Helicopter]

I have an issue idea. Its about a shortage of seed banks (basically seed storage, in case a drought or wildfire happens and theres no plants remaining in the area). I know the idea isn't taken, but I would like an opinion on the options offered.

The first option is an AY for seed banks.

The second option suggests to fund a global seed bank along with other nations and rely on it (instead of multiple seed banks on a national level).

The third option basically dismisses the issue and pretends it doesn't exist. It could also argue that "we need money banks, not seed banks".

So, GI, what do you think?

[Verdant Haven]

-snip-

Each option should do something specific and new - you'll want to avoid "dismiss" options (that's what the Dismiss button is for).

Each option should also be some form of response to the "problem" of the issue. Seed banks are a solution to a problem, they themselves aren't the problem being addressed, so if it's a "we need money banks, not seed banks" type of response, make sure to have the speaker reach that point through some sort of logic that still responds to the idea of a potential loss of genetic diversity in plants. Have them focus on how or why a money bank will solve the same issue better than a seed bank would.

For the first two speakers, be sure that they aren't just two paths to get the same results. In addition to each option specifically addressing the issue, they should be getting a different end results. That can be more and less dramatic versions of a similar concept if desired, but the player (and their nation) should be able to readily identify the difference in extremity.

[Tinhampton]

The Issue Contest thread says that "We are not looking for additional submissions about pandemics or wars/invasions at this time." The pandemic issue moratorium is, to my awareness, in place until the related issue chain is published. I do not know how or why there is a moratorium on war-related issues, however - or whether this is just a request for issue contest participants.

[Dexterra]

I do not know how or why there is a moratorium on war-related issues

Ukraine?

[Pogaria]

The Issue Contest thread says that "We are not looking for additional submissions about pandemics or wars/invasions at this time." The pandemic issue moratorium is, to my awareness, in place until the related issue chain is published. I do not know how or why there is a moratorium on war-related issues, however - or whether this is just a request for issue contest participants.

It's a request for the contest. Otherwise, we'd probably get 500 submissions about that topic.

We'll still probably get a lot of those, but we wanted to make it clear that a little more creativity is required in order to win the contest.

[Kraboch]

I'm not really sure if this is the right thread for it, but are there any issues about fly tipping? There's lots about landfills, excess of waste and even putting stuff in the wrong bins, but with some term searching in the issues list I couldn't find anything about fly tipping.

[Candensia]

I'm not really sure if this is the right thread for it, but are there any issues about fly tipping? There's lots about landfills, excess of waste and even putting stuff in the wrong bins, but with some term searching in the issues list I couldn't find anything about fly tipping.

There have been issues that address waste disposal policy. See #156.

There may be room for a specific look at illegal dumping, but you'd need to present it in a novel format.

[Rhim Flavezztowland]

my suggestion might fit better in the technical section but it's that I want to see more macros for names and pronouns like @@RANDOMNEUTERNAME@@ for generating gender-neutral names and @@THEY@@ for the popular-with-enbies singular "they" pronoun being usable in issue writing to help this game cater more to say nonbinary players (not an enby but still)

(oh and also for the same reason I'd suggest the macros @@PERSON@@ and @@CHILD@@ as replacements for @@MAN@@ and @@BOY@@ )

[Bears Armed]

Here's a couple of ideas that I'm throwing out there for anybody who wants them to use _

1. Although there are already a number of issues about social media, if anybody thinks of a viable idea for another one then apparently the obvious-seeming title 'Antisocial Media' isn't yet in use.

2. Maybe an important court case has just collapsed because it required testimony from the accused's spouse but your nation's legal system still follows the old principle that spouses can't be required to testify against each other? There'd be an option to abolish that rule (I'm not sure about the effect line) and one saying that -- for the sake of the "sanctity of the family" -- the rule doesn't go far enough so its scope should be extended (effect line either something about court cases regularly failing because the accused's' in-laws' distant cousins can't be required to testify or something along the lines of "the term 'crime family" is becoming increasingly literal"?).

[Trotterdam]

the old principle that spouses can't be required to testify against each other

Are people ever required to testify against each other?

"Hey you! Tell us this guy is guilty!"
"...What? But everything I know points to him being innocent."
"Don't care! You're required to testify against him or we'll hold you in contempt of court!"

I mean, if you have evidence and are willing to volunteer it, then good. That's what witnesses are for. But if you don't bring it up, how would the court even know you know anything relevant to the case?