by Candlewhisper Archive » Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:26 am
by Evil Mad People » Sat Jan 07, 2012 1:08 pm
by Freedomstaki » Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:16 am
Sedgistan wrote:It'll be a problem with your ipod touch/browser. The text of the issue is fine.
by Riemstagrad » Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:43 am
by Sedgistan » Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:50 am
by Riemstagrad » Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:50 pm
Sedgistan wrote:No options were added or removed, and the numbering of issues and their options remains the same. Any changes to wording were just to fix mistakes, rather than to change the meaning of the option.
The statistical effects of several issues were modified - I can't really say any more than that about it.
by Ballotonia » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:41 am
by Christian Democrats » Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:39 am
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Sanctaria » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:05 am
Christian Democrats wrote:3. ''Am I the only one here the was taught to share as a child?'' asks @@random_name()@, your Minister of Poor Compromises, ''We want him, they want him, well there's enough of him to go around. Let's King Solomon this bad-boy! Cut him in half from head to toe, slap each half on a mirror and like magic, there's two King Whathisnames! Everybody walks away happy.''
by Luna Amore » Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:09 am
by Lordieth » Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:31 am
'Am I the only one here the was taught to share as a child?' asks @@random_name()
@
by Ballotonia » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:58 am
Lordieth wrote:Well, more of a mistyped bit of code in Option 3;'Am I the only one here the was taught to share as a child?' asks @@random_name()
@
Also, 'the' should be 'that'. That is all
by Frisbeeteria » Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:31 am
by Sanctaria » Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:38 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:
It wasn't missing during review. My guess is that an errant keystroke in the wrong window right before submission accidentally deleted it.
We're trying to poke an admin for a quick fix on this one. It's just too glaring.
by Rastynhaven » Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:34 pm
by Frisbeeteria » Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:53 pm
by Silver Steps the Second » Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:12 pm
by Sanctaria » Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:32 pm
Silver Steps the Second wrote:Issues 41 and 60 says "Supreme Court", while Issue 271 says "High Court". Not a big deal, but that nagged at me
by Christian Democrats » Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:30 pm
Issue #237, Option 3 wrote:"I agree," chimes in Johann Catholicism, an anti-drug campaigner, waving a banner which reads 'Don't Be a Fool, Drugs Aren't Cool'. "Did you ever stop to think that our foreign neighbours might have the right idea? A zero-tolerance attitude to the drugs issue is what this country needs! Death to the dealers!"
Christian Democrats wrote:On a completely different note, the use of the name "Norma Roe" in option 2 of Issue #268 annoys me. It's obviously a real-life reference to Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe" from the 1973 case Roe v. Wade), who's now a pro-life activist. McCorvey doesn't support "the right to choose" as depicted in the issue. There normally aren't real-life references as explicit as this in issues, and I think it's in bad taste. In my opinion, "Norma Roe" should be changed to @@RANDOMNAME@@; or the reference to the real-life abortion controversy in the United States should be made less explicit (e.g. the name "Doe Bolton" would be better because it refers to a case name instead of a person).
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Frenequesta » Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:15 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Issue #237, Option 3 wrote:"I agree," chimes in Johann Catholicism, an anti-drug campaigner, waving a banner which reads 'Don't Be a Fool, Drugs Aren't Cool'. "Did you ever stop to think that our foreign neighbours might have the right idea? A zero-tolerance attitude to the drugs issue is what this country needs! Death to the dealers!"
I don't believe it's appropriate to use the name of a religion in the name of a person in an issue. Furthermore, the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty. According to paragraph 2267 of the Catechism:Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."
Also, no one ever addressed this concern:Christian Democrats wrote:On a completely different note, the use of the name "Norma Roe" in option 2 of Issue #268 annoys me. It's obviously a real-life reference to Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe" from the 1973 case Roe v. Wade), who's now a pro-life activist. McCorvey doesn't support "the right to choose" as depicted in the issue. There normally aren't real-life references as explicit as this in issues, and I think it's in bad taste. In my opinion, "Norma Roe" should be changed to @@RANDOMNAME@@; or the reference to the real-life abortion controversy in the United States should be made less explicit (e.g. the name "Doe Bolton" would be better because it refers to a case name instead of a person).
by Frisbeeteria » Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:16 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:no one ever addressed this concern:
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Improper Classifications, Migs
Advertisement