Why did I get Issue 887?

[Totec Oulzipochtli]

I have the Nudism Policy, which should make all clothing illegal. I think this issue should be limited to nations that don't have the policy, because it's about photo manipulation by fashion magazines.

[The Free Joy State]

Nudism and fashion are not antithesis. While a nudist fashion magazine might not feature pages of ethereal ballgowns or "25 Power-suits for Summer", it could easily feature accessories (jewellery, bags, shoes) and "20 Fantastic Ways to Tie a Sarong to Prevent Sunburn".

Thus, it's possible to have a fashion magazine in a nudist country. I'm not minded to change it.

If there's any issue that you suspect has an incorrect validity in future, please report it on this thread.

[Totec Oulzipochtli]

The kind of fashion in this issue clearly involves clothes. There's

“For my clothes to look as gorgeous as possible, we need to make our models look as gorgeous as possible!

and also

the clothes will be sold to women of all shapes and sizes

No, they won't be sold to anyone, because wearing clothes is banned.

Obviously you can redefine clothing to exclude some items (such as a sarong), but I don't think this is a good idea. You end up with a country where people wear clothing, but don't call it clothing, making the policy meaningless.

Here's a different concept:
If you're really, really determined to keep the text unchanged, you can also argue that the word clothing in the Policy description is a verb, so that only the act of clothing i.e. putting on clothes is forbidden. This way people would be able to own clothes, just not wear them. But what about the models, you say? They're modeling with the clothes, but they're just holding them instead of wearing. Then the pictures are edited digitally. Oh, yes, I forgot to mention: I also have a ban on computers.

Can I repost this to the thread you linked? Even if that won't change anything, at least some people will get a good laugh, because it's been a while since I've seen something as hilariously broken as issue #887.

[The Free Joy State]

Let's, unusually, start from the bottom and work our way up:

Can I repost this to the thread you linked? Even if that won't change anything, at least some people will get a good laugh, because it's been a while since I've seen something as hilariously broken as issue #887.

No.

Kindly do not duplicate posts across multiple threads. Having to cross-reference posts, only to discover that something has been dealt with, creates additional work for the site staff. I believe it can also be considered a form of spam.

Then[/i] the pictures are edited digitally. Oh, yes, I forgot to mention: I also have a ban on computers.

This actually might be valuable information. It's definitely something worth raising backstage.

The bolding, however, adds nothing.

The kind of fashion in this issue clearly involves clothes. There's

“For my clothes to look as gorgeous as possible, we need to make our models look as gorgeous as possible!

and also

the clothes will be sold to women of all shapes and sizes

No, they won't be sold to anyone, because wearing clothes is banned.

Obviously you can redefine clothing to exclude some items (such as a sarong), but I don't think this is a good idea. You end up with a country where people wear clothing, but don't call it clothing, making the policy meaningless.

Here's a different concept:
If you're really, really determined to keep the text unchanged, you can also argue that the word clothing in the Policy description is a verb, so that only the act of clothing i.e. putting on clothes is forbidden. This way people would be able to own clothes, just not wear them. But what about the models, you say? They're modeling with the clothes, but they're just holding them instead of wearing.

Indeed. You, the player, can imagine whichever scenario you wish. This issue, however, asks an interesting question about photo manipulation in fashion magazines, and there might be players who wish to play a more realistic interpretation of compulsory nudism, where people where items for decoration, or possibly a shawl for dinner.

It would be a shame to deny that issue from more people than necessary.

And, to repeat a tired point, fashion is not restricted to clothing. It also covers hair, make-up, jewellery, piercings, body art, handbags, shoes (banning clothing does not mean banning shoes -- especially in a rocky or urbanised area).

If you feel it would disturb your gameplay to answer this issue, I suggest you simply dismiss it and open the next issue.

[Chan Island]

And, to repeat a tired point, fashion is not restricted to clothing. It also covers hair, make-up, jewellery, piercings, body art, handbags, shoes (banning clothing does not mean banning shoes -- especially in a rocky or urbanised area).

This guy also has the "Body Integrity" Policy, so piercings are banned.

Looking at it, I think there is a strong case that Totec Oulzipochtli in particular has multiple, overlapping reasons to not get this issue. No computers to digitally enhance any photos. No clothes or piercings to make fashion magazines worth it. No media is allowed except the state press, meaning that the government has to be the one issuing these magazines. No immigration or emigration allowed, strongly suggesting people would have absolutely no problem with racist depictions or alterations.

The text itself talks about catwalks, body image (which I suspect would become way less of a concern with compulsory nudity, because there would be nothing anybody could do about it), heck, option 1 explicitly talks about how the enhancement makes that persons clothes look better! The option 1 speaker explicitly asks what right the government has to edit her magazine... in a country where there is no independent media.

Another thing about this guy, as a final point, is that Totec Oulzipochtli has the socialism policy and 0 private industry, yet the option 4 speaker rails against the commercial culture. While this is very much plausible, it seems a bit of a shoehorn by the speaker in a country that would, presumably, have no commercial culture to begin with.

In addition, the nation is extremely religious. So assuming that, even despite that, the fashion magazines were still going to be a thing in there, I'd hardly believe that it is digital enhancement of the models to make them look better that would get people riled up.

[The Free Joy State]

And, to repeat a tired point, fashion is not restricted to clothing. It also covers hair, make-up, jewellery, piercings, body art, handbags, shoes (banning clothing does not mean banning shoes -- especially in a rocky or urbanised area).

This guy also has the "Body Integrity" Policy, so piercings are banned.

That was one example in the middle of a list (in this instance, of potential types of fashion).

Not every example in the list had to apply to Totec Oulzipochtli. More than one player reads these answers.

Looking at it, I think there is a strong case that Totec Oulzipochtli in particular has multiple, overlapping reasons to not get this issue. No computers to digitally enhance any photos. No clothes or piercings to make fashion magazines worth it. No media is allowed except the state press, meaning that the government has to be the one issuing these magazines. No immigration or emigration allowed, strongly suggesting people would have absolutely no problem with racist depictions or alterations.

The text itself talks about catwalks, body image (which I suspect would become way less of a concern with compulsory nudity, because there would be nothing anybody could do about it), heck, option 1 explicitly talks about how the enhancement makes that persons clothes look better! The option 1 speaker explicitly asks what right the government has to edit her magazine... in a country where there is no independent media.

Another thing about this guy, as a final point, is that Totec Oulzipochtli has the socialism policy and 0 private industry, yet the option 4 speaker rails against the commercial culture. While this is very much plausible, it seems a bit of a shoehorn by the speaker in a country that would, presumably, have no commercial culture to begin with.

In addition, the nation is extremely religious. So assuming that, even despite that, the fashion magazines were still going to be a thing in there, I'd hardly believe that it is digital enhancement of the models to make them look better that would get people riled up.

This nation's statistics are, indeed, unusual.

It's not plausible to programme issues for every possible statistical combination that a person might come up with. High religiousness and compulsory nudity is, for example, so rare as to be practically non-existent.

Socialism and discourses on fashion are not incompatible. Even when there is restriction of media, the use of photo-editing software could still raise questions.

We are not going to start slapping a whole load of unnecessary validities onto issues, thus restricting nations who would enjoy them from seeing them.

But thank you for your input.

[Trotterdam]

Things like hats and shoes are often considered "clothing", but there is some logic to excluding them from a clothing ban. The main problem is that banning clothing is so illogical to begin with that it's hard to imagine what's going through people's heads when they do it, and what they would or wouldn't consider to be included by the law.

If you just want an excuse to see more naked chicks (or dudes), then hats and shoes probably aren't a problem. If you're a primitivist who wants people to live closer to nature, then walking around with shoes rather than feeling the bare earth would definitely go against the purpose. If you're a psychotic dictator who just enjoys banning as much stuff as possible, of course you're not going to allow exceptions if you can help it.

body image (which I suspect would become way less of a concern with compulsory nudity, because there would be nothing anybody could do about it)

I could argue that body image would be more of an issue if there's nothing you can do to prevent people from seeing your body, even if you think it's ugly.

Of course, you'd have the consolation that other people who are just as ugly as you are also forced to go naked, so you stand out less, but that's not necessarily going to make you feel better about yourself.

In addition, the nation is extremely religious. So assuming that, even despite that, the fashion magazines were still going to be a thing in there, I'd hardly believe that it is digital enhancement of the models to make them look better that would get people riled up.

What do you believe would do it, then?

There are religions other than the one you've grown up with. If a nation is both religious and has compulsory nudity, that probably means that its national religion advocates nudity ("our bodies are a gift from God, it is sinful to cover them up, etc."), rather than that it is going against its religion.

[Totec Oulzipochtli]

Indeed. You, the player, can imagine whichever scenario you wish. This issue, however, asks an interesting question about photo manipulation in fashion magazines, and there might be players who wish to play a more realistic interpretation of compulsory nudism, where people where items for decoration, or possibly a shawl for dinner.

I thought it's obvious that my 'explanation' is meant to show the amount of mental gymnastics that is needed to consider this issue reasonable. It's visibly absurd and it's still not enough because of the computer ban. While we're at it, my apologies for not mentioning that, the body integrity and others earlier. I assumed that would be redundant, because it seemed to me (and still does) that the clothing ban alone should prevent #887 from happening.

If you feel it would disturb your gameplay to answer this issue, I suggest you simply dismiss it and open the next issue.

i. e. please don't look at the bugs. No, I'm fine. For me, #887 is far more enjoyable than regular, not-broken issues.

This nation's statistics are, indeed, unusual.
(...)
High religiousness and compulsory nudity is, for example, so rare as to be practically non-existent.

No real nation, religious or not has compulsory nudity. About attitudes towards nudity, it's only true if you ignore pretty much everything outside Western and Middle Eastern cultures. The recent ones at that, because of e.g. the Ancient Greece. They had compulsory nudity for participants of the games, which were a religious festival. So religion being against nudity is clearly not a general rule.
In the game, it might be the case. I don't have any stats that disagree with this. But if that's what you mean, you're contradicting yourself. You've said that it's a shame to deny players from seeing this issue just to make the game more consistent. Now you say that the number of players who would stop seeing the issue is negligible.

[The Free Joy State]

One last attempt:

Piercings are not mentioned in this issue, so body integrity is not relevant.

Religiousness is not mentioned in this issue, so it is not relevant to this issue.

Socialism is not mentioned in this issue, so it is not relevant to this issue. There are, as I provided before, socialist magazines that discussed fashion.

Fashion means -- as even I know, and it doesn't even interest me -- far more than clothing. I have provided an ample list of examples. This list may not be applicable to every nation. Not every nation allows body piercing. Perhaps some nations RP making their people go bald. I don't know (the baldness thing, for example, is not coded into stats). It does not change that there is more to fashion than clothing, and thus much to discuss in a fashion magazine.

Backstage, I have actually raised the point of changing the word "clothing" to various synonyms for "fashion" to reflect this very point. The team may not wish to do this, and -- if not -- I will not press the point.

I can practically guarantee that the nudity validity is not being changed. In fact, RL nudist shops, catering to nudists, often sell decorative items that might be (by some) considered "clothing".

We cannot programme issues to allow for every way that nations choose to RP.

But thank you for highlighting the suggestion that there should probably be a computer validity on it, which I have taken backstage.

[Trotterdam]

Fashion means -- as even I know, and it doesn't even interest me -- far more than clothing.

Yes, However, the issue does explicitly mention clothing.

#887: Thin Skin [New Fulford; ed: Candlewhisper Archive]

The Issue
Popular fashion magazine Astropolitan has recently been criticized for heavy-handed use of photo-editing software to make their models appear slimmer, smoother-skinned and paler. A riot of fashionistas and equality advocates have sashayed and stumbled into your office to debate the issue.

The Debate
1. "Photograph enhancement is nothing new, darling," slurs renowned fashion designer Carla Largerfield. "For my clothes to look as gorgeous as possible, we need to make our models look as gorgeous as possible! If that means adjusting them down in post, then that's what we do. We’re selling a dream of something better, not tawdry reality. What right does the government have to dictate how we edit our magazines? Besides, it’s not like we’re hurting anyone."

2. "Not hurting anyone, she says! LIES!” screams social worker @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Young girls across @@NAME@@ read her magazines and think they need to conform to the faked physiques they see. Let’s not even talk about the implicit racism in deliberately whitening skin tones! I implore you, make photographic enhancement of models illegal, for the sake of the children!"

3. "Simply banning photo-editing is insufficient,” proclaims plus-sized pop star Megan Plimsoll. "It’s abhorrent that only tall, slim women are considered for modelling jobs when the clothes will be sold to women of all shapes and sizes. I suggest a government mandate declaring that fashion designers must fairly represent women of every size on their catwalks and in their photoshoots. Only then can we start to fight inequality in the fashion industry."

4. Your Minister for Friendly Solutions, @@RANDOMNAME@@, suggests an alternative solution: "How about instead of setting quotas or inflicting bans, we try and change society. Let art bring forth a candle. A big fat tallow candle. I suggest you tax the fashionistas and use that money to subsidize artists who are making positive depictions of the plus sized: a big-boned bronze statue here, a Rubenesque nude there. Denounce commercial culture, and promote fine art of the fat!"

In fact, RL nudist shops, catering to nudists, often sell decorative items that might be (by some) considered "clothing".

This is valid, though.

[The Free Joy State]

Fashion means -- as even I know, and it doesn't even interest me -- far more than clothing.

Yes, However, the issue does explicitly mention clothing.

Further to this:

Backstage, I have actually raised the point of changing the word "clothing" to various synonyms for "fashion" to reflect this very point. The team may not wish to do this, and -- if not -- I will not press the point.

I can confirm that the issue no longer mentions the word "clothing", and a validity has been added to exclude nations that do not have computers.

EDIT: To the OP, I see backstage that you are still holding #887 in your Issues inbox. Unfortunately, changing the validity will not remove an issue that you already have.

As the validities have been altered so that you are no longer eligible, I would again suggest that you dismiss so that you receive new issues.

[Chan Island]

Yes, However, the issue does explicitly mention clothing.

Further to this:

Backstage, I have actually raised the point of changing the word "clothing" to various synonyms for "fashion" to reflect this very point. The team may not wish to do this, and -- if not -- I will not press the point.

I can confirm that the issue no longer mentions the word "clothing", and a validity has been added to exclude nations that do not have computers.

EDIT: To the OP, I see backstage that you are still holding #887 in your Issues inbox. Unfortunately, changing the validity will not remove an issue that you already have.

As the validities have been altered so that you are no longer eligible, I would again suggest that you dismiss so that you receive new issues.

Thank you very much.