[DRAFT] The Party is Over, But the Show Must Go On!

by **Markus Sarasti-Varis** » Fri Dec 09, 2022 9:44 pm

Hello everyone,

I have always enjoyed writing as a free-time pursuit / hobby, and I have been around in NationStates for a long time (2012-, 2014-.) so I thought to myself, why not offer a contribution, or a few, seeing how we are celebrating the 20-year anniversary of the site? To be clear, I've considered submitting issues before, on more than one occasion, but I was hesitant given my other activities at the time. I haven't posted anything on the forums since some very antiquated RISK-RP we did over what seems like a lifetime ago. But I'm also hoping to gradually become more active and constructively engaging with the wider community, and this place could serve to get me started on that as well. Anyway, without further ado on that note, let's get into the meat of it shall we?

Issue title: The Party is Over, But the Show Must Go On!

Validity: Invalid for nations that have sortition, autocracy, feudalism and no dissent-policies.

In the wake of a social uprising led by @@randomname@@ in one of @@name@@ more distant trading partners, which led to change of power in that country, a group of young and ambitious radicals calling themselves the “Revolutionary Transcendental Humanists” have formed in @@name@@ , calling for the abolition of the political party-system and the cessation of all ideological commitments.

Option 1: @@randomname@@, the Chief Spokesperson and Prime Advocate for the national chapter of the movement operating out of the capital, is the first to address you. "We believe that the party is a relic of a bygone era, which facilitates division and hatred by projecting a political mask in front of the wholesome person underneath. Ideologies are nothing but dogmatic prisons which hinder true development and progress, and undermine the positive constructive exchange of ideas. We ask you to support our cause and make an official motion for @@name@@ to transition into an independent non-partisan cooperation regime. There are no alternatives."

Effect: retired parliamentarians reminisce of the “good old days” when being politically independent had a special meaning to it.

Option 2: Don’t listen to these college hippies, they live in utopian fantasies and lack a grip on reality. I doubt they even have have proper jobs.”, interjects @@randomname@@, your Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, barely hiding contempt. “The Revolution they are so inspired by is barely few months old, there is no telling if it will be glorious or ruinous. The Party-system may be imperfect, yes, but it has provided us with stability and predictability, and constitutes an important part of our traditions. If anything, we need to teach our children to be proud of what we have. Besides, it allows us...plausible deniability. Capice?”

Effect: aggressive partying is considered an inseparable element of @@name@@'s high-society politics.

Option 3: Major General @@randomname@@, Head of Foreign Intelligence, unperturbed as ever, comments in usual calm, stoic style; "Disregarding the particularities of this case, it is clear that sufficiently charismatic outside influencers represent a potentially grave security risk to the social cohesion of our country. Give us more leeway to review arrivals and to identify dangerous subversives. My people have excelling grades in vermin-ology."

Effect: tourists with bright ideas are taken into dark rooms to curb their enthusiasm.

Notable edits:

1. Picking up on the generous feedback I received from all these good people on this forum, which highlighted key areas for improvement regarding length of the options, vagueness and lack of concreteness in exposition, along with some other minor aspects, incl. macros, I have promptly made this second revised iteration. How do you like this one compared to the first one? Options 1 and 2 are down to 100 and 101 words from 180+. Option 3 remains the same, it didn't seem to have much to improve.

Other comments:

1. I'm wondering about the description here, its a bit longer than the first one, but I feel like it has more weight in delivery. Should I cut down the part about "cessation of all ideological commitments" and leave it at the "dissolution of the political party-system"? How do you feel about that?

Cheers to everyone who chimed in!

Depending on how many further revisions are needed, I would like to submit some propositions for how these options could affect the nation's stats. Just to help out the work of our issue's editors.

Original Draft

by **Veldevande** » Sat Dec 10, 2022 7:16 pm

Okay, okay. We get it. You have political opinions. Snarkiness aside, this issue has a lot of fat that needs to be trimmed. Plus, I'm sure that an issue where you outlaw political parties is already out there. I haven't been writing issues long enough to memorize the entire list of them, but this has been done. The options boil down to "Outlaw political parties" "don't" and "Joseph McCarthy has a list, he's checking it twice". Furthermore, you need to use @@RANDOMNAME@@ in place of those names you used there. If they're meant to be funny, they aren't. Also, everybody in this issue talks like they've experienced 22 generations of aggressive inbreeding, and are the Grand Duke-Margrave of Scheisenberg-Pfleffendorf. The bottom line is that this issue doesn't have a unique enough premise for consideration.

by **Australian rePublic** » Sat Dec 10, 2022 10:18 pm

This issue is a bit too long. Cut it down a bit

by **Tinhampton** » Sun Dec 11, 2022 7:06 am

Markus Sarasti-Varis wrote:As you can see, The Issue I propose concerns the question of political parties [...]

Nonetheless, your description very much reads as though this is going to be an issue about how to respond to a crisis of governance in a foreign nation. The options themselves appear to indicate a generic "should @@LEADER@@ become a dictator?" issue, with some oblique third option about border control on the side.

The @@RANDOMNAME@@ macro exists. Is there any compelling reason why the characters should be called Folani Flick, Devin Shayd and Clancy Afon instead of @@RANDOMNAME@@ [x3]?

by **Verdant Haven** » Sun Dec 11, 2022 8:00 am

Hello, and welcome to Got Issues. You've obviously got an interest in writing, and some skill at it. Glad to have you aboard!

Writing for issues is not quite the same as creative writing or writing RP content, and there are some notable formatting and content differences that need to be addressed. If you haven't, I highly recommend you read the "Got Issues FAQ & How To Write An Issue" thread stickied near the top of the GI forum.

Some quick feedback on this one in its current form:

- The meat of the dilemma should be stated in the issue description, with the options being responses to it. The dilemma here isn't "new ideas exist" – that isn't a dilemma (and would be found in probably half of our issues base). The meat of this draft is a proposal to get rid of political parties. That doesn't come up until 132 words into the first option.

- Prohibiting political parties within a democracy does already exist as a part of an issue in the game. Issue 657 "Put a Fence Around the Commons Floor" includes a choice to ban political parties within a democratic system (with predictably ineffectual results). This probably needs more substance before it actually is deep enough to be an entire issue by itself.

- Options one and two are much too long. A normal option is in the 60-100 word range. Option one in particular is full of filler – one has no idea what this person is doing, other than perhaps trying to sell Leader a timeshare. Be precise and to the point! If a speaker is being long-winded, what they're saying needs to be detailed and relevant. Players will need to be able to quickly read and understand what is being suggested.

- Be careful not to pre-judge a player's decision by writing one speaker's position as eloquent and visionary, and another speaker's position as stumbling and nervous. Speakers can be characterized in those ways, but when it comes across as a judgement of what they're saying, that's a problem. The player receiving the issue should not get the impression that you think one of them is "correct."

- Options should provide reasons for choosing them – especially options asking you to introduce significant changes. Currently, option one provides no support – just a lot of superlatives and unsubstantiated claims. The speaker should generally explain why and/or how they believe their suggestion is going to help, not just that it will nebulously do so.

- The second and third effect line seem to follow humorously from their options, but effect line one is a bit too convoluted

- Unless there is a compelling reason or reference to keep hardcoded names and genders, it's better to randomize them with the macros explained in the FAQ post.

by **Markus Sarasti-Varis** » Sun Dec 11, 2022 8:04 am

I appreciate all feedback and responses, to be sure, I am greenhorn when it comes to stuff like this, and undoubtedly have things to learn. It took me a little bit of courage to post this here, but all journeys start somewhere. No harm in pointing out any flaws, big or small. *Edit, I just saw your reply Verdant Haven after posting this, I'll get back to it shortly.

Veldevande wrote:Okay, okay. We get it. You have political opinions. Snarkiness aside, this issue has a lot of fat that needs to be trimmed. Plus, I'm sure that an issue where you outlaw political parties is already out there. I haven't been writing issues long enough to memorize the entire list of them, but this has been done. The options boil down to "Outlaw political parties" "don't" and "Joseph McCarthy has a list, he's checking it twice". Furthermore, you need to use @@RANDOMNAME@@ in place of those names you used there. If they're meant to be funny, they aren't. Also, everybody in this issue talks like they've experienced 22 generations of aggressive inbreeding, and are the Grand Duke-Margrave of Scheisenberg-Pfleffendorf. The bottom line is that this issue doesn't have a unique enough premise for consideration.

I can consider trimming. As far as I see what the options hold in them work for the story, but I could re-think that. I read the quide and it said that the 70-100 words wasn't absolute, that I could make these as long as they needed to be.

I assumed there would be as well, which surprised me a lot when I wasn't seemingly able to find one. There seems to be things that skirt on the edges, but don't necessarily go directly into it. I couldn't be the first to come up with something like this, so late into the game? And think about it, if there was an issue to outlaw political parties, wouldn't there be a policy that reflects that?

I could add more options, but I felt it didn't need too many. You can go along with it, oppose it, or "go above the issue" as it were. That's what the third option is for.

Tinhampton wrote:
Markus Sarasti-Varis wrote:As you can see, The Issue I propose concerns the question of political parties [...]

Nonetheless, your description very much reads as though this is going to be an issue about how to respond to a crisis of governance in a foreign nation. The options themselves appear to indicate a generic "should @@LEADER@@ become a dictator?" issue, with some oblique third option about border control on the side.

The @@RANDOMNAME@@ macro exists. Is there any compelling reason why the characters should be called Folani Flick, Devin Shayd and Clancy Afon instead of @@RANDOMNAME@@ [x3]?

The crisis originates from a foreign country, but presents itself in the nation of the issue's recipient. Option 3 would raise authoritarianism, the other options not necessarily. Option 2 is about maintaining the current system, that would affect social conservatism, perhaps? Option 1 I see as increasing political apathy, but also it could increase kindness and compassion when people aren't so inclined to attack their fellow men just because of different perspectives (which often happens in our polarized political societies).

*Folami.

The names are completely random, though. I used a random name generator, and after rolling the dice a good few moments, I thought those ones had a bit of depth to them. I feel like there is double-meaning that is lost on using a macro.

"Flick" as in "hasty". The guy clearly knows what he wants, and does not waste a breath.That's what I tried to picture anyway.
"Shayd" as in "shade". Name implies he's cool, but he's anxious and stuttering. Perhaps a bit sweaty too. You could also see it as referring to his level of shadyness, as he's certainly got some underlying hidden motives.
"Clancy" is referencing the author Tom Clancy, whose novels deal with espionage and spies. Fitting name for a director of foreign intelligence, would you agree?

Australian rePublic wrote:This issue is a bit too long. Cut it down a bit

What would you suggest?

Verdant Haven wrote:Hello, and welcome to Got Issues. You've obviously got an interest in writing, and some skill at it. Glad to have you aboard!

Glad to try and be of some use. And it would be nice to have some kind of an imprint on the site, a piece of my own legacy, other than the negativity I may have inadvertently contributed to earlier. I may not be most obscure of people, but it is a complicated fame.

I've heard compliments on that front many times, but it never stops to please me to hear it again. Doing what I like to do, and (ideally) seeing that it results in something of higher quality.

Verdant Haven wrote:Some quick feedback on this one in its current form:

- The meat of the dilemma should be stated in the issue description, with the options being responses to it. The dilemma here isn't "new ideas exist" – that isn't a dilemma (and would be found in probably half of our issues base). The meat of this draft is a proposal to get rid of political parties. That doesn't come up until 132 words into the first option.

- Prohibiting political parties within a democracy does already exist as a part of an issue in the game. Issue 657 "Put a Fence Around the Commons Floor" includes a choice to ban political parties within a democratic system (with predictably ineffectual results). This probably needs more substance before it actually is deep enough to be an entire issue by itself.

- Options one and two are much too long. A normal option is in the 60-100 word range. Option one in particular is full of filler – one has no idea what this person is doing, other than perhaps trying to sell Leader a timeshare. Be precise and to the point! If a speaker is being long-winded, what they're saying needs to be detailed and relevant. Players will need to be able to quickly read and understand what is being suggested.

- Be careful not to pre-judge a player's decision by writing one speaker's position as eloquent and visionary, and another speaker's position as stumbling and nervous. Speakers can be characterized in those ways, but when it comes across as a judgement of what they're saying, that's a problem. The player receiving the issue should not get the impression that you think one of them is "correct."

- Options should provide reasons for choosing them – especially options asking you to introduce significant changes. Currently, option one provides no support – just a lot of superlatives and unsubstantiated claims. The speaker should generally explain why and/or how they believe their suggestion is going to help, not just that it will nebulously do so.

- The second and third effect line seem to follow humorously from their options, but effect line one is a bit too convoluted

- Unless there is a compelling reason or reference to keep hardcoded names and genders, it's better to randomize them with the macros explained in the FAQ post.

1. No, the dilemma isn't that new ideas exist, the dilemma is the implications of those ideas. The last part highlights that "challenging the comfort and safety of the status quo". The way I see it, the "meat" isn't precisely so much to get rid of political parties, but that there is a group within the nation, a group that is becoming more influential and powerful, that wants to get rid of said political parties. The reaction of the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs reflects upon the fear or worry that it would incite in certain groups that might perhaps stand to benefit personally from the system.

2. Good of you to bring that to light. Now, I looked at it, and it wasn't specifically about political parties, but political loyalty, and the option to ban parties was an "off-hand" suggestion to deviate from the two main viewpoints. I think this could still be implemented, given that it has a different, more broader angle of approach. It is about reactions to growing internal dissent at the general manner in which things are executed, not that some parliamentarians are unhappy that members of their party decided to ignore party discipline on some particular issue. These would seem to be distinctive things. It wouldn't hurt to have two issues that can offer the option, if the premise is different?

As for the ineffective outcome, that is to be expected if you don't have a surrogate alternative. But I didn't feel like wanting to bring that into the issue itself. So I contented myself with independents, but there would be more to that than that in the full picture.

3.Well, that is exactly the point you see. The Character is near-fanatical about the cause, he's coming here armed with passion. The long-windedness is part of the character's nature, and perhaps the vagueness is part of the humor. It is kind of comedic in a certain sense, no?

What is being suggested comes through there, when he says "ban political parties, forget ideology!". But now that I think about it, one possible solution would be to put that in the first quote, so that he begins his little monologue/tirade with the agenda, and then (afterwards) goes on about the greatness of that agenda. Is that better?

4. True, and I considered that it might be perceived that way. I tried to convey to the reader that there is probably some corruption in the political party-system that doesn't want to lose its control, it would make the interaction more dynamic as it relates to what Mr. Flick was going to propose earlier. I could see about re-adjusting the level of that to make it more subtle. The arguments the character makes about tradition and customs, legacy of history, are things I thought someone could realistically use to defend against the case. The reader could use that aspect to ignore the the political panicking. The reader could think to himself, "OK, maybe this guy has a hidden agenda, and is showing it, but he also makes a fair point". Maybe it gives more weight to the decisions the reader would make in that situation, they would have to think carefully about how much they agree with what is being said there. Because it's not an angel whose saying it, and to be honest, neither is the first guy entirely unsuspicious.

5. The support in option 1 is rhetorical, as it is more about ideals or aims, and it fits the nature of the character. I didn't want him to appear the only sane one, so to speak. He's supposed to be a little bit unconvincing. That's part of trying to make it so that there isn't one clear correct choice here, which is what makes issues fun to stress about. That aside, I can see what you mean. Mr.Shayd argues about traditions, so it would be more equal to have Mr.Flick also argue about something a bit more substantive. But because Mr.Shayd is suspicious, Mr.Flick should be also, otherwise there is no real choice or competition, given that the General (also) is clearly paranoid, even if he makes a point about national integrity. Should I make all the characters look and sound like academic experts?

Any advice on this is more than welcome.

6. I can see that, yes. Probably need to adjust that one. I figured if the practical effect was for people to become independents in absence of parties, adding that part about mothers and the laundry of their sons would make it more witty on the whole, but I guess it kind of subverts the causality of the scenario.

7. The names I explained in a previous reply. The genders just followed with the names I got from the generator. Maybe if I had kept rolling the dice long enough it would have given me a situationally suitable female name. If we want to add diversity for diversity's sake, I could always think of something manually from my head.

by **Veldevande** » Sun Dec 11, 2022 8:46 am

Issues usually aren't meant to be "stories" in the way we usually think of them. They're meant to represent real political conundrums that a leader may face, and what you have written here isn't unique. I'm trying not to be like Bhang Bhang Duc is in the SC, because issues really is so much more supportive. So let me impart some feedback unto you, and you really should listen. Forget about those names. If there isn't a pun there, it won't pass. An example of a pre-programmed name that would be allowed is like the fictional prime minister of Brancaland, Dustin Glaceau. If there isn't humor someone could easily get, it should use the macro. Folani Flick should be @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, Devyn Shayd should be @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, and Clancy Afon should be @@RANDOMNAME_3@@. This is non-negotiable. You really should be getting rid of all of this excess. If this issue would be hypothetically inserted into the game, the player would click the first option and go to better issues. The dialogue needs a complete and utter rehash. Strip it down to the drywall, and build it again, maybe with a more personable feel. Like these people are normal citizens. Now lets talk about the main way to change the issue. The premise. This issue already exists, but that doesn't mean you don't have wiggle-room within your existing concept. You just have to make it fit into a niche that the database doesn't have. I can't think of anything at this moment, but I think more experienced authors will have ideas. Finally, you seem to be going down a dark path. This is the path of ignoring the people who have actually written issues, because everything is great about your issue in your opinion. This is a terrible way to be, because it guarantees that you will never write an issue. I'd heed anything people say on here.

by **Markus Sarasti-Varis** » Sun Dec 11, 2022 10:18 am

Veldevande wrote:Issues usually aren't meant to be "stories" in the way we usually think of them. They're meant to represent real political conundrums that a leader may face, and what you have written here isn't unique.

Well, you can't deliver a political conundrum without encapsulating it in a story. The story is the vessel of presentation. The Guide which I read also noted the story part as one of the vectors by which issue quality is reviewed, so I wanted to give some thought to that aspect.

Yes, It would seem that there is at least one other issue that touches on the topic/theme, one that I most expectedly missed. I'll have to browse through those lists more when I have the time and energy, and in the meantime, if you or others can point out specifics, that would also speed things up, and enable me to re-align the issue in the best possible manner. It's not a competition about who is the first with what, of course, just that we can add to things and collectively enrich a collective experience.

Veldevande wrote: I'm trying not to be like Bhang Bhang Duc is in the SC, because issues really is so much more supportive. So let me impart some feedback unto you, and you really should listen. Forget about those names. If there isn't a pun there, it won't pass. An example of a pre-programmed name that would be allowed is like the fictional prime minister of Brancaland, Dustin Glaceau. If there isn't humor someone could easily get, it should use the macro. Folani Flick should be @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, Devyn Shayd should be @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, and Clancy Afon should be @@RANDOMNAME_3@@. This is non-negotiable.

Are you certain about that? Puns aren't the only way to entertain you know, and humor is, like beauty, often in the eye of the beholder. If the names of the characters reflect, not too overtly, with how they present themselves, isn't that a certain sense of wittyness? Unless I am completely off my comprehension of concepts here.

I'll read what material is available again to double-check this, But anything the issues editing team authorities say I'll also take. As it stands, I don't know you, what your experience is, and you are not on the issues editing team. And so far you are the only one who has made this claim. Because of these things, I cannot take your word entirely without doubt. Apologies.

Veldevande wrote: You really should be getting rid of all of this excess. If this issue would be hypothetically inserted into the game, the player would click the first option and go to better issues. The dialogue needs a complete and utter rehash. Strip it down to the drywall, and build it again, maybe with a more personable feel. Like these people are normal citizens.

There are longer issues out there, I've received them myself, and I haven't been lazy about them. Some might be, of course. I haven't said that I couldn't try to thin this down, only that I am hesitant to do so because I find it hard to see "excess" as you say it. Cutting down parts I see as key elements to the whole just makes it far less impactful in my eyes. Is it bad if this issue stands out in this manner? Does every issue need to be a carbon copy in format? I repeat that the guide didn't say that the 100 words was an absolute maximum. If it did, I wouldn't be talking back to you about this.

It could just be a personal quirk, as writing long essays has never been difficult for me, cutting down on the other hand, terribly painful!

The Guide said something that an issue should be entertaining. If I make these characters "average", wouldn't that make it more boring? An honest question.

Veldevande wrote: Now lets talk about the main way to change the issue. The premise. This issue already exists, but that doesn't mean you don't have wiggle-room within your existing concept. You just have to make it fit into a niche that the database doesn't have.

Yes, and I'll wait to see what Verdant Haven says about it, since I already touched on this in my previous reply. (In regards to the other issue he most graciously brought up). Depending on that I'll determine what adjustments are in order. I'll also have to look at existing issues again, like I said, just to verify for verification that there aren't any bumbs in the road. On that note, I think the issue lists would benefit from a genre/theme categorization.

Veldevande wrote:Finally, you seem to be going down a dark path. This is the path of ignoring the people who have actually written issues, because everything is great about your issue in your opinion. This is a terrible way to be, because it guarantees that you will never write an issue. I'd heed anything people say on here.

Perhaps you confuse ignoring with disagreement. I can defend my submission, its part of the feedback process. I'm not deaf to you or anyone else, and if I was I wouldn't counter to begin with. I'm not above or beyond admittance, but just because I'm new here and others aren't, doesn't mean I have to concede on everything by that virtue alone. Greenhorns can challenge the greybeards, and that's dynamic and good. A lot of progress has been done that way.

I am happy to see the many replies, including yours, especially since there are posts in these threads with fewer for far more views.

-M

by **Veldevande** » Sun Dec 11, 2022 11:37 am

Markus Sarasti-Varis wrote:Well, you can't deliver a political conundrum without encapsulating it in a story. The story is the vessel of presentation. The Guide which I read also noted the story part as one of the vectors by which issue quality is reviewed, so I wanted to give some thought to that aspect.

I mean "story" as something you'd write on a RP forum or other. Issues need to have a level of brevity, which allows them to be digested easily. There are, in fact, children that play this. I'm not Tinhampton, so I won't do a rewrite. Here are some general tips: Keep the tone of voice casual. Unless you have some really fancy rich person or other stock character, it's not usually preferred. Try to keep option length from 3-4 sentences. Exceeding it makes the issue seem clunky. I'm sure VH will have more to say.

Markus Sarasti-Varis wrote:Are you certain about that? Puns aren't the only way to entertain you know, and humor is, like beauty, often in the eye of the beholder. If the names of the characters reflect, not too overtly, with how they present themselves, isn't that a certain sense of wittyness? Unless I am completely off my comprehension of concepts here.

If the beholder is you, then you don't know if anyone else beholds the same things.

Let's isolate Folani Flick. The humble nation of Northwest Stanistan gets your issue, reads the name, and derives no humor from it. Nothing would be funny unless you explain the joke, which is already a wee bit of a stretch. This is why we use @@RANDOMNAME@@. It tries to insert names where you need them, but without canonizing any one figure in a nation's lore. In an older issue, you can see how one poor old lady named Dorothy Terwilliger keeps dying of cancer.

Markus Sarasti-Varis wrote:I'll read what material is available again to double-check this, But anything the issues editing team authorities say I'll also take. As it stands, I don't know you, what your experience is, and you are not on the issues editing team. And so far you are the only one who has made this claim. Because of these things, I cannot take your word entirely without doubt. Apologies.

I've written an issue or 2 on other accounts I no longer use. Most people that comment on drafts aren't editors, but they do give feedback that is very well and good. The best way to prove to you that you should use the macros is the over 1500+ issues in the database. Most of them are randomnames, despite what their entries sometimes say.

Markus Sarasti-Varis wrote:There are longer issues out there, I've received them myself, and I haven't been lazy about them. Some might be, of course. I haven't said that I couldn't try to thin this down, only that I am hesitant to do so because I find it hard to see "excess" as you say it. Cutting down parts I see as key elements to the whole just makes it far less impactful in my eyes. Is it bad if this issue stands out in this manner? Does every issue need to be a carbon copy in format? I repeat that the guide didn't say that the 100 words was an absolute maximum. If it did, I wouldn't be talking back to you about this.

It could just be a personal quirk, as writing long essays has never been difficult for me, cutting down on the other hand, terribly painful!

I feel you on the long essay part. But issues shouldn't be this long, and when they are, there's a lot of nuance to cover. When you have a simple debate like this, you can make it a lot more digestable for our younger players, and those who answer issues begrudgingly, by shortening it.

Markus Sarasti-Varis wrote:The Guide said something that an issue should be entertaining. If I make these characters "average", wouldn't that make it more boring? An honest question.

Not necessarily. Characters are vessels of expression. The dialogue is where issues shine. You can make it as humorous as you want, as long as it's short enough. You don't have to worldbuild around the characters though.

by **Markus Sarasti-Varis** » Sun Dec 11, 2022 12:43 pm

Veldevande wrote: I mean "story" as something you'd write on a RP forum or other. Issues need to have a level of brevity, which allows them to be digested easily. There are, in fact, children that play this. I'm not Tinhampton, so I won't do a rewrite. Here are some general tips: Keep the tone of voice casual. Unless you have some really fancy rich person or other stock character, it's not usually preferred. Try to keep option length from 3-4 sentences. Exceeding it makes the issue seem clunky. I'm sure VH will have more to say.

I had almost forgotten about that fact. Okay then, I'll withdraw, you've made your case, and I'll put it back under scrutiny. Thanks.

Veldevande wrote: If the beholder is you, then you don't know if anyone else beholds the same things. Let's isolate Folani Flick. The humble nation of Northwest Stanistan gets your issue, reads the name, and derives no humor from it. Nothing would be funny unless you explain the joke, which is already a wee bit of a stretch. This is why we use @@RANDOMNAME@@. It tries to insert names where you need them, but without canonizing any one figure in a nation's lore. In an older issue, you can see how one poor old lady named Dorothy Terwilliger keeps dying of cancer.

Mhm, I suppose it makes it more unique for each nation to receive as well. Imagine if the people in your region started to discuss the issue, and everyone's leaders were faced with the same clones to talk to. I can see that there are situations in which a fixed name is workable, but I'll pass on the insistence this time.

Veldevande wrote:Not necessarily. Characters are vessels of expression. The dialogue is where issues shine. You can make it as humorous as you want, as long as it's short enough. You don't have to worldbuild around the characters though.

That right there is a puzzle if I ever saw one. You do realize you're giving me an impossible equation? Oh you, you're just delicious.

by **Verdant Haven** » Sun Dec 11, 2022 6:49 pm

1) "Challenging the comfort and safety of the status quo" is what happens literally any time change occurs. An issue needs to have a specific challenge, and needs to be self-contained. With very rare exception, an issue needs to contain within itself everything necessary to introduce, address, and conclude its dilemma. If a concept comes out of the issue that allows other issues to be written, that's great, but each issue must stand on its own.

---

2) You are correct that it can't hurt to have two issues leading to a given result, if they come from different premises. The reason I brought it up was to point out that something like banning political parties is the sort of thing that has the precedent of being worth a single option – it's not an entire issue worth of content. The reason this entire issue appears to be about that is because "outlaw political parties" is literally the *only* concrete action suggested. Issue stats and effects are based on specific actions chosen. We have a dozen issues about new ideas for governance, but each one has specific suggestions about what to do and why, and that's what makes them workable. More specifics are needed if this is going to be about something larger.

This is doubly true in the second option, where no action is suggested at all. It appears that this speaker's argument is just to stay the course, and not do what the first speaker suggested. Doing nothing (simply rejecting the previous speaker without a suggestion of its own) is what the Dismiss button is for. Each option should suggest at least one specific new action the government will take.

---

3) The length here isn't comedic, because it doesn't say anything. It's just lots of words repeating the same meaningless position of "Wow, that dude is cool. Have you heard how cool he is? He's really cool. We all think he's cool! Do you think he's cool? You should think he's cool!" Moving the "Ban political parties" bit to the very beginning would indeed be helpful, but what this really needs is content. Here's what I mean:

"We follow the example of a visionary genius, far yet close in our hearts, and we will not stop in our efforts to replicate the positive change he has achieved, [What change?] showing example to us all" [How?], he blurts out, staring at you intently in the eyes. "He understood that the political system as manifested in our obsession on parties and ideology [On what basis do we assume this about the player's nation?] is one of the greatest concurrent obstacles to achieving a more peaceful and positive life environment for us and our children [What obstacles has it presented?]. If you are smart, you would also realize the need and necessity to move past these old illusions of false progress and assurance [What illusions? What harm has been done?]. Outlaw political parties, forget ideology! You could even do us a favor and help speed the revolution [How does Leader do this?], for the sake of our humanity. I am sure the men behind me, not in this corridor mind you [Who are they and why does Leader care?], would appreciate that gesture and renew their trust in your custodianship of this nation." [What benefit does that bring?].

From a decision-making perspective, the entirety of this option could be reduced to "The political system as manifested in our obsession on parties and ideology is [bad]. Outlaw political parties, forget ideology!"

All of those additional lines full of superlatives and platitudes are utterly unpersuasive, and don't say a thing about what actually is being proposed. Change precisely seven words, and this exact same speech could be given by a person talking about why you should adopt the color green as your favorite, or why we should eat more chicken, or should promote classical music. The speaker needs to convince Leader to choose their path by providing answers to some of these questions, and they need to do it in about half as many words. To pick on myself a bit here, the longest option I ever had published in one of my issues prior to becoming an editor was 115 words, and was specifically characterized as a soporifically long and incomprehensible speech. The reason it worked was because every extra word of it was part of an accurate technical description of a particular failure mechanisms for algorithmic stock trading, the function of which was specifically relevant to the issue and to the player's choice or non-choice of the option in question. This option as written is 181 words long, and doesn't actually explain anything about who this visionary is, what they believe, or how their so-called revolution does any of the things that are being claimed.

---

4/5/6) Getting tone and humor right is one of the harder parts of issue writing. Speaker two, for example, wouldn't be unsure of their desire to retain the current system, and should be pushing for further reinforcement thereof. This is an argument they've almost certainly made many times before, and they've got a tried and true go-to for it. The Minister of Parliamentary Affairs isn't going to trip over their words because some college libertarian showed up and said "we should get rid of political parties!"

There is a phrase I was taught decades ago about presenting a convincing character – "Know it, don't show it." It should be plain from the text itself, and not require any additional explanation or justification here. The character "knows" exactly what they believe and why – it is an inherent part of them. They don't need it "shown" through exposition. They can be as pompous or corrupt or "suspicious" as you see fit, and as the validities will support, but their perspective is their own.

---

7) Go random. Absolutely nothing is gained by hardcoding non-referential names.

by **Markus Sarasti-Varis** » Mon Dec 12, 2022 9:33 am

Verdant Haven wrote:1) "Challenging the comfort and safety of the status quo" is what happens literally any time change occurs. An issue needs to have a specific challenge, and needs to be self-contained. With very rare exception, an issue needs to contain within itself everything necessary to introduce, address, and conclude its dilemma. If a concept comes out of the issue that allows other issues to be written, that's great, but each issue must stand on its own.

"New ideas with major political implications have washed ashore..." says nothing about what the ideas are, nor what the implications might be. We need to provide hard details. Compare with something like "Inspired by foreign revolutionaries, a new political movement has begun recruiting in @@NAME@@, declaring as its aim the overthrow of your existing political party system in favor of a state based on principles of independent non-partisan unity." The latter retains the background info about where this came from, but also provides the nature of the ideas and consequences at stake.

---

2) You are correct that it can't hurt to have two issues leading to a given result, if they come from different premises. The reason I brought it up was to point out that something like banning political parties is the sort of thing that has the precedent of being worth a single option – it's not an entire issue worth of content. The reason this entire issue appears to be about that is because "outlaw political parties" is literally the *only* concrete action suggested. Issue stats and effects are based on specific actions chosen. We have a dozen issues about new ideas for governance, but each one has specific suggestions about what to do and why, and that's what makes them workable. More specifics are needed if this is going to be about something larger.

This is doubly true in the second option, where no action is suggested at all. It appears that this speaker's argument is just to stay the course, and not do what the first speaker suggested. Doing nothing (simply rejecting the previous speaker without a suggestion of its own) is what the Dismiss button is for. Each option should suggest at least one specific new action the government will take.

---

3) The length here isn't comedic, because it doesn't say anything. It's just lots of words repeating the same meaningless position of "Wow, that dude is cool. Have you heard how cool he is? He's really cool. We all think he's cool! Do you think he's cool? You should think he's cool!" Moving the "Ban political parties" bit to the very beginning would indeed be helpful, but what this really needs is content. Here's what I mean:

"We follow the example of a visionary genius, far yet close in our hearts, and we will not stop in our efforts to replicate the positive change he has achieved, [What change?] showing example to us all" [How?], he blurts out, staring at you intently in the eyes. "He understood that the political system as manifested in our obsession on parties and ideology [On what basis do we assume this about the player's nation?] is one of the greatest concurrent obstacles to achieving a more peaceful and positive life environment for us and our children [What obstacles has it presented?]. If you are smart, you would also realize the need and necessity to move past these old illusions of false progress and assurance [What illusions? What harm has been done?]. Outlaw political parties, forget ideology! You could even do us a favor and help speed the revolution [How does Leader do this?], for the sake of our humanity. I am sure the men behind me, not in this corridor mind you [Who are they and why does Leader care?], would appreciate that gesture and renew their trust in your custodianship of this nation." [What benefit does that bring?].

From a decision-making perspective, the entirety of this option could be reduced to "The political system as manifested in our obsession on parties and ideology is [bad]. Outlaw political parties, forget ideology!"

All of those additional lines full of superlatives and platitudes are utterly unpersuasive, and don't say a thing about what actually is being proposed. Change precisely seven words, and this exact same speech could be given by a person talking about why you should adopt the color green as your favorite, or why we should eat more chicken, or should promote classical music. The speaker needs to convince Leader to choose their path by providing answers to some of these questions, and they need to do it in about half as many words. To pick on myself a bit here, the longest option I ever had published in one of my issues prior to becoming an editor was 115 words, and was specifically characterized as a soporifically long and incomprehensible speech. The reason it worked was because every extra word of it was part of an accurate technical description of a particular failure mechanisms for algorithmic stock trading, the function of which was specifically relevant to the issue and to the player's choice or non-choice of the option in question. This option as written is 181 words long, and doesn't actually explain anything about who this visionary is, what they believe, or how their so-called revolution does any of the things that are being claimed.

---

4/5/6) Getting tone and humor right is one of the harder parts of issue writing. Speaker two, for example, wouldn't be unsure of their desire to retain the current system, and should be pushing for further reinforcement thereof. This is an argument they've almost certainly made many times before, and they've got a tried and true go-to for it. The Minister of Parliamentary Affairs isn't going to trip over their words because some college libertarian showed up and said "we should get rid of political parties!"

There is a phrase I was taught decades ago about presenting a convincing character – "Know it, don't show it." It should be plain from the text itself, and not require any additional explanation or justification here. The character "knows" exactly what they believe and why – it is an inherent part of them. They don't need it "shown" through exposition. They can be as pompous or corrupt or "suspicious" as you see fit, and as the validities will support, but their perspective is their own.

---

7) Go random. Absolutely nothing is gained by hardcoding non-referential names.

Improved version is out now! (I'll reply more in-depth later)

by **Verdant Haven** » Mon Dec 12, 2022 11:28 am

The new version shows significant improvement in direction - good, good.

Generally speaking, keep things up here, accepting feedback and drafting revisions, for at minimum a couple of weeks. Lots of folks are only able to come by on occasion, and provide excellent insights given the chance. The first few passes are typically for big picture stuff. The next few will likely be for things like length, focus of topics and directions, and clarifying final positions. The last passes typically deal with things like final selections for word choice, punctuation, natural speech, etc.

With re: stat effects, please do not submit/suggest ideas for those - all stats are handled by the editors internally. The reasons are twofold: 1) The stats the public sees are not the same ones that actually exist backstage. Any given public stat might be made up of different weightings of any number of different invisible elements. 2) The stats should derive from the issue text, not from stat suggestions. If you feel like a certain thing should change when an option is selected, make sure that the option text itself is clear and carries that implication within it. Focus the effort on the draft itself, and the stats will happen follow.

I'll try to take a more in-depth look at this and provide more specific feedback later in the week.

by **Markus Sarasti-Varis** » Tue Dec 13, 2022 7:44 am

Verdant Haven wrote:The new version shows significant improvement in direction - good, good.

Generally speaking, keep things up here, accepting feedback and drafting revisions, for at minimum a couple of weeks. Lots of folks are only able to come by on occasion, and provide excellent insights given the chance. The first few passes are typically for big picture stuff. The next few will likely be for things like length, focus of topics and directions, and clarifying final positions. The last passes typically deal with things like final selections for word choice, punctuation, natural speech, etc.

With re: stat effects, please do not submit/suggest ideas for those - all stats are handled by the editors internally. The reasons are twofold: 1) The stats the public sees are not the same ones that actually exist backstage. Any given public stat might be made up of different weightings of any number of different invisible elements. 2) The stats should derive from the issue text, not from stat suggestions. If you feel like a certain thing should change when an option is selected, make sure that the option text itself is clear and carries that implication within it. Focus the effort on the draft itself, and the stats will happen follow.

I'll try to take a more in-depth look at this and provide more specific feedback later in the week.

I am pleased to hear that. And of course, I would be happy to take from you and consider anything you have to say on this. Take the time you need. A couple of questions that I am hoping you could also clarify:

1. Do you think that this group I made up for the purposes of this issue could be added to the wider NationStates issue lore/deposity? So that it could re-appear in other issues not authored by myself?

2. Do you think there is possibility that this issue could lead to a new policy being added to the game about not having political parties?

There are policies about autocracy and monarchy, but those don't necessarily imply that the nation does not still operate a party-system in some extent or another. Many autocracies have also been in the framework of one-party dictatorships.

by **Verdant Haven** » Mon Jan 16, 2023 1:24 pm

- In the description: it doesn't appear that the name of the uprising's foreign leader is important – that can be removed. It is sufficient to state that there was a social uprising that led to a change of power. Unless it is a deliberate irony that will be mentioned in the text, you could remove the "cessation of all ideological commitments" bit without harm, but It might be more fun to keep it and have other speakers point out how wildly hypocritical they are being, given that the entire point of their movement is commitment to an ideology.

- For option 1, the dialogue tag shouldn't say "is the first to address you." That's apparent from the fact that they are, in fact, the first to address you. Give them a more interesting characterization.

- In effect 1, there is likely more humor to be found in the fact that any attempt to eliminate political parties in a system that uses them is almost certain to just lead to other parties unless the rest of the system is completely changed as well (see previously mentioned situation with regard to Issue 657). This outcome would likely be more of a replacement of political parties with groups of like-minded politicians who sure seem to vote together a lot, which the media refer to as "parties" for ease of communication. Voting ends up happening in blocs for a reason.

- Option 2 is largely solid, though I'm not sure where the plausible deniability and gangster-like "capisce" come in. Could probably just drop that small bit off the end. If retaining, verify spelling.

- I'm not sure if you were aiming for the "partying" play on words in effect line 2, but I'm going to assume so, because it is definitely humorous. That line could be made much shorter while retaining your wordplay – something like "nobody parties harder than politicians" would do the trick.

- Option three's characterization works, but I would suggest rearranging or editing the dialogue tag so it doesn't need four commas before getting to the substance of the option.

- Effect lines aren't sentences, and don't take periods.

Markus Sarasti-Varis wrote:1. Do you think that this group I made up for the purposes of this issue could be added to the wider NationStates issue lore/deposity? So that it could re-appear in other issues not authored by myself?

If an issue is published with a given nation, group, or person in it, there's nothing stopping other authors from choosing to include those same nations, groups, or people. We don't maintain an official list of approved entities or anything like that. Some players do keep track of things that are used, and it's up to our authors whether or not they choose to follow suit.

Markus Sarasti-Varis wrote:2. Do you think there is possibility that this issue could lead to a new policy being added to the game about not having political parties?

Long answer: anything could potentially lead to a new policy being added to the game, should it be determined by the editorial staff that it is necessary. This issue, if submitted, edited, and accepted, would be reviewed in the same way as every other issue, and any considerations along those lines would be undertaken at that time.

Short answer: Realistically? Probably not. Adding broad-based policies is a very intensive process, and requires reviewing every single issue in the game for compatibility. Banning political parties doesn't really do much in terms of mechanics, but would require re-writing or modification of dozens, if not a hundred or more, other issues, almost entirely for no reason other than to just avoid saying the word "party."

by **Markus Sarasti-Varis** » Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:24 pm

Verdant Haven wrote:In the description: it doesn't appear that the name of the uprising's foreign leader is important – that can be removed. It is sufficient to state that there was a social uprising that led to a change of power.

Agreed. This is not an issue about a rockstar doing a tour in the capital, this is not an issue about personalities. I figured it was simply a minor factor of detail.

Verdant Haven wrote:Unless it is a deliberate irony that will be mentioned in the text, you could remove the "cessation of all ideological commitments" bit without harm, but It might be more fun to keep it and have other speakers point out how wildly hypocritical they are being, given that the entire point of their movement is commitment to an ideology.

This is what I was aiming for, yes. It correlates directly, albeit not perhaps very overtly, with what is being said at the end of the first option, complementing this phrase here where the person concludes their monologue by bluntly stating that "there are no alternatives". It is ultimately the fanaticism precisely which this group displays that elevates them to hypocritical standards. Anti-Ideology becomes ideology at the point where it overrides everything else and numbs creative thinking. I'll see if I can highlight this a a bit more. Maybe it'll help.

Verdant Haven wrote: For option 1, the dialogue tag shouldn't say "is the first to address you." That's apparent from the fact that they are, in fact, the first to address you. Give them a more interesting characterization.

It seems like filler doesn't it?

Verdant Haven wrote: In effect 1, there is likely more humor to be found in the fact that any attempt to eliminate political parties in a system that uses them is almost certain to just lead to other parties unless the rest of the system is completely changed as well (see previously mentioned situation with regard to Issue 657). This outcome would likely be more of a replacement of political parties with groups of like-minded politicians who sure seem to vote together a lot, which the media refer to as "parties" for ease of communication. Voting ends up happening in blocs for a reason.

Mhm, and since we are operating on the grounds of a democratic framework (Autocracy policy prevents this issue nor did I plan on it to cause it to be enacted), this would indeed be a good vector to anchor it down to. It reminds me of the corporate changeover in Russia where many western brands have been superficially "replaced" by Russian domestic providers. Basically it's more or less the same thing except you don't call it by a certain name anymore, they just cover up the logos etc.

Verdant Haven wrote: Option 2 is largely solid, though I'm not sure where the plausible deniability and gangster-like "capisce" come in. Could probably just drop that small bit off the end. If retaining, verify spelling.

To my understanding there shouldn't be a "perfect" choice to make in regards to issues, like an obviously correct answer or anything like that. The part about plausible deniability is the other side of the coin here, the Minister can make those points that may sound convincing to rebuke option 1, but then there is the implication that choosing this option would contribute towards corruption. I think I had the same idea before but I needed to improve the presentation. If you're operating under the safety and complexity of a party-organization then it would be easier to shift blame, hide one's dirty secrets, deny and blur the lines of responsibility than if everyone represented themselves and stood for themselves. The same argument can be made in a larger scale by defendants of authoritarian regimes; it is easier to hold someone accountable when it is clearer who has power and what power, when it is more well-known who calls the shots, than in Democratic systems where power is given in multiple pieces and distributed more evenly across various agencies, operators and institutions.

"Capice" would be used in the American form. It's the same as "you get me?" (wink wink), basically helps to confirm the context, but adds a touch of flavor to the text than if it was a standard English phrase. Are you thinking that people might not understand the meaning of it and they'd have to look it up?

Verdant Haven wrote:I'm not sure if you were aiming for the "partying" play on words in effect line 2, but I'm going to assume so, because it is definitely humorous. That line could be made much shorter while retaining your wordplay – something like "nobody parties harder than politicians" would do the trick

Option three's characterization works, but I would suggest rearranging or editing the dialogue tag so it doesn't need four commas before getting to the substance of the option.

Your assumption is a bullseye, and I'll give it another spin.

Verdant Haven wrote: - Effect lines aren't sentences, and don't take periods.

Right.

[DRAFT] The Party is Over, But the Show Must Go On!

[DRAFT] The Party is Over, But the Show Must Go On!

Who is online