[Draft] On the Bubble

[Thorn1000]

[Title] On the Bubble

[Validities] Written by Thorn1000 and Valoptia, high scientific advancement, high secularism without atheism policy, high patriotism(?)

[Description] After Maxtopian scientist @@RANDOMNAME1@@ published a paper detailing a new scientific law concerning the expansion of the universe, scientists outside of @@NAME@@ have taken to calling the new law "@@RANDOMLASTNAME1@@'s Law." However, @@DEMONYM@@ scientist Georgie Bubble published a paper describing the same law two years ago which was largely ignored due to Bubble’s religious education. Now @@DEMONYM]@ academics are up in arms over who should get credit.

[Option 1] “@@NAME@@ discovered this law first and I’ll be damned if we let some Maxtopian frauds take credit for this,” fumes University of @@NAME@@ professor Dr.@@RANDOMNAME2@@. “It needs to be called Bubble’s Law. How would they like it if we started taking credit for everything they’ve ever discovered? See how they like us using Violet’s three laws of motion. If they don’t like it we can ban them from attending our conferences.”
[Effect] scientists yell dibs even in their sleep

[Validity] Must not outlaw Violetism
[Option 2] “Dr. @@RANDOMLASTNAME2@@ makes a fantastic point. Why don’t we name it Violet’s Law?” purrs a secretary you don’t remember hiring. “It is through her grace, after all, that we can do anything. These so-called educational institutions must pay her holy light more dues than they are. More things need to be named after Violet!”
[Effect] Violet Drive is the most common street name in @@CAPITAL@@

[Option 3] “I don’t see what all of the fuss over this is for,” remarks graduate student @@RANDOMNAME@@ clutching a cup of coffee in each hand. “Maxtopia was simply better at capitalizing on this discovery than we were. If we were to sing everything we learn from the rooftops we’d be getting credit for this. We need to do a better job at promoting our scientific advances is all.”
[Effect] full-page newspaper ads are reserved for any minor breakthrough

[Title] On the Bubble

[Validities] Written by Thorn1000 and Valoptia, high scientific advancement, high secularism without atheism policy, high patriotism(?)

[Description] After Maxtopian scientist @@RANDOMNAME1@@ published a paper detailing a new scientific law concerning the expansion of the universe, scientists outside of @@NAME@@ have taken to calling the new law "@@RANDOMLASTNAME1@@'s Law." However, @@DEMONYM@@ scientist Georgie Bubble published a paper describing the same law two years ago which was largely ignored due to Bubble’s religious education. Now @@DEMONYM@@ academics are up in arms over who should get credit.

[Option 1] “@@NAME@@ discovered this law first and I’ll be damned if we let some Maxtopian frauds take credit for this,” fumes University of @@NAME@@ professor Dr.@@RANDOMNAME2@@. “It needs to be called Bubble’s Law. How would they like it if we started taking credit for everything they’ve ever discovered? See how they like us using Violet’s three laws of motion. If they don’t like it we can ban them from attending our conferences.”
[Effect] scientists yell dibs even in their sleep

[Validity] Must not outlaw Violetism
[Option 2] “Dr. @@RANDOMLASTNAME2@@ makes a fantastic point. Why don’t we name it Violet’s Law?” purrs a secretary you don’t remember hiring. “It is through her grace, after all, that we can do anything. These so-called educational institutions must pay her holy light more dues than they are. More things need to be named after Violet!”
[Effect] Violet Drive is the most common street name in @@CAPITAL@@

[Option 3] “I don’t see what all of the fuss over this is for,” remarks graduate student @@RANDOMNAME@@ clutching a cup of coffee in each hand. “Maxtopia was simply better at capitalizing on this discovery than we were. If we were to sing everything we learn from the rooftops we’d be getting credit for this. We need to do a better job at promoting our scientific advances is all.”
[Effect] full-page newspaper ads are reserved for any minor breakthrough

[Option 4] “Scientific research advances the HUMAN race. Not the Maxtopian race nor the @@DEMONYM@@ race,” chides @@RANDOMNAME@@, a member of the Fellowship of Onomatologists for Objective Labeling in Science. “This petty squabbling is for children and is unbecoming of academic professionals. Calling this phenomenon the Redshift-Distance Relationship is perfectly fine. We should prioritize cooperation in the sciences between @@NAME@@ and Maxtopia, not discouraging it over paltry arguments like this one.”
[Effect] papers need signatories from 2/3rds of @@REGION@@ to be published

Inspiration taken from Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law and more specifically from the view of Georges Lema. Liberties were taken with the exact details in order to make it worthy of @@LEADER@@'s desk. As is it strays a little bit near Issue 798. Hopefully the Violetism and the spin on the other person being a foriegner makes it distinct enough. As always, feedback is greatly appreciated and thank you in advance for any!

[Bisofeyr]

I think misattribution of scientific discoveries is definitely worthy of an issue (and I didn't double check but I don't believe there is one currently existing), and the nomenclature of scientific discoveries is definitely an important aspect of that. I think one of the more interesting aspects of this is the racism that persists in it: for example, while many white scientists/mathematicians have the laws the discovered named after them, a lot of Middle Eastern scientists and mathematicians have essentially been shafted. For example, the binomial theorem was discovered by Al Karaji, the quadratic formula was discovered by Al Khwarizmi. Additionally, a lot of credit has been stolen (Pythagoras had... nothing to do with the discovery of the Pythagorean Theorem).

All that to say, I think you're missing an option somewhere in here: to name is neutrally (and no, I don't think that attributing it to a deity is neutral, here). Something like the Redshift-Distance Relationship would be adequately neutral.

Beyond this, the issue looks good to me (besides the broken macro @@DEMONYM@@ in the description). I like the concept and it's quite well written.

[Thorn1000]

I think one of the more interesting aspects of this is the racism that persists in it

That is a great point and not exactly one I had written with any intent but now I'm wondering if I can alude to that a bit stronger at all.

I think you're missing an option somewhere in here: to name is neutrally ... Something like the Redshift-Distance Relationship would be adequately neutral.

I axed a "@@RANDOMLASTNAME1-Bubble's Law" option to avoid getting into the weeds on the order of the names, but that is an option I had not considered and will absolutely be putting into the next draft, thank you!

and no, I don't think that attributing it to a deity is neutral, here

[Violet] will remember your insolence in the face of her love.

Beyond this, the issue looks good to me (besides the broken macro @@DEMONYM@@ in the description). I like the concept and it's quite well written.

I appreciate the positive feedback! And of course it wouldn't be a draft by me if there wasn't a stupid macro mistake somewhere, will correct that

[Australian rePublic]

In what alternate universe does religiocity disqualify one from being a scientist? Many scientists believe in some kind of higher power. My physics teacher in high school was extremely religious. Scientists don't disqualify their colleges' work because of their religious convictions. This seems like some kind of strawman uttered from those bad hallelujah-type preachers that the rest of us religious people sigh at, rather than something that actually happens

[Thorn1000]

In what alternate universe does religiocity disqualify one from being a scientist? Many scientists believe in some kind of higher power. My physics teacher in high school was extremely religious. Scientists don't disqualify their colleges' work because of their religious convictions. This seems like some kind of strawman uttered from those bad hallelujah-type preachers that the rest of us religious people sigh at, rather than something that actually happens

Valoptia and I discussed this at a bit of a length and ultimately decided that the crux of the issue is not his religious background, but is instead the catalyst/reason for having the issue at all. The "problem" being specifically his education in a very secular society, but that is not a problem that we were looking to address within the confines of this issue. There are more than enough instances of academic snobbery when it comes to people being educated at less "prestigeous" institutes in the real world and this isnt all that different in our minds. Within the realm of "issues canon" far stranger things happen, but we do appreciate the concern and did debate it for a while.

---

That being said, Bisofeyr's comments have been addressed regarding a more neutral solution as well as the handful of clerical errors and draft 2 is now up with the added option. Its a bit wordy for my liking but well within norms, I just couldnt figure out a way to shorten it besides cutting the FOOLS joke which I am adverse to do. I also considered moving around the options a little but did not come up with anything better than what is currently up, as always feedback is appreicated and thank you for your time!

[Australian rePublic]

In what alternate universe does religiocity disqualify one from being a scientist? Many scientists believe in some kind of higher power. My physics teacher in high school was extremely religious. Scientists don't disqualify their colleges' work because of their religious convictions. This seems like some kind of strawman uttered from those bad hallelujah-type preachers that the rest of us religious people sigh at, rather than something that actually happens

Valoptia and I discussed this at a bit of a length and ultimately decided that the crux of the issue is not his religious background, but is instead the catalyst/reason for having the issue at all. The "problem" being specifically his education in a very secular society, but that is not a problem that we were looking to address within the confines of this issue. There are more than enough instances of academic snobbery when it comes to people being educated at less "prestigeous" institutes in the real world and this isnt all that different in our minds. Within the realm of "issues canon" far stranger things happen, but we do appreciate the concern and did debate it for a while.

---

That being said, Bisofeyr's comments have been addressed regarding a more neutral solution as well as the handful of clerical errors and draft 2 is now up with the added option. Its a bit wordy for my liking but well within norms, I just couldnt figure out a way to shorten it besides cutting the FOOLS joke which I am adverse to do. I also considered moving around the options a little but did not come up with anything better than what is currently up, as always feedback is appreicated and thank you for your time!

Be clearer in issue

[Valoptia]

/bump

[Thorn1000]

Bump.

[Thorn1000]

Bump

[Valoptia]

/bump

[Bisofeyr]

I still quite like this issue, but have a few more pieces of feedback.

My immediate impression is that Bubble's religious education ought to be a non-factor in this; even Lemaitre himself was not discounted due to his religious education, from what I can see, but rather a critical mistranslation of his work. I can't think, off the top of my head, of any physicists (which is the field I am most familiar with) who have had their work discounted because their education was religious in nature (perhaps some who have faced racism or bigotry on behalf of which religion they were raised in, but that issue feels distinct). It seems to me that a more apt reason for this to be crossing @@LEADER@@'s desk is that Bubble was discounted based on their nationality, which poses a more distinct threat to @@NAME@@'s scientific standing worldwide, while also probably expanding the nations that can receive the issue.

I don't love the idea of the three laws of motion being inherently named after a religious figure because I don't think it makes sense in-character, but that could potentially be the physicist in me showing. I also don't fully understand the argument: are they saying that @@NAME@@ will begin renaming previously discovered achievements, because if so, that's not clear. Saying "See how they like us using [scientific phenomena]" seems to suggest to me that they would use them in their calculations or other scientific research, which assuming this refers to Newton's or Kepler's laws they already would. If it is referring to renaming well-established scientific phenomena (particularly those discovered by Maxtopia), why would they name it after a religious figure? It would make more sense to me for this professor to put forward their own name for the renaming of these laws, which would be more relevant to @@NAME@@; this is even true if you retain the religious education angle, as Violet comes kinda out of nowhere and is, to my understanding, a pretty worldwide religion, so does not actually help with the snubbing of Bubble in this scenario. I know this also kinda messes up the transition into option 2.

Option 3 is good, but I might recommend changing "clutching a cup of coffee in each hand" to "dual-fisting coffee cups". Maybe it's because I use the phrase "dual-fisting" a lot irl, but it strikes me as a funnier phrasing of the situation.

Option 4 reads as good to me.

Sorry for my tangents, this comes very close to various topics I have some knowledge on so I'm particularly interested in it. Good luck!!

[IMPROPER CLASSIFICATIONS]

As promised here is some feedback:

- Option 1: I generally don't hear "University of [country name]". Maybe @@CAPITAL@@ would make more sense?

- Effect 1: This doesn't make a ton of sense to me. The option is about renaming a scientific law - what are scientists calling dibs on and why are they doing it in their sleep? I don't have any specific suggestions for replacement but maybe something where scientists are putting more emphasis on naming a law than actually studying it would work?

- Effect 3: The use of "ads" doesn't make much sense here. "Articles" works just fine, and while you're changing it I would suggest adding detail by saying the discoveries relegate top news in other areas to the back pages.

- Option/Effect 4: I may be misinterpreting this but this option doesn't feel bureaucratic enough for what it's supposed to be. Where's the six-month waiting period? The formal commissioning of studies? Why two-thirds approval when you could make it substantially more bureaucratic by introducing consensus? Also, why is a regular old member of the FOOLS addressing you, and not the president of the fellowship?