[Submitted] Ugly History Under Threat

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

A long-running campaign to remove the currently derelict building atop ''Terror Hill'', a relic of the very darkest parts of the nation's history, has finally culminated with it coming to your attention.

validity: nation is positive in culture, and has ''reasonable'' political freedoms.


[option] ''We cannot break with the past until this stain is destroyed," argues sincere campaigner @@RANDOMNAME@@. ''Terror Hill, as it is, simply reminds us of the very worst parts of our history. We cannot continue as a modern society without decisively showing that we have literally taken a bulldozer to our sins.''
[effect] the @@CAPITAL@@ Terror Hill is being wholesale removed.
[stats] Happiness increases, Tourism decreases, Culture decreases very slightly, Pacifism decreases, Environment increases significantly

[option] ''I think the filth on Terror Hill needs to stay around, at least while I live',' reckons 115 year old @@RANDOMNAME@@, a surviving victim of the atrocities that occurred there. "But once I die... how can anyone truly feel what happened there? How will anybody be able to come there and sincerely vow for it to never again? Terror Hill should just be left alone, with nature taking it down in a beautifully symbolic move showing how society has atoned for those crimes."
[effect] nature is being left to take its course on the @@CAPITAL@@ Terror Hill.
[stats] Happiness decreases very slightly, Tourism decreases slightly, Environment increases

[option] A mysterious man in a dark trench coat has a different idea.''Between you and me, we should... reopen the camp on Terror Hill. Lots of... opposition types might like to go there... you understand.'' He glances at your face and then, aghast, says, ''@@LEADER@@, what are you thinking...? Are you...? NO, I'm advocating reopening it to TOURISTS! We should open the camp to the public and own up to our horrific past! My goodness leader, what did you think I was saying?!''
[effect] the number one tourist attraction in the nation is also the one it is least proud of.

[option] ''How about a memorial garden?'' asks a chirpy @@RANDOMNAME@@'' We could bulldoze the thing and replace it with lots of pretty flowers and fountains, then have some plaques to remind everyone what happened on Terror Hill. It'll be a great tribute to those victims of Terror Hill! Sure, the buildings have to be knocked down, but everyone hates looking at them anyway!''
[effect] bushes in the memorial garden hide the plaques revealing the old atrocities of Terror Hill.

[Golgothastan]

And the complaints that "My nation never had a death camp!" begin in 3...2...1...

[Caracasus]

And the complaints that "My nation never had a death camp!" begin in 3...2...1...

My nation never had a death camp in our dark past! (We had several...... seriously it was very horrible. That's why there was a revolution)


Seriously though, that's just not an issue - every nation would reasonably be expected to have a murky past.

[Luna Amore]

And the complaints that "My nation never had a death camp!" begin in 3...2...1...

My nation never had a death camp in our dark past! (We had several...... seriously it was very horrible. That's why there was a revolution)


Seriously though, that's just not an issue - every nation would reasonably be expected to have a murky past.

You say that, but we still get complaints every time an issue assumes something about the nation.

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

My personal thought was that if somebody did complain about it not in their past, then we could joke about them being ''deniers''. The crux of the thing about the death camp here is that the nation has repented- notice how reopening it to political prisoners is simply not an option- so there is no reason to get upset about this assumption.

But yeah... anything to say about the draft itself?

[Trotterdam]

It could rankle players who want their nation's histories mapped out from the beginning (particularly nations which are supposed to have been founded fairly recently, in-character), but having mistreated political prisoners in the past isn't exactly a rare thing if you downplay it from the extreme severity of Nazi death camps - even the US was rather repressive to Japanese immigrants during World War 2. The "if it doesn't fit your nation, dismiss it" clause applies, I think. Granted, I probably would be one of the people who'd dismiss it.

It wouldn't bother me as much as the recent spate of "@@LEADER@@'s family life" issues. #417 gets a mild pass because it would still easily be a scandal with a lesser government functionary and because option 3 resonates strongly with my views, but #432 just intrudes political baggage on what should be a personal choice, even if the issue did guess correctly about my family status (married with no children, apparently - at least if I'm male, which would mostly preclude option 1 as a bachelor), or if we apply the issue retroactively to before I had whatever children I have now. Most leaders of most nations throughout history have had children, which hasn't affected much of anything, except when it comes to succession laws in a monarchy (hmm...). I'm confused at how an issue about something as widely-applicable and publicly-relevant as a statue of your leader was warned against while this one made it through, though I guess that can be chalked up to different editors having different standards

The crux of the thing about the death camp here is that the nation has repented- notice how reopening it to political prisoners is simply not an option- so there is no reason to get upset about this assumption.

Which options are presented is really less of an issue in terms of "assumptions" than what's held to already be the case regardless of which option you select. Though I do like how you avoided that particular option. (Also, I note that the "reasonable political freedoms" validity is obviously there to make sure this issue only appears to nations that actually do behave better now.)

But yeah... anything to say about the draft itself?

Option 3 is amusing

Option 2 may be somewhat redundant with it, since both of them are about keeping the remains standing in the name of being candid about your sordid past.

I am somewhat confused about the "it would give our military something to do" part in option 3. Is the implication that enlisted personnel would be acting as tour guides? That seems like something you're be handing over to civilians.

[Full Spectrum]

About the "but MY country never" claims, I can see the national director of the Ministry of Historical Revisions insisting that there have NEVER been any death camps, evidence to the contrary was clearly planted by enemies of the state, and maybe those spreading such claims should be brought in for interrogation on suspicion of being one of those enemies?

[Trotterdam]

About the "but MY country never" claims, I can see the national director of the Ministry of Historical Revisions insisting that there have NEVER been any death camps, evidence to the contrary was clearly planted by enemies of the state, and maybe those spreading such claims should be brought in for interrogation on suspicion of being one of those enemies?

The problem with that is that claiming your nation didn't do something when you're telling the truth and claiming your nation didn't do it when it actually did should have very different effects. If you choose to say that your nation never did something and it causes your corruption stat to go up, that's going to upset people more than if such an option simply wasn't presented, nudging people to dismiss the issue instead. (This is also a problem with #417 option 2.)

[Golgothastan]

How about making the site vaguer? Rather than a death camp, it could be alluded to as the site of some atrocity. That way people could interpret as being a massacre of indigenous @@DEMONYM@@s or a workers' revolt savagely put down or a religious figure martyred or even an actual death camp, without it being quite so on the nose.

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

It wouldn't bother me as much as the recent spate of "@@LEADER@@'s family life" issues. #417 gets a mild pass because it would still easily be a scandal with a lesser government functionary and because option 3 resonates strongly with my views, but #432 just intrudes political baggage on what should be a personal choice, even if the issue did guess correctly about my family status (married with no children, apparently - at least if I'm male, which would mostly preclude option 1 as a bachelor), or if we apply the issue retroactively to before I had whatever children I have now. Most leaders of most nations throughout history have had children, which hasn't affected much of anything, except when it comes to succession laws in a monarchy (hmm...). I'm confused at how an issue about something as widely-applicable and publicly-relevant as a statue of your leader was warned against while this one made it through, though I guess that can be chalked up to different editors having different standards

It depresses me how all but one of those you're complaining about were authored by me.... yeah, I'll show myself the door.

Option 3 is amusing

Option 2 may be somewhat redundant with it, since both of them are about keeping the remains standing in the name of being candid about your sordid past.

I am somewhat confused about the "it would give our military something to do" part in option 3. Is the implication that enlisted personnel would be acting as tour guides? That seems like something you're be handing over to civilians.

How about option 2 being about transferring the site to Wezeltonia to use as a military base? With @Golgothastan's ''be vague'', I could have that option be a haunted castle with natural fortifications? That would keep the building standing and be different from option 3.

The complaint about option 3 will be removed.

How about making the site vaguer? Rather than a death camp, it could be alluded to as the site of some atrocity. That way people could interpret as being a massacre of indigenous @@DEMONYM@@s or a workers' revolt savagely put down or a religious figure martyred or even an actual death camp, without it being quite so on the nose.

A pretty good idea, I must admit. It would avoid the angry ''oh my nation never had death camps!'' people. That said, the problem with keeping it vague is that some structure has to be there, if it was just a field where a massacre or famous battle took place, then the whole debate would not exist.

I'll come back to deal with this when I edit it tomorrow. By then I should have a midnight brainwave about how to work it.

About the "but MY country never" claims, I can see the national director of the Ministry of Historical Revisions insisting that there have NEVER been any death camps, evidence to the contrary was clearly planted by enemies of the state, and maybe those spreading such claims should be brought in for interrogation on suspicion of being one of those enemies?

Outer Spart-ocaust denier spotted!

In all honesty though tempting as it is....(so tempting...) that option won't be in. As I've stated before, I wish it to be for nations that actually behave better than that now.

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

I've edited it to be a more vague ''Terror Hill'' instead of the @@CAPITAL@@ Death Camp. Any commentary?

[Caracasus]

I've edited it to be a more vague ''Terror Hill'' instead of the @@CAPITAL@@ Death Camp. Any commentary?

Yeah, that works much better. I can see why someone might get a bit annoyed if they've planned their nation's history from the very foundation and they didn't have death camps, but every nation is realistically going to have something in their past that's bad. Even if the nation is "perfect" then it's just a matter of degree.

To (probably mis)quote a sociologist that I studied years ago "In a community of saints, the man with bad table manners is a pariah"

[Golgothastan]

It wouldn't bother me as much as the recent spate of "@@LEADER@@'s family life" issues. #417 gets a mild pass because it would still easily be a scandal with a lesser government functionary and because option 3 resonates strongly with my views, but #432 just intrudes political baggage on what should be a personal choice, even if the issue did guess correctly about my family status (married with no children, apparently - at least if I'm male, which would mostly preclude option 1 as a bachelor), or if we apply the issue retroactively to before I had whatever children I have now. Most leaders of most nations throughout history have had children, which hasn't affected much of anything, except when it comes to succession laws in a monarchy (hmm...).

For what it's worth I completely agree...

I'm confused at how an issue about something as widely-applicable and publicly-relevant as a statue of your leader was warned against while this one made it through, though I guess that can be chalked up to different editors having different standards ;)

...but not everyone does. Oh well.

Anyway, about this issue: I know we tell players not to worry about stats, but in general terms, what is it that you think the options do? Reading the text, I don't really get a good sense of what the actual conflict is. There is no "bulldoze" stat in the game. So is it that you see it as destroying culture? As harming tourism? As improving pacifism and equality? I'm not asking you to code the stats for this issue - you can't - but just to think a bit more about what you're asking players to choose between.

I really don't like option #2 still. I know some issues reference foreign nations, but the main stats impact of this one seems to be on a foreign nation, which isn't something the game could do.

In all honesty I still don't really like this issue but I can't fault your enthusiasm.

[Sanctaria]

It wouldn't bother me as much as the recent spate of "@@LEADER@@'s family life" issues. #417 gets a mild pass because it would still easily be a scandal with a lesser government functionary and because option 3 resonates strongly with my views, but #432 just intrudes political baggage on what should be a personal choice, even if the issue did guess correctly about my family status (married with no children, apparently - at least if I'm male, which would mostly preclude option 1 as a bachelor), or if we apply the issue retroactively to before I had whatever children I have now. Most leaders of most nations throughout history have had children, which hasn't affected much of anything, except when it comes to succession laws in a monarchy (hmm...).

For what it's worth I completely agree...

I'm confused at how an issue about something as widely-applicable and publicly-relevant as a statue of your leader was warned against while this one made it through, though I guess that can be chalked up to different editors having different standards

...but not everyone does. Oh well.

I think each Editor approaches thing differently.

We've previously said the rule of thumb is that the issue would have have to be legitimately something that comes across a leader's desk. We've broken this in the past for funny or once-off issues, but it's still a general principle we'd like all writers to adhere to.

That said, family life issues genuinely are items that make their way to the desks of the nation's leader. More so prevalent in today's non-stop media cycle world, but even 10/15 years ago - just watch The West Wing and you'll see CJ often telling President Bartlet the media or the public have questions about family or personal or trivial matters. One only need go back a little further to when Bush41 was asked questions about his not liking broccoli!

So it's not unprecedent or unheard of for such things like "why don't you have children the media want to know" to make it's way to the Oval Office, or whatever your NS equivalency is.

In term of the statue issue - we have an issue already dealing with the apotheosis of leader, I think that kind of covers the glorification aspect of things, and as such an issue about a statue isn't something I'd go for.

[Jute]

My nation never had a death camp in our dark past! (We had several...... seriously it was very horrible. That's why there was a revolution)


Seriously though, that's just not an issue - every nation would reasonably be expected to have a murky past.

You say that, but we still get complaints every time an issue assumes something about the nation.

Maybe make it invalid for nations with high pacifism, or something like that? Though of course that might be debatable, as Germany has a large pacifist movement since the 80s itself...

How about making the site vaguer? Rather than a death camp, it could be alluded to as the site of some atrocity. That way people could interpret as being a massacre of indigenous @@DEMONYM@@s or a workers' revolt savagely put down or a religious figure martyred or even an actual death camp, without it being quite so on the nose.

That sounds good and like it would be more applicable to more nations.

[Trotterdam]

We've previously said the rule of thumb is that the issue would have have to be legitimately something that comes across a leader's desk. We've broken this in the past for funny or once-off issues, but it's still a general principle we'd like all writers to adhere to.

The exception that comes to mind is favorite color easter egg, but even then, the government taking the issue far more seriously than it realistically would have was deliberately part of the joke, and the issue wouldn't have been as funny without that line.

That said, family life issues genuinely are items that make their way to the desks of the nation's leader. More so prevalent in today's non-stop media cycle world, but even 10/15 years ago - just watch The West Wing and you'll see CJ often telling President Bartlet the media or the public have questions about family or personal or trivial matters. One only need go back a little further to when Bush41 was asked questions about his not liking broccoli!

Even if it's something that tabloids and Fox News sensationalize to draw sales, I'd think serious political activists would know better.

I doubt political historians are going to be looking back and recognizing Bush's dislike of broccoli as a major turning point in US politics, the way that the passing of a controversial bill might be.

Leaders probably also spend a lot of time on administrativia that doesn't involve making any major decisions, but that doesn't make for interesting issues.

In term of the statue issue - we have an issue already dealing with the apotheosis of leader, I think that kind of covers the glorification aspect of things, and as such an issue about a statue isn't something I'd go for.

Well, a lot of leaders have had statues built of them without claiming to be gods.

It's not a hugely exciting subject, but I don't see anything seriously wrong with it. With a little polish (not necessarily the draft that was actually posted), I could see it as a decently interesting if not ground-breaking addition to the game. A statue in a public place, which is possibly a tourist attraction, has more to do with the public than @@LEADER@@'s family life. (Speaking of which, where's the "yes I have a family life shut up it's none of your business" option?)

[Sanctaria]

We're still going to be putting family life/personal concerns relating to the Leader in-game as issues, if an editors believes the issue will work. Some people like them, some people don't.

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

Anyway, about this issue: I know we tell players not to worry about stats, but in general terms, what is it that you think the options do? Reading the text, I don't really get a good sense of what the actual conflict is. There is no "bulldoze" stat in the game. So is it that you see it as destroying culture? As harming tourism? As improving pacifism and equality? I'm not asking you to code the stats for this issue - you can't - but just to think a bit more about what you're asking players to choose between.

I really don't like option #2 still. I know some issues reference foreign nations, but the main stats impact of this one seems to be on a foreign nation, which isn't something the game could do.

In all honesty I still don't really like this issue but I can't fault your enthusiasm.

Added the stats. Am wondering whether godlessness maybe might be appropriate to add.

Edited option 2 to be about the survivor instead.

I'm always enthusiastic about the issues I write! Even the ones Got Issues? ignores and buries, alone and forgotten....

...............................................................

Um.... fascinating as the original draft of the statue issue was, and unpalatable as the children issue might be to some....well...

(Speaking of which, where's the "yes I have a family life shut up it's none of your business" option?)

.... I had in mind more an emphasis on population on that issue. The whole issue was, in a crystalized form ''should we be having more kids, and will you be leading by example here?'' That's just my justification for it. What else can I say? I honestly never expected it to be implemented ( since nobody acknowledged it in the Got Issues? forum at the time...).

Anyway,

The issue at hand is one about the fate of uncomfortable historical sites, a debate that has actually been explored before.

..........................................................................................

Is there anything else to be said for the draft at hand?

[Kaboomlandia]

Punctuation fixing so the editors don't have to:

[option] ''We cannot break with the past until this stain is destroyed," argues sincere campaigner @@RANDOMNAME@@. ''Terror Hill, as it is, simply reminds us of the very worst parts of our history. We cannot continue as a modern society without decisively showing that we have literally taken a bulldozer to our sins.''
[effect] the @@CAPITAL@@ Terror Hill is being wholesale removed.
[stats] Happiness increases, Tourism decreases, Culture decreases very slightly, Pacifism decreases, Environment increases significantly

[option] ''I think the filth on Terror Hill needs to stay around, at least while I live',' reckons 115 year old @@RANDOMNAME@@, a surviving victim of the atrocities that occurred there. "But once I die... how can anyone truly feel what happened there? How will anybody be able to come there and sincerely vow for it to never again? Terror Hill should just be left alone, with nature taking it down in a beautifully symbolic move showing how society has atoned for those crimes."
[effect] nature is being left to take its course on the @@CAPITAL@@ Terror Hill.
[stats] Happiness decreases very slightly, Tourism decreases slightly, Environment increases

[option] A mysterious man in a dark trench coat has a different idea.''Between you and me, we should... reopen the camp on Terror Hill. Lots of... opposition types might like to go there... you understand.'' He glances at your face and then, aghast, says, ''@@LEADER@@, what are you thinking...? Are you...? NO, I'm advocating reopening it to TOURISTS! We should open the camp to the public and own up to our horrific past! My goodness leader, what did you think I was saying?!''
[effect] the number one tourist attraction in the nation is also the one it is least proud of.
[stats] Happiness decreases, Tourism increases significantly, Pacifism increases, Culture increases, Environment decreases slightly,

[Jute]

We're still going to be putting family life/personal concerns relating to the Leader in-game as issues, if an editors believes the issue will work. Some people like them, some people don't.

I like them, but unfortunately I don't think I would be eligible for them, as I decided against having one in the Leader issue Oh well, can't have everything.

[Maroza]

I love how number 3 at first seems like he's advocating something very different.

[Golgothastan]

Shouldn't there be a reasonable option, like opening a memorial garden?

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

Shouldn't there be a reasonable option, like opening a memorial garden?

Added this option.

Anything else?

[Jute]

Shouldn't there be a reasonable option, like opening a memorial garden?

Added this option.

Anything else?

The second option seems like the most reasonable option now...
Also, no really "evil" option?

[Annihilators of Chan Island]

Added this option.

Anything else?

The second option seems like the most reasonable option now...
Also, now really "evil" option?

Unfortunately, i'm reluctant to actually have an ''evil'' option here. If everyone else here want one, then I'll certainly put one in but it would somewhat spoil the point.

Anything else?