[SUBMITTED] Critters Cripple Cellular Coverage

[Devernia]

Draft 7

Name: Critters Cripple Cellular Coverage

Description: A family of @@ANIMAL@@s recently nested on a major phone mast, reducing cellular signal reception around @@CAPITAL@@. Following a protest against the removal of the nest, the interested parties have decided to turn to you for a decision.

Validity: Not for nations where mobile phones are banned.

[option]"See, if only those darn @@ANIMAL@@s didn't nest in there, we wouldn't have had these hippy treehuggers complaining about our decisions!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, the CEO of Max-Signal. "Our customers rely on our blazing fast LTE data signals, which top out every benchmark when compared to other companies. Then nature comes along and ruins all of our hard work! If we find another one of those annoying nests, just give us permission to shoo whatever's in there. Sure, they might not have a place to live anymore, but it's their fault for wrecking data speeds anyway! And while we're at it, get rid of the annoying eco-friendly panda protesters."
[effect]@@ANIMAL@@s frequently attack phone mast inspectors.
[stats]Information Technology industry increases, eco-friendliness decreases, civil rights decrease slightly, economy increases, employment increases.

[option]"The @@ANIMAL@@s did no harm to us!" says environmentalist @@RANDOMNAME@@, while holding up a protest sign. "All they did was settle down in what they thought was a tree. If you take their nests down, they won't have a home! Leave those @@ANIMAL@@s alone until they migrate to... well, I don't know, the south?"
[effect]TV is reduced to static as @@ANIMAL@@ nests are found in TV satellite dishes.
[stats]Information Technology decreases, eco-friendliness increases, economy decreases, employment decreases

[option]"Perhaps there may be a compromise?" asks @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, the manager of @@NAME@@ National Park, while trimming a bush resembling himself wielding a crown and a big sword. "How about we just put secure nests for the @@ANIMAL@@s to stay on the phone masts? It's very easy; we decorate the masts to look like trees, and add nice nests for the @@ANIMAL@@s to lay their eggs. Meanwhile, we relocate the antennas above the faux leaves and branches, allowing for better coverage around the general area. We could even shell out @@CURRENCY@@s on tourism with our famed cellular trees. Everybody wins!"
[effect]The government's approach to @@ANIMAL@@ cell tower nesting has failed thanks to children climbing on the "trees" of the iForest.
[stats]Information Technology industry decreases, tourism increases, eco-friendliness and environmental beauty increases slightly, safety decreases

[option]"Augh, I hate those things!" says forty-year-old pizza fanatic @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, while scratching his beard and drinking a can of Barry Beer. "One time, those darn @@ANIMAL@@s ate my pizza whole, they pooped at my new fancy sports car I won from a raffle, and now they've hang up and ruined an important business phone call for my dream job! I propose that we exterminate these buggers once and for all!"
[effect]A massive extermination of @@ANIMAL@@s has been called in the name of data coverage.
[stats]Eco-friendliness (and possibly environmental beauty) decreases massively, rudeness increases, Arms Manufacturing industry increases

[A Humanist Science]

Option one seems to assume that the cell masts are owned by the government (otherwise, why ask the government for permission to clear them?). Probably cannot assume this, at least not without further convoluted validity restrictions.

Perhaps you might consider reworking this issue as a riff off of issue #079.1, which bans the hunting of @@ANIMALS@@. Add selecting option 1 of #079 as a validity condition, then reword option 1 of this draft as an argument for legalizing hunting of @@ANIMALS@@ again (even if Max-Signal owns the masts, they'd need special permission to...*ahem*..."relocate" the @@ANIMALS@@, etc.)

The other options should fit that take pretty well already, but review them for fit as well.

[Devernia]

Ah, ok...

[Devernia]

Alright, made another draft. Is there still anything I need to do?

[A Humanist Science]

Good, but...

Option 1 is only for nations that illegalize hunting.

This isn't quite what I meant. I understand that it is possible to place validity requirements on specific options. However, I don't think this is appropriate in this case. Rather, the entire issue should only be available to nations that made hunting @@ANIMAL@@s illegal.

On the other hand, if option one is hidden because hunting is already legal, then option three won't make any sense. In this case, there is only one previously described option, so there's really no "compromise" to speak of at that point.

At any rate, having read the options as currently drafted, it seems like the environmental issue of @@ANIMAL@@ hunting is really what this issue is about, with the cell phone mast aspect being mostly story frame. If so, making the entire issue a consequence of making @@ANIMAL@@ hunting illegal might be more appropriate.

Or not, if you prefer another direction.

--

Also, you should leave a record of previous drafts in spoiler tags, so that you can compare and contrast to decide if you really like a change. And so you can easily revert changes if you don't.

[Devernia]

Update.

Also, I use a mobile phone, so formatting may be quite tricky.

[Trotterdam]

At any rate, having read the options as currently drafted, it seems like the environmental issue of @@ANIMAL@@ hunting is really what this issue is about, with the cell phone mast aspect being mostly story frame. If so, making the entire issue a consequence of making @@ANIMAL@@ hunting illegal might be more appropriate.

There is a pretty big difference between hunting as a sport, and chasing away animals that cause trouble. The latter can even in principle be done without killing them, though it will still make their lives much harder that may lead to their deaths later anyway.

This can be made an issue even in nations where removing the animals is currently legal easily by just having a protest group complaining about it and possibly getting in the company's way.

[A Humanist Science]

There is a pretty big difference between hunting as a sport, and chasing away animals that cause trouble. The latter can even in principle be done without killing them, though it will still make their lives much harder that may lead to their deaths later anyway.

True, hunting isn't quite the right frame. I was simply looking for an issue that results in a protected species. For example, in California, native bird species are protected from any and all harassment. Even to the extent that people are forbidden to disturb nests on their own property; if a bird makes a lot of noise and poops all over your porch, too bad.

The only issue I can find that comes close to this sense is @@ANIMAL@@ personhood (#502)

(Does NationStates really not have an "endangered species act"-type issue yet?)

This can be made an issue even in nations where removing the animals is currently legal easily by just having a protest group complaining about it and possibly getting in the company's way.

So reframe the issue from an environmental frame (disturbing a protected species) to a political rights frame (disturbing enviro-hippies)?

[A Humanist Science]

(Does NationStates really not have an "endangered species act"-type issue yet?)

Devernia, if someone else can confirm that this is actually the case, then you might consider reframing this issue again in order to fill the endangered species issue area.

I'd personally +1 Trotterdam's suggestion above -- rework the issue such that the @@ANIMALS@@ are about to be removed by the cell company, but some environmental protesters are trying to stop them. Then present various options for breaking the stalemate.

[Trotterdam]

(Does NationStates really not have an "endangered species act"-type issue yet?)

#079 and #086 are both about the endagerment/extinction of your national animal. The former specifically blames overhunting while the latter seems to be more due to having a poor environment in general (your national animal will always "teeter on the brink of extinction" if your Environmental Beauty is poor enough), but I can't say exactly what the validities are.

#286 seems concerned about whales, though the complaint specifically being about threat of extinction rather than, say, animal cruelty is only clear on a careful reading.

[A Humanist Science]

(Does NationStates really not have an "endangered species act"-type issue yet?)

#079 and #086 are both about the endagerment/extinction of your national animal. The former specifically blames overhunting while the latter seems to be more due to having a poor environment in general (your national animal will always "teeter on the brink of extinction" if your Environmental Beauty is poor enough), but I can't say exactly what the validities are.

#286 seems concerned about whales, though the complaint specifically being about threat of extinction rather than, say, animal cruelty is only clear on a careful reading.

Yeah, I saw these but didn't think that their options necessarily led to a "@@ANIMAL@@ is now a protected species" type conclusion. At least, not really in the sense that this draft could use as a jumping off point.

Looks like this draft might be good for establishing an explicit "endangered species act"-type issue, if the author is interested.

[Trotterdam]

#009 option 3 and #079 option 1 specifically use the word "protected" in their [effect] lines.

If there is a decision to make an animal protected, I think it would be in response to that animal being in serious danger (as indicated by your environment being terrible or by you having made previous decisions that specifically harm that animal), not in response to a few of them nesting in inconvenient places (which could be an issue even in a non-endangered animal - if anything, it'd be more likely to, since the more of them there are, the more nests they'll be building - and there would still be animal rights activists complaining if you try to boot them out, though to be fair they won't be as loud since there's plenty of other nesting places).

[Australian rePublic]

Phone masts are a matter for the phone companies, and there is no 8ne single phone company

[Devernia]

Phone masts are a matter for the phone companies, and there is no 8ne single phone company

This is just one company in general.

Also, updated.

[A Humanist Science]

Just some copy editing

Name: Critters Cripple Cellular Signal <-- check++ for double alliteration. Genius.

Description: A family of @@ANIMAL@@s just recently nested on a major phone mast,which is causing crippled reducing cellular signals reception around @@NAME@@. Following a protest involving against the removal of the nest, the public has interested parties have decided to turn to you on what to do for a decision.

Validity: Not for nations where mobile phones are banned.

[option]"See, if only those darn @@ANIMAL@@s didn't nest in there, we wouldn't have had these hippy treehuggers complaining about our decisions!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, the CEO of Max-Signal. "Our customers rely on our blazing fast LTE data signals, which top out every benchmark when compared to other companies. Then nature comes along and ruins all of our hard work! What we need are more frequent phone mast inspections, and If we find another one of those dang nests, just give us permission for us to... ehem... "relocate" these those pesky @@ANIMAL@@s. Sure, they might not have a place to live anymore, but it's their fault for devastating people's impeding our customers' (?) data connections anyway!"
[effect]@@ANIMAL@@s frequently attack phone mast inspectors on their daily routine.
[stats]Information Technology industry increases, eco-friendliness decreases

[option]"The @@ANIMAL@@s did no harm to us!" says environmentalist @@RANDOMNAME@@, while holding up a protest sign. "All they did was settle down in what they confused to be thought was a tree. If you take their nests down, they won't have a home! Leave those @@ANIMAL@@s alone until they migrate to... well, I don't know, the south?"
[effect]it is more efficient to see actual @@ANIMAL@@s than to watch a video about @@ANIMAL@@s. <-- what does this actually mean?
[stats]Information Technology decreases, eco-friendliness increases

[option]"It doesn't stop there!" says vegan activists @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, while holding a much bigger protest sign with a link to her organization's website. "Ban all contact and interaction with @@ANIMAL@@s! We were never supposed to interact with @@ANIMAL@@s in the first place. We pollute their air, bulldoze their trees, and keep them in cages as pets. Pets, I hear you! The penalty should be massive fines and a year's worth of jail[SPACE HERE]time,. That should serve them right!"
[effect]Citizens run away when they see a @@ANIMAL@@ in fear of going to jail.
[stats]Eco-friendliness increases drastically, Information Technology industry decreases

[option]"Perhaps there may be a compromise?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, the owner of @@NAME@@ National Park, while trimming a bush resembling a tetrahedron. <-- why this shape? Is there a joke here? "We don't want our cat videos to be buffering while on the street all day long (?), but we don't want the @@ANIMAL@@s to go extinct just because we have terrible cell coverage. What if, we just put secure nests for the @@ANIMAL@@s to stay on the phone masts? It's very easy; we decorate the masts to look like trees, and add secure nests (using only the finest) <-- as opposed to what? twigs and bark. Meanwhile, we relocate the antennas above the faux leaves and branches, allowing for higherbetter coverage around the general area. We could even shell out @@CURRENCY@@s on tourism with our famed cellular trees. Everybody wins!"
[effect]Cellular signals remain in one bar thanks to children climbing on the "trees" of the iForest.
[stats]Information Technology industry decreases, tourism increases, eco-friendliness and environmental beauty increases slightly

[option]"Augh, I hate those things!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, while scratching his beard. "One time, those darn @@ANIMAL@@s stole a sandwich I made, they pooped at my car, and now they're ruining our masts! I propose that we exterminate these buggers once and for all!"
[effect]A massive extermination of @@ANIMAL@@s has been called in the name of data coverage.
[stats]Eco-friendliness (and possibly environmental beauty) decreases massively

Some more general notes --

What's the real difference between options 2 and 3 above? Is option three just supposed to be slightly more "extreme" than 2? If so, you might consider combining them into a single option. Five options is getting pretty long anyway.

Also, regarding option 4, in what sense is the National Park "owned?" I suppose it's possible that national parks could be privatized, but you probably should not assume this unless you're making this issue/option dependent on a previous issue decision (assuming an issue allowing for privatizing national parks exists; I'm not aware, and I haven't looked yet).

Option 5 is pretty weak and can probably just be removed. The scare quotes in option 1 (..."relocate"...) kinda implies that the CEO really has extermination in mind anyway.

So, if you consolidate options 2 and 3, and eliminate 5, you'll have, I think, a stronger three option choice:

1) CEO of Max-Signal's Pro-business / anti-animal option
2) Hippy Environmentalists' Pro-animal / anti-business option
3) National Park Guy's Pro-animal / Pro-business compromise

Make sure the compromise still incorporates realistic but potentially distasteful costs (an govt program to build artificial nests into cell masts might involve higher taxes, bigger government, etc) so it doesn't become The Correct Answer (TM).

[Devernia]

Updated.

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

Nice issue.

[Devernia]

Updated.

[The Intergalactic Universe Corporation]

Maybe you can dd the effects as in the rich peoples' income increases when increased IT coverage happens and maybe economic output in general increases because of increased investment due to improved telecommunications networks

[Australian rePublic]

The only time this would a government issue is if the phone company was state-owned. Maybe you should specify that

[Devernia]

Updated.

[Australian rePublic]

The problem with effect 2 is that it assumes @@ANIMAL@@s fly

[Trotterdam]

Updated.

What has been changed?

It's hard to comment on the changes like this.

The problem with effect 2 is that it assumes @@ANIMAL@@s fly

The option only says "migrate". In principle you can migrate overland. It's harder so much fewer animals do, but it's possible.

The assumption that @@ANIMAL@@s like to make nests in high places also somewhat suggests flight, but again it could also fit tree-climbing mammals like squirrels.

We've already had plenty of issues that assume @@ANIMAL@@ is a land mammal, I think one assuming it's a bird (without outright saying it) would be a nice change of pace. Of course there will be the one nation that's wondering why elephants are trying to nest in trees, but that's still something that can be visualized despite it being silly, and so part of NationStates humor and consistent with the kinds of silliness that other @@ANIMAL@@-mentioning issues can produce.

(Elephants like to hide in trees. Have you ever seen an elephant in a tree? No? That proves it works.)

[Australian rePublic]

Updated.

What has been changed?

It's hard to comment on the changes like this.

The problem with effect 2 is that it assumes @@ANIMAL@@s fly

The option only says "migrate". In principle you can migrate overland. It's harder so much fewer animals do, but it's possible.

The assumption that @@ANIMAL@@s like to make nests in high places also somewhat suggests flight, but again it could also fit tree-climbing mammals like squirrels.

We've already had plenty of issues that assume @@ANIMAL@@ is a land mammal, I think one assuming it's a bird (without outright saying it) would be a nice change of pace. Of course there will be the one nation that's wondering why elephants are trying to nest in trees, but that's still something that can be visualized despite it being silly, and so part of NationStates humor and consistent with the kinds of silliness that other @@ANIMAL@@-mentioning issues can produce.

(Elephants like to hide in trees. Have you ever seen an elephant in a tree? No? That proves it works.)

Considering the macros have since changed to have a set of writing regarding land, sea and air animals, I think it would now matter

[Trotterdam]

Considering the macros have since changed to have a set of writing regarding land, sea and air animals, I think it would now matter

That's just on the nation page and issues pretty much never pay heed to it.

Numerous issues assume your animal lives on land, regardless of what you entered. Elephants living in trees and migrating south for the winter (or summer, please don't kill me for hemisphere bias) is, honestly, less silly than main battle tanks stalking the woods in search of deep-sea anglerfish, clams trampling people to death, crabs interbreeding with dogs, pictures of skeletal squid, or turtles being ridden by police officers to chase fleeing criminals. (Okay, maybe that last one is on par.)

Of course, dolphins living in trees is still worse, but what can you do?

If it's really a problem then the editors can change it to a fixed bird rather than an @@ANIMAL@@, but I don't think they will.