[SUBMITTED] @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ Taken For a Ride by Car Ban

[Ransium]

The topic was suggested by Drasnia because of one of my incredibly witty musings, here's my take on a issue on car buy back programs after banning cars:

[title]@@DENONYMPLURAL@@ Taken For a Ride by Car Ban

[description]While biking to the store to pick up some butter on your day off, you were stopped by a disorderly throng of protesters blocking a major bike thoroughfare. In attempting to deduce the reason for the protest, you note the mob generally to be of middle-class families, but recognize one wealthy luxury car collector...

[validity]Nation must have banned cars

[option]"WHAT DO WE WANT? MONEY FOR OUR CARS! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!" chants @@RANDOMNAME@@ who you recognize as the former runner-up on popular reality TV show 'Who Wants to Get Married?', and who, judging by the megaphone and t-shirt, appears to now be the leader of protest group Citizens for Automobile Reparations (CAR). "Ah, @@LEADER@@! Finally come to hear our grievances! Look, I have no problem with the car ban in principle, but you have to think about the little guy. Like @@RANDOMFEMALEFIRSTNAME@@ over there, when the ban went in place she had just bought a new mini-van for her kids. Now she works two jobs in order to make the payments on a loan for a useless piece of metal that is currently gathering rust in her driveway, while she struggles to feed her family. To make things right, the government must buy back the cars of any @@DENONYM@@ who wants it, at full sticker value. We can start with my @@ANIMAL@@ Roadster WX9000."
[effect]@@NAME@@’s government is going broke attempting to pay its citizens back for the cars it banned

[option]"If you wants to think of the little guy, think of this little guy." says 'Big @@RANDOMMALEFIRSTNAME@@' Giordano owner of 'Giordano's Wrecking and Recycling', who happens to have been biking behind you in his heavy-duty tow tricycle. "I've got a perfectly good business, buying cars on the cheap and sellin' 'em for scrap. Sure we can't pay anywhere near the car's pre-ban value, but I'm a small business owner makin' a livin' and I don't cost the government nothin'. If the government has to stick its nose somewheres, it should be givin' me a tax break for recyclin' and the like."
[effect]anyone who takes out the recycling in @@NAME@@ expects a government tax break

[option]"These money obsessed, consumerist drones are forgetting the true value of the car ban, to heal our environment!" rants @@RANDOMNAME@@ noted authoritarian environmentalist and author of 'Greener Than Thou', while stepping out from some nearby bushes. "What would these people do with car compensation money? They'd probably buy more superfluous, energy draining, luxuries made from Earth's precious resources, just to prove to their neighbors they've 'made it'. You know what? @@DENYONYMPLURAL@@ don't deserve compensation for their cars! The government must seize all the remaining cars in @@NAME@@, melt them down, and make an enormous statue of the planet to place in @@CAPITAL@@. Then @@NAME@@'s citizens and lawmakers will have a constant reminder of the harm our past sins have brought on the environment, and can avoid making the same mistakes in the future."
[effect]the major heavy industry in @@NAME@@ is making enormous statues commemorating environmentalism

[option validity]nation must have some government law and order spending
[option]"Huh? No, the real value of the car ban is it makes my life easier." asserts police chief @@RANDOMNAME@@ who has been working to move the protesters off the bike path. "I think that enviro-nut was onto something with just taking the cars from people. But, I've got an idea way better than making them into a useless statue. We take the nicest cars and turn them into police cars, and the rest we can melt down and make into other law and order essentials. I'm sure folks won't mind the 'donation' to helping keep the peace."
[effect]police drive expensive sports cars, while enforcing @@NAME@@'s public car ban

[title]@@DENONYMPLURAL@@ Taken For a Ride by Car Ban

[description]Citizens for Automobile Reparations (CAR), a ragtag group of middle class families and expensive car collectors formed to draw attention to the personal economic impacts of the recent car ban are blocking major bike thoroughfares in protest across @@NAME@@ until you hear the grievances. While biking to the store to pick up some butter on your day off, you accidentally stumble upon a group of protesters.

[validity]Nation must have banned cars

[option]"WHAT DO WE WANT? MONEY FOR OUR CARS! WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW!" chants @@RANDOMNAME@@ CAR spokesperson and former runner up on reality TV show 'Who Wants to Get Married?' "Ah, @@LEADER@@! Finally come to hear our grievances, I see! Look, I have no problem with the car ban in principle, but you have to think about the little guy. Like @@RANDOMFEMALEFIRSTNAME@@ over there, when the ban went in place she had just bought a new mini-van for her kids. Now she works two jobs in order to make the payments on a loan for a useless piece of metal that is currently gathering rust in her driveway, while she struggles to feed her family. To make things right, the government must buy back the cars of any @@DENONYM@@ who wants it, at full sticker value. We can start with my @@ANIMAL@@ Roadster WX9000."
[effect]@@NAME@@’s government is going broke attempting to pay its citizens back for the cars it banned

[option]"If you wants to think of the little guy, think of this little guy." says 'Big @@RANDOMMALEFIRSTNAME@@' Giordano owner of 'Giordano's Wrecking and Recycling', who happens to have been biking behind you in his heavy-duty tow tricycle. "I've got a perfectly good business, buying cars on the cheap and sellin' 'em for scrap. Sure we can't pay anywhere near the car's pre-ban value, but I'm a small business owner makin' a livin' and I don't cost the government nothin'. If the government has to stick its nose somewheres yet again, it should be givin' me a tax break for recyclin' and the like."
[effect]anyone who takes out the recycling in @@NAME@@ expects a government tax break

[option]"These money obsessed, consumerist drones are forgetting the true value of the car ban, to heal our environment!" rants @@RANDOMNAME@@ noted authoritarian environmentalist and author of 'Greener Than Thou', while stepping out from some nearby bushes. "What would these people do with car compensation money? They'd probably buy more superfluous, energy draining, luxuries made from earths precious resources, just to prove to their neighbors they've 'made it'. You know what? @@DENYONYMPLURAL@@ don't deserve compensation for their cars! The government must seize all the remaining cars in @@NAME@@, melt them down, and make an enormous statue of the planet to place in @@CAPITAL@@. Then @@NAME@@'s citizens and lawmakers will have a constant reminder of the harm our past sins have brought on the environment, and can avoid making the same mistakes in the future."
[effect]the major heavy industry in @@NAME@@ is making enormous statues commemorating environmentalism

[option validity]nation must have some government law and order spending
[option]"Huh? No, the real value of the car ban is it makes my life easier." asserts Police Chief @@RANDOMNAME@@ who has been working to move the protesters off the bike path. "I think that enviro-nut was onto something with just taking the cars from people. But, I've got an idea way better than making them into a stupid statue. We take the nicest cars and turn them into police cars, the rest we can melt down and make into other law and order essentials. I'm sure folks won't mind the 'donation' to helping keep the peace."
[effect]police drive expensive sports cars, while enforcing @@NAME@@'s public car ban

[Mount Seymour]

You are certainly really getting into these issues! I love the premise of this, best one I've seen yet!

[Australian rePublic]

Geez, you really have it in form people who happen to be wealthy

[Trotterdam]

I don't like the last option. It emphasizes "the true purpose of the car ban- to heal our environment!", but then goes on to propose a purely-symbolic gesture that would not benefit the environment any. Making enormous statues is a sign of industrialism and thus at least mildly bad for the environment, no matter what they're statues of. (Of course, just one statue would have a negligible effect.) Also, even if the government uses the scrap metal from the cars to build a statue, it doesn't change the basic question of whether the government paid for those cars or not.

I thought about something like allowing cars in limited environments such as private racetracks, just not on standard city streets, but then this would still result in a significant reduction in car use so you'd still have the same problem.

[Ransium]

Geez, you really have it in form people who happen to be wealthy

I think the rich are a common target for NS issues humor because they aren't very sympathetic when they have problems, and mocking them for hypocrisy or advocating cynical policies that help themselves the most is unlikely to offend many. I think there are issues that do about 100X worse than this one, like the 'price of freedom'. Also in this case, I was worried a nation than bans cars would be extremely likely to also pick option 1, so I felt I should put something in there to make 1 a bit less palitable, and that a car buy back would help the rich that have many expensive cars the most seemed like an easy and effective criticism to write in. If it's the 'whiny rich' line I meant that to mean those who happen to be rich and whiny, not to indicate all rich are whiny. I'll change it to something more palitable and descriptive.

I don't like the last option. It emphasizes "the true purpose of the car ban- to heal our environment!", but then goes on to propose a purely-symbolic gesture that would not benefit the environment any. Making enormous statues is a sign of industrialism and thus at least mildly bad for the environment, no matter what they're statues of. (Of course, just one statue would have a negligible effect.) Also, even if the government uses the scrap metal from the cars to build a statue, it doesn't change the basic question of whether the government paid for those cars or not.

I thought about something like allowing cars in limited environments such as private racetracks, just not on standard city streets, but then this would still result in a significant reduction in car use so you'd still have the same problem.

So my intent is that the dercrying of consumerism and the word 'seize' would indicate that the government is taking the cars without paying for them. The way I came to 3 as it is now is I orginially pictured a police chief advocating taking all the cars with no compensation to prevent illegal car use, but then I wondered how I can make it more interesting and what the government would do with the cars after seizing them. Maybe a clearer advocating of siezing the cars without compensation and a better authoritarian use for the cars would satisfy you?some ideas I have: repurposing them for the military? Giving them to the Police? although that one has kind of already been done in Vamos mi @@animal@@, selling them internationally and using the funds for environmental restoration? Although I thought it would be interesting to not have an obvious environmental concerned nation choice...)

[Aclion]

No option to reverse the car ban?

I don't like the last option. It emphasizes "the true purpose of the car ban- to heal our environment!", but then goes on to propose a purely-symbolic gesture that would not benefit the environment any. Making enormous statues is a sign of industrialism and thus at least mildly bad for the environment, no matter what they're statues of.

That's what makes it so perfect.

[Ransium]

No option to reverse the car ban?

I don't think every chain issue needs to have a reversal choice. Especially for car bans which already has an issue, 73 - Without Cars @@NAME@@ Going Nowhere Fast, that provides not 1 but 2 reversal choices, (I believe there's at least one more car ban chain issue that allows reversal too, but could be wrong). I think there are adequate issue opportunities for reversal. I wanted this to be more about 'Okay we've banned cars, now how to deal with the effect on an individual level?'

[Australian rePublic]

The purpose of a car ban isn't necasserily environmentalism. The car is a symbol and meghod of freedom. Without the car, many people lose a huge chunck of their freedom. Thanks to the car, anyone can go any long long distance in which they desire, unmatched by any otner form of land transport. Take North Korea for example. They have banned cars, and their reason for doing so ceryainly isn't the environment

[Trotterdam]

So my intent is that the dercrying of consumerism and the word 'seize' would indicate that the government is taking the cars without paying for them. The way I came to 3 as it is now is I orginially pictured a police chief advocating taking all the cars with no compensation to prevent illegal car use, but then I wondered how I can make it more interesting and what the government would do with the cars after seizing them. Maybe a clearer advocating of siezing the cars without compensation and a better authoritarian use for the cars would satisfy you?

Yes, seizing cars without compensation is clearly distinct from both compensating them and letting people sell them on the free market. Make it clearer that's what the option's about, and I'll be satisfied.

The purpose of a car ban isn't necasserily environmentalism. The car is a symbol and meghod of freedom. Without the car, many people lose a huge chunck of their freedom. Thanks to the car, anyone can go any long long distance in which they desire, unmatched by any otner form of land transport. Take North Korea for example. They have banned cars, and their reason for doing so ceryainly isn't the environment

True. And another possible reason is road safety, so that makes three.

[Ransium]

Okay I've added in a fourth option which I think should help deal with the fact that many nations ban cars for reasons other than environmentalism (cruising through the issues, more issues ban cars for law and order or health and safety reasons actually). I think that validity should capture almost all authoritarian or safety obsessed nations. I've also clarified 3 as Trotterdam desired.

[Trotterdam]

Although it's clearer now, I'd go a little farther and have the no-compensation speaker make some angry spiel about how those evil car-owners don't deserve compensation, rather than leaving it as an aside while still focussing more on what happens with the scrap metal afterwards.

[Aclion]

The purpose of a car ban isn't necasserily environmentalism. The car is a symbol and meghod of freedom. Without the car, many people lose a huge chunck of their freedom. Thanks to the car, anyone can go any long long distance in which they desire, unmatched by any otner form of land transport.

Are there any car ban issues that take that angle? I've only seen the environmental one and the congestion one.

Take North Korea for example. They have banned cars, and their reason for doing so ceryainly isn't the environment

ot: It's because the don't want he common people to realize they'd never afford them.

[Trotterdam]

The purpose of a car ban isn't necasserily environmentalism. The car is a symbol and meghod of freedom. Without the car, many people lose a huge chunck of their freedom. Thanks to the car, anyone can go any long long distance in which they desire, unmatched by any otner form of land transport.

Are there any car ban issues that take that angle? I've only seen the environmental one and the congestion one.

#073 option 3 cites this reason for keeping cars banned, if they already are. I'm not sure if there are any issues that cite this reason for banning them in the first place.

[Ransium]

Are there any car ban issues that take that angle? I've only seen the environmental one and the congestion one.

#073 option 3 cites this reason for keeping cars banned, if they already are. I'm not sure if there are any issues that cite this reason for banning them in the first place.

As far as controlling people directly I think Trotterdam is correct only 73-3 directly references that. But many issues ban car for general health, safety, and law and order reasons:
#154 - health(?)
#186 - law and order
#272 - safety

[Trotterdam]

Yeah, I just went through the issue spoilers and compiled a full list.

#002 option 1: environmentalism (though "choking the city" could also be read as a mild congestion argument)
#102 option 2 (limited ban from inner cities only): mainly environmentalism, also cites safety
#154 option 3: to free the streets for skateboards (I guess this is a safety argument?)
#186 option 3: "safety", specifically preventing cars from getting stolen, rather than traffic accidents, so also kinda a social control argument
#272 option 3: safety
#290 option 4: environmentalism is cited out loud, but safety is strongly implied (the speaker comes over as having a grudge after having gotten hit by a car, and the rest of the issue is about manufacturer standards on cars)
#302 option 1: mainly safety, also cites environmentalism

On #073, the unban issue, option 2 assumes you banned cars for environmental reasons, and option 3 assumes you banned them for social control reasons (or at least supports adding that as a reason) There's no option assuming road safety / congestion. (Option 1 assumes you banned them for a bad reason and want to undo it.).

#569 option 4 bans car racing under the assumption that your nation has cars for other purposes, I don't think it's relevant here.

[Ransium]

So wait I might have gotten so caught up in this discussion of why cars are banned that I lost the thread of what I is being suggested for edits to this issue proposal. Is this the only suggestion for changes to this draft?

Although it's clearer now, I'd go a little farther and have the no-compensation speaker make some angry spiel about how those evil car-owners don't deserve compensation, rather than leaving it as an aside while still focussing more on what happens with the scrap metal afterwards.

I'm going to try to make a quick edit in a few hours.

[Ransium]

Okay did a bit of grammar tidying up throughout and updated choice 3 to make the spokesperson angrier and more self-righteous as Trotterdam suggested. I like it and think it really improves the humor of the choice because it makes the ending suggestion of making a statue a bit more plausible and self-righteously hypocritical simultaneously. Further feedback or criticism?

[Evilcia]

is there already an issue that adress the situation of Car ban in the database ?

[Trotterdam]

is there already an issue that adress the situation of Car ban in the database ?

I just posted a list of issues that can ban cars.

Issues that respond to an existing ban on cars include #073, #083, and #357.

[Ransium]

Bump... is there further feedback?

[Aclion]

As far as controlling people directly I think Trotterdam is correct only 73-3 directly references that. But many issues ban car for general health, safety, and law and order reasons

Well then I stand corrected. That (option 3 stating the reason for the ban was environmental) is something that should be addressed.

[Ransium]

As far as controlling people directly I think Trotterdam is correct only 73-3 directly references that. But many issues ban car for general health, safety, and law and order reasons

Well then I stand corrected. That (option 3 stating the reason for the ban was environmental) is something that should be addressed.

I'm on the fence on this, it could be argued that whatever your government's intent of the car ban was this character would still interpret the true purpose as environmentalism just as the next character interprets it as law and order.

[Drasnia]

I had to read your description several times in order to understand it because of its lack of commas. That said, I think it could use a bit more work. I think it might read better and funnier if you start off with @@LEADER@@ biking to the store when he comes across the protesters. Something like:

While biking to the store to pick up some butter on your day off, you were stopped my a throng of protesters. Among them were middle-class families and luxury car collectors alike and uniting them was the cause of the recent ban on Automobiles.

That's just a rough approximation of what I'd change it to. There are probably better ways to write the same thing but to keep it closer to the original. Once that's taken care, this will be an even stronger submission.

[Ransium]

I had to read your description several times in order to understand it because of its lack of commas. That said, I think it could use a bit more work. I think it might read better and funnier if you start off with @@LEADER@@ biking to the store when he comes across the protesters. Something like:

While biking to the store to pick up some butter on your day off, you were stopped my a throng of protesters. Among them were middle-class families and luxury car collectors alike and uniting them was the cause of the recent ban on Automobiles.

That's just a rough approximation of what I'd change it to. There are probably better ways to write the same thing but to keep it closer to the original. Once that's taken care, this will be an even stronger submission.

I totally agree, re-reading the previous description it is an obvious weakness. I've modified the description along the lines you have suggested. I've never seen leaders thoughts narrated, so I'm not sure if how its written now is acceptable. I could easily cut the "you sigh" bit, or even the whole last sentence. Cutting the whole sentence though would mean you'd need to read the first choice to even have a basic understanding of the issue which is also unusual.

[Trotterdam]

I'm on the fence on this, it could be argued that whatever your government's intent of the car ban was this character would still interpret the true purpose as environmentalism just as the next character interprets it as law and order.

Change the characters to talk more about why they support the car ban and how they want to proceed about it, rather than putting words in @@LEADER@@'s mouth by alleging why you banned cars.

'Another car ban demonstration', you sigh.

I'm not going to object to @@LEADER@@'s thoughts being narrated - I'm going to object to "another".

This issue should be one of the first things that happens after banning cars (as a direct chain issue). It wouldn't make sense to have it come up long after you've banned cars, and especially not after you've already answered this issue once before since your last car ban, since people wouldn't have any cars left to buy back.

So, car ban demonstrations shouldn't have happened often enough yet to get tired of them.