NATION

PASSWORD

Draft Submitted: A Critical Issue

A place to spoil daily issues for those who haven't had them yet, snigger at typos, and discuss ideas for new ones.
User avatar
Panageadom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1061
Founded: May 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Draft Submitted: A Critical Issue

Postby Panageadom » Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:42 pm

If it is badly timed, I apologise, but I thought that the Japanese crisis must be fertile ground for a new issue, and so I decided to try my hand at one. If this is too soon, I will retract it. (Please note that the last option contains a logical fallacy: if I said that a head should come every two times a dice was thrown, that wouldn't mean after one tail you would expect a head.)

Name: A Critical Issue

Description: An unexpected meteor strike has caused massive damage to Northern @@NAME@@, including the destabilization of one of the nation's oldest nuclear reactors. Crisis has been averted, but both the situation of the surrounding area and the status of nuclear power has come under question. The citizens of @@NAME@@ are demanding an answer from their government.

Validity: Not valid for nations that have banned nuclear power and not produced nuclear weaponry.

[option] "This disaster only demonstrates how the tyranny of nuclear power must end now!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, the representative of a loose coalition of teenage environmentalists and concerned housewives, through a rather unneccesary megaphone, given they are standing in your office, "Every day, we become more reliant on an energy resource that might just as well be a ticking doomsday device. Not only that, but we have to bury nuclear poisons deep in our soils to keep it running, while every day more public money lines the pockets of corrupt and obviously ineffective "supervisors". This rare and isolated incident has clearly demonstrated that we should abandon this powerful monster forever."
[effect] solar plants and windmills litter @@NAME@@ where once a few lonely nuclear reactors stood
[stats] economy contracts, taxes rise, infrastructure spending rises, corruption falls very slightly, economic freedoms fall a little, safety falls very slightly, uranium mining ceases to exist as an industry, deaths due to radiation fall to almost nothing

[option] "@@LEADER@@, you are taking precisely the wrong approach to this!" exclaims @@NAME@@, the CEO of an international energy conglomerate, jumping up from his chair, "Are you going to cave to a bunch of soccer-moms and potheads without a jot of business sense dictate national policy? Nuclear power is not only highly cost-efficient, but actually safer than conventional fossil fuels or even these newfangled "green" technologies; over our lifetime, more people will die falling off windmills than nuclear disasters, I promise! This reactor failed precisely because the market was overburdened with the kind of regulations these fools would bring us: if it weren't for the overburdened and tired state of nuclear power in @@NAME@@, why would consumers ever buy energy from a reactor clearly on its last legs? If we want to avoid these accidents again, we must open up @@NAME@@'s energy market to the revolutionising forces of the free market and my company!"
[effect] @@NAME@@ recently sold off a set of badly-administered, highly volatile nuclear reactors to a set of foreign investors
[stats] economy grows, taxes fall, infrastructure spending falls, social inequality rises, corruption rises very slightly, economic freedoms rise, safety falls very slightly, uranium mining grows as an industry, deaths due to radiation rise slightly, government size falls somewhat

[option] "Are you crazy? We can't do that!" screams your public relations advisor, @@RANDOMNAME@@, pulling their rapidly-greying hair out and sighing, "Handing over our power plants to money-grubbing foreigners - as the public see them - in a time of crisis will leave us politically decimated. At the same time, we can't stop relying on nuclear power entirely. It is safe and efficient. It'd be madness to abandon it. At the very least, what we can do is make a show of regulating our existing plants to reassure the public this will never happen again. To stop the fears about spreading radiation, we'll close off the area in a 50 kilometre radius around the damaged plant. It's the least we can do."
[effect] @@NAME@@'s government is taking measures which seem tough on radiation exposure from nuclear reactors and have nearly no consequences
[stats] economy shrinks a bit, taxes rise a bit, health spending rises slightly, economic freedoms fall slightly, government size grows slightly, corruption rises, safety rises very slightly, uranium mining contracts slightly as an industry, deaths from radiation fall slightly, deaths from exposure and malnutrition rise

[option] "Sir - we are missing the fundamental issue here," says Colonel @@RANDOMNAME@@, a person known for their no-nonsense attitude and percieved lack of sympathy, "Closing the area would condemn people to death. Winter is setting in, and so is starvation. The truth is, disasters happen and people die. But if we do not act now, thousands more will. The aftermath of this meteor strike has been far more than one destablised reactor. We must quickly send a massive relief effort, dispatching food, fuel and basic healthcare to those who now need it the most. Other issues can wait."
[effect] faintly-glowing military convoys are being dispatched to clear the aftermath of a devastating meteor strike
[stats] taxes rise, health, military and social welfare spending rise a bit, safety fall slightly, deaths from radiation rise slightly, while deaths from exposure and malnutrition fall

[option] "Nein! You are missing ze fundamental issue, my friend!" states author of "The Cosmic Soup and You", @@RANDOMNAME@@, nervously adjusting his fancy-dress labcoat and exagerrated safety-goggles, "Critical asteroids strike our planet nearly every fifty million years, and it has nearly been...ah! Fifty million years since the last strike which destroyed a whole genus! Our time has come! But! If we erect a series of huge satellites in space, primed with huge missiles to destroy any oncoming spatial debris, we might survive by destroying the missiles before zey reach ze Earth! Agh!"
[effect] @@NAME@@'s neighbours are worried by recently released plans to put a series of huge missiles in space to destroy oncoming "asteroids"
[stats] taxes soar, defence spending rises, economy contracts, government size rises, uranium mining grows as an industry slightly
Last edited by Panageadom on Sun Apr 24, 2011 3:39 am, edited 3 times in total.
Author of Issues:
#273: Is our children learning?
#310: Too Little Talk?
#315: Creative Flowers Withering Under Legislation
#324 "Tourism Tanking" Tells Tabloids
#334: Blot Out Bauhaus
#340: Defending Patent Pending
#365: A Busload of Worry

None at present

If I offer criticism on your proposed issue, I will often write in red: don't think I'm being aggressive, it's just a convention I use!
If I ask a question on a proposed issue thread, then it's because I feel it's one you need to ask of your issue: I'm being Socratic and/or lazy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice for Capitalist Paradise

User avatar
Nation of Quebec
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8217
Founded: Jan 19, 2006
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Nation of Quebec » Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:34 pm

I don't see too much of a problem with the issue. It's topical and relating to a very real life issue regarding nuclear power.

@Option one: I'm not sure if the economy would completely contract, but rather it would decrease, but not to the point of oblivion depending on how much you plan to invest in green energy. I also expect the IT industry to possibly increase and the environment would increase more than slightly. Also, wouldn't safety increase since there wouldn't be any worries about radiation?

@Option four. Colonel should probably be capitalized if this person is in the military.

Hm, I'm not seeing any other mistakes in other options. Good job on the issue.
Canadian, Left-of-Center, Cynic
Proud Atheist and Geek
All WA matters are handled by my WA puppet state of Velkia and the Islands
Please don't send me unsolicited telegrams.

User avatar
Panageadom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1061
Founded: May 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Panageadom » Sat Apr 02, 2011 7:07 am

Nation of Quebec wrote:I don't see too much of a problem with the issue. It's topical and relating to a very real life issue regarding nuclear power.

@Option one: I'm not sure if the economy would completely contract, but rather it would decrease, but not to the point of oblivion depending on how much you plan to invest in green energy (1). I also expect the IT industry to possibly increase (2) and the environment would increase more than slightly (3). Also, wouldn't safety increase since there wouldn't be any worries about radiation? (4)

@Option four. Colonel should probably be capitalized if this person is in the military. (5)

Hm, I'm not seeing any other mistakes in other options. Good job on the issue. (6)


1: I just use contract to mean shrink. It could only contract by a tiny amount. Is this ambiguous?

2: Why? Playing devil's advocate, wouldn't highly complicated nuclear maintenance systems require a greater IT presence than a rotating fan?

3: I wouldn't agree; there are environmental issues with "green" energy, such as environmental damage from hydroelectric dams or "visual pollution" (personally, I rather like them, even if they look slightly H.G. Wells-ish) from tall windmills; similiarly, there are few environmental risks from nuclear energy: meltdowns are extremely rare, and nuclear waste, if dealt with responsibly, has limited environmental risks.

4: True, but it's come out in one of Britain's "intellectual" magazines (I can't remember which one - Prospect? The Economist, maybe?) that nuclear power is not particularly cost-effective for various reasons, but is very, very safe. The statistic I use later about more people falling off windmills is actually true (to the best of my knowledge). As a deaths/year figure, nuclear power is far and away the safest form of energy: it's just when it does go wrong, it goes very wrong.

5: Huh. I didn't know. Will change.

6: Thanks.
Author of Issues:
#273: Is our children learning?
#310: Too Little Talk?
#315: Creative Flowers Withering Under Legislation
#324 "Tourism Tanking" Tells Tabloids
#334: Blot Out Bauhaus
#340: Defending Patent Pending
#365: A Busload of Worry

None at present

If I offer criticism on your proposed issue, I will often write in red: don't think I'm being aggressive, it's just a convention I use!
If I ask a question on a proposed issue thread, then it's because I feel it's one you need to ask of your issue: I'm being Socratic and/or lazy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice for Capitalist Paradise

User avatar
Nation of Quebec
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8217
Founded: Jan 19, 2006
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Nation of Quebec » Sat Apr 02, 2011 8:03 am

When I see the word contract, I see it as meaning the nation's economy collapsing in on itself due to excessive spending and unwise investments.

You could make that argument, but wouldn't building all those windmills, dams, and solar technology also increase the IT industry even if its a smaller amount?

Yep, I see what you're getting at, but this is NS, so some issues on topical issues are supposed to be satirical if you want to go in that direction.
Canadian, Left-of-Center, Cynic
Proud Atheist and Geek
All WA matters are handled by my WA puppet state of Velkia and the Islands
Please don't send me unsolicited telegrams.

User avatar
Mount Shavano
Minister
 
Posts: 2125
Founded: Jan 04, 2008
Corporate Bordello

Postby Mount Shavano » Sat Apr 02, 2011 8:17 am

Panageadom wrote:3: I wouldn't agree; there are environmental issues with "green" energy, such as environmental damage from hydroelectric dams or "visual pollution" (personally, I rather like them, even if they look slightly H.G. Wells-ish) from tall windmills; similiarly, there are few environmental risks from nuclear energy: meltdowns are extremely rare, and nuclear waste, if dealt with responsibly, has limited environmental risks.


You aren't going far enough here; dams and wind farms are pretty environmentally unfriendly even leaving aside issues of space pollution. Dams disrupt whole rivers - see Three Gorges and Aswan - and wind farms aren't called "Condor Blenders" just for kicks. Just because something doesn't release undesirable gases doesn't mean it's a good thing. Overall, option one should actually cause the environment to slide a bit.
The Federation of Mount Shavano
Consul Morgan Dawson
Capital : San Angelo
The Cowboy Angel Rides

User avatar
Panageadom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1061
Founded: May 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Panageadom » Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:45 pm

Nation of Quebec wrote:When I see the word contract, I see it as meaning the nation's economy collapsing in on itself due to excessive spending and unwise investments.

You could make that argument, but wouldn't building all those windmills, dams, and solar technology also increase the IT industry even if its a smaller amount?

Yep, I see what you're getting at, but this is NS, so some issues on topical issues are supposed to be satirical if you want to go in that direction.


Why IT in particular? Building a whole lot of anything would benefit a bunch of industries (artificially!).

Wow, debate. I've set that option to neutral.
Author of Issues:
#273: Is our children learning?
#310: Too Little Talk?
#315: Creative Flowers Withering Under Legislation
#324 "Tourism Tanking" Tells Tabloids
#334: Blot Out Bauhaus
#340: Defending Patent Pending
#365: A Busload of Worry

None at present

If I offer criticism on your proposed issue, I will often write in red: don't think I'm being aggressive, it's just a convention I use!
If I ask a question on a proposed issue thread, then it's because I feel it's one you need to ask of your issue: I'm being Socratic and/or lazy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice for Capitalist Paradise

User avatar
Nation of Quebec
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8217
Founded: Jan 19, 2006
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Nation of Quebec » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:43 pm

Panageadom wrote:
Nation of Quebec wrote:When I see the word contract, I see it as meaning the nation's economy collapsing in on itself due to excessive spending and unwise investments.

You could make that argument, but wouldn't building all those windmills, dams, and solar technology also increase the IT industry even if its a smaller amount?

Yep, I see what you're getting at, but this is NS, so some issues on topical issues are supposed to be satirical if you want to go in that direction.


Why IT in particular? Building a whole lot of anything would benefit a bunch of industries (artificially!).

Wow, debate. I've set that option to neutral.


I assumed that the IT industry would benefit because of the new green technologies, creating new jobs and thus stimulating the industry. That and NS really doesn't have any other industries that would fit.
Canadian, Left-of-Center, Cynic
Proud Atheist and Geek
All WA matters are handled by my WA puppet state of Velkia and the Islands
Please don't send me unsolicited telegrams.

User avatar
Panageadom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1061
Founded: May 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Panageadom » Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:26 am

Fair enough. I'll think about it.
Author of Issues:
#273: Is our children learning?
#310: Too Little Talk?
#315: Creative Flowers Withering Under Legislation
#324 "Tourism Tanking" Tells Tabloids
#334: Blot Out Bauhaus
#340: Defending Patent Pending
#365: A Busload of Worry

None at present

If I offer criticism on your proposed issue, I will often write in red: don't think I'm being aggressive, it's just a convention I use!
If I ask a question on a proposed issue thread, then it's because I feel it's one you need to ask of your issue: I'm being Socratic and/or lazy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice for Capitalist Paradise

User avatar
Panageadom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1061
Founded: May 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Panageadom » Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:21 am

I think I'm going to submit this fairly soon, pending any more criticism. Anyone?
Author of Issues:
#273: Is our children learning?
#310: Too Little Talk?
#315: Creative Flowers Withering Under Legislation
#324 "Tourism Tanking" Tells Tabloids
#334: Blot Out Bauhaus
#340: Defending Patent Pending
#365: A Busload of Worry

None at present

If I offer criticism on your proposed issue, I will often write in red: don't think I'm being aggressive, it's just a convention I use!
If I ask a question on a proposed issue thread, then it's because I feel it's one you need to ask of your issue: I'm being Socratic and/or lazy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice for Capitalist Paradise

User avatar
Maroza
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1915
Founded: Jan 28, 2011
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Maroza » Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:48 am

I just have two. For option one, why would corruption fall?

Also to give people a laugh from what number two said number one should make death from falling off windmills appear.
Last edited by Maroza on Mon Apr 18, 2011 11:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
Current level 5: Peacetime
Find a Helmet
Put on a Helmet


Find me someone who does not support the revolutionary sciences and the technology of peace and they will be shot as traitors to the revolution.~Aethrys
The disease first struck a wealthy nation with low population density, an adequate health care system and naturally declining population.

User avatar
Panageadom
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1061
Founded: May 09, 2007
Ex-Nation

Postby Panageadom » Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:57 pm

Oh, I guess it's a point about inspectors being bribed...I'll rethink it...

Violet might not like me much if I did that! =D
Author of Issues:
#273: Is our children learning?
#310: Too Little Talk?
#315: Creative Flowers Withering Under Legislation
#324 "Tourism Tanking" Tells Tabloids
#334: Blot Out Bauhaus
#340: Defending Patent Pending
#365: A Busload of Worry

None at present

If I offer criticism on your proposed issue, I will often write in red: don't think I'm being aggressive, it's just a convention I use!
If I ask a question on a proposed issue thread, then it's because I feel it's one you need to ask of your issue: I'm being Socratic and/or lazy.


Supreme Court Chief Justice for Capitalist Paradise


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Got Issues?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads