Advertisement
by Candensia » Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:17 am
The Free Joy State wrote:Time spent working on writing skills -- even if the draft doesn't work -- is never wasted.
by Tepylona » Sat Jun 27, 2020 12:48 pm
Westinor wrote:Tepylona wrote:
Thank you for your advice. Yes, autarky is a closed economy. The second issue is meant to be similar to the period before and during the early stages of WWII, where the U.S. tried to remain neutral. I've made a few changes to the second issue, and my idea is this: one of your allies tries to draw you into a big war that will probably cost a lot of lives on your behalf. One of your advisors recommends declining the call to arms, and to further @@NAME@@'s neutrality by removing some of your foreign aid from other countries. Another advisor recommends accepting the call to arms, building up the military, and giving away even more foreign aid. And the final advisor recommends what I think is the most interesting option: instead of just being neutral, they propose @@NAME@@ goes into full-blown isolation, removing ALL foreign support, creating a closed economy (which is, again, autarky), and preventing immigration, thereby becoming self-sufficient and distant from international conflicts.
Hm, I see. It feels like there's likely some issue that goes something along those lines, but so far I can't find any. It's a good idea, and seems like a decent enough premise as I see it. I can not however say much else until you draft it on the forums, since your idea's skeleton seems to depend a lot on how you deliver it in the draft - definitely can work though, and has great potential to be interesting. Just make sure that it's unique from other international dilemmas and try not to violate player autonomy, and you're good to go. Best of luck!
by Midand » Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:03 pm
by Westinor » Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:25 pm
Midand wrote:Are there any issues that exist detailing cosplayers or people in costume with fake guns being accosted by the police that think they're real and pose a threat? Looking into returning to issue writing again.
by Trotterdam » Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:19 pm
I think you got the wrong link. You're looking for #488. Though now that I look at it, it assumes that the guns are already not realistic-looking, as it mentions "bright orange sci-fi inspired toy guns" still causing problems.Westinor wrote:There are a few issues about fake guns (one being this issue, and another about 3-D printed guns), though your premise as it stands sounds unique. I can't find anything having to do with cosplayers and fake guns right now.Midand wrote:Are there any issues that exist detailing cosplayers or people in costume with fake guns being accosted by the police that think they're real and pose a threat? Looking into returning to issue writing again.
by Westinor » Sat Jun 27, 2020 7:20 pm
by Midand » Sat Jun 27, 2020 9:34 pm
Westinor wrote:Midand wrote:Are there any issues that exist detailing cosplayers or people in costume with fake guns being accosted by the police that think they're real and pose a threat? Looking into returning to issue writing again.
There are a few issues about fake guns (one being this issue, and another about 3-D printed guns), though your premise as it stands sounds unique. I can't find anything having to do with cosplayers and fake guns right now.
by Minskiev » Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:19 am
by The Sakhalinsk Empire » Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:26 pm
Midand wrote:
Ah, thanks. I also did a bit of digging and couldn't find much in the way of issues based on cosplayers. (though I could still be wrong)
I guess I could probably steer the issue towards the public mistaking the actual costume itself to be more dubious.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:42 am
Candensia wrote:Think there's room in the issue base for a debate regarding cash bail / pretrial detention?
I think it might be an interesting way to influence the insurance stat.
by Westinor » Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:01 pm
by Trotterdam » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:53 pm
We already have issues about inhumane weapons (#211, that you alluded to), and issues about selling weapons to foreign nations (#562). I don't see what's to be added by making an issue about both at the same time.Westinor wrote:Are there any issues dealing specifically with the humanitarian aspect of selling weapons like napalm bombs (or rather, specifically napalm bombs) to other nations to use in war/any problems or overlap that idea has with the one issue about the one weapon that somehow messes up a person's guts to kill them? Would a background premise be sufficient enough to distinguish the idea (i'm thinking like a war between two nations, you're already selling the weapon, something like the napalm bomb use in the Vietnam War)? Also any possible suggestions for an issue involving napalm in general would be appreciated
by Westinor » Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:19 pm
Trotterdam wrote:We already have issues about inhumane weapons (#211, that you alluded to), and issues about selling weapons to foreign nations (#562). I don't see what's to be added by making an issue about both at the same time.Westinor wrote:Are there any issues dealing specifically with the humanitarian aspect of selling weapons like napalm bombs (or rather, specifically napalm bombs) to other nations to use in war/any problems or overlap that idea has with the one issue about the one weapon that somehow messes up a person's guts to kill them? Would a background premise be sufficient enough to distinguish the idea (i'm thinking like a war between two nations, you're already selling the weapon, something like the napalm bomb use in the Vietnam War)? Also any possible suggestions for an issue involving napalm in general would be appreciated
I suppose we don't have an issue about napalm specifically, as opposed to weapons that are controversial for some other reason, but it would be very hard to make that subject distinct enough to avoid overlap.
by Frieden-und Freudenland » Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:06 pm
by Honeydewistania » Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:44 am
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Trotterdam » Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:02 am
by Honeydewistania » Thu Jul 02, 2020 3:06 am
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Westinor » Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:28 pm
by SherpDaWerp » Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:40 pm
Westinor wrote:Are there any issues on abstinence-only sex education? I'm thinking there likely is, though I can't seem to find one at the moment - I've been thinking of writing a followup issue.
by Westinor » Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:13 pm
SherpDaWerp wrote:Westinor wrote:Are there any issues on abstinence-only sex education? I'm thinking there likely is, though I can't seem to find one at the moment - I've been thinking of writing a followup issue.
#200 is about sex education generally, with options that institute abstinence-only sex ed.
#840 is (I think) a followup to #200.1 wherein people teach abstinence in disregard for the government's wishes
by Jutsa » Thu Jul 02, 2020 9:20 pm
by The Free Joy State » Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:33 pm
Jutsa wrote:So, two quick and somewhat oddball questions, but uh...
1) Is it possible to have drugs be legal but cannabis not be? And
2) Is it possible to have cannabis be legal but not smoking?
I'm pretty sure the answer to both is yes, but I wanted to ask to make sure.
Not entirely sure if a solid issue could be made from either of these, though the second one might be interesting?
by Honeydewistania » Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:01 am
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Noahs Second Country » Fri Jul 03, 2020 4:08 am
by Merni » Fri Jul 03, 2020 10:27 am
Advertisement
Advertisement