NationStates

Do you think this would make a good issue?

[title] The Right to Arm Bears
[desc] After escaping from a mental hospital, @@RANDOMNAME@@ went to a zoo in @@CAPITAL@@, somehow managed to acquire guns, gave them to the bears before freeing them, graffitied the zoo with anti-hunting messages and returned to the mental institution. As the authorities have finished rounding up all the animals, disarming them, and sending them back to the zoo, there have now been national discussions about trophy hunting

Australian rePublic wrote:Do you think this would make a good issue?

[title] The Right to Arm Bears
[desc] After escaping from a mental hospital, @@RANDOMNAME@@ went to a zoo in @@CAPITAL@@, somehow managed to acquire guns, gave them to the bears before freeing them, graffitied the zoo with anti-hunting messages and returned to the mental institution. As the authorities have finished rounding up all the animals, disarming them, and sending them back to the zoo, there have now been national discussions about trophy hunting

Trophy hunting is an interesting issue but the title and the way that you approach it seems... very disconnected from the topic.

Comfed wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Do you think this would make a good issue?

[title] The Right to Arm Bears
[desc] After escaping from a mental hospital, @@RANDOMNAME@@ went to a zoo in @@CAPITAL@@, somehow managed to acquire guns, gave them to the bears before freeing them, graffitied the zoo with anti-hunting messages and returned to the mental institution. As the authorities have finished rounding up all the animals, disarming them, and sending them back to the zoo, there have now been national discussions about trophy hunting

Trophy hunting is an interesting issue but the title and the way that you approach it seems... very disconnected from the topic.

Damn. I wanted to use that title more than anything else. Back to the drawing board!!! Thanks!!!

Australian rePublic wrote:

Comfed wrote:Trophy hunting is an interesting issue but the title and the way that you approach it seems... very disconnected from the topic.

Damn. I wanted to use that title more than anything else. Back to the drawing board!!! Thanks!!!

It is a pretty great title!

Comfed wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Damn. I wanted to use that title more than anything else. Back to the drawing board!!! Thanks!!!

It is a pretty great title!

A Right to Bare Arms is already an issue with a similar title, so I'm not sure if it's the best one to choose.

West Barack and East Obama wrote:

Comfed wrote:It is a pretty great title!

A Right to Bare Arms is already an issue with a similar title, so I'm not sure if it's the best one to choose.

Ok

Trotterdam wrote:Leave arming bears to the experts.

Bears Armed is welcome to co-author if he/she wants

Are there any issues on banning music altogether? Like the Iranians in 1979.

Is there an issue/issue chain about the quintessential "an ambitious & popular general has returned from war & is now in the capital & it doesn't look like this will end well"?

That Crazy Casbah Sound wrote:Are there any issues on banning music altogether? Like the Iranians in 1979.

To my knowledge, no. The only issues I found were #42 which is about the fear that heavy metal is a bad influence on youngsters and #959 but #959 about the necessity of the inclusion of music education in the curriculum.
I assume your isea idea is about banning music because some people argue it makes the human brain “inactive and frivolous", like Iran irl.

So I went to uni with a girl from Hong Kong, and our grandfathers were dying at the same time. She told me that in some Asian countries, including Hong Kong, old people are denied medical care and her grandfather was told by the hospital "you're too old, go home". Is there an issue about that? I.e. denying medical care to people over a certain age? (Mind you, I bet that shit head Xi Jinping that scumbag will be getting medical care well into his 100's, but that's a different story)

I realize that the Editors are very reluctant to change Max's originally 30 issues, but I do think that it would be good if #6 'Appointment of Spiritual Advisor' had an extra option added for nations whose OOC players & IC governments want to appoint advisors from religions that are "traditional" in nature rather than 'New Age' but that are not so obviously 'Abrahamic' in nature as the existing first option offers: As it stands, there isn't really a "suitable" option for nations whose traditional religions follow a Goddess rather than "God", or are polytheistic...

If this possibility is considered then I think that the candidate should be described as "a senior priestess", I'd be willing to help write her statement, and of course the stat effects would differ from those of any existing option.

_______________________________________________________

This nation is the latest [OOC] puppet of Bears Armed, whose creation had been on the "if & when the population limit is raised enough that its name gets released for use again" list for several years (despite which listing, unfortunately, I didn't have a custom flag for it already prepared...). It's just faced this dilemma and, as I usually do in such cases, reluctantly chosen the 'New Age' option as "least inappropriate".

The Amazons wrote:<snip>

This nation is the latest [OOC] puppet of Bears Armed
<snip>.

Identity confirmed.

The Amazons wrote:I realize that the Editors are very reluctant to change Max's originally 30 issues, but I do think that it would be good if #6 'Appointment of Spiritual Advisor' had an extra option added for nations whose OOC players & IC governments want to appoint advisors from religions that are "traditional" in nature rather than 'New Age' but that are not so obviously 'Abrahamic' in nature as the existing first option offers: As it stands, there isn't really a "suitable" option for nations whose traditional religions follow a Goddess rather than "God", or are polytheistic...

If this possibility is considered then I think that the candidate should be described as "a senior priestess", I'd be willing to help write her statement, and of course the stat effects would differ from those of any existing option.

_______________________________________________________

This nation is the latest [OOC] puppet of Bears Armed, whose creation had been on the "if & when the population limit is raised enough that its name gets released for use again" list for several years (despite which listing, unfortunately, I didn't have a custom flag for it already prepared...). It's just faced this dilemma and, as I usually do in such cases, reluctantly chosen the 'New Age' option as "least inappropriate".

I've been trying for years to get "Catholic" changed to @@FAITH@@ in that issue. You're more likely to encounter a purple unicorn

"Catholic" has already been removed from that issue. It was in fact one of the very few cases of such a significant change ever being made to one of the first 31 issues.

I was reading through the list of all issues, trying to figure out if the reason I was struggling to get any issues regarding public transportation was because there weren't many or just bad luck. This was one of the few major public transit issues I found, but as a public transport enthusiast, I feel that the point of view of actual transit enthusiasts was poorly represented in the options given. Many transport advocates, like myself, are anti monorail because of the lack of compatibility and increased cost of most monorail solutions when compared to conventional rail. The options are basically this is dumb so cut transit funding, an option to have a private company build the proposed monorail, and two options for the government to run it depending on if you have private industry or not. The stuff on issues said that this was the place to suggest these sorts of edits.

This is my recommendation for a pro transit but anti gadgetbann option.

"Well actually," starts @@RANDOMNAME@@ from the department of transportation, straightening @@HIS@@ bow-tie, "despite the hype, monorails are a terrible investment in the long run. They are more expensive, they can't interoperate with existing trains, and they require duplicate maintenance depots in every city. You should extend regional rail and above ground metro services along their proposed routes instead. You'll thank me in 25 years when you need new rolling stock"

Something like this seems like a good compromise between catering to and joking about people like me. You could then end it with a reference to the London underground, with the final quip being something like

50 year old trains are running on newly built metro lines

For people in the know, this is funny because a few 1973 tube trains are still operating in London on one of the smaller lines, and they were transferred there so the new trains could run on the line they came from. One of the transit youtubers did a video on it a couple weeks ago.

I also wanted to mention that nearly all of the issues that were suggesting major transit overhauls were because of traffic buildup, and therefore presumably unavailable to nations that have already banned cars. It would be nice to have duplicate versions of those issues that, instead of buildup of traffic, have something about lack of transportation after banning cars.
In case you couldn't tell, I'm a public transit enthusiast who banned cars at the first opportunity, and would love both more transit related issues being added and if the existing ones would be more likely to show up for someone who bans cars. I get that most people who ban cars are doing it for environmental reasons, but the next biggest reason to be anti car is because you are pro mass transit and cycling, so having mass transit and cycling issues mainly only appear for people who haven't banned cards seems like a bad idea.

As a fellow lover of certain niche interests, I certainly feel you on the desire to see those interests accurately reflected! I'm not sure if we have many folks here who identify as public transportation enthusiasts specifically, so your insights may indeed come as fairly unique.

It isn't too often that we would go back and add entire additional options to issues - especially issues that are as venerable as that. Such an action would typically only be in the event of something seriously wrong or broken, rather than just to flesh out additional perspectives. Many issues are deliberately limited in the number of perspectives presented, in order to maintain focus - in this particular case (Issue 83) for example, it isn't meant to be about broad-based public transit options – it is specifically about a commercial proposal to build a monorail. If we added a "no, but do conventional trains instead" option, that starts getting off topic and the question then becomes why we don't add a "no, but add more buses" or "just allow cars again" or a dozen other things.

On the positive side, I think you're right that there is some room for a good new issue or two addressing the difficulties facing commuters and travelers in no-car nations. It can be a challenge to write, because there isn't necessarily consistency amongst the many different nations who have that status about why and for how long they've been car-free (I wrote a couple of draft attempts myself related to this subject back in the day, but I ended up abandoning them due to the difficulties related to that situation). I would encourage you to take a look at the drafting process, and consider dipping your toes in the waters of issue writing to pursue these specific knowledge and interest areas you have.

I'm a public transit enthusiast. What exactly is needed?

Verdant Haven wrote:Many issues are deliberately limited in the number of perspectives presented, in order to maintain focus - in this particular case (Issue 83) for example, it isn't meant to be about broad-based public transit options – it is specifically about a commercial proposal to build a monorail.

I've always interpreted that issue the opposite way. It's always felt like the issue is primarily about "do you like public transport in general, or not?", and the fact that the specific public transport method being discussed is a monorail is more to due NationStates silliness than being an essential part of the narrative. Many other issues use a relatively silly example as a talking point to address more general and serious topics.

Bow-Tied Engitopia wrote:I get that most people who ban cars are doing it for environmental reasons, but the next biggest reason to be anti car is because you are pro mass transit and cycling,

...Those aren't opposed?

Mass transit, while still having some environmental cost, is more environmentally-friendly than everyone having a car. Bicycles, even moreso. For most people who favor mass transit or cycling, it's because they care about the environment (though there do exist some other benefits, too).

Australian rePublic wrote:So I went to uni with a girl from Hong Kong, and our grandfathers were dying at the same time. She told me that in some Asian countries, including Hong Kong, old people are denied medical care and her grandfather was told by the hospital "you're too old, go home". Is there an issue about that? I.e. denying medical care to people over a certain age? (Mind you, I bet that shit head Xi Jinping that scumbag will be getting medical care well into his 100's, but that's a different story)

Is something that happens in the west too, old people just don't get operations that young people would get if they had the same issue (as the payback is not worth it). It makes sense, as limited public resources shouldn't be spent helping someone who will die in a year or so anyway ahead of some young person with their entire life ahead of them. They can always go private if they really want it.

Flanderlion wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:So I went to uni with a girl from Hong Kong, and our grandfathers were dying at the same time. She told me that in some Asian countries, including Hong Kong, old people are denied medical care and her grandfather was told by the hospital "you're too old, go home". Is there an issue about that? I.e. denying medical care to people over a certain age? (Mind you, I bet that shit head Xi Jinping that scumbag will be getting medical care well into his 100's, but that's a different story)

Is something that happens in the west too, old people just don't get operations that young people would get if they had the same issue (as the payback is not worth it). It makes sense, as limited public resources shouldn't be spent helping someone who will die in a year or so anyway ahead of some young person with their entire life ahead of them. They can always go private if they really want it.

Never heard of that happening in the west. At least here in Australia, I've never heard anyone being rejected for medical care, private or otherwise

Verdant Haven wrote:As a fellow lover of certain niche interests, I certainly feel you on the desire to see those interests accurately reflected! I'm not sure if we have many folks here who identify as public transportation enthusiasts specifically, so your insights may indeed come as fairly unique.

It isn't too often that we would go back and add entire additional options to issues - especially issues that are as venerable as that. Such an action would typically only be in the event of something seriously wrong or broken, rather than just to flesh out additional perspectives. Many issues are deliberately limited in the number of perspectives presented, in order to maintain focus - in this particular case (Issue 83) for example, it isn't meant to be about broad-based public transit options – it is specifically about a commercial proposal to build a monorail. If we added a "no, but do conventional trains instead" option, that starts getting off topic and the question then becomes why we don't add a "no, but add more buses" or "just allow cars again" or a dozen other things.

On the positive side, I think you're right that there is some room for a good new issue or two addressing the difficulties facing commuters and travelers in no-car nations. It can be a challenge to write, because there isn't necessarily consistency amongst the many different nations who have that status about why and for how long they've been car-free (I wrote a couple of draft attempts myself related to this subject back in the day, but I ended up abandoning them due to the difficulties related to that situation). I would encourage you to take a look at the drafting process, and consider dipping your toes in the waters of issue writing to pursue these specific knowledge and interest areas you have.

I do agree. The only reason I suggested it is that this was one of the maybe a dozen issues that focused on public transit, and only one or two that weren't focused on reducing car traffic and thus ineligible for nations that have banned cars. I am all for the preservation of weird little bits of history, so I think a better solution would be to have a couple of issues focusing on the backlash of banning cars that always come up after a nation bans cars. The main issue is that this issue is the only one I found that was "we banned cars, what should we do to find alternatives", and it's not great at being that. Basically, I really want to guide my nation into being a car free utopia, but I can't do that unless I get issues that will increase my public transit stat. If I had enough citizens to propose issues, I'd have just proposed half a dozen alternative issues that would be targeted at improving transit, and that would be fine, but with the current list of issues, it would probably take me literla IRL decades to give my nation any decent transit, and as realistic as that would be, it doesn't match up at all with the semi-rapidity with which other changes can happen.

A couple of the universally applicable ones I though up were basically having a commuter, or a farmer, or some factory, or anyone else whose livelihood and life would depend on the ability to travel over a distance approaching the leader and asking them to allow cars again, with responses varying between "oh, better allow cars again" and "every building in the nation should have a rail connection", with a couple of middle grounds like giving people money to move to an area with better existing transit, or building transit to every major town and industrial park.

Trotterdam wrote:

Verdant Haven wrote:Many issues are deliberately limited in the number of perspectives presented, in order to maintain focus - in this particular case (Issue 83) for example, it isn't meant to be about broad-based public transit options – it is specifically about a commercial proposal to build a monorail.

I've always interpreted that issue the opposite way. It's always felt like the issue is primarily about "do you like public transport in general, or not?", and the fact that the specific public transport method being discussed is a monorail is more to due NationStates silliness than being an essential part of the narrative. Many other issues use a relatively silly example as a talking point to address more general and serious topics.

Bow-Tied Engitopia wrote:I get that most people who ban cars are doing it for environmental reasons, but the next biggest reason to be anti car is because you are pro mass transit and cycling,

...Those aren't opposed?

Mass transit, while still having some environmental cost, is more environmentally-friendly than everyone having a car. Bicycles, even moreso. For most people who favor mass transit or cycling, it's because they care about the environment (though there do exist some other benefits, too).

I'm not saying they're opposed, I'm saying some people hate cars only because they pollute, and others hate cars mainly because car dependency is terrible for mental and physical health, with the environmental impacts being secondary. If you are fully banning cars because you are an extreme environmentalist, you are going to be less concerned with replacing it than if your goal is to improve personal mobility be removing inefficient personal vehicles from the equation.