NationStates

Description:
A legal battle has recently come to your attention, over the failure to repay debts. Grant, the defendant, had failed to pay 1 million @@CURRENCY@@ back to Boldkey, the lender. However, under the bond which they had signed, Boldkey could remove a pound of flesh of Grant from wherever he wished.

Validity:
Only for nations with law and order funding, nations with private industry, and nations with jails

[option]"@@LEADER@@, I deserve to obtain a pound of flesh from that bankrupt fellow over there, as we had both willingly signed the bond in the presence of a lawyer," says Boldkey matter-of-factly. "The function of the law is to uphold justice, is it not? I understand that if you make exceptions to the law, investor confidence in @@NAME@@ will weaken. Now, the question is not whether I should be allowed to spill Grant's blood, but whether I can acquire it from say, his neck?"
[effect]The law permits blatant murder "if it was stated in the agreement"
[stats]civil rights reduces, death by capital punishment increases, safety from crime increases, economy expands

[option]"Please spare me, I have a family to look after!" wails Grant from behind bars. He is promptly silenced by his lawyer, @@RANDOMNAME@@, who speaks, "What my client is trying to communicate is that the purpose of the law is to protect the rights of the smallest minority that has ever existed, which is the individual. If your honour permits the prosecution to carry out such an unrefined method of punishment, the law could be used as a tool for more harm than good. I implore that your honour consider this and decide against making this a benchmark for future cases."
[effect]Punishments are rarely enforced for "moral reasons"
[stats]civil rights increases, death by capital punishment is removed, the economy contracts, safety from crime decreases

[option]"We cannot commit human rights abuses, and we cannot deny the course of justice," blandly states @@RANDOMNAME@@, a government adviser. "Why not just give the defendant a few strokes of the cane and a long jail sentence? It's still miles better than mutilation or state-sanctioned murder."
[effect]Businesspersons who default on their payments are caned
[stats]civil rights decreases slightly, the economy expands slightly, safety from crime increases slightly

[option]All of a sudden, a woman outfitted in a tuxedo and a powdered wig enters the room. "No, Boldkey will get what is justly his, which is a pound of flesh, nothing more, nothing less!" she objects. "But due to him not being a licensed agent of the law, we'll have to charge him with murder, or at least assault immediately after he obtains the pound, depending on the extent of the injury he inflicts upon Grant."
[effect]Court proceedings feature social justice warriors entering to point out glaring loopholes
[stats]death by murder decreases very slightly
Thank you to Rivercastle, Annihilators of Chan Island and Trotterdam for your contribution.

Is the first option a bit too explicit?

The description should be rephrased as this:
A legal battle has recently come to your attention, over the failure to repay debts. Grant, the defendant, had failed to pay 1 million @@CURRENCY@@ back to Goldkey, the lender. However, under the bond which they had signed, Boldkey could remove a pound of flesh of Grant from wherever he wished.

Somebody has watched or read the Merchant of Venice. Also= Bolkey/Shylock. I like this.

I love how matter of factly this is presented.

My biggest concern is the validity. Why so many combinations of aspects? I don't think there are many nations that fulfill all of those criteria. Nations that only have private business is the one that I think should go first. You don't need that much, I'd say 10% private business, before some morally grey contract is sealed. How is open borders and foreigners relent if you just have your Shylock and Antonio be citizens of @@NAME@@.

Annihilators of Chan Island wrote:Somebody has watched or read the Merchant of Venice. Also= Bolkey/Shylock. I like this.

I love how matter of factly this is presented.

My biggest concern is the validity. Why so many combinations of aspects? I don't think there are many nations that fulfill all of those criteria. Nations that only have private business is the one that I think should go first. You don't need that much, I'd say 10% private business, before some morally grey contract is sealed. How is open borders and foreigners relent if you just have your Shylock and Antonio be citizens of @@NAME@@.

I was trying to make it true to the story, where Shylock was an "alien", and thus open borders and international trade would be needed. But I assume that is somewhat overboard, so I'll tone down the requirements a notch.

I've been thinking more about the validity. The economy doesn't have to be that great to have contracts like this appear, surely? Law and Order doesn't have to be that large to enable this to happen.

I agree prisons should be there, although I'd specifically have it in the description that Grant's in prison at this second. Private industry being there is obvious.

The other thing I was wondering was the possibility of another option, but maybe that would follow the storyline of the Merchant of Venice too much. The ''Sure, Goldkey is completely allowed to get Grant's flesh as per contract. But we'll have to charge him with murder/assault afterwards based on a technicality." Very devious, and would put Goldkey in an awkward position. But then again, this is the solution proposed in the original play.

Annihilators of Chan Island wrote:I've been thinking more about the validity. The economy doesn't have to be that great to have contracts like this appear, surely? Law and Order doesn't have to be that large to enable this to happen.

I agree prisons should be there, although I'd specifically have it in the description that Grant's in prison at this second. Private industry being there is obvious.

The other thing I was wondering was the possibility of another option, but maybe that would follow the storyline of the Merchant of Venice too much. The ''Sure, Goldkey is completely allowed to get Grant's flesh as per contract. But we'll have to charge him with murder/assault afterwards based on a technicality." Very devious, and would put Goldkey in an awkward position. But then again, this is the solution proposed in the original play.

Actually, in a proper "modern" court proceeding, the person dispensing the punishment should be given complete immunity, so in reality, Shylock would not be charged with murder, because prison executioners don't get hung either, right?

Singapore no2 wrote:[option][...]"If your honour permits the prosecution to carry out such an unrefined method of punishment, the law could be used as a tool for more harm than good."[...]
[effect]All criminals have been released, as jails are deemed "uncivilized"

There is no logical connect between protesting "such an unrefined method of punishment" (which implies contrast with other methods of punishment which are sufficiently refined) and banishing any form of punishment whatsoever (or at least the most common and normal form of punishment for serious crimes in civilized countries).

This is a cruel and baseless trap for players thinking that they're picking the "sane" option.

Singapore no2 wrote:Actually, in a proper "modern" court proceeding, the person dispensing the punishment should be given complete immunity, so in reality, Shylock would not be charged with murder, because prison executioners don't get hung either, right?

Ah, but you don't let just any random civilian carry out an execution, even if a prisoner is sentenced to death. Shylock/Boldkey isn't a licensed agent of the law, now is he?

So he would have to find a licensed agent of the law to remove the pound of flesh. Except, oh wait, there are no agents licensed to do that, because that isn't a valid punishment codified in the law.

Trotterdam wrote:

Singapore no2 wrote:Ah, but you don't let just any random civilian carry out an execution, even if a prisoner is sentenced to death. Shylock/Boldkey isn't a licensed agent of the law, now is he?

So he would have to find a licensed agent of the law to remove the pound of flesh. Except, oh wait, there are no agents licensed to do that, because that isn't a valid punishment codified in the law.

I like this one. Very close to the actual thing in the play.

Personally I'd have the deceitful nature of the 4th option be a bit more explicit, but that might just be my own tastes. As I said earlier, I like how everyone (except Grant, who's interrupted anyway) is very matter of fact and dry about the whole scenario, and that last one is true to that.

Other than that, this thing looks pretty good to go. I noticed you had put the validity to a sort that is both expected, and opens it up to a lot of nations. Good job. I wish this one well.

Trotterdam wrote:

Singapore no2 wrote:[option][...]"If your honour permits the prosecution to carry out such an unrefined method of punishment, the law could be used as a tool for more harm than good."[...]
[effect]All criminals have been released, as jails are deemed "uncivilized"

There is no logical connect between protesting "such an unrefined method of punishment" (which implies contrast with other methods of punishment which are sufficiently refined) and banishing any form of punishment whatsoever (or at least the most common and normal form of punishment for serious crimes in civilized countries).

This is a cruel and baseless trap for players thinking that they're picking the "sane" option.

The effect text allows perverse outcomes. It does not have any real impact on your nation.

Kesshite wrote:The effect text allows perverse outcomes. It does not have any real impact on your nation.

Effect texts are sometimes whimsical or slightly exaggerated, but they should be broadly in line with what's actually happening. An effect line shouldn't say you're releasing all criminals from prison unless you're actually aboloshing prisons (as can already be done via #043 option 2 and #159 option 2, and reversed through #199 option 1, all of which are clear about what they're doing in the option text).

Trotterdam wrote:

Kesshite wrote:The effect text allows perverse outcomes. It does not have any real impact on your nation.

Effect texts are sometimes whimsical or slightly exaggerated, but they should be broadly in line with what's actually happening. An effect line shouldn't say you're releasing all criminals from prison unless you're actually aboloshing prisons (as can already be done via #043 option 2 and #159 option 2, and reversed through #199 option 1, all of which are clear about what they're doing in the option text).

Don't worry, I changed it long ago. It now reads "Punishments are rarely enforced for "moral reasons""

Annihilators of Chan Island wrote:

Trotterdam wrote:

I like this one. Very close to the actual thing in the play.

Personally I'd have the deceitful nature of the 4th option be a bit more explicit, but that might just be my own tastes. As I said earlier, I like how everyone (except Grant, who's interrupted anyway) is very matter of fact and dry about the whole scenario, and that last one is true to that.

Other than that, this thing looks pretty good to go. I noticed you had put the validity to a sort that is both expected, and opens it up to a lot of nations. Good job. I wish this one well.

Thanks! I'm planning on making one about "The Count of Monte Cristo" as well.

I'm bored. Look, the thing is, I want to submit this pretty soon, so any suggestions?

Boredom or impatience is an absolutely terrible reason to submit an issue. It pretty much guarantees it will be discarded. Try actually making it better instead.

Shouldn't have written so many at one go

Singapore no2 wrote:I'm bored. Look, the thing is, I want to submit this pretty soon, so any suggestions?

Why haven't you already submitted it? It was/is good to go!

Frisbeeteria wrote:Boredom or impatience is an absolutely terrible reason to submit an issue. It pretty much guarantees it will be discarded. Try actually making it better instead.

Don't mind me asking, but what should I improve exactly?

Any suggestions?

Can you do another one like this, but make it more pro Shylock (my real life stance)?! Can you also include the forced conversion and the unfair anti Jewish laws in one of the choices, please?! One choice would actually give Shylock RIGHTS, but not to kill Antonio. Instead, Antonio is made to apologize. Another choice is to give Shylock the rights that he never had as well, but Antonio is given a clean slate. A third choice would give Shylock rights and let him kill Antonio. Another choice is to keep up with the story, which is to screw Shylock over, force him to convert, let Antonio mock him, and basically torment the poor Jew. A fifth choice is to give Shylock the death penalty. Finally, while Shylock gains no rights, ANTONIO learns his lesson and apologizes to Shylock. Thanks so much.