[Submitted]Tourists In @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Homes

[Noahs Second Country]

Ban all forms of temporary lodging (says a realtor or similar). Hotels, etc. divert traffic and money away from real estate. People should be forced to buy or rent if they want to stay somewhere.

Airbnb has absolutely ruined some housing markets in highly-travelled areas, I think the addition of an option along these lines would be beneficial to the issue in its current state.

[Praeceps]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. The major changes I have made are:

1. Revising the description of the issue. As per an earlier recommendation, I have shifted from having a hotel owner to a motel chain owner (since motels tend to be cheaper) being the complainer. I couldn't figure out a way to incorporate @@NAME@@ into the chain's name so I decided to go with Motel Ier as a pun on Hotelier.
2. I randomed named all of the earlier speakers (also as per an earlier recommendation). I think I figured out how the macros work. If not, I look forward to being corrected.
3. Added a fourth option to ban all temporary housing.

I am still considering how to change the third option to make it better.

I'm revisiting this draft. As I need a flash point for the issue, I had two different ideas as to what could have brought the issue to needing a resolution and would appreciate feedback.

1) While away on a trip Leader or a Cabinet Minister (perhaps the Minister of Tourism) rents out their residence, when this is revealed, the hotel industry is outraged and demands a resolution.

2) One of the oldest hotel chains in the nation is about to close due to not being able to compete with residents renting out their own homes.

While I feel as though the first possibility is more NSey, I think that it would potentially shift the issue from needing to address alternative housing to government property being used to generate income. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

I find version 2 more realistic.

Another possibility would be to dig into the safety issue that the hotel guy in the first option brought up. You could have a scam involving fake listings or something.

I thought about going into the legal issues as well (either from the perspective of something illegal happens in the unit by the person staying there or the person renting out the unit does something bad) but I thought that would introduce two issues into the issue (a legal issue and the issue of whether this business should be permitted at all). I thought it would be best to just focus on one issue although I am not opposed to changing it should those more experienced than myself feel that way.

This is a decent foundation to build off of. There's a similar issue, 479, that deals with ride-sharing services vs. taxis. The opening of that issue is fairly generic yet effective: a mass protest that necessitates your attention. The options are structured as such:

1. Ride-sharing services should be banned because they're ruining the taxi industry and are unsafe compared to taxis.
2. Ride-sharing services are here to stay because they offer convenience and more choices for commuters.
3. Ban manned taxis and replace them with self-driving cars.
4. Invest in public transport instead.

Your first two options map well onto 479's first two options. I think your third option (let people stay wherever they want) needs to be reworked. The concept of letting people squat wherever isn't fleshed out and doesn't make sense in the context of this issue, and the justification of "it'll boost the economy" feels flimsy. I think you could build an effective issue around:

1. Ban alternative accommodations; they're difficult to regulate, unsafe, and hurt the hotel industry (maybe make the speaker a hotel CEO who's also a big financial supporter of your government to make it feel more pressing).
2. Promote alternative accommodations; they give travelers a convenient and safe place to stay and force hotels to compete, thereby benefiting consumers.
3. Mobile homes are the future! Subsidize and promote mobile homes, trailers, and RVs.
4. Ban all forms of temporary lodging (says a realtor or similar). Hotels, etc. divert traffic and money away from real estate. People should be forced to buy or rent if they want to stay somewhere.

This isn't the only way you can go about this; I'm just trying to give a rough layout that might work with this premise.

Now, onto the opening. Your ideas for that could definitely work. I'd add two more possibilities:

1. @@LEADER@@ is entering a hotel for a conference and notices it's completely deserted. A hotel manager or similar informs you that people are largely moving to alternative accommodations.
2. While walking down the street, you notice a major hotel CEO sitting on the sidewalk and asking for spare change. They inform you that the alternative accommodation industry is driving hotels out of business.

Thanks for the suggestions. For the opening, I went with the second option I had come up with. Forgive me if I am mistaken but I believe that the two options you mention remove autonomy from the leader.

I am considering what to do with the third option. I think the idea there was to have a startling amount of deregulation. I do agree that in the current state the third option needs to be changed.

I have taken your suggestion for the fourth option. Much appreciated.

Ban all forms of temporary lodging (says a realtor or similar). Hotels, etc. divert traffic and money away from real estate. People should be forced to buy or rent if they want to stay somewhere.

Airbnb has absolutely ruined some housing markets in highly-travelled areas, I think the addition of an option along these lines would be beneficial to the issue in its current state.

Done.

Seeing as @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ ends in s for a good chunk of nations, adding 's wouldn't be grammatically correct for those nations. I would just switch it to "Tourists In @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Homes".

Good catch. Thanks.

[Praeceps]

I have edited the third option. The premise of the issue is that different parties are advocating for the government to help them out financially (either directly by subsidization or indirectly through legislation prohibiting substitutes). The tourist is now advocating for the government to provide free housing for tourists rather than arguing for a legal change in which people can sleep wherever they want. This should fit the scope of the issue better.

[Honeydewistania]

The owner of the formerly popular motel chain "Motel Ier" is now in your office begging you to save the business.

'gathered in your office' etc are way overused, try something like the chain recorded a third straight day with zero guests or something.

Options:
[option]"@@NAME@@'s motels are vacant," pleads @@RANDOMNAME@@, owner of the Motel Ier chain. "The accommodations industry employs many @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ and this fad risks their livelihood. Hotels are much safer and nicer to stay in. Outlaw this practice @@LEADER@@ and ensure everyone stays in a motel."
[effect]every @@DEMONYM@@ lives in a motel

Why motels though? Hotels make more sense, since many tourists don't want to stay in some dinged up motel.

[option]"Why can't tourists just stay where they want?" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a millionaire who found @@HIS@@ fortune renting out @@HIS@@ apartment while @@HE@@ was away on business trips. "People should be able to choose the cheapest place to stay and home owners can make money on the side. It's a win-win situation for everyone involved except for the hotels. What could go wrong with foreigners staying in a stranger's house?"
[effect]the most recent census found there are more tourists in @@NAME@@'s homes than @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@

The effect line here uses the same joke as in the title, maybe something more original could be better (though I'm terrible at both so I understand)

[option]"Why doesn't the government just provide housing for tourists?" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a hitchhiker from Brasilistan. "Tourism to @@NAME@@ would soar if tourists had a place they could say for free."
[effect]tourists in @@NAME@@ have nicer accommodation than @@DEMONYM@@

The hitchhiker should be doing something funny perhaps. Also the option is weirdly short, maybe you could expand after his last sentence.

[option]Edward Rump, an unsuccessful realtor, argued that "All forms of temporary lodging should be shut down. We should be promoting permanent housing for anyone who wants to come visit @@NAME@@. My company would be more than willing to help create any additional buildings required."
[effect]frustrated tourists are forced to rent our apartments for at least a month to visit @@CAPITAL@@

The reported speech here feels out of place. Also, he should have a funny description, like he his tearing down a model of a hotel made out of matchsticks or something

[Westinor]

IMO, while this is a good premise idea, the options feel a little formulaic. While that's not always a bad thing, this reads to me as if each speaker is reading off a script.

A recent trend where @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ are renting out their houses to tourists has outraged hoteliers at their lost profits. The owner of the formerly popular motel chain "Motel Ier" is now in your office begging you to save the business.

The description is cut and dry; that's a good thing, but you've ended it with the speaker in your office complaining to you. This is a bit boring, and as Honeydew mentioned, we try to avoid this unless the details given are crucial to the narrative (which it somewhat is). However, I think you can do better. The ideas Cretox suggested:

Now, onto the opening. Your ideas for that could definitely work. I'd add two more possibilities:
@@LEADER@@ is entering a hotel for a conference and notices it's completely deserted. A hotel manager or similar informs you that people are largely moving to alternative accommodations.
While walking down the street, you notice a major hotel CEO sitting on the sidewalk and asking for spare change. They inform you that the alternative accommodation industry is driving hotels out of business.

aren't bad ideas, and though they do stretch player autonomy a little bit, it's not absolutely breaking player autonomy to put the player in a scenario which isn't completely out of the blue (see #1022 or #1030 - while each has a different form of "reasoning" - you being placed in a situation which is normal for most leaders vs. you needing to be somewhere because of the issue - they are both good examples of placing leader somewhere/having them do something without breaking player autonomy). One does have to question why the hotel with a conference going on inside is empty, though.

"@@NAME@@'s motels are vacant," pleads @@RANDOMNAME@@, owner of the Motel Ier chain. "The accommodations industry employs many @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ and this fad risks their livelihood. Hotels are much safer and nicer to stay in. Outlaw this practice @@LEADER@@ and ensure everyone stays in a motel."

You start off with "'@@NAME@@'s motels are vacant'" - this is somewhat established in the description, though it should be fine here. Try to make it seem like it's coming from an angry hotel manager, rather than an NPC. Something like "These renters are stealing my profits!" is fairly simple and communicates frustration. Try to keep that going throughout your options - think about how a speaker might feel about or react to a situation, and add dashes of character here and there - humor goes a long way as well. Try to give each character an action - these actions can help shape their character, and/or be a joke as well. Currently, you only describe each character - if you were to have the hotel owner sitting in an empty luggage cart weeping or Edward Rump throwing a tantrum (as Honeydew suggested), you breathe more life into each option.

Here's an example:

"These renters are stealing all of my profits!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, owner of the Motel Ier chain as @@HE@@ picks up a pillow from the nearest sofa and throws it across the lobby in anger. "I can't hope to compete with their lower prices - how am I supposed to afford my fourth house now? And what about my workers? I employ thousands of @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ in my hotels - do you know how many bell boys I've had to lay off? Outlaw this practice at once!"

You can take as you will from this if you like, though it's not the greatest. (I'm very rusty, heh) That's sort of the anger and emotion you might want to convey through your characters.

A few other things I'd point out: In Option 2, the millionaire who found his fortune through rent seems a like a very long description of the character. In my opinion, cutting it down to just a property renter/businessman, and then adding the "who made a fortune off of renting his properties" if you so choose would work better. Just as a general note, it seems a bit far-fetched that he made a fortune simply off renting his apartment.

Option 3 seems a bit strange to me. Particularly the "place they could stay for free" - why should tourists be able to live in @@NAME@@ cost-free while your own citizens have to pay to live somewhere? I think the idea of a government-run accommodations industry is an interesting one and should be kept - however, having it be free doesn't seem right. Also, it doesn't seem to me that a government-run accommodations industry would be better quality than a privately-run one if the government-run one is funded (assumably) solely by the taxpayer.

I agree with Honeydew on option 4. I don't see a need to make a different structure than the other options here. If you could expand on the argument in this option, I think it would make a good option. Adding a tinge of Edward Rump rantiness (this is more of a recent issue trend thing - see #777.1 and #1075.4 for some good examples) might add some humor and flavor to this option.

Overall, you've got the workings of a good issue. Beef up the options a bit and see if you can set up a more interesting description first.

[Praeceps]

Thanks West and Honey. Pursuant to their feedback here and on Discord (as well as Cretox's suggestions) I have a new draft up.

Changes are:

1. The description has been changed to a hotel owner bothering Leader before a conference at his hotel as all of the attendees at the conference are using alternative accommodation instead of staying in the hotel.
2. Adjusted the text throughout to make sense with the new location.
3. Added actions for the characters in each option.
4. Reworked Option 4 to be more interesting (at least, I think it is).
5. Shortened description of the character for Option 2.
6. Tried to improve Option 3 to make a stronger case for the character's suggestion.

That being said, I'm not quite sure what was meant by Option 4 having a different structure than the rest.

[Honeydewistania]

Well it says:

@@RANDOMNAME@@ who inherited 3 billion @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ from @@HIS@@ father 30 years ago, rants, "All forms of temporary lodging should be shut down. I worked hard to get to where I am! Where is my support from the government!?! We should be promoting permanent housing for anyone who wants to come visit @@NAME@@. My company would be more than willing to help create any additional buildings required."

When all the other options are like:

"All forms of temporary lodging should be shut down. I worked hard to get to where I am! Where is my support from the government!?!" rants @@RANDOMNAME@@ who inherited 3 billion @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ from @@HIS@@ father 30 years ago, "We should be promoting permanent housing for anyone who wants to come visit @@NAME@@. My company would be more than willing to help create any additional buildings required."

[Noahs Second Country]

Well it says:

@@RANDOMNAME@@ who inherited 3 billion @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ from @@HIS@@ father 30 years ago, rants, "All forms of temporary lodging should be shut down. I worked hard to get to where I am! Where is my support from the government!?! We should be promoting permanent housing for anyone who wants to come visit @@NAME@@. My company would be more than willing to help create any additional buildings required."

When all the other options are like:

"All forms of temporary lodging should be shut down. I worked hard to get to where I am! Where is my support from the government!?!" rants @@RANDOMNAME@@ who inherited 3 billion @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ from @@HIS@@ father 30 years ago, "We should be promoting permanent housing for anyone who wants to come visit @@NAME@@. My company would be more than willing to help create any additional buildings required."

^^^

While variety is good in an issue, I don't see a reason for this option to have a different structure when the descriptor can easily be placed after the character's name.

[Praeceps]

Makes sense. Change made. Thanks Honey.

[Westinor]

Suggesting a rewrite of the description to make it flow better:

"You arrived at the Chateau @@NAME@@ early this morning to get ready for your speech at the "Youth of @@REGION@@" conference being held there later tonight only to notice that the lobby appeared eerily empty. Suddenly @@RANDOMNAME1@@, the owner of Chateau @@NAME@, jumps up from behind an ornate reception desk with a panicked look on @@HIS@@ face."

It's not the greatest and I don't like the end of the first sentence :/ but take what you will from that. Also,

"Chateau @@NAME@@ is vacant," pleads @@RANDOMNAME@@

I think something along the lines of "wailing" would work better here, doesn't seem like the owner is pleading.

[Praeceps]

Updated.

[Praeceps]

I'll probably submit this in a week if there are no further comments.

[Fauxia]

Can we have a breath in the first sentence? It's a mouthful.

It should be more clear that the tourists are staying at something like an airbnb. "Elsewhere" is not very specific. I gathered it from the title, but it could stand to be more clear. If it isn't mentioned in the description, and it probably should be, at least in option 1 so we know what exactly we're banning.

[Praeceps]

Thanks for the feedback. Changes incorporated into the first sentence and the first option respectively.

[Praeceps]

Submitted four and a half years later. Thanks to everyone who provided help.