[SUBMITTED] Nothing Fishy

[Ransium]

Title: Nothing Fishy

Description: Due to the recent popularity of Beards of Fishermen Magazine, @@DEMONYNPLURAL@@ have decided to buy their own offshore fishing boats in droves. Based on the year's entire target catch and the number of offshore fishing boat applications, the Fish and Game Department has determined that dividing the quota equally between requesting boats would mean each boat could catch a total of seventeen fish this year. An emergency meeting has been convened to discuss a better solution.

Validity: Nation must have positive trout fishing industry

[option]"The problem is capitalism." opines noted socialist @@RANDOMNAME@@, who also blamed a recent stubbed toe on capitalism. "The state must take over the fishing industry entirely. This way the optimal number of boats and optimal fish catch for each boat can be determined by the state yearly according to the fish populations. It would also mean we'd spend less on quota enforcement because any boat which wasn't state-owned boat would be clearly illegal."

[effect]father-son fishing trips are illegal due to the nationalization of the fishing industry

[option]"The problem is government interventionism." states noted libertarian @@RANDOMNAME@@, who also blamed a recent hangnail on the government. "Let's end this socialism of the sea! The government must sell its ownership of offshore waters to private entities. It will then be the property owners' responsibility to determine who fishes, how much, and how enforcement is done. Don't worry about sustainability; it will be in the property owner's interest to make sure fishing continues in the long term."

[effect]ports in @@NAME@@ have ground to a halt as no boat can reach them without trespassing

[option]"Those both seem pretty extreme." says @@RANOMNAME@@, author of recent hit Fishanomics. "You just need to auction of a limited number of permits to catch a share of the total fish catch each year. The invisible hand of government-regulated capitalism will assure the optimal number of boats run only by the most efficient crew will do the fishing at the perfect permit price."

[effect]fishermen take out second mortgages in order to afford yearly fishing permits

[option]"I have ah simplah solution than all that." says @@RANDOMNAME@@, an eccentric, salt of the sea boat repairer. "The problem is that modern technology has made commercial fishin' as easy as— well— shootin' fish in ah barrel. Get rid of the quota system and instead force all fishin' to be done with sail boats and folk wisdom. Those hipstah fishahmen won't catch a thing and enforcement will be much cheapah than it evah was for the quota system. Win, win, except for any current motah boat ownahs."

[effect]galleons and triads can been seen fishing of the coast of @@NAME@@

[option]"Ahoy! I must be heard in this parlay." interjects @@RANDOMNAME@@, Captain of the fishing vessel 'Fisher of Fish'. "Th' problem be sharks 'n' th' like. They be putting our catch in their gullet. Send all th' predators to Davy Jones' locker 'n' they'll be plenty o' fish fer th' rest o' us."

[effect]sharks and salmon are going extinct in @@NAME@@

Title: Nothing Fishy
Description: Fish catch numbers for a number of major commercial fish species are down this year. A combination of unusual weather patterns and recent increases in the size of the commercial fishing industry are being blamed as the culprits. An emergency meeting of relevant government officials and industry representatives has been convened on the issue.

Validity: Nation must have positive trout fishing industry

[option]Your lead marine biologist is the first to speak “I’m afraid what we have here is a classic tragedy of the commons situation. The incentives to the fishing industry are to fish well above what is sustainable. If nothing is done major fisheries could collapse soon. We have to enact a wide variety of regulations including a ban on the most destructive fishing techniques; strict catch limits, size limits, and seasons; and fish sanctuaries, where fishing is forbidden. All this will cost quite a few clams, but isn’t ensuring the long term sustainability of our fishing industry worth it?”

[effect]fishing vessels in @@NAME@@ need an on-board lawyer to assure they are following all environmental regulations

[option]“I have ah simplah solution,” says@@RANDOMNAME@@, an eccentric, salt of the sea boat repairer, “The problem is that modern technology has made commercial fishin as easy as… well… shootin fish in ah barrel. All you need to do is force all fishin to be done with traditional boats and folk wisdom. Catches will be down, so fish populations will recovah, and enforcement will be much cheapah. Win, win, except for the modern fishin boat ownahs I suppose.”

[effect]galleons and triads can been seen fishing of the coast of @@NAME@@

[option]“Ahoy! I must be heard in 'tis parlay,” interjects @@RANDOMNAME@@ Captain of the fishing vessel ‘Fisher of Fish’, “Th' problem be sharks 'n th' like. They be putting our catch in their gullet. Send all th' predators to Davy Jones' locker 'n they'll be plenty 'o fish fer th' rest 'o us”

[effect]fisheries across @@NAME@@ are collapsing due to over-fishing, despite @@NAME@@’s shark killing efforts

[Trotterdam]

I can't believe there isn't an issue already about over-fishing/fishery collapse. Maybe there is and I missed it or there's one in the queue, if so I'll scrap this (I had fun writing it anyway!)

Do whales count as fish?

Also contrast #591, #599, which aren't actually about the same thing.

[option]"I have ah simplah solution," says@@RANDOMNAME@@, an eccentric, salt of the sea boat repairer, "The problem is that modern technology has made commercial fishin as easy as… well… shootin fish in ah barrel. All you need to do is force all fishin to be done with traditional boats and folk wisdom. Catches levels will be down, so fish populations will recovah, and enforcement will be much cheapah. Win, win, except for the modern fishin boat ownahs I suppose."

Heh. I guess it's fair. The fish don't have modern technology

[Ransium]

Do whales count as fish?

Also contrast #591, #599, which aren't actually about the same thing.

Great! I saw 599, and 591 already and thought there was more than enough room for this issue. I hadn't noticed #286 and it's definitely the closest (especially choice 3), but I think its more about the morality of whale hunting than sustainable fishing. Maybe a mod will disagree (or there's an issue like this one in the queue) but it seems like there's room for my issue. Thanks for the research.

[Trotterdam]

I hadn't noticed #286 and it's definitely the closest (especially choice 3), but I think its more about the morality of whale hunting than sustainable fishing.

Well, there's talk of extinction, and one of the options is allowing hunting but instituting quotas, which sounds like a sustainability thing.

Yes, people do care more about whales due to their intelligence and magnificence, and I get the sense that somewhat inspired the decision to make that issue about whales, but that angle is not really highlighted explicitly.

There could be room in the game for another issue on a similar subject, but you're going to have to try harder to present interesting options that are relevant to the distinction from the previous issue. While allowing only low-tech fishing is amusing, it doesn't strike me as an option many nations would take seriously, and "blame the sharks instead" is pretty obviously a corrupt non-solution (even the effect line admits it wouldn't work - and on that effect line's subject, if you keep it, I suggest shortening it to something like "sharks and <insert food fish here (not trout, because those are freshwater)> are both going extinct").

[Ransium]

I hadn't noticed #286 and it's definitely the closest (especially choice 3), but I think its more about the morality of whale hunting than sustainable fishing.

Well, there's talk of extinction, and one of the options is allowing hunting but instituting quotas, which sounds like a sustainability thing.

Yes, people do care more about whales due to their intelligence and magnificence, and I get the sense that somewhat inspired the decision to make that issue about whales, but that angle is not really highlighted explicitly.

There could be room in the game for another issue on a similar subject, but you're going to have to try harder to present interesting options that are relevant to the distinction from the previous issue. While allowing only low-tech fishing is amusing, it doesn't strike me as an option many nations would take seriously, and "blame the sharks instead" is pretty obviously a corrupt non-solution (even the effect line admits it wouldn't work - and on that effect line's subject, if you keep it, I suggest shortening it to something like "sharks and <insert food fish here (not trout, because those are freshwater)> are both going extinct").

I'll think about this... Quick note 'gear bans' including banning of fish locating GPS are commonly implemented solutions to over-fishing, which I remember from my environmental economic textbook. Two is exaggerated, but I don't think it's all that silly.

[Noahs Second Country]

A few suggestions

Title: Nothing Fishy
Description: Fish catch numbers for a number of major commercial fish species are down this year. A combination of unusual weather patterns and recent increases in the size of the commercial fishing industry are being blamed as the culprits. An emergency meeting of relevant government officials and industry representatives has been convened on the issue.

Validity: Nation must have positive trout fishing industry

[option]Your lead marine biologist is the first to speak “I’m afraid what we have here is a classic tragedy of the commons situation. The incentives to the fishing industry are to fish well above what is sustainable. If nothing is done, major fisheries could collapse soon. We have to enact a wide variety of regulations, including a ban on the most destructive fishing techniques, stricter catch limits and size limits, as well as fish sanctuaries, where fishing is forbidden. All this will cost quite a few clams?, but isn’t ensuring the long term sustainability of our fishing industry worth it?”

[effect]fishing vessels in @@NAME@@ need an on-board lawyer to assure they are following all environmental regulations

[option]“I have ah simplah solution,” says@@RANDOMNAME@@, an eccentric, salt of the sea, boat repairer, “The problem is that modern technology has made commercial fishin' as easy as… well…(you may want to use an em dash here) shootin' fish in ah barrel. All you need to do is force all fishin' to be done with traditional boats and folk wisdom. Catches will be down, so fish populations will recovah, and enforcement will be much cheapah. Win, win, except for the modern fishin' boat ownahs I suppose.”

[effect]galleons and triads can been seen fishing of the coast of @@NAME@@

[option]“Ahoy! I must be heard in 'tis parlay,” interjects @@RANDOMNAME@@ Captain of the fishing vessel ‘Fisher of Fish’, “Th' problem be sharks 'n th' like. They be putting our catch in their gullet. Send all th' predators to Davy Jones' locker 'n they'll be plenty 'o fish fer th' rest 'o us”

[effect]fisheries across @@NAME@@ are collapsing due to over-fishing, despite @@NAME@@’s shark killing efforts

[Ransium]

I hadn't noticed #286 and it's definitely the closest (especially choice 3), but I think its more about the morality of whale hunting than sustainable fishing.

Well, there's talk of extinction, and one of the options is allowing hunting but instituting quotas, which sounds like a sustainability thing.

Yes, people do care more about whales due to their intelligence and magnificence, and I get the sense that somewhat inspired the decision to make that issue about whales, but that angle is not really highlighted explicitly.

There could be room in the game for another issue on a similar subject, but you're going to have to try harder to present interesting options that are relevant to the distinction from the previous issue. While allowing only low-tech fishing is amusing, it doesn't strike me as an option many nations would take seriously, and "blame the sharks instead" is pretty obviously a corrupt non-solution (even the effect line admits it wouldn't work - and on that effect line's subject, if you keep it, I suggest shortening it to something like "sharks and <insert food fish here (not trout, because those are freshwater)> are both going extinct").

Okay I hear you here's an idea for a re-write, 5 options:
1) Nationalize fishing
2) Something like current option 1
3) current option 2
4) Privatize ownership of the oceans and let the private entities regulate it, since it's in private ownership they'll be (theoretical) incentives to keep it sustainable
5) current option 3 (I could stand to drop option 5 but it makes me laugh so I'd prefer not to)

I'll try to get on this tonight. Any thoughts on this?

What do you think?

[Trotterdam]

Okay I hear you here's an idea for a re-write, 5 options:
1) Nationalize fishing
2) Something like current option 1
3) current option 2
4) Privatize ownership of the oceans and let the private entities regulate it, since it's in private ownership they'll be (theoretical) incentives to keep it sustainable
5) current option 3 (I could stand to drop option 5 but it makes me laugh so I'd prefer not to)

I'll try to get on this tonight. Any thoughts on this?

What do you think?

In this case, it sounds like option 2, being "allow private industries but regulate them", would be something of a compromise between options 1 and 4? Might want to either make it more distinct, or at least sort it somewhere it can explicitly present itself as a compromise option.

I do find myself interested in how option 1 suggests taking the issue away from "should we have quotas?", and more to "okay, we have quotas, but how do we enforce them?". Do you think you can work with that?

[Ransium]

I this case, it sounds like option 2, being "allow private industries but regulate them", would be something of a compromise between options 1 and 4? Might want to either make it more distinct, or at least sort it somewhere it can explicitly present itself as a compromise option.

I do find myself interested in how option 1 suggests taking the issue away from "should we have quotas?", and more to "okay, we have quotas, but how do we enforce them?". Do you think you can work with that?

Okay I think that's the direction (enforcement) that I was thinking as well. Maybe framing the issue as quotas exists but aren't really working so good might help too. I think this is reasonable as most governments have some sort of quota system, so it's not such a crazy thing to just assume. How about this ordering:

1) Nationalize fishing
2) Privatize ownership of the oceans and let the private entities regulate it, since it's in private ownership they'll be (theoretical) incentives to keep it sustainable
3) Dramatically increased government enforcement spending
4) current option 2
5) current option 3

Also I hope I say this enough, but I hope you know how much I appreciate your continued commenting on my drafts and I genuinely think that your helping me get better at writing them and at the same time making the individual drafts better. I VERY much appreciate it.

[Trotterdam]

One concern I have with quotas is how do you apply them to multiple fishing companies?

If each company is only allowed to take X fish, but there are a hundred companies in that line of work, then you might end up with a lot more fish than you thought you would. So there needs to be some mechanism where if a new fishing company enters the scene, it lowers the allowances of previously-existing companies - which might not feel so fair to them.

Option 2 (by the latest proposal's counting)'s solution is to give each company a different section of the sea, so you can't start a new fishing company unless you can afford to buy a plot of sea from an existing one. (Unfortunately, the fish are unlikely to respect the legal borders of any given claim...) Option 1 solves it by having only one fishing company with a government-enforced monopoly. Options 4 and 5 basically give up on trying, with option 4 going "let's just have everyone catch less and hope that's enough".

Option 3, then, needs to have some idea of how quota allocation would be distributed between different fishers.

[Ransium]

Okay here is a substantial re-write let me know what you think...

[Trotterdam]

Concept is looking much better. That means it's nitpick time!

Based on the years entire target catch

Should be "year's".

would mean each boat could catch a total of seventeen fish this year

Yay, like this part

It's an unrealistic exaggeration, of course, but it's an amusing unrealistic exaggeration.

[option]"The problem is capitalism," opinions noted socialist @@RANDOMNAME@@,

Should be "opines".

any boat which wasn't state owned boat would be clearly illegal

Should be "wasn't a state-owned boat".

[effect]father-son fishing trips have been made illegal by the nationalized fishing industry

I like the idea (in the spirit of NS overzealousness), but can you make it a little more concise and witty? I don't like the "have been made illegal by" wording.

[effect]millionaires in @@NAME@@ fish off their luxury yacht's, in their personal oceans

You misspelled "yachts", and effect lines shouldn't have commas in them if it can reasonably be avoided. Besides, this is just boring. Come up with a more interesting consequence for privatizing the ocean.

government regulated capitalism

Make that "government-regulated capitalism".

[option]"I have ah simplah solution then all that," says@@RANDOMNAME@@,

Should be "than" (I don't thnk that's justifiable by the accent).

Also, you missed a space before the macro.

[option]"Ahoy! I must be heard in 'tis parlay,"

Again I wonder about your accent, I don't see how "this" would turn into "'tis". (Usually "'tis" is a contraction of "it is".) The speaker doesn't have trouble pronouncing "th"s later on, either.

@@RANDOMNAME@@ Captain of the fishing vessel 'Fisher of Fish'

Missing a comma after the macro / before "Captain".

"Th' problem be sharks 'n th' like. They be putting our catch in their gullet. Send all th' predators to Davy Jones' locker 'n they'll be plenty 'o fish fer th' rest 'o us"

Would it be overly pedantic of me to ask that you contract "and" as "'n'"? That's where the letters are missing.

And "of" should become "o'".

You also missed the end-of-sentence period.

Now, a systematic matter:

[option]"The problem is capitalism," opinions [...], "the state must

[option]"The problem is government interventionism," states [...], "the government should

[option]"Those both seem pretty extreme," says [...], "You just need

[option]"I have ah simplah solution then all that," says [...], "The problem is

[option]"Ahoy! I must be heard in 'tis parlay," interjects @@RANDOMNAME@@ Captain of the fishing vessel 'Fisher of Fish', "Th' problem be

The underlined parts should either have a period followed by a capital letter (if you mean for the speaker to be starting a new sentence, in an imaginary transcript where you ignore the "this guy says" interruption), or a comma followed by a lowercase letter (if you mean for the speaker to continue a previous sentence that had only paused at a comma).

Thus, your latter three options are simply wrong, since they use a comma-and-capital combination. Your former two are technically correct, but I think starting a new sentence would be more natural. I would recommend period-and-capital for all five.

Bla bla bla, bla bla bla.

"Bla bla bla," says some guy, "bla bla bla."

Bla bla bla. Bla bla bla.

"Bla bla bla." says some guy. "Bla bla bla."

[Ransium]

*snip*

Okay hopefully I addressed all that. In researching a better effects line for 2. I stumbled upon this wikipedia article, which inspired me to add in the excellent phrase socialism of the sea.

Also this quote from the wikipedia article:

"Even now there is a simple but effective technique that could be used for increasing fish productivity: parts of the ocean could be fenced off electronically, and through this readily available electronic fencing, fish could be segregated by size. By preventing big fish from eating smaller fish, the production of fish could be increased enormously"

Is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, written by someone who doesn't make the slightest effort to understand to ocean biology while writing about it in a book.

[Noahs Second Country]

[option]"I have ah simplah solution than all that." says @@RANDOMNAME@@, an eccentric, salt of the sea boat repairer. "The problem is that modern technology has made commercial fishin as easy as-- well-- shootin fish in ah barrel. Get rid of the quota system and instead force all fishin to be done with sail boats and folk wisdom. Those hipstah fishahmen won't catch a thing and enforcement will be much cheapah than it evah was for the quota system. Win, win, except for any current motah boat ownahs."

This looks like a pretty good issue, but instead of using 2 en dashes, use this: —
It adds more effect

[Ransium]

Done.

[Noahs Second Country]

I think this is pretty good. It's clear, funny, detailed, basically every aspect of an issue you would want. Ask if you should submit it, last call or something like that.
Just 1 more suggestion:
'n' th' like.
What does^ mean? Might be a little too confusing for the reader, about the intent of the option.

[Ransium]

'And the like' I imagine that if this makes it through the editor is likely to make different calls on the accents and clarity.

I'm not against submitting this soon, perhaps in around 24 hours if there is not additional substantial feedback.

[Trotterdam]

Looks good to me.

Ah, I guess still add some apostophes at the ends of "shootin" (occurs once) and "fishin" (occurs twice) in option 4, and to the second "'n" in option 5 (you missed it last time).

Otherwise, this pretty much looks ready for submission.

In researching a better effects line for 2. I stumbled upon this wikipedia article, which inspired me to add in the excellent phrase socialism of the sea.

Also this quote from the wikipedia article:

"Even now there is a simple but effective technique that could be used for increasing fish productivity: parts of the ocean could be fenced off electronically, and through this readily available electronic fencing, fish could be segregated by size. By preventing big fish from eating smaller fish, the production of fish could be increased enormously"

Is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, written by someone who doesn't make the slightest effort to understand to ocean biology while writing about it in a book.

Eh, I'm sure some fish species could survive under such conditions.

Everything else will go extinct, but what's some extinction to our profit margins?

Honestly this sounds like about the same idea as fish farming (which actually is a reasonable concept), except with about a hundred times less thought put into the implementation.

[Ransium]

Looks good to me.

Ah, I guess still add some apostophes at the ends of "shootin" (occurs once) and "fishin" (occurs twice) in option 4, and to the second "'n" in option 5 (you missed it last time).

Otherwise, this pretty much looks ready for submission.

In researching a better effects line for 2. I stumbled upon this wikipedia article, which inspired me to add in the excellent phrase socialism of the sea.

Also this quote from the wikipedia article:

"Even now there is a simple but effective technique that could be used for increasing fish productivity: parts of the ocean could be fenced off electronically, and through this readily available electronic fencing, fish could be segregated by size. By preventing big fish from eating smaller fish, the production of fish could be increased enormously"

Is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, written by someone who doesn't make the slightest effort to understand to ocean biology while writing about it in a book.

Eh, I'm sure some fish species could survive under such conditions.

Everything else will go extinct, but what's some extinction to our profit margins?

Honestly this sounds like about the same idea as fish farming (which actually is a reasonable concept), except with about a hundred times less thought put into the implementation.

Fixed, I hope.

And yeah I didn't mean to condemn fish farming which I think can be extremely sustainable, or even privatizing the rights to fish in certain areas, which, I am skeptical of personally, but I think is certainly an interesting idea for the sake of debate. Just the way that quote was written seemed very sophomoric. Like, what do you think the big fish eat?

Anyway more feedback before submission?

[Trotterdam]

Oh, I almost forgot. Should probably mention in the validity that this is not valid for nations with compulsory vegetarianism

I don't know what it means if you have a high Trout Fishing/Farming industry in a vegetarian nation (black market? catching fish for the pet trade?) and I feel that it's something that "shouldn't happen" and only happens due to weaknesses in the simulation, but I feel like a vegetarian nation probably wouldn't be getting fussy about quotas. ("How many fish are we allowed to catch?" "Zero!")