[DRAFT] Politicians demand the right to associate

by **North Isseggggnignigsegigisegggg Islands** » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:59 pm

Eligibility: Must be a democracy and must have chosen to ban political parties in issue 657.

Edit 1: Changed the effect line of option 1 from "political parties are legal" to "the @@ANIMAL@@-Festival-Crazy Party is the largest growing party in government". Thank you, Dytarma!
Edit 2: Rewrote my draft. Thank you, Valrifell, Roosevetania and Ransium!
Edit 3: Changed the description and added another option. Thank you, Ransium!
Edit 4: Changed the description and replaced the last option. Thank you, Tinhampton!

by **North Isseggggnignigsegigisegggg Islands** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:31 pm

Bump.

by **Dytarma** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:11 pm

From the looks of it, it seems everyone is going to pick the first one due to it being the obviously better choice. What would be a negative effect from choosing that issue?

For Effect One, I think it should be, " The @@ANIMAL@@'s United Working Party is the largest growing party in government", just to add some unpredictable consequences into the issue.

by **North Isseggggnignigsegigisegggg Islands** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:13 pm

Dytarma wrote:From the looks of it, it seems everyone is going to pick the first one due to it being the obviously better choice. What would be a negative effect from choosing that issue?

For Effect One, I think it should be, " The @@ANIMAL@@'s United Working Party is the largest growing party in government", just to add some unpredictable consequences into the issue.

That's a good idea, but what about the "@@ANIMAL@@-Festival-Crazy Party"? (It's a reference to the Monster Raving Loony Party.)

by **Dytarma** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:04 pm

North Isseggggnignigsegigisegggg Islands wrote:
Dytarma wrote:From the looks of it, it seems everyone is going to pick the first one due to it being the obviously better choice. What would be a negative effect from choosing that issue?

For Effect One, I think it should be, " The @@ANIMAL@@'s United Working Party is the largest growing party in government", just to add some unpredictable consequences into the issue.

That's a good idea, but what about the "@@ANIMAL@@-Festival-Crazy Party"? (It's a reference to the Monster Raving Loony Party.)

Eh, why not? Or you could put that and the Nazi Party if you really wanted too. "Parties such as the @@ANIMAL@@-Festival-Crazy Party and the Nazi Party are the largest growing parties in the government."

by **North Isseggggnignigsegigisegggg Islands** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:26 pm

Dytarma wrote:
North Isseggggnignigsegigisegggg Islands wrote:That's a good idea, but what about the "@@ANIMAL@@-Festival-Crazy Party"? (It's a reference to the Monster Raving Loony Party.)

Eh, why not? Or you could put that and the Nazi Party if you really wanted too. "Parties such as the @@ANIMAL@@-Festival-Crazy Party and the Nazi Party are the largest growing parties in the government."

I'll leave out the Nazi party, but thanks! I've changed it.

by **Dytarma** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:35 pm

North Isseggggnignigsegigisegggg Islands wrote:
Dytarma wrote:Eh, why not? Or you could put that and the Nazi Party if you really wanted too. "Parties such as the @@ANIMAL@@-Festival-Crazy Party and the Nazi Party are the largest growing parties in the government."

I'll leave out the Nazi party, but thanks! I've changed it.

Np, and it is probably for the best that you did.

by **Valrifell** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:39 pm

There's not even an option to reject the proposals and strike even harder against the freedom to assemble?

Option 1 still reads as "Why do you hate Democracy?" and Option 2 reads as "We need to make an oligarchy" (which subsequently makes the effect line not make much sense)

by **Roosevetania** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:49 pm

Shouldn't there be an option for keeping parties banned?

Edit: Valrifell beat me to it.

by **North Isseggggnignigsegigisegggg Islands** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:53 pm

Valrifell wrote:There's not even an option to reject the proposals and strike even harder against the freedom to assemble?

Option 1 still reads as "Why do you hate Democracy?" and Option 2 reads as "We need to make an oligarchy" (which subsequently makes the effect line not make much sense)

Option 2 was supposed to read as "make the country a two/three party state by law". It's loosely based on the USA media's ignoring of the two smaller parties in the election.
I've made a third option:

[option]"Who cares about what a few protestors think?" opines @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, your brother, looking up from a copy of '1984'. "Power shouldn't be concentrated in the hands of a few. If anything, we need to crack down even harder on the gathering of power, or we'll end up like this!" He holds up the book.
[effect]commuters in trains are frequently arrested for "organising political gatherings"

Roosevetania wrote:Shouldn't there be an option for keeping parties banned?

Edit: Valrifell beat me to it.

But isn't that the dismiss option?

by **Ransium** » Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:44 pm

When we write follow up issues, we typically want to write options that a nation who first choose the original issue would also select. I don't see a compelling case for either of these choices to be chosen by a nation that thought banning political parties was a good idea in the first place. This draft says "Nations who banned political parties, you guessed wrong, try again!' I would think most nations that got this issue as written would dismiss and be a bit insulted by the whole thing.

by **North Isseggggnignigsegigisegggg Islands** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:47 pm

Ransium wrote:When we write follow up issues, we typically want to write options that a nation who first choose the original issue would also select. I don't see a compelling case for either of these choices to be chosen by a nation that thought banning political parties was a good idea in the first place. This draft says "Nations who banned political parties, you guessed wrong, try again!' I would think most nations that got this issue as written would dismiss and be a bit insulted by the whole thing.

Thank you for the tip! I've come up with something else:

Description: After recently receiving a petition signed by 100,000 @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ that called for political parties to be made legal again, you have called a cabinet meeting with your advisors to discuss a course of action.

[option]"I completely disagree. In fact, we need to reaffirm our opposition to political parties!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, your finance minister, who has an economic ideology that is the exact opposite of yours. "Having independent politicians gives the people of @@NAME@@ the freedom to choose only the policies that they like, instead of a single inflexible ideology. For example, the people might like a politician's stance on the environment, but not law enforcement. Yes, this might keep some minor politicians out, but at least it keeps the government accountable to the people."
[effect]each government department has wildly differing positions on policy

[option]"I used to be a possible leader of @@NAME@@, but I'm now just the mayor of a hamlet!" weeps @@RANDOMNAME@@, who used to be the leader of a major opposing party. "I can't even have a rally without being arrested! It's not fair! I'm sorry for being a bit of a @@ANIMAL@@ towards you earlier on, but in the name of democracy, I beg you to bring back the right to associate!"
[effect]the @@ANIMAL@@-Festival-Crazy Party is the largest growing party in government

by **Ransium** » Tue Jan 17, 2017 1:53 pm

I think you can't have the problem of the issue be simply that people didn't like your previous decision. The problem needs to be something which logically might arise from that previous decision. If you'll pardon the arrogance of referencing my own issue, check 658 in my sig. The problem there wasn't that people hated that you endorsed the anti-vaxxers, it was that by endorsing anti-vaxxers you allowed a disease to run rampant. By doing this it allowed me to write an issue which was not just a simple anti-vaxxer yes or no, which the player had already previously answered anyway. I had three option that a nation who supported anti-vaxxxing might feel were sensible (I hope) and 1 'maybe this wasn't a good idea' option.

So for your issue I think the problem needs to flow from the decision to ban parties, not just be objection to banning them. The obvious thing to explore is that by banning political parties, voters may not have any idea who they are actually voting for and what their stances are, because that takes a lot of research that voter may not do. So how do we solve it? One option could be your current 2, bringing back political parties, but other solutions could be voter education classes, having the ballot show their stance for different issues, or having each issue have a separate issue-specific party. Be creative! Just my 2 @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@, obviously. Hope that helps!

by **North Isseggggnignigsegigisegggg Islands** » Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:23 pm

Ransium wrote:I think you can't have the problem of the issue be simply that people didn't like your previous decision. The problem needs to be something which logically might arise from that previous decision. If you'll pardon the arrogance of referencing my own issue, check 658 in my sig. The problem there wasn't that people hated that you endorsed the anti-vaxxers, it was that by endorsing anti-vaxxers you allowed a disease to run rampant. By doing this it allowed me to write an issue which was not just a simple anti-vaxxer yes or no, which the player had already previously answered anyway. I had three option that a nation who supported anti-vaxxxing might feel were sensible (I hope) and 1 'maybe this wasn't a good idea' option.

So for your issue I think the problem needs to flow from the decision to ban parties, not just be objection to banning them. The obvious thing to explore is that by banning political parties, voters may not have any idea who they are actually voting for and what their stances are, because that takes a lot of research that voter may not do. So how do we solve it? One option could be your current 2, bringing back political parties, but other solutions could be voter education classes, having the ballot show their stance for different issues, or having each issue have a separate issue-specific party. Be creative! Just my 2 @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@, obviously. Hope that helps!

Thank you for that! I've changed the description and added a new option.

Description: After the Treasury withheld the Ministry of Environment's entire budget because they felt that it was a "waste of money", you have called a cabinet meeting to discuss an appropriate course of action.

[option]"Why do you even bother with a government-owned Treasury? Just let the private sector manage it." suggests @@RANDOMMALEFIRSTNAME@@ Ruth-Bairn, an elderly, scary-looking, rich man from a successful banking company. "This will benefit the economy massively due to access to government funds, and if you don't, well, your health could sharply deteriorate..."
[effect]a private company controls the government's finances

by **North Isseggggnignigsegigisegggg Islands** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 9:52 am

Bump.

by **Tinhampton** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:10 am

What exactly has the description got to do with the non-existence of political parties?

by **North Isseggggnignigsegigisegggg Islands** » Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:41 am

Tinhampton wrote:What exactly has the description got to do with the non-existence of political parties?

You're right: I was trying to give the impression that each government department has a completely different ideology, but I already have that as an option. I've changed it. Thank you!

by **North Isseggggnignigsegigisegggg Islands** » Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:48 pm

Bump.

[DRAFT] Politicians demand the right to associate

[DRAFT] Politicians demand the right to associate

Who is online