[SUBMITTED] Lucky 7 (Issue 777 Idea)

[Australian rePublic]

Based on what they do in some East Asian countries. The last option is Singapore's solution to the problem

Title: Lucky 7

Description: With a rise in gambling and associated social issues, a government minister has recently proposed a controversial new policy: To prevent locals from gambling, and only allow tourists to gamble.

Validity: Must allow tourism, must allow gambling, issue 777 (why not)

Options:
[option] “Do you know how much problem gambling costs us” asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, your treasurer, as @@HE@@ types numbers into @@HIS@@ calculator “Too much! But if tourists are problem gamblers, they can empty their pockets in our casinos, then take their problem home. Not our problem”
[effect] citizens are often upset by “tourist only areas”

[option] “That’s a dumb idea” complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, emptying @@HIS@@ last @@CURRENCY@@ from @@HIS@@ pocket “I like to put some money in the pokies every now and then, why should my hobby be taken away from me?” @@HE@@ finishes speaking, and takes out another loan at the casino
[effect] problem gambling is @@NAME@@’s number 7 expense

[option] “I have an idea!” suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@ “Why don’t we charge a casino entry fee which can be woven by showing one’s foreign passport. What could possibly go wrong?”
[effect] the casino entry fee adds insult to injury for problem gamblers who lose money

Title: Lucky 7

Description: In order to prevent problem gambling, the government has decided to prevent locals from gambling, and only allow tourists to gamble

Validity: Must allow tourism, must allow gambling, issue 777 (why not)

Options:
[option] “Do you know how much problem gambling costs us” asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, your treasurer, as @@HE@@ types numbers into @@HIS@@ calculator “Too much! But if tourists are problem gamblers, they can empty their pockets in our casinos, then take their problem home. Not our problem”
[effect] citizens are often upset by “tourist only areas”

[option] “That’s a dumb idea” complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, emptying @@HIS@@ last @@CURRENCY@@ from @@HIS@@ pocket “I like to put some money in the pokies every now and then, why should my hobby be taken away from me?” @@HE@@ finishes speaking, and takes out another loan at the casino
[effect] problem gambling is @@NAME@@’s number 7 expense

[option] “I have an idea!” suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@ “Why don’t we charge a casino entry fee which can be woven by showing one’s foreign passport. What could possibly go wrong?”
[effect] the casino entry fee adds insult to injury for problem gamblers who lose money

[Caracasus]

An interesting premise here. However...

Description: In order to prevent problem gambling, the government has decided to prevent locals from gambling, and only allow tourists to gamble

It looks like you're stating what the government/leader has already decided to do. I'd either save this as a possible option, or alter it to the following:

Description: With a rise in gambling and associated social issues, a government minister has recently proposed a contraversial new policy: To prevent locals from gambling, and only allow tourists to gamble.

[Australian rePublic]

An interesting premise here. However...

Description: In order to prevent problem gambling, the government has decided to prevent locals from gambling, and only allow tourists to gamble

It looks like you're stating what the government/leader has already decided to do. I'd either save this as a possible option, or alter it to the following:

Description: With a rise in gambling and associated social issues, a government minister has recently proposed a contraversial new policy: To prevent locals from gambling, and only allow tourists to gamble.

No, I just worded it badly. I like your description better. Thank you!

[Caracasus]

No worries!

[Australian rePublic]

Bump for second draft

Thanks Caracasus for your better version of the description!

[Orgrua]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting them, but options 1 and 3 seem very similar. I would either combine and scrap the other, or edit them so they're more distinct in what happens and the resulting outcome.

[Neve Tzedek]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting them, but options 1 and 3 seem very similar. I would either combine and scrap the other, or edit them so they're more distinct in what happens and the resulting outcome.

I didn't understand the difference either...
Also, you should add other options because basically, all you propose is to agree or not with policy. Add options like "Maybe we should just ban gambling?", you know, the option who doesn't limit itself to a "yes" or a "no".
Anyways, I think this is an interesting issue, good luck with it.

[Australian rePublic]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting them, but options 1 and 3 seem very similar. I would either combine and scrap the other, or edit them so they're more distinct in what happens and the resulting outcome.

Nope. One bans locals, the other charges them an entry fee

Maybe I'm misinterpreting them, but options 1 and 3 seem very similar. I would either combine and scrap the other, or edit them so they're more distinct in what happens and the resulting outcome.

I didn't understand the difference either...
Also, you should add other options because basically, all you propose is to agree or not with policy. Add options like "Maybe we should just ban gambling?", you know, the option who doesn't limit itself to a "yes" or a "no".
Anyways, I think this is an interesting issue, good luck with it.

Thanks, but "ban gambling" has been done, these have different options. Plus, people tend to dismiss those options

But if someone else thinks so, I might consider it

[Australian rePublic]

Last call before submission

[Australian rePublic]

Submitted