[ACCEPTED] You're Psychotic, @@LEADER@@!

[Jutsa]

The guy from the foifth option shopuld aldo want to rein down hard on the WA too

I think you slipped into a bit of a lisp*, there, Aussie...
No, I'd rather have him agree with the WA.

I updated this to draft 1.4. Your mother's now combing through your sister's hair as is mandatory by law, and your brother... well, he'll just not be touched by your mother with a 10-foot pole.

I forgot about the nephew's thing, though... which is probably good, because I have to ask you:
Do you think I should leave that in, or should I specify that it's everyone except your niece?

Edit: Also, the Chivelandish(Chile) guy's just another reference to the Chicago Boys from what I could make off of Google. Maybe I should reconsider making him an arms smuggler, then... hmm... advice on this is also welcome

[Trotterdam]

your sister, who your mother is now combing the hair of

your brother, who your mother refuses to touch with a 10-foot pole

Is this where you're supposed to use "whom"? I never quite got the hang of that.

[Fauxia]

your sister, who your mother is now combing the hair of

your brother, who your mother refuses to touch with a 10-foot pole

Is this where you're supposed to use "whom"? I never quite got the hang of that.

Pretty sure whom is correct here. The problem is the sentence structure is unusual, I'm actually not sure if it's subjective or objective. Think it's objective though.

[Jutsa]

Ah, many thanks. I also specified that your mother's coming your sister as mandated by law, instead of your mother being mandated by law to comb your sister's hair(and not saying whether or not she's actually doing it).
Kept it in the same draft.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Sweet collaborative process here. Really looking forward to this one.

[Fauxia]

Sweet collaborative process here. Really looking forward to this one.

Collaborative process... with who(m )? Russia?

[Jutsa]

In Soviet Jutsa, you don't process collaborations - collaborations process you! I'm aware of how terrible this is

[Opperkellehisbur]

Are both last options not for WA, or 1?

[Jutsa]

Just option 4 - option 5 is available for everyone.

[Trotterdam]

In Soviet Jutsa, you don't process collaborations - collaborations process you! I'm aware of how terrible this is

It's better than most Soviet Russia jokes nowadays, since it actually has something to do with what Soviet Russia was like.

effect: citizens may now wear shoes while watching television as long as the television is outside and the shoes are rental

So... you know, I kinda liked the old effect line for this one, even though it was problematic in terms of game mechanics.

When I mentioned this option being tricky without knowing which civil rights you're bringing back, I (A) was talking about the main option text rather than the effect line, and (B) was referring to meaningful civil rights that can be coded into the game, rather than humorous nonsense laws. This, unfortunately, is harder than for economic or political rights, since there are so many different types of civil rights, "civil rights" being somewhat of a catch-all for anything that isn't economic or political - and even if you're low in general, any one in particular might be something that you already have, or for that matter something that many sane nations also restrict.

Mind you, I don't know all the details of how Civil Rights works internally, so you would really need an editor's advice on what's the best way to go.

"Do the right thing by legalizing private industry, and my boys will be more than happy to make you proud."
effect: newly allowed private industries are monitored more than the old state industries

As I said before with elections, you can have low economic freedom without technically having banned private enterprise (in fact, it's easier than having low political freedom without elections). You can still heavily restrict private enterprise to the point it's non-viable and so want to loosen restrictions, but a slight wording tweak might be advisable.

[Jutsa]

Mind you, I don't know all the details of how Civil Rights works internally, so you would really need an editor's advice on what's the best way to go.

Crud.

Would any editor like to help me out on this one...?

you can have low economic freedom without technically having banned private enterprise

Crud.

It's better than most Soviet Russia jokes nowadays, since it actually has something to do with what Soviet Russia was like.

That's sad, but at least it's a relatively positive note.

Meh, I'll work on this in a bit. Anyone(particularly an editor) got a good way of going about options 1 and 3?

[Trotterdam]

Meh, I'll work on this in a bit. Anyone(particularly an editor) got a good way of going about options 1 and 3?

On 3, you could just go with something like "let up on restrictions against private enterprise", leaving it vague exactly how far those restrictions go. Or, "privatize some of our state industries", since according to [violet], even if private industry isn't banned, all nations with less than 50 Economic Freedom (which includes all Psychotic Dictatorships) have at least some state industry.

[Jutsa]

Phew! ok, I did this to option 3:

Do the right thing by privatizing some of the state industries,

Uh... let me know if it needs any more touching up.

[Jutsa]

Bump~

[Fauxia]

Not much to say, although I think option 3 fallout could be improved

[Jutsa]

Idk, I still think it shows a somewhat ironic twist, but if you can think of a better one, be sure to tell me.

Also, I'm replacing "allowed" with "established" - put into the same draft version because I'm lazy.

[Jutsa]

Bump~

[Trotterdam]

I'm still leery of the first option, but I don't have any clear suggestions for improving it and it doesn't seem like anyone else is volunteering.

The effect line for the third option also doesn't really catch my fancy, but the option itself is fine.

Other than that, I think you're good.

[Jutsa]

Well, I'm going to guess that something relatively similar to what happens in the anarchy issue will happen to this one,
although I'm sure some things would be different on account of... well, their being opposites.

As for the effect line, I'll gladly change it if anyone can think of a better one.

I'll keep this up for a couple more weeks and submit it in early November unless an editor gives me the green light.

[Jutsa]

Final non-submission bump, I guess - unless there's more that needs to be done.

[Jutsa]

Submitted! Thank you all for your help - it was much appreciated!

[Fauxia]

Good luck Jutsa

[Australian rePublic]

Gopd luck