[SUBMITTED] In My Defence...

[Candlewhisper Archive]

SECOND DRAFT:

TITLE:

In My Defence...


VALIDITY:

Allowed home defence via 158.1 (new policy suggested: homedefense, with dependency on guns being legal to read true)


DESCRIPTION:

After a flashbang grenade was thrown through his bedroom window and his locked front door was smashed open, @@DEMONYMCAPITALISED@@ Rifle Association member and legal owner @@randomname@@ reached for his shotgun to defend his home. He shot the first intruder he saw breaking into his house. Unfortunately for him, the intruder was a police officer, actioning a no-knock warrant at the head of a SWAT team. Later, it was found that the warrant was issued on bad information, based on a fabricated set of terrorism allegations by a vindictive ex-girlfriend.


OPTION ONE

"The home-defence laws have stopped me from being prosecuted, but not from being punished," explains @@randomname(1)@@, who sports a black eye and multiple taser burns. "They don't take kindly to 'cop-killers' down at the station, and... well, I can understand why they were a little emotional in their response. We have to stop these no-knock warrants from being issued altogether, and give compensation to victims of police overenthusiasm. Oh, and my ex-girlfriend? She should be the one standing trial for homicide. Serves her right for never bringing my Jack Michaelson vinyls back..."

Outcome: SWAT teams on drug busts always knock three times before entering


OPTION TWO

"Look, no-knock warrants are broadly useful tools of enforcement," rebuts police officer @@randomname@@, lovingly stroking the butt of @@his@@ rifle. "They actually reduce the risk of violence because we can normally act before perps get a chance to prepare any defence. Besides, we shouted 'POLICE!' just before we kicked his door in. Not our fault if he couldn't hear us because of his so-called disorientation. He knew he was shooting a cop, and should go to prison for it."

Outcome: glaziers and doormakers are busy all year round

OPTION THREE

"I never expected anyone to get shot," wails @@randomfirstfemalename@@, the ex-girlfriend who made the false allegations, fluttering her eyelashes innocently. "I just wanted him to have a shock in the middle of the night, like I did that time he came home drunk at 2am and threw up on my face. That's not a good way to wake up! I think maybe people should be allowed to have guns, but should only be allowed to use them for their jobs, or for sports. Idiotic use of firearms for so-called self-defence is just macho posturing, and someone always gets hurt with macho posturing. Get rid of the home defence laws!"

Outcome: guns are allowed so long as you don't actually shoot them


OPTION FOUR

"People don't kill people, guns do!" wails weeping liberal @@randomname@@, trying to make the issue about gun control, much to the disgust of the first two speakers. "Not only should private citizens not have guns, but the police shouldn't have guns either! In fact, I'm not even sure soldiers should carry guns! Guns are horrible things, and are the real bad guys here! Ban them all!"

Outcome: office staplers and paintball guns are seen as intrinsically evil

FIRST DRAFT:

TITLE:

In My Defence...


VALIDITY:

Chain from 158.1


DESCRIPTION:

After a flashbang grenade was thrown through his bedroom window and his locked front door was smashed open @@DEMONYMCAPITALISED@@ Rifle Association member and legal owner @@randomname@@ reached for his shotgun to defend his home. He shot the first intruder he saw breaking into his house. Unfortunately for him, the intruder was a police officer, actioning a no-knock warrant at the head of a SWAT team. Later, it was found that the warrant was issued on bad information, based on a fabricated set of terrorism allegations by a vindictive ex-girlfriend.


OPTION ONE

"The home-defence laws have stopped me from being prosecuted, but not from being punished," explains @@randomname(1)@@, who sports a black eye and multiple taser burns. "They don't take kindly to 'cop-killers' down at the station, and... well, I can understand why they were a little emotional in their response. We have to stop these no-knock warrants from being issued altogether, and give compensation to victims of police overenthusiasm. Oh, and my ex-girlfriend? She should be the one standing trial for homicide. Serves her right for never bringing my Jack Michaelson vinyls back..."

Outcome: SWAT teams on drug busts always knock three times before entering


OPTION TWO

"Look, no-knock warrants are broadly useful tools of enforcement," rebuts police officer @@randomname@@, lovingly stroking the butt of @@his@@ rifle. "They actually reduce the risk of violence because we can normally act before perps get a chance to prepare any defence. Besides, we shouted 'POLICE!' just before we kicked his door in. Not our fault if he couldn't hear us because of his so-called disorientation. He knew he was shooting a cop, and should go to prison for it."

Outcome: glaziers and doormakers are busy all year round


OPTION THREE

"People don't kill people, guns do!" wails weeping liberal @@randomname@@, trying to make the issue about gun control, much to the disgust of the previous two speakers. "Not only should private citizens not have guns, but the police shouldn't have guns either! In fact, I'm not even sure soldier should carry guns! Guns are horrible things, and are the real bad guys here! Ban them all!"

Outcome: office staplers and paintball guns are seen as mildly but intrinsically evil

SUBMITTED 30.1.2018

[Candlewhisper Archive]

CRACKED is always great inspiration for issue ideas
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experie ... fense.html

Has a lot of fun writing the anti-gun lobbyist in a suitably right-wing biased way, seeing as the self-selected population of this issue would be folk that have chosen to allow home defence with firearms. That makes the "ban guns" option the "crazy" option.

[Singapore no2]

CRACKED is always great inspiration for issue ideas
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experie ... fense.html

Has a lot of fun writing the anti-gun lobbyist in a suitably right-wing biased way, seeing as the self-selected population of this issue would be folk that have chosen to allow home defence with firearms. That makes the "ban guns" option the "crazy" option.

Nothing of value to add, but that was a very good strawman you managed to make. Bravo!

=)

[Trotterdam]

Do any options other than the intentionally crazy one actually repeal the right to home defense?

The first option supports the right to home defense even to the point of the police bending over to accomodate it.

The second option argues that the right to home defense does not apply to the police, but also says this is because they specifically announced themselves as the police (even if only seconds before entering, and while there were a lot of other noises going on), implying that the right to home defense would remain intact so long as you made sure the burglars weren't police first.

I think a followup should have a somewhat sensible reversal option, even though it shouldn't be the main focus.

[Jutsa]

Yeah, I'm going to agree with Trotterdam here. I think option 3 should just ban that policy - especially since atm it bans guns,
and has no bearings on whether or not someone can kill someone else on their property.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Do any options other than the intentionally crazy one actually repeal the right to home defense?

The first option supports the right to home defense even to the point of the police bending over to accomodate it.

The second option argues that the right to home defense does not apply to the police, but also says this is because they specifically announced themselves as the police (even if only seconds before entering, and while there were a lot of other noises going on), implying that the right to home defense would remain intact so long as you made sure the burglars weren't police first.

I think a followup should have a somewhat sensible reversal option, even though it shouldn't be the main focus.

My thinking here is that the right to home defence isn't actually tracked as a policy at present, which is why I'm chaining directly from the option that enshrines that right in law. I think if someone has only just picked that option, then there's less need for an option that says "actually never mind". Chaining has a different narrative rules-set to policy reversal issues, as the goal here is to develop a story that may occur as a consequence, not to give the opportunity to undo a decision.

It's a good point though, and what we could do instead is create a new policy called home_defense, and make this the reversal issue with an extra option to reflect that role. I'm thinking it works well as a short-chaining though.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I have two things I would like to change in the issue. The first is simply fixing the capitalization, but that's no problem, and also, it's something that'd happen anyway once it was published.
The second would be to remove the "mildly, but" from the third option's result, turning it into just "Office staplers and paintball guns are seen as intrinsically evil". It's the crazy answer, so why limit the crazy involved in the answer?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Good point, will do that on the next iteration.

What are the capitalisation problems? I'm not seeing them.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The issue results for the second and third options don't follow the "first word in a sentence is capitalized" rule.
I mean, something like that would only bother grammarians, and it wouldn't be that big of a problem even if it weren't fixed. I just thought I'd point it out.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

The issue results for the second and third options don't follow the "first word in a sentence is capitalized" rule.
I mean, something like that would only bother grammarians, and it wouldn't be that big of a problem even if it weren't fixed. I just thought I'd point it out.

Ah right. Actually, the opposite rule applies in NS.

Issue effect lines should not be capitalised unless the opening word would be capitalised mid-sentence, as they form the front page paragraphs of nations, as so:

Citizens are regularly arrested in queues for 'loitering', worried-looking neonatal nurses are being deployed in place of SWAT teams during dangerous drug busts, it is mandatory to learn evolution in schools, and a suspicious number of male students have joined the Ladies' Wrestling League. Crime, especially youth-related, is totally unknown, thanks to a well-funded police force and progressive social policies in education and welfare. Evil Dictators Happyland's national animal is the toupéed eagle, which soars majestically through the nation's famously clear skies, and its national religion is nonexistent.

I've thrown some exciting colours around the different effect lines used here. The use of effect lines in the front page paragraphs is one of the main determinants of effect line writing style.

They all went into the system uncapitalised and with no terminal punctuation. The game then capitalises the leading one, sticks commas between them and makes a list. For the front page reports you also get this constructed:

Following new legislation in Evil Dictators Happyland, a suspicious number of male students have joined the Ladies' Wrestling League.

While on your issue outcome page you get this:

A suspicious number of male students have joined the Ladies' Wrestling League.

Note that the initial capitalisation and ending punctuation of effect lines is left to the game engine.

Clever, innit?

[Australian rePublic]

Building on a previous point, option 3 doesn't actually restrict you fron protecting your property, it only stops you from doing so using a gun. Based on the way it's written, there's no reason why you can't stop an intruder with a baseball bat or a knife

[Trotterdam]

My thinking here is that the right to home defence isn't actually tracked as a policy at present, which is why I'm chaining directly from the option that enshrines that right in law. I think if someone has only just picked that option, then there's less need for an option that says "actually never mind". Chaining has a different narrative rules-set to policy reversal issues, as the goal here is to develop a story that may occur as a consequence, not to give the opportunity to undo a decision.

It's a good point though, and what we could do instead is create a new policy called home_defense, and make this the reversal issue with an extra option to reflect that role. I'm thinking it works well as a short-chaining though.

A fair point.

I personally would prefer it as a policy-based issue because, realistically, violent conflicts between homeowners and police are going to be something that continues to happen as long as home defense is legal. Thematically, I prefer saving chain issues for things that would, in fact, logically happen only in short succession, and then not be a problem again. Like, it makes no sense to get #362 if you didn't just answer #361 shortly before.

Technical limitations mean that some things which would make more sense to be policy-based instead need to be inelegantly hacked in as chains, but I'm generally in favor of avoiding that where feasible.

You could argue that once a nation had chosen an option on this issue it's set a policy on the subject and so wouldn't need to decide again, but then that also applies to #158 itself. We reassign issues so players can change their minds.

There might also be some issues where use of a chain instead of a flag is sorta-justified by it being such a wacky fringe opinion that it isn't worth tracking seriously (I don't actually remember right now), but that is not the case here, I think allowing home defense is a pretty mainstream opinion (even though opposing it is also, of course).

The main downside of adding a flag is that nations which chose the option before the flag existed won't automatically be recognized until they choose the option again. However, that would also be a problem with chain issues - and at least flags allow you to create the flag some time in advance in anticipation for a future issue publication.

[Merconitonitopia]

"People don't kill people, guns do!" wails weeping liberal @@randomname@@, trying to make the issue about gun control, much to the disgust of the previous two speakers.

love it

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Good point, it would work better as a policy, and as we'd be adding the reversal at the time the policy is introduced, it'll form a safe closed loop straight away. We can also set it up so that the policy only checks positive if guns are currently illegal, so if guns are banned this becomes a dormant issue till they become legal again.

Okay, rewritten, with a home defence reversal in there.

[Jutsa]

Oh gosh, the story in option 3.

previous two speakers

Forgot to change this to three, or do you still want to keep this as two?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Oh gosh, the story in option 3.

previous two speakers

Forgot to change this to three, or do you still want to keep this as two?

Good catch. Amended to "first two."

[Trotterdam]

Okay, rewritten, with a home defence reversal in there.

Looks pretty good, and it's nice how you made use of a character that was already in the narrative but that I had forgotten about

[Tengania]

"Office staplers and paintball guns are seen as intrinsically evil". Perfect! Funny, and in the typical NationStates over-formalizing sense as well!

[Candlewhisper Archive]

As shwe tu colony would say:

Bump. Last call before submission.

[Fauxia]

I think in the description you missed a comma after “open”

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I think in the description you missed a comma after “open”

That's such an editor thing to say!

Okay, okay, I will concede a comma, this time. Amended.

[Fauxia]

I think in the description you missed a comma after “open”

That's such an editor thing to say!

Okay, okay, I will concede a comma, this time. Amended.

Hehe. I may not be able to write an issue well but I do sometimes notice comma splices!

[Palos Heights]

I think you have an interesting opportunity here to also work in the recent event of SWATing that occurred recently: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42689417

I really liked option 1 except the part regarding "Oh, and my ex-..."

It feels forced on after the bit about no-knock warrants from being issued altogether, as if you're trying to do too much with one issue.
I think that if you changed the speaker in option 1 to be the victim's lawyer speaking in their defense about no-knock warrants and then created a separate option with the gentleman who did the shooting speaking out in favor of no-knock warrants but arguing that the ex should be held responsible would work better for your issue since you seem to be trying to handle two different issues in one option and people wouldn't even see any repercussion of holding the ex responsible in the outcome either.

So I recommend taking the sympathetic personality of the individual into another option where they flip the responsibility on the ex and have a third party talk about the no-knock warrants instead.

Just a thought.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

A good thought. I'm not sure I agree, but its definitely worth putting forward that view for any editor that takes this on to consider.