[DISCARDED] Who Would Expect a Secular Inquisition?

[Jutsa]

Soo, this is is pretty much my go at a version of #219 for atheist nations...

Let me know what you think of it. I'm legitimately alright if it's also just added to 219, or discarded.

Draft 2.00

Title: Who Would Expect a Secular Inquisition?
The Issue: Although organized religion has been abolished, many are questioning if religious-like beliefs still persist, and are offering an inquisition to try astrologists, ghost hunters, and people who put all their faith into having no faith.
Validity: Religion is banned

Option 1: Dr. Madalenin Hoxhair, a well-known hard-line atheist in a foundation platformed from the increasingly unpopular People for the Ethical Treatment of Everything, throws a golden ring into a fire. "Many atheists still hold almost religious beliefs in the superstitious and unprovable, and so have encouraged us to form an inquisition. However, it'll only be to try those in error and put them on the right track to scientific reasoning. Of course, in order to bring this noble plan into effect, the Hard-Line Atheist Office must have jurisdiction over the civil courts."
[effect] radicals devoid of answers have seized control of the law

Option 2: "People like you are exactly why @@NAME@@ needs an inquisition," hisses @@RANDOMNAME@@, known atheist preacher and writer of Lucky Socks and Other Magical Things, to the previous speaker. "We do need a unified belief — that while there is no Cyan Goddess, no Great Lumberer, no Floating Linguine Monster; there are still supernatural forces that science simply can not explain. After all, atheism is just a religion of no gods. We must persecute all of those who are living by some textbook, and teach them that science is not the answer to everything. It'll bring us into a new golden age!"
[effect] people wondering how things work are told to just accept things for what they are

Option 3: "Aren't inquisitions one of the reasons why we banned religion in the first place?" inquisitively inquires @@RANDOMNAME@@, a once devout follower of the Order of Maxx. "These mirxen — pardon my language — ultra-atheists have plunged us all into chaos! @@NAME@@ doesn't need an inquisition; it needs to legalize religion! Everyone should have the right to think, preach, worship, believe, think, contemplate, think, believe... whatever the Mixmax they please. It's time to move beyond these hateful principles!"
[effect] whole towns are baffled by the sudden presence of people in robes chanting hymns and preaching tales of @@ANIMAL@@-men
[Flag Change] Atheism is removed

Title: Who Would Expect a Secular Inquisition?
The Issue: Some zealous figures of @@NAME@@'s major anti-religious groups have requested government sponsorship for the institution of an inquisition to try astrologists, ghost hunters, and people who put all their faith into a lucky rock.
Validity: Religion is banned

Option 1: Dr. Madalenin Hoxhair, a well-known hard-line atheist in a foundation platformed from the increasingly unpopular People for the Ethical Treatment of Everything, throws a golden ring into a fire. "Many atheists still hold almost religious beliefs in the superstitious and unprovable, and so have encouraged us to form an inquisition. However, it'll only be to try those in error and put them on the right track to scientific reasoning. Of course, in order to bring this noble plan into effect, the Hard-Line Atheist Office must have jurisdiction over the civil courts."
[effect] radicals devoid of answers have seized control of the law

Option 2: "Aren't inquisitions one of the reasons why we banned religion in the first place?" inquisitively inquires @@RANDOMNAME@@, a once devout follower of the Order of Maxx. "These mirxen — pardon my language — ultra-atheists have plunged us all into chaos! @@NAME@@ doesn't need an inquisition; it needs to legalize religion! Everyone should have the right to think, preach, worship, believe, think, contemplate, think, believe... whatever the Mixmax they please. It's time to move beyond these hateful principles!"
[effect] whole towns are baffled by the sudden presence of people in robes chanting hymns and preaching tales of @@ANIMAL@@-men
[Flag Change] Atheism is removed

Option 3: "And you two are exactly why @@NAME@@ needs more than just an inquisition," hisses @@RANDOMNAME@@, known atheist preacher and writer of Lucky Socks and Other Magical Things, to the previous speaker. "We do need a single, unified belief — the belief that while there is no Cyan Goddess, no Great Lumberer, no Floating Linguine Monster; there are still supernatural forces that science simply can not explain. We must persecute all of those who are living by some science textbook, and stick them believers into camps where they'll face a truly unholy punishment — like stoning! It'll bring us into a new golden age!"
[effect] devout followers of stars and ladybugs are tortured to cleanse their minds
[Flag Change*] applies Corporal Punishment

[spoiler=Draft 1.00]

Title: Who Would Expect a Secular Inquisition?
The Issue: Some zealous figures of @@NAME@@'s major anti-religious groups have requested government sponsorship for the institution of an inquisition to try Cyan prophets and pizza worshippers.
Validity: Religion is banned

Option 1: Dr. Madalenin Hoxhair, a well-known scientist in a foundation platformed from the increasingly unpopular People for the Ethical Treatment of Everything, throws a golden ring into a fire. "The teachings of the Church are ridiculous, and have encouraged us to form an inquisition against religion. However, it'll only be to try those in error and put them on the right track to scientific reasoning. Of course, in order to bring this noble plan into effect, the scientific community must have jurisdiction over the civil courts."
[effect] radical nerds have seized control of the law

Option 2: "Aren't inquisitions one of the reasons why we banned religion in the first place?" inquisitively inquires @@RANDOMNAME@@, a once devout follower of the Order of Maxx. "These mirxen — pardon my language — ultra-atheists have plunged us all into chaos! @@NAME@@ doesn't need an inquisition; it needs to legalize religion! Everyone should have the right to think, preach, worship, believe, think, contemplate, think, believe... whatever the Mixmax they please. It's time to move beyond these hateful principles!"
[effect] whole towns are baffled by the sudden presence of people in robes chanting hymns and preaching tales of @@ANIMAL@@-men
[Flag Change] Atheism is removed

Option 3: "And you are exactly why @@NAME@@ needs more than just an inquisition," hisses @@RANDOMNAME@@, known atheist preacher, to the previous speaker. "We do need a single, unified belief - the belief that there is no Yellow Goddess, no Great Lumberer, no Floating Linguine Monster. We must persecute all of those who are living by some book, and stick them believers into camps where they'll face a truly unholy punishment — like stoning! It'll bring us into a new golden age!"
[effect] devout clergymen preaching love and charity are tortured to cleanse their minds
[Flag Change*] applies Corporal Punishment

ed: Forgot to add the flag change to option 3.
ed2: If this does end up being its own issue, I'm 100% fine with the author of the normal issue being considered "co-author" in this.

edF: Officially discarded it. Prior final edit: June 11, 2018.

[Australian rePublic]

What's the difference between options 1 ,& 3

[Jutsa]

the same difference as in the original; one tries a group of people and tries to correct them, the other just stones them

[Fauxia]

I like the allusion to 219.

[Jutsa]

streamlined -s to —s and changed "Lord" to "Yellow Goddess".

[Chan Island]

Nice. All I can say is nice.

[Techolandia]

Would option 1 suggesting improving the education system to teach students that @@ANIMAL@@-men are impossible in the first place be okay, even if the speaker isn't a science teacher?

[Jutsa]

I mean, he might, but I don't think that's what this issue's meant to be about.

[Sacara]

[Baggieland]

Option 1. I find it strange that an issue which will only be sent to nations that have banned religion talks about churches! Make it so that there is an illegal underground religious movement.

Also not believing in God doesn't always equate to science. I am an athiest, yet my worst subjects at school were the sciences!

[Jutsa]

Eh yeah very true, both of those. I'll try to hammer those out.

[Trotterdam]

Also not believing in God doesn't always equate to science. I am an athiest, yet my worst subjects at school were the sciences!

The same claim has recently come up in another thread, so read my response there.

In fact, such "incorrect atheism" might be part of what the inquisition wants to root out...

[Chan Island]

Also not believing in God doesn't always equate to science. I am an athiest, yet my worst subjects at school were the sciences!

The same claim has recently come up in another thread, so read my response there.

In fact, such "incorrect atheism" might be part of what the inquisition wants to root out...

That might be an interesting angle to take actually, and would have a slight mirroring in the historical inquisition too. Have it that while everyone has officially deconverted, many are either in underground movements or hold onto ignorant superstitions.

[Jutsa]

Well, I tried to change it to be hard-line atheists vs. superstitious atheists, but it's no permanent damage if you advise me to change it back to primarily religion.
I actually wanted to try for a religious one, but if they're not caught by the cops already, idk what the first or third options would even do.

Anyhow, updated! I unfortunately had to remove the cults of Yellow and Pizza, but it's worth it to keep Cyan, Weird Gates, and Pastafarianism.

Ed: Also hotfixed effect line 3.

[Trotterdam]

Hard-Line Atheist Office

It seems somewhat improbable for the office to actually be called that.

[effect] radicals devoid of answers have seized control of the law

I'd say atheism and science offer lots of answers. They're just not always the answers you want to hear.

a once devout follower of the Order of Maxx

Hyphenate "once-devout".

Option 3: "And you two are exactly why @@NAME@@ needs more than just an inquisition," hisses @@RANDOMNAME@@, known atheist preacher and writer of Lucky Socks and Other Magical Things, to the previous speaker. "We do need a single, unified belief — the belief that while there is no Cyan Goddess, no Great Lumberer, no Floating Linguine Monster; there are still supernatural forces that science simply can not explain. We must persecute all of those who are living by some science textbook, and stick them believers into camps where they'll face a truly unholy punishment — like stoning! It'll bring us into a new golden age!"
[effect] devout followers of stars and ladybugs are tortured to cleanse their minds
[Flag Change*] applies Corporal Punishment[/box]

Hmm. Interesting that while in the religious inquisition issue option 3 was a more extreme version of option 1, here you have option 3 support a different form of atheism in addition to a more extreme form of enforcing it. I don't think it really works.

Plus, in real life, I think it's the scientific atheists who are more likely to harass religious people over their faith, while many of the superstitious atheists are either (A) laid-back "live and let live" types, or (B) conspiracy theorists, who are generally more interested in harassing figures of authority rather than encouraging figures of authority to harass average people.

[effect] devout followers of stars and ladybugs are tortured to cleanse their minds

[effect] devout clergymen preaching love and charity are tortured to cleanse their minds

Now, now. The old effect line was much better.

[Jutsa]

It seems somewhat improbably for the office to actually be called that.

fair.

I'd say atheism and science offer lots of answers. They're just not always the answers you want to hear.

New effect lines on the spot aren't my specialty. I'll come back to that.

Hyphenate "once-devout"

Thanks. :3c

Hmm. Interesting that while in the religious inquisition issue option 3 was a more extreme version of option 1, here you have option 3 support a different form of atheism in addition to a more extreme form of enforcing it. I don't think it really works.

Plus, in real life, I think it's the scientific atheists who are more likely to harass religious people over their faith, while many of the superstitious atheists are either (A) laid-back "live and let live" types, or (B) conspiracy theorists, who are generally more interested in harassing figures of authority rather than encouraging figures of authority to harass average people.

Yeah, I totally agree. It was supposed to keep with the theme of the previous issue, but I see that it'll have to be reworked a bit.
(to be fair, I'm alright with the issue devolving from the original, progressively)

ow, now. The old effect line was much better.

I 100% agree. Plus I kinda got mixed up and that'd imply punishing the side that option's supposed to be for.

I'll try and address these soon.

[Trotterdam]

Yeah, I totally agree. It was supposed to keep with the theme of the previous issue, but I see that it'll have to be reworked a bit.
(to be fair, I'm alright with the issue devolving from the original, progressively)

For what it's worth, #548 is clearly inspired by #6, but doesn't simply copy its options one-for-one. Don't feel you have to stick to the original format.

[Jutsa]

Yeah. Besides, it's be more original.

I'll be sure to change that then.

[Trotterdam]

You know, I just noticed something funny.

Currently, #219 actually is available to nations with compulsory atheism, as evidenced by the fact that someone has been seen choosing option 3 while having the policy (it removes the policy, of course - option 1 probably does too, but this has never been observed).

I think Atheism is a fake policy rather than a tracked flag, anyway, as evidenced by the existence of options that only sometimes grant it: #140 2, #298 4, and #720 3, none of which feel like they should be making religion illegal (#298 4 comes close with banning all public promotion of religion, #720 3 only wants to ban some religions, and #140 doesn't even mention religion at all, even though the policies it introduces could offend some religious practices - though, say, Hindus would be just fine with #140 2).

Even weirder, #411 4 removes the Atheism policy despite the speaker clearly being anti-religion.

#423 2 removing the Atheism policy probably does make sense, except that it raises the question of whether a compulsorily-atheist nation would even have a Violetist community to spark the issue (I guess they could be practicing it illegally).

[The Kind-of-United States]

Nice. All I can say is nice.

Monty Python is amazing, good job with the reference!

[Jutsa]

Well, I mean, that really turned this draft on its head...
as well as me.

Uh... think this stuff's worth bringing up in Hufoi?

[Chan Island]

You know, I just noticed something funny.

Currently, #219 actually is available to nations with compulsory atheism, as evidenced by the fact that someone has been seen choosing option 3 while having the policy (it removes the policy, of course - option 1 probably does too, but this has never been observed).

I think Atheism is a fake policy rather than a tracked flag, anyway, as evidenced by the existence of options that only sometimes grant it: #140 2, #298 4, and #720 3, none of which feel like they should be making religion illegal (#298 4 comes close with banning all public promotion of religion, #720 3 only wants to ban some religions, and #140 doesn't even mention religion at all, even though the policies it introduces could offend some religious practices - though, say, Hindus would be just fine with #140 2).

Even weirder, #411 4 removes the Atheism policy despite the speaker clearly being anti-religion.

#423 2 removing the Atheism policy probably does make sense, except that it raises the question of whether a compulsorily-atheist nation would even have a Violetist community to spark the issue (I guess they could be practicing it illegally).

Seems like somebody should get on it then.

[Techolandia]

You know, I just noticed something funny.

Currently, #219 actually is available to nations with compulsory atheism, as evidenced by the fact that someone has been seen choosing option 3 while having the policy (it removes the policy, of course - option 1 probably does too, but this has never been observed).

I think Atheism is a fake policy rather than a tracked flag, anyway, as evidenced by the existence of options that only sometimes grant it: #140 2, #298 4, and #720 3, none of which feel like they should be making religion illegal (#298 4 comes close with banning all public promotion of religion, #720 3 only wants to ban some religions, and #140 doesn't even mention religion at all, even though the policies it introduces could offend some religious practices - though, say, Hindus would be just fine with #140 2).

Even weirder, #411 4 removes the Atheism policy despite the speaker clearly being anti-religion.

#423 2 removing the Atheism policy probably does make sense, except that it raises the question of whether a compulsorily-atheist nation would even have a Violetist community to spark the issue (I guess they could be practicing it illegally).

Seems like somebody should get on it then.

"Why did THIS policy switch on or turn off out of line with the issue's story?"

It may be an error, and something to report here. However, it may not. Read the below information first.

The following policies are not on/off binary flags directed by issue editors, but rather were implemented to change when your nation crosses above or below a certain threshold in various freedoms:

Theocracy
Free Press
Gun Ownership
State Press
No Dissent
No Drugs
No Gambling
Public Protest
No Marriage
Arranged Marriage
Atheism
Nudism
Prudity
State Surveillance

For example, Public Protest looks at a backstage number that often is coded to move when the right to protest is infringed or increased. When that number is below or above a certain threshold (lets arbitrarily say 700/1000, though these aren't the actual numbers) the policy can turn on or off. That means that even a tiny "side-effect" level movement of +1 or -1 can be enough to change the policy flag. Indeed, said change might not even be a result of a narrative relating to protests.

Because these "policies" didn't exist at the time issues were coded, we never considered their activation or deactivation in narratives.

Another example is Theocracy which indicated minimum freedom in choosing your religion, but actions that endorse being free to practice according to your religion are considered pro-freedom on the same scale. This therefore causes a weird situation where a pro-religious choice can deactivate theocracy.

These things are still in discussion backstage, as clearly this is creating narrative disconnects.

For now, consider this to be a known bug.

[Chan Island]

Seems like somebody should get on it then.

"Why did THIS policy switch on or turn off out of line with the issue's story?"

It may be an error, and something to report here. However, it may not. Read the below information first.

The following policies are not on/off binary flags directed by issue editors, but rather were implemented to change when your nation crosses above or below a certain threshold in various freedoms:

Theocracy
Free Press
Gun Ownership
State Press
No Dissent
No Drugs
No Gambling
Public Protest
No Marriage
Arranged Marriage
Atheism
Nudism
Prudity
State Surveillance

For example, Public Protest looks at a backstage number that often is coded to move when the right to protest is infringed or increased. When that number is below or above a certain threshold (lets arbitrarily say 700/1000, though these aren't the actual numbers) the policy can turn on or off. That means that even a tiny "side-effect" level movement of +1 or -1 can be enough to change the policy flag. Indeed, said change might not even be a result of a narrative relating to protests.

Because these "policies" didn't exist at the time issues were coded, we never considered their activation or deactivation in narratives.

Another example is Theocracy which indicated minimum freedom in choosing your religion, but actions that endorse being free to practice according to your religion are considered pro-freedom on the same scale. This therefore causes a weird situation where a pro-religious choice can deactivate theocracy.

These things are still in discussion backstage, as clearly this is creating narrative disconnects.

For now, consider this to be a known bug.

Cool. Thanks for this information.

[Jutsa]

Well, maybe something can still be worked out. I still have to update this draft.