Another issue draft inspired by real life events. Let me know what you think, and if there is an existing issue that already covers this topic or not!
EDIT: Brought this back from the dead. Mwahahaha! (Halloween vibes)
[Name] Watch Where You’re Going! [Desc] Tragedy, and also a car, struck @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@ yesterday while @@HE(1)@@ was attending a rally in downtown @@ANIMAL@@ City. The rally was intentionally blocking traffic, and a driver accidentally rammed into only @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME(1)@@. The resulting aftermath has been grinding the gears of many across @@NAME@@. [Validity] allows cars, allows public protest
[option] "Heh, looks like they finally got what’s coming to 'em," notes an overworked taxi-driver from @@CAPITAL@@, who's overheard the issue at hand. "All of 'em protestors that block the street are real annoying, ya know? The only folks at fault here are those who are dumb enough to stand in the street when a car comes barreling towards. Stupid choices get even stupider results." [effect] citizens know that the roads are lawless wastelands
[option] "What kind of sick and twisted world are you living in?" rebuts @@RANDOMNAME@@, one of the organizers of the protest which caused the entire controversy. "Drivers have always had the obligation to make sure they don’t run into people, why should they stop now? The only way to deter this is to enact steep fines against those who do harm protestors and remove their licenses for good." [effect] roads within a five mile radius of protests are shut down
[option] "Like everything else in the world, protests are only good in moderation," remarks your Minister of Machiavellian Politics, who's always two steps ahead of whoever @@HE@@ distrusts. "We can't just let people demonstrate where ever they want, can we? Mandate that all protests first need a license and must be under strict supervision. Nothing will ever blindside us again." [effect] those who participate in anti-government protests usually disappear
]
[VALIDITY] allows automobiles, allows public protests [ISSUE] The “March on @@CAPITAL@@ for Free Bubblegum” protest which took place yesterday turned deadly after a protestor, who was in the middle of a busy intersection, was accidentally struck by a car. Public opinion is deeply divided as to who is at fault for this, and the debate ensued has been grinding gears across @@NAME@@.
[VALIDITY] has prisons [OPTION 1a] “Drivers have an obligation to make sure they don’t run into people!” shouts noted activist, @@RANDOMNAME@@, while wearing a shirt that reads ‘Only My Opinion Matters’. “People deserve the right to demonstrate without the fear of a reckless car barreling towards them. We must impose steep fines on drivers who hit demonstrators, take away their license, and give them a long time to think about what they did behind bars. All this madness is exhausting!" [EFFECT] protesters sun themselves in the middle of motorways
[VALIDITY] doesn’t have prisons [OPTION 1b] “Drivers have an obligation to make sure they don’t run into people!” shouts noted activist, @@RANDOMNAME@@, while wearing a shirt that reads ‘Only My Opinion Matters’. “People deserve the right to demonstrate without the fear of a reckless car barreling towards them. We must impose steep fines on drivers who hit demonstrators, take away their license, and give them a long time to think about what they did with some rehabilitation. All this madness is exhausting!" [EFFECT] protesters sun themselves in the middle of motorways
[OPTION 2] “Oh, give me a brake!” rebukes @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a taxi-driver from @@CAPITAL@@, who looks overworked. “We got places to be too, ya know? There’s enough other locations whine and complain in this country as it is. The only people at fault here were the ones crying on the road, not the drivers. Keep 'em protesters off the streets, and we’ll have no more problems.” [EFFECT] "I thought he was a protestor" is now the most common criminal defense
[NAME] Watch Where You're Going!
[VALIDITY] allows automobiles, allows public protests [ISSUE] The spontaneous “March on @@CAPITAL@@ for Free Bubblegum” protest spilled into the highway immediately outside of @@CAPITAL@@ yesterday. Due to this, one protestor was hit and injured by a seemingly reckless car that was speeding along. The ensuing debate has been grinding gears across @@NAME@@.
[validity] has prisons [OPTION 1a] “These intentional acts of violence are driving me crazy!” shouts noted activist, @@RANDOMNAME@@, while wearing a shirt that reads ‘Only My Opinion Matters’. “People deserve the right to demonstrate without the fear of a reckless car barreling towards them. We must impose steep fines, take away their licenses, and give them a long time to think about what they did behind bars. No one would dare touch protestor then!" [EFFECT] protestors tend to stand at least two feet apart to avoid being prosecuted
[validity] doesn’t have prisons [OPTION 1b] “These intentional acts of violence are driving me crazy!” shouts noted activist, @@RANDOMNAME@@, while wearing a shirt that reads ‘Only My Opinion Matters’. “People deserve the right to demonstrate without the fear of a reckless car barreling towards them. We must impose steep fines, take away their licenses, and give them a long time to think about what they did with some rehabilitation. No one would dare touch protestor then!" [EFFECT] protestors tend to stand at least two feet apart to avoid being prosecuted
[OPTION 2] “Oh, give me a brake!” rebukes @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a taxi-driver from @@CAPITAL@@, who looks overworked and tired. “We got places to be too, ya know? There’s enough other locations whine and complain in this country as it is. The only people at fault here were the ones crying on the road, not the drivers. Keep 'em protesters off the streets, and we’ll have no more problems.” [EFFECT] ‘I thought they were protesting’ is now the most common criminal defense
[NAME] Watch Where You're Going!
[VALIDITY] allows automobiles, allows public protests [ISSUE] After the spontaneous “March on @@CAPITAL@@ for Free Bubblegum” protest, there have been reported cases of drivers running into protesters in broad daylight. The debate that has ensued has been grinding gears across @@NAME@@.
[validity] has prisons [OPTION 1a] “These intentional acts of violence are driving me crazy!” shouts noted activist, @@RANDOMNAME@@, while wearing a shirt that reads ‘Only My Opinion Matters’. “People deserve the right to demonstrate without the fear of a reckless car barreling towards them. We must impose steep fines, take away their licenses, and give them a long time to think about what they did behind bars. No one would dare touch protestor then!" [EFFECT] protestors tend to stand at least two feet apart to avoid being prosecuted
[validity] doesn’t have prisons [OPTION 1b] “These intentional acts of violence are driving me crazy!” shouts noted activist, @@RANDOMNAME@@, while wearing a shirt that reads ‘Only My Opinion Matters’. “People deserve the right to demonstrate without the fear of a reckless car barreling towards them. We must impose steep fines, take away their licenses, and give them a long time to think about what they did with some rehabilitation. No one would dare touch protestor then!" [EFFECT] protestors tend to stand at least two feet apart to avoid being prosecuted
[OPTION 2] “Oh, give me a brake!” rebukes @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a taxi-driver from @@CAPITAL@@, who looks overworked and tired. “We got places to be too, ya know? There’s enough other locations whine and complain in this country as it is. The only people at fault here were the ones crying on the road, not the drivers. Keep 'em protesters off the streets, and we’ll have no more problems.” [EFFECT] ‘I thought they were protesting’ is now the most common criminal defense
Changelog:
Fixed grammatical errors
Released draft two: added doppleganger for option one
Changed effect lines for option one a&b
Released draft three: changed description to reflect only one person getting hit
Released draft four: three months later, I believe my writing skills have improved
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:57 am
by Australian rePublic
How do they manage to block an entire street that quickly
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:18 am
by Sacara
Australian rePublic wrote:How do they manage to block an entire street that quickly
I don’t understand the question? There are lots of cases about prit stars getting hit by cars, and some states in the US are proposing bills to protect the drivers, which is ultimately what this draft is about.
Australian rePublic wrote:How do they manage to block an entire street that quickly
I don’t understand the question? There are lots of cases about prit stars getting hit by cars, and some states in the US are proposing bills to protect the drivers, which is ultimately what this draft is about.
As written it makes me think of the attack at berkley more than the people blocking highways.
Sacara wrote:I don’t understand the question? There are lots of cases about prit stars getting hit by cars, and some states in the US are proposing bills to protect the drivers, which is ultimately what this draft is about.
As written it makes me think of the attack at berkley more than the people blocking highways.
Agree
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:29 pm
by Australian rePublic
Let me put it this way- how many people are required to block an entire street. How difficult is it to gather that many people
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 5:58 pm
by Altmer Dominion
You should make this about a single driver ramming into a protest. As real life shows, it only took one death to make national news.
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:18 pm
by Sacara
Thanks for the feedback. I have modified the description and changed it to Draft Two.
Also, Australia, I don't understand. Protests happen on roads all the time. There are lots of people who do this and many examples.
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:17 pm
by Chan Island
The effect line of option 1 doesn't make sense. Why would the protesters be worried about prosecution if the leader of the nation has sided with them on such an issue?
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:05 pm
by Sacara
Published draft number three! I changed the description to clear up confusion and made some edits to both option 1 a&b. Option two was left the same. I would love some more feedback!
Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:04 pm
by Annihilators of Chan Island
Of course protesters will have more privileges than minorities if you are a segregationist state.
I think the better result would be to focus on some audacious, slightly silly consequence like "protesters sun themselves in the middle of motorways" or "placards are the best anti-vehicle devices in the country".
Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:25 pm
by Sacara
Annihilators of Chan Island wrote:Of course protesters will have more privileges than minorities if you are a segregationist state.
I think the better result would be to focus on some audacious, slightly silly consequence like "protesters sun themselves in the middle of motorways" or "placards are the best anti-vehicle devices in the country".
I was thinking more the opposite way, actually, like in states that have affirmative action. I like the first one you proposed, though. Changed.
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:01 pm
by Sacara
Not calling it draft four because I only changed some minors things, but a shameless bump for more feedback.
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 10:52 am
by Sacara
Little bump so that it gets back on the first page. Leave comments on what you'd like to see changed or what you like!
Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:44 pm
by Sacara
This draft isn't getting much attention, but personally I like it. I edited the description, and any comment is appreciated.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 9:26 am
by Candlewhisper Archive
It's very much "okay". I'd probably add it to the accepted pool, but wouldn't edit it myself, and might delete it when it hits pool bottom if no-one claims it. Basically that's what happens to a lot of drafts by good writers that are good enough to keep but unexciting enough to be overlooked in GI.
If and when you do submit, please ensure all quote marks are straight quotes.
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2018 8:22 pm
by Sacara
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:It's very much "okay". I'd probably add it to the accepted pool, but wouldn't edit it myself, and might delete it when it hits pool bottom if no-one claims it. Basically that's what happens to a lot of drafts by good writers that are good enough to keep but unexciting enough to be overlooked in GI.
That only decent thing in that was being called a good writer, but tough love is something that has been missing lately. I'll attempt to rework this and hopefully make it something more than okay.
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2018 9:01 pm
by Sacara
Major bump (almost from four months ago!)
I've totally reworked this entire draft. This was one of my first (and favorite), but I didn't polish it enough. I've decided to take a new look at it and open it back up. Feedback welcome!
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:00 am
by Jutsa
Could possibly use a "How's about designated safe-zones where citizens can protest in peace, but anywhere else they'd be free to get run over? It'd also help with protest control, so it's a win-win compromise".
I don't think that'd be a "too good compromise" given I can hardly see any nation choosing that over the other two options, but... I'll leave that up to you.
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:15 am
by Sacara
Jutsa wrote:Could possibly use a "How's about designated safe-zones where citizens can protest in peace, but anywhere else they'd be free to get run over? It'd also help with protest control, so it's a win-win compromise".
I don't think that'd be a "too good compromise" given I can hardly see any nation choosing that over the other two options, but... I'll leave that up to you.
Thanks, Jutsa.
Originally I hadn't planned to make this a two-option issue, however I couldn't think of a proper 'crazy' third option. I'm not too sold on the one you suggested, but I am willing to take suggestions for a potential third option.
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:52 am
by Sacara
Any ideas for a third option or should this remain just a two-option issue?
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:09 am
by Jutsa
Hmmm...
radical ban cars option, radical ban protest option...
jeez, aside from radical options and quirky compromises, I'm dry.
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:53 am
by Trotterdam
Jutsa wrote:Could possibly use a "How's about designated safe-zones where citizens can protest in peace, but anywhere else they'd be free to get run over? It'd also help with protest control, so it's a win-win compromise".
I don't think that'd be a "too good compromise" given I can hardly see any nation choosing that over the other two options, but... I'll leave that up to you.
Note that #153 3 already does this. Also note that option 3 appears to be the most-commonly-chosen option on that issue (though I'm not sure how much of that is due to people preferrring dismissal over the other two options).
The variant I thought of was "protests have to be registered with the police in advance, so they can supervise and properly block off traffic", which is slightly different from having permanent protest zones, but is in practice pretty similar in spirit.
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:58 am
by Jutsa
Yeah... not-so-wacky compromise, radical options, or nothing is all I've got for option 3.
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 8:18 pm
