NationStates

Inspired by the whole Kavanaugh debacle.

[Name] At The Eleventh Hour
[Desc] Minutes before your nominee for a high ranking ministerial role was scheduled to be voted on by parliament, allegations from his high school years detailing how he exposing his uncovered genitals to girls surfaced to public knowledge. The suddenness of the accusation has now thrown the entire nomination into turmoil.
[Validity] high political freedoms

[option] "We can’t be seen as the party that doesn’t take these allegations seriously," contends one of your party's top level strategists. "We need to be careful about our image here, too. The burden of proof is ultimately on the accused in this case. It doesn’t do anyone any good to put through a nominee this divisive. It seems as though we already lost the public opinion battle; you must rescind the nomination and put forward someone else."
[effect] background checks on nominees extend all the way back to their elementary years

[option] "Where’s the proof?" cries your nominee, frantically pacing around your office while sweating profusely. "This is just a political ploy, a sham made up by the opposition to ruin my impeccable name! No evidence has been provided whatsoever to corroborate such claims, either. The accusation itself is from some thirty years ago; even if it would happen to be true, it shouldn't even be relevant! Without any evidence, you must tell your party to confirm me at once!"
[effect] accusers who wait more than a week are told to go away

[option] "This wouldn’t even be a problem if we got rid of the whole nomination process," murmurs one your most loyal aides, known for having almost too much affection for you. "I mean, that just slows everything down, right? Just appoint whoever you want, whenever you want and inform the parliament. It’s efficiency at its finest."
[effect] the parliament continues to give its rubber stamp of approval to everyone and anyone

Changelog:

• [Draft 1] Initial version of draft
• [Draft 2] Reworked description and switched option one and two around while also reworking them.
• Small edits to option one and three & changed effect lines

Option 3- so how does that solve the sexual assult allegations?

The premise should be more specific than "sexual misconduct". Say what he was accused of doing, and make it as shocking as the real case. The framing could also be more concise - more information, less waffle please.

I feel the core arguments for and against need to be more convincing.

In favour of proceeding - the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and a refusal to let the media have control over nominations.

In favour of holding back - endorsing a candidate of this nature suggests the administration dismissive of allegations of sexual misconduct, and that they are pragmatically putting expediency ahead of criminal justice.

That is to say, both options should make you read and think "yeah, they got a point there". Right now, you've instead got two speakers who are persuading you against their own position with their weak arguments.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:The premise should be more specific than "sexual misconduct". Say what he was accused of doing, and make it as shocking as the real case. The framing could also be more concise - more information, less waffle please.

Yeah, I felt like the desc was longer than usual. I'll tidy that up when I get around to it.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:In favour of proceeding - the principle of innocent until proven guilty, and a refusal to let the media have control over nominations.

I'll re-frame this option.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:In favour of holding back - endorsing a candidate of this nature suggests the administration dismissive of allegations of sexual misconduct, and that they are pragmatically putting expediency ahead of criminal justice.

I see that I can make this stronger, however, the core of this argument is that of real life: if someone has allegations levied against them, no matter their credibility, they are disqualified. This, simplified, is at the core of the #MeToo movement. Believing women, no matter how credible they are. That in and of itself was one of the reasons that people opposed Kavanaugh. However, I will revise this in a bit.

Sacara wrote:I see that I can make this stronger, however, the core of this argument is that of real life: if someone has allegations levied against them, no matter their credibility, they are disqualified. This, simplified, is at the core of the #MeToo movement. Believing women, no matter how credible they are. That in and of itself was the sole reason that people opposed Kavanaugh. However, I will revise this in a bit.

That in itself is an interpretation that suggests you think he shouldn't be disqualified. There's a lot of ways of framing it, and one of the hardest things to do is to write from the viewpoint you disagree with.

To reframe the situation in a pro-disqualification way:

Allegations made aren't proof of misconduct, but the burden of proof required for criminal conviction is not the same burden of proof required to not endorse that individual, especially if other circumstantial evidence suggests a likelihood of truth. Kavanaugh bears the burden of proof in this situation, as he must be able to defend against the charge in a way that is persuasive and honourable. If the allegation is in any way credible - which it appears to be - then the question of nomination should be put on hold until the truth can be found. Anything else is tantamount to dismissing the claims of a potential victim. Christine Blaisey Ford has now been the target of death threats for even making an allegation, and dismissal her allegations from within the halls of power sends victims everywhere a simple message: unless you can provide concrete proof, shut the hell up, because you will be punished for speaking out. The MeToo movement is about the opposite - it's not saying that women will automatically be assumed to be telling the truth, it's reassuring them that they will be listened to, and will not be vilified for speaking out.

Why did I put all that in italics? Because it's not my opinion. It's me writing how I would support that position if it were my opinion.

Point being, if you want to create a convincing story, you need to be able to be persuasive from every point of view.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Point being, if you want to create a convincing story, you need to be able to be persuasive from every point of view.

Right, and I'm not contending anything other than that. I'll make the second option stronger when I get around to it. However, although I do have personally beliefs around this whole issue, I have felt like I have maintained neutrality in the current draft, and I will continue to do so. What I said earlier wasn't in the draft, just me explaining it. I do not plan, nor have I ever, to infuse my own beliefs into any draft. Good discussion, though.

Also, I plan on sticking a high political freedoms validity on this as well, to ensure nations have to get parliamentary approval for ministers.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:The MeToo movement is about the opposite - it's not saying that women will automatically be assumed to be telling the truth, it's reassuring them that they will be listened to, and will not be vilified for speaking out.

The problem is that someone seems to get vilified either way. Either the man's life is ruined over people believing the accusations, or the woman's life is ruined over people hating her for making those accusations. Or both, because there's probably some people crazy enough to send death threats on both sides of the debate.

Actually remaining calm and treating both parties with respect until you have more than just hearsay one who's telling the truth seems to be beyond most people. To be fair, the real problem is that, since the trauma of rape is primarily psychological rather than physical, it's rather hard to prove. There's often little externally-verifiable evidence of whether or not sex even happened, let alone whether or not it was consensual. Murder is much easier to apply at least a basic sanity check to. The guy I said you killed is still alive? Clearly I'm lying.

Thanks to CWA for the amazing feedback. Version two is now up -- reworked the description, switched options one and two around, and reworked options one and two. I feel more confident about this draft, now.

Sorry for the double post, but just wanted to state that I edited the desc slightly.

Much better. First and third effect lines aren't great in my personal opinion, and it being a three issue option you could probably allow yourself another sentence in each option to give more depth to the positions, but that should be considered optional.

Regardless, it's looking much better now.

Sacara wrote:Besides, if it did happen, it was thirty some years ago.

In option 2, the guy is proclaiming his innocence. Then you go and put the above line in there, which makes it sound like "well, maybe it did happen".

Yeah, it's a nice point, but I admit it doesn't flow smoothely with the rest of the option.
something I'll be heavily implementing in a couple drafts I'm working on

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Much better. First and third effect lines aren't great in my personal opinion, and it being a three issue option you could probably allow yourself another sentence in each option to give more depth to the positions, but that should be considered optional.

Regardless, it's looking much better now.

I changed the effect lines for options 1 & 3. I also added a little bit, but not much. I like having my options at three lines, max. I've always been a fan of brief(er) issues. Thanks.

Baggieland wrote:In option 2, the guy is proclaiming his innocence. Then you go and put the above line in there, which makes it sound like "well, maybe it did happen".

Fair point. Changed.

I like the way this developed. Thanks for the help!

Baggieland wrote:

Sacara wrote:Besides, if it did happen, it was thirty some years ago.

In option 2, the guy is proclaiming his innocence. Then you go and put the above line in there, which makes it sound like "well, maybe it did happen".

Opinions vary, of course, but for me that line was great humour.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Opinions vary, of course, but for me that line was great humour.

I'm going to change it back, and if it gets picked up by an editor who doesn't like it, I wouldn't be offended if they changed it.

Probably leave this up for a few more days before I submit.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Opinions vary, of course, but for me that line was great humour.

The speaker contradicting himself vs humour?

I think it's ok to keep that line in, for humour, but try to make it sound more like it is intended NS style humour and less like a contradiction.

Something like:

"Well, you know, and even if it did happen, it was some thirty years ago!".

Baggieland wrote:The speaker contradicting himself vs humour?

I think it's ok to keep that line in, for humour, but try to make it sound more like it is intended NS style humour and less like a contradiction.

Something like:

"Well, you know, and even if it did happen, it was some thirty years ago!".

This is how I currently have it worded:

The accusation itself is from some thirty years ago; even if it would happen to be true, it shouldn't even be relevant!

What do you think?

Probably leave this up for a few more days then submit it.

Sacara wrote:Probably leave this up for a few more days then submit it.

You are welcome to submit this now.

Submitted.

Thanks to everyone who helped with this draft (CWA, Baggieland). I really like this draft, and it's certainly pertinent to modern politics; hopefully we can see it in the game sometime.

Good luck

You don’t need my best wishes, but you’re going to get them whether you like it or not.

Candensia wrote:You don’t need my best wishes, but you’re going to get them whether you like it or not.

Australian rePublic wrote:Good luck