[REWORK PENDING] The Gift That Can't Keep Giving

[Jutsa]

Finally... getting this one out in the open. >_>

This is the oldest draft in my "definitely post on the forums" pile, and it's the oldest by... oh, my, quite a lot.
Like, probably made in... March, maybe earlier. >_<
(I've got another made probably April-May though )

Here's hoping it was worth it, though I must not be that attached to it if I waited this long to share it.

Draft 1.12

Title: The Gift That Can't Keep Giving
The Issue: @@NAME@@ is globally recognized for its large contributions to foreign aid. However, the living conditions of @@NAME@@ are considered subpar. Even without sufficient supplies to keep the population healthy, the government has delivered a massive shipment of food and shelter supplies to the comparatively well-off Smalltopia — free of charge.
Validity: High foreign aid; Low human development index and economy

Option 1: "I know your heart's in the right direction," begins @@RANDOMNAME@@, a reluctant taxpayer who wants more government intervention, "but it's also in the wrong nation. Your first priority should be to your people, not some foreign leader's. I wake up knowing that my hard-earned @@CURRENYPLURAL@@ are going to someone who needs them less. You should cut some of your foreign aid and put our taxes into some of our own services, like health care and welfare."
[effect] funds previously used to help other nations have been directed to keeping domestic toilet paper afloat

Option 2: "I couldn't agree less!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, a comparatively-well-off devout taxpayer who wants less government intervention. "If anything, we should be directing more tax money towards helping these people. Our nation at least still functions, and it's far better to level the playing field than to hoard whatever we have for ourselves, even if a few wimps who don't know how good they have it complain a little. If it makes you feel better, you can also use taxes to make sure the money goes where it's most useful."
[effect] funds previously used to help @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ have been directed to keeping foreign toilet paper afloat

Option 3: "You're saying that we're not in the same boat as some of those nations we're giving our hard-earned @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ to?" furiously interrogates @@RANDOMNAME@@, a reluctant taxpayer who wants less government intervention, literally fighting with the previous speaker over a @@CURRENCY@@. "We should shut down most - nay, ALL of our foreign programs and give us all a healthy tax break! Every man for himself!"
[effect] nations reliant on @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ aid have been devastated

Option 4: "I think I might know a compromise," suggests a surprisingly jolly and red-clad @@RANDOMNAME@@, who couldn't give a care about taxes or the government as long as @@HE@@ can get a decent meal in the morning, and hasn't for some time. "Maybe you could publicly request for some foreign aid, yourself? Y'know, give a few gifts, get a few in return. We'll even be sure to not discriminate, so every nation wins out in the end! Heck, even Maxtopia, we could supply with a large shipment of coal."
[effect] military officers shipped abroad can be seen wearing red suits and black boots and holding signs reading "please donate, we're poor"

Title: The Gift That Can't Keep Giving
The Issue: @@NAME@@ is globally recognized for its large contributions to foreign aid. However, the living conditions of @@NAME@@ are considered subpar. Even without sufficient supplies to keep the population healthy, the government has delivered a massive shipment of food and shelter supplies to the comparatively well-off Smalltopia — free of charge.
Validity: High foreign aid; Low human development index and economy

Option 1: "I know your heart's in the right direction," begins @@RANDOMNAME@@, a reluctant taxpayer who wants more government intervention, "but it's also in the wrong nation. Your first priority should be to your people, not some foreign leader's. I wake up knowing that my hard-earned @@CURRENYPLURAL@@ are going to someone who needs them less. You should cut some of your foreign aid and put our taxes into some of our own services, like health care and welfare."
[effect] funds previously used to help @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ have been directed to keeping foreign toilet paper afloat

Option 2: "I couldn't agree less!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, a comparatively-well-off devout taxpayer who wants less government intervention. "If anything, we should be directing more tax money towards helping these people. Our nation at least still functions, and it's far better to level the playing field than to hoard whatever we have for ourselves, even if a few wimps who don't know how good they have it complain a little. If it makes you feel better, you can also use taxes to make sure the money goes where it's most useful."
[effect] citizens are yearning to emigrate to nations the government's supplying aid for

Option 3: "You're saying that we're not in the same boat as some of those nations we're giving our hard-earned @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ to?" furiously interrogates @@RANDOMNAME@@, a reluctant taxpayer who wants less government intervention, literally fighting with the previous speaker over a @@CURRENCY@@. "We should shut down most - nay, ALL of our foreign programs and give us all a healthy tax break! Every man for himself!"
[effect] nations reliant on @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ aid have been devastated

Option 4: "I think I might know a compromise," suggests a surprisingly jolly and red-clad @@RANDOMNAME@@, who couldn't give a care about taxes or the government as long as @@HE@@ can get a decent meal in the morning, and hasn't for some time. "Maybe you could publicly request for some foreign aid, yourself? Y'know, give a few gifts, get a few in return. We'll even be sure to not discriminate, so every nation wins out in the end! Heck, even Maxtopia, we could supply with a large shipment of coal."
[effect] military officers shipped abroad can be seen wearing red suits and black boots and holding signs reading "please donate, we're poor"

Title: The Gift That Can't Keep Giving
The Issue: @@NAME@@ is globally recognized for its large contributions to foreign aid. However, the living conditions of @@NAME@@ are considered subpar. Even without sufficient supplies to keep the population healthy, the government has delivered a massive shipment of food and shelter supplies to the comparatively well-off Smalltopia — free of charge.
Validity: High foreign aid; Low human development index and economy

Option 1: "I know your heart's in the right direction," begins @@RANDOMNAME@@, a reluctant taxpayer who wants more government intervention, "but it's also in the wrong nation. Your first priority should be to your people, not some foreign leader's. I wake up knowing that my hard-earned @@CURRENYPLURAL@@ are going to someone who needs them less. You should cut some of your foreign aid and put our taxes into some of our own services, like health care and welfare."
[effect] funds previously used to help @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ have been directed to keeping foreign toilet paper afloat

Option 2: "I couldn't agree less!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, a comparatively-well-off devout taxpayer who wants less government intervention. "If anything, we should be directing more tax money towards helping these people. Our nation may not be in the best condition, but it's better to level the playing field than to hoard whatever we have for ourselves, even if we it does mean a few of our citizens complain a little. Of course, we should also be more careful where our money goes."
[effect] citizens are yearning to emigrate to nations the government's supplying aid for

Option 3: "You're saying that we're not in the same boat as some of those nations we're giving our hard-earned @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ to?" furiously interrogates @@RANDOMNAME@@, a reluctant taxpayer who wants less government intervention, literally fighting with the previous speaker over a @@CURRENCY@@. "We should shut down most - nay, ALL of our foreign programs and give us all a healthy tax break! Every man for himself!"
[effect] nations reliant on @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ aid have been devastated

Option 4: "I think I might know a compromise," suggests a surprisingly jolly and red-clad @@RANDOMNAME@@, who couldn't give a care about taxes or the government as long as @@HE@@ can get a decent meal in the morning, and hasn't for some time. "Maybe you could publicly request for some foreign aid, yourself? Y'know, give a few gifts, get a few in return. We'll even be sure to not discriminate, so every nation wins out in the end! Heck, even Maxtopia, we could supply with a large shipment of coal."
[effect] military officers shipped abroad can be seen wearing red suits and black boots and holding signs reading "please donate, we're poor"

Title: The Gift That Can't Keep Giving
The Issue: @@NAME@@ is globally recognized for its large contributions to foreign aid. However, the living conditions of @@NAME@@ are considered subpar. Even without sufficient supplies to keep the population healthy, the government has delivered a massive shipment of food and shelter supplies to the comparatively well-off Smalltopia — free of charge.
Validity: High foreign aid; Low human development index and economy

Option 1: "I know your heart's in the right direction," begins @@RANDOMNAME@@, a reluctant taxpayer who wants more government intervention, "but it's also in the wrong nation. Your first priority should be to your people, not some foreign leader's. I wake up knowing that my hard-earned @@CURRENYPLURAL@@ are going to someone who needs them less. You should cut some of your foreign aid and put our taxes into some of our own services, like health care and welfare."
[effect] funds previously used to help @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ have been directed to keeping foreign toilet paper afloat

Option 2: "I couldn't agree less!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, a devout taxpayer who wants less government intervention. "If anything, we should be directing more tax money towards helping these people. Our nation may not be the most well-off, but it's better to level the playing field than to hoard whatever we have for ourselves, even if we it does mean a few of our citizens complain a little. Of course, we should also be more careful where our money goes."
[effect] citizens are yearning to emigrate to nations the government's supplying aid for

Option 3: "You're saying that we're not in the same boat as some of those nations we're giving funds to?" furiously interrogates @@RANDOMNAME@@, who couldn't give a care about taxes or the government as long as @@HE@@ can get a decent meal in the morning, and hasn't for some time. "If anything, WE should be the ones getting some foreign aid. We should shut down most - nay, ALL of our foreign programs and start asking for some help from @@REGION@@! Every man — er, nation, for itself!"
[effect] nations reliant on @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ aid have been devastated

[Australian rePublic]

I like this issue. I would make the speaker in option 2 wealthy and self-rightous

[Trotterdam]

Congratulations! An argument for cutting foreign aid that I actually agree with!

Though options 1 and 3 seem a little similar. Note that (A) both want to cut foreign aid, (B) both want to improve local living conditions, and (C) although they have different ideas of how to improve local living conditions, it's not really explicit, since option 3 doesn't actually ask you to cut taxes and in fact explicitly says that the speaker doesn't care about tax rate... so what else would you be spending your taxes on, if not foreign aid and not local aid?

Also, I think it would be amusing to have an option where you continue giving foreign aid, but also receive foreign aid in turn. Kind of like Christmas culture, where everyone is expected to give a gift to everyone else, so their values largely cancel each other out and the effect is similar to if everyone had just bought his/her own toy, but it's still considered impolite to actually do that.

You can also use an anarcho-capitalist "just cut taxes entirely and we'll be able to fix our own economy" type option.

[Jutsa]

Your Christmasy suggestion gave me another issue idea.

Changed option 3 to be super-anarcho and made option 4 do the trade-with-other-nations bit. Many thanks.

I like this issue.

Congratulations! An argument for cutting foreign aid that I actually agree with!

Awh...

I would make the speaker in option 2 wealthy and self-rightous

Oh yeah, made them comparatively well-off. didn't wanna stick self-righteous in there, but if someone else agrees it's a good addition, I could add it.

ed: Also made option 4 give coal to Maxtopia.

[Krogon]

[effect] military officers shipped abroad can be seen wearing red suits and black boots and holding signs reading "please donate, we're poor"

[Australian rePublic]

Your Christmasy suggestion gave me another issue idea.

Changed option 3 to be super-anarcho and made option 4 do the trade-with-other-nations bit. Many thanks.

I like this issue.

Congratulations! An argument for cutting foreign aid that I actually agree with!

Awh...

I would make the speaker in option 2 wealthy and self-rightous

Oh yeah, made them comparatively well-off. didn't wanna stick self-righteous in there, but if someone else agrees it's a good addition, I could add it.

ed: Also made option 4 give coal to Maxtopia.

You don't say that they're self-righteous. Noone calls themself as such. You make them appear self-rightous through their words and actions

[Jutsa]

True... but I'm not actually sure how to go about doing that.

[Jutsa]

Bump~

I tried making Option 2's speaker a little more self-righteous without demolishing the option...
uh, thoughts on how that was executed?

[Baggieland]

[effect] funds previously used to help @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ have been directed to keeping foreign toilet paper afloat

Sorry, I don't get this effect line?

[Jutsa]

Ah, so the idea is that in spending more on foreign aid,
instead of giving money to your people, you're spending more money on things for foreigners*.
The idea behind this was that you're either, for some reason, actually supplying toilet paper,
or, more likely, funding nations that purposefully subsidize or give out toilet paper.

I know it's a bit of a stretch but I thought a) it's pretty funny and b) it's a good metaphor for mismanagement ed: and tp's pretty useful I might add,
and you could either take it as you or the other nation doing that.

... Plus, there's a nice toilet pun there.

[Trotterdam]

Why is it on that option? That option is about cutting foreign aid and spending more on domestic aid.

[Jutsa]

... ooOOOH

*facepalms*

Ok, ok, I see... it was originally supposed to be "help to other nations was cut* to keep toilet paper afloat" because originally it was supposed to go to business subsidies,
but a) changed subsidies and b) in classic me-fashion, I called turned upside-down somewhere along that line...
ed: In fact, I'm pretty sure I revisited my topsy-turvy effect line and made it even more backwards at one point.

ed... what is this, 3? (and this is after my second edit to my next post)
Changed the effect lines around.

[Jutsa]

Well, I could keep that effect line for option two and make the one it was supposed to be be option 1's (that way they have similar effect lines but backwards)

Only reason I suggest that is because effect line 2 actually is in the game;
I just remembered, I took the effect line from this draft for #938.2.

ed: Just checked the report for 938... holy crap I was right, this draft has been in my list since at least March...
and I'm pretty sure I made this well before then, too. >_>

[Australian rePublic]

Bump~

I tried making Option 2's speaker a little more self-righteous without demolishing the option...
uh, thoughts on how that was executed?

See, you did it

[Jutsa]

teehee, many thanks Aussie.

[Sacara]

One question I have is who says that my foreign aid is “free of charge”, as described in your description? Usually foreign aid has a purpose and a return: maybe a military base, good diplomatic relations, etc. Perhaps you could redirect this into “We need something in return if we want to continue doing this”.

[Jutsa]

Well, idk about most nations...
but you do raise a good point; the fact that many nations (and irl, probably most if not all, tbf) do get something in return...

Eh, idk how to change this to encompass that; frankly, it's set up so only option 4 asks for something in return.

[Chan Island]

Alright, I have withheld from commenting on this for a bit, but now I'm going to have to.

The problem is that foreign aid isn't charity. Governments don't just send out that money expecting nothing in return; they expect political favours, business opportunities, a better image, influence or even a plot of land to build a military base on it. I get that on NS you have to sometimes tend towards the silly, but frankly this draft is not acknowledging that reality in anyway. As it stands, it is just a liiiittle biased.

Personally I'd fix it by having the second speaker mention as to what a wonderful advertisement of virtue it is, along the lines of something like "it'll show everyone what good people we are".

[Jutsa]

Eyeah, this one's going to need quite a bit of work, I believe.

Well, thank you both. Much rather have the honest truth and a chance to fix it
than submit something doomed for failure.

I'll put this one on hold for now, but this is probably the one I'm most likely to come back and finish.

[Jutsa]

Eh... so I was thinking about it, over brunch...
aand for poorer nations, I think that it is best to go about it from an angle that the nation is getting something in return, but something that doesn't really help your citizens.
This is partially inspired by something that's been going on in a region I'm in, hence why I've been recently promoted to help with that.

I'm thinking that it'd be best to have option 1 stay pretty similar, option 2 propose expanding the scope for personal gain,
option 3 suggesting getting rid of it altogether anyway, and option 4 instead be about giving it away as charity (could still work with Santa).

I do not want to make this souly about personal gain, because there are several nationstates (myself included)
who choose to give to charity just to give to charity, and to exclude them entirely would, too, be biased.
[see #36.1, 194.1, a surprising amount of the Brasilistan chain, 423.2... I'll credit 469's very much the other group, all of 654, 664.4 {rest belongs to the other group}, and 890.1/2... actually roughly 50-50 with it being strictly for personal gain]

[Trotterdam]

The problem is that foreign aid isn't charity. Governments don't just send out that money expecting nothing in return; they expect political favours, business opportunities, a better image, influence or even a plot of land to build a military base on it.

That one is pretty much charity.

Sure, you're getting something in return, but it's more of a nebulous "this may turn out to be useful later" rather than a concrete boon you're asking for as payment.

[Sacara]

I suggest making the issue about people within @@NAME@@ complaining about the supposed charity that @@NAME@@'s foreign aid has become, and then options talk about what @@NAME@@ should expect in return: military base, diplomacy, etc., which Chan described earlier.

[Jutsa]

Eh, while that idea does sound nice, it almost feels too different...
like, mostly a 36.4-kind-of-issue.

A nation could probably get something about "what we should get in return for our aide" could be something for any nation supplying it,
and frankly could make for a nice premise all things considered,
but it's not what I'd want to do with this particular draft, or its core concept,
which is about poor nations sending help/supplies to others and not your own, when you need it most.

ed: Though if you wanna run with that, you can; if not, I will happily make another draft about something like that myself.

[Krogon]

Perhaps center this around "well one nation was in a war and we provided lots of aide. What do we get in return?" It would cement the issue and not be as general.

[Jutsa]

Even then, issues like 36 and especially 664 have options that purposefully request nothing in return.

Still, I'll try to work with an idea like that.