[ACCEPTED] Back Lash Backlash

[Jutsa]

I always wondered why the torture policy wasn't explored more...

Title: Back Lash Backlash
The Issue: The progressive nation of Skandilund is threatening to place trade sanctions on your nation due to their strong stance against interrogative torture.
Validity: Chain from 44.1, 207.1 (unless a better secret police issue chains from this)

Option 1: "It's nothing against you, @@LEADER@@. It's just that we don't want our nation or our trades to be associated with... well, torture," shivers @@RANDOMNAME@@, a prim and proper diplomat from Skandilund, grimacing at what appear to be visible red marks on one of your aides, which fortunately is just a coffee burn. "You understand, don't you? We trade with you, and we lose trade with other nations. Of course, if you considered abolishing these medieval practices... I'm sure we could set this matter aside, and even encourage our allies to trade with you."
[effect] small trading partners plan changes to @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ criminal law

Option 2: "Ouch, sly, an ultimatum," your coffee-burned aide says, grimacing at what appear to be visible marks on the diplomat from spending too much time in a sauna. You excuse the diplomat to speak to your aide in private. "How's about, instead of changing our way of doing things, they change their attitude? If they're too soft and touchy to be 'associated' with us, then forget about them. Heck, we'll declare them our rivals. Maybe we can consider trading with Blackacre; sure, they're destitute and horrible, but they're not snobs like these cold-hearted forest bumpkins."
[effect] a few small laws have led to @@NAME@@ having criminal trade partners

Option 3: "Just pretend to end and renounce torture!" exclaims your Minister of Torture. "All we'll need to do is officially arrest them, hide them somewhere, torture and interrogate them for answers, and kill them when we're done using them! If anyone escapes, they can be considered a wack and arrested for defacing our nation. Win-win! Unless we get caught, but what are the chances of that happening?"
[effect] the sounds of thrashing chains and blood-curdling screams are small kinks that need to be worked out
[Flag Change] Capital Punishment?

Title: Back Lash Backlash
The Issue: The progressive nation of Skandilund is threatening to place trade sanctions on your nation due to their strong stance against physical punishment for crimes.
Validity: Must have corporal punishment

Option 1: "It's nothing against you, @@LEADER@@. It's just that we don't want our nation or our trades to be associated with... well, torture," shivers @@RANDOMNAME@@, a prim and proper diplomat from Skandilund, grimacing at what appear to be visible red marks on one of your aides, which fortunately is just a coffee burn. "You understand, don't you? We trade with you, and we lose trade with other nations. Of course, if you considered ending corporal punishment... I'm sure we could set this matter aside, and even encourage our allies to trade with you."
[effect] small trading partners plan changes to @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ criminal law
[Flag Change] Removes Corporal Punishment

Option 2: "Ouch, sly, an ultimatum," your coffee-burned aide says, grimacing at what appear to be visible marks on the diplomat from spending too much time in a sauna. You excuse the diplomat to speak to your aide in private. "How's about, instead of changing our laws, they change their attitude? If they're too soft and touchy to be 'associated' with us, then forget about them. Heck, we'll declare them our rivals. Maybe we can consider trading with Blackacre; sure, they're destitute and horrible, but they're not snobs like these cold-hearted forest bumpkins."
[effect] a few small laws have led to @@NAME@@ having criminal trade partners

Option 3: "Just pretend to end and renounce torture!" exclaims your Minister of Torture. "All we'll need to do is hide our criminals somewhere, and kill them when we're done! If anyone escapes, they can be considered a wack and taken to the coocoo farm. Win-win! Unless we get caught, but what are the chances of that happening?"
[effect] the sounds of thrashing chains and blood-curdling screams are small kinks that need to be worked out

[Trotterdam]

Corporal punishment for crimes would be rather less effective as a deterrent if people don't know they'll face corporal punishment if they commit crimes.

Also, note that "torture" initially brings to mind interrogative torture, not punitive torture. In fact, the issue that's most explicitly about torture, #44, doesn't set the Corporal Punishment flag. You may want to rephrase a little in light of that.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Corporal punishment for crimes would be rather less effective as a deterrent if people don't know they'll face corporal punishment if they commit crimes.

Also, note that "torture" initially brings to mind interrogative torture, not punitive torture. In fact, the issue that's most explicitly about torture, #44, doesn't set the Corporal Punishment flag. You may want to rephrase a little in light of that.

Definitely with this entire point.

Option 3: "Just pretend to end and renounce torture!" exclaims your Minister of Torture. "All we'll need to do is hide our criminals somewhere, and kill them when we're done! If anyone escapes, they can be considered a wack and taken to the coocoo farm. Win-win! Unless we get caught, but what are the chances of that happening?"
[effect] the sounds of thrashing chains and blood-curdling screams are small kinks that need to be worked out

It seems a but R-Level in the effect, why not change it to something more tame like "the sounds of cracking whips and pained screams are small kinks that need to be worked out". That is obviously not that important, and you might also want to clear that validity is most definitely not for class nations.

Also, the wording "they can be considered a wack and taken to the coocoo farm" should be considered. I had to look up what this meant because I hadn't heard it prior to today. If urban dictionary is right, then that (what I underlined) is most definitely not appropriate for most things. Kind of horrifying actually.

On the whole, I really like it. As a first draft, it is significantly better than most first drafts I come up with.

[Australian rePublic]

What about reversing Touture

[The Free Joy State]

Option 3: "Just pretend to end and renounce torture!" exclaims your Minister of Torture. "All we'll need to do is hide our criminals somewhere, and kill them when we're done! If anyone escapes, they can be considered a wack and taken to the coocoo farm. Win-win! Unless we get caught, but what are the chances of that happening?"
[effect] the sounds of thrashing chains and blood-curdling screams are small kinks that need to be worked out

It seems a but R-Level in the effect, why not change it to something more tame like "the sounds of cracking whips and pained screams are small kinks that need to be worked out". That is obviously not that important, and you might also want to clear that validity is most definitely not for class nations.

The effect line is fine as-is.

Overt references to sex and potentially strong language would be more of a concern (but drive-by references, which only make sense in context, have been used in effect lines of issues that aren't for class nations). "Blood-curdling" is not strong (it's been used in an issue with no restrictions at all). Blood has been referenced in other effect lines.

Good issue, Jutsa.

[Jutsa]

Corporal punishment for crimes would be rather less effective as a deterrent if people don't know they'll face corporal punishment if they commit crimes.

... good point.

I mean, people who'd pick this option would purposefully be torturing and then killing 'em, and the death part's kinda hard to hide,
so uh, yeah, I guess that'd be enough of a deterrent.

Course, then Skandilund would know you commit capital punishment, but... eh?
Not entirely sure about this 'un, but I did add the option last minute so it's got some kinks to work out. I'm sorry
Got any suggestions on that 'un?

Also, note that "torture" initially brings to mind interrogative torture, not punitive torture. In fact, the issue that's most explicitly about torture, #44, doesn't set the Corporal Punishment flag. You may want to rephrase a little in light of that.

And torture's not tracked as a policy...? Is it at least tracked as a flag?
Because this seems like an issue that'd arise for both kinds of nations, maybe I can add a bit of both to this?

Also, the wording "they can be considered a wack and taken to the coocoo farm" should be considered. I had to look up what this meant because I hadn't heard it prior to today. If urban dictionary is right, then that (what I underlined) is most definitely not appropriate for most things. Kind of horrifying actually.

It was supposed to reference an asylum for the mentally insane, but uh... good point. Something that could work is they could be arrested again and punished the same way. >_>
In fact, yah, I'll go ahead and swap that out.

As a first draft, it is significantly better than most first drafts I come up with.

lol thanks. I really would stop by and look at the other drafts but I've had some difficulty with words lately and am just getting back into GI.

What about reversing Touture

Indeed, yah, I'm thinking about having it for torture and corporal punishment if possible. Idk if it would be though...

Good issue, Jutsa.

Awh, thanks. <3

[The Free Joy State]

Also, note that "torture" initially brings to mind interrogative torture, not punitive torture. In fact, the issue that's most explicitly about torture, #44, doesn't set the Corporal Punishment flag. You may want to rephrase a little in light of that.

And torture's not tracked as a policy...? Is it at least tracked as a flag?
Because this seems like an issue that'd arise for both kinds of nations, maybe I can add a bit of both to this?

Torture is not currently tracked as a separate policy.

Maybe it could be chained from #44 (No Pain, No Gain)?

[Jutsa]

Would it be possible to both chain from that issue and be activated with a corporal punishment flag*?

[The Free Joy State]

Would it be possible to both chain from that issue and be activated with a corporal punishment flag*?

Not with the current policy coding available to us. Sorry.

The only way it would work is if you find any current corporal punishment options that explictly advocate torture. Then this could be chained from those, too.

[Jutsa]

Hmm, yah, that'd definitely complicate the one about the lemonade stand I submitted then... >_>

Kinda surprised that "link" OR "policy" wouldn't work, but I guess it makes sense that it wouldn't either if I even asked in the first place.

Wellh, I suppose I'll reword this so it's solely about torture then. After all, we've already got a reversal or two for corporal punishment, but no followup to interrogative torture.

[Jutsa]

Updated! (mostly option 3)

742 can basically add torture, too, but alas, it's in an issue chain, so it doesn't really work.
I don't suppose torture could become a tracked flag, could it?

Wasn't sure about 207.1 either, given a secret police followup'd probably be better, though... a flag could work around that too.

Still wasn't entirely certain about option 3, whether it would really add corporal punishment or if it's even really solid enough as-is.

[Jutsa]

Bump~

Was going to do this on Christmas, but...

well, Christmas >.>

[Sacara]

Not much I can find on it, Jutsa. Looks good to go.

[Jutsa]

Aw, thanks. <3

I'll leave this up for maybe another half-week. Pretty confident about this one, myself.

[Jutsa]

Could be the lemon-ginger tea getting to me, but I've decided to submit this now.

Thank you all for your help.

[Australian rePublic]

Good luck

[Candensia]

Best wishes.

[Sacara]

I’d wish good luck, but I’m not sure this one needs it.