NationStates

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:28 pm**

[title] Snowed Under

[desc] With @@NAME@@ seeing its first snow storm in 100 years, the lack of snow infrastructure has caused disruption all over the nation, closing schools, offices and trade centres. Your citizenry is now requesting snow removal.

[validity] good weather

[option] "I got my first day off in 5 days, but I'm stuck with me damned kids!" moans @@RANDOMNAME@@, seemingly oblivious to @@HIS@@ child who grabbed the priceless vase on your desk. "Then I had to waste another day to come here and complain. How we supposed to relax when the kids can't go to school? Snow plows be used in hail too. The national government should give us snow plows!"
[effect] tropical cities are granted larger budget for snow removal than flood mitigation

[option] "Why is snow removal in our portfolio?" Questions @@RANDOMNAME@@, your minister of Scapegoating. "Instead of the national government, each individual jurisdiction should manage the issue on its own We should force every jurisdiction to ensure that they have adequate snow removal."
[effect] tropical rural areas are required to have a minimum of 4 snow plows for every kilometre of road

[option] "You're missing the bigger picture!" reminds @@RANDOMNAME@@, the mayor of West Springs, "This was our first snow storm in 100 years! Why would waste tax payer money an occurrence so rare. This is the desert after all!”
[effect] 10 centimetres of snow is not considered to sufficient to justify snow plows

[title] Snowed Under

[desc] @@ANIMAL@@ City is known for its occasional hail storms which cause minor disruptions to the city's roads, public transport and footpaths. However, yesterday the city saw its first snowfall in 100 years, which completely closed down offices, schools, and trade centres, and causing the residents to demand snow removal.

[validity] All

[option] "I got my first day off in 5 days, but I'm stuck with me damned kids!" moans @@RANDOMNAME@@, seemingly oblivious to @@HIS@@ child who grabbed the priceless vase on your desk. "Then I had to waste another day to come here and complain. How we supposed to relax when the kids can't go to school? The same thing happened in summer, when we had hail! We need snow plows!"
[effect] @@LEADER@@ grants tropical cities a larger budget for snow removal than flood mitigation

[option] "Why is snow removal in our portfolio?" Questions @@RANDOMNAME@@, your minister of Scapegoating. "Each individual jurisdiction should manage the issue on its own We should force every jurisdiction to ensure that they have adequate snow removal."
[effect] tropical rural areas are required to have a minimum of 4 snow plows for every kilometre of road

[option] "You're missing the bigger picture!" reminds @@RANDOMNAME@@, the mayor of @@ANIMAL@@ City, "This was our first snow storm in 100 years! Why would waste rate payer money an occurrence which only happens once a century? I know that we have 3 hail storms in average summer, but the @@ANIMAL@@ Hills have 3 snow storms in an average winter, and they don't pay for snow removal! Neither should we!"
[effect] 10 centimetres of snow is not considered to sufficient to justify snowplows

[option] "Bah! Humbug!" complains the mayor of Greenville, which sees frequent snowfalls "Why do we have to pay for snow removal when the warm places don't? I say that if people want the snow gone, they can do it themselves! Except for the route between my house and my office, of coarse!”
[effect] trains are often delayed by commuters who shovel snow too slowly

[title] Snowed Under

[desc] It Snowed yesterday for the time in 100 years in @@ANIMAL@@ City, causing havoc on the city's roads, public transport and footpaths, and closing down offices, schools, and trade centres. The people are now demanding that you do something to prevent this from happing in the future.

[validity] All

[option] "I got my first day off in 5 days, but I'm stuck with me damned kids!" moans @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, seemingly oblivious to her child who grabbed the priceless vase on your desk. "Then I had to waste another day to come here and complain. How we supposed to relax when de kids don't go to de school? Last time I had a day off in summer, we had hail which closed the school on the last before holidays. Me friend, Berta, from Greenville, told me that you coulda gotten rid of the hail and the snow with dat snow plows thingies, but you ain't got none! Give us snow plows you, um… you, um… what was the word Berta called you? Fash, fashi, Fartsist! Give us snow plows you fartist!"
[effect] @@LEADER@@ grants tropical cities a larger budget for snow removal rather than flood mitigation

[option] "Why is snow removal in our portfolio?" Questions @@RANDOMNAME@@, your minister of finding scape goats. "Each individual jurisdiction should manage its own snow removal! We should force every jurisdiction to ensure that they have adequate snow removal. Say four snow plows per square kilometre. That should do it!"
[effect] tropical rural areas are required to have a minimum of snow plows for every kilometre of road

[option] "Your missing the bigger picture!" reminds @@RANDOMNAME@@, the mayor of @@ANIMAL@@ City, "This was our first snow storm in 100 years! Why would waste rate payer money an occurance which only happens once a century? I know that we have 3 hail storms in average summer, but the @@ANIMAL@@ Hills have 3 snow storms in an average winter, and they don't pay for snow removal! Neither should we!"
[effect] 10 centimetres of snow is not considered to justify snowplows

[option] "Buh Humbug!" complains the mayor of Greenville, which sees frequent snowfalls "Why do we have to put with residents whinging about high council rates, when the warm places don't have to reimburse snow removal operations? I say that if people want the snow gone, they can do it themselves! Except for my office of coarse, we need snow plows to clear a path from my house to my office, but the rest of the city can do it themselves"
[effect] trains are often delayed by commuters who shovel snow too slowly

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:38 pm**

Gonna take a look at this one when I wake in a few hours, cause I'm pretty sure this one's actually been in my ideas list.
Too tired now though, but I'm liking the looks of this from the description alone.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:11 am**

Jutsa wrote:Gonna take a look at this one when I wake in a few hours, cause I'm pretty sure this one's actually been in my ideas list.
Too tired now though, but I'm liking the looks of this from the description alone.

It is in your ideas list. That inspired me. Anyways, thanks! :hug:

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:31 am**

Australian rePublic wrote:[effect] @@LEADER@@ grants tropical cities a larger budget for snow removal rather than flood mitigation

I think you should get rid of 'rather'; right now this effect means that the snow removal budget is increased instead of that for flood removal, but without the 'rather,' it would mean the snow removal budget is actual larger, which I think is funnier.

Australian rePublic wrote:[option] "Why is snow removal in our portfolio?" Questions @@RANDOMNAME@@, your minister of finding scape goats. "Each individual jurisdiction should manage its own snow removal! We should force every jurisdiction to ensure that they have adequate snow removal. Say four snow plows per square kilometre. That should do it!"
[effect] tropical rural areas are required to have a minimum of snow plows for every kilometre of road

'Scapegoats' is one word, and if that's their title, maybe it should be capitalised and rearranged to 'Minister of Scapegoat-finding' or 'Minister of Scapegoating.' The effect here also basically restates the proposal; you could remove the detail about four plows per km² and just say to make every jurisdiction maintain adequate snow-removal faculty, so that the effect line would be less expected.

Australian rePublic wrote:[option] "Your missing the bigger picture!" reminds @@RANDOMNAME@@, the mayor of @@ANIMAL@@ City, "This was our first snow storm in 100 years! Why would waste rate payer money an occurance which only happens once a century? I know that we have 3 hail storms in average summer, but the @@ANIMAL@@ Hills have 3 snow storms in an average winter, and they don't pay for snow removal! Neither should we!"
[effect] 10 centimetres of snow is not considered to justify snowplows

'You're' (contraction of 'You are'), not "Your" (possessive pronoun). I think you mean 'rare paper money,' although I don't know why it would be rare or specifically paper. 'Occurrence,' not "occurance." What do hail storms have to do with this? Mentioning them seems to confuse what this option is saying. In the effect line, I think you're missing a word (perhaps 'sufficient?') between "considered" and "to justify."

Australian rePublic wrote:[option] "Buh Humbug!" complains the mayor of Greenville, which sees frequent snowfalls "Why do we have to put with residents whinging about high council rates, when the warm places don't have to reimburse snow removal operations? I say that if people want the snow gone, they can do it themselves! Except for my office of coarse, we need snow plows to clear a path from my house to my office, but the rest of the city can do it themselves"
[effect] trains are often delayed by commuters who shovel snow too slowly

I believe it's "Bah! Humbug!" I think you missed a word in 'to put up with,' but I also think this option could be cut down a lot. You could replace the bit about whinging and just have the mayor ask why their city has to pay for snow removal when warmer cities don't. You also don't need to say "can do it themselves" twice, and you could just end with 'Except for my office, of course.' I like the effect line here.

I'm not sure the speech affectation or vocabularic deficiency of the woman in the first option is necessary or proper. Why does she need to be female? Just to fit with her taking care of the kids when they're out of school? And I don't think the way she talks or how she doesn't remember the word 'fascist' add anything to the Issue (plus, the second options seems a lot closer to being fascist than a lack of action).

Not a bad Issue idea, in my opinion.

It kind of reminds me of a book called Katy and the Big Snow, just because they're both about snow storms and snow removal.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:38 am**

Second Draft is up, Thanks Far Tholk for the help!

Far Tholk wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:[effect] @@LEADER@@ grants tropical cities a larger budget for snow removal rather than flood mitigation
I think you should get rid of 'rather'; right now this effect means that the snow removal budget is increased instead of that for flood removal, but without the 'rather,' it would mean the snow removal budget is actual larger, which I think is funnier.

Thanks! I intended to mean that the snow removal budget is higher than the flood budget, and I thought that the word "rather" would make it clearer, instead it did the opposite

Australian rePublic wrote:[option] "Why is snow removal in our portfolio?" Questions @@RANDOMNAME@@, your minister of finding scape goats. "Each individual jurisdiction should manage its own snow removal! We should force every jurisdiction to ensure that they have adequate snow removal. Say four snow plows per square kilometre. That should do it!"
[effect] tropical rural areas are required to have a minimum of snow plows for every kilometre of road
'Scapegoats' is one word, and if that's their title, maybe it should be capitalised and rearranged to 'Minister of Scapegoat-finding' or 'Minister of Scapegoating.' The effect here also basically restates the proposal; you could remove the detail about four plows per km² and just say to make every jurisdiction maintain adequate snow-removal faculty, so that the effect line would be less expected.

Thanks, I cut it down a lot and made it clearer

Australian rePublic wrote:[option] "Your missing the bigger picture!" reminds @@RANDOMNAME@@, the mayor of @@ANIMAL@@ City, "This was our first snow storm in 100 years! Why would waste rate payer money an occurance which only happens once a century? I know that we have 3 hail storms in average summer, but the @@ANIMAL@@ Hills have 3 snow storms in an average winter, and they don't pay for snow removal! Neither should we!"
[effect] 10 centimetres of snow is not considered to justify snowplows
'You're' (contraction of 'You are'), not "Your" (possessive pronoun). I think you mean 'rare paper money,' although I don't know why it would be rare or specifically paper. 'Occurrence,' not "occurance." What do hail storms have to do with this? Mentioning them seems to confuse what this option is saying. In the effect line, I think you're missing a word (perhaps 'sufficient?') between "considered" and "to justify."

**Facepalm** I usually correct "your/you're" mistakes, rather than making them. Why won't I bloody learn to proof-read before posting stuff, rather than after? Also, I did mean "rate payer money" as in the people who pay council rates

Australian rePublic wrote:[option] "Buh Humbug!" complains the mayor of Greenville, which sees frequent snowfalls "Why do we have to put with residents whinging about high council rates, when the warm places don't have to reimburse snow removal operations? I say that if people want the snow gone, they can do it themselves! Except for my office of coarse, we need snow plows to clear a path from my house to my office, but the rest of the city can do it themselves"
[effect] trains are often delayed by commuters who shovel snow too slowly
I believe it's "Bah! Humbug!" I think you missed a word in 'to put up with,' but I also think this option could be cut down a lot. You could replace the bit about whinging and just have the mayor ask why their city has to pay for snow removal when warmer cities don't. You also don't need to say "can do it themselves" twice, and you could just end with 'Except for my office, of course.' I like the effect line here.

I'm not sure the speech affectation or vocabularic deficiency of the woman in the first option is necessary or proper. Why does she need to be female? Just to fit with her taking care of the kids when they're out of school? And I don't think the way she talks or how she doesn't remember the word 'fascist' add anything to the Issue (plus, the second options seems a lot closer to being fascist than a lack of action).

Not a bad Issue idea, in my opinion. It kind of reminds me of a book called Katy and the Big Snow, just because they're both about snow storms and snow removal.

Thanks. Hopefully it's better now

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:50 am**

Rather than leaping into exposition about how a particular city has particular microclimate weather patterns, why not make this for a nation that has very sunny weather, and just say "Snow rarely falls over @@CAPITAL@@, but..."

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:33 am**

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Rather than leaping into exposition about how a particular city has particular microclimate weather patterns, why not make this for a nation that has very sunny weather, and just say "Snow rarely falls over @@CAPITAL@@, but..."

This. I know you love weather and getting into the details about climate (I like that stuff too), but it's really adding text and not much context to the draft.

If you really wanna say "100 years", you could say that reporters are saying it's the "storm of the century". Otherwise, it just kinda makes it look like they magically know it'll happen once every hundred years exactly.

[validity] All

My original idea was for this to occur in nations with super good weather (since they'd be less prepared), but frankly I think "all" is a good call.

"Then I had to waste another day to come here and complain.

The same thing happened in summer, when we had hail!

Myeh, idk if we really need to add that. I feel like it kinda detracts from the dilemma a bit.

@@LEADER@@ grants tropical cities a larger budget for snow removal than flood mitigation

I'd maybe rephrase this from "@@LEADER@@ grants tropical cities a larger budget" to "tropical cities are granted a larger budget"

Option 2: Gotta admit that I don't quite get this one. :blink:

Why would waste rate payer money an occurrence [...]

We wait woah what now?
Do you mean "Why waste the taxpayers' money on an occurrence"?

I know that we have 3 hail storms in average summer, but the @@ANIMAL@@ Hills have 3 snow storms in an average winter, and they don't pay for snow removal! Neither should we!"

1) Hail storms again, feels a bit detracting. Kinda tricky finding the balance between "it's an emergency don't worry about it"
and "it's a regular phenomenon, this should be in place now", but I don't think this is it.
2) Wait, a region in your nation doesn't pay for snow removal? Aren't you in charge of that? :rofl:

(now that's a potential issue right there.)

"Bah! Humbug!" complains the mayor of Greenville, which sees frequent snowfalls "Why do we have to pay for snow removal when the warm places don't? I say that if people want the snow gone, they can do it themselves! Except for the route between my house and my office, of coarse!”

Ah, yes, see, this option looks kinda like something for option 2, but in the end it's less "should we pay for emergency backup plows or not?"
and more "who should pay for these plows we'll probably install?". Not sure how I feel about this option, either, I must admit, but I'll leave it up to you.

Overall I'm really excited about this draft, and I think you've got some good content in it,
but I'm not entirely sure how I feel about either the hail or two of the options, I must profess.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:41 pm**

The next draft is up. Thanks CWA and Jutsa for the help!

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Rather than leaping into exposition about how a particular city has particular microclimate weather patterns, why not make this for a nation that has very sunny weather, and just say "Snow rarely falls over @@CAPITAL@@, but..."

Done, thanks

Jutsa wrote:This. I know you love weather and getting into the details about climate (I like that stuff too), but it's really adding text and not much context to the draft.
If you really wanna say "100 years", you could say that reporters are saying it's the "storm of the century". Otherwise, it just kinda makes it look like they magically know it'll happen once every hundred years exactly.
My original idea was for this to occur in nations with super good weather (since they'd be less prepared), but frankly I think "all" is a good call.

Hopefully I've fixed it now, thanks!

Myeh, idk if we really need to add that. I feel like it kinda detracts from the dilemma a bit.

I'd maybe rephrase this from "@@LEADER@@ grants tropical cities a larger budget" to "tropical cities are granted a larger budget"

I've made a passing reference to hail. Now the primary function of the issue is snow, and hail remains a tiny side note. Thanks!

Option 2: Gotta admit that I don't quite get this one.

We wait woah what now?
Do you mean "Why waste the taxpayers' money on an occurrence"?
1) Hail storms again, feels a bit detracting. Kinda tricky finding the balance between "it's an emergency don't worry about it"
and "it's a regular phenomenon, this should be in place now", but I don't think this is it.
2) Wait, a region in your nation doesn't pay for snow removal? Aren't you in charge of that? (now that's a potential issue right there.)

Ah, yes, see, this option looks kinda like something for option 2, but in the end it's less "should we pay for emergency backup plows or not?"
and more "who should pay for these plows we'll probably install?". Not sure how I feel about this option, either, I must admit, but I'll leave it up to you.

Overall I'm really excited about this draft, and I think you've got some good content in it,
but I'm not entirely sure how I feel about either the hail or two of the options, I must profess.

Should be fixed now. Hopefully I've made it clearer. I've removed the 4th option all together, though I kind of did want a mayor of a very snow city complaining about paying for snow removal when the rest of the city doesn't. Anyway, I hope it should be clearer now, thanks

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:02 pm**

Looks good! Maybe add a crazy option to have all roads be turned into subterranean tunnels, so that weather conditions will never a problem anymore?

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:24 pm**

question; what is a council rate?

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:59 pm**

Hediacrana wrote:Looks good! Maybe add a crazy option to have all roads be turned into subterranean tunnels, so that weather conditions will never a problem anymore?

Thanks for the suggestion. Snow may not be an issue in underground tunnels, but flooding will be, and I think that we've exhausted the humour in snow vs floods in the first option I'll see what everyone else thinks

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:00 pm**

United States of Natan wrote:question; what is a council rate?

Coubcil rates= local government taxes

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:18 am**

Looking stronger.

I think maybe worth not being too specific with numbers, especially as the second time a player gets an issue it'll certainly ring false that it's the first snowstorm in a hundred years. OTOH, if it's just described as "vanishingly rare freak weather", then repetition just adds to the humour.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:38 am**

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Looking stronger.

I think maybe worth not being too specific with numbers, especially as the second time a player gets an issue it'll certainly ring false that it's the first snowstorm in a hundred years. OTOH, if it's just described as "vanishingly rare freak weather", then repetition just adds to the humour.

Thanks

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:51 am**

Australian rePublic wrote:
United States of Natan wrote:question; what is a council rate?

Coubcil rates= local government taxes

Oh, ok. Well perhaps you might want to change it to local taxes or something, so that it's more clear to everyone.

Posted: **Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:25 am**

United States of Natan wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:Coubcil rates= local government taxes

Oh, ok. Well perhaps you might want to change it to local taxes or something, so that it's more clear to everyone.

Tried. Couldn't find it in the latest draft

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2019 3:33 am**

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:52 pm**

Last call

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:28 pm**

Australian rePublic wrote:Last call

For what?

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:07 pm**

United States of Natan wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:Last call

For what?

Last call for feedback before submission

Posted: **Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:10 am**

You don't appear to have taken on the feedback already given, I note.

Posted: **Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:55 am**

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:You don't appear to have taken on the feedback already given, I note.

True. Sorry about that . I'll put this on hold and fix it up

NationStates

ON HOLD: Snowed Under

ON HOLD: Snowed Under