[SUBMITTED] - Blued, Screwed, and Tattooed

[Sacara]

Thanks for Jutsa for helping with this draft.

[Name] Screwed, Blued, and Tattooed
[Desc] One of your nephews was recently fired from his job for deciding to go under the needle and cover his entire arm in a sleeve of tattoos.
[Validity] allows tattoos

[option] Your nephew, flexing his arm to admire his tattoos, complains. "This is nothing more than obvious discrimination in the workplace! I was excelling at my job before I got all inked up, and the next day my boss tells me I'm fired out of nowhere! It's not like they're too outrageous or anything. You have to businesses from discriminating against those who want to express themselves!"
[effect] young children often learn harsh words from their teacher's tattoos

[option] "You can't give me a good enough reason to hire a person who decides to put something like that on their body," counters @@RANDOMNAME@@, a hiring manager at a local business. "Personally, I don't trust people who have tattoos, but that stays between you and me, @@LEADER@@. I want my employees to look professional, and a sleeve full of tattoos would freak out my customers. Businesses should be able to have the ability to fire people if they have a tattoo, and that should be final!"
[effect] job applicants are strip-searched to check for illegal ink

[option] "Oh dear, how far have we gone as a nation to let people do these terrible things to their bodies?" questions your elderly grandmother, who waited for your nephew to leave the room before she entered. "I just don't think that these people are good for our society. It probably would be best to just ban the practice of tattoos in @@NAME@@ once and for all."
[effect] tattoos have been scrubbed out

[Verdant Haven]

I think the description and the option texts are all pretty reasonable. The effect texts are the ones I would want to spice up a bit.

Effect 1: I had teachers in high school 20 years ago who would show off their tattoos on request - nothing shocking there. I'd play off your nephew saying his ink is all appropriate, but wanting freedom for people who might choose less-acceptable designs. Perhaps the teachers write profane messages about bad students? Maybe they have detention or expulsion counts marked like missions on the side of an old bomber aircraft? Judges with tats that read "Hang them all!" Cops with sleeves saying "Fuck the Police." Teachers with "Suffer, little children" across their foreheads. Some consequence beyond "they have cool designs."

Effect 2: This just restates exactly what the argument was. Importantly, the business owner doesn't just say they should be allowed to hire based on tattoos, but on anything, no matter the reason. That is where the real consequence is, since based on what just happens, they already could fire people for having tattoos. An argument like this would give the potential for things like business owners trying to build staffs of Aryan Übermench because they were allowed to hire based on being blonde-haired, blue-eyed, clear-skinned, and toned. Woe betide the fully-qualified employee who dares to have been born with a feature a potential employer doesn't like.

Effect 3: Again, this feels a bit like just a dry statement of the consequence. If you're actually banning having tattoos, that implies two things to me: 1) There is some kind of very intrusive process for verifying compliance, and 2) There is a boom in voluntary removal, as well as a means of forcible removal. I think the former is more interesting for an effect line, and would probably go for something like "job applicants are strip-searched to check for illegal ink" - something that really gets at the superlative violation of rights and privacy that this is.

[Jutsa]

Figures, I help with the effect lines and there's a problem with them.

Honestly I was happy with "tattoos have been scrubbed out", but your suggestions really are very good.

(Maybe you could help me with one of mine I plan to upload in a few months)

[Sacara]

Great thoughts, Verdant.

I've actually gone ahead and changed option two's effect line to the one you suggested for option three, as it fits better there. I also wasn't meaning to be so vague about what they can hire for at the end of option two, so I clarified that. I second Jutsa's claim to liking the last effect line -- personally, I think it's pretty funny. Option one's has been changed as well.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Australian rePublic]

I like this issue, but there are also jobs which don't facial hair (though I'm not sure if they'd tell you about it) See if you can incorporate that

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Nice, concise issue. Good premise, executed sharply. You're good at this style of issue.

[Sacara]

Nice, concise issue. Good premise, executed sharply. You're good at this style of issue.

Thanks.

I like keeping things short and brief; no one wants to read a block of text while trying to answer an issue.

[Jutsa]

I like keeping things short and brief; no one wants to read a block of text while trying to answer an issue.

You're not wrong there, speaking from personal experience. Still have trouble making my text more concise though.

[Sacara]

You're not wrong there, speaking from personal experience. Still have trouble making my text more concise though.

See, you and I are the opposite. I still remember the times when I had to write an assignment and I just couldn't make my works long enough. Some people just don't understand that you can get a message across more effectively if you use fewer words.

[Sacara]

Bump again.

[Hediacrana]

What about adding some kind of exception (although this could also be a follow up issue) for tattoos with spiritual/cultural significance (Maoris), or tattoos meant to cover up scar tissue (breast cancer survivors)?

[Sacara]

What about adding some kind of exception (although this could also be a follow up issue) for tattoos with spiritual/cultural significance (Maoris), or tattoos meant to cover up scar tissue (breast cancer survivors)?

Thanks for commenting on the draft! Honestly, I think those are too few and far between to include in a general issue about tattoos. However, a follow up could be made, if this gets published.

[Far Tholk]

Nice Issue.

In the first option, the nephew points out that all his tattoos are appropriate, but then the effect is children learning harsh words. While it doesn't explicitly say that tattoos would have to be appropriate, isn't it a little confusing that he mention that his are?

Option 2 is about rejecting applicants, but the Issue is about firing employees. That discrepancy needs to be addressed.

"[S]olely if they have a tattoo" reads weirdly, maybe it could be re-worded.

Overall it's quite good!

[Sacara]

Updated. Thanks for the feedback.

Going to put this on last call and let it sit for a couple days.