NationStates

Well, here it goes. My attempt at writing the "No Senate" reversal issue that's needed

Title: Ahh! Sweet Unicameralism!

Description: The @@demonymadjective@@ Civil Service has found an abundance of errors and overlaps in many legislative bills and policies as of late. Has unicameralism been strained?

Validity: Must have a unicameral legislative body

Option 1: "Come on! Is this really an issue worth debating?" arrogantly questions @@randomname@@, a disdainful lawmaker and known supporter of bicameralism. "You don't need to be a politician to know these problems started as soon as we abolished the upper house. Bring back our Senate, it's the most logical solution!"
Effect: the senate is in a standstill on what constitutes a bill

Option 2: "Re-establishing the upper house will just take us back to square one," contends esteemed lawmaker @@randomname@@ while holding an 'I Hate Bicameralism!' cup. "I received word from the Civil Service that the main probable cause of these oversights in legislation is simply the result of low morale caused by the abolishment of the Senate. I propose we establish initiative programs within the house, remind our good serving legislators why they do what they do and maybe even boosted benefits as a countermeasure."
Effect: @@leader@@ is finding more raise requests on their desk than actual bills

Option 3: You spot an unfamiliar person behind your desk, "I have the perfect guaranteed solution ladies and gents!" he says while shredding your important papers. "Having a government brings nothing but meaningless debates and disputes that never seem to end. Well, let's end it all now by not having a government. Go ahead, call me crazy, you know you want to @@leader@@, you're tired are you not?"
Effect: @@leader@@s desk is as empty as their soul

I don't see how unicameralism would significantly increase workload. In bicameral systems, many things need to go through both houses anyway.

You might have some things that only need to go through one house, but you would also have legislation that comes back and has to be revised because one house passed it and the other rejected it. I think those would balance each other out so you wouldn't have a significant change in workload.

USS Monitor wrote:I don't see how unicameralism would significantly increase workload. In bicameral systems, many things need to go through both houses anyway.

You might have some things that only need to go through one house, but you would also have legislation that comes back and has to be revised because one house passed it and the other rejected it. I think those would balance each other out so you wouldn't have a significant change in workload.

What I was thinking was that because the legislative body is now a singular house, all the duties that the upper house had have been transferred or merged with that one chamber now which I could imagine would increase the work that needs to get done

In a unicameral system there's fewer barriers to the passing of legislation, so the workload reduces. If we say that the workload has reduced and the staffing levels remain constant, then you'd expect workload per individual to reduce.

You might want to look at it from a democratic point of you

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:In a unicameral system there's fewer barriers to the passing of legislation, so the workload reduces. If we say that the workload has reduced and the staffing levels remain constant, then you'd expect workload per individual to reduce.

Hmmm, point taken, I'll rewrite this one

Australian rePublic wrote:You might want to look at it from a democratic point of you

I'll keep this mind, thanks Aussie!

Updated!

Description: After the validation of unicameralism, legislators have been finding huge errors and overlaps in many recent bills. This has led to discourse on re-establishing the upper house and a packed crowd of lawmakers in your office

The second sentence is redundant. Don't propose reversal in the opening. Reversal should be ONE option presented, with the rest of the options having nothing to do with the upper house.

The first sentence is getting somewhere. However, let's not telegraph.

Instead, just tell us that...

Description: The civil service has been finding significant errors, contradictions and overlaps in bills that have recently been passed by parliament. What has happened to quality control?

That's your premise. Then, in ONE OPTION mention that these problems started with unicameralism, and the upper house needs to be brought back.

In the other two to three options, don't mention the upper house at all. Instead, propose other reasons that errors have occurred, and propose fixes for them. Things like crowdsourcing the checking process by involving the general public, or introducing a delay between a vote and a measure coming into law to give the civil service a chance to make checks, or not being such sticklers for exact wording and encouraging all to follow the spirit of the law.

That'd be more the sort of issue I could publish.

Update! I decided to do a complete overhaul of this draft and start from scratch. So, how did I do?

I know that in the past, drafts have been discarded because it semi-violates player autonomy to say that @@NAME@@ has passed bad-quality bills without the player character (leader) having any say in it. This seems OK, as it's less of a specific instance where an obviously bad bill has passed, but that's the big trick with why this policy reversal is hard.

EDIT: Found a quote

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:You can't assume that parliament has passed any act that the player has not agreed to. That's just one of the main conceits of the game -- even in an in-character democracy, the player is the one who decides what decisions the nation makes.

That was in-context of an issue option instituting a breathing tax, which is far more out-there. Get an editor's opinion, but I reckon leaving a generic "spelling mistakes and minor errors in lots of bills" doesn't cross the line.

---

A couple other points:

Socio Polor wrote:overlaps in many legislative bills and policy's

policies.

Socio Polor wrote: debating?" Questions disdained arrogant lawmaker @@randomname@@

Lower case Q, plus, the adjective form of disdain is disdainful, not disdained. Also the double-adjective (disdained arrogant) sounds funky. Pick one, or maybe make one an adverb: "arrogantly questions disdainful lawmaker" or "disdainfully questions arrogant lawmaker".

Socio Polor wrote:Bring back our beloved Senate, it's the most logical solution, period!"

An "arrogant lawmaker" isn't particularly likely to speak with such casual mannerisms. The second one does a good job of characterising a lawmaker with big words and "I propose", but finishing a sentence with "period!" doesn't sound very official.

Socio Polor wrote:your finding more raise requests on your desk than actual bills

As an effect line, the joke is there. But they are meant to be read by random players reading your nation as well as the player who just answered. (plus, your vs you're) To fix this, I would put "@@LEADER@@ is finding..."

Socio Polor wrote:You spot an unfamiliar person behind your desk shredding your important papers, "I have the perfect guaranteed solution ladies and gents!

The sentence flow here is a bit off. I would start with the dialogue again, and do something like this:
"Ladies and gents, I have the perfect, guaranteed solution!" states a mysterious figure, who you've just noticed is standing behind your desk and shredding some important documents.

Socio Polor wrote:your tired are you not?"

you're

Socio Polor wrote:your desk is as empty as your soul

I think this effect line is similar to the second one where it's referring to the leader. So same fix: "@@LEADER@@'s desk is as empty as their soul"

That was in-context of an issue option instituting a breathing tax, which is far more out-there. Get an editor's opinion, but I reckon leaving a generic "spelling mistakes and minor errors in lots of bills" doesn't cross the line.

It shouldn't, as grammar and spelling errors in bills aren't the fault of the player (@@leader@@), so it should be fine. Though if an editor says otherwise, I may consider changing it.

policies.

fixed.

Lower case Q, plus, the adjective form of disdain is disdainful, not disdained. Also the double-adjective (disdained arrogant) sounds funky. Pick one, or maybe make one an adverb: "arrogantly questions disdainful lawmaker" or "disdainfully questions arrogant lawmaker".

I'll definitely change this, thanks.

An "arrogant lawmaker" isn't particularly likely to speak with such casual mannerisms. The second one does a good job of characterizing a lawmaker with big words and "I propose", but finishing a sentence with "period!" doesn't sound very official.

Good point. I'll see what I can do.

As an effect line, the joke is there. But they are meant to be read by random players reading your nation as well as the player who just answered. (plus, your vs you're) To fix this, I would put "@@LEADER@@ is finding..."

Duly noted.

The sentence flow here is a bit off. I would start with the dialogue again, and do something like this:
"Ladies and gents, I have the perfect, guaranteed solution!" states a mysterious figure, who you've just noticed is standing behind your desk and shredding some important documents.

Hmm, I'll consider this.

you're

Wow! How in the world did I miss all of these? Thanks!

I think this effect line is similar to the second one where it's referring to the leader. So same fix: "@@LEADER@@'s desk is as empty as their soul"

Gotcha! Thanks

Updated!
Edit: Updated! Again, decided to make a minor change to the last option

In the description, "policy's" should be "policies". Otherwise, it looks like a good work in progress!

Phydios wrote:In the description, "policy's" should be "policies". Otherwise, it looks like a good work in progress!

oops, forgot to fix that, thanks

The abolition of government option doesn't work well here, I think. Can you find a different third way?

The abolition of government option doesn't work well here, I think. Can you find a different third way?

Maybe something along the lines of not sweating the details, and letting there be legislative grey areas, as that gives more room for creative government while working within the letter of the law.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:The abolition of government option doesn't work well here, I think. Can you find a different third way?

Maybe something along the lines of not sweating the details, and letting there be legislative grey areas, as that gives more room for creative government while working within the letter of the law.

You think? You THINK!? Come on Archive, I thought you were better than this. All kidding around aside, I'll consider it, thanks!

I" think" as in "it is my opinion" rather than "I am uncertain that".

I'll remember to be more direct with you in future. Along the lines of:

Your issue is currently a fail. Make it a pass.

Is that better for you?

I think this would benefit from having some humor added. And a better title.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I" think" as in "it is my opinion" rather than "I am uncertain that".

I'll remember to be more direct with you in future. Along the lines of:

Your issue is currently a fail. Make it a pass.

Is that better for you?

Gee Archive, You're the best!

USS Monitor wrote:I think this would benefit from having some humor added. And a better title.

Humor is something I'm definitely working to improve on in my drafts so that's something I'm always bearing in mind. As for the title I agree it could be more creative, but I can't think of anything . Thanks you two!

Awh, I thought option 3'd be "GO DICTATORSHIP!"

Also, I'd personally have switched options 1 and 2, so it's not just screaming "Unicameralism is bad!" right off the bat.
In fact, come to think of it, an even more subtle way is to have the options as:

1) "Power to the people, right? If it's a problem, let the public petition repeals that we can then vote on. Just like the World Assembly does."
2) "The people we're electing(or selecting if a sortition, good variant option) are dumb, even moreso butthurt plebs. Make sure everyone put into office knows law and proper grammar!",
3) "That's elitist! How about a compromise: We install a new legislator that reviews passed legislation, and decides whether it be law." (I.E. subtly reintroduce the upper house)
4) "We need to abolish the lower house! [Either: That'll leave you, glorious leader, to be in charge; Or: Yay anarchy woo! (still end up being a dictatorship )]

Not saying you'd have to do any of these things, but I think it'd make the issue feel a little less like
This policy happened: 'Undo it!' vs. 'No it's good just say it's good', 'crazy third option', and more
This policy happened: 'Power to the people to abolish laws!', 'This is dangerous, put in intelligent people', 'Compromise that ends up actually being a reversal', and 'crazy fourth option'.

P.S. Thinking about it, we've got so many options praising dictatorship, I'd honestly love to see an option that abolishes the lower house thinking it'll make you an anarchy but forgets that you exist and just makes you a dictatorship.

Jutsa wrote:Not saying you'd have to do any of these things, but I think it'd make the issue feel a little less like
This policy happened: 'Undo it!' vs. 'No it's good just say it's good', 'crazy third option', and more
This policy happened: 'Power to the people to abolish laws!', 'This is dangerous, put in intelligent people', 'Compromise that ends up actually being a reversal', and 'crazy fourth option'.

I actually like this suggestion, I'll consider making said revisions

Let me know if you'd like any help. Always up for a good collab.
Though do go in it alone if you'd rather. I've faith you've got this, just throwing the offer out there.
(in this case I'd be the secondary author and plus you could always kick me and any work I'd do out at any time too)

Just throwing in my two cents here: I think if you take some of Jutsa's suggestions it would make this a stronger issue. I agree that as it stands it just feels like a "You just did x, do you want to keep it?" sort of draft.

Sacara wrote:Just throwing in my two cents here: I think if you take some of Jutsa's suggestions it would make this a stronger issue. I agree that as it stands it just feels like a "You just did x, do you want to keep it?" sort of draft.

Yeah, I see that now as I was reading it

Jutsa wrote:Let me know if you'd like any help. Always up for a good collab.
Though do go in it alone if you'd rather. I've faith you've got this, just throwing the offer out there.
(in this case I'd be the secondary author and plus you could always kick me and any work I'd do out at any time too)

Thanks Jutsa, I'll TG you if I decide to go through with the collab, thanks!