[SUBMITTED] Bill Shock in @@NAME@@

by **SherpDaWerp** » Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:31 pm

This is an attempt to resolve the lack of an issue reinstating the upper house. AFAIK nothing reverses the decision made in #560 yet.
Any and all suggestions welcome!

Description
Last week, the @@NAME@@ parliament passed an education bill containing several errors, not the least of which was stating that irrational numbers don't exist. After the ensuing media field day and several governmental headaches, the lack of an upper house in @@NAME@@ has come to the spotlight.

Validity
Democracy, and a parliament system, but no upper house

Option 1
"This is ridiculous!" shouts one of your more overbearing aides. "This bill should never have been passed by our government. You have to instate an upper parliamentary house. Maybe then there'll be some form of secondary approval for all these weird bills that get put through."
Validity
All
Outcome
the government's mistakes now look twice as stupid

Option 2
"This is ridiculous!" replies @@RANDOMNAME@@, one of the more penny-pinching opposition ministers. "Our system works brilliantly. Well, except for this bill. But just imagine the expense involved in doubling the size of the @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ government! Instead, why don't you just coach your ministers on how to properly read a bill?"
Validity
All
Outcome
government officials take reading comprehension tests between parliament sessions

Option 3
"Irrational numbers are the bane of all good morals!" Screams @@RANDOMNAME@@, the author of the bill in question. He twitches, and continues, "And the fact that you politicians are complaining about my math just shows how elitist this government has become! Put this to a referendum, let the people decide things. They will obviously make the right choice on this serious soiling up of our neat and pure numbers." He continues ranting as the guards carry him away.
Validity
All
Outcome
mathematical truths are determined by public referenda

by **Australian rePublic** » Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:34 pm

Who in the fudge passes a bill about 1+1=3?

by **SherpDaWerp** » Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:37 pm

I was kinda basing the concept off the Indiana Pi Bill, which had mathematical errors in it. Should I specify an education bill or make the math bit more relevant to the bill somehow?

by **Australian rePublic** » Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:43 pm

SherpDaWerp wrote:I was kinda basing the concept off the Indiana Pi Bill, which had mathematical errors in it. Should I specify an education bill or make the math bit more relevant to the bill somehow?

The pi bill existed to make it easier for people not to deal with irational numbers. 2 is not an irrational number

by **SherpDaWerp** » Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:04 pm

Fair. I'll change it to something along the lines of "irrational numbers don't exist" or somesuch.
I was attempting to follow the NS tradition of taking stuff way too far, and it also sets up the third option having it be a basic mathematical error.

EDIT: I realised that Option 3 could be tweaked to be a mildly insane person authoring the bill, and he really doesn't like irrational numbers. Aussie- your comments actually worked really nicely.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:21 pm

More minor edits, along with "formalising" it as a draft instead of a concept. I think it's good enough to properly draft, so let's find out!

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:42 pm

What's wrong with calling it 'pi' anyway? It's a mathmatical concept which many people use

π

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:49 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:What's wrong with calling it 'pi' anyway? It's a mathmatical concept which many people use

π

I wanted to reference the pi bill slightly more subtly than just outright copying it, and Candlewhisper already wrote an issue with the pi bill referenced in an option. I guess it could work with just pi, but I kinda like the wider aspect of saying "all irrational numbers".

EDIT: In fact, here it is.

by **Chan Island** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:13 am

I like that third option and find them glorious, but how is the nation's stance on irrational numbers in any way affected by their stance on having an upper house? I'd make the third option address that topic at hand too.

by **Perelingo** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:25 am

Chan Island wrote:I like that third option and find them glorious, but how is the nation's stance on irrational numbers in any way affected by their stance on having an upper house? I'd make the third option address that topic at hand too.

Well, elder and wiser senators could have spotted the errors and corrected it if there was a second proofread. Well, it's kinda the official defense for upper houses...
I agree the third option should adress the house(s) system; how about him advocating the parliamentary independance, direct democracy, someting like that ?

by **Chan Island** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:13 am

Perelingo wrote:
Chan Island wrote:I like that third option and find them glorious, but how is the nation's stance on irrational numbers in any way affected by their stance on having an upper house? I'd make the third option address that topic at hand too.

Well, elder and wiser senators could have spotted the errors and corrected it if there was a second proofread. Well, it's kinda the official defense for upper houses...
I agree the third option should adress the house(s) system; how about him advocating the parliamentary independance, direct democracy, someting like that ?

That would work. If the speaker insisted that the people hate irrational numbers too, and that the doublecheck could be a referendum, then that would be an interesting twist on the situation.

by **Window Land** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:14 am

I have a suggestion for the first option's effect line:
the government now looks twice as stupid when it screws up

by **SherpDaWerp** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:53 pm

Chan Island wrote:I like that third option and find them glorious, but how is the nation's stance on irrational numbers in any way affected by their stance on having an upper house? I'd make the third option address that topic at hand too.

I'm not entirely sure how I could add in a sensible suggestion like this to an obviously insane person without compromising his insanity...

Perelingo wrote:Well, elder and wiser senators could have spotted the errors and corrected it if there was a second proofread. Well, it's kinda the official defense for upper houses...
I agree the third option should adress the house(s) system; how about him advocating the parliamentary independance, direct democracy, someting like that ?

This could possibly be added to the second option, as he's advocating for no upper house, but he's not batshit crazy.

Chan Island wrote:That would work. If the speaker insisted that the people hate irrational numbers too, and that the doublecheck could be a referendum, then that would be an interesting twist on the situation.

That I might be able to put in somewhere in the third option.

Overall, the angle I was going for is:
1. (For) This bill is stupid, reinstate the upper house
2. (Against) No, the government voted for it, upper house is not good
3. (Crazy Option) My bill has no errors, irrational numbers shouldn't exist!

I don't really feel I could add your suggestions to the third option without removing the "crazy option" aspect of it, and making the speaker less crazy. However, I do think they are excellent arguments for the second speaker to make. He's advocating to not add an upper house, and he's coherent enough to make a suggestion like "parliamentary independence" or "direct democracy".

There might also be the opportunity to add another option. This option would be "power to the people!" style, taking on Chan Island's suggestion of having a referenda to double-check any legislation. Let's see what I can do with these suggestions...

Window Land wrote:the government now looks twice as stupid when it screws up

It's not my favourite effect line, but it's miles better than a flat-out statement of the decision (as I currently have). Added.

EDIT: I've put a second draft up, implementing some of the above feedback.
Chan Island and Perelingo: I've added a fourth option suggesting a direct-democracy style approach where the people have referenda for every bill.
Window Land: your effect line has been tweaked a little bit, as I wasn't sure about the literal use of "when the government screws up". The new effect line says essentially the same thing, but I think it's a bit sharper.

by **Perelingo** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:38 pm

This is good, but you should expand the 3rd option. Add some arguments, about people's sovereighnty, about how the people is a better check-and-balance than a upper house, and when the people is wrong well who are we to go against them ?
I thing a longer option with this kind of visible down-aspect is more what you are looking for.
And definately add a line about the taxpayers' money.

by **Chan Island** » Fri Jul 19, 2019 5:28 am

SherpDaWerp wrote:
Chan Island wrote:I like that third option and find them glorious, but how is the nation's stance on irrational numbers in any way affected by their stance on having an upper house? I'd make the third option address that topic at hand too.

I'm not entirely sure how I could add in a sensible suggestion like this to an obviously insane person without compromising his insanity...

"Irrational numbers are the bane of all good morals!" Screams @@RANDOMNAME@@, the author of the bill in question. He twitches, and continues, "And the fact that you politicians are complaining about the math not adding up just shows how elitist this government has become! Put this to a referendum, let the people decide things. They will obviously make the right choice on this serious soiling up of our neat and pure numbers." He continues ranting as the guards carry him away.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sat Jul 20, 2019 6:39 pm

Chan Island wrote:"Irrational numbers are the bane of all good morals!" Screams @@RANDOMNAME@@, the author of the bill in question. He twitches, and continues, "And the fact that you politicians are complaining about the math not adding up just shows how elitist this government has become! Put this to a referendum, let the people decide things. They will obviously make the right choice on this serious soiling up of our neat and pure numbers." He continues ranting as the guards carry him away.

^ And that's why you've written 30ish issues, while I'm here just drafting #2. I might take this for use as option 3, with a couple extremely small tweaks.

Perelingo wrote:Add some arguments, about people's sovereighnty, about how the people is a better check-and-balance than a upper house, and when the people is wrong well who are we to go against them?

If the people's referendum option gets put with the insane guy, it'll already be a decent sized option. However, if the people's referendum option goes on it's own, then the argument definitely needs more weight.

I'm now having trouble deciding on the basic structure of the issue...
Either it's like this:

Reinstate the upper house
No, politicians just need more training/it's too expensive
No, just make it a referendum

Or it's like this

Reinstates the upper house
No, politicians just need more training/it's too expensive
No, just make it a referendum
Ban irrational numbers

I'm leaning towards the first one, because that seems to be what people think is a good idea. Draft 3 is now up, following this structure, but Draft 2 is still visible as an example of structure 2.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:47 am

SherpDaWerp wrote:And that's why you've written 30ish issues, while I'm here just drafting #2. I might take this for use as option 3, with a couple extremely small tweaks.

Looking at the quality of your drafts, that's clearly a function of number of drafts submitted, not of writing ability.

Again, loving your work here. Submit it whenever you think it's done, I have no doubt we'll want this issue.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:00 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Looking at the quality of your drafts, that's clearly a function of number of drafts submitted, not of writing ability.

Again, loving your work here. Submit it whenever you think it's done, I have no doubt we'll want this issue.

Wow. High praise...

I wouldn't mind going through another couple iterations, just to polish it off nicely. Although if there's no other feedback from anyone, I'm happy to submit what's here now.
Also, the end of option 1 is begging for some joke about the issues that a nation faces and how ridiculous they are, but I can't really think of a good one. If there's any suggestions, let me know.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:56 pm

Last Call - I'll submit this soon if there's no more feedback!
Still looking for a better joke as mentioned here:

SherpDaWerp wrote:Also, the end of option 1 is begging for some joke about the issues that a nation faces and how ridiculous they are, but I can't really think of a good one. If there's any suggestions, let me know.

Better effect lines are also always welcome!

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sat Jul 27, 2019 11:28 pm

Triple-post, eek. Regardless, given that there's been no more feedback after 5 days, I've submitted the issue!
Here's hoping for my issue #2...

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:10 am

Good Luck!

[SUBMITTED] Bill Shock in @@NAME@@

[SUBMITTED] Bill Shock in @@NAME@@

Who is online