[ABANDONED] Blue-blooded Blues

[Daarwyrth]

[TITLE] Blue-blooded Blues

[VALIDITY] Nation is not a monarchy, Nation is not an autocracy, Nation doesn't have feudalism, Nation doesn't have socialism

[DESCRIPTION] In a curious turn of events, monarchists have marched onto the street protesting @@NAME@@ being a republic and demand that you, @@LEADER@@, be crowned. Dressed in elaborate 18th century costumes, they have gathered in @@CAPITAL@@'s historic city center, making many citizens believe a historical play is about to commence.

[OPTION 1] "Doth thou not see the tyranny of democracy? How thy reign is marred by the whims of cut-purses and fools' zanies?" begins @@RANDOMMALENAME_1@@, a descendant of former nobility, his dramatic gestures causing the giant wig on his head to fall off and crush an innocent bystander with its weight. "By divine right, thou should rule absolute, noblest @@LEADER@@! Begone with the will of the people, let them eat cake! Hear me and crown thyself sovereign of all, so myne family become nobility again!"

[EFFECT 1] @@LEADER@@'s family and friends are about to start a civil war over who should get which title of nobility

[OPTION 2] "Husband of mine, art thou brainsickly?" says the protester's wife, wearing a dress so pompously big a homeless family has taken shelter underneath it. "Ay, @@LEADER@@ crown thyself as well thy should, but do not hold carelessly the will of the commoners, 'ere they will have thine head! Nay, let them brabble in parliament, if 't be true yond pleases those folk, but doth put a coronet on thine gentle head!"

[EFFECT 2] parliamentarians snigger whenever @@LEADER@@ addresses them in the royal 'we'

[OPTION 3] "How about we don't do that," states @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, as @@HE_2@@ struggles to crawl from underneath @@RANDOMMALENAME_1@@'s fallen wig. "@@LEADER@@, you seriously can't be considering doing what these halfwits demand of you. It's the 21st century for Violet's sake, the time of monarchies is past! No, you should give us more democracy and show whatever kingdom is left out in the world how it's done. Now can someone help me, please? My head's starting to spin..."

[EFFECT 3] foreign monarchies feverishly deny the existence of @@NAME@@ out of fear of sparking a revolution

[OPTION 4] "Da, comrade, heads should start to spin... spin off the guillotine!" says Vladimirich Leninovich, standing next to @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, completely ignoring their predicament. "Workers of @@NAME@@ unite! Let the revolution cleanse this nation of the capitalist elite and their monarchist whims, or those bigwigs will crush you like this one!" he rolls out a red flag with a hammer and sickle on it. "Embrace communism, comrades! Embrace equality!"

[EFFECT 4] actors who play the king in Flakespeare's King Fear fear for their lives

[Daarwyrth]

A point of critique that I myself can already see is that Option 4 should have a validity, so that it only appears if the nation doesn't have socialism. Do people agree?

[The Sherpa Empire]

What sets this apart from other issues that ask if you want monarchy, feudalism, etc.?

[Australian rePublic]

Why would the monarchists decide to declare @@LEADER@@ as monarch? Why wouldn't the monarchists try to find the rightful heir to @@NAME@@'s throne- or rather, he or she who would have been the heir to @@NAME@@'s throne, had the monarchy not been overthrown. As most monarchies have been abolished in the past 100 years or so, it's not too hard to trace back ancestry (and going forward, it would still be easy, due to geological records and shit). Besides, someone was able to trace the "true" British Monarchy all the way back to the decendant of a king who ruled in the 14th Century, thus meaning it is possible to trace back ancestry which goes further back than 100 years. Also, using "Old" English in more than one option is a bit overkill

[Daarwyrth]

What sets this apart from other issues that ask if you want monarchy, feudalism, etc.?

I've been looking through the issues and I haven't seen one yet that has monarchists march onto the street and protest your nation being a republic in the form I have written it up. I couldn't find an issue that is specifically about the question whether you want to be a monarchy or not, it's always only squeezed in as an option here or there, but not as the main subject. That would set it apart I'd say.

Why would the monarchists decide to declare @@LEADER@@ as monarch? Why wouldn't the monarchists try to find the rightful heir to @@NAME@@'s throne- or rather, he or she who would have been the heir to @@NAME@@'s throne, had the monarchy not been overthrown. As most monarchies have been abolished in the past 100 years or so, it's not too hard to trace back ancestry (and going forward, it would still be easy, due to geological records and shit). Besides, someone was able to trace the "true" British Monarchy all the way back to the decendant of a king who ruled in the 14th Century, thus meaning it is possible to trace back ancestry which goes further back than 100 years. Also, using "Old" English in more than one option is a bit overkill

Player autonomy. I can't claim that @@NAME@@ was a monarchy in the not too distant past as that might contradict what the player is playing. I didn't even state that @@NAME@@ was a kingdom at some point, only that the guy from option 1 was from former nobility, not specifying from where and when they were nobility, so as to not infringe on player autonomy as specified in the "How To Write An Issue" articles.

As to why @@LEADER@@ would be chosen, well, they are the current head of state. The monarchists could be happy with their rule and that's why they want leader as the King or Queen, or Emperor or Empress, the title is up to the player.

As to the Old English, it felt weird to me that the husband would speak it but not the wife. They're both dressed in 18th century costumes and it fits the entirety that both of them would speak it, because otherwise I could ask: why does the husband speak Shakespearean English but not the wife if she's in the protest with him?

[Australian rePublic]

What sets this apart from other issues that ask if you want monarchy, feudalism, etc.?

I've been looking through the issues and I haven't seen one yet that has monarchists march onto the street and protest your nation being a republic in the form I have written it up. I couldn't find an issue that is specifically about the question whether you want to be a monarchy or not, it's always only squeezed in as an option here or there, but not as the main subject. That would set it apart I'd say.

Why would the monarchists decide to declare @@LEADER@@ as monarch? Why wouldn't the monarchists try to find the rightful heir to @@NAME@@'s throne- or rather, he or she who would have been the heir to @@NAME@@'s throne, had the monarchy not been overthrown. As most monarchies have been abolished in the past 100 years or so, it's not too hard to trace back ancestry (and going forward, it would still be easy, due to geological records and shit). Besides, someone was able to trace the "true" British Monarchy all the way back to the decendant of a king who ruled in the 14th Century, thus meaning it is possible to trace back ancestry which goes further back than 100 years. Also, using "Old" English in more than one option is a bit overkill

Player autonomy. I can't claim that @@NAME@@ was a monarchy in the not too distant past as that might contradict what the player is playing. I didn't even state that @@NAME@@ was a kingdom at some point, only that the guy from option 1 was from former nobility, not specifying from where and when they were nobility, so as to not infringe on player autonomy as specified in the "How To Write An Issue" articles.

As to why @@LEADER@@ would be chosen, well, they are the current head of state. The monarchists could be happy with their rule and that's why they want leader as the King or Queen, or Emperor or Empress, the title is up to the player.

As to the Old English, it felt weird to me that the husband would speak it but not the wife. They're both dressed in 18th century costumes and it fits the entirety that both of them would speak it, because otherwise I could ask: why does the husband speak Shakespearean English but not the wife if she's in the protest with him?

@@LEADER@@ is the current head of state? No he's not. He's the current head of government. In most republics, they are two different jobs held by two different persons

[Daarwyrth]

I've been looking through the issues and I haven't seen one yet that has monarchists march onto the street and protest your nation being a republic in the form I have written it up. I couldn't find an issue that is specifically about the question whether you want to be a monarchy or not, it's always only squeezed in as an option here or there, but not as the main subject. That would set it apart I'd say.



Player autonomy. I can't claim that @@NAME@@ was a monarchy in the not too distant past as that might contradict what the player is playing. I didn't even state that @@NAME@@ was a kingdom at some point, only that the guy from option 1 was from former nobility, not specifying from where and when they were nobility, so as to not infringe on player autonomy as specified in the "How To Write An Issue" articles.

As to why @@LEADER@@ would be chosen, well, they are the current head of state. The monarchists could be happy with their rule and that's why they want leader as the King or Queen, or Emperor or Empress, the title is up to the player.

As to the Old English, it felt weird to me that the husband would speak it but not the wife. They're both dressed in 18th century costumes and it fits the entirety that both of them would speak it, because otherwise I could ask: why does the husband speak Shakespearean English but not the wife if she's in the protest with him?

@@LEADER@@ is the current head of state? No he's not. He's the current head of government. In most republics, they are two different jobs held by two different persons

Uh, yes @@LEADER@@ is the head of state. That's pretty much implied in every issue I have encountered so far. I know the difference between head of state and head of government, you can assume I am fairly knowledgeable. But from what I have seen it's always been implied that @@LEADER@@ - hence the name @@LEADER@@ - is the head of state. How else can you install an autocracy for example? Or become monarch, for that matter? And if you do become Autocrat or Monarch, then that's a fairly big indicator @@LEADER@@ is the head of state.

[Australian rePublic]

@@LEADER@@ is the current head of state? No he's not. He's the current head of government. In most republics, they are two different jobs held by two different persons

Uh, yes @@LEADER@@ is the head of state. That's pretty much implied in every issue I have encountered so far. I know the difference between head of state and head of government, you can assume I am fairly knowledgeable. But from what I have seen it's always been implied that @@LEADER@@ - hence the name @@LEADER@@ - is the head of state. How else can you install an autocracy for example? Or become monarch, for that matter? And if you do become Autocrat or Monarch, then that's a fairly big indicator @@LEADER@@ is the head of state.

Okay, I should have specified. In most democracies leader is the head of government, not head of state. My bad

[Daarwyrth]

Uh, yes @@LEADER@@ is the head of state. That's pretty much implied in every issue I have encountered so far. I know the difference between head of state and head of government, you can assume I am fairly knowledgeable. But from what I have seen it's always been implied that @@LEADER@@ - hence the name @@LEADER@@ - is the head of state. How else can you install an autocracy for example? Or become monarch, for that matter? And if you do become Autocrat or Monarch, then that's a fairly big indicator @@LEADER@@ is the head of state.

Okay, I should have specified. In most democracies leader is the head of government, not head of state. My bad

In which issue is it implied @@LEADER@@ is the head of government and not the head of state?

[Australian rePublic]

Okay, I should have specified. In most democracies leader is the head of government, not head of state. My bad

In which issue is it implied @@LEADER@@ is the head of government and not the head of state?

You know what? You're right! It's time for issues which specifically imply that @@LEADER@@ isn't the head of state. Carry on

[Daarwyrth]

In which issue is it implied @@LEADER@@ is the head of government and not the head of state?

You know what? You're right! It's time for issues which specifically imply that @@LEADER@@ isn't the head of state. Carry on

Okay, I'm confused, what are you trying to say here?

[Daarwyrth]

I have changed up the original draft, by adding a new validity (namely that countries with socialism can't get this issue, as socialist/communist ideology is anti-monarchist anyway) plus I have changed the first sentence in option 3 to be normal speech instead of the mocking, as I feel it reads better. I'd love to get more feedback on this draft!

[Daarwyrth]

I've decided to abandon this issue for the time being as I myself am no longer content with it. I may use material from here in another draft, but for now I won't continue working on this particular one.