[DRAFT] Senate Sentiments

[Fontenais]

Issue 299.2 deals with placing a punitive tax on harmful emissions. I hope it isn't too much of a stretch to interpret a harmful emissions tax as including a 'breathing tax'. The current draft is practically the same as draft 2, but I got rid of option 3, because it is similar in effect to 299.4

Validity: Must have abolished the Senate
Consequence from #299.2

Current draft:

Description:

In response to an environmentalist movement, Parliament recently instated a ‘breathing tax’ as part of sweeping taxation of harmful emissions. The public appear, however, to be less than thrilled with the idea of being taxed for breathing. A number of disgruntled ex-Senators have argued that the Bill would not have been passed had the Senate not been abolished.

Option 1:
Ex-Senator @@RANDOMNAME@@ opines, ‘Time and time again we see that Parliament is simply a circus of extremist and short-sighted ideas. The Senate, on the other hand, can be trusted to be a dignified and deliberative guardian of national interests. @@LEADER@@, you must reinstate the Senate, to keep the buffoons in Parliament from screwing up more than usual.’

Effect: Bills without an apology note are always vetoed by the Senate

Option 2:
Your Minister for Finance @@RANDOMNAME@@ sarcastically comments, ‘I wonder why we abolished the noble institution of the Senate in the first place? Oh, that’s right – because they were blocking important legislation left right and centre! @@LEADER@@, I think Parliament is doing a brilliant job without the Senate, in fact, we should congratulate ourselves with a pay rise.'

Effect: Ministers give themselves a pay rise whenever they are criticised

Draft 1

Description:

Parliament recently passed a Bill, which has proven to be highly controversial amongst the public. A number of ex-Senators have added fuel to the fire, arguing that the Bill would not have been passed if the Senate had not been abolished. A crowd of Incredulous Ministers and disgruntled ex-Senators have gathered in your office to debate the issue.

Option 1:
Ex-Senator @@RANDOMNAME@@ cries, ‘we get rid of the Senate for two minutes and Parliament Taxes Breathing. It’s preposterous to be taxed for a vital function! Time and time again we see that Parliament is simply a circus of extremist and short-sighted ideas. The Senate, however, can be trusted to rise above the fury of politics and diligently protect the nation’s interests. @@LEADER@@, you must reinstate the Senate, to keep the buffoons in Parliament from screwing up more than usual.’

Effect: Bills without an apology note are always vetoed by the Senate

Option 2:
Your Minister for the Environment @@RANDOMNAME@@ retorts, ‘perhaps the breathing tax was somewhat… questionable. But one unfortunate decision is no grounds for re-instating the Senate! If Parliament creates an unpopular law, Parliament has the power to repeal or amend that law. @@LEADER@@, I think that overall Parliament is doing a brilliant job without the Senate, in fact, we should congratulate ourselves with a pay rise.’

Effect: Ministers give themselves a pay rise whenever they are criticised

Option 3:
‘Hem Hem’, coughs your Senior Undersecretary, Wallis Woodbridge. ‘@@LEADER@@, I think the real issue here is why the public are opposed to Parliament’s legislation, and by extension, you. The government should not stand for disloyalty, and I think we need to… re-educate any dissenters, to teach them to be grateful for your glorious leadership.’

Effect: People who criticise the government are never seen again[/box]

Draft 2

Description:

In response to environmental lobbyists, Parliament has recently instated a 'breathing tax' to combat carbon emissions. The public appear, however, to be less than thrilled with the idea of being taxed for breathing. A number of disgruntled ex-Senators have argued that the Bill would not have been passed if the Senate had not been abolished.

Option 1:
Ex-Senator @@RANDOMNAME@@ cries, ‘We get rid of the Senate for two minutes and Parliament Taxes Breathing. It’s preposterous to be taxed for a vital function! Time and time again we see that Parliament is a circus of extremist and short-sighted ideas. The Senate, however, can be trusted to rise above the fury of politics and diligently protect the nation’s interests. @@LEADER@@, you must reinstate the Senate, to keep the buffoons in Parliament from screwing up more than usual.’

Effect: Bills without an apology note are always vetoed by the Senate

Option 2:
Your Minister for the Environment @@RANDOMNAME@@ retorts, ‘Perhaps the breathing tax was somewhat… questionable. But one unfortunate decision is no grounds for re-instating the Senate! If Parliament creates an unpopular law, Parliament has the power to repeal or amend that law. @@LEADER@@, I think that overall Parliament is doing a brilliant job without the Senate, in fact, we should congratulate ourselves with a pay rise.

Effect: Ministers give themselves a pay rise whenever they are criticised

Option 3:
‘Hem Hem’, coughs your Senior Undersecretary, Wallis Woodbridge. ‘@@LEADER@@, I think the real issue here is why the public are opposed to Parliament’s legislation, and by extension, you. The government should not stand for disloyalty, and I think we need to re-educate any dissenters, to teach them to be grateful for your glorious leadership.’

Effect: People who criticise the government are never seen again

Draft 3:

Description:

In response to protests against an excessive police presence, Parliament recently legislated to bolster law enforcement even further. The public appear, however, to be less than thrilled, claiming that the police force is highly oppressive and over-zealous. A number of disgruntled ex-Senators have argued that the Bill would not have been passed if the Senate had not been abolished.

Option 1:
Ex-Senator @@RANDOMNAME@@ cries, ‘we get rid of the Senate for two minutes and Parliament makes it impossible to wait for a train without being arrested for ‘loitering’. Time and time again we see that Parliament is simply a circus of extremist and short-sighted ideas. The Senate, meanwhile, can be trusted to rise above the fury of politics and diligently protect the nation’s interests. @@LEADER@@, you must reinstate the Senate, to keep the buffoons in Parliament from screwing up more than usual’

Effect: Bills without an apology note are always vetoed by the Senate

Option 2:
Your Minister for the Environment @@RANDOMNAME@@, who was recently charged with disorderly behaviour after accidentally tripping over retorts, ‘perhaps the decision to increase policing was somewhat… questionable. But one unfortunate decision is no grounds for re-instating the Senate! If Parliament creates an unpopular law, Parliament has the power to repeal or amend that law. @@LEADER@@, I think that overall Parliament is doing a brilliant job without the Senate, in fact, we should congratulate ourselves with a pay rise.’

Effect: Ministers give themselves a pay rise whenever they are criticised

Option 3:
‘Hem Hem’, coughs your Senior Undersecretary, Wallis Woodbridge. ‘@@LEADER@@, I think the real issue here is why the public are opposed to Parliament’s legislation, and by extension, you. The government should not stand for disloyalty, and I think we need to re-educate any dissenters, to teach them to be grateful for your glorious leadership’

Effect: Government dissenters disappear and come back... different

[Australian rePublic]

And what bill was this? Maybe make it a ridculous law or something

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Aussie has got it in one.

The vagueness of the premise here makes it too hard to make a meaningful decision, and it strains verisimilitude to believe that a discussion would be brought to Leader without the context of describing what the contentious decision is. On a broader level, it also makes for less interesting reading, as it's hard to be interested as a reader in a situation which isn't engaging us with pertinent details.

[SherpDaWerp]

I've done something along very similar lines recently: Bill Shock in @@NAME@@
It hasn't been published (or picked up for editing AFAIK), so you're still free to go IMO, but this draft of mine does exist.
Sorry!

[Fontenais]

I've done something along very similar lines recently: Bill Shock in @@NAME@@
It hasn't been published (or picked up for editing AFAIK), so you're still free to go IMO, but this draft of mine does exist.
Sorry!

Oh I'm so sorry! I only started going on Got Issues in about August so I didn't even know about your draft (I think you submitted it in July)

I was thinking, before, about changing the description to something like 'In response to fashion industry lobbyists, Parliament has legislated that on Thursdays everyone must wear Violet' - and then discuss how supposedly, how senators should be above the fury of politics, but your issue seems to be more about needing to proofread Bills, so maybe they are different enough?

I'd feel pretty awful though to copy your issue idea, even unintentionally. What does everyone else think? Should I abandon ship?

[The Free Joy State]

I've done something along very similar lines recently: Bill Shock in @@NAME@@
It hasn't been published (or picked up for editing AFAIK), so you're still free to go IMO, but this draft of mine does exist.
Sorry!

Oh I'm so sorry! I only started going on Got Issues in about August so I didn't even know about your draft (I think you submitted it in July)

I was thinking, before, about changing the description to something like 'In response to fashion industry lobbyists, Parliament has legislated that on Thursdays everyone must wear Violet' - and then discuss how supposedly, how senators should be above the fury of politics, but your issue seems to be more about needing to proofread Bills, so maybe they are different enough?

I'd feel pretty awful though to copy your issue idea, even unintentionally. What does everyone else think? Should I abandon ship?

That someone has submitted a draft should not ever put anyone off from writing an issue. Overlap only covers issues currently in the game or about to be added. Submitting a draft does not guarantee it will be added.

However, with regards to this draft, I agree with CWA that it's difficult to approach a draft that is not specific as to the pertinent details of the bill -- it's hard to make a decision as to how to approach it and it's also less interesting.

I suggest focusing in on one specific law, making the outcome more pressing.

[SherpDaWerp]

I'd feel pretty awful though to copy your issue idea, even unintentionally. What does everyone else think? Should I abandon ship?

No, no, go ahead, I intended to just point it out...

That someone has submitted a draft should not ever put anyone off from writing an issue. Overlap only covers issues currently in the game or about to be added. Submitting a draft does not guarantee it will be added.

Sorry, I was unaware of 'protocol' in a situation like this.

Not going to lie, the concept isn't that obscure, so I'm surprised an issue on this topic hadn't already been added 500 issues ago...

[Fontenais]

I'd feel pretty awful though to copy your issue idea, even unintentionally. What does everyone else think? Should I abandon ship?

No, no, go ahead, I intended to just point it out...

Well, I suppose I'll feel Ok to continue working on it since you don't object to go me going ahead

[Fontenais]

And what bill was this? Maybe make it a ridculous law or something

Ok, I've put up draft 2 with a ridiculous law - hopefully it sounds better

[Candlewhisper Archive]

You're positioning of the titles "draft 1" and "draft 2" are somewhat confusing, given that you've replaced the opening description.

I suggest treating the WHOLE of a draft as one version, not just the options.

Anyway, let's see the current opening:

In response to environmental lobbyists, Parliament has recently instated a 'breathing tax' to combat carbon emissions. The public appear, however, to be less than thrilled with the idea of being taxed for breathing. A number of disgruntled ex-Senators have argued that the Bill would not have been passed if the Senate had not been abolished.

The problem here is player autonomy. You're telling us that we made a decision to instate a "breathing tax" when we as players never picked an option to do so -- that's not the sort of thing you can say without asking the players first.

I understand this is a bit of a Catch-22 situation here, where you have to be specific but can't override autonomy. That's a difficult thing to write around, and part of the reason why people have found this a hard policy to write reversals for.

[Fontenais]

In response to environmental lobbyists, Parliament has recently instated a 'breathing tax' to combat carbon emissions. The public appear, however, to be less than thrilled with the idea of being taxed for breathing. A number of disgruntled ex-Senators have argued that the Bill would not have been passed if the Senate had not been abolished.

The problem here is player autonomy. You're telling us that we made a decision to instate a "breathing tax" when we as players never picked an option to do so -- that's not the sort of thing you can say without asking the players first.

I understand this is a bit of a Catch-22 situation here, where you have to be specific but can't override autonomy. That's a difficult thing to write around, and part of the reason why people have found this a hard policy to write reversals for.

Hmm, yes I see this is a bit tricky. What do you think about the following proposition:

Can it be assumed, in a democracy anyway, that Leader is not the only member of Parliament, and Leader doesn't have 100% control of the majority of the votes in Parliament, because Leader's ministers can cross the floor?

Can't it also be assumed that Leader may have voted for or against the breathing tax, or even abstained from voting, but it doesn't matter, because it was passed by the majority of Parliament, irrespective of Leader's vote?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

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.

[Fontenais]

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.

This is a bit left field, but would it make a difference re: player autonomy if the issues were amended to be:

Option 1: Repeal breathing tax, and bring back Senate
Option 2: Repeal breathing tax, but don't bring back Senate
Option 3: Keep breathing tax, and don't bring back Senate
(Possibly should add Option 4: Keep breathing tax, and bring back Senate)

So, there is a brief moment that infringes on player autonomy, but this is effectively 'fixed' in the options?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Interesting.

It's a judgement call, but I'd say that it's still on the wrong side of player autonomy. It's a bit like saying "you've declared war, do you now want to make peace?" but marginally less extreme.

[Fontenais]

Interesting.

It's a judgement call, but I'd say that it's still on the wrong side of player autonomy. It's a bit like saying "you've declared war, do you now want to make peace?" but marginally less extreme.

What do you think of Plan B: Make an issue chain

The first issue, would be like any other issue, but only valid for Nations without a Senate
The second issue, would be like this issue (An issue with the option to bring back the Senate)

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Practically speaking, there's never been an issue chain written by a player, and only a trio of the most active editors have ever taken it on. A player-written chain might be taken on if the player was a well-known author who has an in-depth understanding of the game, otherwise it'd be unlikely to happen.

It's also not great writing practice for a consequence issue to be about immediately reversing the decision just made. As has been noted elsewhere, consequence issues should be more than asking "are you sure?", and should instead be about unforeseen and separate developments that occur as a result of a decision.

A different approach might be to examine existing issues, and see if there's a consequence issue you could write on its own topic, and then within that issue have one option for nations with no upper house where someone says that the wrong-headed policy would never have gotten this far if the upper house had been there to act as a check and measure.

[Fontenais]

A different approach might be to examine existing issues, and see if there's a consequence issue you could write on its own topic, and then within that issue have one option for nations with no upper house where someone says that the wrong-headed policy would never have gotten this far if the upper house had been there to act as a check and measure.

Sounds like a good Idea. I'm going to spend some time going through the current issues (on that wonderful thread by Jutsa)

For simplicity, and comprehensiveness, would it be best to look at the issues with only two options, and then having two consequence issues (one for each option)? I'll start off with one for now, anyway.

[USS Monitor]

For simplicity, and comprehensiveness, would it be best to look at the issues with only two options, and then having two consequence issues (one for each option)? I'll start off with one for now, anyway.

I wouldn't worry about this. Just choose one option, in any issue, and write a consequence.

There is no reason to prefer chaining from an issue that only has two options.

If you do write another draft later, it does not have to chain from the same issue.

[Fontenais]

A different approach might be to examine existing issues, and see if there's a consequence issue you could write on its own topic, and then within that issue have one option for nations with no upper house where someone says that the wrong-headed policy would never have gotten this far if the upper house had been there to act as a check and measure.

I've put up another draft based on an existing issue (141). I haven't followed your advice exactly, though (the whole issue is only for nations with no upper house, not just one option as you suggested), only because I found this way was easier to write. So, it's not really a consequence issue insofar as it doesn't deal with the substance of #141. I hope this is acceptable.

Also I (finally) fixed up the formatting!

[USS Monitor]

I think the premise is too similar to 141, so if you got both, it would be too much like a repeat.

[Fontenais]

I think the premise is too similar to 141, so if you got both, it would be too much like a repeat.

I'll have a look at another issue to base it off then

[Fontenais]

Ok, I've put up another draft, based on #299. Hopefully this sounds better