NationStates

Title: War Can Change, Can You?

Summary: According to international law, your nation has outdated war laws when it comes to the ethical treatment of Prisoners Of War.. Bigtopian reporter @@RANDOMNAME@@ said that "@@NAME@@ is using very inhumane POW treatment.." in @@HIS@@ newest article.

Viability: Not for nations that don't put any money into the military. Low civil rights.

Option 1: "I think that this is ludicrous!" yelled @@RANDOMNAME@@. “We shouldn’t have to listen to some people who think that we’re ‘dangerous’! We just want protection! How do we get that protection? Showing them what we do to POWs!” @@HE@@ yells.
Effect: @@NAME@@ was put on the reporter’s “Top Ten Evilest Nations” list.

Option 2: A finely dressed person named @@RANDOMNAME@@ walks in. “We care for protection, but we also care about being humane,” @@HE@@ states, “You can't treat POWs like that! I beg that you please update your POW camps, @@LEADER@@!”
Effect: Opposing soldiers go to war just to be taken as POW.

Option 3: A popular peace activist named @@RANDOMNAME@@ wearing a tie dye shirt comes in. “Make peace, not war,” @@HE@@ says. “We need to ban all war, all of it! Set free all POWs!” @@HE@@ chants running out the door.
Effect: Children think war is fictional.

Option 4: A person wearing straps of dynamite runs in. “Those 2 other people can go stub their toe for all I care!” he shouts into your face. “Kamikaze POWs! Capital punishment! We can be tenfold as powerful, even gain some intimidation with these POWs! You just got a bypass a couple international laws, that's all!” he shouts.
Effect: POWs are fed leftover chicken seeds.

@@NAME@@ is outdated and should care, because?

Australian rePublic wrote:@@NAME@@ is outdated and should care, because?

@@NAME@@ is outdated in the treatment of POWs and could be using internationally illegal weapons.
@@NAME@@ should care as they might get a heavy drop in reputation, or maybe get attacked by other nations, or maybe lose trade deals. People don't want to go to a country that has low reputation.

This draft is a bit unfocused. The first line talks about "weapons and POWs." Then other parts are specifically about POWs. But you've got arguments about protection that would make more sense in an issue about weapons. Try to focus more on one central topic.

USS Monitor wrote:This draft is a bit unfocused. The first line talks about "weapons and POWs." Then other parts are specifically about POWs. But you've got arguments about protection that would make more sense in an issue about weapons. Try to focus more on one central topic.

I made it based off of weapons 100%. (=

Necroviribus wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:This draft is a bit unfocused. The first line talks about "weapons and POWs." Then other parts are specifically about POWs. But you've got arguments about protection that would make more sense in an issue about weapons. Try to focus more on one central topic.

I made it based off of weapons 100%. (=

I think you picked the wrong one. We have a number of "get rid of weapons" issues (which can be found by searching ctrl+F in the spoiler list), but which include: #14, #137, and #211.

I suggest you think about a total rewrite based around humane conditions for prisoners of war.

You'd also need to consider, in the validity, that a nation would need fairly low civil rights to receive such an issue -- you can't assume a nation is accused of being cruel to POWs, just because they have a military.

Interesting direction ..


I’m not certainly an authority on these kinds of things, but n my humble opinion it seems a bit ... spread out.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Necroviribus wrote:I made it based off of weapons 100%. (=

I think you picked the wrong one. We have a number of "get rid of weapons" issues (which can be found by searching ctrl+F in the spoiler list), but which include: #14, #137, and #211.

I suggest you think about a total rewrite based around humane conditions for prisoners of war.

You'd also need to consider, in the validity, that a nation would need fairly low civil rights to receive such an issue -- you can't assume a nation is accused of being cruel to POWs, just because they have a military.

Made 100% based off of POWs. (=

The JELLEAIN Republic wrote:Interesting direction ..


I’m not certainly an authority on these kinds of things, but n my humble opinion it seems a bit ... spread out.

What do you mean?