NATION

PASSWORD

[INDEFINITELY ON HOLD] Little House on the @@ANIMAL@@ River

A place to spoil daily issues for those who haven't had them yet, snigger at typos, and discuss ideas for new ones.
User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Diplomat
 
Posts: 934
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

[INDEFINITELY ON HOLD] Little House on the @@ANIMAL@@ River

Postby SherpDaWerp » Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:35 pm

I wish you could nest spoilers, it would make management of a redraft so much cleaner if I could just spoiler the entire old 5 versions...

Title: Little House on the @@ANIMAL@@ River

Description

Recently, major @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ magnate @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@ announced his plans to forgo terrestrial housing and permanently live in a houseboat on the @@ANIMAL@@ river, citing increased quality-of-life. The decision has not been without controversy, however, as many @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ cannot afford such an exorbitant lifestyle.
Validity
Some income inequality, possibly Capitalism

Option 1
"That's ridiculous!", blurts one of your minimum-wage aides. "I can barely afford rent, let alone buying one of those luxurious houseboat thingies! @@HE(1)@@'s only doing this to avoid paying land taxes, I'll bet. Ooh, maybe @@HE(1)@@'s trying to hide some illegal stuff, like in one of those Jim Band spy movies! That's the only reason anyone ever lives on one of those things… Arrest @@HIM@@ and prohibit houseboating now!"
Validity
All
Outcome
@@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ who like fishing are treated with suspicion

Option 2
"@@HE(2)@@ has the right idea, but that isn't the only reason to object," says environmentalist, @@RANDOMNAME(3)@@. "Long-term mooring and movement of boats stirs up sediment and kills aquatic life - look at Vemace, for instance. Their canals have been murky and dead for all of recorded history, but when they stopped all boating for a week, they immediately filled up with life. Restrict all water traffic to only necessary travel, and watch the fishes flourish!"
Validity
All
Outcome
to save space for aquatic life, @@CAPITAL@@ is expanding into land habitats

Option 3
"There's no law stopping me from doing this," states @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@. "I had my lawyers check! Look, if I want to live on my 5-storey houseboat, that’s up to me. People are allowed to live 'off-grid' out in the bush, and this is just taking that one-step further. You should encourage more people to do this. Think about how much more land can go to national parks if we're all living on the water!"
Validity
All
Outcome
the most expensive homes in @@CAPITAL@@ seem to be the wettest


Title: Little House on the @@ANIMAL@@ River

Description

@@RANDOMNAME_1@@, a downtrodden @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ worker, moved onto the water some months ago to escape landowner's tax and get an increased quality of life. All was going well, until @@HE@@ accidentally anchored in a major shipping lane, causing every cargo ship in and out of @@NAME@@ to go days off schedule.
Validity
Some income inequality, Capitalism

Option 1
"Look, I just wanted to live on the water," claims @@RANDOMNAME_1@@. "How was I supposed to know there was a shipping lane there? There's no marker buoys in sight, and I don't have all that fancy navigation gear telling me where I can and can't go. If you provided government-subsidised education on boating protocol for anyone who wants it, then I would have known what to do."
Validity
All
Outcome
the @@DEMONYM@@ Sea Scouts are going out of business

Option 2
"Damnit!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, the captain of one of the held-up vessels. "That filthy landlubber cost me and my crew precious time! Boating through or stopping in shipping lanes, even if you don't know about them, should be prosecuted by a good keel-hauling! Bah!" @@HE@@ storms out of the room.
Validity
All
Outcome
the government's new prison facility has a surprisingly large pool

Option 3
"Why are we even allowing @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ on the water?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, an ardent environmentalist. "Living on the water causes significant and irreversible environmental damage to water-based ecosystems! Would you like to have some floating metal-and-fibreglass construction floating above your house 24/7? For the good of our water-based ecosystems, no-one should be allowed to live on boats!"
Validity
All
Outcome
lengthy sea trips are impossible now that it's illegal to take more than 3 days' worth of food onto a boat


Title: Little House on the @@ANIMAL@@ River

Description

Recently, major @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ magnate @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@ announced his plans to forgo terrestrial housing and permanently live in a houseboat on the @@ANIMAL@@ river, citing increased quality-of-life and lack of property tax.
Validity
Some income inequality, possibly Capitalism

Option 1
"There's no law stopping me from doing this," states @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@. "I had my lawyers check! Look, if I want to live on my 5-storey houseboat, that’s up to me. People are allowed to live 'off-grid' out in the bush, and this is just taking that one-step further. You should encourage more people to do this. Think about how much more land can go to national parks if we're all living on the water!"
Validity
All
Outcome
the most expensive homes in @@CAPITAL@@ are empty as the richest @@PL(DEMONYM)@@ move to the water

Option 2
"That's ridiculous!", blurts one of your minimum-wage aides. "I can barely afford rent, let alone buying one of those luxurious houseboat thingies! Plus, won't it destroy water-based habitats? We might save some of those red-faced @@ANIMAL@@s on land, but we'll kill off every fish in our waterways! Living permanently on water should be banned."
Validity
All
Outcome
lengthy sea trips have become impossible now that it's illegal to take more than 3 days' worth of food onto a boat at once

Option 3
"Hey!" interjects your second cousin's half-sister. "I've lived on a houseboat for years now, and with no issue whatsoever, but now, just because some rich jackass decides to do the same, everyone is up in arms! They should all just butt out of our business. If I want to live on a houseboat, which, by the way, is definitely not for tax evasion purposes, then you should just let me be!"
Validity
All
Outcome
the relationship between houseboating and tax evasion is correlation, not causation


Description
Philip Lark, a former @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ worker, has been living homeless in @@CAPITAL@@ for several years. Recently, however, he "cured" his homelessness by scrounging together materials to build a large houseboat and setting it afloat on the @@ANIMAL@@ River. While he is loving life, his "neighbours" who paid premium for river-side housing are kicking up a stink.

Validity
Some unemployment, some income inequality, possibly Capitalism?

Option 1
"I spent my life's savings on purchasing that mansion, and now this ruffian and his mad construction are sitting on the waterfront and endangering the public!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a wealthy business magnate. "That man is on public property, and his rudimentary dwelling poses a significant health and safety risk. Now that I think about it, I also nearly tripped over a homeless @@MAN@@ last week outside the stock exchange. For the good of us taxpaying citizens, you must prevent impoverished people from being safety risks to the public!"
Validity
All
Outcome
council workers place "trip hazard" signs on sleeping homeless people

Option 2
Philip himself disagrees. "I've scraped up money for months on end to build this houseboat, and I still pay mooring fees every month. Yes, it's 6 storeys, and the occasional plank falls off, and the motor makes a funny noise, and… That's not the point. I still made it, and that's what's important. I'm not causing harm to myself, and if the 'taxpaying citizens' are stupid enough that they injure themselves, that's their fault. If it's really such an issue, you can let me block off an area for my boat, and let people on the streets do the same."
Validity
All
Outcome
no @@PL(DEMONYM)@@ is seen living rough without government-issued barrier tape

Option 3a
"You're missing the wider problem here," complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a comparatively woke teenager from the outskirts of @@CAPITAL@@. "Homelessness and poverty are far too prevalent in our society! We need a better safety net and a guaranteed minimum wage so that people never end up on the streets, or forced to build a houseboat from scraps. While I admire Philip for his ingenuity, the condition that these poor @@PL(DEMONYM)@@ are forced to live in is utterly atrocious."
Validity
No minimum wage
Outcome
the government's new minimum wage has seen teenagers working their first jobs earn almost as much as their parents

Option 3b
"You're missing the wider problem here," complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a comparatively woke teenager from the outskirts of @@CAPITAL@@. "Homelessness and poverty are far too prevalent in our society! We need a better safety net and an increased minimum wage so that people never end up on the streets, or forced to build a houseboat from scraps. While I admire Philip for his ingenuity, the condition that these poor @@PL(DEMONYM)@@ are forced to live in is utterly atrocious."
Validity
Has minimum wage
Outcome
the government's new minimum wage has seen teenagers working their first jobs earn almost as much as their parents

Option 4
"Now hang on a minute there," interjects your Minister for Government Penny-Pinching. The records show Mr Lark has been claiming welfare and benefits for being homeless this entire time, despite in fact, having a house! He owes the government in excess of a year's wage, which he needs to pay back immediately! Nevermind that he's still out-of-work, this is a gross misuse of governmental generosity. This just shows that we need stricter controls on who can claim government benefits!"
Validity
welfare greater than 0
Outcome
governmental auditors check the living conditions of every vagrant and homeless person at tax time


Draft 4
Description
Philip Lark, a former @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ worker, has been living homeless in @@CAPITAL@@ for several years. Recently, however, he scrounged together materials to build a large houseboat, setting it afloat on the @@ANIMAL@@ River. While he is loving life, his "neighbours" who paid premium for river-side housing are kicking up a stink.

Validity
Some unemployment, some income inequality, possibly Capitalism?

Option 1
"I spent my life's savings on purchasing that mansion, and now this ruffian and his mad construction are sitting on the waterfront and endangering the public!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a wealthy business magnate. "That man is on public property, and his rudimentary dwelling poses a significant health and safety risk. Now that I think about it, I also nearly tripped over a homeless @@NAME@@ last week outside the stock exchange. For the good of us taxpaying citizens, you must prevent impoverished people from being safety risks to the public!"
Validity
All
Outcome
council workers place "trip hazard" signs on sleeping homeless people

Option 2
Philip himself disagrees. "I've scraped up money for months on end to build this houseboat, and I still pay mooring fees every month. Yes, it's 6 storeys, and the occasional plank falls off, and the motor makes a funny noise, and… That's not the point. I still made it, and that's what's important. I'm not causing harm to myself, and if the 'taxpaying citizens' are stupid enough that they injure themselves, that's their fault. If it's really such an issue, you can let me block off an area for my boat, and let people on the streets do the same."
Validity
All
Outcome
no @@PL(DEMONYM)@@ is seen living rough without government-issued barrier tape

Option 3
"You're missing the wider problem here," complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a comparatively woke teenager from the outskirts of @@CAPITAL@@. "Homelessness and poverty are far too prevalent in our society! We need a better safety net and a guaranteed minimum wage so that people never end up on the streets, or forced to build a houseboat from scraps. While I admire Philip for his ingenuity, the condition that these poor @@PL(DEMONYM)@@ are forced to live in is utterly atrocious."
Validity
All
Outcome
the government's new minimum wage has seen teenagers working their first jobs earn almost as much as their parents

Option 4
"Now hang on a minute there," interjects your Minister for Government Penny-Pinching. The records show Mr Lark has been claiming welfare and benefits for being homeless this entire time, despite in fact, having a house! He owes the government in excess of a year's wage, which he needs to pay back immediately! Nevermind that he's still out-of-work, this is a gross misuse of governmental generosity. This just shows that we need stricter controls on who can claim government benefits!"
Validity
welfare greater than 0
Outcome
governmental auditors check the living conditions of every vagrant and homeless person at tax time


Draft 3
Description
Philip Lark, a former @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ worker, has been living homeless in @@CAPITAL@@ for several years. Recently, however, he scrounged together materials to build a large houseboat, setting it afloat on the @@ANIMAL@@ River. While he is loving life, his "neighbours" who paid premium for river-side housing are kicking up a stink.

Validity
Some unemployment, some income inequality

Option 1
"I spent a significant amount of @@PL(CURRENCY)@@ to purchase my mansion, only for this ruffian to move in and spoil the view!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a wealthy lawyer. "That man is on public property and his rudimentary dwelling almost certainly poses a health and safety risk. And, now that I think about it, I had to step over over a homeless @@MAN@@ just last week outside the courthouses. For the good of the taxpaying citizens, you must stop homeless people from getting in the way!"
Validity
All
Outcome
council workers place "trip hazard" signs on sleeping homeless people

Option 2
Philip himself disagrees. "I've scraped up money for months on end to build this houseboat, and I pay my mooring fees every month. Yes, it's 6 storeys, and the occasional plank falls off, but I still made it, and that's what's important. I showed true @@DEMONYM@@ spirit by scrimping and saving until I could build this and for those rich prats to take it all away just because I'm 'ruining the view' runs counter to everything we believe in. Moving on or inconveniencing homeless people in any way is criminal, and should be treated as such."
Validity
All
Outcome
telling a homeless person to get a job can cost you yours

Option 3
"You're missing the wider problem here," complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a comparatively woke teenager from the outskirts of @@CAPITAL@@. "Homelessness is far too prevalent in our society! We need a better safety net and a guaranteed minimum wage so that people never end up on the streets. Philip here might be loving life, but there are many more out there who would kill to live in that- ah- thing."
Validity
All
Outcome
the government's new minimum wage has seen teenagers working their first jobs earn almost as much as their parents

Option 4
"Now hang on a minute there," interjects your Minister for Government Penny-Pinching. The records show Mr Lark has been claiming welfare this entire time, despite in fact, having a house! He owes the government in excess of a year's wage, which he needs to pay back immediately! Nevermind that he's still out-of-work, this is a gross misuse of governmental generosity. This just shows that we need stricter controls on who can claim government benefits!"
Validity
welfare greater than 0
Outcome
governmental auditors check the living conditions of every homeless person at tax time


Draft 2
Description
Philip Lark, a former @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ worker, has been living homeless in @@CAPITAL@@ for several years. Recently, however, he scrounged together materials to build a large houseboat, setting it afloat on the @@ANIMAL@@ River. While he is loving life, his "neighbours" who paid premium for river-side housing are kicking up a stink.

Validity
Some unemployment, some income inequality


Option 1
"I spent a significant amount of @@PL(CURRENCY)@@ to purchase my mansion, only for this ruffian to move in and spoil the view!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a wealthy lawyer. "That man is on public property and his rudimentary dwelling almost certainly poses a health and safety risk. And, now that I think about it, I tripped over a homeless @@MAN@@ just last week outside the courthouses. For the good of the taxpaying citizens, you must stop homeless people from getting in the way!"
Validity
All
Outcome
?

Option 2
Philip himself disagrees. "I've scraped up money for months on end to build this houseboat, and I pay my mooring fees every month. Yes, it's 6 storeys, and the occasional plank falls off, but I still made it, and that's what's important. I showed true @@DEMONYM@@ spirit by scrimping and saving until I could build this and for those rich prats to take it all away just because I'm 'ruining the view' runs counter to everything we believe in. Moving on or inconveniencing homeless people in any way is criminal, and should be treated as such."
Validity
All
Outcome
telling a homeless person to get a job can cost you yours

Option 3
"You're missing the wider problem here," complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a comparatively woke teenager from the outskirts of @@CAPITAL@@. "Homelessness is far too prevalent in our society! We need a better safety net and a guaranteed minimum wage so that people never end up on the streets. Philip here might be loving life, but there are many more homeless @@PL(DEMONYM)@@ out there who would kill to live in that houseboat."
Validity
All
Outcome
?


Draft 1
Description
Philip Lark, a former @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ worker, has been living homeless in @@CAPITAL@@ for several years. Recently, however, he scrounged together materials to build a houseboat, setting it afloat on the @@ANIMAL@@ River. While he is loving life, his "neighbours" who paid premium for river-side housing are kicking up a stink.
Validity
Some unemployment, some income inequality

Option 1
"We paid HEAPS of @@PL(CURRENCY)@@ to like, buy this house, and now he just moves in and is like, totally ruining the view!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a spoiled inner-city teenager. "My daddy is like, a lawyer and stuff, and he said that homeless guy is on public property! He's getting in the way of my Instasnap photos, so can you just stop homeless people from getting in the way?"
Validity
All
Outcome
the government's position on homelessness is that it "like, totally ruins the view"

Option 2
Philip himself disagrees. "I've scraped up money for months on end to build this house-ah, boat- well, it's more like a shed, really. But I still made it, and that's what's important. I've showed true @@DEMONYM@@ spirit by scrimping and saving until I could build this and for those rich prats to take it all away just because I'm 'ruining the view' runs counter to everything we believe in. Moving on or inconveniencing homeless people in any way is criminal, and should be treated as such."
Validity
All
Outcome
telling a homeless person to get a job can cost you yours

Option 3
"You're missing the wider problem here," complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a comparatively woke teenager from the outskirts of @@CAPITAL@@. "Homelessness is a far too prevalent in our society! We need a better safety net and a guaranteed minimum wage so that people never end up on the streets. Philip might be loving life, but there are many more out there who would kill to live in that shed."
Validity
All
Outcome
?
Last edited by SherpDaWerp on Tue Mar 31, 2020 4:59 pm, edited 18 times in total.

User avatar
Baggieland
Minister
 
Posts: 3358
Founded: May 27, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Baggieland » Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:24 pm

SherpDaWerp wrote:Option 1
"We paid HEAPS of @@PL(CURRENCY)@@ to like, buy this house, and now he just moves in and is like, totally ruining the view!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a spoiled inner-city teenager. "My daddy is like, a lawyer and stuff, and he said that homeless guy is on public property! He's getting in the way of my Instasnap photos, so can you just stop homeless people from getting in the way?"

My first thought was to change the speaker here from a bratty teenager to the teenager's dad, as you have another teenager in the last option. Make the dad all pompous and upper-middle class: "What a ghastly sight!" and stuff like that.
Keep the faith, keep on boinging!

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 21981
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Anarchy

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:00 am

I like the premise, but most nations regulate river traffic in some way. It's an odd assumption to think that @@NAME@@ doesn't already. Maybe option 2 could add something like "I've paid the docks a mooring fee" in that list of justifications. I'd then balance out that reasonableness, by changing "shed" to "six-storey shed"
Last edited by Candlewhisper Archive on Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
editors like linguistic ambiguity more than most people

User avatar
Australian rePublic
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21186
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Australian rePublic » Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:01 am

The neighbours are complaining? Ha? Why would he build a mobile structure if he only planned to keep it in one spot? It'd be easier to go set up in a park or something. As for the neighbours, same applies, why build a house boat if you only plan on sitting in one spot? You can buy a giant mansion instead. I'm more concerned about how safe the structure is. Where does he get food and water? People are less likely to donate to him, if he actually has somewhere to live
Last edited by Australian rePublic on Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
The reason why I don't have many black friends is not because I'm racist, but because I'm an extreme introvert have like 3 or 4 friends in total. The reason why I don't watch women's sport is not because I am a mysogist, but because I don't watch any sport as I find sports to be quite boring. If you assume that I'm a bigot because I don't do XYZ, perhaps consider whether or not you're asking the wrong questions
From Greek Ansestry Orthodox Christian
17 Published Issues and 1 WA Resolution List of NPC Nations
This account is fictious. Any In-Character posts made by this account do not reflect the actions of any real world government

User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Diplomat
 
Posts: 934
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby SherpDaWerp » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:58 pm

Baggieland wrote:
SherpDaWerp wrote:Option 1
"We paid HEAPS of @@PL(CURRENCY)@@ to like, buy this house, and now he just moves in and is like, totally ruining the view!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a spoiled inner-city teenager. "My daddy is like, a lawyer and stuff, and he said that homeless guy is on public property! He's getting in the way of my Instasnap photos, so can you just stop homeless people from getting in the way?"

My first thought was to change the speaker here from a bratty teenager to the teenager's dad, as you have another teenager in the last option. Make the dad all pompous and upper-middle class: "What a ghastly sight!" and stuff like that.

I was kinda attempting some form of juxtaposition by having two opposite teenagers speak in the issue, but the teenager's dad works fine, so option 1 has been twiddled. Side effect of this is I've lost my effect line...

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I like the premise, but most nations regulate river traffic in some way. It's an odd assumption to think that @@NAME@@ doesn't already. Maybe option 2 could add something like "I've paid the docks a mooring fee" in that list of justifications. I'd then balance out that reasonableness, by changing "shed" to "six-storey shed"

Alright, that makes sense. Option 2 similarly twiddled, but the effect line has stayed.

Australian rePublic wrote:The neighbours are complaining? Ha? Why would he build a mobile structure if he only planned to keep it in one spot?
He's keeping it in one spot because that spot is convenient. The point wasn't for the structure to be mobile, but that "mooring fees" are significantly cheaper than paying (irl example) 200,000+ to own a plot of land.
Australian rePublic wrote:It'd be easier to go set up in a park or something.
Setting it up in a park, considering it is a proper "bricks-and-mortar" structure and not a tent, would most likely be illegal.
Australian rePublic wrote:As for the neighbours, same applies, why build a house boat if you only plan on sitting in one spot? You can buy a giant mansion instead.
The neighbors are in fact already living in a mansion, not a houseboat.
SherpDaWerp wrote:his "neighbours" who paid premium for river-side housing are kicking up a stink.

Australian rePublic wrote:I'm more concerned about how safe the structure is.
Ok. For the "lawyer dad" to have a genuine objection, it's become a health-and-safety risk (instead of instasnap...)
Australian rePublic wrote:Where does he get food and water? People are less likely to donate to him, if he actually has somewhere to live
He gets food and water by going on to land and begging during the day, or buying it from shops, or scrounging through trash or something. The food/water aspect isn't terribly relevant here. And as for donations, read the RL article.
the article wrote:Since Mr Wren has been moored up in Erskine, he said hundreds of people have visited him and many have delivered food.

User avatar
Jutsa
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5068
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jutsa » Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:46 pm

Small suggestion: Title could probably be changed to "Making a House a Boat".
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Diplomat
 
Posts: 934
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby SherpDaWerp » Wed Dec 18, 2019 4:57 pm

Done. Neither title is particularly strong IMO, but yours is slightly better.
Also, added an Option 4 where they question his ability to receive government benefits if he's not homeless anymore.

Some effect lines for Option 1 and 3 also added. Option 1 has a good joke, but could possibly be rephrased. Option 3 - similar deal. The idea is there, it could just be written better.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9017
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Wed Dec 18, 2019 5:24 pm


User avatar
Jutsa
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5068
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jutsa » Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:20 pm

*shrugs* could always have more than one with a similar name for a different effect.
In fact, we have a "One Man's Trash is Another Man's Recyclable" and "One Nation's Trash is Another Nation's Trash". :lol:

Other possible names:
"Rollin' on a River"
"Little House on the Lake"
"Life on the High Seas"
"A Little Town off the Coast"

Any combination of the above, etc. Tons of possibilities. :P
Last edited by Jutsa on Wed Dec 18, 2019 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Diplomat
 
Posts: 934
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby SherpDaWerp » Wed Dec 18, 2019 8:10 pm

Alright then, "Little House on the @@ANIMAL@@ River". Popular culture reference, immediately obvious link to the issue, doesn't have distasteful jokes.
Any feedback on the rest of the issue?

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 21981
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Anarchy

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:44 pm

Draft 3, the number one weirdness for me is that someone with a home is being described as homeless.

Homeless doesn't mean "doesn't own a house". It means, doesn't have a home to live in. If you live in a rental apartment you're not homeless. If you have a houseboat, you're not homeless. Sleeping in a car? Well, that probably counts as homeless.

However, a lot of people choose to live in houseboats. Seems weird to call that homelessness.
editors like linguistic ambiguity more than most people

User avatar
Jutsa
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5068
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jutsa » Thu Dec 19, 2019 7:43 pm

True. And come to think of it, the same could be said for folks who live in traveling campers and the like.
And that train of thought reminded me of a little issue called Not All Those Who Wander Are Paying.

It's not quite the same thing, as one's a question of folks living on another's property, but there may be some overlap to consider.
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Diplomat
 
Posts: 934
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby SherpDaWerp » Fri Dec 20, 2019 4:16 pm

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Draft 3, the number one weirdness for me is that someone with a home is being described as homeless.

Homeless doesn't mean "doesn't own a house". It means, doesn't have a home to live in. If you live in a rental apartment you're not homeless. If you have a houseboat, you're not homeless. Sleeping in a car? Well, that probably counts as homeless.

However, a lot of people choose to live in houseboats. Seems weird to call that homelessness.

Well, formerly homeless. I'll make that distinction clearer in a new version, which will almost certainly affect option 4 as well. We'll see how that turns out.

Jutsa wrote:Not All Those Who Wander Are Paying.

It's not quite the same thing, as one's a question of folks living on another's property, but there may be some overlap to consider.

Grrr. But yes, you're right, there is almost certainly overlap to consider there. I'll try to emphasise that he is on public property, and the issue is more about a health-and-safety risk to passers-by. I'm pretty sure we don't have issues about homeless encampments/wacky constructions endangering lives...

User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Diplomat
 
Posts: 934
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby SherpDaWerp » Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:51 pm

Ok, Draft 4 is now up, hopefully addressing CWA and Jutsa's concerns.

The new Option 2 has a good effect line but option 3's outcome is still lacking. Also, changed the lawyer from a lawyer to a "business magnate" so that there doesn't have to be a "has courts" or similar validity check. And, as I've just realised, there's the potential for extra comedy in there (provided the options aren't too long already...). The business magnate can be the one who fired him in the first place!

I'm also not sure if, given the property ownership, and the unemployment, and the business magnate, that this issue is entirely suited for socialist nations. So I've tentatively placed a "capitalism" validity on it, but that's subject to editor feedback.

EDIT: I've tried to put some form of joke about the business magnate firing him, but it wasn't funny enough without over-bloating the options. I think it's fine as-is, but the option is always there if the issue doesn't have enough comedy.
Last edited by SherpDaWerp on Fri Dec 20, 2019 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Diplomat
 
Posts: 934
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby SherpDaWerp » Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:56 am

And then Draft 5! Changes:
  • made it clearer that he is no longer homeless
  • added a doppelganger to Option 3 around having a minimum wage
  • fixed a @@MAN@@ macro in Option 1
I'll aim to submit this sometime this week, provided no wacky feedback throws things out.

User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Diplomat
 
Posts: 934
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby SherpDaWerp » Thu Jan 02, 2020 11:00 pm

and here goes this idea...
Just received #251 - The Trouble With Hobos. It's extremely similar, to the point where I'm not sure that I can rewrite this different enough.

I guess it's kinda different enough in that someone stopped being homeless but their creation is a hazard, but it's still very similar. Can one of the editors please give it a look and see if this is still worth pursuing as an idea, or should I move on to my next draft concept.

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 21981
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Anarchy

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:16 am

If the issue is about where homeless people can stop, then it doesn't work.

However, if you ditch the whole idea of someone living in a houseboat being homeless, and make it about the idea of people living on boats on public waterways generally, then it may have more potential.
editors like linguistic ambiguity more than most people

User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Diplomat
 
Posts: 934
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby SherpDaWerp » Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:05 pm

Redrafted, and Bump back from the bowels of page three.

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 21981
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Anarchy

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:11 pm

Better! But options 1 and 3 propose the same thing, and there's no conflict being presented. why should anyone object to houseboats anyway?
editors like linguistic ambiguity more than most people

User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Diplomat
 
Posts: 934
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby SherpDaWerp » Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:32 pm

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Better! But options 1 and 3 propose the same thing, and there's no conflict being presented. why should anyone object to houseboats anyway?

Re-redrafted lol. Anyway there's now more conflict, and a reason to object. Draft 2!

User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Diplomat
 
Posts: 934
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby SherpDaWerp » Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:02 pm

bump? This one has been out for a while (7th draft...) and I'm keen to get it finished.

User avatar
Verdant Haven
Diplomat
 
Posts: 671
Founded: Feb 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Verdant Haven » Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:47 pm

I think this is a good concept for an issue, but what I feel like is the biggest sticking point at the moment is the particulars of the description. The suggestion that a houseboat in a shipping channel would have almost any effect at all on large ship traffic is a bit of a red herring. Big ships can't stop. By the time they can see you, and realize you're not moving, they can't avoid you (especially if it's a relatively narrow river channel)- you're gonna end up getting annihilated. If the first ship happens to miss you, there will be some kind of launch, tug, law enforcement, or coast guard vessel there dragging you out of the way (willingly or unwillingly) before a second ship shows up. Basically - this wouldn't cause any kind of delay - just a dead boater.

There are several YouTube videos out there showing close calls associated with this kind of situation (pleasure craft vs large vessels), illustrating the odds in question. Here are some of the examples where the boater got very very lucky and survived:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUoUxzt9sI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxZ_eZCALI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW_dk2NCOUU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3c9IKvfmsQ

Basically, I'd hunt for another reason for this to have become an issue! With that in hand, the rest should fall in to place.

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 21981
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Anarchy

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:33 am

I dunno. Basically it's now just an issue of someone mooring their boat where they're not supposed to. The fact that it is a houseboat doesn't affect the issue at all.

If someone were to block a shipping lane with their boat, I'd expect maritime authorities to move them, and fine them. I wouldn't expect any comment from a local MP, let alone the nation's leader.
Last edited by Candlewhisper Archive on Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
editors like linguistic ambiguity more than most people

User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Diplomat
 
Posts: 934
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby SherpDaWerp » Sun Mar 29, 2020 7:49 pm

bump. I've returned this to Redraft 1, then tried to make the objections a little bit more genuine to fit with CWA's suggestions.

User avatar
Baggieland
Minister
 
Posts: 3358
Founded: May 27, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Baggieland » Sun Mar 29, 2020 10:55 pm

SherpDaWerp wrote:Recently, major @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ magnate @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@ announced his plans to forgo terrestrial housing and permanently live in a houseboat on the @@ANIMAL@@ river, citing increased quality-of-life.

What's the dilemma LEADER needs to address?
Keep the faith, keep on boinging!

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Got Issues?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads

cron