[DRAFT] Curb Your CARbon

[Kaschovia]

[DRAFT] Curb Your CARbon

[desc] In a bid to tackle carbon emissions in @@NAME@@, several high profile city planners have demanded that you ban private cars going through @@CAPITAL@@ centre.

[1] "Look, @@LEADER@@, at this map of @@CAPITAL@@ roads," urges @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, lead advocate for the movement, the map covered in red streaks. "Those red lines are the most congested roads in @@CAPITAL@@, and, of course, they are all in the city centre!" She takes a moment to show you a few other maps. "The roads are all close, so how easy would it be to use clean public transport, or take a bike ride? Or even just an old-fashioned walk? Ban cars going through city centre and improve routes around the city. Cars shouldn't be scuttling around making short trips like ants in the heart of @@NAME@@."

[1 outcome] thousands of middle-aged workers have reported they feel too lazy to care about having to take the bus.

[2] "This is ridiculous," scoffs Karen Waresdamanager, her blonde, layered bob cut swaying in the wind. "I drive into town every day to get my Starbucks, and even if it's only down the road, I should have the right to go wherever I want in the car!" She sips at her tall, non-fat latte with caramel drizzle and checks her nails, "You know, there are still some places in the city you have to actually walk to... and that just seems like unecessary steps. It is clear the road networks in @@NAME@@ need some more expansion."

[2 outcome] all of @@CAPITAL@@ routinely comes to a complete stop during its hourly traffic jams

[3] "Ban all forms of vehicular transport in major urban areas, I say," suggests Dhakpa Palsang, a monk from the Monastary of Magnificence, "What need is there in buses and cars when we have natural means of making our way about?" He rolls up his trousers, revealing almost unbelievably muscular legs. "I walk into the mountains and through the valleys every day just to taste the apples that grow on the trees, and drink the water that flows in the stream." He takes a deep breath and begins to meditate. "It really is beautiful, @@LEADER@@. You should try it."

[3 outcome] @@NAME@@ is known for its foot sores.

[Sacara]

There are already thirteen issues in the game which ban bars, per Trotterdam's website. Also, this issue feels quite similar to #002: Reclaim the Streets! The overlap seems too strong.

While this is a competent draft, this whole thing just feels... uninspiring. On top of the overlap, this draft doesn't tackle any 'niche' issue and just goes along with the ban cars route. There are over 1,300 issues in the database as of now, and the time for basic draft has pretty much passed us. The topics you write about have to be a little more distinct and have their own flavor rather than being generic, if that makes any sense.

[Kaschovia]

There are already thirteen issues in the game which ban bars, per Trotterdam's website. Also, this issue feels quite similar to #002: Reclaim the Streets! The overlap seems too strong.

While this is a competent draft, this whole thing just feels... uninspiring. On top of the overlap, this draft doesn't tackle any 'niche' issue and just goes along with the ban cars route. There are over 1,300 issues in the database as of now, and the time for basic draft has pretty much passed us. The topics you write about have to be a little more distinct and have their own flavor rather than being generic, if that makes any sense.

The niche is the focus on inner city areas.

The issue I have with #002 is how binary and extreme it is. There is no middle ground for nations who don't want to ban all cars, but take a more eco-friendly stance on the matter. No nation would realistically even choose between such extremes, and yes I understand this is a game, but some people take issues and stats quite seriously and would appreciate some realism.

And I'm not really writing to inspire anyone. Not every single new issue needs to be too different to be valid. I see this draft as a more functional, realistic issue premise that some nations would appreciate being presented with. I wrote this draft because I saw issue with how binary and extreme the options in other issues were. I'm not trying to force a nation to take an extreme, per se, but rather recieve this issue so they have the chance to take a moderately eco-friendly stance without outright banning cars.

One could say, "well why don't nations just dismiss the issue if they don't like the options?", but as a principle I disagree with that. There should be enough of a balance in the options presented that a nation shouldn't feel the need straight away to dismiss an issue. See this draft as a functional middle ground in the already saturated pool of extreme issues that could be quite the saviour to those who just want to choose a normal, realistic approach to cutting carbon emissions.

[Socio Polor]

While I totally see where you're coming from Kaschovia, I must agree with Sacara that the dilemma of this issue is too plain and unoriginal; hence why it overlaps with Issue #002 a bit, even with the compromise option. With so many issues that ban automobiles already, you're going to have to be a little more creative and come up with a situation that has never before been presented in a NS issue that revolves around cars. Also, it's worth noting that because "no cars" in an actual in-game policy your nation can have, I'm not sure if the game will tell the difference between just outlawing vehicles in a certain area to a nation wide ban.

[Australian rePublic]

For once, can we get the voice of a disabled person into this, please? Option 2 is ridiculous. Who the fudge actually willingly drives into the CBD of a major city unless they have a parking spot? Where in the fudge would they find parking? Also, what about residents?

[Kaschovia]

While I totally see where you're coming from Kaschovia, I must agree with Sacara that the dilemma of this issue is too plain and unoriginal; hence why it overlaps with Issue #002 a bit, even with the compromise option. With so many issues that ban automobiles already, you're going to have to a little more creative and come up with a situation that has never before been presented in a NS issue that revolves around cars. Also, it's worth noting that because "no cars" in an actual in-game policy your nation can have, I'm not sure if the game will tell the difference between just outlawing vehicles in a certain area to a nation wide ban.

I appreciate that you empathise with my comments, but I think you're missing the same mark Sacara has.

I'm not necessarily going for individuality with this draft, as if that is the sole requirement for an issue to be valid. I believe it becomes original through its function in relation to other similar issues rather than the distinct separation in premise you may think it requires. NS issues have become so niche in their contexts that sometimes it becomes difficult to notice the... normal issues, let alone the normal options.

I personally believe that two things can be similar, like this draft and #002, and exist in the collection of issues, without both of them having to be absolutely distinct from one another. While I understand that its similarity may present the draft as unoriginal or plain, at least I'm not presenting something so far-fetched and crazy, as to be as distinct from other issues as possible, sacrificing the really important factor often not considered - the average issue reciever.

The view that drafts have to be obviously distinct to be valid and valuable to the average nation, I believe, comes from the increasing extremity and bizarreness of some newer issues and is unique in some ways to the bubble of authors in Got Issues. Not that our bubble is a bad thing, but I believe sometimes it can blind us to how someone outside, answering issues every day just for the enjoyment of it might read some of the crazier drafts I have seen.

For once, can we get the voice of a disabled person into this, please? Option 2 is ridiculous. Who the fudge actually willingly drives into the CBD of a major city unless they have a parking spot? Where in the fudge would they find parking? Also, what about residents?

You seem to display this bewilderment at normal solutions with every draft presented to you, AR

Options are hypothetical and only serve to illustrate to the reader that there is an obvious and clear solution which they can choose. Option 2 serves to allow the answerer to continue to develop road networks throughout inner cities and enforce the current transport environment in place, which, in the context of this proposal, is primarily cars.

I'm sure Karen Waresdamanager can find parking just fine in her fictional, one paragraph world.

[Sacara]

While I totally see where you're coming from Kaschovia, I must agree with Sacara that the dilemma of this issue is too plain and unoriginal; hence why it overlaps with Issue #002 a bit, even with the compromise option. With so many issues that ban automobiles already, you're going to have to be a little more creative and come up with a situation that has never before been presented in a NS issue that revolves around cars. Also, it's worth noting that because "no cars" in an actual in-game policy your nation can have, I'm not sure if the game will tell the difference between just outlawing vehicles in a certain area to a nation wide ban.

This in its entirety.

You are definitely free to continue however way you wish, but it's just a tad unoriginal. Perhaps have the issue revolves around a crowded city center and having to prohibit automobiles as an option? Still might have a bit of overlap, though.

[Socio Polor]

Not all options are extreme or crazy. They're a good amount of issues in-game that have "realistic" or "sensible" options. If the non-extreme option is what you think sets this issue apart from #002, your right it does in that aspect. But remember, they're other issues that ban cars and I guarantee you at least one of them has a sensible or compromising option which through effect makes this issue nothing new. With that said, with the number of issues there are in-game, it's not as difficult as you may think to balance having automobiles and a good eco-friendliness (look at my nation for example). Also remember that "no cars " is a policy that activates when there's an option that prohibits vehicles. Banning cars in one area of your nation may not make a difference as the game may just interpret it as a nationwide ban. Now whether or not the editors can implement flexibility around this is unknown to me.

[Kaschovia]

While I totally see where you're coming from Kaschovia, I must agree with Sacara that the dilemma of this issue is too plain and unoriginal; hence why it overlaps with Issue #002 a bit, even with the compromise option. With so many issues that ban automobiles already, you're going to have to be a little more creative and come up with a situation that has never before been presented in a NS issue that revolves around cars. Also, it's worth noting that because "no cars" in an actual in-game policy your nation can have, I'm not sure if the game will tell the difference between just outlawing vehicles in a certain area to a nation wide ban.

This in its entirety.

You are definitely free to continue however way you wish, but it's just a tad unoriginal. Perhaps have the issue revolves around a crowded city center and having to prohibit automobiles as an option? Still might have a bit of overlap, though.

I don't mind it not being completely original if it serves a more useful purpose.

Any feedback relating to the actual issue?

Not all options are extreme or crazy. They're a good amount of issues in-game that have "realistic" or "sensible" options. If the non-extreme option is what you think sets this issue apart from #002, your right it does in that aspect. But remember, they're other issues that ban cars and I guarantee you at least one of them has a sensible or compromising option which through effect makes this issue nothing new. With that said, with the number of issues there are in-game, it's not as difficult as you may think to balance having automobiles and a good eco-friendliness (look at my nation for example). Also remember that "no cars " is a policy that activates when there's an option that prohibits vehicles. Banning cars in one area of your nation may not make a difference as the game may just interpret it as a nationwide ban. Now whether or not the editors can implement flexibility around this is unknown to me.

The issue is that lack of flexibility. Sure, a good balance can be found through answering separate issues, but it seems every issue focused on cars wants the nation to choose something either too industrial or too eco-friendly.

[Australian rePublic]

You know what, you guys are right. Every ban/legalise car issue is about industry vs environment. There are so many other car related issues, including- safety, personal freedom, freedom in general, disabilities, parking spaces, walkability, suburbanisation, disabilities, delivery drivers etc. All related to the car, but yet, most issue authors are so instant on environment vs industry. I'd like to see a car issue from a new perspective

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

Any feedback relating to the actual issue?

I do think you should listen to the other replies and change the issue up for uniqueness somehow. But something else — you've specified character genders, and I'm not sure why. If you use @@RANDOMNAME@@ instead, you can use the macros @@HE@@ and @@HIS@@ and they'll adapt to fit the gender of the random name.
Another thing is that your issue's options are pretty long. You could probably make them a tad more concise.
And it's not super important, but you could probably add some humour in with the characters (like by making them caricatures that act a bit strangely). Remarks like your "A Monk for the Monastery of Magnificence" are a good start.

Good luck with the issue!

[Outer Sparta]

I definitely see a bunch of overlap between several issues, especially ones that have options that institute such pricing schemes.

[Kaschovia]

Any feedback relating to the actual issue?

I do think you should listen to the other replies and change the issue up for uniqueness somehow. But something else — you've specified character genders, and I'm not sure why. If you use @@RANDOMNAME@@ instead, you can use the macros @@HE@@ and @@HIS@@ and they'll adapt to fit the gender of the random name.
Another thing is that your issue's options are pretty long. You could probably make them a tad more concise.
And it's not super important, but you could probably add some humour in with the characters (like by making them caricatures that act a bit strangely). Remarks like your "A Monk for the Monastery of Magnificence" are a good start.

Good luck with the issue!

Thanks for the advise not pertaining to the premise. I will take those suggestions into consideration.

Is there a difference between banning smoking everywhere and banning smoking in restaurants or other public areas with a lot of people? Yes. A massive one.

If the premise was to ban all cars because of inner city traffic, then I would understand. But since that isn't the case, I just don't see enough overlap to warrant abandoning the premise.

I definitely see a bunch of overlap between several issues, especially ones that have options that institute such pricing schemes.

Could you elaborate?

[Outer Sparta]

I do think you should listen to the other replies and change the issue up for uniqueness somehow. But something else — you've specified character genders, and I'm not sure why. If you use @@RANDOMNAME@@ instead, you can use the macros @@HE@@ and @@HIS@@ and they'll adapt to fit the gender of the random name.
Another thing is that your issue's options are pretty long. You could probably make them a tad more concise.
And it's not super important, but you could probably add some humour in with the characters (like by making them caricatures that act a bit strangely). Remarks like your "A Monk for the Monastery of Magnificence" are a good start.

Good luck with the issue!

Thanks for the advise not pertaining to the premise. I will take those suggestions into consideration.

Is there a difference between banning smoking everywhere and banning smoking in restaurants or other public areas with a lot of people? Yes. A massive one.

If the premise was to ban all cars because of inner city traffic, then I would understand. But since that isn't the case, I just don't see enough overlap to warrant abandoning the premise.

I definitely see a bunch of overlap between several issues, especially ones that have options that institute such pricing schemes.

Could you elaborate?

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88#102 Issue #102: For Whom The Road Tolls (it doesn't mention the plan specifically to counteract emissions but it's basically about combatting inner-city congestion through tax). There's also issue #2 that outright bans cars, so to avoid being lumped in with other similar issues, you'll have to clearly distinguish this issue from all the others.

[Kaschovia]

Thanks for the advise not pertaining to the premise. I will take those suggestions into consideration.

Is there a difference between banning smoking everywhere and banning smoking in restaurants or other public areas with a lot of people? Yes. A massive one.

If the premise was to ban all cars because of inner city traffic, then I would understand. But since that isn't the case, I just don't see enough overlap to warrant abandoning the premise.


Could you elaborate?

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88#102 Issue #102: For Whom The Road Tolls (it doesn't mention the plan specifically to counteract emissions but it's basically about combatting inner-city congestion through tax). There's also issue #2 that outright bans cars, so to avoid being lumped in with other similar issues, you'll have to clearly distinguish this issue from all the others.

This has actually given me quite the idea for distinguishing this draft. Thanks.

[Outer Sparta]

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88#102 Issue #102: For Whom The Road Tolls (it doesn't mention the plan specifically to counteract emissions but it's basically about combatting inner-city congestion through tax). There's also issue #2 that outright bans cars, so to avoid being lumped in with other similar issues, you'll have to clearly distinguish this issue from all the others.

This has actually given me quite the idea for distinguishing this draft. Thanks.

Glad to have helped. What's your idea for doing so?

[Kaschovia]

This has actually given me quite the idea for distinguishing this draft. Thanks.

Glad to have helped. What's your idea for doing so?

Make the focus not on traffic congestion more so, but about smog, noise pollution, and smoke.

[Outer Sparta]

Glad to have helped. What's your idea for doing so?

Make the focus not on traffic congestion more so, but about smog, noise pollution, and smoke.

That's a good focus to take since yours is primarily concerned about combatting carbon emissions.

[Kaschovia]

Make the focus not on traffic congestion more so, but about smog, noise pollution, and smoke.

That's a good focus to take since yours is primarily concerned about combatting carbon emissions.

Yeah, that's the idea

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Issue 682 is about road traffic smog, beware of overlap there.

[Kaschovia]

Issue 682 is about road traffic smog, beware of overlap there.

Thank you for letting me know about that! I've just looked over #682 and I think it'd be better to abandon the draft. I have a few more drafts up so it's not a massive loss, but I appreciate the conversations I had had about car issues with you all.