NationStates

This issue serves as a reversal for the decision made in 431.2. I've tried to re-frame it with a reason why it might be bad for de-sexing to be mandatory, but it might still suffer from too much "are you sure you want to do that" style confirmation of issue decision. I've focused mostly on dogs, but that's just because it was easier to write this when I can name the dog types instead of just saying "pets" and being all vague about it.

Also, is it possible to doppelganger an issue description? Because this could work just as well as an issue asking to entirely ban neutering for nations that have it allowed as an optional process. Otherwise, I'm happy to doppelganger the entire issue for nations where neutering is allowed but not mandatory.

Title: Time to Neuter De-Sexing?

Description
After your decision to make neutering pets mandatory across @@NAME@@, the number of "licensed breeders" increased tenfold. The reason: Breeders are exempt from compulsory neutering, and @@PLURALDEMONYM@@ who don't want to comply with the new law are simply registering themselves as breeders instead.
Validity
431.2 follow-up. Possibly Capitalism?

Option 1
"Obviously, the licensing standards are too lax," states @@RANDOMNAME@@, a professional dog breeder. "I used to be the only breeder in @@CAPITAL@@, and every pet shop would come to me for their animals to sell. Now, any random Joe can get their breeders' license just for selling a couple puppies every year! Mandate higher standards on who can get a breeders' license, and you'll soon see this problem right itself."
Validity
All
Outcome
passing a breeders' license test is more difficult than passing university

Option 2
"You're missing the reason why this law was enacted in the first place!" counters @@RANDOMNAME@@, who runs a pet shelter. "Everyone having to breed their animals in order to keep them unneutered has created more strays, not less! It's obvious that this law didn't go far enough. Just stop pet breeding altogether. We can import animals from overseas, and because we'll only get what we need, strays will be a thing of the past!"
Validity
All
Outcome
@@DEMONYM@@ purebreds are slowly going extinct as the nation looks elsewhere for its pets

Option 3
"Or, hear me out, why don't you just reverse the decision?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, an amateur pet breeder, as @@HE@@ cradles a newborn puppy in @@HIS@@ arms. "I never asked for all this madness. Studies have shown that neutering animals effects their behaviour and personality - it's cruel! I've been forced to refit half my house into a breeding pen just so little Rex here didn't have to get his balls chopped off. Allow us to keep unneutered animals again, @@LEADER@@!"
Validity
All
Outcome
a wave of stray animals has hit the streets as @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ give up their breeding licenses

SherpDaWerp wrote:Also, is it possible to doppelganger an issue description?

No. The two descriptions would need to be separate issues.

Options 1 & 2 are unclear about what you're trying to achieve. Also, option 3, I assume breeders would be exempt

USS Monitor wrote:No. The two descriptions would need to be separate issues.

Ok, I'll see how this one goes, then I might try draft one that doesn't have the follow-on validity.

---

Australian rePublic wrote:Options 1 & 2 are unclear about what you're trying to achieve. Also, option 3, I assume breeders would be exempt

It seems pretty clear to me...

SherpDaWerp wrote:Noone should ever stop their doggy from having puppies ever again!

Ban neutering.

SherpDaWerp wrote:don't need to stop mandatory neutering while strays still litter the streets. Just encourage more families to adopt instead of looking for puppies.

Don't ban neutering. Also encourage adoption so that the option isn't a dismiss button.

As for option 3, the effect line for 431.2 pretty much assumes breeders aren't exempt, given it's

Mandatory neutering has made purebred dogs a thing of the past.

I added option 3 because of that effect line, for nations who want to stop strays but still want to have purebred dogs.

Your niece recently got a dog for her birthday, and, as @@DEMONYM_PLURAL@@ are required to do, her mother promptly had it neutered. This upset your niece, however, as her new dog could no longer reproduce.

Yeah, that's not a great premise. It basically says:

A person did something that the law requires them to. Someone else was unhappy because they don't like those laws.

There's no story there, and no development of the idea. Reversal issues should describe an unexpected consequence of the decision, not just flag that someone wants a reversal.

You need a desexy bitch pun somewhere...

SherpDaWerp wrote:**snip**

---

Australian rePublic wrote:Options 1 & 2 are unclear about what you're trying to achieve. Also, option 3, I assume breeders would be exempt

It seems pretty clear to me...[box]

Hey, you asked for an opinion, I gave one. Besides, what's clear to you isn't clear to everyone else. Sorry if that sounded rude. I didn't want it to sound rude. I'm sorry

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Yeah, that's not a great premise.

Alright, fair. I tried framing it interestingly with the niece thing, but it's realistically not more than you said. Would it be enough to run with the effect line, and say something like

Breeders want to be able to breed animals, but they're all neutered

Or should I try to develop an entirely new premise?

Australian rePublic wrote:Hey, you asked for an opinion, I gave one. Besides, what's clear to you isn't clear to everyone else. Sorry if that sounded rude. I didn't want it to sound rude. I'm sorry

All good. I get that it might have been unclear, but I feel like adding more specifics to the option would just needlessly bloat the issue. Although, if I end up reworking the premise, the options will likely be redone as well, so I'll try to make it more specific next draft.

It's pretty much inevitable that any nation which makes neutering mandatory would make an exception for licensed breeders. Not to would be just stupid, even by NationStates standards.

The issue, if there is one, would be about exactly how strict the licensing requirements are.

Also, I guess there could be the occasional situation of an animal that was adopted as a pet for a while later returning into the hands of a licensed breeder who wants to make use of it but can't because it's already been neutered, but I doubt that would be a common or serious enough issue to warrant challening the law.

Trotterdam wrote:It's pretty much inevitable that any nation which makes neutering mandatory would make an exception for licensed breeders. Not to would be just stupid, even by NationStates standards.
The issue, if there is one, would be about exactly how strict the licensing requirements are.

One of the Channel Islands (Jersey, IIRC) found that it had neutered all of its tomcats, and had to import some new ones (from the town in southern England where I live, actually: I learned about this through a report in the local paper...), but that would be too small a market to support many licenced breeders anyway.

Ok, I've got it. My new and improved "unexpected consequence" premise assumes that breeders are exempt (per Trotterdam), though, which is directly contrary to the effect line 431.2 provides.

Also, I might have to edit and/or doppelganger some options for Socialist countries - let me know if it's necessary or not.

Draft 2!

Salagadoola mechicka boola
Bibbidi-bobbidi-bump!

Any feedback on this one?