NationStates

Laissez-Fair? (This is my first time writing an issue, so don't reserve any criticisms! I'm all ears.) Edit/Version Number: 3

It has come to your attention recently that your government may be running things a bit too much. Choking on the amount of control throttled around private industry, two weary eyed businessmen enter your office to offer you their solutions.

Is this valid for all nations?: No, Invalid for nations that don't have Capitalism as a policy.

Option One

"Ok, so here's the deal..." says @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, CEO of Greedy Green, "I'm proposing that all we do is put our whole working force into overdrive! I'm talking about getting rid of all the restrictions, especially those stupid ones involving labor unions and work hours and age requirements and what not..." He says while twiddling his thumbs, rambling down a giant list of problems. “Maybe then the people won’t complain as much when we become a culture of workaholics.”

Fallout:
Sundays are reserved for sorting the company mail and paperwork.

Option Two

"I've come to personally say that there's nothing wrong with the way things are now." says
@@RANDOMNAME@@, leader of one of the biggest labor unions in @@NAME@@. "If people honestly have a problem with that, then we can work something out, other than going into a complete capitalist anarchy." He says as he sits down, ready for any argument coming his way. “It’s the worker’s right to negotiate and it’s the companies right to compromise, at least that’s how it should be.”

Fallout:
Labor strikes have become increasingly common in @@NAME@@

Option Three

A voice calls out from the doorway, "Let's be serious here, when's the last time capitalism has done anything good for @@NAME@@?" The man comes into the room, he’s sporting a goatee and dressed in an odd red and yellow garb, “We should really be enacting more ‘liberating’ policies, if you’re catching my potato skins. The very first step in our plan will be to unite the workers together, then the next step will be to stomp out private businesses and leave everything to the government to control. I trust you, @@LEADER@@, you will lead our country into a glorious age of prosperity for all!”

Fallout: The population of @@NAME@@ often looks back fondly at the times before they were on a spuds diet.

Effects: Socialism would be enacted, Capitalism would be removed.

My biggest problem with this is what "thing" are we kicking into overdrive? How does your nation know there is some issue, as in what incited the meeting at all?

Option 2 is also not affirmative, it would basically be the same thing as pushing the dismiss issue button. Option 3 is also not very descriptive at all, I'm assuming that there's some kind of a communist revolution? The issue should much more clearly represent that this is happening, because you can just as easily mistake it as any other kind of revolution with how little information there is.

(Also I recommend looking at the macros here)

Gaazikumukh wrote:My biggest problem with this is what "thing" are we kicking into overdrive? How does your nation know there is some issue, as in what incited the meeting at all?

Option 2 is also not affirmative, it would basically be the same thing as pushing the dismiss issue button. Option 3 is also not very descriptive at all, I'm assuming that there's some kind of a communist revolution? The issue should much more clearly represent that this is happening, because you can just as easily mistake it as any other kind of revolution with how little information there is.

(Also I recommend looking at the macros here)

Thanks for the advice, I'm working on another draft that's much more descriptive. I'll edit the post later on, either today if I get it done or tomorrow. Thank you for the whole macro thing, I had no idea how to format this before.

Kroiner wrote:Laissez-Fair? (This is my first time writing an issue, so don't reserve any criticisms! I'm all ears.)

It has come to your attention recently that your government may be running things a bit too much. Choking on the amount of control throttled around private industry, two weary eyed businessmen enter your office to offer you their solutions.

Is this valid for all nations?: No, Invalid for nations that don't have Capitalism as a policy.

Option One

"Ok, so here's the deal..." says [random name], CEO of Greedy Green, "I'm proposing that all we do is put this whole thing into overdrive! I'm talking about getting rid of all the restrictions, especially those stupid ones involving labor unions and work hours and age requirements and what not..."

Fallout:
Sundays are reserved for sorting the company mail and paperwork.

Option Two

"I've come to personally say that there's nothing wrong with the way things are now." says [random name], leader of one of the biggest labor unions in [NS name]. "If people honestly have a problem with that, then we can work something out, other than going into complete capitalist anarchy." He says as he sits down, ready for any argument coming his way.

Fallout:
Labor strikes have become increasingly and worryingly common in [NS name]

Option Three

A voice calls out from the doorway, "Let's be serious here, when's the last time capitalism has done anything good for [NS name]?" The man comes into the room, he’s sporting a goatee and dressed in an odd red and yellow garb, “We should really be enacting more ‘liberating’ policies, if you’re catching my potato skins…”

Fallout: People ‘mysteriously’ disappear in the motherland.

First off brother, I think you need to convince people why any of these should considered. Maybe specify the situation

In option 3 the link between the option and the effect is not at all clear. The option as a whole needs a complete rewrite, as the action that is being proposed by the speaker is opaque. I get the sense that the speaker is vaguely leftist, but what he is saying is too cryptic to comprehend. There is too much of a leap of the imagination required to connect the dots.

The second version of this draft is now up. I added some details for clarity's sake.

Kroiner wrote:The second version of this draft is now up. I added some details for clarity's sake.

Just for future reference it is better to preserve the older drafts in the OP by spoilering them in the following manner:

Current Draft.

Blah blah blah blah.

Draft 2

Blah blah blah blah.

Original Draft

Blah blah blah blah.

The New California Republic wrote:

Kroiner wrote:The second version of this draft is now up. I added some details for clarity's sake.

Just for future reference it is better to preserve the older drafts in the OP by spoilering them in the following manner:

Current Draft.

Blah blah blah blah.

Draft 2

Blah blah blah blah.

Original Draft

Blah blah blah blah.

I added in the original draft from the word document I was using at first. Will make sure to do that in the future as well, thanks.

Kroiner wrote:Option Three

A voice calls out from the doorway, "Let's be serious here, when's the last time capitalism has done anything good for @@NAME@@?" The man comes into the room, he’s sporting a goatee and dressed in an odd red and yellow garb, “We should really be enacting more ‘liberating’ policies, if you’re catching my potato skins. The very first step in our plan will be to unite the workers together, then the next step will be to stomp out private businesses and leave everything to the government to control. I trust you, @@LEADER@@, you will lead our country into a glorious age of prosperity for all!”

Fallout: People ‘mysteriously’ disappear in the motherland.

The effects of option 3 still don't seem to follow, as there is nothing to say from the option that there will be full blown Stalinist-style purges. If that is what you intend the effect to be, then that needs to be strongly hinted at somewhere in the option. Also, if you did still want to go down this route, then option 3 would inevitably result in the "Socialism" policy being applied and the "Capitalism" policy being removed, and likely the "No Dissent" policy being applied. List any policies enacted/removed by each option under the effects section.

The New California Republic wrote:

Kroiner wrote:Option Three

A voice calls out from the doorway, "Let's be serious here, when's the last time capitalism has done anything good for @@NAME@@?" The man comes into the room, he’s sporting a goatee and dressed in an odd red and yellow garb, “We should really be enacting more ‘liberating’ policies, if you’re catching my potato skins. The very first step in our plan will be to unite the workers together, then the next step will be to stomp out private businesses and leave everything to the government to control. I trust you, @@LEADER@@, you will lead our country into a glorious age of prosperity for all!”

Fallout: People ‘mysteriously’ disappear in the motherland.

The effects of option 3 still don't seem to follow, as there is nothing to say from the option that there will be full blown Stalinist-style purges. If that is what you intend the effect to be, then that needs to be strongly hinted at somewhere in the option. Also, if you did still want to go down this route, then option 3 would inevitably result in the "Socialism" policy being applied and the "Capitalism" policy being removed, and likely the "No Dissent" policy being applied. List any policies enacted/removed by each option under the effects section.

Right, I forgot about the effects section and I'll make some changes to option three.

Slight changes with version three, changed the fallout of option three to make it less drastic and added in the effects of said option.

The variation in options is a bit silly, even by NS standards. Besides, many nations would have already determined this stuff by now

Australian rePublic wrote:The variation in options is a bit silly, even by NS standards. Besides, many nations would have already determined this stuff by now

I've offered suggestions for this draft at the micro level so far, but standing back and looking at it at the macro level reveals problems with its raison d'être. The issue rotates around one basic premise: whether to regulate business or not. It can be argued that theme has been done to death by this point, with a whole slew of issues that tackle it in a variety of ways. Nothing in particular really makes this particular issue, as currently drafted, stand out in any meaningful way. It is severely lacking any meaningful and unique "hook" to get the reader interested, it's generic to the extreme.

The New California Republic wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:The variation in options is a bit silly, even by NS standards. Besides, many nations would have already determined this stuff by now

I've offered suggestions for this draft at the micro level so far, but standing back and looking at it at the macro level reveals problems with its raison d'être. The issue rotates around one basic premise: whether to regulate business or not. It can be argued that theme has been done to death by this point, with a whole slew of issues that tackle it in a variety of ways. Nothing in particular really makes this particular issue, as currently drafted, stand out in any meaningful way. It is severely lacking any meaningful and unique "hook" to get the reader interested, it's generic to the extreme.

So a total rewrite is suggested then? Ok, I'll be back with a completely different draft, probably not today though. I'll try to keep the premise the same but with a more dramatic flair. I mean, I like the options presented but that's because I'm extremely biased to like what I come up with. Hell, I'm thinking that the best course of action is to just scrap this entirely and come up with something a little more niche, as this was a very broad topic as previously stated.

Kroiner wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:I've offered suggestions for this draft at the micro level so far, but standing back and looking at it at the macro level reveals problems with its raison d'être. The issue rotates around one basic premise: whether to regulate business or not. It can be argued that theme has been done to death by this point, with a whole slew of issues that tackle it in a variety of ways. Nothing in particular really makes this particular issue, as currently drafted, stand out in any meaningful way. It is severely lacking any meaningful and unique "hook" to get the reader interested, it's generic to the extreme.

So a total rewrite is suggested then? Ok, I'll be back with a completely different draft, probably not today though. I'll try to keep the premise the same but with a more dramatic flair. I mean, I like the options presented but that's because I'm extremely biased to like what I come up with. Hell, I'm thinking that the best course of action is to just scrap this entirely and come up with something a little more niche, as this was a very broad topic as previously stated.

What some issues authors do is focus on a particular business/industry. That allows for a much more focused and nuanced approach, and avoids the limitations that being too generic imposes on the level of detail that can be included.

The New California Republic wrote:

Kroiner wrote:
So a total rewrite is suggested then? Ok, I'll be back with a completely different draft, probably not today though. I'll try to keep the premise the same but with a more dramatic flair. I mean, I like the options presented but that's because I'm extremely biased to like what I come up with. Hell, I'm thinking that the best course of action is to just scrap this entirely and come up with something a little more niche, as this was a very broad topic as previously stated.

What some issues authors do is focus on a particular business/industry. That allows for a much more focused and nuanced approach, and avoids the limitations that being too generic imposes on the level of detail that can be included.

What about something to do with monopolies? I've just finished writing up a rough premise:

Monopolies are seemingly running amok everywhere in @@NAME@@. The fierce competition and competitiveness is driving many businesses to seek refuge in other nations, with more lenient policies to help out companies that are just starting out. You’ve called an emergency meeting in order to put an end to this, once and for all.

Kroiner wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:What some issues authors do is focus on a particular business/industry. That allows for a much more focused and nuanced approach, and avoids the limitations that being too generic imposes on the level of detail that can be included.

What about something to do with monopolies? I've just finished writing up a rough premise:

Monopolies are seemingly running amok everywhere in @@NAME@@. The fierce competition and competitiveness is driving many businesses to seek refuge in other nations, with more lenient policies to help out companies that are just starting out. You’ve called an emergency meeting in order to put an end to this, once and for all.

Still needs more focus on a specific industry in my opinion.

The New California Republic wrote:

Kroiner wrote:
What about something to do with monopolies? I've just finished writing up a rough premise:

Monopolies are seemingly running amok everywhere in @@NAME@@. The fierce competition and competitiveness is driving many businesses to seek refuge in other nations, with more lenient policies to help out companies that are just starting out. You’ve called an emergency meeting in order to put an end to this, once and for all.

Still needs more focus on a specific industry in my opinion.

Yeah, I'm trying to rush my own thought process. I gotta take some time and really think about it. I'll make a new thread tomorrow with a more serious attempt, now that I now what to do and how to format it. Thanks for all your help in keeping this sinking ship afloat.

The issue doesn't work. It's too broad, just saying "let's be more laissez faire".

Try to build issues around stories, rather than desired stat changes.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:The issue doesn't work. It's too broad, just saying "let's be more laissez faire".

Try to build issues around stories, rather than desired stat changes.

Yeah, I got that now. I've abandoned this issue as is due to the fact that there's nothing I can do to salvage it. The advice in this thread was great, I just didn't have a good premise to begin with.

Cool, look forward to your next draft.

Kroiner wrote:

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:The issue doesn't work. It's too broad, just saying "let's be more laissez faire".

Try to build issues around stories, rather than desired stat changes.

Yeah, I got that now. I've abandoned this issue as is due to the fact that there's nothing I can do to salvage it. The advice in this thread was great, I just didn't have a good premise to begin with.

Remember to change the thread tag to [ABANDONED].