NationStates

Are you familiar with the ancient country and empire of Persia? They had a unique government. Persia had twin capitals. I'm creating an issue where a Nation States nation has the option of creating and having a Gemini government of two capitals. @@YOUR NATION NAME@@ wants to follow the parent nation's philosophy of government. Just like Greece gave birth to the Holy Roman Empire, Rome gave birth to Britain and Britain gave birth to the United States. This is how democracy reproduced. @@RANDOM NATION NAME@@ gave birth to @@YOUR NATION NAME@@ and they want to follow in the footsteps with the government set up.

To explain, Gemini is the 3rd astrology zodiac between May 21st and June 21st. Gemini means twin or dually. Two or a pair. Moreover, a person with a Gemini mind has duel or twin personalities. Persia had a Gemini government.

This link proves that Persia at one time had more than one capital at the same time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitals_of_Persia

The issue

Issue name: Two-Headed Dragon

Issue: Your patriotic second in command has been doing extensive research into @@NATION NAME@@ history and more. You make your appointment to meet with him. Something about creating a Gemini government. You meet at a high-class restaurant.

Option One: "Sir, I have discovered that @@NATION NAME@@ predecessor and parent nation was once a two-headed government." @@RANDOM NAME@@ your second in command states, and continues "I believe we have the resources and means to run a two-headed government. Having two capitals would improve our survivability rate. I mean, if we had two capitals, we'd be tougher. If one capital gets obliterated, the other is still there to carry on the torch."
Effect Line: Government becomes a two-headed dragon

Option Two: "Sir, having one capital is a handful." Interjects your secretary @@RANDOM NAME@@ "Why not expand on what we already have?"Besides, it would just complicate things."
Effect Line: Price to tea goes up

Option Three: "I say do away with the government and let people run amok freely." A nearby dark figure comments. "Just let the people run things without bureaucracy. Just let anarchy take over."
Effect Line: Government is run by the mafia

Option Four: "I'd like things to stay the way they are." The waitress puts in. "Why not make sure all the wires are connected, and the paints not chipping in the government buildings. You could just refurbish what we already have."
Effect Line: Leader's car is getting a tune-up


A nation receives a capital at 500 million population. I say this issue wouldn't come out until at least a population of a billion or one billion.

Hey! Welcome to Got Issues.

You might want to read this FAQ/Guide first so that you know how to draft issues properly (for example, instead of {Nations name} you write @@NAME@@).

As for the content of your issue, while it is a good idea, the issue editors might be reluctant to accept this because it involves a large coding change behind the scenes (creating a new field for a second capital, and recoding all of the old issues to specify the first capital) for something not that many people will need.

Do any such systems still exist IRL?

What does IRL mean?

Zealst wrote:What does IRL mean?

In real life

What's a gemini government? Explain in issue

Australian rePublic wrote:What's a gemini government? Explain in issue

It is, though perhaps not in the most effective manner.

Option One: "Sir, I have discovered that @@NATION NAME@@ predecessor and parent nation was once a two-headed government." @@RANDOM NAME@@ your second in command states, and continues "I believe we have the resources and means to run a two-headed government. Having two capitals."

With that being said, I suggest you read what Electrum linked above. Currently your sentences are very short and choppy, which makes it a bit difficult to follow along with the story.

This is an interesting concept, though I wonder what kind of effects this would actually produce.

I hope this helps you understand. Check these links out, please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... e_capitals

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/coun ... index.html

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/whi ... ities.html

This is proof that Persia had more than one capital, more than one at the same time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitals_of_Persia

What differentiates having 2 capitals from simply having multiple large cities that happen to be important influence centers?

Ex, NY, LA, etc.. There doesn't seem to be any benefit to having multiple capitals besides creating a more localized government, which you need to express in the issue.

Noahs Second Country wrote:What differentiates having 2 capitals from simply having multiple large cities that happen to be important influence centers?

Ex, NY, LA, etc.. There doesn't seem to be any benefit to having multiple capitals besides creating a more localized government, which you need to express in the issue.

But wouldn't that just be a federation?

The concept of "two-capitals" usually only exists in undeveloped or ancient nations. Usually, dual capitals such as the one established in Ancient Persia either dealt with Legislature and the actual running of the country, or the seat of power and one of the two mentioned before. In contrast, dual capitals are mostly just inefficient in modern countries.

EDIT:Also, Greece "gave birth" in cultural terms to the Roman Empire, not the Holy Roman Empire, which are two entirely separate things. The Holy Roman Empire also did not give birth to Britain - the Anglo-Saxons (if I remember correctly) are a Germanic-based people, though Rome did hold control over Britain for a while. However, Rome did not have significant impacts on Britain (in the sense that you mean it) directly, as the idea of democracy passed through Europe during the Enlightenment, including Britain - so Rome had equal influence over most of Western Europe, which would eventually cultivate those ideals in the colonies indirectly (as a result of the imperialist system being unfair), thus the birth of America as the first modern "democracy". All of these terms and events may be in contention (my European history is a bit rusty) but that's what I've got. Sorry, just a history nut, heh.

Westinor wrote:In contrast, dual capitals are mostly just inefficient in modern countries.

Wouldn't it matter less with modern technology making long-distance communication easier?

Having different government branches located in different cities is hardly more of an inconvenience than having them located on opposite sides of the same city.

As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_multiple_capitals (linked by Zealst above) shows, there definitely do exist modern countries with this condition. Eswati (which I wasn't previously aware even exists, but whatever - okay, looks like that's because it was named Swaziland on older maps, as in before 2018) and Honduras each have two, though they're very close to each other. South Africa has three, which are actually very far apart from each other (administrative+executive capital in the northeast, legislative capital in the southeast, judicial capital in between), which I think might be a deliberate attempt to recognize the nation's diverse and multiethnic nature without priviledging any single group? Or not, since it appears to have been that way since long before the apartheid era.

Besides that, the list shows lots of nations that have a single official "capital", but where part of the national government is located outside the capital. Or all of it, since in the Netherlands, Amsterdam seems to be the capital on paper only, as I can't find any important government functions that actually take place there.

And of course, conversely, some nations have major cities that aren't "capitals" in any governmental sense, but are still larger and/or more important to those nations' culture, economy, etc. than the actual capitals, and so occupy a similar role in public consciousness.

The problems are that (A) NationStates issues are written with the assumption that @@NAME@@ has one capital, which the player can name as @@CAPITAL@@, and adjusting existing texts to account for a minority of nations that choose other systems other systems would be impractical, and (B) why would anyone do this? If a nation decides to have to capitals, it's going to be for a better reason than "I read in a history book once that it's possible and it seems cool". Nations don't do this kind of thing just for the sake of being different. It has to serve some kind of political objective.

Wouldn't it matter less with modern technology making long-distance communication easier?

I'm not talking so much about the communication aspect of it but rather the administrative prospects of having multiple capitals, as well as other economic factors and such. But yeah, that's true. Most modern nations don't have two though, likely due to (again) all the inconveniences and problems it would bring - what exactly is the benefit of having two as opposed to one capital(s)?

Westinor wrote:I'm not talking so much about the communication aspect of it but rather the administrative prospects of having multiple capitals,

I really don't see what the problem would be.

Cities need administering whether they're capitals or not. Government office buildings need administering whether they're all in the same city or not.

Westinor wrote:what exactly is the benefit of having two as opposed to one capital(s)?

Like I said, one possible benefit is making a political statement about avoiding favoritism, giving different regions of the nation a nominally-equal role in the government.

It might also have defensive benefits. If one of your capitals gets obliterated by a nuclear strike, then half of your government is still functioning.

I've edited, altered, and updated the issue draft. I made some improvements on the draft. Tell what you think now.

Some general ideas:

Alright, so first off I think you have to present and explain your premise more clearly. Your current argument is "Our predecessor and parent nation had a gemini government". This feels sort of weak, and doesn't warrant an upheaval of the government and administrative system. It might be nice if you explain why this is better, and what it entails in your options.

Second, don't capitalize effect lines. Your current effect lines are also a bit choppy - try to make them more coherent, same goes for the rest of the sentences in your draft. (i.e. Government becomes a two-headed dragon, Government is run by the mafia can be changed to 'the government')

This issue could also do with a bit of nuance. You don't need each speaker to state exactly what they think - having fun dialogue and playing with words is what makes writing an issue fun, and makes the issue more enjoyable for the player.

Your current options stand as such:
-we should have two capitals because our predecessor had two, and it would be handy as a backup.
-we shouldn't have two capitals because it'd be complicated.
-just do away with government altogether
-improve what we have now

Your first option is weak. You need a better argument for making two capitals than "our mother nation had two". (Also, does anyone know if assuming @@NAME@@ has a predecessor nation interferes with player autonomy? Not so sure myself.)
Your second option works as a counter to the first, but you need to elaborate on your argument. There are plenty of reasons having two capitals isn't feasible - try to include some of them.
Your third option can be a "crazy" option, but you have to present some sort of reason for it. Sure, it might not be entirely sensical, but having a random person suggest the government be dissolved doesn't make this option appealing to a player. Also, the effect line doesn't relate to the option in the way it should - nothing about the mafia running the government is mentioned in your option.
Your fourth option is basically the same as your second option, and can be combined into it. Your second option can go something like "Handling a single capital is already a handful, two is far too much and would only serve to heighten administrative costs and create divisiveness between branches of our government. Let's just improve on what we have." (obviously, not in those words.)

Your patriotic second in command has been doing extensive research into @@NATION NAME@@ history and more. You make your appointment to meet with him.

Apart from grammar, your description presents a few problems already. Why does leader need to request an appointment with his second-in-command, and why has the second-in-command been researching the nation's history? It might help to focus on the idea of a "second-in-command" — the term is a bit vague, and using a Minister (Like a "Minister of Culture") or some other government official may help in this.

Sir, I have discovered...

You use "sir" to start off options 1 and 2 — what if the player isn't male, or the leader of a player's nation isn't canonically male? Using the macro @@LEADER@@ may be more effective in this.

Having two capitals would improve our survivability rate

You spend three sentences making this point, which shouldn't be your central argument. A nation wouldn't make such a drastic change to their government just to avoid being handicapped by having their capital blown up. Try to think in irl terms-what are the benefits of a nation having two capitals as opposed to all the downsides? You can introduce downsides in options that are against the motion, and include the upsides in the option for the motion for starters.

Price to tea goes up

Might just be me, but I have no clue what this means.

I think overall, you need to start from your premise and begin rewriting your issue from the ground up. The premise is the foundation for the issue - you need to make sure it's strong and sensical. Just a few ideas for you on this issue:

-You can include how other countries have used the dual capital system before, but it shouldn't be the central argument (and if it will be, it needs to be much more compelling. The same goes for the backup argument - it can be included at the end of option one, something like, "Plus, if we lose one capital, we'll always have the second!" (not that great but just an idea.)
-The logistics of having two capitals also comes into mind - how will the government be separated into two capitals? Will one serve for a certain branch of government, and one for the other? (ex. One for judicial and one for legislative/executive or such - and if so keep in mind the No Judicial system policy for you validity if you take this route.) Your link also only shows multiple capitals Persia has had over its history, making it rather hard to research for you the functions of these two capitals.
-Arguments for having two capitals are in abundance; communication issues, administrative problems and costs, potential divisiveness between a separated government, economic drawbacks (or upsides? Could work towards your argument for depending on how you phrase it). If you could pull this off, there are many potential ways this could go.
-You can describe your speakers through their actions to give the issue options more life. Like, if your second in command is so patriotic, make them salute you or something when they enter the room. Anything like that makes an issue much more enjoyable.
-Please, focus on your premise. Why is this an issue, why is it being brought up? Make sure it's relevant and makes sense. Best of luck

Instead of just going "let's do X", consider introducing some sort of problem and then presenting X as one of the possible solutions.

Trotterdam wrote:Instead of just going "let's do X", consider introducing some sort of problem and then presenting X as one of the possible solutions.

Let me just point and say "this."

This.