[LAST CALL] I Saw Three Ships

[Westinor]

I'm back! New draft up, with changes to option 2. Description is looking a bit clunky to me but as of right now not sure how to tackle that, so suggestions would be great! Hoping to get back into other drafts too, depending on IRL constraints.

[Honeydewistania]

Wouldn’t the sensible option be to detain all these refugees and deport them back to Marche Noire? To prevent potential terrorists

[Westinor]

Wouldn’t the sensible option be to detain all these refugees and deport them back to Marche Noire? To prevent potential terrorists

The issue doesn’t exactly consider the factor that the refugees might be terrorists, though it could work as a 3/4 crazy option. Not wild about adding another one though, unless you feel it’s important to the issue? Or do you think the issue should be more geared that way instead?

[Honeydewistania]

Wouldn’t the sensible option be to detain all these refugees and deport them back to Marche Noire? To prevent potential terrorists

The issue doesn’t exactly consider the factor that the refugees might be terrorists, though it could work as a 3/4 crazy option. Not wild about adding another one though, unless you feel it’s important to the issue? Or do you think the issue should be more geared that way instead?

I’m not a fan of adding another option, but because your second guy says that it could be the leader of a resistance, I got that impression that the issue considers the factor that refugees can be terrorists

[Verdant Haven]

I like the general premise of this issue. Where I'm having trouble is that as currently written, I can't conceive of a reason the ships wouldn't be permitted to dock. At least according to my understanding of the traditional laws of the sea and of naval warfare, the appropriate actions are pretty clearly set out. If it is a non-military ship such as these refuge carriers, there is basically no limitation on their movement any more than there would be under peacetime conditions. Acts of hostility, such as the attempt to sink or capture by the attacking warships in this issue, is not permitted in neutral waters - such a thing would be considered a violation against the neutral power itself. The damaged ships can't use your port for military purposes, but just bringing passengers to shore - especially non-combatants in need of aid? The criminal action would be turning them away. If the ships begging for help are military ships escaping combat, even then all the examples I know of involve being permitted to dock - it's just that the ship is then impounded by the neutral nation for the duration, and the crew is either held as prisoners, or repatriated to their country of origin without their ship. I'm sure there are exceptions to all that, but basically, that's my understanding.

TL;DR - the Marche Blanchians in this issue are trying to commit a war crime, and are asking for your complicity.

[desc] @@NAME@@ has managed to avoid direct involvement in the latest conflict between your ally, Marche Blanche, and their enemy, Marche Noire thus far. However, you were just notified half an hour ago that a trio of badly-damaged ships carrying refugees from Marche Noire is sailing towards @@ANIMAL@@ City, seeking sanctuary from a fleet of Marche Blanchian destroyers pursuing them.

Calling one of the nations "your ally" kind of sets this up oddly. In a military conflict, the term ally has specific connotations that would suggest you aren't a neutral party, while the description states you aren't involved. I think the issue would make more sense, and be more interesting a choice, if you don't state that one of them is your ally. I think it works best if you are simply a neutral party, completely uninterested in either side of the conflict. I'm also a little curious why the MB destroyers are pursuing a refugee convoy. That, again, would be a war crime... I'd be kind of annoyed if an issue informed me I was allies with a nation performing such blatant criminal acts. Calling the incoming ships damaged military vessels would certainly both up the stakes, and remove the easy moral judgement from the matter (as well provide some legitimate reasons why they might feel the need to ask permission to come in to port instead of just apologizing after the fact).

[option] "@@LEADER@@, we're in dire straits," pleads @@RANDOMNAME@@, captain of one of the ships, over the radio. "We're low on fuel and taking water fast. Our ships are carrying hundreds of innocent people, and @@ANIMAL@@ City is the only port we can hope to reach before the enemy's fleet catches us. This is our most desperate hour. Help us, @@LEADER@@, you're our only hope!"
[effect] pleading and begging is usually an effective strategy in getting past border control

The issue becomes stronger, I think, if these aren't just innocent people being slaughtered. If these are combatants, there is actually some reason to consider rejecting them, and far more interesting things to suggest doing with them in the options. If these are combatants offering to surrender themselves to avoid destruction by their enemy, that's powerful.

[option] "Who cares about who's on the ships?" growls the Marche Blanchian ambassador as he pulls away the receiver and slams it down. "Soldier, refugee, potential leader of a resistance... they're all the same. Look @@LEADER@@, I'm going to have to ask you to turn these good-for-nothing dirtbags away and let us blow their damned rowboats out of the water. Let's agree to stand out of each other's way, eh?" He turns and gives you a menacing look. "After all, isn't that what allies are for?"
[effect] the nation's international policy is to 'walk softly and look the other way'

See above with re: war crimes and replacing the "victims" in need of aid. This argument makes far more sense if it's "these are enemy combat vessels that have engaged our ships" than if its "we want your help to murder babies in case one of them grows up not to like us."

[option] "No — this is a chance to help these nations make peace!" cries your Minister of Diplomacy as she desperately tries to get back in contact with the captain. "Stop both fleets, and have them meet each other on some middle ground — perhaps one of our ships? Call in leaders from both sides, and right there we can hash out a peace deal — two mortal enemies, weary from war and looking each other in the eye, agreeing to set their weapons down in the name of peace! Now that's a happy ending if I've ever heard one!"
[effect] police urge both parties involved in domestic violence to 'sit down and talk it out'

If one of the flotillas is sinking, telling them to wait while you call a summit is futile. If there's a group of warships in hot pursuit, how do you plan to stop them on the high seas, short of direct military intervention yourself, which would be an act of war? Maybe you could permit the ships to land and then exploit the crew and the prize as bargaining chips to try and coax the warring factions to the table, or something along those lines.

[Westinor]

Edited as to Verdant Haven's suggestions! Thanks so much for the detailed breakdown Hopefully this adheres to what you were talking about, particularly options 2 and 3?

Also, I'm not so sure about the nation pairing anymore. Two other pairings I was considering were the UF and NVS, though that might end up needing socialist/capitalist alternatives which might take away from the issue premise, and Daguo + another nation - for this one, I wasn't sure what other nation to use. I just wanted to add a few more Star Wars references I'm leaning towards UF and NVS as of right now, but I'm a bit strapped for time at the moment and will be taking a second look later. Suggestions and comments would be greatly appreciated!

[Westinor]

Bumping this hoping to move this up as well, if there are any issues with the new draft please let me know!

[Westinor]

Going to push this up to last call if this looks good, I'll submit it soon so I can get on over to some new projects!