[SUBMITTED] Bleep off!

[Comfed]

The issue:

A certain politician has tongues wagging all across @@NAME@@ after @@HE_1@@ very publicly told a protestor to perform a certain bodily function in a very explicit way. Now those furious, shocked, and frankly amused have gathered inside your office to find a solution.

The debate:

"This is an outrage!" cries conservative @@RANDOMNAME_1@@ as @@HE_1@@ brandishes @@HIS@@ wooden cane. "Curse words have no place in @@NAME@@. Ban public insults, if only to keep @@NAME@@ clean!"

Effect: protests have vanished now that public criticism of @@LEADER@@ is banned

"Oh, come on now, I didn't do anything wrong!" pleads member of parliament @@RANDOMNAME@@ wearing a paper bag over @@HIS@@ head. "These hyper conservatives are going too darn far! My life has been ruined by a tiny little mistake! Please, @@LEADER@@, I implore you, couldn’t we just forget it this time? After all, it was just a teensy weensy slip-up. In fact, why don’t we just grant pardons to politicians accused of misconduct? After all, to forgive is divine!”

Effect: the official policy of @@NAME@@ on handling scandals is to turn the other way

"You know what, dudes?" says @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ "cool" @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@ while skateboarding over classified military documents, "Politicians are always old geezers, it’s so boring trying to follow politics. @@NAME@@ should have, like, a national holiday dedicated to obscenities.” @@HE_3@@ then skateboards out the window, taking the military documents with him.

Effect: @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ often get nostalgic about the existence of manners

Is this adult? I don’t think so but it’s possible.

[Westinor]

Your macros are out of wack. You don't need to assign an individual number to every single macro per option, and the "he" in your description should therefore be @@HE_1@@ for the purposes of this draft (there, using the _1 would make sense).

This is an interesting premise, but your characters could definitely use some fine tuning. Though realism isn't necessarily needed in issues, what if the religious conservative worshipped in some way the political process of @@NAME@@ as opposed to just the regular faith? Seeing as how they already refer to the legislative body as "the sacred house of lawmaking", that could be a pretty interesting twist if you pulled it off.

would be to close he legislature to visitors,

You've got a typo here, and religious fundamentalists aren't necessarily the only people complaining about swears. The sanctity of language in the legislative is generally kept by most other groups in the populace as well, as far as I can tell.

Your third option has potential but right now the way the option is proposed feels bland. The 'liven things up' argument is fine, but there could be a more nuanced way to say "I think swears are cool". Like, "Politicians are always so dumb and boring - maybe if you made those old geezers insult each other in every session things would liven up and people would care about politics again." A bit wordy, but you get the gist.

Also, just realized this - really, option 1 and 2 do the same thing in effect. I'm not sure if there's much difference between blotting out obscenities and not saying them at all? If the senator in option 2 wants to blot out obscenities and insults, a justification (i.e. their constituents are outraged, they're being heckled everywhere they go) would definitely make the option more coherent.

[SherpDaWerp]

As well as everything Westinor has said:

Be careful of overlap with #453, which asks similar questions about the conduct of MPs - albeit in a much more extreme manner.

And saying "senator" implies that there is still an upper house present in the @@NAME@@ legislature, so you should change it to "member of parliament".

[Jutsa]

Aw, I was hoping this would be about fudge...

Ah well, it's definitely interesting discussing obscenities' place in politics.

Definitely a bit different from mooning, and though I see some similarity,
I'm also reminded of #799 which already coexists with it.

I wanna say this is a substantially distinct premise, personally.

[Comfed]

Your macros are out of wack. You don't need to assign an individual number to every single macro per option, and the "he" in your description should therefore be @@HE_1@@ for the purposes of this draft (there, using the _1 would make sense).

This is an interesting premise, but your characters could definitely use some fine tuning. Though realism isn't necessarily needed in issues, what if the religious conservative worshipped in some way the political process of @@NAME@@ as opposed to just the regular faith? Seeing as how they already refer to the legislative body as "the sacred house of lawmaking", that could be a pretty interesting twist if you pulled it off.

would be to close he legislature to visitors,

You've got a typo here, and religious fundamentalists aren't necessarily the only people complaining about swears. The sanctity of language in the legislative is generally kept by most other groups in the populace as well, as far as I can tell.

Your third option has potential but right now the way the option is proposed feels bland. The 'liven things up' argument is fine, but there could be a more nuanced way to say "I think swears are cool". Like, "Politicians are always so dumb and boring - maybe if you made those old geezers insult each other in every session things would liven up and people would care about politics again." A bit wordy, but you get the gist.

Also, just realized this - really, option 1 and 2 do the same thing in effect. I'm not sure if there's much difference between blotting out obscenities and not saying them at all? If the senator in option 2 wants to blot out obscenities and insults, a justification (i.e. their constituents are outraged, they're being heckled everywhere they go) would definitely make the option more coherent.

Thank you for the feedback, I believe I have fixed it.

[Australian rePublic]

Please the "oh fudge" title for anyone who might wanna write an issue about fudge

[Atheris]

When I read "Oh, Fudge", I expected an issue about fudge, not about an MP telling another to go perform a certain function that is physically impossible. May want to change the title.

[Comfed]

When I read "Oh, Fudge", I expected an issue about fudge, not about an MP telling another to go perform a certain function that is physically impossible. May want to change the title.

Alright, alright, I’ll change it.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I'd agree that 453 is a strong overlap here, enough to prevent publication at present.

Maybe get the bad language out of parliament and into a public space, like a political rally, or somewhere like that. That might help.

[Atheris]

Minor typo: "Ban insults public" in option 1 should be changed to "Ban public insults". You may also want to make option 1 enact the no dissent policy.

[Comfed]

Minor typo: "Ban insults public" in option 1 should be changed to "Ban public insults". You may also want to make option 1 enact the no dissent policy.

Thanks!