NationStates

I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, so please correct me if I'm wrong! I'm not the best at forums.
I'm submitting an issue and was advised to draft it here.

Besides a witty title I have everything. Second draft done! Thank you all for the help. Stole a lot from Minskiev's tips

Desc:
A population boom in recent years, causing a lack of liveable land, has officials coming up with more rash solutions.
Validity:
doesn't have No Atheism, slightly authoritarian & up

Choice1:
"Everyone's a little gay," shrugs your Minister of Extreme Virtue Signaling @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Why not go off that? Make homosexuality mandatory for a couple generations, and our population will become nice and manageable again."
Fallout1:
pride parades are attended by even the most conservative people.

Choice2:
"I have a better idea," butts in @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a clergyman of @@FAITH@@. "Do what we do; just find out who the alpha male is, and castrate everyone else! Survival of the fittest won't just work like it did before, so why don't we force it to?"
Fallout2:
using the urinal is a test of pride even more than ever before.

Choice3:
Your mother, upon hearing the news, calls you in the middle of a meeting. "Oh, sweetie. I'm sure your big, strong nation can handle it. Don't you want everyone to have the wonderful feelings of having a child, like I did when I had you? Say, why don't you give them some extra help, put some of that money from your military into childcare?"
Fallout3:
Validity: doesn't have Child Self Rearing
kids' toy soldiers are going for thousands of @@CURRENCY@@ on the black market.


-- original --

While I think this is a promising idea for an issue, unfortunately the choices here are rather one-sided. Essentially, you're forced to combat overpopulation. I believe a couple choices that allow you to take the opposite approach to the issue, ex. not doing anything and embracing overpopulation, would add a lot to this issue.

Rebel Maxonor wrote:I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this, so please correct me if I'm wrong! I'm not the best at forums.

If you're looking to draft an issue this is certainly the right place.

Rebel Maxonor wrote:A population boom in recent years has officials coming up with more rash solutions.

This tells me there is a problem, but not why it's a problem. Brevity is not the be-all-and-end-all of an issue description, and in this case the lack of explanation hurts, rather than helps, your description.

Give some examples of how it's a problem. Schools are filling up, we're running out of liveable land to place people on, there aren't enough jobs - the premise needs a bit more focus than just "Overpopulation!".

Rebel Maxonor wrote:Religious freedom, homosexual marriage allowed?

The only validity that would have to apply to the whole issue would be that vats aren't the only way to have a kid, or biological reproduction is allowed. The options can be written around any other policy.

Rebel Maxonor wrote:"Everyone's a little gay," shrugs your head Human Rights department officer @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Why not go off that? Make homosexuality the basis for a couple generations, our population will go back to nice and manageable."

Interesting stereotype to base an option off; I think it's a little prejudicial but editors might disagree. There would be ways to enforce homosexuality without relying on the fallback of "everyone's a little gay". Perhaps the speaker could suggest no potentially-child-bearing relationships are allowed, and then mention that that would still allow gay/bi people to have same-sex relationships.

As for my validity comments; I'll give an example here. This option could have a homosexual-marriage-allowed version that's just the regular option, and a homosexual-marriage-prohibited option that says "we've gotta allow homosexuality for the good of @@NAME@@". Not the best example of a "doppelganger" but you get the idea.

Your effect lines could also use some extra humor.

How about an option to go full hunger games or some kind of thanks snap event? How about a one child policy or putting birth control chemicals into water supplies? How about forced abortions? How about annexing other nations and killing all their people to make room? How about a counterculture option to force people to breed more?

I like the idea but you can go so much further.

Let's see what our options are:

1. Darwin Awards, genocide edition, as nobody would be able to naturally reproduce due to compulsory homosexuality
2. Mass inbreeding and/or mass immigration as every single member of the next generation will be either be everyone else's half brother/sister and/or having children with a foreigner
3. Intentionally making the problem worse by encouraging people to have more children.

Can we please have options that are a little less extreme

SherpDaWerp, thank you for the feedback, it was very helpful and I will definitely take all of that into consideration while I draft.

Nevertopia I'm super into the idea of adding a hunger games solution option.

Also, should I edit the post directly or make a new one? Again sorry I'm not the best at forums

Rebel Maxonor wrote:SherpDaWerp, thank you for the feedback, it was very helpful and I will definitely take all of that into consideration while I draft.

Nevertopia I'm super into the idea of adding a hunger games solution option.

Also, should I edit the post directly or make a new one? Again sorry I'm not the best at forums

Edit the post directly, and it is advised to spoiler box your former draft below the updated one as to give people easy access to comparison.

The first letter of effect lines should be lowercase.

Red words are my personal corrections, most are for my subjective formatting preferences.

[description] A population boom in recent years has officials coming up with more rash solutions.

[validity] doesn’t have No Atheism, slightly authoritarian and up

[option] "Everyone's a little gay," shrugs your Minister of Extreme Virtue Signaling @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Why not go off that? Make homosexuality mandatory for a couple generations, and our population will become nice and manageable."

[effect] the word gay officially has no meaning

[option] "I have a better idea." butts in @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a clergyman? of @@FAITH@@. "Do what we do; just find out who the alpha male is, and castrate everyone else! Survival of the fittest will? just work like it did before."

[effect] castration is now the sole punishment for bad behavior

[option] Your mother, upon hearing the news, calls you in the middle of a meeting. "Oh, sweetie. I'm sure your big, strong nation can handle it. Don't you want everyone to have the wonderful feelings of having a child, like I did when I had you? Say, why don't you give them some extra help, put some of that money from your military into childcare?"
[effect] toy soldiers are both highly coveted and looked down upon

[validity] has Capitalism

[option] “Why do we want to slow our birth rates, when we can be fighting those damn East Lebatuckese commies?” yells your veteran uncle. “Not to mention those reds from Dàguó! Communism is on the rise, don’t you see son? We gotta gain more manpower, not destroy it! Don’t let the reds win! Remember, better dead...than red.” he croaks, before having a coughing fit.

[effect] anyone who likes warm colors better than cool colors is imprisoned

Post updated with second draft, thank you all!

the effect for option 3 should be @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@

This has been brought up before by Aussie, but the current rendition of your issue currently serves as three extreme options that don't correlate with the premise very well. Let's take a look at your premise first.


Your premise is built off of overpopulation causing problems with land. This is a workable premise, but the problem is you're not working off of it. The problem isn't overpopulation in general, but rather the fact that there's a lack of living space. Therefore, your options should fit with the theme of "there isn't enough living space for our people". Your options are currently:

1. Mandatory homosexuality (extreme)
2. Castrate everyone besides the alpha males (Extreme: who are the alpha males anyway? How can this be determined?)
3. Invest into childcare (more reasonable, but doesn't directly address the problem of a lack of living spaces.)

These options don't work with your premise right now. You need to find different options and ways to deal with the issue at hand. With a lack of living spaces, I think you have tons of room for creativity. However, there's a problem in that, too - it's a rather broad, and so there's many ways you can go, but its up to you to narrow it down or cover all of those options. I would do is something like:

1. Loosen restrictions on building depth/height, allow for underground cities/tall skyscrapers
2. Do away with some of the wilderness conservation spots, turn parks and wilderness areas into prime real estate
3. Invade foreign nations and seize their land
4. Create artificial land

These options are similar too many others in different issues, and even though I'm fairly sure there isn't an issue directly dealing with a lack of land (though there might be one, I recall something similar to this though it might just be a mix of different issues) you'll need to use your creativity distinguish the options from other already existing and similar issues.

Wouldn’t it be livable, and not liveable, in the description? Plus, that description seems a tad short.

The current premise might overlap with #68, maybe go with another overpopulation problem.
Also the option choices are just too extreme.

Apabeossie wrote:The current premise might overlap with #68, maybe go with another overlapping problem.
Also the option choices are just too extreme.

Ah yep, that was one of the issues* was thinking of.

Do you memorize issues, Westinor?

Minskiev wrote:Do you memorize issues, Westinor?

Not particularly, I just have a vague recollection of them strong enough so that if a draft with a similar premise arises I can recall the existence of the issue.

Plus, I've read through the entire issues list once or twice so I've got a decent amount of exposure to all of the issues in the game, and since they're all unique it's fairly easier to keep a recollection of them.

Westinor wrote:

Minskiev wrote:Do you memorize issues, Westinor?

Not particularly, I just have a vague recollection of them strong enough so that if a draft with a similar premise arises I can recall the existence of the issue.

Plus, I've read through the entire issues list once or twice so I've got a decent amount of exposure to all of the issues in the game, and since they're all unique it's fairly easier to keep a recollection of them.

Okay, shush nerd. You’re like Hamilton but for a web browser game instead of creating modern democracy.

Minskiev wrote:

Westinor wrote:
Not particularly, I just have a vague recollection of them strong enough so that if a draft with a similar premise arises I can recall the existence of the issue.

Plus, I've read through the entire issues list once or twice so I've got a decent amount of exposure to all of the issues in the game, and since they're all unique it's fairly easier to keep a recollection of them.

Okay, shush nerd. You’re like Hamilton but for a web browser game instead of creating modern democracy.

Bah, not sure where that came from, but as a Hamilton fan (of the play, not so much the corresponding book nor figure since both were much more bland than they were presented in the play ) I can say that's definitely not the case. But I'll take that as a compliment .

Westinor wrote:This has been brought up before by Aussie, but the current rendition of your issue currently serves as three extreme options that don't correlate with the premise very well. Let's take a look at your premise first.


Your premise is built off of overpopulation causing problems with land. This is a workable premise, but the problem is you're not working off of it. The problem isn't overpopulation in general, but rather the fact that there's a lack of living space. Therefore, your options should fit with the theme of "there isn't enough living space for our people". Your options are currently:

1. Mandatory homosexuality (extreme)
2. Castrate everyone besides the alpha males (Extreme: who are the alpha males anyway? How can this be determined?)
3. Invest into childcare (more reasonable, but doesn't directly address the problem of a lack of living spaces.)

These options don't work with your premise right now. You need to find different options and ways to deal with the issue at hand. With a lack of living spaces, I think you have tons of room for creativity. However, there's a problem in that, too - it's a rather broad, and so there's many ways you can go, but its up to you to narrow it down or cover all of those options. I would do is something like:

1. Loosen restrictions on building depth/height, allow for underground cities/tall skyscrapers
2. Do away with some of the wilderness conservation spots, turn parks and wilderness areas into prime real estate
3. Invade foreign nations and seize their land
4. Create artificial land

These options are similar too many others in different issues, and even though I'm fairly sure there isn't an issue directly dealing with a lack of land (though there might be one, I recall something similar to this though it might just be a mix of different issues) you'll need to use your creativity distinguish the options from other already existing and similar issues.

I do agree that I should change the problem relating to overpopulation - but isn't the point to have extreme choices? This is Nationstates after all, and issues are always comedic hypotheticals. Not really supposed to be grounded in reality.

There should be at least ONE choice that isn’t extreme, for the boring centrists out there. I mean even I’m moderately libertarian, but for the Inoffensive Centrist Democracies, we gotta include them.

Rebel Maxonor wrote:I do agree that I should change the problem relating to overpopulation - but isn't the point to have extreme choices? This is Nationstates after all, and issues are always comedic hypotheticals. Not really supposed to be grounded in reality.

Every issue has reasonable choices for the issues. Yes, this is a game, and there are comedic hypotheticals, but options need reasonableness and verisimilitude. It's fine to have 1 or 2 crazy options at the end, stuff like your brother saying "just become a dictatorship", but those are always supplementary to actual solutions. There aren't any issues that are wholly crazy.

Minskiev wrote:There should be at least ONE choice that isn’t extreme, for the boring centrists out there. I mean even I’m moderately libertarian, but for the Inoffensive Centrist Democracies, we gotta include them.

That's fair ! I do think the third choice is the least extreme in regards to that? The fallout always overhypes and makes fun of what actually happens - it's really just a funding redistribution to childcare instead of the military.

Rebel Maxonor wrote:

Minskiev wrote:There should be at least ONE choice that isn’t extreme, for the boring centrists out there. I mean even I’m moderately libertarian, but for the Inoffensive Centrist Democracies, we gotta include them.

That's fair ! I do think the third choice is the least extreme in regards to that? The fallout always overhypes and makes fun of what actually happens - it's really just a funding redistribution to childcare instead of the military.

But what if you’re, say, a patriarchy? Or what if they have the policy where child’s are self-reared?

Rebel Maxonor wrote:

Minskiev wrote:There should be at least ONE choice that isn’t extreme, for the boring centrists out there. I mean even I’m moderately libertarian, but for the Inoffensive Centrist Democracies, we gotta include them.

That's fair ! I do think the third choice is the least extreme in regards to that? The fallout always overhypes and makes fun of what actually happens - it's really just a funding redistribution to childcare instead of the military.

Yep, and that's true, but to reiterate my point - it actually hardly relates to the premise of the issue. Not to mention that most of the options don't, anyway. It's definitely important to have humor in issues, which can come from extreme options, but usually an issue filled with extreme options is extreme in itself, whereas most issues have a logical sequence of reasonable takes on a problem.

Minskiev wrote:

Rebel Maxonor wrote:
That's fair ! I do think the third choice is the least extreme in regards to that? The fallout always overhypes and makes fun of what actually happens - it's really just a funding redistribution to childcare instead of the military.

But what if you’re, say, a patriarchy? Or what if they have the policy where child’s are self-reared?

AH good point. Would the validity being not either of those make this too niche to make it an issue?