[SUBMITTED] Free The Rainbow Or Rainbow-Free?

[Daarwyrth]

Would this sound better?

Mandate all regional authorities to adhere to national guidelines regarding the equal and tolerant treatment of the LGBTQ+ community

Mandate all regional authorities adhere to national guidelines regarding the equal and tolerant treatment of the LGBTQ+ community (maybe equal and fair? or fair and tolerant? equal and tolerant feel kind of weird, but that's up to you.)

This is Westinor, btw

Equal and fair sounds good to me! I'll add it into the current draft

[New Jewlan]

Rainbow-Free all the way (no offence intended). This does not impact my Nation's treatment of said individuals; they are to be treated with love and respect, same as anyone else.

[Daarwyrth]

Rainbow-Free all the way (no offence intended). This does not impact my Nation's treatment of said individuals; they are to be treated with love and respect, same as anyone else.

Do you have any pointers as to how I could improve the current draft?

[Minskiev]

If @@CAPITAL@@ pledged support to the LGBTQ+ communities, surely you’d have relatively low social conservatism, right?

[Westinor]

If @@CAPITAL@@ pledged support to the LGBTQ+ communities, surely you’d have relatively low social conservatism, right?

Social conservatism isn't necessarily the same as conservatism irl, or at least how it's perceived, I believe. It's more a measure of how much personal freedom a nation has, and though I could see this being a validity I think that might be better left to the editors?

[Minskiev]

Well, isn’t LGBTQ+ and related stuff a social issue?

[Westinor]

Well, isn’t LGBTQ+ and related stuff a social issue?

Again, social conservatism is tied to several other existing in-game stats, as far as I know. That might be better left off to the editors, I don't know.

[SherpDaWerp]

Well, isn’t LGBTQ+ and related stuff a social issue?

Again, social conservatism is tied to several other existing in-game stats, as far as I know. That might be better left off to the editors, I don't know.

Social Conservatism is linked heavily to Civil Rights. It's not quite a direct inverse, but it's close to it.

[Cretox State]

If @@CAPITAL@@ pledged support to the LGBTQ+ communities, surely you’d have relatively low social conservatism, right?

@@CAPITAL@@'s city leadership can pledge whatever they want, especially in a country with high regional autonomy.

[Minskiev]

If @@CAPITAL@@ pledged support to the LGBTQ+ communities, surely you’d have relatively low social conservatism, right?

@@CAPITAL@@'s city leadership can pledge whatever they want, especially in a country with high regional autonomy.

Fair, but it seems like the whole nature of the issue is ‘LGBTQ+ accepting nation dealing with conservatives’ rather than ‘clash between LGBTQ+ and conservative’

[The Free Joy State]

Well, isn’t LGBTQ+ and related stuff a social issue?

Again, social conservatism is tied to several other existing in-game stats, as far as I know. That might be better left off to the editors, I don't know.

You're right. Best to focus on the draft at hand, Daarwyrth.

The one thing I'd add to your validity is "homosexuality is legal" (as that's part of your base premise).

[Description] Recently, the @@CAPITAL@@'s city council publicly declared their support of the LGBTQ+ community. Outraged at the decision, a number of traditionally conservative counties signed a declaration in which they promised to uphold "traditional family values" and to prohibit any public activity supportive of the LGBTQ+ community within their borders. Promptly, civil rights activists decried these counties "Rainbow-Exclusion Zones" and have loudly voiced their opposition since.

The word "since" at the end can probably go.

Option four seems a little... vague. If you're going for ghettoisation of the LGBT+ population (which is what a contained area implies), I think you should make it clearer. If not, try to clarify what the option is going for. Otherwise, maybe cut it. Five options is rather long for an issue, anyway.

Option five seems unnecessary (as it does effectively the same thing as option three -- both mandate fair treatment of the LGBT+ community nationwide). You may consider cutting that, too.

Otherwise, I think this seems like an interesting issue.

[Daarwyrth]

New draft is up!

In light of the above discussion, I added a small line to the premise that hopefully clarifies the capital's city council made their promise as part of their regional autonomy, or the level of it that they have.

I have also cut option 5 from the draft and changed the solution that the Minister of Compromise proposes in option 4. I believe it will be less vague that way! As the Free Joy State suggested, I also included the "Homosexuality is legal" validity into the draft

[Australian rePublic]

Option 1- How is this not a local issue

[Daarwyrth]

Option 1- How is this not a local issue

Look at Poland. Local counties decided to adopt the declaration on a regional basis, yet the issue became a topic of national debate. Not only national, but widely international even. In terms of the issue draft, it's several counties that have banded together, which arguably isn't a local issue anymore, as citizens from all over @@NAME@@ would be prohibited from engaging in activity supportive of the LGBTQ+ community in these counties. Plus, with several counties doing the same, one could argue it's a solid portion of the national citizenry that is being affected.

[Pythaga]

Recently, the @@CAPITAL@@'s city council publicly declared their support

You either need to remove the 'the' before @@CAPITAL@@ or the 's' from the end of it here.

[Daarwyrth]

Recently, the @@CAPITAL@@'s city council publicly declared their support

You either need to remove the 'the' before @@CAPITAL@@ or the 's' from the end of it here.

Done! I removed 'the' before @@CAPITAL@@

[Electrum]

I gave you some feedback earlier in the week on Discord, but I think there are still things that can be changed:

Declaring to be in support of something doesn't require being 'within the scope of its regional autonomy' (many councils all over make general statements all the time) but prohibiting public activity does. You can move that phrase over to the conservative counties section.

I also think this issue could do with a bit more humour.

But otherwise, this is a solid looking draft now.

[Minskiev]

I’d remove the rainbow in ‘rainbow graffiti’ as if it was just any color of graffiti that would have punishments if removed would be funnier.

[The Free Joy State]

I’d remove the rainbow in ‘rainbow graffiti’ as if it was just any color of graffiti that would have punishments if removed would be funnier.

It's a personal opinion, but -- were I editing this (should it be picked up) -- I'd probably leave that line as-is.

[Daarwyrth]

I gave you some feedback earlier in the week on Discord, but I think there are still things that can be changed:

Declaring to be in support of something doesn't require being 'within the scope of its regional autonomy' (many councils all over make general statements all the time) but prohibiting public activity does. You can move that phrase over to the conservative counties section.

I also think this issue could do with a bit more humour.

But otherwise, this is a solid looking draft now.

New draft is up!

As per you feedback, I added in what hopefully will amount to a little bit more humour in the first two options I initially wanted a Groindr notification sound to chime from the Mayor's jacket, but then I realised that would be problematic for nations that had banned phones or internet. So I opted for the flyer approach, instead.

I’d remove the rainbow in ‘rainbow graffiti’ as if it was just any color of graffiti that would have punishments if removed would be funnier.

It's a personal opinion, but -- were I editing this (should it be picked up) -- I'd probably leave that line as-is.

As I am of like mind, I'll keep the effect line unchanged for now!

[Daarwyrth]

What can I do to improve upon this issue?

A concern I personally have is one that Sanctaria brought up earlier during a previous draft, namely:

I'm on the fence about this issue. On one hand, we have issues were homosexuality is banned, and does this really add anything fundamentally new? On the other hand, it does reflect real life policies being implemented and that's usually basis enough to form an issue around.

I don't know yet. I'm leaning towards "banning gays has been done to death", to be honest.

In its current form, does it add a potentially new angle on the LGBT community and their opponents?

[Daarwyrth]

Moving this issue draft to last call! Any last comments or feedback would be most appreciated, as I'm planning to submit this issue later next week

[Westinor]

Promptly, civil rights activists decried these counties as "Rainbow-Exclusion Zones" and have loudly voiced their opposition.

This feels weird. It's sort of unneeded, since the conflicting sides are already set up and the first option is presented by the opposition, who's view is already presented in the last sentence. If you choose to keep this, I'd suggest removing "promptly" and changing the sentence to "Civil rights activists have decried these counties(Is that a correct usage of the word "decried"?) as "rainbow-Exclusion Zones" and are calling for their dissolution."

"Calling for their dissolution" might be interpreted incorrectly, and if you choose to adapt the above you might want to change it to how you feel the action taken in this issue should be presented.

Only then will we be able to protect our most susceptible!

This still feels like it could be sharper. If you want to make it seem like the mayor is in the closet(to follow with the next sentence) you should try for that instead. However, "most susceptible" still feels strange, After all, why is the mayor focusing on the "most susceptible"?

[Option 2] "That's not enough!" barks @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, your ultra-conservative Minister for the Family, dressed in a suit as fiery red as @@HIS_1@@ rage. "These sexual deviants have been trying to dictate our ways of life for far too long - to Violet's wailing hell with them!" @@HE_1@@ exclaims, drops of @@HIS_1@@ spittle landing in your nice cup of camomile tea. "@@LEADER@@, follow the example of these fine, patriotic counties and sign their declaration yourself, in the name of @@NAME@@!"

This might be why the issue feels like all the other issues dealing with the LGBT community. You don't need to have an option specifically taking a stand against homosexuals, even if it works well here - it takes the focus away from an already well-balanced issue, which offers good points. After all, it feels like your nation has already affirmed its pro-LGBT stance, so it wouldn't make sense to have the player turn back on that instead. The first option feels like it works fine in its own context, and removing this one keeps the focus on the existence of the zones, and away from the regular "pro/anti LGBT" stances. You could even make it clearer that your nation supports the LGBT community in the validity or description, so that the issue focuses simply on the zones.

[Daarwyrth]

This feels weird. It's sort of unneeded, since the conflicting sides are already set up and the first option is presented by the opposition, who's view is already presented in the last sentence. If you choose to keep this, I'd suggest removing "promptly" and changing the sentence to "Civil rights activists have decried these counties(Is that a correct usage of the word "decried"?) as "rainbow-Exclusion Zones" and are calling for their dissolution."

Yes, it is the correct usage of 'decried'

This still feels like it could be sharper. If you want to make it seem like the mayor is in the closet(to follow with the next sentence) you should try for that instead. However, "most susceptible" still feels strange, After all, why is the mayor focusing on the "most susceptible"?

It is an argument that I have heard Polish politicians give, when justifying the LGBT-free zones in Poland. They claim that the most susceptible (the less educated, children, naive people) could easily fall for this "dangerous" ideology and thus counties have to protect their citizens - especially the most susceptible ones to various harmful ideas - by banning LGBT-related activities in public spaces.

This might be why the issue feels like all the other issues dealing with the LGBT community. You don't need to have an option specifically taking a stand against homosexuals, even if it works well here - it takes the focus away from an already well-balanced issue, which offers good points. After all, it feels like your nation has already affirmed its pro-LGBT stance, so it wouldn't make sense to have the player turn back on that instead. The first option feels like it works fine in its own context, and removing this one keeps the focus on the existence of the zones, and away from the regular "pro/anti LGBT" stances. You could even make it clearer that your nation supports the LGBT community in the validity or description, so that the issue focuses simply on the zones.

Previous advice had been to include the option to retain balance in the options, but if you say the issue feels balanced enough without it, I have absolutely no qualms about cutting it out.

And done, feedback worked into the newest draft!

[Westinor]

It is an argument that I have heard Polish politicians give, when justifying the LGBT-free zones in Poland. They claim that the most susceptible (the less educated, children, naive people) could easily fall for this "dangerous" ideology and thus counties have to protect their citizens - especially the most susceptible ones to various harmful ideas - by banning LGBT-related activities in public spaces.

Ooh, I see. I think saying "the children" instead is actually a much better focus than "the susceptible", and goes around all the weird wording issues with using such an ambiguous term.

Previous advice had been to include the option to retain balance in the options, but if you say the issue feels balanced enough without it, I have absolutely no qualms about cutting it out.

Yup, definitely up to you, but I think that's a good way of focusing more on the subject and turning away from the regular LGBT issue.

Looking good!