[PUBLISHED: #1479] Fares Fair?

by **Paffnia** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 5:03 pm

Fares Fair?
Validity: have public transit

The Issue
A recent audit of transit systems across @@NAME@@ revealed more cobwebs than coins in ticket vending machines, even though trains and buses are as crowded as ever. Worried about falling ticket revenues and rising numbers of fare evaders, your Minister of Transportation has suggested that you rethink transit fare policy, starting by going down into the subway and seeing the problem for yourself.

The Debate
1. "The trains are barely running!" laments a subway driver, leaning out the window as the train releases a worrisome hiss. "I got stuck in the tunnel for an hour yesterday because of a faulty electrical line, but my manager says there's not enough money from fares to fix it. To get transit budgets back on track, we need to raise ticket prices, high enough to cover the full cost of keeping systems in operation. Sure, some people still won't pay, but with the extra money from riders who do, this ol' train could finally get a tune-up."
Effect: poor transit riders are thrown under the bus.

2. "Forget raising fares: transit should be free!" yells a teenager who was just arrested by a police officer for attempting to jump over a fare gate. "Everyone has right to get where they need to go—rich people, poor people, people like me who, uh...left their transit pass at home. You have some tax money lying around to cover free fares, right?"
Effect: station agents beg for money on subway platforms.

3. "If you can't pay the fare, don't ride the train," declares Officer @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@ as @@HE@@ handcuffs the teen. "What we really need is more cops on the system to make sure everyone pays—I'm the only officer on the transit beat! And to stop scofflaws like this one, we've also gotta get new security cameras, impregnable fare gates, heftier fines for fare-evading, and—hey, get back here!"
Effect: commuters pass through barbed-wire gates to get on the subway.

4. "It's not about quantity of tickets but quality," sneers Mr. Ron Opoly, a tycoon who owns all four railroads in a nearby coastal resort city. "It is only proper that the upper crust should travel in manner befitting our wealth and status. My peers and I could be convinced to leave our limos if you added luxury train cars to subways, first-class reclining seats to buses, and private cabins to ferries. Those of us who like to travel in style will gladly pay more for a more refined transit experience, and our premium tickets will boost transit budgets, to boot. The rest of the teeming masses can pack into steerage like they always have."
Effect: there are only enough lifeboats for the first-class passengers on public ferries.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 6:10 pm

This issue has the right syntactical structure and grammar, it flows well, there's another Elon Musk reference, it's just that this isn't really @@LEADER@@'s problem.

Someone not paying their fare is a problem for the public transport system and/or law enforcement. Even if you happen across it, it's still not the sort of issue that @@LEADER@@ is burdened with - issues take a very top-down approach to policymaking, letting @@LEADER@@ make the big policy decisions, and letting unmentioned bureaucrats take care of enforcement and logistics.

An issue about fare evasion is probably worthy, it's just that it needs to be more high-level. Maybe heaps of people always just skip the fare, and it's preventing the public transport system from receiving crucial money it needs to function. If you can, I would also try and keep the single-inciting-event aspect - different locations and inciting events are more interesting than the classic "people complain in your office" - but you definitely need to make this more of a policy/society problem than a single someone-is-in-trouble problem.

Also, the title could be just a smidge better - you could drop the "Are" and just have "Fares Fair?", like in the saying "fair's fair".

by **Paffnia** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:57 pm

Thanks for the comments! Really helpful. I've redrafted:

SherpDaWerp wrote:An issue about fare evasion is probably worthy, it's just that it needs to be more high-level. Maybe heaps of people always just skip the fare, and it's preventing the public transport system from receiving crucial money it needs to function. If you can, I would also try and keep the single-inciting-event aspect - different locations and inciting events are more interesting than the classic "people complain in your office" - but you definitely need to make this more of a policy/society problem than a single someone-is-in-trouble problem.

I've tried to make the set-up more national in scope and edited the options to be more general policy prescriptions. Hope the third sentence of the opening doesn't impinge on player autonomy; I still wanted to have the action occur in a subway station.

SherpDaWerp wrote:Also, the title could be just a smidge better - you could drop the "Are" and just have "Fares Fair?", like in the saying "fair's fair".

Changed! Thanks for the idea!

by **Westinor** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:03 pm

Hm, if fare evaders are already being cracked down on, I don't see how its become so large of a problem that it requires your attention. Also, though it's likely intentional, the cut off on the last sentence of option 1 doesn't really give the player any reason to actually choose it, which is a problem especially since it seems to be a more central option to the issue. Overall, like the writing though!

by **Paffnia** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:11 pm

Westinor wrote:Hm, if fare evaders are already being cracked down on, I don't see how its become so large of a problem that it requires your attention.

Oh good point. Maybe I should add that the teen was unlucky enough to be nabbed by one of the few transit cops, and have the cop be clearer in a request for more back-up?

Westinor wrote:Also, though it's likely intentional, the cut off on the last sentence of option 1 doesn't really give the player any reason to actually choose it, which is a problem especially since it seems to be a more central option to the issue.

Hmm, yeah I took out a line "You have some tax money to cover that, right?" from the first draft, because it conflicts with the issue effect of having station agents beg for money. Suggestions welcomed on how to reword Option 1 while keeping the issue effect.

by **Westinor** » Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:26 pm

There's a bit of a hiccup in your description, in that transit systems falling into disrepair does not necessarily mean there isn't enough money to sustain them, or at least it isn't necessarily implied. Connecting the first two sentences with a "with" as such,

"...have been falling into disrepair, with managers of transit agencies being quick to point..."

Might help with the implicit accusation. Also, the way I'd frame the issue is by having the managers speak first, since they are the ones to lay the blame. This isn't a must, but it is more commonly used and easier to pull off. You can have the teenager be caught running off the train in the second option, or have them be caught and made an example of in the first, before being given a chance to speak in the second.

by **Daarwyrth** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:26 am

Managers of transit agencies are quick to point the finger at rising numbers of fare evaders.

Consider adding "the" between "at" and "rising", so in other words "point the finger at the rising number of fare evaders".

yells a teenager who was just pulled off a train by a squad of police for not paying @@HIS_1@@ fare

Consider changing this to "yells a fare dodging teen, as @@HE@@ is being pulled off a train by a police squad"

Struggling under an officer's grip, @@HE_1@@ protests,

This can be cut out, I believe.

Everyone has right to get where they need to go

Consider changing it to "Everyone has the right to go where they need".

as the train lets off a worrisome hiss

Swap "lets off" for "releases"

4. "I've got an idea that will make everyone happy!" exclaims a man in a monocle, as the other delayed commuters on the platform look increasingly unhappy. "You should add luxury train cars to subways, first-class reclining seats to buses, and private cabins to public ferries. Those of us who like to travel in style will gladly pay more for a more refined transit experience. The rest of the teeming masses can pack into steerage like they always have."
Effect: there are only enough lifeboats for the first-class passengers on public ferries.

I feel unsure about this option. It's not badly written or anything, but I am wondering whether it is really necessary to include this. Personally, I feel that you could cut this option out and reduce the number of total options to 4, yet the ultimate choice remains yours

Overall, I really like the sound of this issue! It needs a few polishes in some places, but it's making great progress already!

by **Australian rePublic** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:47 am

Option 2- Why is a train driver saying this? Why would they care?

by **Daarwyrth** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:54 am

Australian rePublic wrote:Option 2- Why is a train driver saying this? Why would they care?

Because if a train breaks down because it was in poor condition, they're likely to get severely injured or even killed? I imagine the driver cares about their health and well-being

by **Paffnia** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:59 pm

New draft:

Paffnia wrote:
Westinor wrote:Hm, if fare evaders are already being cracked down on, I don't see how its become so large of a problem that it requires your attention.

Oh good point. Maybe I should add that the teen was unlucky enough to be nabbed by one of the few transit cops, and have the cop be clearer in a request for more back-up?

Clarified this in Option 3 and made it a single officer in Option 2.

Paffnia wrote:
Westinor wrote:Also, though it's likely intentional, the cut off on the last sentence of option 1 doesn't really give the player any reason to actually choose it, which is a problem especially since it seems to be a more central option to the issue.

Hmm, yeah I took out a line "You have some tax money to cover that, right?" from the first draft, because it conflicts with the issue effect of having station agents beg for money. Suggestions welcomed on how to reword Option 1 while keeping the issue effect.

I restored the line about taxes to pay for it, though now it may clash with the issue effect.

Westinor wrote:There's a bit of a hiccup in your description, in that transit systems falling into disrepair does not necessarily mean there isn't enough money to sustain them, or at least it isn't necessarily implied. Connecting the first two sentences with a "with" as such,

"...have been falling into disrepair, with managers of transit agencies being quick to point..."

Might help with the implicit accusation.

Made this explicit now.

Westinor wrote:Also, the way I'd frame the issue is by having the managers speak first, since they are the ones to lay the blame. This isn't a must, but it is more commonly used and easier to pull off. You can have the teenager be caught running off the train in the second option, or have them be caught and made an example of in the first, before being given a chance to speak in the second.

Reordered. I changed the intro to more general "transit workers" so the driver could offer the first option. But now is Option 1 too repetitive with the opening?

Daarwyrth wrote:
Managers of transit agencies are quick to point the finger at rising numbers of fare evaders.

Consider adding "the" between "at" and "rising", so in other words "point the finger at the rising number of fare evaders".

Done.

Daarwyrth wrote:
yells a teenager who was just pulled off a train by a squad of police for not paying @@HIS_1@@ fare

Consider changing this to "yells a fare dodging teen, as @@HE@@ is being pulled off a train by a police squad"

Done.

Daarwyrth wrote:
Struggling under an officer's grip, @@HE_1@@ protests,

This can be cut out, I believe.

Cut.

Daarwyrth wrote:
as the train lets off a worrisome hiss

Swap "lets off" for "releases"

Done.

Two questions when I was editing:
- Is "The Free Rider Problem" a better issue title?
- Is the last issue effect, "vacuum tube pods carry passengers twice as fast as subways for ten times the price," too expected/to-the-point? Would something like "vacuum tube transit costs a figurative arm and a literal leg" be too much? Other suggestions welcomed.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:21 pm

Paffnia wrote:New draft:

Nice. The new premise is a lot more national in scope. If you're still worried about player autonomy in the last sentence, you can replace "you've decided" with "your aides have scheduled", although personally it's quite minor a problem anyway.

Paffnia wrote:Two questions when I was editing:
- Is "The Free Rider Problem" a better issue title?
- Is the last issue effect, "vacuum tube pods carry passengers twice as fast as subways for ten times the price," too expected/to-the-point? Would something like "vacuum tube transit costs a figurative arm and a literal leg" be too much? Other suggestions welcomed.

Titles tend to be best when they're interesting/referential/funny - if there's a reference or joke in "The Free Rider Problem" I'm not seeing it.

The last effect could be a bit better, yes. Your version is good, but I would suggest "the new hyperloop really sucks".

by **Ko-oren** » Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:42 am

"capitol" in the description should be "capital".
"people like me who,...uh...left their transit pass at home" should be "people like me who, uh... left their transit pass at home"

As noted, the 5th effect line can use some work.

by **Drasnia** » Tue Jul 28, 2020 10:37 am

SherpDaWerp wrote:Titles tend to be best when they're interesting/referential/funny - if there's a reference or joke in "The Free Rider Problem" I'm not seeing it.

It's an economics thing. My opinion is that it would be too on the nose and obvious to be funny or clever. I actually like Fares Fair?

Paffnia wrote:Across @@NAME@@, public transit systems are falling into disrepair. Lacking the budget to do crucial maintenance, many transit workers are quick to blame the rising number of fare evaders.

I think this is one of those instances where an inciting incident might be better than an observation. Maybe there was a crash due to poor maintenance, or there was a notable breakdown that caused a massive traffic jam. Use your imagination and I think it would make it go from a good premise to a great premise.

Paffnia wrote:In fact, fares need to be high enough to cover the full cost of keeping systems in operation."

So this comes across a little awkward to me. I think he's supposed to be advocating for raising ticket prices but he isn't as written. He's more just state fact/opinion without taking an active position in the matter.

Paffnia wrote:4. "I've got an idea that will make everyone happy!" exclaims a man in a monocle, as the other delayed commuters on the platform look increasingly unhappy. "You should add luxury train cars to subways, first-class reclining seats to buses, and private cabins to public ferries. Those of us who like to travel in style will gladly pay more for a more refined transit experience. The rest of the teeming masses can pack into steerage like they always have."

I'm not really digging this option. The way he speaks doesn't make me feel like he's actually some rich ponce - at least in the beginning (the end gets a bit better). He need to be more aloof and flowery.

by **Daarwyrth** » Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:30 am

Lacking the budget to do crucial maintenance,

I feel "to perform crucial maintenance" would sound better.

Ko-oren wrote:"capitol" in the description should be "capital".

Not if the building is referenced, as in the Capitol building. From the context of the sentence, I read it as the building, not the capital city itself.

Effect: vacuum tube pods carry passengers twice as fast as subways for ten times the price.

Maybe you could turn this effect line into something like "poor people are rarely known for their punctuality these days"?

by **Australian rePublic** » Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:02 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:Option 2- Why is a train driver saying this? Why would they care?

Because if a train breaks down because it was in poor condition, they're likely to get severely injured or even killed? I imagine the driver cares about their health and well-being

Yea, but why does the driver care about who pays for the service?

by **Westinor** » Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:06 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:
Daarwyrth wrote:
Because if a train breaks down because it was in poor condition, they're likely to get severely injured or even killed? I imagine the driver cares about their health and well-being

Yea, but why does the driver care about who pays for the service?

Their paycheck comes from the fares paid to ride the transport, no? If no one pays for the service, inevitably it affects how much they are paid. Not to mention just the quality of work.

by **Drasnia** » Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:07 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:
Daarwyrth wrote:
Because if a train breaks down because it was in poor condition, they're likely to get severely injured or even killed? I imagine the driver cares about their health and well-being

Yea, but why does the driver care about who pays for the service?

No Fare = No Train. No Train = No Job. No Job = Much Sad.

EDIT: Ninja'd by West.

by **Paffnia** » Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:52 pm

New draft:

Drasnia wrote:
Paffnia wrote:Across @@NAME@@, public transit systems are falling into disrepair. Lacking the budget to do crucial maintenance, many transit workers are quick to blame the rising number of fare evaders.

I think this is one of those instances where an inciting incident might be better than an observation. Maybe there was a crash due to poor maintenance, or there was a notable breakdown that caused a massive traffic jam. Use your imagination and I think it would make it go from a good premise to a great premise.

I've added a new incident in the intro that I think refocuses the issue on fare evasion first, and then maintenance as a consequence.

SherpDaWerp wrote:If you're still worried about player autonomy in the last sentence, you can replace "you've decided" with "your aides have scheduled", although personally it's quite minor a problem anyway.

Done something like this, though now I'm uncertain if it's worth introducing the Minister of Transit without having them offer one of the options.

Drasnia wrote:
Paffnia wrote:In fact, fares need to be high enough to cover the full cost of keeping systems in operation."

So this comes across a little awkward to me. I think he's supposed to be advocating for raising ticket prices but he isn't as written. He's more just state fact/opinion without taking an active position in the matter.

I've given more reason for the train driver to care and added a clearer ask.

Drasnia wrote:
Paffnia wrote:4. "I've got an idea that will make everyone happy!" exclaims a man in a monocle, as the other delayed commuters on the platform look increasingly unhappy. "You should add luxury train cars to subways, first-class reclining seats to buses, and private cabins to public ferries. Those of us who like to travel in style will gladly pay more for a more refined transit experience. The rest of the teeming masses can pack into steerage like they always have."

I'm not really digging this option. The way he speaks doesn't make me feel like he's actually some rich ponce - at least in the beginning (the end gets a bit better). He need to be more aloof and flowery.

Added a Monopoly reference and made the language more haughty.

SherpDaWerp wrote:The last effect could be a bit better, yes. Your version is good, but I would suggest "the new hyperloop really sucks".

Changed it based on this suggestion.

by **Australian rePublic** » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:23 pm

Westinor wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:Yea, but why does the driver care about who pays for the service?

Their paycheck comes from the fares paid to ride the transport, no? If no one pays for the service, inevitably it affects how much they are paid. Not to mention just the quality of work.

Ok. Sorry, I meant to say this. Why would the driver care whether it's paid for by the government or by commuters or both?

by **Westinor** » Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:52 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:
Westinor wrote:
Their paycheck comes from the fares paid to ride the transport, no? If no one pays for the service, inevitably it affects how much they are paid. Not to mention just the quality of work.

Ok. Sorry, I meant to say this. Why would the driver care whether it's paid for by the government or by commuters or both?

Again, they likely don't care where the money comes from, so long as they get it. If the commuters don't pay, then there's no funding. The government isn't necessarily going to pay for every fix-up to a failing public transport system, which likely measures its own success by - guess what - profit from fares. Also, the government clearly isn't paying for the fix-ups right now, and so it'd be their obligation to ask you for a solution to that, in this case raising fares.

by **Daarwyrth** » Thu Jul 30, 2020 7:26 am

Westinor wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:Ok. Sorry, I meant to say this. Why would the driver care whether it's paid for by the government or by commuters or both?

Again, they likely don't care where the money comes from, so long as they get it. If the commuters don't pay, then there's no funding. The government isn't necessarily going to pay for every fix-up to a failing public transport system, which likely measures its own success by - guess what - profit from fares. Also, the government clearly isn't paying for the fix-ups right now, and so it'd be their obligation to ask you for a solution to that, in this case raising fares.

I agree. I see no problem with the fact that the driver is the speaker of that option.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:34 pm

Paffnia wrote:and in one case parkouring over the fare gates

This did hurt my soul a little bit. There's no official single-word verb form of "parkour", and the most-accepted variant I've heard would be "tracing" (given that a practitioner of parkour is called a "traceur" or "traceuse", from the French "tracer", meaning "to trace"), although even that isn't in incredibly common usage.

I would just say "vaulting over the fare gates", myself.

by **Paffnia** » Fri Jul 31, 2020 9:18 am

SherpDaWerp wrote:
Paffnia wrote:and in one case parkouring over the fare gates
This did hurt my soul a little bit. There's no official single-word verb form of "parkour", and the most-accepted variant I've heard would be "tracing" (given that a practitioner of parkour is called a "traceur" or "traceuse", from the French "tracer", meaning "to trace"), although even that isn't in incredibly common usage.

I would just say "vaulting over the fare gates", myself.

Changed to "pole-vaulting."

Also, the language of Option 1 since the latest redraft should make it more reasonable that the driver says it; the driver now has more stake in the matter.

by **Minskiev** » Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:21 pm

I like this issue, but option 3 reads ‘we need security camera, we need taller, we need stronger fare gates’, even though of course taller is just an adjective of fare gates. Not to mention the possibility that these new gates are still skippable.

Perhaps change that to ‘unskippable fare gates’, and I think it’ll look good.

by **Paffnia** » Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:00 am

Minskiev wrote:I like this issue, but option 3 reads ‘we need security camera, we need taller, we need stronger fare gates’, even though of course taller is just an adjective of fare gates. Not to mention the possibility that these new gates are still skippable.

Perhaps change that to ‘unskippable fare gates’, and I think it’ll look good.

Changed to "impregnable."

[PUBLISHED: #1479] Fares Fair?

[PUBLISHED: #1479] Fares Fair?

Who is online