NationStates

The Riches of the Game
Hello guys, this is my first ever attempt at an issue, so I appreciate constructive criticism and feedback on my writing, thanks!

Description: After coming off their 3rd straight championship loss in a row, a player of the @@CAPITAL@@ @@ANIMAL@@ has revealed that the team has been purposely losing games, in exchange for gambling profits from local gamblers. This news has stunned the nations many sports fans, and many of them are sad to see that their favorite sports hero’s were purposely fixing matches in exchange for the money.
Validity: Nations that Allow sports

Option 1: “I can’t believe that the @@CAPITAL@@ @@ANIMAL@@ players would sacrifice the integrity of the the game just for some gambling money” yells a man while burning a jersey of his favorite player in the street. “These guys say that they aren’t in it for the money, but that’s all they care about! Kick them all out, ban them all, I don’t want these players playing in a league that I watch!”
Effect: Sports Players can’t go a mile without a security guard checking their wallet

Option 2: “To be honest, I really don’t give a crap that @@RANDOMNAME@@ was fixing games.” A calm man, with a @@CAPITAL@@ @@AMINAL@@ Baseball Cap says on the street. “Sports are just entertainment anyway. Nobody gets offended that their favorite band writes the songs before they come on the stage. If the fans think it's boring, they can just find something else to watch like cat videos or @@NAME@@'s Dumbest Criminals. Why doesn't the government stay out of this and just let people vote with their wallets? In fact, why do you guys in the government care? The public just won’t care anymore if sports becomes a battleground for the gamblers, so stay out of this.”
Effect: Professional Sportsmen often see spikes in their bank balance

Option 3: “Sports? Who likes to watch that stuff. They are extremely corrupt and people get injured a ton doing them. I would much rather stay home and watch a reality TV show with my family than be screaming my head off at one of those games.” Says a lady on the street wearing an @@NATIONPLURAL@@ Got Talent “Kids don’t wanna play sports because they love the game anymore, they just wanna play for the millions that they will get if they go pro!” She Exclaims. “Why don’t we just have nobody play professional sports, and the nobody fixes any matches! Problem solved!”
Effect: Professional sports are banned

Is the capital city's team government owned? (Just a general question, I believe it's been raised before but I don't remember if there was a definitive answer).

Westinor wrote:Is the capital city's team government owned? (Just a general question, I believe it's been raised before but I don't remember if there was a definitive answer).

In 916, they are publicly owned though there is an option to privatize them.

Drasnia wrote:

Westinor wrote:Is the capital city's team government owned? (Just a general question, I believe it's been raised before but I don't remember if there was a definitive answer).

In 916, they are publicly owned though there is an option to privatize them.

Ah, that's curious. Thanks.

Great to see you here NWK.

Might I suggest reading through the guide in a little bit more detail?

So first things first, Option 1 doesn't look like it does anything. You have a man yelling at you, but it's not clear what he is advocating for. Does he want to punish them? Does he want these players to be kicked out of the competition and blacklisted? Option 2 is a bit of a "do nothing" option. All options should be proactive in some way.

Right now the draft is a bit of a skeleton. Consider how you can add humour to the issues to make it more entertaining. For example, you have "a calm man" and "old lady on the street" - these characters are lacking characterisation. A little grammatical check wouldn't hurt either.

Why is this a leader problem? If this this isn't exclusively an issue for that sport and a state body has to get involved, wouldn't that state body be law enforcement?

Electrum wrote:Great to see you here NWK.

Might I suggest reading through the guide in a little bit more detail?

So first things first, Option 1 doesn't look like it does anything. You have a man yelling at you, but it's not clear what he is advocating for. Does he want to punish them? Does he want these players to be kicked out of the competition and blacklisted?

I have made a few changes in a new draft to reflect this

Option 2 is a bit of a "do nothing" option. All options should be proactive in some way.

I see Option 2 as encouraging capitalism in a way, and giving people more economical freedom

Right now the draft is a bit of a skeleton. Consider how you can add humour to the issues to make it more entertaining. For example, you have "a calm man" and "old lady on the street" - these characters are lacking characterisation. A little grammatical check wouldn't hurt either.

In my newest draft, I explain a bit about the character in option 2, and how he is a former sports player that encourages capitalism. The character in option 3 is an older woman who wants to ban sports.

Northwest Kalactin wrote:

Option 2 is a bit of a "do nothing" option. All options should be proactive in some way.

I see Option 2 as encouraging capitalism in a way, and giving people more economical freedom

It's still not quite a proactive option, though. There's no specific action proposed by the speaker. That's what earmarks an option as "something" or "nothing". An option can even actually do nothing, provided it's proactive nothing - for instance, reaffirming a government commitment to not doing anything.

This option doesn't have a suggested course of action, merely a dude saying "yeah, this is fine". That doesn't address the issue, or make a government commitment to anything. You should always look at the dismiss button as not a mechanical, out-of-character game-mechanic, but as you saying "the current system is fine, go away" - and that's exactly what Option 2 does.

An example do-nothing option for this issue would be someone saying "the government should just butt out of betting!". That way, nothing is done, but it's proactive nothing. You could even have an option say "Well, if they're losing all their games, the public will lose faith in them and their bets will be worth nothing! See, the problem solves itself. In fact, why don't you just stay out of all this betting business? ..." To add character to such an option, you could use a betting official, who hands you a wad of cash. That's a far more interesting "do-nothing" option - the government is making a commitment to staying out of betting, the government is potentially accepting bribes, etc.

Alright, I have made some edits to option 2 to make it a bit more proactive, thank you SherpDaWerp for the suggestions, they really helped me out in improving that option.

Bump

Bump

If you're going to have an option to ban sports, it should pertain to the issue. This is about corruption in pro sports, so it seems like new firepower for the speaker. But the actual relevant points aren’t brought up, currently.

Updated

Quick note - marking the @@RANDOMNAME@@ as @@RANDOMNAME_1@@ would help distinguish the person who's fixing games/wintrading. There's a problem there though - your description mentions that several players are fixing games (implying the whole team), but only mentions a single name in the options. Is this a leftover from the last draft?

Could you explain how people know the team was match fixing? I think that's missing. No one in these arrangements would ever willingly divulge such information.

I notice you use 'care' and 'on the street' a lot in the issue in all the options. It makes it harder to distinguish between the characters, and it makes them all sound the same. And similarly, please draft your work more carefully. I see a lot of repeated words all throughout the issue like "would would" and "for the for the". And again, I'd like to reiterate my last comment on trying to add more humour/characterisation. Have a look at the spoilers thread (especially the later issues) as to how people have characterised the speakers - what is the calm man doing? What about the old lady?

Option 3 - This option can still be improved. Like what Fauxia said, you can really use the 'corruption' angle to ask the leader to ban pro sports, that money has infected pro sports and that it is no longer about the pursuit of excellence, etc. In this issue, it's more reasonable to ban pro sports instead of all sports.

Maybe there could be one player who spilled the beans because he isn't comfortable losing on purpose.

In option 2, "they are just doing their jobs, trying to make a good paycheck to support them and their families," is a VERY weak argument. They are definitely not doing their jobs. Maybe try something like, "Sports are just entertainment anyway. Nobody gets offended that their favorite band writes the songs before they come on the stage. If the fans think it's boring, they can just find something else to watch like cat videos or @@NAME@@'s Dumbest Criminals. Why doesn't the government stay out of this and just let people vote with their wallets?"

Draft has been updated

Bump

Australian rePublic wrote:Why is this a leader problem? If this this isn't exclusively an issue for that sport and a state body has to get involved, wouldn't that state body be law enforcement?

I agree with Aussie. Match-fixing is clearly an immoral activity in any reasonable country, and the question of jurisdiction is sometimes interesting (like whether it's a matter for a sport's regulatory body, or if it's a criminal matter of fraud, especially where fixing gambling outcomes is concerned.

However, your three options come down to:

1) Act like a regulatory body, even though you're the nation's leader and that's someone else's job.
2) Ignore it, because something.
3) Ban Sport! Isn't Nationstates CRAZY? Hahaha!

To me the premise as a whole just doesn't work.

There is, however, potential for interesting issues about match-fixing, but they need to operate closer to the grey areas. For example, is openly throwing a match for strategic advantage the same as match-fixing? Can gambling companies declare results null and void (and thus avoid payouts, at cost of returning all initial stakes) if its clear such a match wasn't played out properly? Should a team as a whole be penalised if one player is found to be corruptly engaging in match fixing?

There's other possible stories too, but generally I think moving closer to the grey area would be a good thing.