[SUBMITTED]Spare a Couple Endorsements, @@LEADER@@?

by **Wischland** » Mon Aug 24, 2020 5:24 pm

This has been submitted. Thank you all for your help!

Validity: Must have elections
Spare a Couple Endorsements, @@LEADER@@?
The Issue:
A critical legislative seat is up for grabs in an upcoming election, with several candidates running increasingly intense campaigns in an effort to claim the spot. In order to boost their voter appeal, these candidates have approached you asking for a public endorsement.

The Debate:
1. "@@LEADER@@, my old friend!" exclaims incumbent @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, as @@HE@@ presses your hand for an uncomfortably long time. "You'll throw your support behind me, right? I've been a loyal member of the party for years now, and you can count on me to bring in the voters like I always have. I've always supported you and your policies, so surely you won't mind making an appearance at a few of my rallies, to help me increase my standing in the polls?"

Effect: the nation has adopted 'same old, same old' as its de facto motto

2. "Don't listen to that geezer!" interjects @@RANDOMNAME@@, a radical independent. "@@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ brings nothing new to the table. I know I may have criticized some of your more moderate stances, but if you endorse me, then I can bring in some fresh ideas to completely revitalize the government. Be bold and dream big! Together we can change @@NAME@@ for the better!" @@HE@@ concludes, with a grand flourish and camera-ready smile.

Effect: the elderly reminisce on the time when government officials were able to compromise

3. "Really? Those are your party's candidates?" sneers opposition party candidate @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Face it @@LEADER@@, your party just doesn't have the voter appeal to win this election. So instead of tearing one another to bits with electoral in-fighting, maybe you should try reaching across the aisle and giving me an endorsement. Sure, I may have disparaged every single one of your policies, but what's in the past is in the past! This election could be the perfect opportunity to increase my party's power…er, I mean, begin a new era of compromise.

Effect: cries of 'Et Tu, @@LEADER@@?' can frequently be heard coming from party headquarters

4. "Endorsing all those career politicians is a bad bet," interrupts wealthy ex-CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@, who has thus far made up for @@HIS@@ lack of political experience by egregious amounts of campaign spending. "I may be new to the political scene, but I'm still the one you should support. I'll be sure to properly represent my business investments—I mean, the people, when I win. Your backing would be a big help, and I'm sure I can make it worth your while." @@HE@@ winks, surreptitiously sliding an envelope flush with cash across your desk.
Validity: Must have high corruption

Effect: the legislature doubles as a yacht club

5. "You can't possibly be considering this kind of quid pro quo!" accuses watchdog @@RANDOMNAME@@, who isn't running for office, but has been listening intently from outside your door. "Exchanging any kind of favoritism in return for party loyalty is blatant corruption. Plus, you're unfairly influencing voters, threatening our political freedoms! The voters need to choose their representative, not you. For the sake of this nation's integrity, you must remain neutral in any and all elections.

Effect: The reelection campaign for @@LEADER@@ has been halted for fear of influencing voters

2nd Draft

1st Draft

by **Flying Eagles** » Mon Aug 24, 2020 6:08 pm

I think you meant clinch, not cinch, in the issue section

by **Megistos** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 4:56 am

It looks good. Good job on your fifth issue :clap:

by **Daarwyrth** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 6:02 am

Megistos wrote:It looks good. Good job on your first issue

While I agree on the "It looks good" part, if I am not mistaken this is Wischland's third draft I have seen on these forums

cinch

I believe it would be better to simply use 'claim' here, as I admit it's the first time I see the word 'cinch'

as @@HE@@ presses your hand for an uncomfortably long time

Omg, I feel this, I hate it when people do this xD great that you included it into the issue!

so I'm sure you won't mind coming to a few of my rallies to help me out in the polls.

Consider rephrasing this to "surely you won't mind making an appearance at a few of my rallies, to help me increase my standing in the polls?"

"same old, same old" has become the nation's de facto motto

I believe that if you make a quote in the effect lines, it should have single quotation marks. Also, if I am not mistaken an effect line cannot begin with a quote, because I read someone, somewhere saying that it would conflict with how effect lines track capitalization and such. I'd suggest rephrasing the sentence so the quote appears at the end, not at the start.

3. Really?

Small nitpick but you missed a quotation mark before "Really?"

Effect: cries of "Et Tu, @@LEADER@@?" can frequently be heard coming from party headquarters

Oh, I love this effect line! Just the same remark as before, that effect lines should have singular quotation marks.

6. "I've said it before, and I'll say it again," chimes in your bored-looking brother. "It would be so much easier if you just got rid of elections entirely. Then you wouldn't have to worry about endorsements or campaigns or who voters like the best. You could just choose whoever you want and be done with it. It'd be much quicker, and you wouldn't have to deal with any opposition. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Effect: candidates spend the entire campaign cycle sucking up to @@LEADER@@

While this option isn't too obtrusive, I do feel as if every issue on elections has a line that outlaws elections and make @@LEADER@@ an autocrat. If this was the fifth option of the issue draft, I would have remained silent on this, but seeing as your issue has 6 options in its current form, I'd like to suggest to you to perhaps cut this one out. That way it'll streamline the whole a little bit. But of course, the ultimate decision remains with you! If you feel this option should stay in, you should do what you feel is right. But if you decide to keep this option in, I would suggest shortening the other option line texts by quite a bit, as 6 options for an issue is a lot.

by **Megistos** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 6:40 am

Daarwyrth wrote:
Megistos wrote:It looks good. Good job on your first issue

While I agree on the "It looks good" part, if I am not mistaken this is Wischland's third draft I have seen on these forums

-snip-

He posted in 10000 Islands with his first draft. Or maybe it was his first submitted issue.

by **Wischland** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 6:25 pm

Flying Eagles wrote:I think you meant clinch, not cinch, in the issue section

Daarwyrth wrote:I believe it would be better to simply use 'claim' here, as I admit it's the first time I see the word 'cinch'

I use cinch all the time. :blink:

Guess that's just me though! I'll change it to claim.

Daarwyrth wrote:Consider rephrasing this to "surely you won't mind making an appearance at a few of my rallies, to help me increase my standing in the polls?"

Yes, this sounds much better than what I had. Thank you!

Daarwyrth wrote:I believe that if you make a quote...

I didn't know. Thanks for the tip!

Daarwyrth wrote:you missed a quotation mark before "Really?"

Fixed. Your attention to detail is appreciated!

Daarwyrth wrote:
Effect: cries of "Et Tu, @@LEADER@@?" can frequently be heard coming from party headquarters

Oh, I love this effect line! Just the same remark as before, that effect lines should have singular quotation marks.

Normally I just respond to all compliments with a general thank you, but I wanted to single this one out. I spent a solid half hour lying on my floor trying to think of an effect line for this option, so I'm really glad you like it! :lol:

I fixed the quotation marks!

Daarwyrth wrote:While this option isn't too obtrusive...

You make a fair point. I actually added the 4th option in right before posting the draft here (I was struck with sudden inspiration from seeing Mike Bloomberg mentioned online), so it ended up longer than intended. I'll take it out to shorten things up!

Megistos wrote:He posted in 10000 Islands with his first draft. Or maybe it was his first submitted issue.

First things first, thank you for the compliment! Now to clear up confusion, this is actually my 5th issue draft. However, the 1st one had major overlap with existing issues and was abandoned very quickly, so it barely counts.

I have three other drafts that I've submitted. None have been published as of yet, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed! Also, it's not a big deal or anything, but I use she/her pronouns.

by **Australian rePublic** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 7:20 pm

Several candidates? From the same party?

by **Wischland** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:39 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:Several candidates? From the same party?

Sure, why not? Perhaps the election is still in the primary stage, or the nation doesn't have primaries, so it's possible for multiple candidates from the same party to run. I think it's not too outlandish for there to be several candidates from Leader's party.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Aug 26, 2020 4:48 am

I'm with Aussie in that it sounds alien to me, probably because of the political systems we live under.

In the UK at least, you'd never have more than one candidate from the same party competing for the same constituency. And any official positions (such as those in the Cabinet) are appointed by the Prime Minister, rather than voted on.

And while I've heard of the US primaries, I always thought they were to elect a leader to stand behind at election, a bit like the party leadership contests we have in the UK. I'm not sure why any active leader would be offering an endorsement in this situation, as they'd be endorsing their own replacement!

Maybe the concepts here are more familiar to Americans, but for the rest of the world, perhaps you could expand the opening description to explain why politicians from the same party are competing against each other in an election.

by **Wischland** » Wed Aug 26, 2020 7:26 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:snip

Ok, thanks for the explanation, I can see where the confusion lies. In the US it's pretty common for legislative seats to also have party primaries, especially in highly contested districts, or districts that are so consistently liberal or conservative that the election is really between members of the same party rather than a Democrat and a Republican. Since the election isn't for the executive position, the president or governor is not endorsing their replacement, but rather someone they would want to work with in the legislature.

But, since this seems to be pretty specific to the US, I'll add in that the radical party member is running as an independent. Hopefully that'll clear up the confusion!

by **The Supreme Vatican Caliphate** » Wed Aug 26, 2020 4:25 pm

Doesn’t this assume that @@LEADER@@‘s moderate?

by **Wischland** » Wed Aug 26, 2020 7:32 pm

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:Doesn’t this assume that @@LEADER@@‘s moderate?

I'm glad you brought this up! The way I see it, no. Leader could be very radical, but that doesn't stop someone else from being more radical than that. For example, many people here in the US consider someone with socialist ideas to be a radical. But, just because that's seen as radical, wouldn't stop a communist from being seen as more radical. Nor would the presence of a communist make the socialist moderate. Hopefully, my explanation makes sense.

by **The Supreme Vatican Caliphate** » Thu Aug 27, 2020 2:09 pm

Well they seem to want to bring in new ideas. What if Leader is ultra-radically progressive?

by **Wischland** » Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:08 pm

The Supreme Vatican Caliphate wrote:Well they seem to want to bring in new ideas. What if Leader is ultra-radically progressive?

Then the candidate would be ultra-super-radically progressive. The point is that Leader can be as radical as they want, but the candidate is even more radical than that. I don't think the option mandates Leader's political ideology, as it only describes the ideology of the candidate, which is something Leader can't control. I don't see it as a disruption of player autonomy, though if the general consensus suggests otherwise, I'll change it up.

by **Fauxia** » Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:51 pm

Option 4 could cause problems. Some nations (heavily) restrict political donations.

by **Wischland** » Sat Aug 29, 2020 3:18 pm

Fauxia wrote:Option 4 could cause problems. Some nations (heavily) restrict political donations.

Perhaps a validity requirement of high corruption? Since the candidate is pretty much bribing Leader to endorse them?

by **Wischland** » Thu Sep 03, 2020 5:43 pm

What goes bump in the night? This thread!

by **Wischland** » Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:48 pm

Bumping this once more. I'll likely put out a last call shortly if no one else has anything to say!

by **Wischland** » Fri Sep 11, 2020 9:58 am

Alrighty! Last call for any and all comments!

by **Honeydewistania** » Sat Sep 12, 2020 7:37 pm

a radical member of your party that is running as an independent

Hmm... what party would allow one of their members to run against a fellow party member, and potentially lose the seat?

by **Wischland** » Sat Sep 12, 2020 10:54 pm

Honeydewistania wrote:Hmm... what party would allow one of their members to run against a fellow party member, and potentially lose the seat?

Well, when I wrote it, it made sense in my head.

This isn't the first time this has been brought up, so I'll edit out that the candidate is part of Leader's party. Hopefully that'll clear up any confusion!

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:36 am

Well... What sort of party leader would endorse a candidate who is running against his own party candidate? That just makes no sense.

[SUBMITTED]Spare a Couple Endorsements, @@LEADER@@?

[SUBMITTED]Spare a Couple Endorsements, @@LEADER@@?

Who is online