NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Affirmation Bias

A place to spoil daily issues for those who haven't had them yet, snigger at typos, and discuss ideas for new ones.
User avatar
Jutsa
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5118
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

[DRAFT] Affirmation Bias

Postby Jutsa » Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:27 am

My first draft in a while - and, yes, I'm aware I have a dozen other drafts on the forum. Been without a computer for a while and also without much time. :P

This might very well be my last new draft for a little while, but I'd like to at least finish up the ones I've got up here. Though, last time I thought this, I went on a writing spree, so we'll see what happens. :lol:

I'm also aware this will need a lot of work (my rust is showing); I'd just like some feedback on the general premise and layout first. :)
Also Big Max is meant to be Bigtopia / Maxtopia in case you're wondering.

Title: Affirmation Bias
The Issue: Big Max Inc, a prominent minority-run business applauded for its diversity and help in giving well-paying jobs to the disadvantaged, has had a big hit in its reputation after several well-to-do were denied jobs on the grounds of being too @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@.
Validity: Capitalist; High Inclusivity

Validity: No Affirmative Action
Option 1a: "This is blatant discrimination against the majority!" cries laid off bank teller @@RANDOMNAME@@, having been denied a managers' position at Big Max. "And they call ME a bigot! If I - I mean, businesses - can't discriminate against minorities, then those commies shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against us."

Validity: Affirmative Action
Option 1b: "This is blatant discrimination against the majority!" cries laid off bank teller @@RANDOMNAME@@, having been denied a managers' position at Big Max. "And they call ME a bigot! If I - I mean, businesses - have to put up with a minority quota, then maybe it's time we have a complementary majority quota."

Option 2: "It is our duty as a minority-oriented business to cater to our fellow minorities," drones @@RANDOMNAME@@, the big cheese of Big Max. "Even with all of the protective laws we have, we're still faced with more subtle workplace bias from the majority. If anything, you should let us openly advertise our selection process, and perhaps allow us to chose what customers we have as well."

Validity: No Affirmative Action
Option 3a: "There's a compromise to be made, here," says your Minister of Meeting in the Middle, who you're almost certain is your Minister of Compromises in a different suit. "What if we instituted a quota for a minority workforce that all businesses have to meet? That way minorities are represented, and Big Max can open up to majorities. Sounds like the affirmative answer if you ask me."

Validity: Affirmative Action
Option 3b: "There's a compromise to be made, here," says your Minister of Meeting in the Middle, who you're almost certain is your Minister of Compromises in a different suit. "What if we discarded the practice of affirmative action? That way Big Max can continue to support minorities, while other companies can support the rest of @@NAME@@. A freer market with no discriminative quotas - sure sounds like the right answer if you ask me."
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9176
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:56 am

You're probably aware of this, but you're missing effect lines.

Jutsa wrote:laid off bank teller @@RANDOMNAME@@, having been denied a managers' position at Big Max
This should be "laid-off" and "manager's".

Jutsa wrote:your Minister of Meeting in the Middle, who you're almost certain is your Minister of Compromises in a different suit
There's no joke here. Those are literally just different words for the same thing. You're not doing anything clever by pointing out the relationship between them.

Jutsa wrote:"What if we instituted a quota for a minority workforce that all businesses have to meet? That way minorities are represented, and Big Max can open up to majorities. Sounds like the affirmative answer if you ask me."
This features no way to guarantee that, if you do this, Big Max will actually behave as expected. Indeed, the structure of the rest of the issue (and the fact it can still be assigned to nations with affirmative action) suggests that they won't.

By contrast, the other version of this option does sound like it would "work", not necessarily in the sense of being a good idea, but in the sense of probably having the outcome the suggester claims it will.

User avatar
Dominioan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1039
Founded: Dec 10, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Dominioan » Sun Dec 13, 2020 4:45 pm

You have got to be kidding me, I just made a draft about affirmative action! Ah well :p
Centre-Left something
Obee doo
Overview
One year on this site now...help me
Heres this

Direct rule from Oklahoma City

Social Views: Stop being meanies to people =(
Economic Views: *slightly tilts head to the left*

Cool person
Sun is shining in the sky, there ain't a cloud in sight

Former Founder of Bluecrown Keep, disbanded region
BOOMER SOONER

User avatar
Trotterdam
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9176
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Sun Dec 13, 2020 5:24 pm

Dominioan wrote:You have got to be kidding me, I just made a draft about affirmative action! Ah well
I think even if they're both about affirmative action, the subjects of the drafts are sufficiently different for overlap to not be a concern.

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 22291
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Anarchy

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:43 pm

A better compromise in option 3 would be to require affirmative action laws to also stipulate that the majority ethnicity is represented by the same minimum percentage.

An effect line about "token majorities" then becomes possible. :)
editors like linguistic ambiguity more than most people

User avatar
Australian rePublic
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21790
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Australian rePublic » Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:28 pm

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:A better compromise in option 3 would be to require affirmative action laws to also stipulate that the majority ethnicity is represented by the same minimum percentage.

An effect line about "token majorities" then becomes possible. :)

And then when small businesses who hire family members, or even don't have enough employees to meet quotas to begin with can get into strife (for example, what happens to a small business with 10 employees with 7 black employees and 3 white employees when rations require 60% POC vs 40% white people) and could even lead to discussions about who qualifies as "white" (do Jews, Greeks, Italians, Arabs and Hispanics count as white?). This could lead down a very interesting rabbit hole. Very interesting indeed
If you're against political parties who support the CCP, then vote against the Australian Labor Party
The only reason why countries bid to host the games is for tourism. This is why countries plan to boycott the Beijing winter Olympics. By cancelling the 2020/21 Olympics, Japan is defacto recieving the same punishment as China, but Japan did nothing wrong since World War II
Until if and when the Spanish language evolves to allow for gender-neutrality to not be impossible, (which will take at least centuries), the concept of "LatinX" is completely ridiculous
From Greek Ansestry Orthodox Christian
18 Published Issues and 1 WA Resolution List of NPC Nations
In-Character posts made by this fictious account do not reflect the actions of any real world government


Return to Got Issues?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chernaya Zvezda

Advertisement

Remove ads