Page 1 of 1

[DRAFT] A Fortress Too Far ?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 11:43 pm
by The Disorder
TITLE
A Fortress Too Far ?

VALIDITY
Invalid for nations that do not have high weaponization.
Invalid for nations that do not have medium (or better) scientific advancement.
Invalid for nations that do not have police.

DESCRIPTION
@@DEMONYM@@ police raided a suspected international terrorist cell in the suburbs, under shoot-to-kill orders – only to discover that they had the wrong address. The homeowner, however, had an autonomous motion-tracking security system installed - a lethal one which slaughtered six officers before they could retreat from the premises. Among the public outrage, many are wondering if @@NAME@@ is too heavily weaponized, while others are wondering if the police should have handled the matter differently.

OPTION 1
“These private fortresses are literal deathtraps!” moans police chief @@RANDOMNAME@@. “My guys were in full body armor, but they didn’t stand a chance against those claymores, antitank turrets, and flamethrower-armed drones! How are we supposed to do our jobs, when there is a grenade launcher behind every door? Ban these military-grade weapons from civilian hands, confiscate them all!”

EFFECT 1
police carry out dangerous door-to-door disarmament of militarized home fortresses

OPTION 2
“Hey, I did nothing wrong,” yawns homeowner @@RANDOMNAME@@, the sound sleeper and firearm-enthusiast at the center of the national debate. “I was just taking a nap, minding my own business, when these gun-toting loonies tried to beat down my front door and kill me. A uniform shouldn’t give them that right,” he states as he rolls his eyes, lazily reloading antitank shells into an astonishingly huge 100-round magazine. “The right to self-defense should be enshrined in law right away, free from exclusions or limitations.”

EFFECT 2
police are forced to refrain from any sudden moves when near citizens or private property

OPTION 3
“The real issue is that SWAT teams under shoot-to-kill orders can’t figure out how to use GargleMaps,” @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister of Policing replies. “We need more funding. We'll put those @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ to use in training, and equip our peace officers with the very best GPS systems available. We can alter procedures so that navigational errors no longer cause national embarrassments.”

EFFECT 3
police that fail to enable turn-by-turn navigation are placed on administrative leave

OPTION 4
"That's not enough! We need to ban the entire institution of policing!” proclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, while spray-painting an anarchy symbol on your office door. “Crime and terrorism are incosequential matters, compared to the threat of state-sanctioned death squads roaming our streets! No one is made 'safer' by these modern gestapo!”

EFFECT 4
vigilantism has suddenly become mainstream

OPTION 5
“You should enstate mandatory universal armament for all @@DEMONYM@@ citizens,” suggest @@RANDOMNAME@@, leader of the National Chaingun Association. “Police can still serve as an investigative entity - but seriously, police have never been able to respond to crime in real-time. Only an armed citizenry can do that. I never go anywhere without my Destructotron-99000 XX, and neither should anyone else!”

EFFECT 5
children are sent home if they forget to bring their automatic weapons to school

OPTION 6
“Oh my god, NO!” cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, noted peace activist and president of the ‘Guns are Evil’ movement. “You need to do the opposite! Ban weapons! Ban them all! Make @@NAME@@ a gun-free, knife-free, and spear-free zone right away! We have had enough of this senseless violence!”

EFFECT 6
a citizenry armed with grenade launchers is shocked to discover that steak knives are now illegal


My first attempt at writing an issue!

EDIT: Options 4 and 5 modified.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:52 am
by Lelscrep
A few basic things, such as "@@DEMONYM@@ police" instead of "@@NAME@@ police". Additionally, make sure whenever you type "and" in an issue you're spelling it out, instead of using "&". Finally, don't capitalize the start of effect lines unless the word is a proper noun.

I think there are too many options - part of playing NS is compromise when choosing issues in order to achieve a goal for your nation. I don't see many people who'd want to completely disband counter-terrorist operations wanting the police either, so my suggestion is maybe merge options four and five into one. Also, there are nations who will already have the Gun Ownership policy (mandated firearms), and nations who have chosen to abolish law enforcement in previous issues.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 2:08 am
by Trotterdam
It seems very similar to #1363, except for the "automated defense system" part, which is frankly unrealistic.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:09 pm
by The Disorder
Lelscrep wrote:A few basic things, such as "@@DEMONYM@@ police" instead of "@@NAME@@ police". Additionally, make sure whenever you type "and" in an issue you're spelling it out, instead of using "&". Finally, don't capitalize the start of effect lines unless the word is a proper noun.


Fixed! Thank you so much for these helpful tips.

Lelscrep wrote:I think there are too many options - part of playing NS is compromise when choosing issues in order to achieve a goal for your nation.


Personally, I prefer issues with a healthy & diverse array of options. Three-option issues rarely contain anything I would like, and two-option issues usually get a 'dismiss' from me.

Lelscrep wrote:I don't see many people who'd want to completely disband counter-terrorist operations wanting the police either, so my suggestion is maybe merge options four and five into one.


Good point. I merged the 'disband police' and 'disband counter-terrorism ops' into the same issue - and also separated 'universal armament' from the 'disband police' option. I suppose you would need police to enforce universal armament, XD.

Lelscrep wrote:Also, there are nations who will already have the Gun Ownership policy (mandated firearms), and nations who have chosen to abolish law enforcement in previous issues.


Fixed, issue won't be valid for nations that have no law enforcement.

Trotterdam wrote:It seems very similar to #1363, except for the "automated defense system" part, which is frankly unrealistic.


I've received several issues that are very similar to one another - and I've never seen that particular issue before. The two issues are not mutually exclusive either - a nation could forseeably get both of them. And there seems to be a statistical lack of issues pertaining to weaponization.

I did add a few details to increase the relative plausibility of automated home defenses, and decreased the body count in the description. I also added the requirement for a nation to have moderately high scientific advancement. The issue, after all, wouldn't really be applicable to a primitive nation with high weaponization. It would require at least modern robotics. Still, motion-tracking weapons are pretty down-to-earth compared to policies like vat-grown infants & AI personhood.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 7:07 pm
by Australian rePublic
Can we assume that nation has shoot to kill laws?