NationStates

Inspired by this, I decided to draft an issue reflecting the problem with junk mail.

Title: Junkvelope

Validaty: Must have a physical mailing system.

Description: Over the week, many people have been complaining about getting junk mail. As citizens have been compaining to your Minister of Mail, you are more concerned about finding a law to end this problematic spam.

Option 1: "Having some promotional leaflets on your doorstep is like eating some granola bars with ketchup," says your Minister of Mail. "I believe that junk mail should be banned entirely. Not only will it give citizens a chance to relax and contribute to the environment, but it will also STOP THE COMPLAINTS I GET!!!

Effect: even murder can't give a punishment more powerful than posting junk mail.

Option 2: "Eliminating junk mail? Are you nuts?" says @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, worker of a small business. "First of all, we should change the name to something more useful. Now, don't you see the effect? By banning junk mail, we'll go bankrupt! Come on, @@LEADER@@. Don't ban junk mail for the many businesses out there.

Effect: the amount of junk fliers in a mail box is enough to crush a car.

Option 3: "Even though junk mail can be helpful for the posters, it may not be helpful for the recievers." says @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@, a member of @@NAME@@ Ad Services. "So lets make it fair. We should ban junk mail, but instead allow anyone to buy an ad space for free. That way, both sides will be happy."

Effect: newspapers are now known as 'adpapers'.

Check for conflict with Issue #94 "Computer Users Fed Up With Heaps of Spam!", I guess?

Options 1 and 2 are missing an end quotation mark

The topic of junk mail is already covered by issue #94 "Computer Users Fed Up With Heaps of Spam!" with almost the exact same premise.

Always check whether an issue idea already exists in the issue base. You can do so by using the forum search functions in this thread.

Since this issue lists CEO’s please exclude it from socialist nations as well.
Thank you.

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:Since this issue lists CEO’s please exclude it from socialist nations as well.

Fixed to a more "appropiate" term.

Daarwyrth wrote:The topic of junk mail is already covered by issue #94 "Computer Users Fed Up With Heaps of Spam!" with almost the exact same premise.

Always check whether an issue idea already exists in the issue base. You can do so by using the forum search functions in this thread.

Since #94 is emails, I will make this physical mail.

Traden wrote:Since #94 is emails, I will make this physical mail.

So, in essence the issue would be about advertising mail? Like advertisement brochures, folders and leaflets and such? That leads to the question who is sending these, companies or someone else, and more importantly, why is this way of advertising suddenly considered junk mail?

Or, do you mean that the junk mail that is being sent is entirely different than normal advertisement brochures? I feel you should specify this, as it's unclear what constitutes in this issue as "junk mail". I find it difficult to image someone would be sending out envelopes with spammy messages to people all across the country. It's expensive (because stamps) and someone would have to be insanely committed to it to be actually willing to do this.

Traden wrote:

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:Since this issue lists CEO’s please exclude it from socialist nations as well.

Fixed to a more "appropiate" term.

Daarwyrth wrote:The topic of junk mail is already covered by issue #94 "Computer Users Fed Up With Heaps of Spam!" with almost the exact same premise.

Always check whether an issue idea already exists in the issue base. You can do so by using the forum search functions in this thread.

Since #94 is emails, I will make this physical mail.

...And this fixes nothing because spam mail is essentially a capitalist problem and is almost impossible in a planned economy. Opinion 2 still lists private pizzeria.

Where I live, the government gives out free "no, I don't want unsolicited mail" stickers that you can put on your mailbox (though this means the assumption is you're okay with junk mail unless you explicitly opt out), though in my experience they don't work very well, or at least the local lotteries seem to think they're exempt from the law. I dunno, maybe I'd suffer even more junk mail if I didn't have it.

Trotterdam wrote:Where I live, the government gives out free "no, I don't want unsolicited mail" stickers that you can put on your mailbox (though this means the assumption is you're okay with junk mail unless you explicitly opt out), though in my experience they don't work very well, or at least the local lotteries seem to think they're exempt from the law. I dunno, maybe I'd suffer even more junk mail if I didn't have it.

I know which ones you mean, they're not terribly effective, are they

Option 1 reads very badly. It reads as if citizens will be given the opportunity to relax and contribute to the environment

Trotterdam wrote:Where I live, the government gives out free "no, I don't want unsolicited mail" stickers that you can put on your mailbox (though this means the assumption is you're okay with junk mail unless you explicitly opt out), though in my experience they don't work very well, or at least the local lotteries seem to think they're exempt from the law. I dunno, maybe I'd suffer even more junk mail if I didn't have it.

Once, I had to hand out pamphlets to people's houses as part of a job. I didn't give a shit about "no junk mail" signs. I had quotas to fill with regard to the number of pamphlets I have out. Whether or not the recipient was happy to see it was not my concern. If I was told to ignore houses with "no junk mail" signs, I would have, but since I wasn't told to avoid then, I didn't. I didn't let a stupid sign hinder me from meeting my quotas and making my life more difficult. I didn't know there were places where these signs were legally binding, though. If someone shoves a pamphlet into a mail box which says "no junk mail" it's probably because it's some minimum wage person who wants to meet pamphlet distribution quotas and doesn't give a shit about how little effort it takes to Chuck it into the recycling bin

Australian rePublic wrote:Once, I had to hand out pamphlets to people's houses as part of a job. I didn't give a shit about "no junk mail" signs. I had quotas to fill with regard to the number of pamphlets I have out. Whether or not the recipient was happy to see it was not my concern. If I was told to ignore houses with "no junk mail" signs, I would have, but since I wasn't told to avoid then, I didn't. I didn't let a stupid sign hinder me from meeting my quotas and making my life more difficult. I didn't know there were places where these signs were legally binding, though. If someone shoves a pamphlet into a mail box which says "no junk mail" it's probably because it's some minimum wage person who wants to meet pamphlet distribution quotas and doesn't give a shit about how little effort it takes to Chuck it into the recycling bin

That last bit is actually a pretty good idea. Why didn't you just toss your junk mail in the trash and lie to your employers that you delivered it? Less effort and you'd be doing us all a favor.

The options seem incomplete, especially Option 2.

Trotterdam wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Once, I had to hand out pamphlets to people's houses as part of a job. I didn't give a shit about "no junk mail" signs. I had quotas to fill with regard to the number of pamphlets I have out. Whether or not the recipient was happy to see it was not my concern. If I was told to ignore houses with "no junk mail" signs, I would have, but since I wasn't told to avoid then, I didn't. I didn't let a stupid sign hinder me from meeting my quotas and making my life more difficult. I didn't know there were places where these signs were legally binding, though. If someone shoves a pamphlet into a mail box which says "no junk mail" it's probably because it's some minimum wage person who wants to meet pamphlet distribution quotas and doesn't give a shit about how little effort it takes to Chuck it into the recycling bin

That last bit is actually a pretty good idea. Why didn't you just toss your junk mail in the trash and lie to your employers that you delivered it? Less effort and you'd be doing us all a favor.

I'm self-employed. She wasn't an employer, she was a customer. Why didn't I Chuck them in the bin and lie about it?
1. Why would I betray my customers' trust? They're paying to do a job. Why would I betray their trust? It's bad for business and I have a reputation to uphold
2. It's unethical. I don't do unethical, I'm too honest for that. She paid me to do a job, so I'm bloody doing it. I'm not lying to her regardless of business' reputation. Why would I do such a dishonest thing? There may be people in the world who are that dishonest, but I an not one of them
3. Most pamphlet distribution businesses will track you with a GPS tracker if I walk the route and distribute pamphlets vs walking the route without distributing pamphlets, I'll still get tracked for my progress along the route. Further, you have a specific radius where you must distribute them. You have to remain within that radius. Heeding no junk mail signs would potentially take you out of that radius How would it then benefit me to dispose of the pamphlets instead of distributing them if I'd have to walk walk route anyway? Granted, my client didn't track me in that particular instance, but it doesn't make the previous two points any less valid.
4. Some people actually like junk mail. I do. It's good to see what the weekly specials are, or what new business is opening up

Now, I get paid ABC money to distribute XYZ pamphlets. I'd get paid the same money whether it takes me 2 hours or 10 hours. Why would I then delay my route by heeding no junk mail signs? Anyway, all of this is irrelevant to the issue. If you wish to continue this discussion, let me know, and I'll duplicate it in TET

Actually, come to think of it, maybe this is something that is incorporated into the issue. Traden, do you think I'd be able to incorporate any of what I said?

Australian rePublic wrote:2. It's unethical.

Junk mail is unethical.

It's better to lie to a bad person who wants you to bother people in the name of some stupid "quota" than to harrass innocent citizens.

Australian rePublic wrote:4. Some people actually like junk mail.

Yes. You can recognize them by the fact that they don't have a "no junk mail" sign on their mailbox.

Heck, I've even seen a mailbox plastered with "yes, I love junk mail, give me all you have!" stickers once. It's not my mailbox.

Trotterdam wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:2. It's unethical.

Junk mail is unethical.

It's better to lie to a bad person who wants you to bother people in the name of some stupid "quota" than to harrass innocent citizens.

Australian rePublic wrote:4. Some people actually like junk mail.

Yes. You can recognize them by the fact that they don't have a "no junk mail" sign on their mailbox.

Heck, I've even seen a mailbox plastered with "yes, I love junk mail, give me all you have!" stickers once. It's not my mailbox.

We're derailing the thread, so let's continue here:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=505705