[SUBMITTED] Dudes and Nudes

by **Drew Durrnil** » Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:40 pm

this issue removes the innocence of anyone who might receive it

[title]Dudes and Nudes
[description]It has been brought to your attention that porn websites are being illegally created on the dark web to circumvent @@NAME@@'s strict policies on porn and immorality. A meeting with many of your trusted ministers and supervisors has been scheduled to address this issue.
[validity]Must have the Prudism policy

[option]"It's very clear that porn sites are an important component of the porn industry, which in turn helps boost civilian happiness and our economy.", states your Minister of Entertainment, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "We must ignore the limitations of modesty and humility to give the citizens of our @@TYPE@@ what they really want!"
[effect]there is a porn site in almost every corner of the @@DENONYMADJECTIVE@@ web
[policy]Removes the "Prudism" policy

[option]Your boisterous Minister of Formalities scoffs in reply to the Minister of Entertainment. "Of course not! Allowing pornography in @@NAME@@ is a shameless and immoral act that will ruin our reputation in @@REGION@@, and I will never allow anyone in @@NAME@@ to do such a thing! In fact, we should ban people from taking off any clothes in public! And I mean any!"
[effect]taking off a jacket on a hot day can now lead to jail time

[option]"There's a ...compromise in this.", says your Minister of Compromises as he looks at the Ministers of Entertainment and Formality. "How about we authorize certain @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ to create porn and keep the status quo for all of the others? I think it would surely make both of you two happy."
[effect]being a porn star is one of the most sought-after jobs in @@NAME@@
[policy]Sometimes removes the Prudism policy

by **The Python** » Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:31 pm

I like the idea! But:

Drew Durrnil wrote:It has been brought to your attention that illegal pictures of nude @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ are being sent through the black market. A meeting with many of your trusted ministers and supervisors has been scheduled to address this issue.

It's probably better if you change this to say that the pictures are being shared through the internet, rather than sold.

Drew Durrnil wrote:Must have the Prudism policy and at least a moderate-sized Black Market

If it's through the internet, like I suggested, you should probably axe the black market thing.

by **Drew Durrnil** » Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:59 pm

The Python wrote:I like the idea! But:
Drew Durrnil wrote:It has been brought to your attention that illegal pictures of nude @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ are being sent through the black market. A meeting with many of your trusted ministers and supervisors has been scheduled to address this issue.

It's probably better if you change this to say that the pictures are being shared through the internet, rather than sold.

Drew Durrnil wrote:Must have the Prudism policy and at least a moderate-sized Black Market

If it's through the internet, like I suggested, you should probably axe the black market thing.

ok, done

by **Trotterdam** » Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:27 am

Porn on websites which are clearly marked as pornographic in nature and only used by people who actually want to see it is very different from public nudity.

Both physical reality and the internet have a distinction between "public" and "private" places, and that distinction matters more than whether something is actually online or not. Public nudity laws would presumably affect the legality of posting nude photos on websites that are not explicitly pornographic in nature, but porn is a separate issue (and one that we also already have issues on).

by **Drew Durrnil** » Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:12 am

Trotterdam wrote:Porn on websites which are clearly marked as pornographic in nature and only used by people who actually want to see it is very different from public nudity.

Both physical reality and the internet have a distinction between "public" and "private" places, and that distinction matters more than whether something is actually online or not. Public nudity laws would presumably affect the legality of posting nude photos on websites that are not explicitly pornographic in nature, but porn is a separate issue (and one that we also already have issues on).

For this draft, there are no porn websites, as they were already banned before this issue. That means that nude pictures were not posted on porn websites.

by **USS Monitor** » Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:11 pm

When you say pictures are being "illegally sent through the internet," it's not immediately obvious to me whether this is about porn sites, couples emailing or sexting each other, exhibitionists spamming their nudes any old place, or revenge-porn where someone tries to embarrass another person by posting naked pictures of them.

The options seem to be mostly about pornography, but we've also got a couple of references to stripping and an option about nudism.

Could we have a more consistent focus throughout the issue?

Also remember that if you have a restrictive validity, you should tailor the issue to the types of nations that would receive it. If you're writing an issue for prudish nations, you should have more than one option that allows them to keep some of their prudishness. Right now you have two out of three options removing the prudism policy, and they both go pretty far in the opposite direction.

by **Trotterdam** » Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:49 pm

Drew Durrnil wrote:For this draft, there are no porn websites, as they were already banned before this issue.

That wasn't mentioned in the validity, so it's a violation of player autonomy.

Drew Durrnil wrote:That means that nude pictures were not posted on porn websites.

If porn websites are illegal, it is more likely that people will illegally run porn websites than that people will illegally post porn on non-porn websites. The very fact that something is illegal means that people who want to do it anyway will be motivated to do so somewhere away from public view so they won't get caught.

by **Drew Durrnil** » Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:31 pm

USS Monitor wrote:When you say pictures are being "illegally sent through the internet," it's not immediately obvious to me whether this is about porn sites, couples emailing or sexting each other, exhibitionists spamming their nudes any old place, or revenge-porn where someone tries to embarrass another person by posting naked pictures of them.

The options seem to be mostly about pornography, but we've also got a couple of references to stripping and an option about nudism.

Could we have a more consistent focus throughout the issue?

Also remember that if you have a restrictive validity, you should tailor the issue to the types of nations that would receive it. If you're writing an issue for prudish nations, you should have more than one option that allows them to keep some of their prudishness. Right now you have two out of three options removing the prudism policy, and they both go pretty far in the opposite direction.

I reconfigured the draft to make it more consistent.

Trotterdam wrote:
Drew Durrnil wrote:For this draft, there are no porn websites, as they were already banned before this issue.
That wasn't mentioned in the validity, so it's a violation of player autonomy.

Drew Durrnil wrote:That means that nude pictures were not posted on porn websites.
If porn websites are illegal, it is more likely that people will illegally run porn websites than that people will illegally post porn on non-porn websites. The very fact that something is illegal means that people who want to do it anyway will be motivated to do so somewhere away from public view so they won't get caught.

1. I don't think there is a policy that bans porn websites, so how am I supposed to do that?
2. I changed the draft to fix this issue.

by **Drew Durrnil** » Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:48 pm

/bump

by **Noahs Second Country** » Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:01 pm

Your description is missing both the why and how.

I think you need to take a second look at Monitor's advice above.

by **Drew Durrnil** » Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:00 pm

Noahs Second Country wrote:Your description is missing both the why and how.

I think you need to take a second look at Monitor's advice above.

it should be fixed now

by **Bwaedetholir** » Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:18 pm

Where's the humour?

by **Drew Durrnil** » Thu Jun 10, 2021 1:33 pm

Bwaedetholir wrote:Where's the humour?

not here

by **Drew Durrnil** » Mon Jun 14, 2021 2:14 pm

/bump

by **Fauxia** » Wed Jun 16, 2021 3:17 pm

Prudism? I'm pretty sure nations can literally be checked for having banned porn.

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Jun 20, 2021 3:57 am

Why do you need the dark web? As China has proven, any VPN can get past internet censorship. No need for dark web when the mainstream web could be accessed much, much easier with a VPN. Also, if you upload porn on the dark web, you're more likely to attract the attention of foreign law enforcement than what you would be if you uploaded it to the mainstream web, where foreign law enforcement wouldn't care where it came from

by **Minskiev** » Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:21 pm

What's a denonym? I think you mean @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ web in Option 1's effect line.

Option 2: What are they saying Of course not to?

Option 3: It'd be ...compromise in this,"

by **Drew Durrnil** » Tue Jun 22, 2021 10:10 am

Minskiev wrote:What's a denonym? I think you mean @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ web in Option 1's effect line.

Option 2: What are they saying Of course not to?

Option 3: It'd be ...compromise in this,"

fixed

by **Drew Durrnil** » Tue Jun 29, 2021 10:52 am

submitted

[SUBMITTED] Dudes and Nudes

[SUBMITTED] Dudes and Nudes

Who is online