[amend] linking #68.3 to #1353

[SherpDaWerp]

#68.3 reads as follows:

"This raises an interesting issue," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, staunch supporter of birth control. "And that is: why do we need to build more housing anyway? Why don't we just limit the number of children each family can have? Besides, pregnancy causes all sorts of complications. We're better off with less of it anyway."

I presume this doesn't (EDIT: turns out it already does lol) link to the semi-newly-published and very-rarely-seen #1353, but should it? It certainly seems to me that it should. The core premise of #1353 is "how do you limit kids if you can't have abortion", and this option is pretty clearly limiting kids.

It doesn't have the specific point of one child (which is pretty heavily baked into #1353) but with No Abortion in place, choosing this option would lead to problem basically-identical to what's described in #1353. Writing another version of #1353 that's identical except without "one-child" would be very silly.

So assuming linking #68.3 to #1353 is a worthy change, there's two options: change #1353, or change #68.3. I know y'all are loathe to change old issues, but this is a case where the original editor (Reppy) is still around for "consulting", and adding 4 words to #68.4 is a lot smaller of a change than removing all the "one-child"s from #1353, of which there are a lot more. (at least in the draft)

A quick "sample" of what I'm suggesting:

"This raises an interesting issue," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, staunch supporter of birth control. "And that is: why do we need to build more housing anyway? Why don't we just limit the number of children each family can have? One should do it. Besides, pregnancy causes all sorts of complications. We're better off with less of it anyway."

And then linking it to #1353 shouldn't have a problem.

Thoughts? Concerns? Is it worth linking #68.3 to #1353?

EDIT: Oh also - I made a new thread cause I didn't want to clog up either The Writers' Block or the "Help fix old issues" threads, given this query doesn't really 100% fit either of them.

EDIT 2: Here's a link to the draft version of #1353. It hasn't been reported to the spoiler thread yet, thanks to it's extreme rarity.

[Trotterdam]

Agree.

Although for all I know, maybe the editors have already done this and we just don't realize it yet. Since the one-child policy flag is invisible on this side of the curtain, I have no way of telling which issue options actually grant it.

Also worth noting is #96 5:

5. "Obviously, who gets how much water is only a part of the problem," notes famed population-control advocate @@RANDOMNAME@@. "We must try to curtail the rapid growth of our population, whether by limiting the amount of children people may have, or by deporting immigrants and criminals... we must get a handle on our population before we can hope to correct this water supply problem."

...Although in this case, the effect line, and indeed the original option if you read carefully, actually suggests an alternative to abortion for enforcing the limit: people with too many kids are kicked out of the country. ("Criminals" doesn't have to be limited to things that were considered crimes before you picked this option...)

[SherpDaWerp]

Agree.

Although for all I know, maybe the editors have already done this and we just don't realize it yet. Since the one-child policy flag is invisible on this side of the curtain, I have no way of telling which issue options actually grant it.

Very true, I've based this entirely off the listed draft validity, which was written by a (at the time) player, not an editor. Still, better to check - if they're already doing it, there's no harm in asking.

And yes, agreed on #96.5. It would be helpful to compile a full list of options that mention limiting children without one-child specifically, unless these two are the only ones. I'll give that a go now, but there's ~300 mentions of "children" to look through, so I might be a little while.

EDIT: Seems like there aren't any more, at least not with "limit" and "children" in the same option.

[The Free Joy State]

#1353 is already connected to the one-child policy from 68.3

As an aside, for any issue writers with ideas for nations with a single-child policy (Little Emperor Syndrome, and -- also inspired by Mainland China -- whether to grant exceptions for parents whose single child is severely disabled are two ideas that jumps out to me), that is one thing we can keep track of.

[SherpDaWerp]

#1353 is already connected to the one-child policy from 68.3

Cool. Thanks for confirming. Not #96.5 though?

[The Free Joy State]

#1353 is already connected to the one-child policy from 68.3

Cool. Thanks for confirming. Not #96.5 though?

I'm not sure that's specific enough about enforcing a single-child policy.

I will take it backstage, though, and get a consensus.

[SherpDaWerp]

Cool. Thanks for confirming. Not #96.5 though?

I'm not sure that's specific enough about enforcing a single-child policy.

I will take it backstage, though, and get a consensus.

Fair enough. Thanks again for taking a look.

[The Free Joy State]

I'm not sure that's specific enough about enforcing a single-child policy.

I will take it backstage, though, and get a consensus.

Fair enough. Thanks again for taking a look.

Following discussion backstage, we feel #96.5 can stay as-is.

Trying to reduce population growth is not the same as instituting a one-child policy. The option is not specific about the steps that are needed or to be taken, and thus it is felt that changes are not needed to this option.