[DRAFT] For PETE's sake

[Kors]

A well-known non-profit animal rights humanitarian organization known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Everything (commonly known by its acronym PETE) has long been infamous for its outrageous campaigns, euthanization of a huge percentage of their sheltered animals and the kidnapping of pets. A new report found that PETE was behind an "Eco-Terrorism" attack on a meat factory and a government building that claimed 5 lives and millions of dollars in damages. Citizens, Government officials and meat industry tycoons are infuriated and dragged PETE to government court to await your questioning.

Eligibility: You must have a judicial system.
You must have no compulsory vegetarianism.

1. The honourable judge @@RANDOMNAME@@ steps to the desk: "May the plaintiff rise". government bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@ stands up and presents the documents proving that PETE funded the terrorist attacks "There is a thick line between protesting and terrorism, and you somehow crossed it. There is no right for them to bomb a government building and cause unnecessary death. We will be closing your organization and receiving a fine of 5 million dollars.

Result: The government has a strong stance against terrorism

2. "What? you got to be kidding me!" blurts Ingraham Newklark, the owner of PETE. "All these animals are kept in tiny confinement cells and forced to live in darkness, only for them to be eaten? You should mandate that no animals will be eaten, or kept in confinement! Think of their poor lives! Besides, look at the proof!" He snatches the documents from the judge's hand. "Look at that! This evidence is all vegan balone-" He is cut off by the judge's gavel and a stern "Order".

Result: You cannot "Beat a dead horse", but you can "Feed a fed horse".
Adds policy: Vegetarianism
Adds policy: No Zoos

3. after the judge gets the bailiff to restrain the PETE owner, he motions for the meat factory owner to speak. "Your honour, for very long my meat factory was successful. It won multiple awards for quality and humanity, as well as for taste. Unfortunately my factory, many of our animals and workers perished in the attack. Your honour, I propose that we be given grants to increase the quality and production of meat." He gestures toward his wallet, and then to the judge, who winks.

Result: What the government receives in bribes it gives back as business subsidies.

[Kors]

Hilp me make the resultes more funier plz plz plz

[Verdant Haven]

There are a number of structural and material issues that need to be addressed here. There may be a workable premise that can be accessed under this, but it will take some major efforts to extract it.

- To start off, consider the scale of the presented incident vs the options offered. Most options should feel like they're at least the appropriate order of magnitude for a response to whatever has occurred. This is an attack that killed 100 people… that's more than the 7/7 bombings, the Omagh bombing, and the Toyko sarin gas attack combined. A terrorist attack of this scale would be an immense societal trauma with a huge resource investment in response, and probable world-wide coverage. It is not a reasonable kick-off point as written for an "Oh yeah, let's be vegetarian" choice, or a "let's fund tastier hamburgers" sort of thing.

- Another question is the setting. A courtroom could be appropriate, but what goes on in that room seems to have little to do with legal processes. Why would the leader be present in this courtroom? Why are industry tycoons hanging around court? What is the role of the judge if the leader is supposed to be making the decisions? Is this written only for corrupt autocracies where the leader dictates legal outcomes?

- PETE is an organization, but it feels like it is sometimes spoken of as if it were a person who can be questioned or physically wrangled. Also, this organization exists in multiple other issues, so it probably isn't a good choice to include the closure of that organization as part of option text.

- The structure of what is actually happening with the story is more than a bit of a mess, and seems to have little relation to any recognizable legal process. In the first option, a random government bureaucrat serves in the role of a lawyer presenting the case, but then declares conviction and delivers a sentence all in one breath. Then the second speaker then gets cut off and physically restrained before saying anything we need to hear, and is followed by a third speaker who for some reason asks the judge to issue government grants (not what judges do) to subsidize an industry.

If you can shake out the structure, find some good reasons for the involved parties to actually get their voices heard, and make the dilemma fit the description, there might be an issue to be had from the idea of an eco-terrorist trying to be heard after their arrest. I simply don't think the present form is it.

[Kors]

There are a number of structural and material issues that need to be addressed here. There may be a workable premise that can be accessed under this, but it will take some major efforts to extract it.

- To start off, consider the scale of the presented incident vs the options offered. Most options should feel like they're at least the appropriate order of magnitude for a response to whatever has occurred. This is an attack that killed 100 people… that's more than the 7/7 bombings, the Omagh bombing, and the Toyko sarin gas attack combined. A terrorist attack of this scale would be an immense societal trauma with a huge resource investment in response, and probable world-wide coverage. It is not a reasonable kick-off point as written for an "Oh yeah, let's be vegetarian" choice, or a "let's fund tastier hamburgers" sort of thing.

- Another question is the setting. A courtroom could be appropriate, but what goes on in that room seems to have little to do with legal processes. Why would the leader be present in this courtroom? Why are industry tycoons hanging around court? What is the role of the judge if the leader is supposed to be making the decisions? Is this written only for corrupt autocracies where the leader dictates legal outcomes?

- PETE is an organization, but it feels like it is sometimes spoken of as if it were a person who can be questioned or physically wrangled. Also, this organization exists in multiple other issues, so it probably isn't a good choice to include the closure of that organization as part of option text.

- The structure of what is actually happening with the story is more than a bit of a mess, and seems to have little relation to any recognizable legal process. In the first option, a random government bureaucrat serves in the role of a lawyer presenting the case, but then declares conviction and delivers a sentence all in one breath. Then the second speaker then gets cut off and physically restrained before saying anything we need to hear, and is followed by a third speaker who for some reason asks the judge to issue government grants (not what judges do) to subsidize an industry.

If you can shake out the structure, find some good reasons for the involved parties to actually get their voices heard, and make the dilemma fit the description, there might be an issue to be had from the idea of an eco-terrorist trying to be heard after their arrest. I simply don't think the present form is it.

Thank you. Will reshape the structure.

[Australian rePublic]

Criminalising a terrorist organisation. If only the countries impacted by ISIS had thought of that...