[Submitted] Shell Shock!

[West Barack and East Obama]

[title] Shell Shock!

[desc] An alliance of crustacean connoisseurs have appealed to the government to exempt shellfish from the ban on meat eating.

[validity] vegetarianism

[option] "Please @@LEADER@@, if I have to eat one more potato I will lose it!" pleads celebrity chef Sealion Mollusc. "Seafood such as crabs and shrimp are rich in protein, and can help bring balance into our diets! Plus, you wouldn't think twice before killing a spider, so what makes gnawing a lobster claw so bad? Don't be selfish, give us shellfish!"

[effect] @@LEADER@@ frequently hears the phrase "so long, and thanks for all the shellfish"

[option] "You don't need meat for things to taste good!" enthuses amateur botanist @@RANDOMNAME@@ as he waves a foul-smelling object in your face, triggering your gag reflex. "Of course people will get tired of eating the same old things every day. Exotic foods such as the Maxtopian truffle and the Macronesian durian are delicious, so you should set up trading partnerships to introduce more of them to our nation. Once people have had a taste of what plants really have to offer, they'll forget all about eating animals!"

[validity] not autarky

[effect] people munch on stinging nettles from faraway lands to liven up their palates

[option] "You don't need meat for things to taste good!" enthuses amateur botanist @@RANDOMNAME@@ as he waves a foul-smelling object in your face, triggering your gag reflex. "With our self-sufficiency policy, it's no wonder people are longing for something different to eat. Exotic foods such as the Maxtopian truffle and the Macronesian durian are delicious, so you should set up trading partnerships to introduce more of them to our nation. Once people have had a taste of what plants really have to offer, they'll forget all about eating animals!"

[validity] autarky

[effect] people munch on stinging nettles from faraway lands to liven up their palates

[option] "As always, science has the answer!" exclaims your eccentric Science Advisor as he chomps on a drumstick made entirely out of tofu. "Soy-based meat substitutes are healthy, rich in protein, taste great and are still made of plants! We can get the best of every world in this situation. Give my team a blank cheque and we'll develop these products for everyone to enjoy in no time!"

[effect] people hoping to eat meat are told to curd their enthusiasm

[Le Enclave Reformas]

is that a hitchhikers guide to the galaxy i see

[Trotterdam]

This is a matter of personal taste rather than something everyone here would agree with, but I dislike issues that assume a player policy is "recent". Try to write the issue so it's applicable to any nation where meat-eating is banned, regardless of whether the ban was instituted recently or a long time ago.

[West Barack and East Obama]

This is a matter of personal taste rather than something everyone here would agree with, but I dislike issues that assume a player policy is "recent". Try to write the issue so it's applicable to any nation where meat-eating is banned, regardless of whether the ban was instituted recently or a long time ago.

Sure, I can rewrite that part

[Bears Armed]

Nice work!

[RedBrickLand]

Only then we can achieve a balanced ecosystem."

I recommend changing this part to "Only then can we achieve a balanced ecosystem." (Italicized words are recommended changes)

Also, I suggest adding a third option that ends vegetarianism outright. You know the classic kind of third option. (Not sure about this recommendation)

Other than that, it's an amazing draft!

[Daarwyrth]

Also, I suggest adding a third option that ends vegetiaranism outright. You know the classic kind of third option. (Not sure about this recommendation)

I don't think it's necessary to include a reversal option into every issue draft about a policy that can be installed. If the author wants to include that they can, but it's not a necessity, I'd say.

[option] "What nonsense!" growls crabby vegetarian @@RANDOMNAME@@ as @@HE@@ brandishes a sharpened celery stick at Mollusc. "Meat eating of all kinds, whether from a pig, mussel or even a damn cockroach, does incalculable damage to the environment. What you should do is to get more cops out and about to catch anyone even looking at @@A@@ @@ANIMAL@@ funny. Only then we can achieve a balanced ecosystem."

[effect] black market oyster meat costs more than the pearls

Okay, I get the appeal of giving an option where more cops are the solution, however... cops don't always have to be the solution

I would see room for a third option that promotes something along the lines of fake meat produce based on soy plants, or something like that. Or, the option could propose importing more exotic fruits and vegetables to liven up the national cuisine.

[RedBrickLand]

I don't think it's necessary to include a reversal option into every issue draft about a policy that can be installed. If the author wants to include that they can, but it's not a necessity, I'd say.

Good point. Just recommended it if they ever wanted to add it. (I'm sure they thought of it but decided not to add it. Up to them)

[West Barack and East Obama]

I would see room for a third option that promotes something along the lines of fake meat produce based on soy plants, or something like that. Or, the option could propose importing more exotic fruits and vegetables to liven up the national cuisine.

This is a fantastic idea. I think I'll include an option to this effect in the next draft.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Alright, added a third option. What do you all think?

[Trotterdam]

This is a matter of personal taste rather than something everyone here would agree with, but I dislike issues that assume a player policy is "recent". Try to write the issue so it's applicable to any nation where meat-eating is banned, regardless of whether the ban was instituted recently or a long time ago.

Sure, I can rewrite that part

You've removed the actual word "recently", but there's still mention of people who lost their jobs as a result in the ban, in a context that implies that they're still reeling from the effects.

If meat was banned a hundred years ago, few people alive today would still remember it being legal. Even if meat was banned only five years ago, that's enough that anyone who lost his job as a result would likely have either found a new job or grown accustomed to unemployed life by now, rather than being desperate to get his old job back. (Keep in mind that nations can range from "anyone who is unemployed for longer than six months has probably already starved to death" to "welfare is so generous that doing any productive work at all is largely optional".)

[West Barack and East Obama]

I see your point now... hopefully this is better

[Trotterdam]

I see your point now... hopefully this is better

Yeah, that's good.

Though I also find myself sympathizing with Daarwyrth's opinion:

Okay, I get the appeal of giving an option where more cops are the solution, however... cops don't always have to be the solution

I would see room for a third option that promotes something along the lines of fake meat produce based on soy plants, or something like that. Or, the option could propose importing more exotic fruits and vegetables to liven up the national cuisine.

More police to enforce the existing law without otherwise changing any government policies is a kind of boring solution, especially when the setup of the issue doesn't actually mention anyone illegally eating meat to begin with. Wanting to eat meat, sure, but not actually doing it yet.

Consider doing away with the cops entirely, and instead having two or more different ideas on how to spice up your vegetarian cuisine. Again, since the main premise is simply people complaining that the current food is bland.

Though it might be worth waiting for a third opinion on this.

On a smaller note, you need commas here:

a pig, mussel, or even a damn cockroach

are healthy, rich in protein, taste great, and are still made of plants

[West Barack and East Obama]

Thank you again Trotterdam for your invaluable feedback. How is this?

[Trotterdam]

While the basics of options 2 and 3 are both good, you might want to make the political differences clearer so they're not just both "throw money at the problem". Option 2 could be cast as a diplomatic option that involves developing better trading relationships with foreign countries, for example.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Thanks once again to the GOAT Trotterdam for your feedback

[West Barack and East Obama]

Bubububububump

[Australian rePublic]

This issue needs an option to allow all seafood EXCEPT shellfish. As is the case with Jews

[Jutsa]

Ahah! Pescitarianism. I had written a draft on this... but, I admit it was a load of codswallop.

Yes, good draft though. I agree with Aussie that an all-seafood option would make sense, although... I don't know if it oughta be distinct from option 1, or if option 1 oughta just throw in the consumption of all fish at the end. Your call though, being the author.

[Trotterdam]

This issue needs an option to allow all seafood EXCEPT shellfish. As is the case with Jews

Not quite.

The exact rule is "only animals with both fins and scales". This mostly means fish, although it excludes some unusual fish such as eels or swordfish.

I can't think of any argument for allowing the eating of fish but not crustaceans or bivalves outside the context of Abrahammic religions, though. It'd also be a radical departure from a previously-vegetarian policy, so even if there's some argument for it, this might not be the right issue for it.

[West Barack and East Obama]

I might submit this soon

[West Barack and East Obama]

Final threat for submission

[Australian rePublic]

This issue needs an option to allow all seafood EXCEPT shellfish. As is the case with Jews

Not quite.

The exact rule is "only animals with both fins and scales". This mostly means fish, although it excludes some unusual fish such as eels or swordfish.

I can't think of any argument for allowing the eating of fish but not crustaceans or bivalves outside the context of Abrahammic religions, though. It'd also be a radical departure from a previously-vegetarian policy, so even if there's some argument for it, this might not be the right issue for it.

The proponent could be Jewish

[Cachard Calia]

is that a hitchhikers guide to the galaxy i see

Same idea

[Australian rePublic]

Good Luck!