NationStates

You may have seen the previous draft written by my alt, but its more convenient if I do it on my main.

DESCRIPTION
With the turnout at religious celebrations in places of worship is at an all-time low, athiesm rates on the census at an all time high, many believe it's time to make a change.

VALIDITY
Nations with sub-10 religiousness score.

OPTIONS

[effect] @@leader@@ has announced it's time to "chill," "be cool," and "just relax man," whatever that means.

[option 1] "Religion is disgusting and abhorrent, and should be banned, for the sake of the children," says atheist speaker, @RANDOMNAME@, "religion serves no purpose in this modern age, and we would all be better off without it. Think about it, what good has ever come from it? Religion is nothing but made-up stories to fearmonger us into complying with some stupid ancient rules. Rise above, And put an end to religion within @@denonymadjective@@ borders!"

[effect] those practising religion have been told they're enemies of the state and basically terrorists. (Adds: State Atheism)

[option 2] "This may sound crazy, but I think in this modern age, religion is more important than ever! Kids these days hardly ever go to places of worship and pray, and it's horrendous in my humble opinion, @@nationname@@ should be a nation of good morals and family values" says local religious leader, @RANDOMNAME@. "hand out free pamphlets about the wonders of religion, tell people on the news of how their souls need to be saved, just do something! Religion needs to be encouraged as much as possible, but of course, don't be rude about it, bring them into religion with the power of love and kindness. Religion is great at that right?"

[effect] Some citizens are rejoicing, and some mourning the recent government endorsement of religion.

[option 3] "That's just not enough!" Says virtually unknown radio speaker, @RANDOMNAME@, "worship needs to be mandatory to save our children from eternal damnation! Please, do this now or forever face the consequences! If you force religion on people, they will certainly learn to love it. If we don't do this now, every last one of you shall burn!" She begins pacing quickly around on your expensive carpet, wearing it out surprisingly quick.

[effect] Most citizens are not too keen on the recent forcing of them to attend places of worship, but at least they are saved from eternal damnation. (Adds theocracy policy)

/bump any suggestions?

Places of worships turnout is at an all-time low,

My suggestion would be to rephrase it as "The turnout at religious celebrations in places of worship is at an all-time low".

and many older citizens lament over the current perceived lack of religiousness.

I think this could be fleshed out a little more. Why are they lamenting the perceived lack of religiousness? Are places of worship not making enough money to sustain them, so their buildings fall into disrepair? Do these older citizens perceive the lack of religiousness as a lack of morality? I think this could be fleshed out in the intro a little more. Additionally, what makes this an issue of the state? I think that can also be added into the description.

Leftist speaker, @RANDOMNAME@ is the first to let their opinion become known, skipping into your office while looking depressed at the same time.

What exactly is this trying to convey? That the speaker in question pretends to be happy and joyful while being "dead" on the inside for a lack of religiosity? Perhaps you could pop this out more, to convey the meaning clearer.

Additionally, option 1 is a little bit lengthy. Try to see if you can bring the same point in a more succinct manner.

@@leader@@ has announced it's time to "chill out" and "be cool" when it comes to religion.

I think this effect line could be a little sharper in terms of humour. Try to see if you can come up with a pun to throw in.

Before you answer, he continues

This can be cut out, as it adds unnecessary length to the issue option.

he stands there, waiting for your agreement with the plan, which he believes is irrefutable.

Same here. You don't need to explain an option's speaker is waiting for your answer or response.

People peacefully practising their religion have been labelled as terrorists and locked up after the recent ban on religion

This effect line is too long and needs to be shortened. Also, it lacks humour. As with the other effect line, try to see if you can come up with a pun that fits/reflects the issue option.

[option 3] "This may sound crazy, but I think in this modern age, religion is more important than ever! Kids these days hardly ever go to places of worship and pray, and it's horrendous in my humble opinion, @@nationname@@ should be a nation of good morals and family values" says local religious leader, @RANDOMNAME@. "Give out free pamphlets about the wonders of religion, tell people on the news of how their souls need to be saved, just do something! Religion needs to be encouraged as much as possible, but of course, don't be rude about it, bring them into religion with the power of love and kindness. Religion is great at that right?"

This option should be shortened as well, it's too long.

Some citizens are rejoicing, and some mourning the recent government endorsement of religion.

Idem dito as with the other remarks about the effect lines: insert more humour.

The idea would be workable for an issue draft, but I think this particular draft needs a lot of work. Especially in terms of humour, it's almost entirely missing in the text as it stands. So, my general remarks are these: try to bring each issue option in a more succinct manner, and have each option speaker pop out somehow. Give them more character, make them more distinguishable from one another, as now each speaker sounds the same. And most importantly, humour! Pour it abundantly over the draft

Daarwyrth wrote:

Places of worships turnout is at an all-time low,

My suggestion would be to rephrase it as "The turnout at religious celebrations in places of worship is at an all-time low".

and many older citizens lament over the current perceived lack of religiousness.

I think this could be fleshed out a little more. Why are they lamenting the perceived lack of religiousness? Are places of worship not making enough money to sustain them, so their buildings fall into disrepair? Do these older citizens perceive the lack of religiousness as a lack of morality? I think this could be fleshed out in the intro a little more. Additionally, what makes this an issue of the state? I think that can also be added into the description.

Leftist speaker, @RANDOMNAME@ is the first to let their opinion become known, skipping into your office while looking depressed at the same time.

What exactly is this trying to convey? That the speaker in question pretends to be happy and joyful while being "dead" on the inside for a lack of religiosity? Perhaps you could pop this out more, to convey the meaning clearer.

Additionally, option 1 is a little bit lengthy. Try to see if you can bring the same point in a more succinct manner.

@@leader@@ has announced it's time to "chill out" and "be cool" when it comes to religion.

I think this effect line could be a little sharper in terms of humour. Try to see if you can come up with a pun to throw in.

Before you answer, he continues

This can be cut out, as it adds unnecessary length to the issue option.

he stands there, waiting for your agreement with the plan, which he believes is irrefutable.

Same here. You don't need to explain an option's speaker is waiting for your answer or response.

People peacefully practising their religion have been labelled as terrorists and locked up after the recent ban on religion

This effect line is too long and needs to be shortened. Also, it lacks humour. As with the other effect line, try to see if you can come up with a pun that fits/reflects the issue option.

[option 3] "This may sound crazy, but I think in this modern age, religion is more important than ever! Kids these days hardly ever go to places of worship and pray, and it's horrendous in my humble opinion, @@nationname@@ should be a nation of good morals and family values" says local religious leader, @RANDOMNAME@. "Give out free pamphlets about the wonders of religion, tell people on the news of how their souls need to be saved, just do something! Religion needs to be encouraged as much as possible, but of course, don't be rude about it, bring them into religion with the power of love and kindness. Religion is great at that right?"

This option should be shortened as well, it's too long.

Some citizens are rejoicing, and some mourning the recent government endorsement of religion.

Idem dito as with the other remarks about the effect lines: insert more humour.

The idea would be workable for an issue draft, but I think this particular draft needs a lot of work. Especially in terms of humour, it's almost entirely missing in the text as it stands. So, my general remarks are these: try to bring each issue option in a more succinct manner, and have each option speaker pop out somehow. Give them more character, make them more distinguishable from one another, as now each speaker sounds the same. And most importantly, humour! Pour it abundantly over the draft :)

Wow, this is incredible, thank you for putting so much time in to help me! I will be sure to use these when the next draft is finished

Unless you're in a theocracy, why would the government involve themselves in such matters? Would older people being upset about it really constitute a government response?

Australian rePublic wrote:Unless you're in a theocracy, why would the government involve themselves in such matters? Would older people being upset about it really constitute a government response?

probably not, do I scrap the issue or would it be better to just change the subject of it?

Religion is a pretty commonly discussed issue, so I think the idea itself isn't flawed.
What this issue reminds me the most of is that one issue that occurs when you have high income equality in a capitalist nation- where the options either push your nation's equality down, or push for socialist policies. I feel like this issue could work similarly. Options 2, 3, and 4 all work pretty well in that regard- providing a push for state atheism, a minor push towards religion, and a major push towards religion respectively. However, option 1 feels a tad too neutral- since the nation will presumably already have high secularism when this issue is seen, the option basically becomes a "Do nothing" option, and the issue would probably be better without it.

Additionally, I agree with Australian rePublic in that the older people being upset feels a tad weak- maybe it could instead be a religious activist group, or possibly even a church like the violetists?

Trivega wrote:Religion is a pretty commonly discussed issue, so I think the idea itself isn't flawed.
What this issue reminds me the most of is that one issue that occurs when you have high income equality in a capitalist nation- where the options either push your nation's equality down, or push for socialist policies. I feel like this issue could work similarly. Options 2, 3, and 4 all work pretty well in that regard- providing a push for state atheism, a minor push towards religion, and a major push towards religion respectively. However, option 1 feels a tad too neutral- since the nation will presumably already have high secularism when this issue is seen, the option basically becomes a "Do nothing" option, and the issue would probably be better without it.

Additionally, I agree with Australian rePublic in that the older people being upset feels a tad weak- maybe it could instead be a religious activist group, or possibly even a church like the violetists?

Very helpful, thank you!

The Finntopian Empire wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Unless you're in a theocracy, why would the government involve themselves in such matters? Would older people being upset about it really constitute a government response?

probably not, do I scrap the issue or would it be better to just change the subject of it?

You wouldn't need to scrap the issue. And as I was told some time ago, it's basically accepted in issues that people come to @@LEADER@@ to have them take a stance or make a decision, even if in the real world it wouldn't make the most sense. However, I think it would strengthen the issue description if you did include a reason why this is a government issue.

Keep in mind, though, that stats depend on government choices, so it's relatively unlikely (though possible) for a NationStates nation to end up with low Religiousness without the player deliberately pushing for that. Hence players in that situation are far more likely to think "hey, mission successful" than "argh, how do I fix this".

So I think there needs to be a stronger argument for change than "some people are unhappy with the situation".

Perhaps some of the few remaining believers do some wacky publicity stunt in an attempt to convince more people to attend services, and you have to decide how you feel about that. (Acceptable expression of religious freedom? Dirty trick to shut down people's critical thinking? Irreverent bastardization of the religion's original values?)

Trotterdam wrote:Perhaps some of the few remaining believers do some wacky publicity stunt in an attempt to convince more people to attend services, and you have to decide how you feel about that. (Acceptable expression of religious freedom? Dirty trick to shut down people's critical thinking? Irreverent bastardization of the religion's original values?)

Definitely make it something wacky or goofy, something that will make the player smile or laugh when reading it

The Finntopian Empire wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Unless you're in a theocracy, why would the government involve themselves in such matters? Would older people being upset about it really constitute a government response?

probably not, do I scrap the issue or would it be better to just change the subject of it?

It's an interesting concept, but you need a reason to make it a leader issue beyond people getting upset. I mean, people get upset about a lot of things, but they don't constitute leader's intervention

Trotterdam wrote:Keep in mind, though, that stats depend on government choices, so it's relatively unlikely (though possible) for a NationStates nation to end up with low Religiousness without the player deliberately pushing for that. Hence players in that situation are far more likely to think "hey, mission successful" than "argh, how do I fix this".

So I think there needs to be a stronger argument for change than "some people are unhappy with the situation".

Perhaps some of the few remaining believers do some wacky publicity stunt in an attempt to convince more people to attend services, and you have to decide how you feel about that. (Acceptable expression of religious freedom? Dirty trick to shut down people's critical thinking? Irreverent bastardization of the religion's original values?)

There are a fair number of issues prompted solely by ideological disagreements, like the one Trivega mentioned. I think these are helpful if you change your mind about what ideology your government should have, but you still want to keep your nation.

That being said, a more specific problem would be helpful to distinguish it from issue #172. This issue seems to ask “Is religion (and freedom of religion) good or bad for society?” in contrast to 172’s “Should we increase attendance, and how?” but the similar descriptions make the two issues appear similar. A specific incident could help explain why Leader is being asked to take a stance on religion and what role it should play in society.

Lastly, option 1 seems unnecessary because it is similar to dismissing the issue. It could be trimmed entirely, or amended to a more radical laïcité policy of banning public practice of religion.

I’m disappointed there’s no references to the hit song by R.E.M

Thousand Branches wrote:I’m disappointed there’s no references to the hit song by R.E.M :p

I only made the issue because I thought it was a funny name