NationStates

Hey, all! The right to repair is a pretty big deal right now, and there isn't an issue about that. You know what that means: write write write!

Feedback on the effect lines in particular would be great.

Is It Right To Repair?

Description: Your niece broke her phone today after a fall, so she took it to the best phone repair shop in @@CAPITAL@@. Unfortunately, they couldn't do anything about it, as the broken parts were not replaceable, and could not be fixed. Instead, she would have to buy a whole new phone.

Validity: has electronics, has capitalism

Option 1: "How dare they do this to @@DENONYMPLURAL@@?!", your niece rages, storming into the room. "The companies care only about making money, so they make it impossible to fix anything that's broken, instead pushing us to "better" and more expensive models. We deserve to be able to fix our own things." She pauses to take a breath, before starting again. "Repairs should be way cheaper and more accessible, with the option to only pay for the replacement of the broken part! I'm sure it would cut down on e-waste and stuff, too."

Effect Line: the market for electronic repairs is e-xploding

Option 2: You find an email on your desktop from @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, CEO of @@NAME@@ Electronics.

"Dear @@LEADER@@,
While what happened to your niece is unfortunate, you must understand, @@NAME@@ Electronics and our competitors simply cannot make our electronics more easily repairable. First of all, such a thing would necessarily mean sacrificing user safety, as our phones have sharp and combustible materials inside them. Next, making a device easily repairable would make it less efficient, as there is only so much space in a modern phone, and there must be room for any repairs. Finally, this would destroy innovation and progress in the electronics industry, as no new phones wuld ever be bought. Companies must be able to do any safe thing with their products which they wish."

Sincerely yours,
@@RANDOMNAME_1@@"

Effect Line: repair shops can make your phone look new for just 200 @@CURRENCY@@

Option 3: The Chairman of the @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ Communist party sits down on your opposite side. "Don't you see? The problem isn't electronics, it's capitalism. This would have never happened if companies weren't so focused on squeezing every last cent out of the people of @@NAME@@, for their profits! We must, for the good of the proletariat, seize the means of production and create things for the people! Then, nobody will ever have this problem again."

Effect Line: the Communi-cation Office is making the phones

with most electronics, you cannot repair them due to the risk of electric shock... only certified servicemen can safely disassemble your device and fix it.

Rebeche wrote:with most electronics, you cannot repair them due to the risk of electric shock... only certified servicemen can safely disassemble your device and fix it.

That's the point, whether it should be easier to repair electronics or not.

Rebeche wrote:with most electronics, you cannot repair them due to the risk of electric shock... only certified servicemen can safely disassemble your device and fix it.

What a load of rubbish.

This issue has a great basis.

Maybe instead on focusing on why people can’t repair phones, focus on the reason behind there’s nobody that can repair phones? I’d suggest making some mention to poor electronics-based courses in universities

True Europa State wrote:Maybe instead on focusing on why people can’t repair phones, focus on the reason behind there’s nobody that can repair phones? I’d suggest making some mention to poor electronics-based courses in universities

This. Though the barrier to focus on, and the one behind the actual right to repair movement is restrictive licensing, hostile design, and anticompetitive action by manufacturers to prevent third parties from repairing things.
This goes over the problem in 60 seconds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCFP9P7lIvI

Rebeche wrote:with most electronics, you cannot repair them due to the risk of electric shock... only certified servicemen can safely disassemble your device and fix it.

This is true for some electronics but the vast majority can be repaired and modded by enthusiasts. It's just that companies do whatever they can to limit this in order to encourage purchasing a brand new machine. They use software as a subscription as a way to reinforce this cycle. It isn't that we need more certified service people, it's that people should have the right to repair what they've purchased. If they are to be regarded as owners of an electronic product, they should be free to repair or mod it. This means standardized screw kits, systems, etc, no locked features, nothing. Ownership means the right to repair, mod, and code their machines.

No spare parts in @@NAME@@? So they do sell spare parts, just not in @@NAME@@? Why?

Australian rePublic wrote:No spare parts in @@NAME@@? So they do sell spare parts, just not in @@NAME@@? Why?

Fixed

No spare parts in @@REGION@@, now

Ostrovskiy wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:No spare parts in @@NAME@@? So they do sell spare parts, just not in @@NAME@@? Why?

Fixed

No spare parts in @@REGION@@, now

So why in other regions then?

Australian rePublic wrote:

Ostrovskiy wrote:Fixed

No spare parts in @@REGION@@, now

So why in other regions then?

I'm pretty sure other regions dont exist, canonically

However, changed to the world.

Ostrovskiy wrote:I'm pretty sure other regions dont exist, canonically

However, changed to the world.

The issues "canon" is shaped by whatever writers write and editors edit - if you want other regions to exist, then write them into an issue in a sensible way!

My personal view has always been that all the NPC nations reside in @@REGION@@. Other regions may exist, but they may be arbitrarily far away (player autonomy: my nation could be anywhere, not necessarily near The Pacific. Also the other direction - my nation could be right next door, so you can't say "faraway lands") or, in the case of UCRs, they may not always exist (i.e. the same reason we don't refer to player nations in issues).

In other words, there's no harm in referring to "other regions"; the reason we've never referred to them before is because it's hard to justify using them in an issue, not because they don't exist.

Is the issue a lack of spare parts or irreplaceable parts, because those are two very different issues that would require very different solutions

Australian rePublic wrote:Is the issue a lack of spare parts or irreplaceable parts, because those are two very different issues that would require very different solutions

Irreplaceable parts.

Honestly Surprised we don't have a right to repair issue yet.

Ostrovskiy wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Is the issue a lack of spare parts or irreplaceable parts, because those are two very different issues that would require very different solutions

Irreplaceable parts.

The wording makes it seem likes it's the former, rather than the later. If it were about irreplaceable parts, it wouldn't mean that there were no spare parts anywhere in the world, it would mean that the parts can't be replaced

Australian rePublic wrote:

Ostrovskiy wrote:Irreplaceable parts.

The wording makes it seem likes it's the former, rather than the later. If it were about irreplaceable parts, it wouldn't mean that there were no spare parts anywhere in the world, it would mean that the parts can't be replaced

Edited it a bit to reflect this

A couple of minor thoughts here:

- In the description I'd suggest "not replaceable" as an alternative to "irreplaceable." The latter usually refers to something which is so rare that you can't find another one, as opposed to simply not being user-friendly to replace.

- In option 1: There is no @@NATION@@ macro – I suspect you want @@NAME@@.

- In option 2: The CEO's email is a bit stilted, and it feels like the arguments (especially numbers 2 and 3) need some supporting content. How does allowing repair render a device inefficient due to limited space? Surely a replacement part is the same size as an existing part? Why would a company lose customers by allowing customers to continue using their devices? Additionally, while it is ok to use informal or incorrect grammar in dialogue, a message from the CEO of a major company to Leader probably calls for a bit of proof-reading... "fewer" instead of "less" in both uses.

- What does option 2 actually do? Non-repairable tech seems to be the norm already, and this looks like an argument to maintain the status quo (it's a classic "ignore the last speaker!" option). That's the Dismiss button. The CEO needs to be asking for something to happen, here.

(Also very minor, but if you could add [DRAFT] to your first post's title, it'll make life easier. I keep overlooking this on the forum because it isn't flagged).

Verdant Haven wrote:A couple of minor thoughts here:

- In the description I'd suggest "not replaceable" as an alternative to "irreplaceable." The latter usually refers to something which is so rare that you can't find another one, as opposed to simply not being user-friendly to replace.

- In option 1: There is no @@NATION@@ macro – I suspect you want @@NAME@@.

- In option 2: The CEO's email is a bit stilted, and it feels like the arguments (especially numbers 2 and 3) need some supporting content. How does allowing repair render a device inefficient due to limited space? Surely a replacement part is the same size as an existing part? Why would a company lose customers by allowing customers to continue using their devices? Additionally, while it is ok to use informal or incorrect grammar in dialogue, a message from the CEO of a major company to Leader probably calls for a bit of proof-reading... "fewer" instead of "less" in both uses.

- What does option 2 actually do? Non-repairable tech seems to be the norm already, and this looks like an argument to maintain the status quo (it's a classic "ignore the last speaker!" option). That's the Dismiss button. The CEO needs to be asking for something to happen, here.

(Also very minor, but if you could add [DRAFT] to your first post's title, it'll make life easier. I keep overlooking this on the forum because it isn't flagged).

Fixed!

Next draft up, people.

/bump

/bump

Nice issue

/bump you go

Nice issue idea.

(1.)

Option 1: Your niece storms into the room in a fit of rage. "How dare they do this to @@DENONYMPLURAL@@?! The companies care only about making money, so they make it impossible to fix anything that's broken, instead pushing us to "better" and more expensive models. We deserve to be able to fix our own things."

It's up to you, but I find the options flow a bit better if the dialogue comes first, and then the action of the character. So in this case it would be something like: "How dare they do this to @@DENONYMPLURAL@@?!" your niece rages, storming into the room, "The companies... [rest of paragraph]

(2.)

"You should make it so that repairs should always be possible, as easy as possible, and as cheap as possible, with the option to only pay for the replacement of the broken part! I'm sure it would cut down on e-waste and stuff, too."

This reads a little clunky. I think maybe "Repairs should be way cheaper and more accessible, ..." would be a little easier to read.

(3. Effect lines)

Effect Line: even old McDonald can fix a phone.

I think effect lines work best when they reveal some unforeseen and ironic downside to the decision, as you see most effect lines do. In this case, maybe something like "phone prices soar as manufacturers buy out repair shops ..." it's not perfect, but it's just a suggestion.

Effect Line: e-waste is e-xploding throughout the nation

This one is good.

Effect Line: the Communi-cation Office is making the phones

I think an effect line about illegal import phone models making their way into the nation might work better here, or something about underground phone modding.

Kaschovia wrote:-snip-

Thanks, most suggestions added.