[DRAFT #1] Who Cares?

[Tinhampton]

According to Trotterdam, Parental Licensing has two reversals. Issue #300 "Trafficked Tots Trouble" is about the children of parents without licenses becoming the victims of trafficking operations and not too focused on the reversal. Issue #1,146 "Mother Knows Best?" is a more direct reversal about decreasing rates of license awards, with a focus on how hard it should be for the awardees (parents) to pass. This issue is about... well, corruption among license awarders.

[title]Who Cares?
[desc]In theory, every @@DEMONYM@@ who wants to become a parent needs to pass a rigorous exam before being granted the privilege. In practice, however, many testing centres have been licensing copious numbers of exam-failing applicants for seemingly irrelevant reasons such as their appearance, personal background, and favourite celebrities. There have even been reported cases of candidates being given a license before they even start the test.
[validity]must have Parental Licensing and high corruption

[option]"The system is working perfectly as intended," says parental license awarder @@RANDOMNAME@@, fresh off nodding through an entire cohort. "By enjoying the discretion to look at all aspects of the candidates - including their real-world attitudes - rather than their raw test scores, we get a better picture of how they could act as parents, whether they'll expose their children to harmful influences, and if they're cut out to serve as role models in the community. I'm shocked to hear that so many of my colleagues aren't playing by the rules when it comes to this, however; a bit more funding to help them do their jobs properly would be appreciated."
[effect]parental licensing centres are more comfortable and spacious than ever before

[option]"You need to be open, honest and upfront with the people," insists @@RANDOMNAME@@, who recently lost @@HIS@@ four children after allegations that he lied throughout his exam were proven. "The do-nothing bureaucrats at the Department for Responsible Families are quite clearly giving out random judgments about 'fitness to parent' to whoever they want for whatever reason they want, even if it's illegal on some other grounds. This is not the way parental licenses should be granted; with how engrained pure corruption is in the process, I don't think we'll ever be able to get it right. Ending this mad scheme would be the best, fairest, and most rational outcome for everyone."
[effect]it takes a one-off signature on a birth certificate to raise a child
[flagchange]Parental Licensing abolished

[Trotterdam]

Corruption is a problem that can afflict any part of the government, including this one. Is there any particular reason to make it about parental licensing, besides "we need more parental licensing issues"?

Compare #1228, which is about corruption or incompetence in another kind of license test, and has the same kinds of options: enforce better standards, abolish licenses. Plus one more, which is a good idea anyway because issues made for nations with unusual concepts should usually aim to have at least two options that retain those concepts (players who already chose to implement parental licensing are more likely to want to keep it than abolish it).

[Tinhampton]

The options in 1146 are make licensing easier, make licensing harder, no licensing. (The premise is few licenses being awarded.)
The options in 1228 are standardise licensing, loosen licensing, no licensing. (The premise is licensing procedures legally varying from place to place.)

I think this issue is different because it looks at impermissible or improper variation in licensing - and systemic variation at that, rather than a one-off incident involving a family member. The licenser in Option 1 doesn't want "better standards," either; he just wants the rules enforced... or what he thinks the rules are supposed to be, anyway. (It's also worth noting that parental licensing is the only license there's a policy for.)

[Trotterdam]

systemic variation at that, rather than a one-off incident involving a family member

#1228 isn't about a one-off incident. It uses a one-off incident as a framing device, but the text implies that such incidents are more widespread. One-off incidents are not important enough to be brought to @@LEADER@@'s desk.

None of the options on #1228 actually involve specifically giving your niece special treatment because she's your niece. Even the "corrupt" option is about permitting nepotism and other corrupt choices by individual examiners (with an effect line suggesting that bribery becomes rampant), not by @@LEADER@@ personally.

[Australian rePublic]

Is it too easy or too difficult to get a licence? Which is it? If both, the description could benefit from the use of the word "conversly"

[Tinhampton]

Is it too easy or too difficult to get a licence?

Easier than it's supposed to be

[Kaschovia]

[desc]In theory, every @@DEMONYM@@ who wants to become a parent needs to pass a rigorous exam before being granted the privilege. In practice, however, many testing centres have been licensing copious numbers of exam-failing applicants for seemingly irrelevant reasons such as their appearance, personal background, and favourite celebrities. There have even been reported cases of candidates being given a license before they even start the test.

Just some suggestions for the description: "Every hopeful parent-to-be in @@NAME@@ must pass a rigorous exam before parenthood is granted, but shocking new reports are proving many of the testing centres have passed applicants based on irrelevant factors such as their appearance, fast food chain of choice, and favourite celebrities. The worst cases seem to suggest that some applicants were accepted before they even started the exam."

[Verdant Haven]

I'd like to hear something about *why* additional funding will help. The most recent thing this speaker said was to acknowledge that many of their colleagues aren't doing their jobs, so following that with immediately asking for those same colleagues to get paid more doesn't seem like a valid argument. How will the funds be used to improve performance?

Since this issue is meant to be about corruption amongst the license awarders, I'd like to see some corruption here! Merely doing the job at random doesn't check that box – where are the bribery allegations? Where is the malice? Where is the quid pro quo that exchanges parenting licenses for exclusive perks from parents-to-be? Having speaker 2 be a convicted briber coming clean rather than a convicted liar making dubious claims could provide an in for exposing a whole corrupt system.