Advertisement
by Trotterdam » Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:47 pm
by Trotterdam » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:28 am
#456 Heads Will Roll
The Issue
Earlier this week an entire chapter of the motorcycle gang Daughters of Disorder was involved in a nasty accident on one of @@NAME@@'s major highways, leaving several of them dead. After medical personnel later ascertained that the use of helmets could have saved their lives, your Minister of Health and Public Safety made a statement proposing a set of new security measures mandatory for all motorcycle riders. The initiative has sparked debate, and is facing strong opposition from motorcycle enthusiasts.
The Debate
2. "This law would violate our religious right to wear our sacred top hats while riding motorcycles!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, president of the Traqnuil Yellowist Scooter Corps, as @@HE/SHE@@ points @@HIS/HER@@ ceremonial blade at your chest. "We have worn the top hat in times of war on the battlefield! Our protection comes from the Yellow One himself! Require the ungodly heathens to wear helmets! Those who are chosen by the Yellow One to ride will ride in style or die trying!"
3. "The stove pipe is right, helmets are lame!" agrees @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, your slacker nephew. "How am I going to impress any babes if I have helmet hair?" he asks, running his hand through his hair while checking out your secretary over his sunglasses. "Do the right thing boss; helmets are for losers."
4. "Don't listen to him, dear," says your sister, while she drags her son towards the door by the ear. "You had the right idea: everyone riding a motorcycle should wear a helmet, and a padded full body protective suit, and a reflective vest, and neck warmers and..." she continues listing security gear as she leaves the room with your nephew in tow.
6. "It's not enough!" screams one of your junior aides, a fragile and slightly confused soul who was particularly disturbed by the recent accident. "It's not just traffic! People slip in the shower every day, cans fall on their heads in supermarkets, disoriented birds; we're all exposed, at all times! If people are too stupid to realize that, we have to make them! There should be a helmet law for everyone! Wear a helmet or be banned from leaving the house!"
Issue by Sleep
Edited by Gnejs
"Grand Schism" implies religions with a common root that drifted apart.3. "That doesn't go far enough," claims the leader of The Tranquility of Yellow, an ancient religion that has a just as ancient feud with Violetism. "These heretics have been a danger ever since the Grand Schism, and they must be dealt with accordingly. I suggest we start up an inquisition. My people will find these Violetists, and see if they can be converted to our true religion or renounce their faith. Whichever one the government prefers. We're not picky. If not... the stake. BURN THEM ALL! Or hang them. Just get rid of those creepy Violetists, okay?"
by Bears Armed » Mon Jul 10, 2017 3:59 am
by Candlewhisper Archive » Mon Jul 10, 2017 6:32 am
Araneidae wrote:Sigh. Hard to keep up with all these changes. My old notes are pretty much useless at this point.
by Caracasus » Mon Jul 10, 2017 8:59 am
by Candlewhisper Archive » Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:25 am
Trotterdam wrote:...Anyway, "Tranquil" is misspelled.
by Trotterdam » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:04 pm
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Hmm, on 761, amazingly and astoundingly, I managed to entirely drop an option from the issue (761.3), by misplacing a single "@" symbol.
Now fixed. Just so y'all know, there's no option validity on that option, it was just my error.
Absence of said option leaves a pretty big gap in the choices, which is probably why the issue is sat at 45% dismissal. Doh.
#761 As Seen On TVComparing with Drasnia's version, Jason Bouring is nonrandom. I don't know if Abbot Blackbriar is.
The Issue
Classic TV fans have pointed out that the terrible events of the recent @@CAPITAL@@ Stock Exchange bombing were strangely foreshadowed in long-cancelled shlock soap opera "The Light of Day", sitcom "The Flimpsons", and in a dozen other TV programs produced by the same media company.
The Debate
1. "Since we're outperforming the Intelligence community, you should make use of our talents!" suggests producer @@RANDOMNAME@@, sensing the opportunity for some great PR. "I figure that we've got our finger so tightly on the pulse of society that we've become psychically attuned to the zeitgeist of tomorrow. That's why subconsciously, our programming content can predict that which your so-called experts are oblivious to. We'll happily send you all our predictions for a small consultation fee."
2. "They're receiving information from elsewhere!" stage whispers @@NAME@@'s lousiest spy, Jason Bouring. "None of our agencies could have predicted the bombings, and I don't think it's likely mere TV producers could have made this string of perfect guesses. They must be in league with terrorists, maybe as spies sent from Blackacre. We must arrest them, and deal with these traitors harshly!"
3. "Don't you think the real problem is that intelligence services that can be beaten by a TV entertainment company?" asks Intelligence Agency Director Abbot Blackbriar. "Counter-terrorism measures need upgrading, and national security services need better funding. With more agents, rigorous training programs and more investigatory powers, we'll soon be better than the best. In fact, you should just assign me a budget, and leave things to me."
4. "The only obvious thing here is that it's all a coincidence," points out mathematician @@RANDOMNAME@@. "There was no reasonable way to predict the @@CAPITAL@@ bombings, and frankly there's no reasonable way to predict terrorism at all. Best thing to do is to strip back security and intelligence services altogether, and give us taxpayers a break!" @@HE/SHE@@ yelps suddenly as black-gloved hands pull @@HIM/HER@@ into the back of an unmarked van.
Issue by Cazalius Lodra
Edited by Candlewhisper Archive
by Tinhampton » Mon Jul 10, 2017 2:29 pm
by Australian rePublic » Tue Jul 11, 2017 3:12 am
by The Paradisian Empire » Tue Jul 11, 2017 12:37 pm
by Australian rePublic » Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:07 pm
by Candlewhisper Archive » Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:56 am
The Paradisian Empire wrote:What are the stat requirements to get the latest issue series? I've been going through many puppets to see if it's popped up and so far only one has the new issue series.
by Bears Armed » Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:03 am
Australian Republic wrote:Carbon Emissions Are Why We Can’t Have Nice Things“There’s another way”, posits Balon Busk, the nation’s foremost newspaper columnist on technology and fantasy fiction. “Carbon capture and storage technology has some great potential. Of course, kicking off new tech is always risky, so we’ll need massive subsidies for investments in the right infrastructure and equipment. But if we get it to work, we won’t need to reduce carbon emissions at all. We’ll just put it someplace it won’t do any harm and no one is likely to stumble upon it, like deep below the Misty Mountains or something. It’s the epitome of eating your cake and having it too! Expensive cake, but still.”The Issue
Signing that international climate treaty all those months ago really put a feather in your cap, and in the cap of Australian Republic. Stately banquets in Brancaland and numerous editorials on your progressive leadership; it really has been quite delightful. Today, however, a strongly worded letter from the treaty compliance commission arrived at your desk, asking you to detail how Australian Republic plans to fulfill its obligations.
The Debate
“Well, we always knew this day would come,” laments renowned business tycoon Dana Yossef. “The important thing now is to ensure that the most business-friendly option is pursued. If we hook ourselves up to one of the established cap-and-trade systems, we can go shopping in the backwater signatory states and buy enough permits to allow Australian companies to continue producing at their current rates. Our industry won’t technically reduce their emissions, but it’s an ‘international’ treaty, right?”
Accept
“Let’s do this the right way, yes?” suggests Hugh Fallon, avid ‘yes-man’ and resident of a territory completely devoid of oil and gas. “If you want a tried and true method for reducing carbon emissions, you can’t go wrong with a good old fashioned tax scheme. Yes, those territories with larger energy reserves and heavy industry will likely be impacted to a greater extent than those without, and socioeconomically it’s bound to be somewhat regressive, but we have to consider future generations. We can offset the damages by investing the revenue in renewable energy and social welfare, yes?”
AcceptAccept
“This meddling in national affairs is sickening,” howls Minerva Malik, an energy sector advocate known for her love of dramatic exaggerations. “Any one of the proposed options will decimate our economy, without having the slightest positive impact on the environment, probably. All the worthwhile companies will flee to more business-friendly jurisdictions, and Australian Republic will die a horrible and painful death; that’s right, I said it: that treaty of yours will kill Australian Republic. Who’s going to appreciate all those flowers when everybody’s dead, huh? Trash the treaty!”
Accept
Dismiss This Issue
Issue by The Confederacy of Continental Commonwealths
Edited by Gnejs
by Drasnia » Wed Jul 12, 2017 3:18 pm
#767: Xe Said, Zhe Said [The Marsupial Illuminati; ed:RansiumThe professor's name in the description looks to be random (though I can't be certain yet), especially considering Ransium made sure not to use his name in option 2.
The Issue
Transgender students at @@CAPITAL@@ University are up in arms after Shinzo Peters, a noted Sociology professor, refused to use students’ preferred pronouns. After being briefed on the minefield of multiple genders and microaggressions, you step outside your safe space to face the masses.
The Debate
1. “By refusing to call me by my preferred pronouns, he is denying my humanity!” cries a spirited student with no clear gender. “He is a transphobic person, using free speech as an excuse to cover his bigotry. I don’t feel safe on this campus anymore because of this. We as a society discourage the use of offensive speech all the time, which is why we don’t allow racial slurs on our campus. Why aren’t pronouns treated the same way? Misgendering should be a hate speech and those who do it should be fired from their jobs and liable for psychological damage!”
2. “Oh shut up, free speech is a cornerstone of our nation,” bemoans the professor in question. “Restricting speech is how most authoritarian and fascist regimes in history began. First they’ll come for your ability to use the pronouns you want, and you’ll say nothing because you don’t want to offend people; next, they’ll come for the media! We cannot allow this to happen! I am not a bigot just because I refuse to address a transgender student with a made-up pronoun concocted by radical activists. Besides, I have a thousand students, I can’t be bothered to remember a thousand pronouns; I must be allowed to refer to people however I want.”
3. “The problem is that our speech allows for such offenses to be had at all,” claims Winston O’Brien, a controversial equality advocate. “I’m not just talking about eliminating gendered pronouns from our language, although that’s really a no-brainer, I’m talking about eliminating any sort of possibly offensive descriptors. Adjectives possibly related to race? Gone! Descriptors of different religions? Gone! Racial slurs? Oh man... er, person, are they gone. With new @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ OffenselessSpeak, @@NAME@@ will be paradise.”
by The Marsupial Illuminati » Wed Jul 12, 2017 4:46 pm
Drasnia wrote:The professor's name in the description looks to be random (though I can't be certain yet), especially considering Ransium made sure not to use his name in option 2.
by Australian rePublic » Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:50 pm
by The Candy Of Bottles » Wed Jul 12, 2017 10:45 pm
by Trotterdam » Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:14 am
#768 Trouble Brewing
The Issue
This morning's strategy meeting was brought to a grinding halt when you and your cabinet were subjected to the worst pot of tea you have ever had the misfortune of suffering. The leaves weren't properly brewed, the milk was skimmed AND powdered, the water was lukewarm, and the sugar bowl was full of salt...
The Debate
1. "Oh gosh @@LEADER@@, I'm so sorry I don't know how to make your boiled leaf water," spits @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@, the ever-sarcastic secretary responsible for the offending brew. "I was busy learning trivialities like typing, minute-taking, IT skills, and calendar organising. How about you all drink Eckie-cola from now on, instead? In fact, you should get rid of tea from the whole of @@NAME@@: it's a drink for old farts and fuddy-duddies anyway."
2. "Look, I'm the Secretary of State, the damn Secretary of State, I say, and even I know how to make tea properly," complains your elderly Secretary of State, pointing to the desk nameplate that says Secretary of State. "The problem with young people today, well, besides being constantly glued to their Pear Phones, is that they don't know how to slow down and take their time. We should make tea-making and kitchen skills a part of the national curriculum, and encourage all those teenagers and twenty-somethings to stop rushing around, and to appreciate a proper tea service."
3. "Pfft, slow-mo food and drink is so last century," mocks @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Chief of Science, while digging into @@HIS/HER@@ microwave burrito. "What you need is instant tea, in a can, with some sort of heating widget that triggers with the ring pull, and plenty of preservatives to make it last. Once again, science has the answer! So, shall I assign some government grants for food technology research, or what?"
4. "Oolongs for better tea?" giggles @@RANDOMNAME@@, your pun-loving Minister of Agriculture, and your Cabinet brace themselves for an onslaught of tea-related puns. "Can we Matcha solution to the problem? Can we Rize to the occasion? Did you read that report I Sencha? Did I get things down to a tea, my Darjeelings?" In the face of blank faces and silence, @@HE/SHE@@ changes tack. "Uh... anyway, coffee. Coffee is easier to make and nicer. Subsidise coffee growers."
Issue by Candlewhisper Archive
Edited by Ransium
Well, Violet is explicitly a female deity, and it's still not clear exactly how they're supposed to be related...
by Candlewhisper Archive » Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:10 am
by Trotterdam » Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:35 am
by Bears Armed » Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:39 am
Trotterdam wrote:They're still implied to be practicing human sacrifice
by Trotterdam » Thu Jul 13, 2017 4:55 am
by Trotterdam » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:24 pm
#769 How To Print Money?
The Issue
An independent study recently estimated that up to ten percent of all physical money in circulation is counterfeit. The Treasury Department are greatly worried, both that the counterfeiters are still at large and that @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ could be being severely devalued over time.
The Debate
1. "The fake bills just keep coming and coming!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, your excitable Chancellor of the Treasury, pouring out a suitcase of the counterfeit notes onto your desk. "If we want to stop this, I'll need a special task force under my direct control, and a free hand to act decisively... With that, I guarantee you we'll stamp out all forms of counterfeiting within a month. Or maybe two. Or however long it takes!"
2. "An easier solution would be to implant small RFID-microchips into our notes and coins," proposes @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister of Gadgets, demonstrating a prototype to you. "This would ensure that all genuine money could be immediately verified by handheld scanners. As an extra benefit, it'd be a lot easier to track the movement of cash if we need to."
3. "All that glitters is gold, and really that's all we'll need to know," mumbles @@RANDOMNAME@@, a gold magnate. "Wouldn't it be much simpler if a 1-@@CURRENCY@@ coin was actually worth one @@CURRENCY@@? If you used gold coins instead, not only would the coins have intrinsic value, but counterfeiting would become profitless and thus non-existent."
4. "What a boring, utilitarian solution," yawns @@RANDOMNAME@@, an uppity artist, who is currently painting a mural on your ceiling. "The correct way should be to issue new notes and coins, and adorn them with elegant and intricate patterns. Not only will they be hard to copy, but they'll look fabulous as well. Only then will it be difficult for criminals to make a mould."
5. "What's so wrong with individuals making money?" questions a dodgy-looking stranger with ink stains on his hands. "If the government can print money, then why can't private citizens? It'd stimulate the economy, I reckon, by creating cashflow and hyperinflating the currency, or something like that. Hyperinflation is something good, right? Isn't that what free market economics means?"
Issue by Singapore no2
Edited by Candlewhisper Archive
by Australian rePublic » Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:12 am
by Tinhampton » Sun Jul 16, 2017 5:27 am
Australian Republic wrote:el snip
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Valentine Z
Advertisement