[ABANDONED]Federalism Feuds

[Fauxia]

"Federalism Feuds"

Validity: Valid for nations with local governments.
The Issue
The debate regarding the influence and power of local governments has been thrust into the spotlight after Northeastern @@NAME@@ declared that they did not have to follow one of your most powerful laws.

The Debate
1. "Thank you for meeting with me," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, governor of NORTHEASTERN @@NAME@@. "You see, we really had no intention of undermining your authority, but my province believes that the central government is too powerful, and we knew that this would bring your attention to this issue. If we decentralize the government, it prevents you, or anyone else, for that matter, from becoming a dictator. Federalism is the way to go!"
FALLOUT: Local governments usually repeal laws from the central government.
2. "That's ridiculous!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, who is one of the youngest members of parliament. "Federalism is, like, such an out of date idea, Ernie Flanders can't remember when it was first proposed! We should eliminate local governments, now that we can get around faster." @@HE@@ leans toward you and whispers, "and it would give us more power!"
FALLOUT: Local parks cannot mow their grass without the central government's permission.
3. "Why do we have to take either extreme?" asks Minister of Compromise @@RANDOMNAME@@, while stalemating @@HER@@ intern in chess. "Why not have an independent committee set a clear guideline of whether the local or central government gets to make a decision? Of course, you'll have to raise taxes to fund the commission, but this isn't about the taxpayers, is it?"
FALLOUT: More time is spent on deciding who settles an issue than is spent settling an issue.

New Draft (2.2)
[The Issue] A debate in the proper influence and power of local governments has been thrust into the spotlight after @@CAPITAL@@ unilaterally decided that it was not required to follow one of your flagship laws. You invited various interests for a conference regarding the matter.

[validity]Only valid for nations that have local governments

[The Debate]
1. "Thank you for meeting with me, @@LEADER@@," begins @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, mayor of @@CAPITAL@@. "You see, we really had no intention of undermining your authority, but we in @@CAPITAL@@ believe that the national government has become too powerful, and we wanted to bring that to your attention. If we decentralize the government, it prevents you, or anyone else for that matter, from becoming a dictator."
FALLOUT: the national government cannot pass any law without unanimous concurrence from every local government
2. "That's completely ridiculous!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, a member of Parliament. "We all know all that federalism does is create more bureaucracy and more crime. If you take the mayor's proposal, he will undermine every law that's built our great @@TYPE@@ into what it is. We can't have that. It's time to eliminate these local governments!" @@HE@@ leans towards you and whispers, "plus, it gives us more power."
FALLOUT: local parks cannot mow their grass without the national government's permission
3. "I don't see why we have to take either extreme," says your Minister of Compromise, @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ stalemates @@HIS@@ intern in chess. "Why not have an independent commission set a clear guideline of whether the local or the national government gets to decide an issue. Of course, you'll have to raise taxes to fund the commission, and it will create more bureaucracy, but isn't it worth it to settle this debate fairly?"
FALLOUT: more time is spent on settling who gets to decide an issue than is spent actually handling issues

Thoughts?

[Jutsa]

Hello, Fauxia! Here's my review on your issue draft. Take or ignore whatever you want from this pile.

The Title/Debate/Validity:

The debate on the influence and power of local governments has been thrust into the spotlight after Northeastern @@NAME@@ declared that they did not have to follow one of your most powerful laws.

Hmm... it's only one sentence. Perhaps you should add another sentence mentioning that you've been invited to a meeting to discuss the problem.
Also, perhaps instead of "The debate", it'd be better read as "A debate".

Option 1:

Actually, I quite liked the entire option! However,

FALLOUT: Local governments usually repeal laws from the central government.

I feel like this could be exaggerated a little bit more. Maybe something along the lines of,
"towns often pay no attention to national laws" or something.

Option 2:

2. "That's ridiculous!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, who is one of the youngest members of parliament. "Federalism is, like, such an out of date idea, Ernie Flanders can't remember when it was first proposed! We should eliminate local governments, now that we can get around faster." @@HE@@ leans toward you and whispers, "and it would give us more power!"

I don't know, it just doesn't seem compelling enough. Maybe, instead of claiming that it's so old-fashioned
(I honestly don't know if it is), the reason could be because of all of the bureaucracy and all the anarchic and tyrannical fallout that it could bring.

Local parks cannot mow their grass without the central government's permission.

Good fallout.

Option 3: ...
oh, actually, I have nothing to add to this one. It's just fine.

Overall, I think this is a rather nice issue, adding/decreasing autonomy and adding a backstory to federalism.
Good luck on this one.

[Fauxia]

Hello, Fauxia! Here's my review on your issue draft. Take or ignore whatever you want from this pile.

The Title/Debate/Validity:

The debate on the influence and power of local governments has been thrust into the spotlight after Northeastern @@NAME@@ declared that they did not have to follow one of your most powerful laws.

Hmm... it's only one sentence. Perhaps you should add another sentence mentioning that you've been invited to a meeting to discuss the problem.
Also, perhaps instead of "The debate", it'd be better read as "A debate".

Option 1:

Actually, I quite liked the entire option! However,

FALLOUT: Local governments usually repeal laws from the central government.

I feel like this could be exaggerated a little bit more. Maybe something along the lines of,
"towns often pay no attention to national laws" or something.

Option 2:

2. "That's ridiculous!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, who is one of the youngest members of parliament. "Federalism is, like, such an out of date idea, Ernie Flanders can't remember when it was first proposed! We should eliminate local governments, now that we can get around faster." @@HE@@ leans toward you and whispers, "and it would give us more power!"

I don't know, it just doesn't seem compelling enough. Maybe, instead of claiming that it's so old-fashioned
(I honestly don't know if it is), the reason could be because of all of the bureaucracy and all the anarchic and tyrannical fallout that it could bring.

Local parks cannot mow their grass without the central government's permission.

Good fallout.

Option 3: ...
oh, actually, I have nothing to add to this one. It's just fine.

Overall, I think this is a rather nice issue, adding/decreasing autonomy and adding a backstory to federalism.
Good luck on this one.

Thanks for the input! I'll add a new draft soon

[Jutsa]

@@LEADER@@, says

" after @@LEADER@@,. :3

"That's completely ridiculous!" says

Says is fine, although perhaps "cries" or "shouts" would spice it up just a tiny bit.

extreme," says

Again, perhaps something else like "comments" or "interjects" would spice it up.

set a clear guidelines

Either set a clear guideline or set clear guidelines. :3

taxes to find the commission

to find? I think you meant to fund?

Overall, much better, imo.
I'll probably review it again after other edits are made. Good luck.

[Fauxia]

Bumped

[Jutsa]

Almost fixed... just needs that " after the first @@LEADER@@,
Also, instead of "guideline", it's currently "guidelins".

[Fauxia]

Bumped

[Fauxia]

So... is anyone going to comment here? I hope so.

[Jutsa]

Well, from what I can see, there's one last change I highly recommend be changed.
Un-sentencify(... I couldn't think of a better word) the effect lines(or fallouts, if you will).
Basically, just remove the period and the capitalization of otherwise lowercase first words.

Yeah... do that first, then probably wait a few more days, and if nothing strange pops up by then, I'm sure it'll be fine to submit.
Uh... then again, I'm a relatively newborn gi member so it might no hurt to get at least someone else's opinion, first.

[Fauxia]

Well, from what I can see, there's one last change I highly recommend be changed.
Un-sentencify(... I couldn't think of a better word) the effect lines(or fallouts, if you will).
Basically, just remove the period and the capitalization of otherwise lowercase first words.

Yeah... do that first, then probably wait a few more days, and if nothing strange pops up by then, I'm sure it'll be fine to submit.
Uh... then again, I'm a relatively newborn gi member so it might no hurt to get at least someone else's opinion, first.

I've asked other people on The Writer's Block, hopefully they commented,

[Fauxia]

Well, from what I can see, there's one last change I highly recommend be changed.
Un-sentencify(... I couldn't think of a better word) the effect lines(or fallouts, if you will).
Basically, just remove the period and the capitalization of otherwise lowercase first words.

Yeah... do that first, then probably wait a few more days, and if nothing strange pops up by then, I'm sure it'll be fine to submit.
Uh... then again, I'm a relatively newborn gi member so it might no hurt to get at least someone else's opinion, first.

Not actually sure what you mean

[Jutsa]

For instance, take this sentence.

The national government cannot pass any law without unanimous concurrence from every local government.

To un-sentencify... or whatever, you do something like this. Note the first and the final character in this.

the national government cannot pass any law without unanimous concurrence from every local government

[Fauxia]

Bumped

[Fauxia]

Anyone here?

[Ransium]

This reads like an early (sub 100) issue when there were still wide swathes of possible nationals issues that were completely unexplored. These days writing such a broad and general issue is bound to cause overlap with many places in the issues base. In this case, #67 Most Likely To Sucede and #111 Southern @@NAME@@ Demand Semi-Autonomy are the most obvious places of overlap but there are probably 10-20 issues that deal with federal versus local control in a more specific way, for example, #334 Blot Out Bauhaus. The other problem with such a generic premise is that it causes the options that flow from it to also be very generic. I think an issue in the same vein of this one might be possible, but you really need to come up with a specific and interesting reason for the dispute.

[Fauxia]

This reads like an early (sub 100) issue when there were still wide swathes of possible nationals issues that were completely unexplored. These days writing such a broad and general issue is bound to cause overlap with many places in the issues base. In this case, #67 Most Likely To Sucede and #111 Southern @@NAME@@ Demand Semi-Autonomy are the most obvious places of overlap but there are probably 10-20 issues that deal with federal versus local control in a more specific way, for example, #334 Blot Out Bauhaus. The other problem with such a generic premise is that it causes the options that flow from it to also be very generic. I think an issue in the same vein of this one might be possible, but you really need to come up with a specific and interesting reason for the dispute.

Thanks for the input. I'll see what I can do.

So you're saying is make it a local v. national govmnt debate on a specific issue?

In any case, that would be quite different from this issue, so I'm adding "abandoned"

[Fauxia]

Time to write a new issue! A different one...