[ACCEPTED; Issue No. 1191] Intelligent Design?

[Kylarnatia]

[Title] Intelligent Design?

[Description] Animal rights activists in @@NAME@@ have petitioned the government to ban "designer pets": the selective breeding of household pets to enhance extreme characteristics which they claim leads to multiple genetic defects. After your mailing office was inundated with letters full of sad pet pictures, a meeting has been arranged with interested parties in order to give your poor mail clerks a break, and hopefully put the issue to rest.

[Validity] All

[Option] "Arthritis, skeletal deformation, and brain compression: these are just some of the terrible medical conditions caused by selective breeding," bemoans activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, over-dramatically pointing to a selection of pictures they've sprawled out on your desk while struggling to hold back tears. "People's desire to own breeds like the Maxtopian fold cat and the Lilliputian munchkin rabbit for their supposedly 'cute' characteristics has only fostered an environment of cruel and unethical breeding practices." @@HE@@ finally breaks down. "The government should ban the continued breeding and sale of designer pets, and require all breeders be licensed and comply with a set framework of ethical breeding standards. Think of the poor fur-babies!"
[Effect] owning a really cute pet is grounds for immediate investigation

[Option] "Oh jeez, give me a break!" scoffs prominent B-list celebrity Berlin Chilton, who is credited with starting the designer pet trend, while adjusting her comically large fur-lined hat. "Don't listen to this drama queen, @@LEADER@@. They just don't like that people aspire to be more like me and Mr. Fuzzykins here, who I assure you is very well-loved. Isn't that right, baby?" She stops to blow kisses at Mr. Fuzzykins, a selectively-bred Smalltopian hound, who is panting heavily and looking very sickly in her luxury handbag. "Designer pets represent a person's right to choose, and these so-called 'activists' just want to take that away. We should be encouraging selective breeding, not banning it."
[Effect] micro-@@ANIMALPLURAL@@ are the current fad sweeping the nation

[Option] "I agree with Ms. Chilton, but it's not just about choice. This is my livelihood!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, owner of the local pet shop around the corner from your office. "I'm already tied up in knots by bureaucratic diktats which force me to spend my hard-earned @@CURRENCY@@ just to be issued licenses telling me what I can and can't sell, how many bodies I need to run the shop...All of which drives up costs and prevents me from making a pro--er, I mean, bringing the joy of pet ownership to the nation. Government needs to stop pandering to the feelings of these damn busybodies who want to ruin my business and relax the rules on poor pet shop owners like me." @@HE@@ leans over, and whispers in your ear, "If you do, I'll give you a nice discount."
[Validity] Nations with low economic freedom
[Effect] pet rocks are sold by the pound

[Option] "@@LEADER@@, all this talk presents us with an interesting opportunity..." chimes your Minister of War, @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, who seems to have invited himself to the meeting. "If we were to selectively breed our own animals, we could turn them into effective weapons against our enemies. We'll usher in a new age of biochemical warfare with vermin designed to destroy our enemies' entire ecosystem!" He cackles maniacally. "Just sign this order I have here, and I'll get the shrinks to work."
[Effect] rabbits are known to spontaneously explode without warning

Changelog - Updated 29/03/19

• This issue has been accepted into the game and implemented as #1191: Intelligent Design (Kylarnatia; ed. The Marsupial Illuminati).

Possible Outcomes

1. Option One would likely lead to an increase in stats like Compassion and Government Size, and a decrease in stats like Civil Rights and Ignorance.
2. Option Two would likely lead to an increase in stats like Civil Rights and Ignorance, and a decrease in stats like Compassion and Intelligence.
3. Option Three would likely lead to an increase in Economic Freedom and Industry: Retail, and a decrease in stats like Government Size and Environmental Beauty.
4. Option Four would likely lead to an increase in stats like Defense Forces, Death Rate and Rudeness, and a decrease in stats like Pacifism and Safety.

[Title] Intelligent Design?

[Description] Animal rights activists in @@NAME@@ have petitioned the government to ban "designer pets": the selective breeding of animals to enhance certain desirable characteristics. After your Twitcher page was bombarded with thousands of sad animal pictures, a meeting has been arranged with interested parties in order to give your notifications a break, and hopefully put the issue to rest.

[Validity] All

[Option] "These animals suffer with multiple genetic conditions as a result of their selective breeding, leading to complications in later life," bemoans activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, over-dramatically pointing to a selection of pictures they've sprawled out on your desk while struggling to hold back tears. "Is it any wonder that animal shelters are full of breeds such as the Maxtopian fold cat or the Lilliputian munchkin rabbit? We should put an end to this needless cruelty and ban selective breeding." @@MAN@@ finally breaks down. "Think of the poor fur-babies!"
[Effect] Posting cute pictures of your pets on social media is grounds for immediate investigation.

[Option] "Oh jeez, give me a break!" scoffs prominent social media influencer and B-list celebrity Berlin Chilton, while adjusting her comically large fur-lined hat. "Don't listen to this drama queen, @@LEADER@@. They just don't like that people aspire to be more like me and Mr. Fuzzykins here. Isn't that right, baby?" She stops to blow kisses at Mr. Fuzzykins, a selectively bred Smalltopian hound, who is panting heavily and looking very sickly in her luxury handbag. "Besides, what's wrong with people knowing what they like? We should encourage selective breeding!"
[Effect] Micro @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ are the current fad sweeping the nation.

[Option] "It's not just about choice. This is my livelihood here!" Cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, owner of the local pet shop around the corner from your office. "All these 'activists' are just saboteurs who are out to make my life more difficult. If you want to do something, help out poor pet shop owners like me, and relax the rules on what I can and can't sell. If you do, I'll give you a nice discount."
[Effect] The line between pet shops and zoos is increasingly blurred.

[Option] "@@LEADER@@, this presents us with an interesting opportunity..." chimes your Minister of War, @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, who seems to have invited himself to the meeting. "If we were to selectively breed our own animals, we could turn them into effective weapons against our enemies. We'll usher in a new age of biochemical warfare with vermin designed to destroy our enemies entire ecosystem!" He cackles maniacally. "Just sign this order I have here, and I'll get the shrinks to work."
[Effect] Rabbit's are known to spontaneously explode without warning.

[Title] Intelligent Design?

[Description] Animal rights activists in @@NAME@@ have petitioned the government to ban "designer pets": the selective breeding of household pets to enhance extreme characteristics which they claim leads to multiple genetic defects. After your mailing office was inundated with letters full of sad pet pictures, a meeting has been arranged with interested parties in order to give your poor mail clerks a break, and hopefully put the issue to rest.

[Validity] All

[Option] "Arthritis, skeletal deformation and brain compression: these are just some of the terrible medical conditions caused by selective breeding," bemoans activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, over-dramatically pointing to a selection of pictures they've sprawled out on your desk while struggling to hold back tears. "People's desire to own breeds like the Maxtopian fold cat and the Lilliputian munchkin rabbit for their supposedly 'cute' characteristics has only fostered an environment of cruel and unethical breeding practices." @@HE@@ finally breaks down. "The government should ban the continued breeding and sale of designer pets, and require all breeders be licensed and comply with a set framework of ethical breeding standards. Think of the poor fur-babies!"
[Effect] owning a really cute pet is grounds for immediate investigation

[Option] "Oh jeez, give me a break!" scoffs prominent B-list celebrity Berlin Chilton, who is credited with starting the designer pet trend, while adjusting her comically large fur-lined hat. "Don't listen to this drama queen, @@LEADER@@. They just don't like that people aspire to be more like me and Mr. Fuzzykins here, who I assure you is very well-loved. Isn't that right, baby?" She stops to blow kisses at Mr. Fuzzykins, a selectively bred Smalltopian hound, who is panting heavily and looking very sickly in her luxury handbag. "Designer pets represent a persons right to choose, and these so-called 'activists' just want to take that away. We should be encouraging selective breeding, not banning it."
[Effect] micro @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ are the current fad sweeping the nation

[Option] "I agree with Ms. Chilton, but its not just about choice. This is my livelihood!" Cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, owner of the local pet shop around the corner from your office. "I'm already tied up in knots by bureaucratic diktats which control what I can and can't sell, how many bodies I need to run the shop...All of which drives up costs and prevents me from making a pro--er, I mean, bringing the joy of pet ownership to the nation. Government needs to stop pandering to the feelings of these so-called 'activists' and relax the rules on poor pet shop owners like me." He leans over, and whispers in your ear, "If you do, I'll give you a nice discount."
[Validity] Nations with low economic freedom
[Effect] the line between pet shops and zoos is increasingly blurred

[Option] "@@LEADER@@, all this talk presents us with an interesting opportunity..." chimes your Minister of War, @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, who seems to have invited himself to the meeting. "If we were to selectively breed our own animals, we could turn them into effective weapons against our enemies. We'll usher in a new age of biochemical warfare with vermin designed to destroy our enemies entire ecosystem!" He cackles maniacally. "Just sign this order I have here, and I'll get the shrinks to work."
[Effect] @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ are known to spontaneously explode without warning

[Title] Intelligent Design?

[Description] Animal rights activists in @@NAME@@ have petitioned the government to ban "designer pets": the selective breeding of household pets to enhance extreme characteristics which they claim leads to multiple genetic defects. After your mailing office was inundated with letters full of sad pet pictures, a meeting has been arranged with interested parties in order to give your poor mail clerks a break, and hopefully put the issue to rest.

[Validity] All

[Option] "Arthritis, skeletal deformation, and brain compression: these are just some of the terrible medical conditions caused by selective breeding," bemoans activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, over-dramatically pointing to a selection of pictures they've sprawled out on your desk while struggling to hold back tears. "People's desire to own breeds like the Maxtopian fold cat and the Lilliputian munchkin rabbit for their supposedly 'cute' characteristics has only fostered an environment of cruel and unethical breeding practices." @@HE@@ finally breaks down. "The government should ban the continued breeding and sale of designer pets, and require all breeders be licensed and comply with a set framework of ethical breeding standards. Think of the poor fur-babies!"
[Effect] owning a really cute pet is grounds for immediate investigation

[Option] "Oh jeez, give me a break!" scoffs prominent B-list celebrity Berlin Chilton, who is credited with starting the designer pet trend, while adjusting her comically large fur-lined hat. "Don't listen to this drama queen, @@LEADER@@. They just don't like that people aspire to be more like me and Mr. Fuzzykins here, who I assure you is very well-loved. Isn't that right, baby?" She stops to blow kisses at Mr. Fuzzykins, a selectively-bred Smalltopian hound, who is panting heavily and looking very sickly in her luxury handbag. "Designer pets represent a person's right to choose, and these so-called 'activists' just want to take that away. We should be encouraging selective breeding, not banning it."
[Effect] micro-@@ANIMALPLURAL@@ are the current fad sweeping the nation

[Option] "I agree with Ms. Chilton, but it's not just about choice. This is my livelihood!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, owner of the local pet shop around the corner from your office. "I'm already tied up in knots by bureaucratic diktats which control what I can and can't sell, how many bodies I need to run the shop...All of which drives up costs and prevents me from making a pro--er, I mean, bringing the joy of pet ownership to the nation. Government needs to stop pandering to the feelings of these damn busybodies who want to ruin my business and relax the rules on poor pet shop owners like me." @@HE@@ leans over, and whispers in your ear, "If you do, I'll give you a nice discount."
[Validity] Nations with low economic freedom
[Effect] pet rocks are sold by the pound

[Option] "@@LEADER@@, all this talk presents us with an interesting opportunity..." chimes your Minister of War, @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, who seems to have invited himself to the meeting. "If we were to selectively breed our own animals, we could turn them into effective weapons against our enemies. We'll usher in a new age of biochemical warfare with vermin designed to destroy our enemies' entire ecosystem!" He cackles maniacally. "Just sign this order I have here, and I'll get the shrinks to work."
[Effect] rabbits are known to spontaneously explode without warning

---

This issue was inspired by the recent news that selective breeding is going to be outlawed in Scotland. Since I've always wanted to try my hand at writing an issue, and since I couldn't find any known issue that directly addresses this topic, I thought I'd start by giving this a go.

Feedback would of course be much appreciated.

[Bears Armed]

[Description] Animal rights activists in @@NAME@@ have petitioned the government to ban "designer pets": the selective breeding
of animals to enhance certain desirable characteristics.

Are we talking about a specific list of "certain desirable characteristics" here, and only in animals intend as pets, or about all characteristics that livestock breeders might consider desirable? Consider how important this processes has been in the development of more productive farm animals, for example, or faster racehorses...
And how could this really work, anyway, given that most breeding of domesticated animals involves the owners deciding which individuals will breed together?

[Kylarnatia]

[Description] Animal rights activists in @@NAME@@ have petitioned the government to ban "designer pets": the selective breeding
of animals to enhance certain desirable characteristics.

Are we talking about a specific list of "certain desirable characteristics" here, and only in animals intend as pets, or about all characteristics that stock breeders might consider desirable? Consider how important this processes has been in the development of more productive farm animals, for example, or faster racehorses?

Fair point. Could add "in household pets" at the end of that sentence to distinguish this, as well as generally change "animals" to "pets" where appropriate.

And how could this really work, anyway, given that most breeding of domesticated animals involves the owners deciding which individuals will breed together?

Also a fair point. I was working from the context of the United Kingdom, where you have to own a license to actually breed animals which you later intend to sell. Of course, that doesn't stop people from doing so, but they can be fined for doing so, or worse if the animal(s) is found to have experienced cruelty (hence the recent decision in Scotland).

Perhaps I could re-write the first option to focus more of that, with an effect line something along the lines of: "Posting cute pictures of pets on social media without a license is considered a criminal offence" or "You must have a license to post cute photos of pets online"

[Trotterdam]

Are we talking about a specific list of "certain desirable characteristics" here, and only in animals intend as pets, or about all characteristics that livestock breeders might consider desirable? Consider how important this processes has been in the development of more productive farm animals, for example, or faster racehorses...
And how could this really work, anyway, given that most breeding of domesticated animals involves the owners deciding which individuals will breed together?

I agree, banning all selective breeding doesn't seem practical or desirable (short of banning all animal breeding, period, which would rapidly lead to pets going extinct...). I do believe we need some kind of regulation to get rid of the more harmful types of selective breeding, though.

The real problem is when people aren't even breeding for specific characteristics like "strong" or "cooperative" or whatever, but simply breeding for conformity to a historical breed. That quickly gets into a circular argument. We don't allow spotted dogs into the gene pool of the Wezeltonian sheepdog. Why? Because the Wezeltonian sheepdog has historically never been spotted, and so any dog that's spotted can't be a true Wezeltonian sheepdog. Nevermind that this is a coincidence and presence or absence of spots has nothing to do with the dog's ability to herd sheep.

[Kylarnatia]

The real problem is when people aren't even breeding for specific characteristics like "strong" or "cooperative" or whatever, but simply breeding for conformity to a historical breed. That quickly gets into a circular argument. We don't allow spotted dogs into the gene pool of the Wezeltonian sheepdog. Why? Because the Wezeltonian sheepdog has historically never been spotted, and so any dog that's spotted can't be a true Wezeltonian sheepdog. Nevermind that this is a coincidence and presence or absence of spots has nothing to do with the dog's ability to herd sheep.

Also a good point. Perhaps instead of using the word "ban", it could be about asking the government to provide stronger regulation for selective breeding, to prevent the kind that ends up creating genetic defects in pets?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Good writing and premise here - unsurprising perhaps from a seasoned rper like yourself.

No significant criticisms at this point, looking forward to seeing how this pans out.

Small technical point, though:
Effect lines should start uncapitalised and not end in punctuation. For example:

[Effect] rabbits are known to spontaneously explode without warning

[Kylarnatia]

Good writing and premise here - unsurprising perhaps from a seasoned rper like yourself.

No significant criticisms at this point, looking forward to seeing how this pans out.

Small technical point, though:
Effect lines should start uncapitalised and not end in punctuation. For example:

[Effect] rabbits are known to spontaneously explode without warning

Thank you! And yeah I had a feeling that might have been the case re: Effect lines, but I wasn't sure. I'll make sure to fix that in the next draft.

When I get some time (possibly later today, if not tomorrow) I'll get to writing a second draft - considering the feedback I've got so far, I'll flesh out the arguments and be more specific as to what this is about / how it'd be actioned by the government.

[Jutsa]

Absolutely love the draft, Kylarnatia.

Don't really have much to say, although I do have two things to point out:

After your Twitcher page was bombarded with thousands of sad animal pictures

Two notes about this one:
1) Not all nations have internet (or even computers) and
2) At least one issue actually prevents politicians from having twitcher. Possibly two, can't remember how those two worked...

Anyhow, I'm sure the former works with a validity check for internet and latter can sorta be a slight of hand (unless also tracked),
but I thought I'd bring it up that it'd restrict the amount of nations that could receive the issue.

Also, tiny nitpick.

@@MAN@@ finally breaks down

Perhaps you mean @@HE@@ or "the @@MAN@@"?

Otherwise very good. Pretty neat that an RP mentor's taken an interest in GI

[Kylarnatia]

Absolutely love the draft, Kylarnatia.

Don't really have much to say, although I do have two things to point out:

After your Twitcher page was bombarded with thousands of sad animal pictures

Two notes about this one:
1) Not all nations have internet (or even computers) and
2) At least one issue actually prevents politicians from having twitcher. Possibly two, can't remember how those two worked...

Anyhow, I'm sure the former works with a validity check for internet and latter can sorta be a slight of hand (unless also tracked),
but I thought I'd bring it up that it'd restrict the amount of nations that could receive the issue.

Glad you like it! You make a very good point, one I actually had considered, but I also liked the idea of making a reference to a recurring thing in other issues (Twitcher, in this instance). Instead of restricting the issue to nations with internet / Twitcher access, perhaps I could change it to: "After your mailing office was inundated with letters containing sad pet pictures..." or words to that effect?

Also, tiny nitpick.

@@MAN@@ finally breaks down

Perhaps you mean @@HE@@ or "the @@MAN@@"?

Ah, good spot. Definitely supposed to be @@HE@@. Will fix that in the next draft.

Otherwise very good. Pretty neat that an RP mentor's taken an interest in GI

[Jutsa]

After your mailing office was inundated with letters containing sad pet pictures...

Looks good to me! But in the end it's your draft, so you can decide which one you'd prefer.

[Australian rePublic]

Option 3- why can't they sell healthy pets?

[Kylarnatia]

Option 3- why can't they sell healthy pets?

TBH this is indeed the weakest of the options but I included it as the groundwork for a possible alternative "against" option. I intend to either rewrite it entirely or get rid of it: the point is that pet shops (at least, in the context of the UK which is what I'm working from) are limited to what types of animals they can sell - you can't buy cats or dogs there for example, you either rescue them from shelters or buy them off third-party breeders (who've also recently been clamped down on, so if you don't hold a license you can't sell from litters).

[Trotterdam]

the point is that pet shops (at least, in the context of the UK which is what I'm working from) are limited to what types of animals they can sell - you can't buy cats or dogs there for example

So... what can you buy in pet shops, if not the animals people most commonly keep as pets?

(who've also recently been clamped down on, so if you don't hold a license you can't sell from litters).

I wonder about that. If anything, I'd think animals born to non-professional breeders who let their pets get frisky would be more likely to have natural, healthy genetic variation than those from professional animal breeders catering to the snobbier clientele. I guess the real point is to discourage people from letting their pets reproduce at all and encourage neutering, to avoid overpopulation, but what do you do when random people do end up with larger litters than they can personally take care of? Allow them to give them away, just not for money?

[Kylarnatia]

the point is that pet shops (at least, in the context of the UK which is what I'm working from) are limited to what types of animals they can sell - you can't buy cats or dogs there for example

So... what can you buy in pet shops, if not the animals people most commonly keep as pets?

Okay, so it seems I've been doing a poor job at making myself clear, and might also be getting myself mixed up with present legislation and developing legislation. Professional, licensed breeders can sell cats and dogs - so technically a store could sell them, but you very rarely find that they do, and the reason being is that there are animal welfare laws that require dogs and cats to be provided suitable accommodation, for example, which while at the discretion of the local authority is often required to be a lot larger than a shop floor. Dogs in particular are required to be exercised and visited at regular intervals, something most pet stores either can ill afford (or rather don't wish) to spend manpower and resources on. All of this information is buried in the links here, if you're curious: https://www.gov.uk/topic/animal-welfare/pets

Therefore, pet shops tend to focus on selling smaller and easier to manage pets, such as hutch animals or reptiles and birds. Fish too.

Edit: Looking closer, there's also this PDF - "Selling Animals as Pets" - which is ninety-one pages long and goes into all the details about what the pre-requisites are for selling certain types of animals as pets. Taking a quick cursory glance, it includes such stipulations as:

"No animal must be stocked or sold unless the staff or at least one member of staff on site during opening hours is familiar with the care and welfare of the animals stocked and has a recognised qualification and/or can demonstrate suitable experience/ training." - pg. 11

So again, this likely explains why most pet shops in the UK don't sell cats and dogs or larger animals: it's probably too much of a hassle. Perhaps this could be the focus of the third option from the pet shop owner?

(who've also recently been clamped down on, so if you don't hold a license you can't sell from litters).

I wonder about that. If anything, I'd think animals born to non-professional breeders who let their pets get frisky would be more likely to have natural, healthy genetic variation than those from professional animal breeders catering to the snobbier clientele.

Not necessarily. I get your thinking, but qualifying for a license requires you to demonstrate that your breeding practices are ethical, especially in newly proposed legislation planning to target "designer pets", which would outlaw the further breeding of the breeds known to have genetic defects caused by the desire for aesthetic qualities. Ergo, you breed healthily, or no dice.

I guess the real point is to discourage people from letting their pets reproduce at all and encourage neutering, to avoid overpopulation, but what do you do when random people do end up with larger litters than they can personally take care of? Allow them to give them away, just not for money?

If you're not licensed, you can't sell. If you need to offload them, you give them away for free. So yes, it's to encourage neutering, especially since animal shelters are already quite full of both dogs and cats looking for a good home.

[Kylarnatia]

[Title] Intelligent Design?

[Description] Animal rights activists in @@NAME@@ have petitioned the government to ban "designer pets": the selective breeding of household pets to enhance certain extreme characteristics which they claim leads to multiple genetic defects. After your mailing office was inundated with letters full of sad pet pictures, a meeting has been arranged with interested parties in order to give your poor mail clerks a break, and hopefully put the issue to rest.

[Validity] All

[Option] "Arthritis, skeletal deformation and brain compression: these are just some of the terrible medical conditions caused by selective breeding," bemoans activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, over-dramatically pointing to a selection of pictures they've sprawled out on your desk while struggling to hold back tears. "People's desire to own breeds like the Maxtopian fold cat and the Lilliputian munchkin rabbit for their supposedly 'cute' characteristics has only fostered an environment of cruel and unethical breeding practices." @@HE@@ finally breaks down. "The government should ban the continued breeding and sale of designer pets, and require all breeders be licensed and comply with a set framework of ethical breeding standards. Think of the poor fur-babies!"
[Effect] owning a really cute pet is grounds for immediate investigation

[Option] "Oh jeez, give me a break!" scoffs prominent social media influencer and B-list celebrity Berlin Chilton, who is credited with starting the designer pet trend, while adjusting her comically large fur-lined hat. "Don't listen to this drama queen, @@LEADER@@. They just don't like that people aspire to be more like me and Mr. Fuzzykins here, who I assure you is very well-loved. Isn't that right, baby?" She stops to blow kisses at Mr. Fuzzykins, a selectively bred Smalltopian hound, who is panting heavily and looking very sickly in her luxury handbag. "Designer pets represent a persons right to choose, and these so-called 'activists' just want to take that away. We should be encouraging selective breeding, not banning it."
[Effect] micro @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ are the current fad sweeping the nation

[Option] "I agree with Ms. Chilton, but its not just about choice. This is my livelihood here!" Cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, owner of the local pet shop around the corner from your office. "I'm already tied up in knots by bureaucratic diktats which control what I can and can't sell, how many bodies I need to run the shop...All of which drives up costs and prevents me from making a pro--er, I mean, bringing the joy of pet ownership to the nation. Government needs to stop pandering to the feelings of these so-called 'activists' and relax the rules on poor pet shop owners like me." He leans over, and whispers in your ear, "If you do, I'll give you a nice discount."
[Validity] Nations with low economic freedom
[Effect] the line between pet shops and zoos is increasingly blurred

[Option] "@@LEADER@@, all this talk presents us with an interesting opportunity..." chimes your Minister of War, @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, who seems to have invited himself to the meeting. "If we were to selectively breed our own animals, we could turn them into effective weapons against our enemies. We'll usher in a new age of biochemical warfare with vermin designed to destroy our enemies entire ecosystem!" He cackles maniacally. "Just sign this order I have here, and I'll get the shrinks to work."
[Effect] @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ are known to spontaneously explode without warning

---

So, here's my attempt at a second draft. A summary of the main changes from the first draft (all of this will be added to the OP):

• Clarified the scope of the issue, insofar in that it concerns the selective breeding of household pets for "extreme characteristics" (which is what it usually gets referred to as in the literature I've seen), and that rather than calling for an outright ban to selective breeding, it's calling for the ban of "designer pet" breeds and tighter regulation for breeders.
• Removal of references to the internet and social media, so as to not limit the validity of the issue to nations who have / allow internet access.
• Turned Option Three into one that's only available to nations with low economic freedom, since it's framed around the idea of excessive government regulation, which is not the case for all nations.
• Changed the effect line of Option Four: As much as the image of exploding rabbits amused me and was a subtle wink to The Book of Bunny Suicides, I felt that maybe it'd be wrong to assume that every nation has rabbits.
• Fixed the grammar, punctuation etc. as required.

I also think it's worth setting out what I imagine the outcomes could be of each option, so as to give people a greater idea of what I'm trying to achieve in their descriptions, and potentially help give more direction for feedback. Just to be clear: I don't expect these to be the actual outcomes if the issue gets submitted and accepted, it's just to give you an idea of what I'm feeling.

1. Option One would likely lead to an increase in stats like Compassion and Government Size, and a decrease in stats like Civil Rights and Ignorance.
2. Option Two would likely lead to an increase in stats like Civil Rights and Ignorance, and a decrease in stats like Compassion and Intelligence.
3. Option Three would likely lead to an increase in Economic Freedom and Industry: Retail, and a decrease in stats like Government Size and Environmental Beauty.
4. Option Four would likely lead to an increase in stats like Defense Forces, Death Rate and Rudeness, and a decrease in stats like Pacifism and Safety.

Any further feedback would, as before, be very much appreciated, and I'm grateful to the feedback I've received so far. From my position, I'm curious as to whether you think:

1. What I've added / redacted helps to make things more clear or not;
2. Whether the special validity of Option Three makes sense or not;
3. Whether you think I was right to change the effect line of Option Four or whether it was funnier before.

[Kylarnatia]

Already spotted one thing I'll need to change: used the line "so-called activists..." in both Options Two and Three. Whoopsie.

[Trotterdam]

That shade of green is a little too light to read comfortably on a light background.

Other than that, I just have some punctuation to add. Comma here:

"Arthritis, skeletal deformation, and brain compression:"

Hyphen here:

a selectively-bred Smalltopian hound,

and maybe here:

micro-@@ANIMALPLURAL@@

Apostrophes here:

"Designer pets represent a person's right to choose,"

"vermin designed to destroy our enemies' entire ecosystem!"

[Option] "I agree with Ms. Chilton, but it's not just about choice. This is my livelihood!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, owner of the local pet shop around the corner from your office.

Also, not technically punctuation, but that "c" should be lowercase:

[Effect] the line between pet shops and zoos is increasingly blurred

Not really a fair comparison, since a lot of zoos are pretty well-regulated for animal welfare, and certainly won't sell an animal without checking your credentials to make sure you can take care of it.

I felt that maybe it'd be wrong to assume that every nation has rabbits.

Wild rabbits? Not everywhere, although they're pretty common. Pet rabbits? Should be nearly everywhere, except Australia, which hates rabbits due to them being an invasive species (so they're still present). Assuming the availability of pet rabbits isn't really more unreasonable that assuming the availability of pet cats or dogs - and in fact, we don't currently have an issue for banning rabbits, while we do have issues for banning (#103 3) or clamping down on (#1007 3) dogs. In any case, the Minister of War should be capable of acquiring whatever animal species he (actually, why is he always a he?) believes would have military value.

As a side note, while looking this up, I came across an... interesting... appearance of a dog breeder in #499 2...

---

By the way, I wasn't kidding with my example of breeding animals for maintaining racial purity to some historical standard. Seriously, people hold contests about this kind of stuff. (That article is about dogs, but it happens with other animals too. The specific "we can't breed in this coloration, because the breed has never had it before" example I gave before was, I believe, derived from an article on some cat breed I read once, though unfortunately I don't remember which.)

[Kylarnatia]

That shade of green is a little too light to read comfortably on a light background.

Whoopsie, sorry! I use the "Dark" theme and it's been so long since I've seen the default theme that I forget. I've updated it to a darker shade. :)

Other than that, I just have some punctuation to add. Comma here:

"Arthritis, skeletal deformation, and brain compression:"

Hyphen here:

a selectively-bred Smalltopian hound,

and maybe here:

micro-@@ANIMALPLURAL@@

Apostrophes here:

"Designer pets represent a person's right to choose,"

"vermin designed to destroy our enemies' entire ecosystem!"

[Option] "I agree with Ms. Chilton, but it's not just about choice. This is my livelihood!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, owner of the local pet shop around the corner from your office.

Also, not technically punctuation, but that "c" should be lowercase

Thanks for all this, I'll be sure to update it all in the next draft!

[Effect] the line between pet shops and zoos is increasingly blurred

Not really a fair comparison, since a lot of zoos are pretty well-regulated for animal welfare, and certainly won't sell an animal without checking your credentials to make sure you can take care of it.

Fair point: the joke was more that with less stringent regulation, pet shops would start selling more exotic animals, but I guess that is even more of a stretch. The only thing that's coming to my mind as a possible alternative right now is:

[Effect] pet rocks are sold by the pound

I don't know if that's too far in the other direction though. I'll have to think on it some more.

I felt that maybe it'd be wrong to assume that every nation has rabbits.

Wild rabbits? Not everywhere, although they're pretty common. Pet rabbits? Should be nearly everywhere, except Australia, which hates rabbits due to them being an invasive species (so they're still present). Assuming the availability of pet rabbits isn't really more unreasonable that assuming the availability of pet cats or dogs - and in fact, we don't currently have an issue for banning rabbits, while we do have issues for banning (#103 3) or clamping down on (#1007 3) dogs. In any case, the Minister of War should be capable of acquiring whatever animal species he (actually, why is he always a he?) believes would have military value.

Very interesting, and also a good point. I was quite fond of the rabbit imagery, so I might change it back in that case!

As for the Minister of War being male, I have no clue haha. I guess I just wanted to balance the fact that I had two random characters (which makes me notice I said "He" where it should be "@@HE@@" in Option Three) and then one fixed female character, so I thought a fixed male character would be good, but I guess it doesn't really matter and I could also make it random.

By the way, I wasn't kidding with my example of breeding animals for maintaining racial purity to some historical standard. Seriously, people hold contests about this kind of stuff. (That article is about dogs, but it happens with other animals too. The specific "we can't breed in this coloration, because the breed has never had it before" example I gave before was, I believe, derived from an article on some cat breed I read once, though unfortunately I don't remember which.)

Huh. Would you think there's scope then for an alternative "FOR" option which proposes laws on animal racial purity in the vein of this? It's something that had crossed my mind, but I was worried it'd make the issue too long. Guess I could always play around with it and see what happens.

[Trotterdam]

Assuming the availability of pet rabbits isn't really more unreasonable that assuming the availability of pet cats or dogs - and in fact, we don't currently have an issue for banning rabbits, while we do have issues for banning (#103 3) or clamping down on (#1007 3) dogs.

Okay, so it turns out we do have an issue for killing all the rabbits. My bad.

[Kylarnatia]

Assuming the availability of pet rabbits isn't really more unreasonable that assuming the availability of pet cats or dogs - and in fact, we don't currently have an issue for banning rabbits, while we do have issues for banning (#103 3) or clamping down on (#1007 3) dogs.

Okay, so it turns out we do have an issue for killing all the rabbits. My bad.

Ah, good spot.

I've also just realised this probably means I have to alter the validity of this issue to exclude nations who've banned / clamped down on dogs. Not the end of the world.

[Jutsa]

There are indeed two options (at least) that clamp down on dogs, but I'm thinking it's not a tracked flag, so I don't think you'd need to worry about that.

[Kylarnatia]

There are indeed two options (at least) that clamp down on dogs, but I'm thinking it's not a tracked flag, so I don't think you'd need to worry about that.

If this is true and someone can confirm (same for the issue regarding rabbits (#676)), I'd appreciate it.

[Jutsa]

Oh yeah, no way rabbits being shot and killed is tracked.
In fact, as far as I can remember, rabbits generally don't even appear in the issue base.
edit: well, I mean, that issue's an obvious exception but you get my point; rabbits aren't a common national issue or character addition.

Still, probably best if someone more qualified to give a definite answer says something first.
Then again, you probably wouldn't need to worry about it pre-submission.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Jutsa is correct.

[Kylarnatia]

[Title] Intelligent Design?

[Description] Animal rights activists in @@NAME@@ have petitioned the government to ban "designer pets": the selective breeding of household pets to enhance extreme characteristics which they claim leads to multiple genetic defects. After your mailing office was inundated with letters full of sad pet pictures, a meeting has been arranged with interested parties in order to give your poor mail clerks a break, and hopefully put the issue to rest.

[Validity] All

[Option] "Arthritis, skeletal deformation, and brain compression: these are just some of the terrible medical conditions caused by selective breeding," bemoans activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, over-dramatically pointing to a selection of pictures they've sprawled out on your desk while struggling to hold back tears. "People's desire to own breeds like the Maxtopian fold cat and the Lilliputian munchkin rabbit for their supposedly 'cute' characteristics has only fostered an environment of cruel and unethical breeding practices." @@HE@@ finally breaks down. "The government should ban the continued breeding and sale of designer pets, and require all breeders be licensed and comply with a set framework of ethical breeding standards. Think of the poor fur-babies!"
[Effect] owning a really cute pet is grounds for immediate investigation

[Option] "Oh jeez, give me a break!" scoffs prominent B-list celebrity Berlin Chilton, who is credited with starting the designer pet trend, while adjusting her comically large fur-lined hat. "Don't listen to this drama queen, @@LEADER@@. They just don't like that people aspire to be more like me and Mr. Fuzzykins here, who I assure you is very well-loved. Isn't that right, baby?" She stops to blow kisses at Mr. Fuzzykins, a selectively-bred Smalltopian hound, who is panting heavily and looking very sickly in her luxury handbag. "Designer pets represent a person's right to choose, and these so-called 'activists' just want to take that away. We should be encouraging selective breeding, not banning it."
[Effect] micro-@@ANIMALPLURAL@@ are the current fad sweeping the nation

[Option] "I agree with Ms. Chilton, but it's not just about choice. This is my livelihood!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, owner of the local pet shop around the corner from your office. "I'm already tied up in knots by bureaucratic diktats which control what I can and can't sell, how many bodies I need to run the shop...All of which drives up costs and prevents me from making a pro--er, I mean, bringing the joy of pet ownership to the nation. Government needs to stop pandering to the feelings of these damn busybodies who want to ruin my business and relax the rules on poor pet shop owners like me." @@HE@@ leans over, and whispers in your ear, "If you do, I'll give you a nice discount."
[Validity] Nations with low economic freedom
[Effect] pet rocks are sold by the pound

[Option] "@@LEADER@@, all this talk presents us with an interesting opportunity..." chimes your Minister of War, @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, who seems to have invited himself to the meeting. "If we were to selectively breed our own animals, we could turn them into effective weapons against our enemies. We'll usher in a new age of biochemical warfare with vermin designed to destroy our enemies' entire ecosystem!" He cackles maniacally. "Just sign this order I have here, and I'll get the shrinks to work."
[Effect] rabbits are known to spontaneously explode without warning

Changelog - Updated 19/01/19

• Fixed some further punctuation and formatting errors.
• Removed the repetition of "so-called 'activists'" in Option Three.
• Changed the effect lines of Options Three and Four.

Another update. How do people think this is coming along? Apart from potentially adding an alternative "FOR" option which would propose banning selective breeding entirely (which I feel would make the issue too long), I can't think of what else could be added or changed.

I changed the effect line of Option Three after Trotterdam's suggestion. Do people think it's too wacky or is the humour good?