[SUBMITTED] How Common!

[Bears Armed]

I'm still working on a first draft for the 'gambling ships' idea, which basically just needs some effect lines before I post it here, and I don't know whether any of my earlier submissions are still in the pool, but anyway...

Version 2.1

How Common!

[Issue]A middle-class couple was charged with theft recently after they were found to have improved their garden using turf taken from one of the lawns in @@CAPITAL@@ Common, the city's largest park. They are claiming that their actions were legal because as householders dwelling within three furlongs of the Common, and having a hearth but not also "at least a quarter-acre of woodlot", they enjoy a customary right of 'Turbary' that entitles them to take up to two dozen loads of turves from it per year.
[Validity]Rich/Poor Income ratio enough to justify the existence of a ‘middle class’; nation must have law-courts; does any issue/option ban the existence of couples?

[Option]"It's ridiculous!" barks Mr Green, the city’s Head of Parks, Playing Fields, and Floral Arrangements, growing agitated. "That old right was established to give poor folk an extra source of winter fuel, not so that the well-off could stock their gardens at my — the city's, I mean — expense. If you let this couple get away with it then half their neighbours will probably follow suit, leaving the parks stripped, and what customary rights will people try claiming there next? Pulling down trees for timber? Taking the ornamental fish from the Long Pond? This rot needs to be nipped in the bud, so you should pass a law abolishing any ancient rights that aren't also guaranteed under proper modern legislation."
[Validity]unrestricted
[Effect]the legal system is in turmoil while lawyers sort out what rights people still have

[Option]"Surely you wouldn't destroy age-old traditions just like that?" murmurs Professor White, the scholar whom you'd called in to confirm whether that couple's claim was valid. "They were, after all, the roots from which our modern system of rights grew. Why not just legislate a reasonable reinterpretation to fit current circumstances — allowing the genuinely poor to take material for fuel from areas that would be set aside for that purpose for example, and clarifying that the right to take fish from commons' waters applies only to native types rather than to introduced decorative ones as well — and give Mr Green's staff the right to enforce those rules?"
[Validity]unrestricted
[Effect]only lawyers can gain entry to public parks

[Option]"No, that's not enough!" exclaims your secretary @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Knight, who's a bit of a history buff. "Gadzooks! Customary rights like those are a part of our glorious cultural heritage, and should be not just tolerated but actively promoted!"
[Validity]unrestricted
[Effect]official posters remind people of their rights to eat elderberries and to wear armour at public meetings

[Option] "That old 'Right of Turbary' applies not only to turf but to peat, as well, doesn't it?" enquires @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister of Natural Resources. "This gives me an idea. Peat's a much better fuel than turf, and there's LOTS of it up in the northern moors, so if you pass a law declaring the State to have this Right there, regardless of who actually owns the land itself, then we could quarry it for use in those new power stations we need instead of having to import more oil…″
[Validity]nation does not use nuclear power (and has at least a moderate level of Primitiveness?)
[Effect]the hills are alive with the sound of excavators

Changes from previous draft: both the start of the fourth option, and its effect line, have been modified. (My thanks to Far Tholk.)

(version 2.0)
How Common!

[Issue]A middle-class couple was charged with theft recently after they were found to have improved their garden using turf taken from one of the lawns in @@CAPITAL@@ Common, the city's largest park. They are claiming that their actions were legal because as householders dwelling within three furlongs of the Common, and having a hearth but not also "at least a quarter-acre of woodlot", they enjoy a customary right of 'Turbary' that entitles them to take up to two dozen loads of turves from it per year.
[Validity]Rich/Poor Income ratio enough to justify the existence of a ‘middle class’; nation must have law-courts; does any issue/option ban the existence of couples?

[Option]"It's ridiculous!" barks Mr Green, the city’s Head of Parks, Playing Fields, and Floral Arrangements, growing agitated. "That old right was established to give poor folk an extra source of winter fuel, not so that the well-off could stock their gardens at my — the city's, I mean — expense. If you let this couple get away with it then half their neighbours will probably follow suit, leaving the park stripped, and what customary rights will people try claiming there next? Pulling down trees for timber? Taking the ornamental fish from the Long Pond? This rot needs to be nipped in the bud, so you should pass a law abolishing any ancient rights that aren't also guaranteed under proper modern legislation."
[Validity]unrestricted
[Effect]the legal system is in turmoil while lawyers sort out what rights people still have

[Option]"Surely you wouldn't destroy age-old traditions just like that?" murmurs Professor White, the scholar whom you'd called in to confirm whether that couple's claim was valid. "They were, after all, the roots from which our modern system of rights grew. Why not just legislate a reasonable reinterpretation to fit current circumstances — allowing the genuinely poor to take material for fuel from areas that would be set aside for that purpose for example, and clarifying that the right to take fish from commons' waters applies only to native types rather than to introduced decorative ones as well — and give Mr Green's staff the right to enforce those rules?"
[Validity]unrestricted
[Effect]only lawyers can gain entry to public parks

[Option]"No, that's not enough!" exclaims your secretary @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Knight, who's a bit of a history buff. "Gadzooks! Customary rights like those are a part of our glorious cultural heritage, and should be not just tolerated but actively promoted!"
[Validity]unrestricted
[Effect]official posters remind people of their rights to eat elderberries and to wear armour at public meetings

[Option]″That old ′Right of Turbary′ applies not only to turf but to peat — which is a significantly better fuel — as well, doesn′t it?″ enquires @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister of Natural Resources. ″This gives me an idea. There’s LOTS of peat up in the northern moors, so if you pass a law declaring the State to have this Right there, regardless of who actually owns the land itself, then we could quarry it for use in those new power stations we need instead of having to import more oil…″
[Validity]nation does not use nuclear power (and has at least a moderate level of Primitiveness?)
[Effect]the hills are alive to the sound of excavators

Changes from previous draft: Effect line for second option altered; fourth option added.

(version 1.2)
How Common!

[Issue]A middle-class couple was charged with theft recently after they were found to have improved their garden using turf taken from one of the lawns in @@CAPITAL@@ Common, the city's largest park. They are claiming that their actions were legal because as householders dwelling within three furlongs of the Common, and having a hearth but not also "at least a quarter-acre of woodlot", they enjoy a customary right of 'Turbary' that entitles them to take up to two dozen loads of turves from it per year.
[Validity]Rich/Poor Income ratio enough to justify the existence of a ‘middle class’; nation must have law-courts; does any issue/option ban the existence of couples?

[Option]"It's ridiculous!" barks Mr Green, the city’s Head of Parks, Playing Fields, and Floral Arrangements, growing agitated. "That old right was established to give poor folk an extra source of winter fuel, not so that the well-off could stock their gardens at my — the city's, I mean — expense. If you let this couple get away with it then half their neighbours will probably follow suit, leaving the park stripped, and what customary rights will people try claiming there next? Pulling down trees for timber? Taking the ornamental fish from the Long Pond? This rot needs to be nipped in the bud, so you should pass a law abolishing any ancient rights that aren't also guaranteed under proper modern legislation."
[Validity]unrestricted
[Effect]the legal system is in turmoil while lawyers sort out what rights people still have

[Option]"Surely you wouldn't destroy age-old traditions just like that?" murmurs Professor White, the scholar whom you'd called in to confirm whether that couple's claim was valid. "They were, after all, the roots from which our modern system of rights grew. Why not just legislate a reasonable reinterpretation to fit current circumstances — allowing the genuinely poor to take material for fuel from areas that would be set aside for that purpose for example, and clarifying that the right to take fish from commons' waters applies only to native types rather than to introduced decorative ones as well — and give Mr Green's staff the right to enforce those rules?"
[Validity]unrestricted
[Effect]people must demonstrate detailed knowledge of all the relevant laws before they can enter public parks

[Option]"No, that's not enough!" exclaims your secretary @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Knight, who's a bit of a history buff. "Gadzooks! Customary rights like those are a part of our glorious cultural heritage, and should be not just tolerated but actively promoted!"
[Validity]unrestricted
[Effect]official posters remind people of their rights to eat elderberries and to wear armour at public meetings

Changes from second draft: exclamation mark added to title; 'nation must have law-courts' added to validity (because otherwise that couple probably couldn't have been charged); quotation marks (and apostrophes) fixed; description mentions "a customary right" rather than "a traditional right"; shorter Effect line for option #2; a few extra words in option #3; altered Effect line for option #3.

(Version 1.1.)
How Common

[Issue]A middle-class couple was charged with theft recently after they were found to have improved their garden using turf taken from one of the lawns in @@CAPITAL@@ Common, the city’s largest park. They are claiming that their actions were legal because as householders dwelling within three furlongs of the Common, and having a hearth but not also “at least a quarter-acre of woodlot”, they enjoy a traditional right of ‘Turbary’ that entitles them to take up to two dozen loads of turves from it per year.
[Validity]Rich/Poor Income ratio enough to justify the existence of a ‘middle class’; does any issue/option ban the existence of couples?

[Option]”It’s ridiculous!” barks Mr Green, the city’s Head of Parks, Playing Fields, and Floral Arrangements, growing agitated. “That old right was established to give poor folk an extra source of winter fuel, not so that the well-off could stock their gardens at my — the city’s, I mean — expense. If you let this couple get away with it then half their neighbours will probably follow suit, leaving the park stripped, and what customary rights will people try claiming there next? Pulling down trees for timber? Taking the ornamental fish from the Long Pond? This rot needs to be nipped in the bud, so you should pass a law abolishing any ancient rights that aren’t also guaranteed under proper modern legislation.”
[Validity]unrestricted
[Effect]the legal system is in turmoil while lawyers sort out what rights people still have

[Option]”Surely you wouldn’t destroy age-old traditions just like that?” murmurs Professor White, the scholar whom you’d called in to confirm whether that couple’s claim was valid. “They were, after all, the roots from which our modern system of rights grew. Why not just legislate a reasonable reinterpretation to fit current circumstances — allowing the genuinely poor to take material for fuel from areas that would be set aside for that purpose for example, and clarifying that the right to take fish from commons’ waters applies only to native types rather than to introduced decorative ones as well — and give Mr Green’s staff the right to enforce those rules?”
[Validity]unrestricted
[Effect]people must demonstrate detailed knowledge of all the relevant laws before they can enter public parks

[Option]”No, that’s not enough!” exclaims your secretary @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Knight, who’s a bit of a history buff. “Customary rights are a part of our glorious cultural heritage, and should be not just tolerated but actively promoted!”
[Validity]unrestricted
[Effect]the government reminds people of their rights to practice archery in public parks and to use sacks of cabbages instead of money

Changes from first draft: one typo fixed, one minor change to punctuation, different Effect lines for options #2 & #3.

How Common

[Issue]A middle-class couple was charged with theft recently after they were found to have improved their garden using turf taken from one of the lawns in @@CAPITAL@@ Common, the city’s largest park. They are claiming that their actions were legal because as householders dwelling within three furlongs of the Common, and having a hearth but not also “at least a quarter-acre of woodlot”, they enjoy a traditional right of ‘Turbary’ that entitles them to take up to two dozen "loads" of turves from it per year.
[Validity]Rich/Poor Income ratio enough to justify the existence of a ‘middle class’; does any issue/option ban the existence of couples?

[Option]”It’s ridiculous!” barks Mr Green, the city’s Head of Parks, Playing Fields, and Floral Arrangements, growing agitated. “That old right was established to give poor folk an extra source of winter fuel, not so that the well-off could stock their gardens at my — the city’s, I mean — expense. If you let this couple get away with it then half their neighbours will probably follow suit, leaving the park stripped, and what customary rights will people try claiming there next? Pulling down trees for timber? Taking the ornamental fish from the Long Pond? This rot needs to be nipped in the bud, so you should pass a law abolishing any ancient rights that aren’t also guaranteed under proper modern legislation.”
[Validity]unrestricted
[Effect]the legal system is in turmoil while lawyers sort out what rights people still have

[Option]”Surely you wouldn’t destroy age-old traditions just like that?” murmurs Professor White, the scholar whom you’d called in to confirm whether that couple’s claim was valid. “They were, after all, the roots frrm which our modern system of rights grew. “Why not just legislate a reasonable reinterpretation to fit current circumstances — allowing the genuinely poor to take material for fuel from areas that would be set aside for that purpose for example, and clarifying that the right to take fish from commons’ waters applies only to native types rather than to introduced decorative ones as well — and give Mr Green’s staff the right to enforce those rules?”
[Validity]unrestricted
[Effect]park-keepers have police powers

[Option]”No, that’s not enough!” exclaims your secretary @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Knight, who’s a bit of a history buff. “Customary rights are a part of our glorious cultural heritage, and should be not just tolerated but actively promoted!”
[Validity]unrestricted
[Effect]the government reminds people of their rights to gather berries from hedgerows, and to practice archery in public parks and to pay rent with sacks of cabbages rather than with money

Notes
Although I’ve left the title without punctuation for now I could easily see it with either a question mark or an exclamation mark instead.

Yes, a right of ‘Turbary’ did apply at some Commons in RL (at least in England), allowing the removal of turf for (mainly used for fuel, sometimes also as a roofing material) and probably also covering the removal of peat (for use as fuel) if that was present there.

I’ve called the speaker in the second option Professor White because using another colour seemed appropriate after the first issue’s Green, and something else recently reminded me of T.H. White’s writings, but obviously that detail could be changed without otherwise affecting the issue: ‘Professor Plum’, for example (maintaining the botanical theme), or just ‘Professor @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@’…

I’m not sure about formatting for the third effect line: Although punctuation in effect lines is usually a non-no, could we get away with using commas before each “and to” here since the repetition of those words should be enough to indicate that all of those phrases form a single effect? (Note that I resisted the temptation to include “the right to arm bears”…)

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I like it! The opening description is a joy to read.

The effect lines aren't quite there though.

#1 is too on the nose, #2 is just a statement of the decision and #3 is a whole multi-clause sentence, and thus way too bulky. Pick ONE of those traditions, and snip it to that.

[Bears Armed]

I like it! The opening description is a joy to read.

The effect lines aren't quite there though.

#1 is too on the nose, #2 is just a statement of the decision and #3 is a whole multi-clause sentence, and thus way too bulky. Pick ONE of those traditions, and snip it to that.

Thank you. I''ll think further about those lines.

[Bears Armed]

I've given a new effect line for #2, but that probably still needs work.
For #3 I've combined parts of two 'rights': Still too bulky?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Better by far, though I'd argue you could just have the sacks of cabbages, and have a cleaner and snappier delivery.

[Australian rePublic]

Option 3- what's archery gotta do with pulling down trees?

[Bears Armed]

A third draft (version 1.2) has just been posted.

Better by far, though I'd argue you could just have the sacks of cabbages, and have a cleaner and snappier delivery.

It seem to me that having just the sacks of cabbage would look as much like introducing an alternative currency as it would like promoting traditional rights. However I've changed & shortened the line again for version 1.2. It still mentions two rights (one fairly prosaic, the other whackier), because I think that as this option is about traditional rights in general rather than just about one such right its Effect really should mention more than one of them... and of course the elderberries reference is a shout-out to 'Monty Python'.

Option 3- what's archery gotta do with pulling down trees?

The idea is that both are traditional rights which [might] have fallen into disuse...

_______________________________________________________________

In the initial description, do you think that "a traditional right" should be replaced by either "a customary right" (which is what I'm now inclined to favour) or by "an ancient right"?

In option #3, should I capitalise the "History" in "a history buff"?

[Far Tholk]

In the initial description, do you think that "a traditional right" should be replaced by either "a customary right" (which is what I'm now inclined to favour) or by "an ancient right"?

I think any is fine. Probably either traditional or customary, since their claim would be emphasizing the right as a traditional custom, not how old it is; but then again, the Issue description should be an objective summary, and part of the point is how antiquated it is.

In option #3, should I capitalise the "History" in "a history buff"?

No, I don't think so.

Nice Issue!

[Bears Armed]

In the initial description, do you think that "a traditional right" should be replaced by either "a customary right" (which is what I'm now inclined to favour) or by "an ancient right"?

I think any is fine. Probably either traditional or customary, since their claim would be emphasizing the right as a traditional custom, not how old it is; but then again, the Issue description should be an objective summary, and part of the point is how antiquated it is.

In option #3, should I capitalise the "History" in "a history buff"?

No, I don't think so.

Nice Issue!

Thank you.
I've changed the description to say "customary" rather than "traditional".
Any opinion about whether the title should take a question mark or an exclamation mark?

[Far Tholk]

Any opinion about whether the title should take a question mark or an exclamation mark?

What are you going for with the meaning of the title? I assume it's referring to common land; is it also talking about low class and/or frequency of occurrence? Based on my guess I would say it might want an exclamation point, probably not a question mark, but I'm not sure.

[Bears Armed]

Any opinion about whether the title should take a question mark or an exclamation mark?

What are you going for with the meaning of the title? I assume it's referring to common land; is it also talking about low class and/or frequency of occurrence? Based on my guess I would say it might want an exclamation point, probably not a question mark, but I'm not sure.

Thinking further on this, I'm inclined to agree;
An exclamation mark it now shall be!

[Bears Armed]

It seems unfortunately all too likely that RL will soon be cutting heavily into the time that i have available for NS, and I'd rather not leave this idea in limbo. Any more comments, anybody?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Good issue. First and second effect lines probably need replacing, but don't have my punchline head screwed on today.

[Caracasus]

Hmmm. Five minute break atm so bit rushed. Effect line 1: the government is busy shredding priceless historical documents (getting rid of old legislation)

2: park rangers require a degree in medievil land management

Dunno if that helps

[Bears Armed]

Good issue. First and second effect lines probably need replacing, but don't have my punchline head screwed on today.

Hmmm. Five minute break atm so bit rushed. Effect line 1: the government is busy shredding priceless historical documents (getting rid of old legislation)

2: park rangers require a degree in medievil land management

Dunno if that helps

My thanks to both of you. I'll consider these.
Otherwise, suitable to submit?

[Bears Armed]

Hmmm. Five minute break atm so bit rushed. Effect line 1: the government is busy shredding priceless historical documents (getting rid of old legislation)

2: park rangers require a degree in medievil land management

Dunno if that helps

After thinking about it for a little while, going from “abolish the old rights” to “destroy the historic documents on which they were recorded” seems a bit too much of a stretch for me. I know that NationStates is [often] an exaggeration, but even so…
And the term “park rangers” conjures up a mental image of USA ‘National Parks’ staff (as at Yellowstone/Jellystone), whereas in this issue I was really thinking & talking more about the staff of urban & suburban parks.

[Bears Armed]

Possible new Effect lines for the first two options:
1. the right to breathe is not legally guaranteed
2. only lawyers can gain entry to public parks

Opinions?

[Window Land]

Possible new Effect lines for the first two options:
1. the right to breathe is not legally guaranteed
2. only lawyers can gain entry to public parks

Opinions?

I wouldn't go with the first one because issue #903 allows you to outlaw breathing. It doesn't work if the right to breath already isn't a thing.

[Bears Armed]

Possible new Effect lines for the first two options:
1. the right to breathe is not legally guaranteed
2. only lawyers can gain entry to public parks

Opinions?

I wouldn't go with the first one because issue #903 allows you to outlaw breathing. It doesn't work if the right to breath already isn't a thing.

Thank you, I'd missed that one. I wonder whether there's anything fundamental enough to use here that there isn't already an option to ban?

[Bears Armed]

I wouldn't go with the first one because issue #903 allows you to outlaw breathing. It doesn't work if the right to breath already isn't a thing.

Thank you, I'd missed that one. I wonder whether there's anything fundamental enough to use here that there isn't already an option to ban?

The "right to walk", maybe?
Otherwise, i think we're probably better off sticking with the current "the legal system is in turmoil while lawyers sort out what rights people still have".
Maybe the editors collectively could come up with a better line if I submit this?

[Logophilia Lyricalia]

1: "The government is cracking down on children picking wild berries on public lands."
2: "Medieval scholars are the most overworked employees in municipal government."

Great issue!

[Aclion]

Why would a law related to giving poor people a source of winter fuel give people the right to take turf? Did people used to burn turf?

[Bears Armed]

1: "The government is cracking down on children picking wild berries on public lands."
2: "Medieval scholars are the most overworked employees in municipal government."

I'm considering these.

Great issue!

Thank you.

Why would a law related to giving poor people a source of winter fuel give people the right to take turf? Did people used to burn turf?

Yes.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Fun things to know: Peat used to be a major fuel source for energy production in the USSR.

http://mires-and-peat.net/media/map19/map_19_14.pdf

Might be worth having an option that talks about digging up peat on an industrial scale to provide cheap electricity for the nation.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Fun things to know: Peat used to be a major fuel source for energy production in the USSR.

http://mires-and-peat.net/media/map19/map_19_14.pdf

Might be worth having an option that talks about digging up peat on an industrial scale to provide cheap electricity for the nation.

Didn't I submit a separate idea, 'For Peat's Sake', a year or two ago?