DITECHED: Airport Insecurity

[Australian rePublic]

[title] Airport Insecurity

[desc] When returning from a summit in Debelos, a remote island on the far reaches of @@NAME@@, you noticed that the airport security personnel were too busy with their coffee to pay attention to bag X-rays. This lacklustre approach has raised the question of the necessity of airport security in remote airports

[validity] must allow planes

[option] "It appears obvious that we have no need for airport security in remote airports." Suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@, a random visitor who appears to be concealing something suspicious under @@HIS@@ shirt. "Face it @@LEADER@@, the odds of anybody wanting to hijack a plane from a remote location are astronomical. Especially considering how small those planes are. I say we do away with it!"
[effect] airports with less than 100 weapons per week are exempt from airport security

[option] "Is this a bloody joke?" questions @@RANDOMNAME@@, the head of @@NAMEINTIALS@@ASA- @@DENONYMADJECTIVE@@ Aviation Safety Authority, who knocked the stationary off your desk when first hearing the news. "I can't believe that my guys are putting a half-arsed effort into their jobs! This just shows that we need a bigger budget, and we need to audit every airport in @@NAME@@. I’m sure the tax-payers will be happy to pay for me and my family to personally inspect all of them!"
[effect] the nations’ most remote airports have more airport security staff than passengers

[option] "Why is this a problem?" asks @@NAMEINTIALS@@ASA agent @@RANDOMNAME@@, whilst playing with the same worry beads that @@HE@@ was using whilst examining your bags. "In 99.9% of cases nothing goes wrong. We're there for the 0.1% of the time where there is a threat. Who cares what we do the rest of the time?"
[effect] on-duty airport security personal are usually seen taking their siestas at their posts

[Lobosias]

doesn't giving the city/town/etc a specific name^{(not something like @@animal@@ central square)} kinda go against player autonomy n stuff?

[Australian rePublic]

doesn't giving the city/town/etc a specific name^{(not something like @@animal@@ central square)} kinda go against player autonomy n stuff?

Not necessarily. We already have named cities in the issue cannon, which include, but aren't limited to: Greenville, @@ANIMAL@@ City, @@ANIMAL@@ Hills (this is more of a region than a city, but none the less), CENCORED (later renamed "Southfjord") etc. etc. etc. Like all coastal countries, we could assume that @@NAME@@ would have many remote islands, so therefore, it's not necessarily a bad thing to name a single one of them. Plus, it will provide a precedent for anyone else who wishes to work with a remote island in future issues.

[Australian rePublic]

Bump

[Australian rePublic]

One comment. That bad, ha?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Insight for you.

When you bump a handful of issues with just the word "bump" the natural inclination of the reader is to ignore ALL of those issues. When you bump those threads again with identical comments, that makes people even less inclined to engage.

If you can't be bothered to put thought into your own threads, why should anyone else?

Anyway, this issue doesn't feel like an issue. You're basically saying that airport security doesn't seem very good on cursory inspection. No triggering incident indicating poor security, no evidence-based justification for the assertion, no reason to think this is anything more than a matter for airport management to review. Hell, probably not even a task for airport management as a whole, but just for the line managers of the staff who were slacking on the job.

Individuals doing their job badly --> line manager.
Organisation failing systemically --> company bosses.
National concerns --> government.

[Australian rePublic]

Insight for you.

When you bump a handful of issues with just the word "bump" the natural inclination of the reader is to ignore ALL of those issues. When you bump those threads again with identical comments, that makes people even less inclined to engage.

If you can't be bothered to put thought into your own threads, why should anyone else?

Anyway, this issue doesn't feel like an issue. You're basically saying that airport security doesn't seem very good on cursory inspection. No triggering incident indicating poor security, no evidence-based justification for the assertion, no reason to think this is anything more than a matter for airport management to review. Hell, probably not even a task for airport management as a whole, but just for the line managers of the staff who were slacking on the job.

Individuals doing their job badly --> line manager.
Organisation failing systemically --> company bosses.
National concerns --> government.

Cheers!