[SUBMITTED] Hippie Hygiene Horror

by **SherpDaWerp** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:06 am

It's SherpDaWerp, back at it again with another draft mere hours after his 5th issue was nullified for having too much overlap! This one is based off FJS's comments here. The nation in question hasn't done anything about this issue since, and they said it was open slather so…

I have hit a blank on good title names, and Option 2's effect line needs a third thing to put in, or maybe a revamp. I've also written a second version that covers the same topic, but from nudity-compulsory nations. If it sounds like a better option, I'll put it up here as well.

Description
@@RANDOMNAME_1@@, an self-proclaimed @@DEMONYM@@ hippie, made headlines and racked up some cleaning bills last week by traveling on @@NAME@@'s public transport system completely nude, mostly due to the fact @@HE@@ hadn't showered in months.
Validity
Nudity allowed but not compulsory, Adult, Public Transport exists, Automobiles not banned
Co-Authored by Canyamel

Option 1
"You're like, totally cramping my vibe. There ain't nothing wrong with nudity in @@NAME@@!" proclaims @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, making your aides wince as @@HE@@ waltzes into the room buck-naked and dripping with sweat. Heaving his flabby mass into an antique chair, he continues: "Is this just because I was re-attuning myself to nature and not showering for a year? Not cool. The government must be in league with Big Car, making me buy some gas-guzzling nature-destroying monstrosity just to travel! Maybe if you provided eco-friendly wash areas for me to clean off, I might consider changing my ways."
Validity
All
Outcome
@@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ hippies are causing a stench on public transport

Option 2
"That doesn't stop @@HIM@@ from doing this again!" retorts your Minister for Transport. "We should mandate standards of hygiene and cleanliness that @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ must uphold in order to ride our public transport system. Think of how many @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ were forced to sit next to him, or, heaven forbid, had to occupy the sweat-drenched seat @@HE@@ left behind him!"
Validity
All
Outcome
the Public Transport service has hired sniffer dogs to check passengers for body odour

Option 3
"Aargh, my nose!" screams @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, who was forced to sit next to @@RANDOMNAME_1@@ on the hour-long bus ride. "I've showered 8 times and spent heaps of @@CURRENCY@@ on nasal spray but I can still smell it! Please, @@LEADER@@, ban nudity on our public transport system. Think of the children!"
Validity
All
Outcome
naturist @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ buy outfits just for their bus ride to work

by **Trotterdam** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:06 am

We already have issues about whether public nudity is acceptable, including in places where it's unwelcome (in this case, a snooker game). "Hey, we're in a vehicle this time" doesn't add anything.

The most unique part of your draft is the hygiene argument, which is different from the more common "it's unsightly" argument, so I would suggest focusing more on that from the beginning. Though I'm not sure what the objection is. I guess someone sitting on a chair without wearing pants would be a problem if he's not thoroughly cleaned up down there... (Which would apply to any public indoors setting with chairs or the like, not just vehicles.)

You could also go with "right of private property owners to kick people out who don't meet their dress code, even if nudity is legal nationally" (the inspiration post you linked claimed the real-life news story happened on a plane, presumably run by a private airline), though we do have some rights-of-establishment-versus-customer issues too (#674, #718, #716, #787).

by **Australian rePublic** » Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:27 am

If you wanna go with Trott's second option, look at dress codes that apply to League's Clubs or Casinos in Australia

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:13 am

Trotterdam is right - the story needs to be clearly progressing it beyond nudity already being allowed.

For example, you could have people complaining that nude people (plural) on crowded commuter trains are pressing their privates against strangers. Or indeed, you could have nude commuters complaining that people are boarding trains just to be crushed against them.

Another amusing take might be to have nude women in general comparing that men keep staring at their breasts.

by **Australian rePublic** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:14 am

Personally, I like the hygine angle

by **Trotterdam** » Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:40 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Another amusing take might be to have nude women in general comparing that men keep staring at their breasts.

Public nudity is legal, not compulsory. If they complain about that, my reaction would just be "Hey, what were you expecting? If you don't like it, put some clothes on.". Then again, we do already have an issue about inappropiate staring (where is never stated, just implied...) even when they are supposedly wearing decent clothes (though the last option does put in question just how decent).

Also, really, if you're totally naked, there are going to be a few people who aim their gaze lower than your breasts.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:28 am

There's quite a few interesting suggestions in here. I'll have a look through and do a re-write soon (hopefully with a new title as well...)
Unfortunately, I'll be away this week, so it might be a little while coming.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:27 am

I went with the hygiene angle, and made @@RANDOMNAME@@ the nude public-transport-rider homeless to explain why @@HE@@ hasn't showered in months.
Draft 2 is up, with a bit of a re-write and a fresh, competent title!
(it's looking much nicer, I'm far happier with this version than draft 1).

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 5:28 am

If he can't afford clothing nor showers, how does he afford a bus fare? Not every country has free public transport. Maybe he could be one of those unwashed hippies. Further, I'd rather next to him than in his spot after him

by **Thurlingen** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:25 am

SherpDaWerp wrote:@@RANDOMNAME_1@@, a homeless @@DEMONYM@@, made headlines and cleaning bills last week

This sentence comes across as a little bit odd. I understand what you're trying to say, but perhaps you could rephrase it to the following:

"@@RANDOMNAME_1@@, a homeless @@DEMONYM@@, made headlines while racking up some cleaning bills last week". It brings out the meaning more, in my opinion.

by **USS Monitor** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:25 am

Australian rePublic wrote:If he can't afford clothing nor showers, how does he afford a bus fare? Not every country has free public transport. Maybe he could be one of those unwashed hippies. Further, I'd rather next to him than in his spot after him

A bus fare is cheaper than a pair of pants or a hotel room, and some people beg on the bus. Seeing a homeless person on public transport doesn't sound that weird from my experience.

by **Sanctaria** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:32 am

USS Monitor wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:If he can't afford clothing nor showers, how does he afford a bus fare? Not every country has free public transport. Maybe he could be one of those unwashed hippies. Further, I'd rather next to him than in his spot after him

A bus fare is cheaper than a pair of pants or a hotel room, and some people beg on the bus. Seeing a homeless person on public transport doesn't sound that weird from my experience.

Also fare evasion is A Thing. Honestly, this is the strangest thing to nitpick.

by **USS Monitor** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:48 am

Sanctaria wrote:
USS Monitor wrote:
A bus fare is cheaper than a pair of pants or a hotel room, and some people beg on the bus. Seeing a homeless person on public transport doesn't sound that weird from my experience.

Also fare evasion is A Thing. Honestly, this is the strangest thing to nitpick.

Probably a bigger thing in Europe because of how hit-and-miss the fare enforcement is over there, but yeah... That's another possibility.

by **Trotterdam** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:00 am

The main thing I'm concerned about is that if someone is so poor that he can't afford clothes, then he still couldn't afford clothes even in a nation where public nudity isn't legal.

While homeless people do relatively often get in trouble with the law, I haven't heard of nudity being a particularly common reason for that to happen. Which suggests that even homeless people can usually manage to hold on to one (probably ragged and dirty, but still) set of clothes.

Also, if he hasn't been able to shower in so long, he would probably also have trouble washing his clothes if he had any, so the problem isn't specific to nudity.

by **Daarwyrth** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:03 am

Trotterdam wrote:The main thing I'm concerned about is that if someone is so poor that he can't afford clothes, then he still couldn't afford clothes even in a nation where public nudity isn't legal.

While homeless people do relatively often get in trouble with the law, I haven't heard of nudity being a particularly common reason for that to happen. Which suggests that even homeless people can usually manage to hold on to one (probably ragged and dirty, but still) set of clothes.

Also, if he hasn't been able to shower in so long, he would probably also have trouble washing his clothes if he had any, so the problem isn't specific to nudity.

What if the homeless person would be a fallen @@NAME@@'s celebrity that was a known nudist? That way the two could be tied together.

by **USS Monitor** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:07 am

Trotterdam wrote:The main thing I'm concerned about is that if someone is so poor that he can't afford clothes, then he still couldn't afford clothes even in a nation where public nudity isn't legal.

While homeless people do relatively often get in trouble with the law, I haven't heard of nudity being a particularly common reason for that to happen. Which suggests that even homeless people can usually manage to hold on to one (probably ragged and dirty, but still) set of clothes.

Also, if he hasn't been able to shower in so long, he would probably also have trouble washing his clothes if he had any, so the problem isn't specific to nudity.

The way he's talking in option 1, it sounds like the nudity was a choice.

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:56 pm

The guy could volunterily not shower

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 5:14 pm

Trotterdam wrote:The main thing I'm concerned about is that if someone is so poor that he can't afford clothes, then he still couldn't afford clothes even in a nation where public nudity isn't legal.

While homeless people do relatively often get in trouble with the law, I haven't heard of nudity being a particularly common reason for that to happen. Which suggests that even homeless people can usually manage to hold on to one (probably ragged and dirty, but still) set of clothes.

Also, if he hasn't been able to shower in so long, he would probably also have trouble washing his clothes if he had any, so the problem isn't specific to nudity.

My idea was that if nudity is fully legal, why would a homeless person bother holding on to their ragged and dirty clothes/paying for pants if they can just go nude? And homeless people often have trouble washing their clothes, (without facilities like OrangeSky or similar), but if they're trying their best and wearing clothes, people are less likely to complain than if he's just fully nude on a bus.

It's a bit of a stretch, so I'll look at explaining it better in a new draft.

Australian rePublic wrote:If he can't afford clothing nor showers, how does he afford a bus fare? Not every country has free public transport. Maybe he could be one of those unwashed hippies. Further, I'd rather next to him than in his spot after him

I've seen plenty of homeless people on public transport, and showers require buying into a hotel room, which are often quite expensive.

Thurlingen wrote:"@@RANDOMNAME_1@@, a homeless @@DEMONYM@@, made headlines while racking up some cleaning bills last week". It brings out the meaning more, in my opinion.

Maybe "@@RANDOMNAME_1@@, a homeless @@DEMONYM@@, made headlines and racked up some cleaning bills last week" would work better.

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 5:39 pm

Don't forget, compulsory nudity is also an option

by **Trotterdam** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 8:29 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:Don't forget, compulsory nudity is also an option

SherpDaWerp wrote:Validity
Nudity allowed but not compulsory

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 9:28 pm

SherpDaWerp wrote:
Trotterdam wrote:The main thing I'm concerned about is that if someone is so poor that he can't afford clothes, then he still couldn't afford clothes even in a nation where public nudity isn't legal.

While homeless people do relatively often get in trouble with the law, I haven't heard of nudity being a particularly common reason for that to happen. Which suggests that even homeless people can usually manage to hold on to one (probably ragged and dirty, but still) set of clothes.

Also, if he hasn't been able to shower in so long, he would probably also have trouble washing his clothes if he had any, so the problem isn't specific to nudity.

My idea was that if nudity is fully legal, why would a homeless person bother holding on to their ragged and dirty clothes/paying for pants if they can just go nude?

Winter? Unless you live in the tropics, and in that case...

by **Trotterdam** » Sun Aug 18, 2019 10:14 pm

To be fair, if you can't easily afford a change of clothes, keeping them off in the summer months when you don't need them will reduce wear and tear and leave them in better condition once winter comes around.

...That is, of course, assuming you have somewhere to stash clothes that you're not currently wearing, which a homeless person would likely not.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Mon Aug 19, 2019 12:12 am

Trotterdam wrote:To be fair, if you can't easily afford a change of clothes, keeping them off in the summer months when you don't need them will reduce wear and tear and leave them in better condition once winter comes around.

...That is, of course, assuming you have somewhere to stash clothes that you're not currently wearing, which a homeless person would likely not.

Carrying them on one's person in a bag would work...? But then they'd get some wear & tear from jostling etc.

Australian rePublic wrote:Don't forget, compulsory nudity is also an option

I do currently have a nudity not compulsory validity in place, although you've raised a valid point in that if nudity is compulsory, this would exacerbate the issue. Anyone who doesn't shower in a nudity-compulsory nation would get called out pretty quickly, which might make a national issue regarding hygiene and cleanliness standards come up. Another issue, maybe, cause that idea kinda overlaps with another issue I got recently. (not sure the number, it was about someone not washing their hands?)

by **SherpDaWerp** » Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:23 am

Only minor changes for draft 3. Clarifying that @@RANDOMNAME@@ the nudist cannot afford pants, added validity that public transport is free. If this isn't tracked, or if it's not a good idea, I might give the Minister for Transport a throwaway line about fare evasion, or maybe @@RANDOMNAME@@ has saved for weeks to buy the bus ticket.

I've also added Thurlingen's suggestion about the first sentence, as well as put in something from Aussie's concern that

Australian rePublic wrote:I'd rather next to him than in his spot after him

Most of the comments so far seem to be about the core premise of the issue, and not minor things, so I might have a look at how it's presented in the description to see if it could be put better for the 4th version. I've also reached out to Canyamel about co-authorship and any more ideas he might have, so that should help.

by **Australian rePublic** » Mon Aug 19, 2019 1:31 am

SherpDaWerp wrote:Only minor changes for draft 3. Clarifying that @@RANDOMNAME@@ the nudist cannot afford pants, added validity that public transport is free. If this isn't tracked, or if it's not a good idea, I might give the Minister for Transport a throwaway line about fare evasion, or maybe @@RANDOMNAME@@ has saved for weeks to buy the bus ticket.

I've also added Thurlingen's suggestion about the first sentence, as well as put in something from Aussie's concern that
Australian rePublic wrote:I'd rather next to him than in his spot after him

Most of the comments so far seem to be about the core premise of the issue, and not minor things, so I might have a look at how it's presented in the description to see if it could be put better for the 4th version. I've also reached out to Canyamel about co-authorship and any more ideas he might have, so that should help.

If people start picking at little details, it means that your issue is very good, and we've done with the major stuff

[SUBMITTED] Hippie Hygiene Horror

[SUBMITTED] Hippie Hygiene Horror

Who is online