[ABANDONED] Homo Homosexualus?

by **Daarwyrth** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:58 am

Draft 1

Draft 2

Current draft

[TITLE] Homo Homosexualus?

[VALIDITY] Must have 1 billion population, Must have high LGBT rights, Must allow genetic research

[DESCRIPTION] During a scientific symposium called 1000 Ways Humanity May Die in @@CAPITAL@@, overpopulation was listed as one of the likely causes to bring about the Anthropocene extinction event in the future. Dismayed at the prospect of distant imminent doom, citizens of @@NAME@@ have tried to come up with ways to contribute to the prevention of the end of mankind. Yet it wasn't until the nation's premier drag king LuRaoul suggested banning heterosexuality as the obvious solution, that the debate caught fire.

[OPTION 1] "It's not as crazy as it sounds!" begins the drag king, flexing their fake, air-filled muscles. "Heterosexual relationships are dangerous, because before you know it, there is yet another pie in the oven. Same-sex couples have to put a lot more time, effort and consideration into bringing a child into the world, because we have to resort to IVF or other methods science made possible. If you forced everyone in @@NAME@@ to go through the same process by banning heterosexuality, you'd have a much more deliberate population growth, which will reduce the risk of overpopulation!"

[EFFECT 1] the once ridiculed straight pride movement has actually become a thing in @@NAME@@
(Policy Added: No sex)

[OPTION 2] A loud POP startles everyone. "Sorry to burst your bubble, but you're wrong," says biologist Charlie Tharwin, holding a pinprick above LuRaoul's deflated bicep. "When only male gold-horned @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ were left, we panicked. Why? Because members of the same-sex can't procreate! Banning nature's way of continuing a species is a foolproof method to ensure its extinction. Instead of trying to reduce birth rates, you need to encourage their increase to better the odds of our species' survival! You can start by restricting birth control," @@HE_1@@ suddenly eyes LuRaoul. "And banning partnerships that can't produce offspring naturally..."

[EFFECT 2] at least same-sex couples could experience the joys of marriage for a short while
(Policy Removed: Same-sex marriage)
(Policy Added: Heterosexuality)

[OPTION 3] There's a second loud POP. "Sorry to burst your bubble, Charlie," begins his ex-wife and anthropologist Maggie Lead, holding a pinprick above the other deflated bicep. "But overpopulation brings with it a list of dangers and risk: homelessness, resource scarcity, epidemics... No, we need to reduce our population growth by innovating our methods of contraception and installing strict policies as to who can and who can't have offspring, to ensure that everyone will be contributing to society and not weighing it down. It may seem a bit draconian, but it'll be all worth it once people realise they won't have to breathe in their neighbours', uhm..." she fans the air behind her, blushing a little.

[EFFECT 3] children who keep playing with toys beyond the age of four are deemed unproductive members of society
(Policy Added: Parental Licensing)

[OPTION 4] "Oh right, so only the elite will be able to have children," angrily comments @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, proud parent of a single-child and author of the book I'll Have Just The One, Please. "No, @@LEADER@@, what you need to do instead, is to install a one-child policy and carefully monitor whether people are compliant. That way everyone may experience the absolute, never-ending joy of being a parent, but there won't be too many of those pesky-little-screaming-and-screeching-attention-seeking-..." @@HE_1@@ goes on for a while.

[EFFECT 4] any excess children are shipped off to distant countries
(Policy Added: One-child families)

[OPTION 5] A crowd of identical foreign dignitaries from Horatio approach. "@@LEADER@@, we bring the solution to your dilemma!" begins Horatio Alpha-Beta merrily. "Our divine ruler, Horatio, has banned the sinful act of procreation, conceiving us from his own, pure DNA in the steel wombs of the machine-mothers," continues Horatio Zeta-Epsilon. "We may be an easy target for a virus, with our lack of diversity," chimes in Horatio Omega-Omicron worriedly. "Yet this should not dissuade you from having your population experience perfection through cloning," finishes Horatio Gamma-Theta, flashing their compatriot an angry look.

[EFFECT 5] foreign diplomats never know when they speak to @@LEADER@@ and when to one of @@NAME@@'s citizens
(Policy Added: No sex)

by **Pacomia** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:00 am

How do they measure "high LGBT rights"? Is there a stat I'm not seeing?

by **Daarwyrth** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:02 am

Pacomia wrote:How do they measure "high LGBT rights"? Is there a stat I'm not seeing?

I have been told by the Issue Editors in another draft that attitudes to LGBT rights is indeed something they can track.

Sanctaria wrote:We do track attitudes toward LGBT and LGBT rights.

by **Thepeopl** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:12 am

Option 2 doesn't address overpopulation.
I would add compulsory anti conception for all fertile individuals, children have to be applied for. You need to proof your offspring will contribute to a better future.

by **Daarwyrth** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:14 am

Thepeopl wrote:Option 2 doesn't address overpopulation.
I would add compulsory anti conception for all fertile individuals, children have to be applied for. You need to proof your offspring will contribute to a better future.

Well, the option suggests dealing with overpopulation by not trying to reduce the population growth, but by adapting everything else to accommodate overpopulation or compensate for it through material means, like better housing systems, infrastructure, innovation etc etc

by **Baggieland** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 9:37 pm

This should have an adult validity due to the wording in option 1. For option 2, maybe make it clearer that the speaker doesn't believe overpopulation is a real thing to be concerned about. However, at the moment, the only logical solution to the problem of overpopulation is option 3. I feel this draft is lacking a viable alternative.

by **Storalia** » Sun Aug 25, 2019 9:47 pm

Baggieland wrote:This should have an adult validity due to the wording in option 1. For option 2, maybe make it clearer that the speaker doesn't believe overpopulation is a real thing to be concerned about. However, at the moment, the only logical solution to the problem of overpopulation is option 3. I feel this draft is lacking a viable alternative.

Agreed. Perhaps someone arguing that there is no such thing as "human overpopulation" and that to prevent any future extinction there needs to be more humans. Their way of doing this would be to ban birth control (and possibly homosexuality as well.)

by **Daarwyrth** » Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:04 am

Baggieland wrote:This should have an adult validity due to the wording in option 1. For option 2, maybe make it clearer that the speaker doesn't believe overpopulation is a real thing to be concerned about. However, at the moment, the only logical solution to the problem of overpopulation is option 3. I feel this draft is lacking a viable alternative.

What if I changed the language to "because before you know it there's yet another pie in the oven!"? Would that make the language gentler?

As to option 2, I can add in that they don't believe in overpopulation, but why wouldn't adapting everything to alleviate overpopulation be a viable alternative? If you prepare society and a country for it, but promoting sustainability, ecology, introducing innovative housing and infrastructure etc etc, that can be a viable option to combat overpopulation as well, no?

by **Daarwyrth** » Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:33 am

Alright, in light of the feedback I got from Baggieland and Storalia, I've added a new option and rewritten some of the other ones, to hopefully address the concerns they have expressed! I've also changed the language in option 1 to make it less explicit. What do people think of the draft now?

by **Australian rePublic** » Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:36 pm

We're missing the elephant in the room- @@NAME@@'s efforts to curb overpopulation would be negligible, unless you're someone like China

by **Daarwyrth** » Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:01 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:We're missing the elephant in the room- @@NAME@@'s efforts to curb overpopulation would be negligible, unless you're someone like China

Ripple effect. Changes in one part of the world may ripple over to other countries and parts of the globe. But delving into that in the issue would needlessly complicate it I believe.

But there's also the fact that people will want to look for solutions to even the most unsolvable of problems. You see it everywhere in the world today, people try to be conscious about ecology, vegetarianism etc etc and are constantly told "the effect you're having is negligible". But even despite such comments they keep on doing it, trying to contribute to the prevention of climate change or environmental changes. I imagine the same applies for @@NAME@@, their measures may have very little effect on a global scale, but should it stop them from doing it?

Besides, while it may not thwart overpopulation on a global scale, it may prevent it in a local one.

by **Baggieland** » Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:51 am

Australian rePublic wrote:We're missing the elephant in the room- @@NAME@@'s efforts to curb overpopulation would be negligible, unless you're someone like China

Put in a population validity. Example, must have at least a billion population.

Before any more advice can be given, I really feel that the whole issue, the introduction and all the options need a hefty amount of trimming. Can you get the scissors out and cut out all the waffle? Then it will be easier to see how to make this issue work.

Also, the heterosexual policy only bans homosexuality - it allows only heterosexuality. You can't ban heterosexuality in the game.

by **Daarwyrth** » Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:01 am

Baggieland wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:We're missing the elephant in the room- @@NAME@@'s efforts to curb overpopulation would be negligible, unless you're someone like China

Put in a population validity. Example, must have at least a billion population.

Before any more advice can be given, I really feel that the whole issue, the introduction and all the options need a hefty amount of trimming. Can you get the scissors out and cut out all the waffle? Then it will be easier to see how to make this issue work.

Also, the heterosexual policy only bans homosexuality - it allows only heterosexuality. You can't ban heterosexuality in the game.

Alright, with great reluctance I have cut out multiple parts of the text and dialogues, but I really wanted to keep some characterization in some places. Nonetheless, I have done my best to shorten it by a lot. I've also added the population validity and I feel that 1 billion would indeed be a solid threshold.

I was actually hoping the "Ban Heterosexuality" could become a new policy introduced into the game, but if it's impossible to do then the "No Sex" policy is a good replacement. That way option can remain "ban heterosexuality" and roughly the same effect is achieved.

by **Daarwyrth** » Thu Aug 29, 2019 3:20 am

So, any comments or feedback on the current draft? What can I change to make the issue better? Or add/subtract?

Also, a question for the issue editors: is there no way a new policy could be added that would allow for heterosexuality to be banned? Or would that contradict a lot of existing data?

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri Aug 30, 2019 1:31 am

It would indeed require a new policy to be coded, and given the number of issues that would exclude a nation from, you'd need an editor who really really loves this issue to take on the workload that would accompany publishing it.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the premise, which feels like a "crazy third option" made into a whole issue. Opinions may vary, of course.

by **Daarwyrth** » Fri Aug 30, 2019 1:46 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:It would indeed require a new policy to be coded, and given the number of issues that would exclude a nation from, you'd need an editor who really really loves this issue to take on the workload that would accompany publishing it.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the premise, which feels like a "crazy third option" made into a whole issue. Opinions may vary, of course.

I agree, this issue draft may be more trouble than it's worth in its current form. The "ban heterosexuality" premise is indeed a bit silly now that I think about it after some time. I do think the "danger of overpopulation" could be a nice subject for an issue though, so I'll work on focusing more on that trope

[ABANDONED] Homo Homosexualus?

[ABANDONED] Homo Homosexualus?

Who is online