[SUBMITTED] Introducing Altengarten?

by **SherpDaWerp** » Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:50 pm

Another issue about care of the elderly! This one is about the recent TV show, "Old People's Home for 4 Year Olds."

The title: It's obscure, yes. Alten is german for elderly, so altengarten is elderly garden, similar to kindergarten which is children garden.

Description
Last week, the most popular @@DEMONYM@@ aged care facility had a novel idea: combining aged care and kindergarten. The idea was well-received by geriatricians and geriatrics alike, and now elderly @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ and their carers want in.
Validity
has elderly

Option 1
"It wasn't just a frivolous idea," states Prof. @@RANDOMNAME@@. "We attempted a trial run, and monitored the subjects closely throughout. Every one of the elderly participants showed significant improvement in physical ability, mental health, and overall wellbeing. And the children learned valuable life lessons! Please @@LEADER@@, implement this model of care across @@NAME@@."
Validity
All
Outcome
4-year-olds are often found reminiscing about the 'good old days'

Option 2
"You have got to be joking!" replies @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, a mother of two. "If you think I'm sending my precious little kiddos off to some musty old folk's home, you're insane. No-one knows anything about what old Dorothy or Theodore are like with children, and my kids won't be the experiment to find out! In fact, let's stop youngsters from entering those places in the first place. Think of the children, @@LEADER@@!"
Validity
All
Outcome
"you must be this tall to enter" signs have started appearing on aged care homes

Option 3
"Sure, the trials showed promise…" begins @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister for Science. "But only one 'class' of children took part, and only around 20 seniors! How in Violet's name that's considered a scientific trial is beyond me. More trials and research are needed before we implement this wide-scale. If this effect is as beneficial as the professor says, surely it bears further study."
Validity
All
Outcome
proper policy proposals prerequire professional peer-reviewed papers (?)
proper policy procedure needs a peer-reviewed paper prior to being put into practice

Option 4
"You want to WHAT?!" screams @@RANDOMNAME@@, an overworked carer from @@CAPITAL@@ Lakes. "Yesterday, I had to change 4 patients in the space of half an hour, and you want me to supervise children too? Nope. If you're going to put youngsters in aged care homes, they'll need to pull their weight. They can do all the dirty work, like washing up and so forth, while us qualified carers do the proper stuff! Maybe then I can finally catch a break." @@HE@@ breathes an audible sigh of relief.
Validity
All
Outcome
the first test of a good kindergartener is the quality of the sponge-baths they give

by **Fontenais** » Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:46 pm

I'm not sure if there's too much overlap here or not, but the issue is very similar to #644.3 - which is an option about putting elderly people in charge of childcare. Actually, the effect line for #644.3 is 'people invite random old men into their homes to play with their kids' which is really similar to the effect line for option 1 here, so maybe that is a problem?

by **SherpDaWerp** » Tue Oct 29, 2019 12:05 am

I'm aware of that issue, however, it deals with what to do with the elderly from an economic sense. This issue is more about exploring the properly elderly people and a new model of care for them, which is to combine aged care with kindergarten.

You're right that the effect line is similar, I thought about that when I wrote the issue. I'm open to new suggestions for effect lines, as always.

It might be possible to write this as a follow-on from 644.3, but I was thinking of this issue in relation to the TV show "Old People's Home for 4 Year Olds", which seemed to indicate loads of genuine benefits to everyone involved.

by **Baggieland** » Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:27 pm

Validity check: TV banned is not a tracked policy, so you can leave that one off. The only one you need is "allows elderly", I don't think the life expectancy over 70 is necessary. Some people go down the tubes very quickly, whereas others are fit as a fiddle into their 100s! Also, some families can't wait to offload their seniors, no matter their condition. So allows elderly is enough.

Nice issue btw.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Wed Oct 30, 2019 12:00 am

Baggieland wrote:Validity check: TV banned is not a tracked policy, so you can leave that one off. The only one you need is "allows elderly", I don't think the life expectancy over 70 is necessary. Some people go down the tubes very quickly, whereas others are fit as a fiddle into their 100s! Also, some families can't wait to offload their seniors, no matter their condition. So allows elderly is enough.

Nice issue btw.

Huh. I would have thought banning TV was tracked. Validity amended.
I'm keeping the adult validity because of the pedo jokes, but if the consensus is that that's not necessary then it can be removed.

by **Australian rePublic** » Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:24 am

Interesting premise indeed. How many people were part of the original study?

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:39 pm

SherpDaWerp wrote:Another issue about care of the elderly! This one is about the recent TV show, "Old People's Home for 4 Year Olds."

I know the show. I think maybe your premise is a little too direct, essentially referencing a real life show. That makes it a hard for it to feel believable, as the real life show didn't trigger a government response. Maybe lift it away from the telly a little, using the show as inspiration for an issue rather than having it feature in the issue wholesale.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:36 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Maybe lift it away from the telly a little, using the show as inspiration for an issue rather than having it feature in the issue wholesale.

Yep. I've moved slightly away from immediately referencing the TV show, but I wasn't sure of how to frame it without calling the ever-present "scientific study", so it's remained as a novel trial by a @@DEMONYM@@ aged care facility. Option 1 has also been changed to match.

Australian rePublic wrote:Interesting premise indeed. How many people were part of the original study?

The original trial that I'm referencing? Only about 40 total. And now that you mention it, that's not a very widespread trial. So option 3 is now the Minister for Science questioning why the trial was so unscientific, instead of the Minister for Compromise.

The effect line for option 1 has been changed, and an effect line for the newfangled option 3 has appeared.
Draft 2

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Sat Nov 02, 2019 9:42 am

Possible crazy last option: If kids are going to be there anyway, may as well have them help out the overworked staff as well, clearing plates, doing a bit of washing up, a bit of sponge bathing.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:32 pm

I've added an "option 4" per CWA's suggestion.
Not sure how the validity for it would be coded, or if it even needs a validity. If one of the editors could confirm/deny/tweak it that would be great.
I struggled with finding an effect line that was funny without being extremely creepy, and I'm kinda happy with the final result. That said, I'm always open to suggestions.

by **Baggieland** » Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:24 pm

SherpDaWerp wrote:We were monitoring the subjects closely throughout the series.

As you've moved away from the telly reference, 'series' should be 'trial'. Also, I feel option 2 needs more of a reason why the kiddies shouldn't share their day care with the elderly.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:49 am

Baggieland wrote:As you've moved away from the telly reference, 'series' should be 'trial'.

Fixed.

Baggieland wrote:Also, I feel option 2 needs more of a reason why the kiddies shouldn't share their day care with the elderly.

I had left it deliberately vague as to the pedophilia references, per this:

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:we've always nixed any issues that mention paedophilia

and I'm not really how much more of a reason I can give without starting to cross that boundary.

by **Baggieland** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:08 am

SherpDaWerp wrote:I had left it deliberately vague as to the pedophilia references, per this:
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
we've always nixed any issues that mention paedophilia
and I'm not really how much more of a reason I can give without starting to cross that boundary.

Why does it have to be about that? Most old people enjoy time with kiddies, but not in that way.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 1:12 am

Option 4
"You want to WHAT?!" screams @@RANDOMNAME@@, an underpaid aged care worker. "Yesterday, I had to change 4 patients in the space of half an hour, and you want me to supervise children too? Nope. If you're going to put youngsters in aged care homes, they'll need to pull their weight. I'm sure they can learn how to do some chores pretty quickly. Maybe they can even take my sponge-bathing duties!" @@HE@@ breathes an audible sigh of relief.
Validity
Low enough aged care funding that they would be "underpaid"
Outcome
the first test of a good kindergartener is the quality of the sponge-baths they give

This is good, but you've essentially delivered a punchline that is already in the setup. Kind of like asking "Why did the chicken trying to get to the other side cross the road? To get to the other side."

by **SherpDaWerp** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:25 am

Baggieland wrote:Why does it have to be about that? Most old people enjoy time with kiddies, but not in that way.

Well yeah, but I can't really think of any reasons why a parent would be opposed to letting unknown old people around their kids other than risk of harm to the child. I have done some re-jigging of Option 2 though, so please have a look and see if it helps alleviate your concerns.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:This is good, but you've essentially delivered a punchline that is already in the setup. Kind of like asking "Why did the chicken trying to get to the other side cross the road? To get to the other side."

That's fair. I've re-written the option so it doesn't specifically say "sponge-bathing", which will hopefully restore some zest to the effect line.

by **Baggieland** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:22 am

SherpDaWerp wrote:Well yeah, but I can't really think of any reasons why a parent would be opposed to letting unknown old people around their kids other than risk of harm to the child. I have done some re-jigging of Option 2 though, so please have a look and see if it helps alleviate your concerns.

That's better, I also think you can get rid of the adult tag as there are no obvious references to pedos.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:03 pm

Done, although I probably could have done that with the introduction of draft 2... Rejigging Option 3 got rid of most of the references.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Fri Nov 08, 2019 5:28 pm

Removed the validity on Option 4, as well as a variation on the effect line for option 3.
Not sure if "prerequire" is considered a word, but the Collins dictionary has it, so...

by **Window Land** » Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:10 pm

I think it would be best if you put "caretakers" rather than "carers" in the description and option for. Also, option two is missing an end quote mark.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sat Nov 09, 2019 5:48 am

Window Land wrote:I think it would be best if you put "caretakers" rather than "carers" in the description and option for.

In my experience (in Australia), people who work in aged care are often called carers rather than caretakers. (And I don't think there's a precedent in the issue base either way)

Window Land wrote:Also, option two is missing an end quote mark.

Tsk tsk, that was sloppy of me. Fixed!

by **SherpDaWerp** » Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:13 pm

It's been a week, so bump back to the first page.
I'm actually quite happy with the draft in it's current form, so providing there's nothing else I'll aim for submission next weekend.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:53 pm

Given that there's been nothing more for 2 weeks, I've gone ahead and submitted this one. Thanks everyone!

by **ZSeparatists** » Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:40 pm

Well, hope it gets picked.

[SUBMITTED] Introducing Altengarten?

[SUBMITTED] Introducing Altengarten?

Who is online