[DRAFT] Some More Equal Than Others?

[Valrifell]

[Title] Some More Equal Than Others?

[Description] While on a casual stroll with your cabinet, you bump into a well-dressed individual distributing anti-socialist pamphlets. After exchanging apologies, the person is promptly arrested for spreading bourgeois propaganda. However, upon glancing over the pamphlets, you realize that this individual is claiming to be the rightful monarch of @@NAME@@!

[Validity] Only valid for nations with the Soicalism policy and with the Monarch policy.

[Option] The People’s Secretary for Equality and Timely Solutions begins whistling innocuously, "O-okay, so not naming names, but it’s possible that someone... may have forgotten to actually deal with the old royals. But it’s not like they still have their old status enshrined in the law. All are equal here!" @@HIS@@ aid interrupts, whispering into @@HIS@@ ear, "Okay, so maybe they have their status still enshrined in law. But l-look, it’s not too late to send this monarch on a... permanent vacation. Let’s just solve this problem now and let bygones be bygones!"
[Effect] anyone claiming to be a royal of @@NAME@@ wins a free vacation to Maxtopia and is never seen again
[Policy] Removes Monarch policy

[Option] "Perhaps we can use this," says your Minister of State Propaganda, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "This one just needs to be... educated on the glories of the people’s struggle. I’m sure a popular royal family could be a very suitable mouthpiece for us. Hm. Yes, the perfect socialist celebrities to distract - I mean, inform - the people. They’d have to be kept under a tight leash, but so long as they tow the party line, we could have something here."
[Effect] the royal family of @@NAME@@ is only capable of mentioning how great socialism is

[Option] "You know, you kind of look like this chap," begins the Chairperson on the Anti-Nepotism Committee, who happens to be your nephew, "and Great Auntie Matilda did say we were royalty on my second-cousin thrice-removed’s side, or was it my third-cousin twice-removed? Either way, with the power of a monarch, you could guide the people to a better tomorrow. You must take the throne of @@NAME@@, think of the caviar, uh, people!"
[Effect] @@LEADER@@ is the most equal member of @@NAME@@

[Option] "Listen here you scoundrels!" Exclaims the restrained monarch of @@NAME@@, "I just wanted to return to an earlier time, a better time, where the peasants knew their place and the rightful rulers oversaw them with tact and elegance. Nevertheless, I’m sure we could come to some kind of agreement here and I’d even be willing to throw in some estates and titles for your efforts! So long as all the wealth and land you lot ‘redistributed’ is given back, of course"
[Effect] citizens of @@NAME@@ are shocked that nothing has really changed for them during the transition from socialism to feudalism
[Policy] Removes Socialism, adds Feudalism.

[Title] Some More Equal Than Others?

[Description] While on a casual stroll with your cabinet, you bump into a well-dressed individual distributing anti-socialist pamphlets. After exchanging apologies, the person is promptly arrested for spreading bourgeois propaganda. However, upon glancing over the pamphlets, you realize that this individual is claiming to be the rightful monarch of @@NAME@@!

[Validity] Only valid for nations with the Soicalism policy and with the Monarch policy.

[Option] You cast a glance back at @@RANDOMNAME@@, the People’s Secretary for Equality and Timely Solutions, "O-okay, so not naming names, but it’s possible that someone... may have forgotten to actually deal with the old royals. But it’s not like they still have their old status enshrined in the law. All are equal here!" @@HIS@@ aid interrupts, whispering into @@HIS@@ ear, "Okay, so maybe they have their status still enshrined in law. But l-look, it’s not too late to send this monarch on a... permanent vacation. Let’s just solve this problem now and let bygones be bygones!"
[Effect] the former royal family of @@NAME@@ won a free vacation to Maxtopia and have never been seen again
[Policy] Removes Monarch policy

[Option] "Perhaps we can use this," says your Minister of State Propaganda, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "This one just needs to be... educated on the glories of the people’s struggle. I’m sure the popular royal family could be a very suitable mouthpiece for us, not to mention model success stories of our way of life. The perfect socialist celebrity to distract - I mean, inform - the people. They’d have to be kept under a tight leash, but so long as they tow the party line, we could have something here."
[Effect] the royal family of @@NAME@@ is only capable of mentioning how great socialism is

[Option] "You know, you kind of look like this chap," begins the Chairperson on the Anti-Nepotism Committee, who happens to be your nephew, "and Great Auntie Matilda did say we were royalty on my second-cousin thrice-removed’s side, or was it my third-cousin twice-removed? Either way, with the power of a monarch, you could guide the people to a better tomorrow. You must take the throne of @@NAME@@, think of the caviar, uh, people!"
[Effect] @@LEADER@@ is the most equal member of @@NAME@@

[Option] "Listen here you scoundrels!" Exclaims the restrained monarch of @@NAME@@, "I just wanted to return to an earlier time, a better time, where the peasants knew their place and the rightful rulers oversaw them with tact and elegance. Not to mention all of the wealth and opulence from my family. Nevertheless, I’m sure we could come to some kind of agreement here and I’d even be willing to throw in some estates and titles for your efforts!"
[Effect] citizens of @@NAME@@ are shocked that nothing has really changed for them during the transition from socialism to feudalism
[Policy] Removes Socialism, adds Feudalism.

[Title] Some More Equal Than Others?

[Description] While on a casual stroll with your cabinet, you bump into a well-dressed individual distributing anti-socialist pamphlets. After exchanging apologies, the person is promptly arrested for spreading bourgeois propaganda. However, upon glancing over the pamphlets, you realize that this individual is claiming to be the rightful monarch of @@NAME@@!
[Validity] Only valid for nations with the Soicalism policy and with the Monarch policy.

[Option] You cast a glance back at @@RANDOMNAME@@, the People’s Secretary for Equality and Timely Solutions, “O-okay, so not naming names, but it’s possible that someone... may have forgotten to actually deal with the old royals. But it’s not like they still have their old status enshrined in the law! All are equal here!” @@HIS@@ aid interrupts, whispering into @@HIS@@ ear, “Okay, so maybe they have their status still enshrined in law. But l-look, it’s not too late to send this monarch on a... permanent vacation. Let’s just solve this problem now and let bygones be bygones!”
[Effect] the former royal family of @@NAME@@ won a free vacation to Maxtopia and have never been seen again
[Policy] Removes Monarch policy

[Option] “Perhaps we can use this,” says your Minister of State Propaganda, @@RANDOMNAME@@. “This one just needs to be... educated on the glories of the people’s struggle. I’m sure the popular royal family could be a very suitable mouthpiece for us, not to mention model success stories of our way of life. The perfect socialist celebrity to distract - I mean, inform - the people. They’d have to be kept under a tight leash, but so long as they tow the party line, we could have something here.”
[Effect] the royal family of @@NAME@@ is only capable of mentioning how great socialism is

[Option] “You know, you kind of look like this chap,” begins the Chairperson on the Anti-Nepotism Committee, who happens to be your nephew, “and Great Auntie Matilda did say we were royalty on my second-cousin thrice-removed’s side, or was it my third-cousin twice-removed? Either way, I think it would be really neat if you were to take the throne of @@NAME@@, for the people of course. After all, all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
[Effect] @@LEADER@@ is the most equal member of @@NAME@@

[Option] “You know, I hate to say it, but this monarch person kind of has a point” says your Minister for Securing Socialism, @@RANDOMNAME@@ idly flipping through the offending pamphlet, “did you know we don’t let people have lemonade stands AND you smell bad? All I’m saying is, maybe we should listen to the monarch and drop the whole Maxist-Lenyoist facade. You know, I’ve always had some business ideas that I’ve wanted to try out, all you’d have to do is recruit two people and then they would recruit two people, and then...” @@HE@@ trails off for quite some time.
[Effect] the economy is sustained by pyramid schemes lead by former government members
[Policy] Removes the Socialism policy

[Option] “Listen here you scoundrels!” Exclaims the restrained monarch of @@NAME@@, “I just wanted to return to an earlier time, a better time, where the peasants knew their place and the rightful rulers oversaw them with tact and elegance. Not to mention all of the wealth and opulence from my family. Nevertheless, I’m sure we could come to some kind of agreement here and I’d even be willing to throw in some estates and titles for your efforts!”
[Effect] citizens of @@NAME@@ are shocked that nothing has really changed for them during the transition from socialism to feudalism
[Policy] Removes Socialism, adds Feudalism.

Back at it again with an issue about Socialist Monarchies, a reworking of the idea in this thread. Feedback welcome, unless if it's about the scope being too narrow, or if it's too mean.

The options can be summarized as follows: Socialism, SOCIALIST monarchy, socialist MONARCHY, Capitalist Monarchy, fuck it Feudalism. This one is less concise than the previous incarnation and also attacks the idea it in a different way, but I like this framing better honestly.

[Daarwyrth]

First of all, I love that you're drafting an issue for socialist monarchies. Daarwyrth was played as having a state-controlled economy, but it wasn't a proponent of any communist/socialist ideology in itself, merely state-control over the economy. So, some of the issue texts always made me a frown a little. I am happy to see you're taking a different approach to it with this issue!

you bump into a well-dressed man distributing pro-capitalist

I am missing a word here, right after "pro-capitalist". I believe you meant to write "pamphlets" or "folders" here.

After exchanging apologies, the man is promptly arrested.

Perhaps it's just me, but I believe this could use a little bit of clarity. Why are they arrested? For handing out pamphlets or for bumping into @@LEADER@@? Also, unless there is a Communist/Socialist regime with strict control over what ideologies are allowed and which not, I am not sure whether handing out pro-capitalist folders would be such an offense. Could you clarify a bit what your intent here was?

[Option] “Perhaps we can use this,” says your Minister of State Propaganda, @@RANDOMNAME@@. “This one just needs to be... educated on the glories of the people’s struggle. I’m sure the popular royal family could be a very suitable mouthpiece for us, not to mention model success stories of our way of life. The perfect socialist celebrity to distract - I mean, inform - the people. They’d have to be kept under a tight leash, but so long as they tow the party line, we could have something here.”
[Effect] the royal family of @@NAME@@ is only capable of mentioning how great socialism is

I really like the sound of this option. I am aware that Communism often is anti-monarchy, but even within Socialism there are various expressions of this ideology. I wouldn't be surprised if one of those streams within Socialism actually made use of a monarch, to be a figurehead for Socialism, or a Socialist symbol to rally behind. It's why I am very happy about this option being here!

[Option] “You know, you kind of look like this chap,” begins the Chairperson on Anti-Nepotism Policy, who happens to be your nephew, “and Great Auntie Matilda did say we were royalty on my second-cousin thrice-removed’s side, or was it my third-cousin twice-removed? Either way, I think it would be really neat if you were to take the throne of @@NAME@@, for the people of course. After all, all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
[Effect] @@LEADER@@ is the most equal member of @@NAME@@

Personally, I'd really want to get this option in an issue like this. However, what you need to consider is that there may be players out there that already play their nation with @@LEADER@@ being the monarch. As such, this option would infringe upon player autonomy, since it would deny that the @@LEADER@@ was monarch already. That said, there is the curious case of issue #1157 Rodney and Julietta, where the fourth option does take the approach you're going for:

“Oh, just become a monarch,” shrugs your laziest nephew, Ingmar, who’s just been fired after one day at his latest in a long line of jobs. “Come on, you waving to the people from balconies, talking about ‘royal unions between two nations, both alike in dignity’... folks’d love it! Then Rodney would be ‘His Royal Highness Rodney of @@NATIONNAME@@’ and I’d never have to work again... I mean, and he could be with the Princess. Wouldn’t that be cool?”

As such, I'd be in favour of keeping your issue option as it is, since there is precedent in the issue base for taking such an approach. However, I believe the Editors hold a different viewpoint, namely that ambiguity is better, so you might want to keep that in mind. I'd wait for the feedback from others before changing anything yet.

[Option] “You know, I hate to say it, but this monarch person kind of has a point” says your Minister for Securing Socialism, @@RANDOMNAME@@ idly flipping through the offending pamphlet, “did you know we don’t let people have lemonade stands AND you smell bad? All I’m saying is, maybe we should listen to the monarch and drop the whole Maxist-Lenyoist facade. You know, I’ve always had some business ideas that I’ve wanted to try out, all you’d have to do is recruit two people and then they would recruit two people, and then...” @@HE@@ trails off for quite some time.
[Effect] the economy is sustained by pyramid schemes lead by former government members
[Policy] Removes the Socialism policy

A lot of the issues about Socialism often have a policy reversal. While I understand the sentiment behind including such an option, I think it would be nice if this issue actually didn't offer the player the option to reverse Socialism. That said, that's my personal sentiment, so you're free to disagree and keep the option in!

In general, I think this is a very interesting issue draft written in a nice and amusing way. It would benefit from a little polishing here and there, and if you want to keep in 5 options (which generally is considered quite a bit) I believe you'll need to shorten some of them a bit, especially the first and third options. The other ones could benefit from a tiny, tiny cut here and there, but generally their lengths appear okay to me (albeit I am not an Editor and their attitude to lengths is much stricter than mine )

I am very interested in seeing this issue draft unfold further! So you can definitely count on my renewed feedback when a new draft is up

[Valrifell]

First of all, I love that you're drafting an issue for socialist monarchies. Daarwyrth was played as having a state-controlled economy, but it wasn't a proponent of any communist/socialist ideology in itself, merely state-control over the economy. So, some of the issue texts always made me a frown a little. I am happy to see you're taking a different approach to it with this issue!

you bump into a well-dressed man distributing pro-capitalist

I am missing a word here, right after "pro-capitalist". I believe you meant to write "pamphlets" or "folders" here.

Yikes, you're right. In my defense I remembered this concept last night and the first thing I did was pump out a first draft, will fix.

After exchanging apologies, the man is promptly arrested.

Perhaps it's just me, but I believe this could use a little bit of clarity. Why are they arrested? For handing out pamphlets or for bumping into @@LEADER@@? Also, unless there is a Communist/Socialist regime with strict control over what ideologies are allowed and which not, I am not sure whether handing out pro-capitalist folders would be such an offense. Could you clarify a bit what your intent here was?

Humor, mostly. It was supposed to convey that Leader just bumped into someone on the streets, and an exchange to the effect of: "Ah, sorry about that." "Oh, no worry at all." "..." *handcuffs* had happened. The main issue being the pro-capitalist pamphlets being distributed and who was doing it. That can be clarified, sure.

-Snip-

[Option] “You know, I hate to say it, but this monarch person kind of has a point” says your Minister for Securing Socialism, @@RANDOMNAME@@ idly flipping through the offending pamphlet, “did you know we don’t let people have lemonade stands AND you smell bad? All I’m saying is, maybe we should listen to the monarch and drop the whole Maxist-Lenyoist facade. You know, I’ve always had some business ideas that I’ve wanted to try out, all you’d have to do is recruit two people and then they would recruit two people, and then...” @@HE@@ trails off for quite some time.
[Effect] the economy is sustained by pyramid schemes lead by former government members
[Policy] Removes the Socialism policy

A lot of the issues about Socialism often have a policy reversal. While I understand the sentiment behind including such an option, I think it would be nice if this issue actually didn't offer the player the option to reverse Socialism. That said, that's my personal sentiment, so you're free to disagree and keep the option in!

That's true, it might better focus the issue given there would still be a pro-monarchist option anyway. I'll have to mull it over. Five options is kind of long for an issue, and switching to a capitalist economy may not be relevant to the heart of the issue.

In general, I think this is a very interesting issue draft written in a nice and amusing way. It would benefit from a little polishing here and there, and if you want to keep in 5 options (which generally is considered quite a bit) I believe you'll need to shorten some of them a bit, especially the first and third options. The other ones could benefit from a tiny, tiny cut here and there, but generally their lengths appear okay to me (albeit I am not an Editor and their attitude to lengths is much stricter than mine )

I am very interested in seeing this issue draft unfold further! So you can definitely count on my renewed feedback when a new draft is up

Thank you so much for your feedback!

[Daarwyrth]

Yikes, you're right. In my defense I remembered this concept last night and the first thing I did was pump out a first draft, will fix.

No worries! It's what feedback is for

Humor, mostly. It was supposed to convey that Leader just bumped into someone on the streets, and an exchange to the effect of: "Ah, sorry about that." "Oh, no worry at all." "..." *handcuffs* had happened. The main issue being the pro-capitalist pamphlets being distributed and who was doing it. That can be clarified, sure.

The humour of it was definitely there and amusing. The way you have approached it now seems fine to me!

That's true, it might better focus the issue given there would still be a pro-monarchist option anyway. I'll have to mull it over. Five options is kind of long for an issue, and switching to a capitalist economy may not be relevant to the heart of the issue.

As I said, to me personally the five issues aren't a problem, however, I do think that the issue's core subject would come across more strongly if the reversal option was taken out. But, I'll leave that up to you!

[Valrifell]

Here is my redraft.

[Daarwyrth]

You cast a glance back at @@RANDOMNAME@@, the People’s Secretary for Equality and Timely Solutions

I feel this line as the opening to the option feels a bit awkward. Perhaps you could instead write something about the People's Secretery twiddling their thumbs or casting down their gaze, but leaving @@LEADER@@'s actions out.

the former royal family of @@NAME@@ won a free vacation to Maxtopia and have never been seen again

I feel this effect line could be a little sharper.

I’m sure the popular royal family

I feel this should be "a popular royal family".

not to mention model success stories of our way of life.

I am not sure about this line. I think the bit about the mouthpiece would come across stronger if this line was left one.

we could have something here.

Consider changing this to "we could be onto something here".

Not to mention all of the wealth and opulence from my family

Consider changing this to "Not to mention reclaim all the wealth and treasure you so brutishly took from my family and redistributed it!"

The issue is going in a good direction, I feel! Keep up the good work

[Valrifell]

Here's an update for this.

[Daarwyrth]

Here's an update for this.

Personally, I have nothing more to add, as I really like the direction this issue has taken! I love it

My advice now would be to wait for the feedback of others as well, but I really hope this issue will make it into the issue base!

[Australian rePublic]

Validity: Don't you mean abolished monarch? Also, wouldn't leader recognise the monarch? And even if not (unlikely) what makes you so damned sure that this guy is the monarch? Are you going to take everyone's unsubstantiated claims seriously?

[Berhart]

Validity: Don't you mean abolished monarch? Also, wouldn't leader recognise the monarch? And even if not (unlikely) what makes you so damned sure that this guy is the monarch? Are you going to take everyone's unsubstantiated claims seriously?

(Daarwyrth here) That is what the issue is about (I hope the OP corrects me if I am wrong), that a socialist nation with a monarchy has "forgotten" to remove their status enshrined in the law. Because the socialism policy doesn't automatically exclude a monarchy and neither does a monarchy exclude socialism. It's why I am so in favour of this issue, as there haven't been any issues that deal with monarchies that are simultaneously a socialist state.

I could imagine that - in the throws of socialist ecstasy - it might have been forgotten. And it is entirely possible that people forgot what the monarch looked like, because they didn't see them in their usual environs. I recall one time that the Dutch king Willem-Alexander visited Utrecht Central Station and because I never expected to see him there, I almost didn't recognize him myself while walking by and was annoyed by the commotion it was causing at the station. It's entirely possible for someone to not recognize another in certain circumstances, such as encountering their monarch on the beach handing out pamphlets. I think it is a fun, comedic element in this case.

[Valrifell]

Validity: Don't you mean abolished monarch? Also, wouldn't leader recognise the monarch? And even if not (unlikely) what makes you so damned sure that this guy is the monarch? Are you going to take everyone's unsubstantiated claims seriously?

Technically, in the framing of the issue, the Monarch still has some degree of status enshrined in law (in a similar way to a constitutional monarchy), as the first option states. The game also doesn't distinguish between nations who used to be monarchies and nations that have always been republics, so this is the work-in.

Leader does recognize the monarch, which is the entire problem here. A monarch goes against the rhetoric of equality that is the basis for much of socialist aesthetic/thought, which is also why socialist states tend to have a vendetta against them historically. Here, the old royals somehow survived purges of the aristocracy (or, if the transition was peaceful, the aristocracy just had their legal status kept). Worse, the royals are opposed to socialist thought because of the redistribution.

Finally, yes, traditionally socialist states were not too keen on aristocracy and made a point to hunt them down and either remove them from the country or remove them from the mortal coil. Claimants and descendants can be used as rallying cries/figureheads for royalists, which is why the Soviets were keen to get rid of all of them.

[The Supreme Vatican Caliphate]

So...@@LEADER@@ isn’t the monarch? Then what are they?

[Westinor]

So...@@LEADER@@ isn’t the monarch? Then what are they?

Leader in most issues tends to keep the same role of "executive leader of the government". The monarch (in most issues, it seems, though I'm not completely familiar with most monarchy issues) tends to be separate from @@LEADER@@.

[The Supreme Vatican Caliphate]

So...@@LEADER@@ isn’t the monarch? Then what are they?

Leader in most issues tends to keep the same role of "executive leader of the government". The monarch (in most issues, it seems, though I'm not completely familiar with most monarchy issues) tends to be separate from @@LEADER@@.

Huh. Weird.

[Silver Commonwealth]

So far I quite like this version of the draft, and can't find much issues with it. If anything, it is great that someone made an issue for nations which specifically have a monarchy-socialism combo.

[Daarwyrth]

So...@@LEADER@@ isn’t the monarch? Then what are they?

Leader in most issues tends to keep the same role of "executive leader of the government". The monarch (in most issues, it seems, though I'm not completely familiar with most monarchy issues) tends to be separate from @@LEADER@@.

It's more that it needs to be ambiguous enough to allow for both situations to exist, in the sense that @@LEADER@@ could be played as the executive head of government or a monarchical executive head of government (executive constitutional monarchies do exist, with Morocco and Lichtenstein being two RL examples). In such cases, the monarch's power is bound by the constitution but they have executive powers as monarch and aren't solely ceremonial.

There is one issue that allows @@LEADER@@ specifically to become the monarch of @@NAME@@, namely in issue #1157: Rodney and Julietta. The other issue If At First You Don't Succeed that also allows for a nation to become a monarchy seems to hint at @@LEADER@@ becoming the monarch as well, but it's kept ambiguous enough so as to be interpreted a different way.

It's difficult to determine the nature of monarchies in NationStates since there's only 2 issues (as of yet) that allow a nation to become a monarchy. One keeps it ambiguous who becomes monarch, the other explicitly points to @@LEADER@@. As such, the advice I've been given in the past is to keep it ambiguous as to who the monarch is when writing about issues where there already is a monarchy.

[Valrifell]

So...@@LEADER@@ isn’t the monarch? Then what are they?

I found a bit of difficulty trying to keep the situation ambiguous while also having it be a problem. In this version, Leader is the head of state whereas the current monarch acts as an incidental head of government.

Though I agree that this doesn't jive if Leader is already the monarch I haven't quite figured out how to get around it, or if it even needs fixing considering the option to become the monarch. There's some variation as to whether or not Leader is the monarch in a monarchist government, too, which is why I decided to go this route.

So far I quite like this version of the draft, and can't find much issues with it. If anything, it is great that someone made an issue for nations which specifically have a monarchy-socialism combo.

Thank you! I agree there's a lot of potential in rare/unusual policy combos, even if only a small number of players will get to see them

[Daarwyrth]

So...@@LEADER@@ isn’t the monarch? Then what are they?

I found a bit of difficulty trying to keep the situation ambiguous while also having it be a problem. In this version, Leader is the head of state whereas the current monarch acts as an incidental head of government.

Though I agree that this doesn't jive if Leader is already the monarch I haven't quite figured out how to get around it, or if it even needs fixing considering the option to become the monarch. There's some variation as to whether or not Leader is the monarch in a monarchist government, too, which is why I decided to go this route.

Going by the advice I received from an issues editor in the past, I would recommend you to keep it as it is