[SUBMITTED] Vats? No Tanks!

[SherpDaWerp]

Title: Vats? No Tanks!

Description
During a recent meeting, the Director for Infant Hatcheries reported that the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Birthing Vats have seen a steady decline in adoptions-per-month. Fingers were pointed at your decision to permit natural birth - with more and more @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ choosing that route, concerns have mounted that the vats are looking less like a beneficial institution and more like a budgetary liability.
Validity
Vats are Optional (currently only 1340.4; one day maybe this draft, option 3 as well)

Option 1a
"Obviously, this is a failure of the public sector," argues Vats-R-Us CEO, @@RANDOMNAME_1@@. "Orphanages across @@CAPITAL@@ are filling up with excess, unwanted babies that the government can't find a home for - what a waste! If you gave us control over the vats, I'm sure the free market would keep things efficient and encourage consumers... err, parents, to once again choose the vats as their method of bringing life into the world. All we need to get started is a bit of genetic material, but that can't be too hard to acquire."
Validity
Vats are government owned (any Vat-instituting option except 358.8 and hasn't chosen 1a of this issue before)
Effect
babies are offered with a one-year warranty

Option 1b
"Obviously, this is a failure of the free market," sneers @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, a down-trodden and underpaid vat technician. "These companies simply aren't profitable with the reduced demand, and it's hit the industry hard. All the marketing they're pushing to compensate has sucked the magic out of picking a child! I mean, who wants to be bombarded with slogans and discounts when they're trying to decide on a baby to love and cherish for the rest of their lives? Nationalising the vats will solve this problem - with the vats under government control, they won't need advertising to stay viable, and @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ will flock right back."
Validity
Vats are privately owned (has chosen 358.5 or 1a of this issue)
Effect
somehow monotone grey government facilities don't appeal to potential parents

Option 2
"Well, vat babies would be more popular if they offered a bit more than regular kids," suggests @@RANDOMNAME_3@@, rolling out a several-metre-long parchment family tree. "Genetic customisation has been around for years - people can even do it to their pets - so let's offer it on children as well! I'd love to choose my kids' characteristics - gosh, who wouldn't want a full family of perfect children? No need to wait for the DNA of King Oswyn to finally show up in your lineage when you can guarantee your kids will look just like him. You could even have celebrities donate their genes for fans to get their slice of the action!"
Validity
All
Effect
thousands of @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ children bear the likeness of @@LEADER@@

Option 3a
"The vats provide an incredibly useful service that we shouldn't impinge upon," states @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, whose endometriosis prevents her from having children naturally. "For those with medical conditions, our only options would be IVF, surrogacy or regular adoption - the vats are the best way for us to have children. We don't need free genetic modification or anything wacky, an unmodified kid is plenty good enough for me! Do whatever you need to keep the vats - scale back infant production, prop up the facilities with some government subsidies, even if you have to increase the cost for prospective parents we'll still be grateful. Don't leave us behind!"
Validity
Vats are privately owned (has chosen 358.5 or 1a of this issue)
Effect
families unable to conceive switch their deposit on a house for a deposit on a kid

Option 3b
"The vats provide an incredibly useful service that we shouldn't impinge upon," states @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, whose endometriosis prevents her from having children naturally. "For those with medical conditions, our only options would be IVF, surrogacy or regular adoption - the vats are the best way for us to have children. We don't need free genetic modification or anything wacky, an unmodified kid is plenty good enough for me! Do whatever you need to keep the vats - scale back infant production, pump their budget up with treasury funds, even if you have to increase the cost for prospective parents we'll still be grateful. Don't leave us behind!"
Validity
Vats are government owned (any Vat-instituting option except 358.8 and hasn't chosen 1a of this issue before)
Effect
families unable to conceive switch their deposit on a house for a deposit on a kid

Option 4
"Oh, how dreadful," exclaims @@RANDOMNAME_5@@, whose name-badge identifies @@HIM_5@@ as a manager at the local vat facilities. "I can't believe you'd consider all these changes - if the wider public don't appreciate the service we provide, then that's their problem! Use of the vats will pick up again if we just ban reproduction and force @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ to use the vats again. We'll have to allow for those already pregnant, but give it nine months or so and I'm sure demand will come right back."
Validity
All
Effect
fertility clinics are reporting a massive increase in demand

Title: Vats? No Tanks!

Description
Childbirth is legal, maternity wards are full, and @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ are loving it. But, with less @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ requesting babies every month, the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Birthing Vats are starting to look less like a beneficial institution and more like a budgetary liability.
Validity
Vats are Optional (currently only 1340.4; ideally in the future this draft, option 3 as well)

Option 1a
"Obviously, this is a failure of the government," argues Vats-R-Us CEO, @@RANDOMNAME_1@@. "Orphanages across @@CAPITAL@@ are filling up with excess babies that the government can't find a home for - it's just a waste! If you privatised the vats, I'm sure the free market would keep things efficient and encourage consumers... err, parents, to once again choose the vats as their method of bringing life into the world. The only thing we need is genetic material - could you spare a minute to donate a sample?"
Validity
Vats are government owned (any Vat-instituting option except 358.8 and hasn't chosen 1a of this issue before)
Effect
babies are offered with a one-year warranty

Option 1b
"Obviously, this is a failure of the free market," sneers @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, a down-trodden and underpaid vat technician. "These companies simply aren't profitable with the reduced demand, and it's hit the industry hard. All the ads and marketing they've added to compensate has sucked the magic out of picking a child! I mean, who wants to be bombarded with slogans and discounts when they're trying to decide on a baby to love and cherish for the rest of their lives? Nationalising the vats will solve this problem - with the government pumping money in, we won't need advertising to stay viable, and @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ will flock back to the vats."
Validity
Vats are privately owned (has chosen 358.5 or 1a of this issue)
Effect
somehow monotone grey government facilities don't appeal to potential parents

Option 2
"Well, vat babies would be more popular if they offered a bit more than regular kids," suggests @@RANDOMNAME_3@@, rolling out a several-metre-long parchment family tree. "Genetic customisation has been around for years - people even do it to their pets - so let's offer it on children as well! I'd love to choose my kids' characteristics - gosh, who wouldn't want a full family of perfect children? No need to wait for the DNA of King Oswyn to finally show up in your lineage when you can guarantee your kids will look just like him. You could even have celebrities donate their genes for fans to get their slice of the action!"
Validity
All
Effect
the new generation of @@DEMONYMPLURALNOUN@@ all have glow-in-the-dark fingernails

Option 3
"The vats provide an incredibly useful service," states @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, whose endometriosis prevents her from having children naturally. "For those with medical conditions, our only options would be IVF or adopting someone else's kid - the vats are the best way for us to have children. We don't need free genetic modification or anything wacky, an unmodified kid is plenty good enough for me! Do whatever you need to keep the vats - scale back infant production, prop up the facilities with some government subsidies, even if you have to increase the cost for prospective parents we'll still be grateful. Don't leave us behind!"
Validity
All
Effect
families unable to conceive switch their deposit on a house for a deposit on a kid

Option 4
"Oh, how dreadful," exclaims @@RANDOMNAME_5@@, whose name-badge identifies @@HIM_5@@ as a manager at the local vat facilities. "I can't believe you'd consider all these changes - if the wider public don't appreciate the service we provide, then that's their problem! Use of the vats will pick up again if we just ban reproduction and force @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ to use the vats again. We'll have to allow for those already pregnant, but give it nine months or so and I'm sure demand will come right back."
Validity
All
Effect
fertility clinics are reporting a massive increase in bookings

Title: Vats? No Tanks!

Description
Childbirth is legal, maternity wards are full, and @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ are loving it. But, with less @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ requesting babies every month, the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Birthing Vats are starting to look less like a beneficial institution and more like a budgetary eyesore.
Validity
Vats are Optional (currently only 1340.4; ideally in the future this draft, option 3 as well)

Option 1a
"Obviously, this is a failure of the government," argues Vats-R-Us CEO, @@RANDOMNAME_1@@. "If you privatised the vats, I'm sure the free market would drive costs down and encourage consumers... err, parents, to once again choose the vats as their method of bringing life into the world! We just need permission to start gathering genetic material. Could you spare a minute or two to donate a sample?"
Validity
Vats are government owned (any Vat-instituting option except 358.8 and hasn't chosen 1a of this issue before)
Effect
babies are offered with a one-year warranty

Option 1b
"Obviously, this is a failure of the free market," sneers @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, a down-trodden and underpaid vat technician. "By profiteering off the vats, these companies have sucked all the magic out of picking a child! I mean, who wants to be bombarded with slogans and discounts when they're trying to decide on a baby to love and cherish for the rest of their lives? Placing the vats under government control and removing all this advertising hoo-ha will surely entice @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ back."
Validity
Vats are privately owned (has chosen 358.5 or 1a of this issue)
Effect
somehow monotone grey government facilities don't appeal to potential parents

Option 2
"Or, instead of overhauling our entire vat system, why don't we just give the people a little more incentive?" asks @@RANDOMNAME_3@@ (who you're informed is the national record holder for 'most children adopted from the vats'), seemingly booking yet another appointment to adopt. "I'm sure people would be more interested in the vats if they got paid for their troubles. Not too much - but a little cash bonus would go a long way to getting @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ adopting again."
Validity
All
Effect
adoption rackets are the hit new get-rich-quick scheme

Option 3
"As if they need more incentive to choose the vats!" cries @@RANDOMFEMALENAME_4@@ (who you're informed is the national record-holder for 'most natural born children'), as she glares at @@RANDOMNAME_3@@. "Those of us who choose natural birth already have to deal with pregnancy, so why are we getting further left behind? It's clear that us sensible people prefer natural birth, so if the vats aren't economically viable, just get rid of them!"
Validity
All
Effect
decanting every viable fetus from the vats has created a massive baby boom

Option 4
"Oh, how dreadful," exclaims @@RANDOMNAME_5@@, whose name-badge identifies @@HIM_5@@ as the manager of the local vat facilities. "I can't believe you'd consider removing our glorious vat program - if people don't appreciate the service we provide, then that's their problem! Use of the vats will pick right up again if we just force @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ to adopt. We'll have to allow for those already pregnant, but give it nine months or so and I'm sure demand will pick right back up again."
Validity
All
Effect
fertility clinics are reporting a massive increase in bookings

an issue to implement (and cancel - watch this space) such a policy of vat-optionality

For those of you who were watching, this is my draft to cancel the decision to make vats optional, in the hope that I can get vat-optionality recognised gameside.

The thing I'm most concerned about is the actual option structure - do the current options represent reasonable solutions to the problem, should any be added, should any be removed? The most obvious missing option is a "scale back the vats to fit the demand" option, but that would be quite an easy decision for anyone that wants to keep vat-optionality, so I'm hesitant to add it.

[Trotterdam]

1. If the government runs the vats, it can clearly produce as many vat people as it wants, even if they end up growing up in orphanages staffed by overworked social workers rather than proper parents.
2. Vat babies would likely be more popular if they came with genetic customization, so you have more control of what your child ends up like than with natural conception.
3. There are various reasons why natural childbirth isn't working out for some people (ranging from being unable to find that special someone to infertility), and while real life has solutions which are less extreme than vat production (artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization, or even just adoption), if vats are available there will likely be some demand for them for these reasons.

[Giovanniland]

Interesting issue (haven't looked for any overlaps though), but I have a small suggestion:

"Oh, how dreadful," exclaims @@RANDOMNAME_5@@, whose name-badge identifies @@HIM_5@@ as the manager of the local vat facilities. "I can't believe you'd consider removing our glorious vat program - if people don't appreciate the service we provide, then that's their problem! Use of the vats will pick right up again if we just force @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ to adopt. We'll have to allow for those already pregnant, but give it nine months or so and I'm sure demand will pick right back up again."

Should probably try to use another verb instead of 'pick up again' twice, otherwise it gets a bit repetitive.

[SherpDaWerp]

1. If the government runs the vats, it can clearly produce as many vat people as it wants, even if they end up growing up in orphanages staffed by overworked social workers rather than proper parents.

Yes, but that's obviously a bad scenario that any reasonable government would want to avoid - why make kids if you're just sending them to orphanages?
The alternative here is to have two separate drafts with different premises:
one with government-controlled vats (people aren't adopting, so we have to send them to orphanages)
one with privately-owned vats (people aren't adopting, so we aren't a financially viable business)
Although, I might be able to work those two ideas into the current system with a doppelganger of Option 1...

2. Vat babies would likely be more popular if they came with genetic customization, so you have more control of what your child ends up like than with natural conception.

That's a much better change that Option 2's speaker can suggest instead of financial incentives, thanks.

3. There are various reasons why natural childbirth isn't working out for some people (ranging from being unable to find that special someone to infertility), and while real life has solutions which are less extreme than vat production (artificial insemination, in-vitro fertilization, or even just adoption), if vats are available there will likely be some demand for them for these reasons.

I can work this idea into another option, possibly. As long as I can keep it away from the dismiss button and give it a reasonable downside, that's a better option to round off the list.

---

Interesting issue (haven't looked for any overlaps though), but I have a small suggestion:

"Oh, how dreadful," exclaims @@RANDOMNAME_5@@, whose name-badge identifies @@HIM_5@@ as the manager of the local vat facilities. "I can't believe you'd consider removing our glorious vat program - if people don't appreciate the service we provide, then that's their problem! Use of the vats will pick right up again if we just force @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ to adopt. We'll have to allow for those already pregnant, but give it nine months or so and I'm sure demand will pick right back up again."

Should probably try to use another verb instead of 'pick up again' twice, otherwise it gets a bit repetitive.

I cut plenty of "pick back up again"-s out of other options right before posting, but I must have missed that double-up. Thanks!

---

The thing I'm most concerned about is the actual option structure - do the current options represent reasonable solutions to the problem, should any be added, should any be removed? The most obvious missing option is a "scale back the vats to fit the demand" option, but that would be quite an easy decision for anyone that wants to keep vat-optionality, so I'm hesitant to add it.

How I'm now doing the option structure (thanks to Trotterdam's suggestions) is this:

• 1a. As current option, except the CEO also says "your orphanages are filling up"
• 1b. As current option, except the vat technician also says "the vat businesses aren't viable without customers"
• Greater genetic customisation will make it more appealing
• Vats need to stay, so that people who can't have kids naturally still have a chance. Though, to offset reduced demand, there will have to be a high cost
• force people to use the vats

Draft 2 is now up. Hopefully I've addressed all these concerns!

[Trotterdam]

Yes, but that's obviously a bad scenario that any reasonable government would want to avoid - why make kids if you're just sending them to orphanages?

Because then you can control the environment they grow up in and raise them on patriotic propaganda?

I don't know where your assumption of a "reasonable" government came from.

[SherpDaWerp]

Yes, but that's obviously a bad scenario that any reasonable government would want to avoid - why make kids if you're just sending them to orphanages?

Because then you can control the environment they grow up in and raise them on patriotic propaganda?

I don't know where your assumption of a "reasonable" government came from.

A government that doesn't want to spend money on housing and caring for people that it created? Even if you're looking at it from a propaganda point of view (which I wasn't, originally), it's far more economically viable to just create less people and then spend the money on indoctrinating them in schools, rather than in orphanages.

I can see this being a "crazy 5th option", potentially for government-vat-nations, where someone shady says "just put more funding into orphanages, and we can indoctrinate them!", but I can't see that being a reasonable assumption for something the government already does or wants to do. I would also be concerned about length, I've already got 4 options, so adding a 5th (even if it doesn't appear for everyone, government-vats are the majority of vat nations) might push it over the length limit.

[Australian rePublic]

Yes, but that's obviously a bad scenario that any reasonable government would want to avoid - why make kids if you're just sending them to orphanages?

Because then you can control the environment they grow up in and raise them on patriotic propaganda?

I don't know where your assumption of a "reasonable" government came from.

This is especially useful if nation has a military. If not...

[SherpDaWerp]

Because then you can control the environment they grow up in and raise them on patriotic propaganda?

I don't know where your assumption of a "reasonable" government came from.

This is especially useful if nation has a military. If not...

Well, yeah, some nations would find it useful, but it's still an odd thing to assume that a government wants to do. See my above post - it's far more economically viable to just create less people. You can spend your money on indoctrinating everyone in schools, instead of focusing on indoctrinating the "extras" that end up in orphanages.

[SherpDaWerp]

"Ahem. Hello. Is this mic on? Oh, it is? Good. Bump!"

---

I'm currently wondering whether it's worth adding another "crazy option" per Trotterdam and Aussie's requests around indoctrination. I'm leaning towards "no", but I can see a reasonable case for "yes" as well.

I've written a demo of how it would look here:

Option #
"We could always find other uses for this surplus," posits @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister of Defence. "More grunts for the war effort would never go amiss. Just give me some more money to setup training facilities designed for some younger @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@, and a direct pipeline to the vat facilities. We'll start pumping out new soldiers faster than you can say @@MOTTO@@!"
Validity
non-negative military
Effect
childcare is the best qualification for @@A@@ @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ soldier

[Daarwyrth]

Nationalising the vats will solve this problem - with the government pumping money in, we won't need advertising to stay viable, and @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ will flock back to the vats."

I am not entirely sure about the structure of "Nationalising the vats will solve this problem - with the government pumping money in,". Perhaps this could be more concise? It could just be me tho

You could even have celebrities donate their genes for fans to get their slice of the action!"

This is morally bad, really bad... but I love that it's included xD

I really like the issue and the topic it covers. The options seem well-balanced already, so I am not sure whether I agree with the need for an option about indoctrination.

What I would like to suggest merely for consideration, is the possibility of stem cell procedures to arise in the future. Recent advances in this field of science potentially will make it possible for same-sex couples to conceive children from their own DNA. In essence, stem cells from adult skin would be used to encourage these stem cells into becoming male or female reproduction cells. While it's not necessary to include this into this issue, perhaps it will spark an idea. If not, then it's simply interesting information

[Westinor]

Childbirth is legal, maternity wards are full, and @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ are loving it

This is probably more of a stylistic issue, but the last bit seems strange to me. I understand that "are loving it" is supposed to refer to the state of childbirth and maternity wards, but the way the sentence is structured makes it feel a bit off. You've got childbirth in the state of being legal, maternity wards in the state of being full, and @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ being in the state of loving it. It gets better the more I read over it, but it seems strange just because the "loving it" refers to several things, whereas "loving it" usually refers only to one thing in front of the phrase it's in, in my experience. Plus, it detracts a little bit from the usual structure of "build up. build up, build up" in three part sentences, becoming "build up, build up, turn around" instead. Small nitpick, but I think that if this could be worded better that'd be great.

[SherpDaWerp]

Nationalising the vats will solve this problem - with the government pumping money in, we won't need advertising to stay viable, and @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ will flock back to the vats."

I am not entirely sure about the structure of "Nationalising the vats will solve this problem - with the government pumping money in,". Perhaps this could be more concise? It could just be me tho

The angle I'm going for here is that in a private-vats nation, there's not enough demand for the companies to be profitable. With the government propping them up, there would be no need to stay profitable.

You could even have celebrities donate their genes for fans to get their slice of the action!"

This is morally bad, really bad... but I love that it's included xD

I do feel like the effect line for that option doesn't quite cover how spectacularly big some of those downsides are, so I'll mull over some alternatives.

I really like the issue and the topic it covers. The options seem well-balanced already, so I am not sure whether I agree with the need for an option about indoctrination.

The reasoning I have against including it is because the issue is "people aren't using the vats", and that option essentially says "well, it doesn't matter that people aren't using the vats because we can do this instead." There is a little bit of that in Option 3, but Option 3 forms a proactive-status-quo option for nations that don't want to remove optional vats or accept the downsides of Option 2.

Once you start getting into alternative ways of dealing with a vat surplus, there's heaps of other options out there, ranging from "sell them into slavery", to "indoctrination" to straight up murder. There's probably enough options there for a whole other issue, but I'm not sure how you would set up such a premise to not overlap with this one.

What I would like to suggest merely for consideration, is the possibility of stem cell procedures to arise in the future. Recent advances in this field of science potentially will make it possible for same-sex couples to conceive children from their own DNA. In essence, stem cells from adult skin would be used to encourage these stem cells into becoming male or female reproduction cells. While it's not necessary to include this into this issue, perhaps it will spark an idea. If not, then it's simply interesting information

It's interesting, yeah. Option 3 is probably the most relevant here, but it's aimed more at people who can't have kids for different reasons. The idea here is that the person in Option 3 wants to avoid IVF etc. and the Vats provide her a good way to do that, so she doesn't want them to disappear.

---

Childbirth is legal, maternity wards are full, and @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ are loving it

This is probably more of a stylistic issue, but the last bit seems strange to me. I understand that "are loving it" is supposed to refer to the state of childbirth and maternity wards, but the way the sentence is structured makes it feel a bit off. You've got childbirth in the state of being legal, maternity wards in the state of being full, and @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ being in the state of loving it. It gets better the more I read over it, but it seems strange just because the "loving it" refers to several things, whereas "loving it" usually refers only to one thing in front of the phrase it's in, in my experience. Plus, it detracts a little bit from the usual structure of "build up. build up, build up" in three part sentences, becoming "build up, build up, turn around" instead. Small nitpick, but I think that if this could be worded better that'd be great.

The "it" there refers to "loving having the ability to give birth naturally". It's a bit tricky because I'm not trying to word like a chain issue, even though it kinda is.

I'm trying to keep it phrased more like a "generic-policy-reversal" than an "immediate-consequence-issue" as part of my wider goal to split vat-optionality out as a new policy. That does create some difficulties because given the low numbers of options that would instate such a policy, this issue would work just as well as an "immediate-consequence-issue'. As part of this process, I'm deliberately staying away from saying "recently" or any similar terms, so as to keep it more in line with a "generic-policy-reversal" issue.

I'll try re-writing it, let me know if you think it sounds too much like an immediate-consequence rather than a policy-reversal.

Ever since childbirth was legalised, the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Birthing Vats have seen a steady decline in adoptions-per-month. With more and more @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ choosing the route of natural birth, your accountants are concerned that the vats are looking less like a beneficial institution and more like a budgetary liability.

---

I've made some changes to the issue (all underlined) based on all the feedback. Thanks!

[Westinor]

I'll try re-writing it, let me know if you think it sounds too much like an immediate-consequence rather than a policy-reversal.

Ah, I see what you mean. I think the wording is better, but to the goal you're trying to achieve, I think it might help to note that the after effect of allowing birth again would only kick in after about a year. If you want to frame it as a policy reversal, I think removing the "ever since childbirth was legalised" might be fine, since it's not necessarily important nor even factually correct (if you consider "ever since" to be starting from the very moment it was legalised). Also it sounds a bit like an immediate consequence issue. You could frame the description as happening after a particular event (that causes child birth to be more popular?) but I'm not sure about that either. I'd try going with just removing the beginning clause, maybe replacing it (but yeah, the best replacement there would still be a variation of "recently"...)

[SherpDaWerp]

I'll try re-writing it, let me know if you think it sounds too much like an immediate-consequence rather than a policy-reversal.

Ah, I see what you mean. I think the wording is better, but to the goal you're trying to achieve, I think it might help to note that the after effect of allowing birth again would only kick in after about a year. If you want to frame it as a policy reversal, I think removing the "ever since childbirth was legalised" might be fine, since it's not necessarily important nor even factually correct (if you consider "ever since" to be starting from the very moment it was legalised). Also it sounds a bit like an immediate consequence issue. You could frame the description as happening after a particular event (that causes child birth to be more popular?) but I'm not sure about that either. I'd try going with just removing the beginning clause, maybe replacing it (but yeah, the best replacement there would still be a variation of "recently"...)

I've re-worded it to make the "inciting event" be a meeting in which the Director for Infant Hatcheries (recurring character from #1340.1) complains about lower numbers. This wording should be sufficiently distinct from an immediate-consequence issue that it won't be a problem.

I will note that you'd likely see reduced numbers immediately after the decision, as parents who would have adopted tomorrow will most likely decide to conceive tomorrow instead. There would be a drop in people using the vats almost immediately - the delay you'd see would be in the number of births waiting 9+ months to increase.

[SherpDaWerp]

Moving this to Last Call. (and removing the underlining...)

I've changed the end of Option 1 so that it stands out more against Option 2.

[Fauxia]

Out of curiosity, why is "free market" in italics in option 1b?

[SherpDaWerp]

Out of curiosity, why is "free market" in italics in option 1b?

Spoken emphasis. I added the italics to make the "sneer" more powerful and obvious, but if it's not coming across that way then it can be removed.

[Daarwyrth]

Out of curiosity, why is "free market" in italics in option 1b?

Spoken emphasis. I added the italics to make the "sneer" more powerful and obvious, but if it's not coming across that way then it can be removed.

I think the sneer comes across naturally with the flow of the sentence. I think it can be safely removed, even if it is only for the draft

Fingers were pointed at your decision to allow natural birth - with more and more @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ choosing that route

I think you can turn this into two separate sentences. Having them connected this way feels a little odd, but that could be just me!

Beyond that, I really like the look of the issue in its current form!

[SherpDaWerp]

Spoken emphasis. I added the italics to make the "sneer" more powerful and obvious, but if it's not coming across that way then it can be removed.

I think the sneer comes across naturally with the flow of the sentence. I think it can be safely removed, even if it is only for the draft

As long as people can recognise that @@HE@@'s deriding the laissez-faire approach to vats, that's good enough for me.

Fingers were pointed at your decision to allow natural birth - with more and more @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ choosing that route

I think you can turn this into two separate sentences. Having them connected this way feels a little odd, but that could be just me!

I prefer the sentence structure as-is. "<Thing> <join> <explanation of thing>." works better here than "<Thing>. <Explanation of thing>." in my opinion.

Beyond that, I really like the look of the issue in its current form!

Thanks!

[SherpDaWerp]

Submitted this from halfway down page 2.

Some changes were made during submission; they've all been added to the OP. Mostly just word choice, though Option 3 got a doppelganger (it doesn't make much sense to give government subsidies to a government-owned facility, so she suggests just giving them more money instead).

Thanks to those who commented for their feedback!

[Australian rePublic]

Good Luck