[SUBMITTED] Today, Tomorrow and Forever

by **Baggieland** » Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:17 pm

Here's the inspiration:
https://www.thecollegefix.com/black-students-demand-segregated-spaces-white-students/

First of all, I'm aware that there are a few issues out there already on the topic of segregation. But as the RL calls for this type of segregation are being made by people who consider themselves to be liberals and progressives, I have made the validity to fit - hopefully - nations that wouldn't have encountered one of the previous segregation issues.

Also, you will notice that there is no option that calls for zero segregation. That's by design, as I would have thought that no segregation would already be the default position.

[TITLE] Today, Tomorrow and Forever

[DESCRIPTION] A number of universities across @@NAME@@ have recently called for segregated areas to be established for the Bigtopian community on campus, such as: dormitories, event spaces and even some courses.

[VALIDITY] allows immigration, high civil rights

[OPTION] "Our own areas will help provide us with a greater feeling of belonging at the university," states Bigtopian student @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ 'reclaims' the vase that was gifted to @@NAME@@ by the president of Bigtopia. "A resource centre can serve as an area where we can host our own events and support organizations that give assistance to our community. Besides that, nearby university accommodation is too expensive for most Bigtopians. Our own place will be cheaper and it could also serve as a safe space to congregate. Please @@LEADER@@, rule that all universities must have these separate areas."

[EFFECT] university cliques resemble prison yard gangs

[OPTION] "I'm sorry, but that's an absurd idea," declares social worker @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ symbolically reveals @@HIS@@ one white sock and matching black sock. "The idea of separating students based on their ethnicity goes against our nation's ideals. We should instead introduce quotas; ensuring that there will be an equal mix of students from minorities, victimised communities and all genders, as well as the natives. By making sure that all walks of life are equally represented, there will be no need for any kind of segregation."

[EFFECT] good grades no longer guarantee admission to university

[OPTION] "Finally the Bigtopians and I agree on something," sniggers Garry Wallace, a far-right public speaker, as he places himself as distant from the other two speakers as possible. "But why stop at universities? There should be segregated areas on buses, beaches and everywhere else. Then our Bigtopian friends can 'feel safe' anywhere they go!"

[EFFECT] the 'never the twain shall meet' policy is doing wonders for race relations

by **Baggieland** » Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:53 am

2nd page bump.

No comments yet.

Is it that good, or that bad?

by **The Free Joy State** » Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:30 am

My first thought... it all seems very, very pro-racial segregation.

There's no option to bring communities together and try to foster more trust. I know that's by design, but "yes", "yes", and "yes, oh Violet, yes" seems a somewhat imbalanced issue structure.

No segregation may be the default, but there should still be an option to take an action to confirm it (besides the Dismiss button), IMO.

by **Baggieland** » Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:23 am

Doesn't option 2 do that?

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Nov 29, 2020 7:44 pm

Please tell me option 3's effect line is sarcastic. Also, where's the option opposing all this?

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Nov 29, 2020 7:47 pm

Baggieland wrote:Doesn't option 2 do that?

No it doesn't. Option 2 is just affirmative action

by **Wille-Harlia** » Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:44 pm

At least to me, the Option 2 Effect line reads a bit weird, I'd change it to something along the lines of "good grades no longer guarantee admission to university"
Also, definitely add an option negating all of this.

by **Baggieland** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 6:11 am

Wille-Harlia wrote:At least to me, the Option 2 Effect line reads a bit weird, I'd change it to something along the lines of "good grades no longer guarantee admission to university"
Also, definitely add an option negating all of this.

Okay, I'll change that in the next draft.

Australian rePublic wrote:No it doesn't. Option 2 is just affirmative action

Australian rePublic wrote:Also, where's the option opposing all this?

Yes, but it's affirmative action to negate the need for segregation.

I've been having a think about option 3.

As already stated, I'm aiming for this issue to be only available to nations that view themselves as highly progressive. With that being the case, many of these nations might say to themselves "Hey, what's a far-right guy doing in my nation? We got rid of them / they fled ages ago!"

So, I'm thinking of changing the far-right speaker into a far-left speaker. The far-left speaker will still call for segregation everywhere. But obviously I will change the reasons for this, such as: it's not only universities where minorities get oppressed, we need to create safe spaces for them everywhere.

Do y'all think this is a better way to approach option 3?

by **Westinor** » Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:14 pm

Baggieland wrote:"Nearby university accommodation is too expensive for the Bigtopian community," declares student activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ 'reclaims' the ancient Macronesian vase that was gifted to you when you became leader. "A Bigtopian dorm will provide cheaper housing and also serve as a safe space to congregate. A resource centre can serve as an area for Bigtopians to host events and support Bigtopian organizations. All this will help community building and provide a greater feeling of belonging at the university. It should be mandated by law to have segregated areas in all universities."

At the risk of making half of this option consist of the word "Bigtopian", I'd suggest adding that the student activist is a Bigtopian, if that's intended. It might also help with cutting down on the repeated use of "Bigtopian", since the speaker could potentially refer to "Bigtopian" things as "our" or something similar, making the lines flow a bit more naturally. The last sentence also feels a bit robotic, like the speaker is reading off a script. Is there a way to make it sound more natural?

Baggieland wrote:"Finally the liberals and I agree on something," sniggers Garry Wallace, a far-right public speaker, as he places himself as far away from the other two speakers as possible. "But why stop at universities? There should be segregated areas on buses, beaches and everywhere else. Then our Bigtopian friends can 'feel safe' anywhere they go!"

Baggieland wrote:So, I'm thinking of changing the far-right speaker into a far-left speaker. The far-left speaker will still call for segregation everywhere. But obviously I will change the reasons for this, such as: it's not only universities where minorities get oppressed, we need to create safe spaces for them everywhere.

Personally think that the "Bigtopian" should be emphasized over the "liberal". I think this approach is fine - I personally like the foil of having a haughty far-right speaker reflect over this kind of "come around in a circle" moment. I also don't know if far-right speakers would necessarily have 'fled' a highly progressive nation - it seems to me that there are usually at least a handful of dissident speakers IRL so long as "free speech" is a tenet of society, and seeing as there isn't any restriction on that in this issue (and that most other issue don't seem to take into account the demographics of a nation) I wouldn't really worry too much about the speaker. A "This is crazy" option might be nice, though I also personally don't think it's absolutely warranted too - I'm of the opinion that the dismiss button in this case does just that.

by **Liagolas** » Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:22 pm

I gotta admit to feeling pretty iffy about this idea—it might be too raw and hot-button.

At a minimum, I suggest changing the name of the issue. I assume you're referencing George Wallace's "I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" line. Directly comparing contemporary activists' interest in community-affirmation to a violent segregationist's politically-motivated racism—it's a comparison that seems to me, to put it quite mildly, extremely precarious.

So long as I'm suggesting a name change, I should probably at least offer an alternative. "A Dorm of Their Own" comes to mind, though I realize that's making a reference to a proto-feminist text, rather than something about race.

by **Baggieland** » Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:24 am

Westinor wrote:At the risk of making half of this option consist of the word "Bigtopian", I'd suggest adding that the student activist is a Bigtopian, if that's intended. It might also help with cutting down on the repeated use of "Bigtopian", since the speaker could potentially refer to "Bigtopian" things as "our" or something similar, making the lines flow a bit more naturally. The last sentence also feels a bit robotic, like the speaker is reading off a script. Is there a way to make it sound more natural?

I wasn't intending on the first speaker to be a Bigtopian, however, your suggestion to cut down on the word 'Bigtopian' makes an awful lot of sense. Last sentence also changed up a bit.

Westinor wrote:Personally think that the "Bigtopian" should be emphasized over the "liberal". I think this approach is fine - I personally like the foil of having a haughty far-right speaker reflect over this kind of "come around in a circle" moment. I also don't know if far-right speakers would necessarily have 'fled' a highly progressive nation - it seems to me that there are usually at least a handful of dissident speakers IRL so long as "free speech" is a tenet of society, and seeing as there isn't any restriction on that in this issue (and that most other issue don't seem to take into account the demographics of a nation) I wouldn't really worry too much about the speaker.

Thanks for your input. He remains far-right, but 'liberal' is now 'Bigtopian'.

Westinor wrote:A "This is crazy" option might be nice, though I also personally don't think it's absolutely warranted too - I'm of the opinion that the dismiss button in this case does just that.

I have to totally disagree here. 'Let's have segregation everywhere' is far from the dismiss button.

Liagolas wrote:I gotta admit to feeling pretty iffy about this idea—it might be too raw and hot-button.

That has never been, nor should it ever be, a reason not to have an issue for NS. All issues get looked over thoroughly in GI, and then looked over thoroughly again in the editing room. Making sure that the final version covers the topic correctly, as well as providing points of view that some players won't like, but without being offensive.

Liagolas wrote:I assume you're referencing George Wallace's "I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" line.

Yes.

Liagolas wrote:Directly comparing contemporary activists' interest in community-affirmation to a violent segregationist's politically-motivated racism—it's a comparison that seems to me, to put it quite mildly, extremely precarious.

Don't forget that option 3 is based on George Wallace -- so it's not that precarious. Not all issue titles have to be directly related to the main speaker's point of view.

However, having said all that, I was never that fussed about the current title, it could indeed be better. Although I'm not keen on 'a dorm of our own' as the issue is about segregation (dorms just being one aspect of that segregation).

As always, I'm open to alternative suggestions.

2nd draft is up.

by **Westinor** » Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:34 am

Baggieland wrote:Westinor wrote:
A "This is crazy" option might be nice, though I also personally don't think it's absolutely warranted too - I'm of the opinion that the dismiss button in this case does just that.

I have to totally disagree here. 'Let's have segregation everywhere' is far from the dismiss button.

I was referring to something along the lines of "these suggestions are crazy", not an actual "crazy" option. Sorry for misphrasing. Unless I'm misunderstanding something?

by **Terrabod** » Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:39 am

Westinor wrote:I was referring to something along the lines of "these suggestions are crazy", not an actual "crazy" option. Sorry for misphrasing. Unless I'm misunderstanding something?

I thought the same thing as Baggieland when reading your original post, but now that I understand what you mean I completely agree. The option I would choose for this issue would be the dismiss button because it lacks an option like the one you're suggesting. Of course, you can't cater to everyone, so the decision over whether to include that kind of option falls on Baggieland.

by **Baggieland** » Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:54 pm

Okay, I think we all did get a bit muddled up there! So, correct me if I'm still wrong, Westinor is asking for the third option to be changed or a fourth option to be added that calls for no segregation. Well, just saying "no segregation" is already the default position in the nation, so that would be equivalent to the dismiss button. There has to something else called for in addition to no segregation. Which option 2 does. The issue at the moment has:
1. Bigtopians feel victimised - segregate universities.
2. No need for segregation - but introduce quotas to universities to even up the numbers.
3. Segregation everywhere.

So...

4. No segregation, plus ???

As always, I'm open to suggestions.

by **Westinor** » Thu Dec 10, 2020 12:15 am

Baggieland wrote:Okay, I think we all did get a bit muddled up there! So, correct me if I'm still wrong, Westinor is asking for the third option to be changed or a fourth option to be added that calls for no segregation. Well, just saying "no segregation" is already the default position in the nation, so that would be equivalent to the dismiss button. There has to something else called for in addition to no segregation. Which option 2 does. The issue at the moment has:
1. Bigtopians feel victimised - segregate universities.
2. No need for segregation - but introduce quotas to universities to even up the numbers.
3. Segregation everywhere.

So...

4. No segregation, plus ???

As always, I'm open to suggestions.

I'm of the opinion that the current structure is fine, and that the dismiss button currently works as a "no segregation" option. However, I do agree that there should probably be something extra in the case of a "no segregation option , though I certainly have no ideas outside of one that emphasizes the "this is absolutely crazy and goes against our nation's ideals"

Perhaps in that fiery reaction a caveat could be fit in?

I'd like to point out that while "segregate" isn't technically a negative word, it tends to carry negative context and thus it might make sense to not have the first speaker refer to the areas as "segregated" and instead something more idealistic, perhaps, or neutral at least. I'm of the opinion that the speaker of this option should be completely unaware that their proposition is pretty similar to discriminatory segregation.

I also think that the first option, in a way, feels out of place. The first option leans into both the "this will foster a feeling of belonging for Bigtopians" and "this is a much cheaper option". The second option leans fully into the idea of "racial belonging and intermixing". Perhaps the "fostering belonging" should be the central point of the first option instead of the "also", and the economic benefit could be the "this is pretty cool" part? Thus giving the second option a more meaningful space in the issue.

Baggieland wrote:as well as the native @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@

This feels a little out of place, language-wise. (Also because it's somewhat implied that natives are minorities?) It almost feels like it's presenting something completely different from the other options noted. If you're going to note the natives, perhaps it might slot in better with "natives and (foreign) minorities"?

by **Baggieland** » Thu Dec 10, 2020 9:16 pm

Westinor wrote:I'm of the opinion that the current structure is fine, and that the dismiss button currently works as a "no segregation" option. However, I do agree that there should probably be something extra in the case of a "no segregation option , though I certainly have no ideas outside of one that emphasizes the "this is absolutely crazy and goes against our nation's ideals" Perhaps in that fiery reaction a caveat could be fit in?

Okay, what I've done is put a bit of the language used by Westinor above into option 2. So hopefully option 2 is now a clearer "no to segregation" option.

Westinor wrote:I'd like to point out that while "segregate" isn't technically a negative word, it tends to carry negative context and thus it might make sense to not have the first speaker refer to the areas as "segregated" and instead something more idealistic, perhaps, or neutral at least. I'm of the opinion that the speaker of this option should be completely unaware that their proposition is pretty similar to discriminatory segregation.

Changed to "separate" for speaker 1.

Westinor wrote:I also think that the first option, in a way, feels out of place. The first option leans into both the "this will foster a feeling of belonging for Bigtopians" and "this is a much cheaper option". The second option leans fully into the idea of "racial belonging and intermixing". Perhaps the "fostering belonging" should be the central point of the first option instead of the "also", and the economic benefit could be the "this is pretty cool" part? Thus giving the second option a more meaningful space in the issue.

Good point. Changed the order to option 1.

Westinor wrote:This feels a little out of place, language-wise. (Also because it's somewhat implied that natives are minorities?) It almost feels like it's presenting something completely different from the other options noted. If you're going to note the natives, perhaps it might slot in better with "natives and (foreign) minorities"?

Okay, it's just "natives" now.

3rd draft is up.

by **Electrum** » Sat Dec 12, 2020 4:37 am

I think the description doesn't tell me enough as to why Bigtopians are requesting segregated areas.

Option 1 and 2 are really similar in the sense that I would expect the Option 1 speaker to advocate for quotas/affirmative action as well. The Option 2 speaker doesn't work for me, I feel.

by **Baggieland** » Sun Jan 03, 2021 9:34 pm

Electrum wrote:I think the description doesn't tell me enough as to why Bigtopians are requesting segregated areas.

The description introduces the issue. The options go into the details.

Electrum wrote:Option 1 and 2 are really similar in the sense that I would expect the Option 1 speaker to advocate for quotas/affirmative action as well. The Option 2 speaker doesn't work for me, I feel.

"I would expect the Option 1 speaker to advocate for quotas/affirmative action as well."

He's not advocating for quotas / affirmative action. That's how speakers 1 and 2 are different.

by **Fauxia** » Fri Jan 08, 2021 9:40 am

Option 1 feels awkward to me. Call it a preference but to me the speaker just sounds lethargic (I don’t really like starting sentences with also if it can be avoided. Also (

), it seems to me like there are a few too many pronouns in a row. I think at least the last sentence could use a “Bigtopians” or something.

by **Baggieland** » Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:55 am

Fauxia wrote:I don’t really like starting sentences with also if it can be avoided.

Done.

Fauxia wrote:it seems to me like there are a few too many pronouns in a row. I think at least the last sentence could use a “Bigtopians” or something.

Also done.

Fauxia wrote:the speaker just sounds lethargic

Hmm, I'm not sure how to make the speaker sound less lethargic, doesn't seem to be lethargic to me. However, as always, I'm open to suggestions.
Not yet done.

4th draft is up.

by **Fauxia** » Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:46 pm

Re-reading it, I'm not sure I'd use "lethargic", but it just doesn't quite sound right...

Maybe it's the repetition of "our own". I realize the natural replacement is probably "Bigtopian" or "for Bigtopians" which is already used though, so I understand the difficulty of altering that...

by **Baggieland** » Thu Jan 14, 2021 6:56 pm

Fauxia wrote:Re-reading it, I'm not sure I'd use "lethargic", but it just doesn't quite sound right...

Maybe it's the repetition of "our own". I realize the natural replacement is probably "Bigtopian" or "for Bigtopians" which is already used though, so I understand the difficulty of altering that...

Thanks Fauxia, this draft has been up for nearly two months now, so I'm going to go ahead and submit it.

by **Lelscrep** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:06 am

Baggieland wrote:
Fauxia wrote:Re-reading it, I'm not sure I'd use "lethargic", but it just doesn't quite sound right...

Maybe it's the repetition of "our own". I realize the natural replacement is probably "Bigtopian" or "for Bigtopians" which is already used though, so I understand the difficulty of altering that...

Thanks Fauxia, this draft has been up for nearly two months now, so I'm going to go ahead and submit it.

Good luck!

by **Australian rePublic** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 12:13 am

Good Luck

by **Baggieland** » Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:19 am

Thanks y'all!

[SUBMITTED] Today, Tomorrow and Forever

[SUBMITTED] Today, Tomorrow and Forever

Who is online