Advertisement
by Australian rePublic » Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:01 pm
by Comfed » Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:02 pm
Australian rePublic wrote:Do you think this would make a good issue?
[title] The Right to Arm Bears
[desc] After escaping from a mental hospital, @@RANDOMNAME@@ went to a zoo in @@CAPITAL@@, somehow managed to acquire guns, gave them to the bears before freeing them, graffitied the zoo with anti-hunting messages and returned to the mental institution. As the authorities have finished rounding up all the animals, disarming them, and sending them back to the zoo, there have now been national discussions about trophy hunting
by Australian rePublic » Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:04 pm
Comfed wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:Do you think this would make a good issue?
[title] The Right to Arm Bears
[desc] After escaping from a mental hospital, @@RANDOMNAME@@ went to a zoo in @@CAPITAL@@, somehow managed to acquire guns, gave them to the bears before freeing them, graffitied the zoo with anti-hunting messages and returned to the mental institution. As the authorities have finished rounding up all the animals, disarming them, and sending them back to the zoo, there have now been national discussions about trophy hunting
Trophy hunting is an interesting issue but the title and the way that you approach it seems... very disconnected from the topic.
by West Barack and East Obama » Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:51 pm
by Australian rePublic » Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:49 am
by Australian rePublic » Thu Jun 30, 2022 6:04 am
Trotterdam wrote:Leave arming bears to the experts.
by That Crazy Casbah Sound » Sun Jul 03, 2022 2:33 am
by The Human Confederation » Sun Jul 03, 2022 6:19 pm
by RedBrickLand » Sun Jul 03, 2022 7:54 pm
That Crazy Casbah Sound wrote:Are there any issues on banning music altogether? Like the Iranians in 1979.
1. Winner of Issues Contest: Lucky Seven with "Killing In The Name Of Beer"
2. Lost Half of My Bank in 36 hours
3. Defeated Mikeswill in a bidding war
by Australian rePublic » Tue Jul 05, 2022 4:10 am
by The Amazons » Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:33 pm
by Bears Armed » Wed Jul 06, 2022 7:40 pm
by Australian rePublic » Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:55 pm
The Amazons wrote:I realize that the Editors are very reluctant to change Max's originally 30 issues, but I do think that it would be good if #6 'Appointment of Spiritual Advisor' had an extra option added for nations whose OOC players & IC governments want to appoint advisors from religions that are "traditional" in nature rather than 'New Age' but that are not so obviously 'Abrahamic' in nature as the existing first option offers: As it stands, there isn't really a "suitable" option for nations whose traditional religions follow a Goddess rather than "God", or are polytheistic...
If this possibility is considered then I think that the candidate should be described as "a senior priestess", I'd be willing to help write her statement, and of course the stat effects would differ from those of any existing option.
_______________________________________________________
This nation is the latest [OOC] puppet of Bears Armed, whose creation had been on the "if & when the population limit is raised enough that its name gets released for use again" list for several years (despite which listing, unfortunately, I didn't have a custom flag for it already prepared...). It's just faced this dilemma and, as I usually do in such cases, reluctantly chosen the 'New Age' option as "least inappropriate".
by Trotterdam » Thu Jul 07, 2022 1:40 am
by Bow-Tied Engitopia » Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:38 pm
by Bow-Tied Engitopia » Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:40 pm
by Verdant Haven » Mon Jul 11, 2022 6:07 pm
by Australian rePublic » Mon Jul 11, 2022 6:08 pm
by Trotterdam » Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:00 pm
I've always interpreted that issue the opposite way. It's always felt like the issue is primarily about "do you like public transport in general, or not?", and the fact that the specific public transport method being discussed is a monorail is more to due NationStates silliness than being an essential part of the narrative. Many other issues use a relatively silly example as a talking point to address more general and serious topics.Verdant Haven wrote:Many issues are deliberately limited in the number of perspectives presented, in order to maintain focus - in this particular case (Issue 83) for example, it isn't meant to be about broad-based public transit options – it is specifically about a commercial proposal to build a monorail.
...Those aren't opposed?Bow-Tied Engitopia wrote:I get that most people who ban cars are doing it for environmental reasons, but the next biggest reason to be anti car is because you are pro mass transit and cycling,
by Flanderlion » Tue Jul 12, 2022 1:16 am
Australian rePublic wrote:So I went to uni with a girl from Hong Kong, and our grandfathers were dying at the same time. She told me that in some Asian countries, including Hong Kong, old people are denied medical care and her grandfather was told by the hospital "you're too old, go home". Is there an issue about that? I.e. denying medical care to people over a certain age? (Mind you, I bet that shit head Xi Jinping that scumbag will be getting medical care well into his 100's, but that's a different story)
by Australian rePublic » Tue Jul 12, 2022 2:53 am
Flanderlion wrote:Australian rePublic wrote:So I went to uni with a girl from Hong Kong, and our grandfathers were dying at the same time. She told me that in some Asian countries, including Hong Kong, old people are denied medical care and her grandfather was told by the hospital "you're too old, go home". Is there an issue about that? I.e. denying medical care to people over a certain age? (Mind you, I bet that shit head Xi Jinping that scumbag will be getting medical care well into his 100's, but that's a different story)
Is something that happens in the west too, old people just don't get operations that young people would get if they had the same issue (as the payback is not worth it). It makes sense, as limited public resources shouldn't be spent helping someone who will die in a year or so anyway ahead of some young person with their entire life ahead of them. They can always go private if they really want it.
by Bow-Tied Engitopia » Tue Jul 12, 2022 8:07 am
Verdant Haven wrote:As a fellow lover of certain niche interests, I certainly feel you on the desire to see those interests accurately reflected! I'm not sure if we have many folks here who identify as public transportation enthusiasts specifically, so your insights may indeed come as fairly unique.
It isn't too often that we would go back and add entire additional options to issues - especially issues that are as venerable as that. Such an action would typically only be in the event of something seriously wrong or broken, rather than just to flesh out additional perspectives. Many issues are deliberately limited in the number of perspectives presented, in order to maintain focus - in this particular case (Issue 83) for example, it isn't meant to be about broad-based public transit options – it is specifically about a commercial proposal to build a monorail. If we added a "no, but do conventional trains instead" option, that starts getting off topic and the question then becomes why we don't add a "no, but add more buses" or "just allow cars again" or a dozen other things.
On the positive side, I think you're right that there is some room for a good new issue or two addressing the difficulties facing commuters and travelers in no-car nations. It can be a challenge to write, because there isn't necessarily consistency amongst the many different nations who have that status about why and for how long they've been car-free (I wrote a couple of draft attempts myself related to this subject back in the day, but I ended up abandoning them due to the difficulties related to that situation). I would encourage you to take a look at the drafting process, and consider dipping your toes in the waters of issue writing to pursue these specific knowledge and interest areas you have.
by Bow-Tied Engitopia » Tue Jul 12, 2022 8:16 am
Trotterdam wrote:I've always interpreted that issue the opposite way. It's always felt like the issue is primarily about "do you like public transport in general, or not?", and the fact that the specific public transport method being discussed is a monorail is more to due NationStates silliness than being an essential part of the narrative. Many other issues use a relatively silly example as a talking point to address more general and serious topics.Verdant Haven wrote:Many issues are deliberately limited in the number of perspectives presented, in order to maintain focus - in this particular case (Issue 83) for example, it isn't meant to be about broad-based public transit options – it is specifically about a commercial proposal to build a monorail....Those aren't opposed?Bow-Tied Engitopia wrote:I get that most people who ban cars are doing it for environmental reasons, but the next biggest reason to be anti car is because you are pro mass transit and cycling,
Mass transit, while still having some environmental cost, is more environmentally-friendly than everyone having a car. Bicycles, even moreso. For most people who favor mass transit or cycling, it's because they care about the environment (though there do exist some other benefits, too).
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Staidear
Advertisement