[Draft] @@NAME@@ Going Dangerously Sky High?

[He Qixin]

Draft 2.0.4/Current Draft:

Title: @@NAME@@ Going Dangerously Sky High?

Description: Recently, a high-rise residential building has finished construction, and has now received approximately 1000 residents. However, more recently, the building collapsed, causing billions worth of damage and at least 750 dead. It was believed to be caused by the poor building foundations, as it was realized that the building only required 100 billion @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ to build, and many of its incidents have somewhat low incomes. This made the government rethink about handling tall buildings.

Issue eligibility: Choosing 68.1, 643.1 or 725.1.

Option 1: "We all know that the incident was quite tragic, but we can't do nothing," volunteers @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister Of Construction. "We need to make sure that any building - be it residential, commercial, whatever - must be built to high safety standards, of course. How you may ask? Well the problem here is a combination of bad construction materials AND workers. So we had better get those better buildings materials going - along with training our construction workers. It may be expensive, but it would be worth the safety for the residents. Get going, guys!"

Fallout 1: no building has ever caught on fire following new safety regulations

Option 2: "I can't believe we... are doing... this," argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, a construction worker, panting. "That incident was simply an accident. We all know that buildings - no matter how much cost was put into building them - would collapse unless something unlucky happens. Hear that? IT'S BAD LUCK THAT CAUSED THE 100-BILLION BUILDING TO FALL! So don't intervene with our construction job or otherwise I will fire a brick at you!"

Fallout 2: it is a common sight to see poor people hugging debris of collapsed residential buildings and mourning for their dead loved ones

Option 3: "Honestly, I don't even see the purposes of living high up in the air at all," argues your brother @@RANDOMNAME@@, who also happens to be your Minister of Alternative Solutions. "You know that high or low doesn't make a difference. So why not scrap high-rise buildings altogether? It would cut the taxes and save the worry for safety about them."

Fallout 3: residential buildings haven't been more than 4-stories high ever since high-rise buildings were banned

Title: @@NAME@@ Going Dangerously Sky High?

Description: Recently, a high-rise residential building has finished construction, and has now received approximately 1000 residents. However, more recently, the building collapsed, causing billions worth of damage and at least 750 dead. It was believed to be caused by the poor building foundations, as it was realized that the building only required 100 billion @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ to build, and many of its incidents have somewhat low incomes. This made the government rethink about handling tall buildings.

Issue eligibility: Choosing 68.1, 643.1 or 725.1.

Option 1: "We all know that the incident was quite tragic, but we can't do nothing," volunteers @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister Of Construction. "We need to make sure that any building - be it residential, commercial, whatever - must be built to high safety standards, of course. How you may ask? Well the problem here is a combination of bad construction materials AND workers. So we had better get those better buildings materials going - along with training our construction workers. It may be expensive, but it would be worth the safety for the residents. Get going, guys!"

Fallout 1: no building has ever caught on fire following new safety regulations

Option 2: "I can't believe we... are doing this," argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, a construction worker, panting. "That incident was simply an accident. We all know that buildings - no matter how much cost was put into building them - would collapse unless something unlucky happens. Hear that? IT'S BAD LUCK THAT CAUSED THE 100-BILLION BUILDING TO FALL! So don't intervene with our construction job or otherwise I will fire a brick at you!"

Fallout 2: it is a common sight to see poor people hugging debris of collapsed residential buildings and mourning for their dead loved ones

Option 3: "Honestly, I don't even see the purposes of living high in the air at all," argues your brother @@RANDOMNAME@@, who also happens to be your Minister of Alternative Solutions. "You know that living high up or low to the ground doesn't make a difference. So why not scrap high-rise buildings altogether? It would cut the taxes and save the worry for safety about them."

Fallout 3: residential buildings haven't been more than 4-stories high ever since high-rise buildings were banned

Title: @@NAME@@ Going Dangerously Sky High?

Description: Recently, a high-rise residential building has finished construction, and has now received approximately 1000 residents. However, more recently, the building collapsed, causing billions worth of damage and at least 750 dead. It was believed to be caused by the poor building foundations, as it was realized that the building only required 100 billion @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ to build, and many of its incidents have somewhat low incomes. This made the government rethink about handling tall buildings.

Issue eligibility: Choosing 68.1, 643.1 or 725.1.

Option 1: "We all know that the incident was quite tragic, but we can't do nothing," volunteers @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister Of Construction. "We need to make sure that any building - be it residential, commercial, whatever - must be built to high safety standards, of course. How you may ask? Well the problem here is a combination of bad construction materials AND workers. So we had better get those better buildings materials going - along with training our construction workers. It may be expensive, but it would be worth the safety for the residents. Get going, guys!"

Fallout 1: no building has ever caught on fire following new safety regulations

Option 2: "I can't believe we... are doing this," argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, a construction worker, panting. "That incident was simply an accident. We all know that buildings - no matter how much cost was put into building them - would collapse unless something unlucky happens. Hear that? IT'S BAD LUCK THAT CAUSED THE 100-BILLION BUILDING TO FALL! So don't intervene with our construction job otherwise I will fire a brick at you!"

Fallout 2: it is a common sight to see poor people hugging debris of collapsed residential buildings and mourning for their dead loved ones

Option 3: "Now, honestly, I don't even see the purposes of living high in the air at all," argues your brother @@RANDOMNAME@@, who also happens to be your Minister of Alternative Solutions. "You know that living high up or low to the ground doesn't make a difference. So why not scrap high-rise buildings altogether? It would cut the taxes and save the worry for safety about them."

Fallout 3: residential buildings haven't been more than 4-stories high ever since high-rise buildings were banned

Title: @@NAME@@ Going Dangerously Sky High?

Description: Recently, a high-rise residential building has finished construction, and has now received approximately 1000 residents. However, more recently, the building collapsed, causing billions worth of damage and at least 750 dead. It was believed to be caused by the poor building foundations, as it was realized that the building only required 100 billion @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ to build, and many of its incidents have somewhat low incomes. This made the government rethink about handling tall buildings.

Issue eligibility: Choosing 68.1, 643.1 or 725.1.

Option 1: "We all know that the incident was quite tragic, but we can't do nothing," volunteers @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister Of Construction. "We need to make sure that any building - be it residential, commercial, whatever - must be built to high safety standards. How you may ask? Well the problem here is a combination of bad construction materials AND workers. So we had better get those better buildings materials going - along with training our construction workers. It may be expensive, but it would be worth the safety. Get going, guys!"

Fallout 1: no building has ever caught on fire following new safety regulations

Option 2: "I can't believe we... are doing this," argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, a construction worker, panting. "That incident was simply an accident. We all know that buildings - no matter how much cost was put into building them - would collapse unless something unlucky happens. Hear that? IT'S LUCK THAT CAUSED THE 100-BILLION BUILDING TO FALL! So don't intervene with our construction job otherwise I will fire a brick at you!"

Fallout 2: it is a common sight to see poor people hugging debris of collapsed residential buildings

Option 3: "Now, honestly, I don't even see the purposes of living high in the air at all," argues your brother @@RANDOMNAME@@, who also happens to be your Minister of Alternative Solutions. "You know that living high up or low to the ground doesn't make a difference. So why not scrap high-rise buildings altogether? It would cut the taxes and the worry for safety about them."

Fallout 3: residential buildings haven't been more than 4-stories high ever since high-rise buildings were banned

Title: @@NAME@@ Going Dangerously Sky High?

Description: Recently, a high-rise residential building has finished construction, and has now received approximately 1000 residents. However, more recently, the building collapsed, causing billions worth of damage and at least 750 dead. It was believed to be caused by the poor building foundations, as it was realized that the building only required 100 billion @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ to build, and many of its incidents have somewhat low incomes. This made the government rethink about handling tall buildings.

Issue eligibility: Choosing 68.1, 643.1 or 725.1.

Option 1: "We all know that the incident was quite tragic, but we can't do nothing," volunteers @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister Of Construction. "We need to make sure that any building - be it residential, commercial, whatever - must be built to high safety standards. How you may ask? Well the problem here is a combination of bad construction materials AND workers. So we had better get those better buildings materials going - along with training our construction workers. It may be expensive, but it would be worth the safety. Get going, guys!"

Fallout 1: no building has ever caught on fire following new safety regulations

Option 2: "I can't believe we... are doing this," argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, a construction worker, panting. "That incident was simply an accident. We all know that buildings - no matter how much cost was put into building them - would collapse unless something unlucky happens. Hear that? IT'S LUCK THAT CAUSED THE 100-BILLION BUILDING TO FALL! So don't intervene with our construction job otherwise I will fire a brick at you!"

Fallout 2: it is a common sight to see poor people hugging debris of collapsed residential buildings

Option 3: "Now, honestly, I don't even see the purposes of living high in the air at all," argues your brother @@RANDOMNAME@@, who also happens to be your Minister of Alternative Solutions. "You know that living high up or low to the ground doesn't make a difference. So why not scrap high-rise buildings altogether? It would cut the taxes and the worry for safety about them."

Fallout 3: residential buildings cannot be more than 4-stories high

Title: @@NAME@@ Going Dangerously Sky High?

Description: Recently, the Raj Shalifa, which was about to beat the record for the highest tower in @@NAME@@, collapsed, which was believed to have been caused by a small tremor of magnitude of 4.7 as detected by a seismograph. This made the government rethink about skyscrapers.

Eligibility: Choosing 68.1, 643.1 or 725.1.

Option 1: "The incident looked very scary, but could've been prevented without abolishing skyscrapers!" frighteningly says @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister Of Construction, panting. "It's about time we realized how bad @@NAME@@'s building materials are. Just look at last week's incidents! They're a clear sign of that! We need to get stronger building foundations from other nations with stronger building materials like Daguo, Maxtopia and Blackacre, and better yet, all of them to prepare tall buildings for even stronger natural disasters!"

Fallout 1: aluminium-made towers are slowly being converted to be zirconium-made

Option 2: "Or we could simply train workers," calmly argues David Buld, CEO of the company 'Bulder, Co. Inc.'. "Ya' know, I don't think there's anything wrong with what we are using to build our towers - silicon, aluminium, titanium, ya' know... I think those are fine. I believe the incident was caused by the experience of the workers. You heard me right - those workers just didn't have enough experience of building yet. How about we run a building training programme to teach workers how to build? It may be expensive, but it would be worth it for building safety."

Fallout 2: construction workers now have to undergo very tedious building training before they are deemed safe to help building

Option 3: "Neither of you two are going far enough!" argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, a relative of one of the victims died by the Haj Shalifa collapse. "We need to ban tall buildings altogether! It would make our nation safer and without random building collapses and maybe even lightning strikes. Who cares about the possibility of less tourists visiting @@NAME@@ with just one less popular tourist destination? At least it would be more than if your skyscrapers still collapsed, right?"

Fallout 3: the phrase 'making a mountain out of a molehill' is no longer taught in schools

Option 4: "Those incidents were simply because of bad luck!" shouts now-dirty construction worker @@RANDOMNAME@@. "You heard me right - the incidents had nothing to do with us or construction materials; they just unfortunately happened. Now, stop interrupting my work before I throw a brick at you!"

Fallout 4: it is a common sight to see debris left behind by tower collapses

[Valentine Z]

For "Fallout 3: buildings taller than 1km are immediately demolished"

I have a suggestion for the fallout:

@@DENONYM@@ have to contend with contractors making a skyscraper out of a terrace

A play on "making a mountain out of a molehill."

[He Qixin]

For "Fallout 3: buildings taller than 1km are immediately demolished"

I have a suggestion for the fallout:

@@DENONYM@@ have to contend with contractors making a skyscraper out of a terrace

A play on "making a mountain out of a molehill."

speaking of which, how about changing it to " the phrase 'making a mountain out of a molehill' is no longer taught"? It's better, but thanks for the suggestion anyway.

[Valentine Z]

speaking of which, how about changing it to " the phrase 'making a mountain out of a molehill' is no longer taught"?

Ooh, yeah, that works too!

All the best with it! To me so far, it looks good.

[He Qixin]

speaking of which, how about changing it to " the phrase 'making a mountain out of a molehill' is no longer taught"?

Ooh, yeah, that works too!

All the best with it! To me so far, it looks good.

Thanks!

[Trotterdam]

How often do skyscrapers actually collapse in real life? It's not something I hear about a lot, except when they're getting hit by planes. We seem to be pretty good at building them.

You seem to be artificially trumping up an issue by making NationStates people out to be idiots, using obviously-crazy construction materials that I'm pretty sure nobody in real life would consider suitable skyscrapers (silver!?).

[Jutsa]

Ya never know with some constructions.

Things happen even to skyscrapers.

Gotta say the silver's probably a bit much.

Personally, I think there's something to be said about skyscrapers being potentially dangerous due to anything from bad weather to earthquakes, from fires to, well, bad construction.

[Chan Island]

One skyscraper collapsing would already be world news for weeks. No need for that second one to fall.

[He Qixin]

How often do skyscrapers actually collapse in real life? It's not something I hear about a lot, except when they're getting hit by planes. We seem to be pretty good at building them.

You seem to be artificially trumping up an issue by making NationStates people out to be idiots, using obviously-crazy construction materials that I'm pretty sure nobody in real life would consider suitable skyscrapers (silver!?).

There was one in Singapore which collapsed 20 years ago. How about that?

Edit: It wasn't even so tall.

[Australian rePublic]

Description- "Haj" is an annual religious event where millions of Muslims take a pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. I therefore don't think that that's a good name for a building.

Also- effect for option 3 should mention something about people living in huts and igloos. Wait, do those count as buildings?

[He Qixin]

Description- "Haj" is an annual religious event where millions of Muslims take a pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. I therefore don't think that that's a good name for a building.

Also- effect for option 3 should mention something about people living in huts and igloos. Wait, do those count as buildings?

That hajj is spelled with a double j (I can still change it though, if you want), for one. Also, this issue is about TALL buildings, not huts or igloos where they are really short.

[Australian rePublic]

Description- "Haj" is an annual religious event where millions of Muslims take a pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. I therefore don't think that that's a good name for a building.

Also- effect for option 3 should mention something about people living in huts and igloos. Wait, do those count as buildings?

That hajj is spelled with a double j (I can still change it though, if you want), for one.

Up to you

Also, this issue is about TALL buildings, not huts or igloos where they are really short.

My mistake

[Palos Heights]

Title: @@NAME@@ Going Dangerously Sky High?

Description: Recently, the Raj Shalifa, which was about to beat the record for the highest tower in @@NAME@@, collapsed, which was believed to have been caused by a small tremor of magnitude of 3.7 as detected by a seismograph. This made the government rethink about skyscrapers.

Eligibility: Choosing 68.1, 643.1 or 725.1.

Option 1: "The incident looked very scary, but could've been prevented!" frighteningly says @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister Of Construction, panting. "It's about time we realized how bad @@NAME@@'s building materials are. Just look at last week's incidents! They're a clear sign of that! We need to stop building skyscrapers until we get stronger building foundations from other nations with stronger building materials like Daguo, Maxtopia and Blackacre, and better yet, all of them!"

Fallout 1: aluminium-made towers are slowly being converted to be zirconium-made

Option 2: "Or we could simply train workers," calmly argues David Buld, CEO of the company 'Bulder, Co. Inc.'. "Ya' know, I don't think there's anything wrong with what we are using to build our towers - silicon, aluminium, titanium, ya' know... I think those are fine. I believe the incident was caused by the experience of the workers. You heard me right - those workers just didn't have enough experience of building yet. How about we run a building training programme to teach workers how to build? It may be expensive, but it would be worth it for building safety."

Fallout 2: construction workers now have to undergo very tedious building training before they are deemed safe to help building

Option 3: "Neither of you two are going far enough!" argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, a relative of one of the victims died by the Haj Shalifa collapse. "We need to ban tall buildings altogether! It would make our nation safer and without random building collapses and maybe even lightning strikes. Who cares about the possibility of less tourists visiting @@NAME@@?"

Fallout 3: the phrase 'making a mountain out of a molehill' is no longer taught in schools

Option 4: "Those incidents were simply because of bad luck!" shouts now-dirty construction worker @@RANDOMNAME@@. "You heard me right - the incidents had nothing to do with us or construction materials; they just unfortunately happened. Now, stop interrupting my work before I throw a brick at you!"

Fallout 4: it is a common sight to see debris left behind by tower collapses

EDIT LOG:
Edits 1-2: Modified option 3 and fallout 4 slightly.
Edit 3: Fixed a technical mistake in option 3.
Edit 4: Changed 'three' in option 1 to 'all of them'.
Edit 5: Fixed another technical mistake in option 3.
Edits 6-7: Revamped and Modified fallout 3.
Edit 8: Fixed a grammatical error in fallout 4.
Edit 9: Modified description slightly.
Edit 10: Changed the speaker of option 2 to 'David Buld'.
Edit 11: Changed two incidents to one, also made this issue more realistic.
Edit 12: Added 'as detected by a seismograph' in the description.
Edits 13-14: Changed the name of the collapsed tower to "Raj Shalifa", also fixed a grammar mistake.

Honestly, I think part of the problem with this issue is that the skyscraper did not collapse on its own; rather it was due to an earthquake causing the problem.

Truth be told, I'm not sure what the core crux of this issue is supposed to be. Is this an issue about poor construction quality? Is this an issue about poor earthquake planning? Or is this an issue being caused by people thinking you shouldn't be building skyscrapers too high?

You have multiple different "problems" in this issue and you really only focus on one of them while leaving the others out to dry.

So I ask you, what is this issue really a problem about?

[He Qixin]

Title: @@NAME@@ Going Dangerously Sky High?

Description: Recently, the Raj Shalifa, which was about to beat the record for the highest tower in @@NAME@@, collapsed, which was believed to have been caused by a small tremor of magnitude of 3.7 as detected by a seismograph. This made the government rethink about skyscrapers.

Eligibility: Choosing 68.1, 643.1 or 725.1.

Option 1: "The incident looked very scary, but could've been prevented!" frighteningly says @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister Of Construction, panting. "It's about time we realized how bad @@NAME@@'s building materials are. Just look at last week's incidents! They're a clear sign of that! We need to stop building skyscrapers until we get stronger building foundations from other nations with stronger building materials like Daguo, Maxtopia and Blackacre, and better yet, all of them!"

Fallout 1: aluminium-made towers are slowly being converted to be zirconium-made

Option 2: "Or we could simply train workers," calmly argues David Buld, CEO of the company 'Bulder, Co. Inc.'. "Ya' know, I don't think there's anything wrong with what we are using to build our towers - silicon, aluminium, titanium, ya' know... I think those are fine. I believe the incident was caused by the experience of the workers. You heard me right - those workers just didn't have enough experience of building yet. How about we run a building training programme to teach workers how to build? It may be expensive, but it would be worth it for building safety."

Fallout 2: construction workers now have to undergo very tedious building training before they are deemed safe to help building

Option 3: "Neither of you two are going far enough!" argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, a relative of one of the victims died by the Haj Shalifa collapse. "We need to ban tall buildings altogether! It would make our nation safer and without random building collapses and maybe even lightning strikes. Who cares about the possibility of less tourists visiting @@NAME@@?"

Fallout 3: the phrase 'making a mountain out of a molehill' is no longer taught in schools

Option 4: "Those incidents were simply because of bad luck!" shouts now-dirty construction worker @@RANDOMNAME@@. "You heard me right - the incidents had nothing to do with us or construction materials; they just unfortunately happened. Now, stop interrupting my work before I throw a brick at you!"

Fallout 4: it is a common sight to see debris left behind by tower collapses

EDIT LOG:
Edits 1-2: Modified option 3 and fallout 4 slightly.
Edit 3: Fixed a technical mistake in option 3.
Edit 4: Changed 'three' in option 1 to 'all of them'.
Edit 5: Fixed another technical mistake in option 3.
Edits 6-7: Revamped and Modified fallout 3.
Edit 8: Fixed a grammatical error in fallout 4.
Edit 9: Modified description slightly.
Edit 10: Changed the speaker of option 2 to 'David Buld'.
Edit 11: Changed two incidents to one, also made this issue more realistic.
Edit 12: Added 'as detected by a seismograph' in the description.
Edits 13-14: Changed the name of the collapsed tower to "Raj Shalifa", also fixed a grammar mistake.

Honestly, I think part of the problem with this issue is that the skyscraper did not collapse on its own; rather it was due to an earthquake causing the problem.

Truth be told, I'm not sure what the core crux of this issue is supposed to be. Is this an issue about poor construction quality? Is this an issue about poor earthquake planning? Or is this an issue being caused by people thinking you shouldn't be building skyscrapers too high?

You have multiple different "problems" in this issue and you really only focus on one of them while leaving the others out to dry.

So I ask you, what is this issue really a problem about?

The general issue about skyscrapers and how to deal with them. Each speaker's opinion was just a thought; not that it really collapsed because of an earthquake based on those opinions, because tall buildings should usually still stand even during earthquakes.

[Palos Heights]

I mean, skyscrapers have been around for 150 years. I question if there is an issue to be made about skyscrapers in general.

I would suggest you try to tie it into building codes not being up to snuff, earthquake proofing buildings (because believe it or not, tall buildings do move, whether if by earthquakes or wind; they aren't monolithic statues), or something akin to fire codes causing a disaster.

Skyscrapers simply existing doesn't really sound like something that should be an issue, at least in the way you are presenting it.

[Candensia]

I mean, skyscrapers have been around for 150 years. I question if there is an issue to be made about skyscrapers in general.

I would suggest you try to tie it into building codes not being up to snuff, earthquake proofing buildings (because believe it or not, tall buildings do move, whether if by earthquakes or wind; they aren't monolithic statues), or something akin to fire codes causing a disaster.

Skyscrapers simply existing doesn't really sound like something that should be an issue, at least in the way you are presenting it.

I concur. I mean, as I see it, perhaps I could see an issue like this valid for nations with very low safety stats. But realistically, no skyscraper, or any building could fall as a result of a 3. (anything) earthquake, unless it was in very bad shape to begin with.

Perhaps this issue could be modified to reflect bad building codes, or reflect a push to protect a nation's skyscrapers from moderate earthquakes (~Magnitude 6).

[He Qixin]

I mean, skyscrapers have been around for 150 years. I question if there is an issue to be made about skyscrapers in general.

I would suggest you try to tie it into building codes not being up to snuff, earthquake proofing buildings (because believe it or not, tall buildings do move, whether if by earthquakes or wind; they aren't monolithic statues), or something akin to fire codes causing a disaster.

Skyscrapers simply existing doesn't really sound like something that should be an issue, at least in the way you are presenting it.

I concur. I mean, as I see it, perhaps I could see an issue like this valid for nations with very low safety stats. But realistically, no skyscraper, or any building could fall as a result of a 3. (anything) earthquake, unless it was in very bad shape to begin with.

Perhaps this issue could be modified to reflect bad building codes, or reflect a push to protect a nation's skyscrapers from moderate earthquakes (~Magnitude 6).

You are 110% spot on for what is this issue was really about. I just added a really really unstable building so as to add humour in this issue.

[Caracasus]

This issue as it stands seems to be one that could be really easilly addressed - bring in better building codes.

I'd be tempted instead to frame it as a narrative on cost cutting in the building industry. Perhaps some sort of disaster, fire or collapse, in low income, high rise residential properties.

That way you have a conflict between a) Making sure the buildings are built to higher standards - but conversely increasing the cost of building them or b) cutting some of the red tape around building codes but creating rickety death traps for your poor. You even have a possibility of a final option that wants to do away with high rise living.

[Australian rePublic]

Option 3's effect should mention the consequences of doing away with high-rises. Something to do with extreme urban crowding/urban sprawl

[Chan Island]

This issue as it stands seems to be one that could be really easilly addressed - bring in better building codes.

I'd be tempted instead to frame it as a narrative on cost cutting in the building industry. Perhaps some sort of disaster, fire or collapse, in low income, high rise residential properties.

That way you have a conflict between a) Making sure the buildings are built to higher standards - but conversely increasing the cost of building them or b) cutting some of the red tape around building codes but creating rickety death traps for your poor. You even have a possibility of a final option that wants to do away with high rise living.

I see have also heard of Grenfell Tower.

[Caracasus]

This issue as it stands seems to be one that could be really easilly addressed - bring in better building codes.

I'd be tempted instead to frame it as a narrative on cost cutting in the building industry. Perhaps some sort of disaster, fire or collapse, in low income, high rise residential properties.

That way you have a conflict between a) Making sure the buildings are built to higher standards - but conversely increasing the cost of building them or b) cutting some of the red tape around building codes but creating rickety death traps for your poor. You even have a possibility of a final option that wants to do away with high rise living.

I see have also heard of Grenfell Tower.

Indeed. I'm kind of surprised that it's not been attempted as an issue yet. In fact, there seems to be a large amount of scope for dealing with housing within issues that hasn't really been developed beyond the obvious.

[He Qixin]

I see have also heard of Grenfell Tower.

Indeed. I'm kind of surprised that it's not been attempted as an issue yet. In fact, there seems to be a large amount of scope for dealing with housing within issues that hasn't really been developed beyond the obvious.

Me too.

EDIT: From now on I'm gonna use draft versions rather than a edit log because the edits were a bit difficult to keep up. Just like Jutsa. When there are just small edits, the second decimal digit would increase. When they are significant, the first decimal digit would increase. When the entire draft has been revamped, the whole number would go up.

EDIT 2: Issue Draft versions 2.0.0, 2.0.1 and 2.0.2 have been released! Come check them out!

[Candlewhisper Archive]

For sure. I put Grenfel on my suggestions list, and would have taken it on myself if I had more issue writing time:
https://www.nationstates.net/nation=can ... /id=950582

[He Qixin]

It's about time I revived this.