NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] Is Love Forever?

A place to spoil daily issues for those who haven't had them yet, snigger at typos, and discuss ideas for new ones.
User avatar
Angshire
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Sep 17, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

[DRAFT] Is Love Forever?

Postby Angshire » Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:45 pm

TITLE: Is Love Forever?

VALIDITY: Nation must have Permanent Marriage enacted.

DESCRIPTION: An investigation following the hospitalization of @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEFEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ has revealed that she had suffered domestic abuse at the hands of her husband for years. This tragic revelation has brought into question @@NAME@@'s stance on permanent marriage.

OPTION 1: "Think about all the suffering she had to go through," explains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a well-known civil rights activist. "She can't possibly heal from that in the same home as the perpetrator. And I won't even mention the ongoing risk... Well, alright, I did. Abused spouses -- all spouses trapped in hopeless, loveless relationships -- need an escape. And that's only possible if divorce is legal."

EFFECT: "till death do us part" has been fully omitted from wedding vows.

OPTION 2: "We had our ups and downs; every marriage does," says the victim's husband @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, nonchalantly kicking his steel-capped boots against your desk. "My wife isn't always perfect. But I made a vow to keep that woman forever and people shouldn't be able to abandon sacred vows on a whim. What we need is government-enforced marriage counselling, to help women like my wife work through their problems with their spouses. Then marriage would be strengthened, not destroyed."

EFFECT: standard counselling advice is "love the one you're with."

OPTION 3: "Forget marriage counseling!" shouts ultra-conservative commentator @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, an infamous misogynist. "These women should be grateful that the men are providing them with food and a place to stay every night! Every woman ought to obey their husbands at all times, or else," an evil grin spreads across his face, "they will face severe consequences." Cracking his knuckles, he looks at your secretary devilishly. "And tell this one to make me a sandwich! I'm starving over here!"

EFFECT: a bad sandwich warrants an even worse beating.

OPTION 4: "I have an idea!" exclaims single creative thinker @@RANDOMNAME@@ as @@HE@@ bursts through the door. "Why don't we just outlaw marriages altogether? No more marriage means no one will ever be stuck in an abusive relationship ever again! Problem solved!"

EFFECT: jewelry sales are plummeting due to @@NAME@@'s new ban on marriage.

TITLE: Is Love Forever?

VALIDITY: Nation must have Permanent Marriage enacted.

DESCRIPTION: An investigation following the hospitalization of @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEFEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ has revealed that she had suffered domestic abuse at the hands of her husband for years. This tragic revelation has brought into question @@NAME@@'s stance on permanent marriage.

OPTION 1: "Think about all the suffering she had to go through," explains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a well-known civil rights activist. "She can't possibly heal from that in the same home as the perpetrator. And I won't even mention the ongoing risk... Well, alright, I did. Abused spouses -- all spouses trapped in hopeless, loveless relationships -- need an escape. And that's only possible if divorce is legal."

EFFECT: "till death do us part" has been fully omitted from wedding vows.

OPTION 2: "We had our ups and downs; every marriage does," says the victim's husband @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, nonchalantly kicking his steel-capped boots against your desk. "My wife isn't always perfect. But I made a vow to keep that woman forever and people shouldn't be able to abandon sacred vows on a whim. What we need is government-enforced marriage counselling, to help women like my wife work through their problems with their spouses. Then marriage would be strengthened, not destroyed."

EFFECT: standard counselling advice is "love the one you're with."

OPTION 3: "I have an idea!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, a single creative thinker. "Why don't we just outlaw marriages altogether? No more marriage means no one will ever be stuck in an abusive relationship ever again! Problem solved!"

EFFECT: jewelry sales are plummeting due to @@NAME@@'s new ban on marriage.


TITLE: Is Love Forever?

VALIDITY: Nation must have Permanent Marriage enacted.

DESCRIPTION: An investigation following the hospitalization of @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEFEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ has revealed that she had suffered domestic abuse at the hands of her husband for years. Her death has brought into question @@NAME@@'s stance on permanent marriage.

OPTION 1: "Think about all the suffering she had to go through," explains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a well-known civil rights activist. "She can't possibly heal from that in the same home as the perpetrator. And I won't even mention the ongoing risk... Well, alright, I did. Abused spouses -- all spouses trapped in hopeless, loveless relationships -- need an escape. And that's only possible if divorce is legal."

EFFECT: "till death do us part" has been fully omitted from wedding vows.

OPTION 2: "We had our ups and downs; every marriage does," says the victim's husband @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, nonchalantly kicking his steel-capped boots against your desk. "My wife isn't always perfect. But I made a vow to keep that woman forever and people shouldn't be able to abandon sacred vows on a whim. What we need is government-enforced marriage counselling, to help women like my wife work through their problems with their spouses. Then marriage would be strengthened, not destroyed."

EFFECT: standard counselling advice is "love the one you're with."

OPTION 3: "I have an idea!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, a single creative thinker. "Why don't we just outlaw marriages altogether? No more marriage means no one will ever be stuck in an abusive relationship ever again! Problem solved!"

EFFECT: jewelry sales are plummeting due to @@NAME@@'s new ban on marriage.


TITLE: Is Love Forever?

VALIDITY: Nation must have Permanent Marriage enacted.

DESCRIPTION: An investigation following the hospitalization of @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEFEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ has revealed that she had suffered domestic abuse at the hands of her husband for years. Her death has brought into question @@NAME@@'s stance on permanent marriage.

OPTION 1: "Think about all the suffering she had to go through," explains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a well-known civil rights activist. "She can't possibly heal from that in the same home as the perpetrator. And I won't even mention the ongoing risk... Well, alright, I did. Abused spouses -- all spouses trapped in hopeless, loveless relationships -- need an escape. And that's only possible if divorce is legal."

EFFECT: "till death do us part" has been fully omitted from wedding vows.

OPTION 2: "We had our ups and downs; every marriage does," says the victim's husband @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, nonchalantly kicking his steel-capped boots against your desk. "My wife isn't always perfect. But I made a vow to keep that woman forever and people shouldn't be able to abandon sacred vows on a whim. What we need is government-enforced marriage counselling, to help women like my wife work through their problems with their spouses. Then marriage would be strengthened, not destroyed."

EFFECT: standard counselling advice is "love the one you're with."

OPTION 3: "All this talk about marriage has got me thinking," says renowned LGBT activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, a proud homosexual. "Maybe it's time that @@NAME@@ finally legalizes gay marriage. After all, everyone knows that gay marriages are more stable than straight ones. It'll definitely reduce the rate of domestic violence, right?"

EFFECT: ?

OPTION 3 VALIDITY: Nation does not have Marriage Equality enacted.

OPTION 4: "I have an idea!" exclaims creative thinker @@RANDOMNAME@@, who has been single all @@HIS@@ life. "Why don't we just outlaw marriages altogether? No more marriage means no one will ever be stuck in an abusive relationship ever again! Problem solved!"

EFFECT: jewelry sales are plummeting due to @@NAME@@'s new ban on marriage.


TITLE: Is Love Forever?

VALIDITY: Nation must have Permanent Marriage enacted.

DESCRIPTION: An autopsy into the tragic death of @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEFEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ has revealed that she had suffered domestic abuse at the hands of her husband for more than twenty years. Her death has brought into question @@NAME@@'s stance on permanent marriage.

OPTION 1: "This poor woman was trapped in an abusive relationship that she could not escape!" explains women's rights activist @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@ as she frantically waves her arms in the air to emphasize her point. "This law on permanent marriage is archaic and absurd, and needs to be outlawed at once! Think about all the suffering she had to go through. It could've all been avoided if divorce was legal."

EFFECT: "till death do us part" has been fully omitted from wedding vows.

OPTION 2: "Oh please," remarks the victim's husband @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, the accused abuser. "Legalizing divorce means that women will just lie to get out of any marriage they don't like! We all know that women can't be trusted. Besides, how do we even know that this so-called 'domestic abuse' even happened?" He then looks down at his scratched-up arms, quickly hiding them from your view.

EFFECT: women claiming to be abused are quickly dismissed and sent back to their abusers.

OPTION 3: "I have an idea!" exclaims well-known single celebrity @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Why don't we just outlaw marriages altogether? No marriage means no one will ever be legally binded to an abusive relationship ever again! Problem solved!"

EFFECT: weddings are just an excuse to eat cake.
Last edited by Angshire on Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:52 pm, edited 8 times in total.
The Kingdom of Angshire

User avatar
Angshire
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Sep 17, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Angshire » Sat Nov 30, 2019 6:51 pm

Please be sure to give me some feedback! :)
The Kingdom of Angshire

User avatar
Australian rePublic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17677
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Australian rePublic » Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Option 3- so what about reproduction?
Disclaimer: In-Character posts are NOT a reflection of the real world Australian government, any government departments, or any Australian states or territories. I have no authority over real world government decisions. This nation does not reflect my views, as I am trying to unlock banners
As a centrist, I have been called both an extreme leftist and an extreme right-winger.
From Sydney, NSW. From Greek ancestry. Orthodox Christian.
Why stylised as "rePublic"
16 Published Issues and 1 WA Resolution
Issue Ideas You Can Steal

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 10591
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Sat Nov 30, 2019 11:46 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:Option 3- so what about reproduction?

It doesn't only work when you're married, Aussie.

OP, this is an interesting idea for a possible complication to the Permanent Marriage policy. I suggest you take some time to work at it and -- if you haven't already -- read the guide on how to write issues for NS, just for some more pointers.

You will need to keep it thematically different to #482.

I don't think the issue's there yet. I think the woman should be hospitalised, rather than already murdered, to give more flexibility for options.

I'd @@RANDOMNAME@@ the first speaker. Women's rights activists can be either gender, and it makes the issue less men vs. women, which brings more balance. I'd amend the option to strike this line "This law on permanent marriage is archaic and absurd, and needs to be outlawed at once!", as saying divorce should be legal achieves the same goal, and instead amend the last part of the option to something like:
"Think about all the suffering she had to go through. She can't hope to heal from that in the same home as the perpetrator. And I won't even mention the ongoing risk... Well, alright, I did. Abused spouses -- all spouses trapped in hopeless, loveless relationships -- need an escape. And that's only possible if divorce is legal."


The second option reads too obviously as siding with a murderer. I think the angle should be something like:
"We had our ups and downs; every marriage does," says @@RANDOMNAMEMALE, nonchalantly kicking his steel-capped boots against your desk. "My wife isn't always perfect. But I made a vow to keep that woman forever and people shouldn't be able to abandon sacred vows on a whim. What we need is government-enforced marriage counselling, to help women like my wife work through their problems with their spouses. Then marriage would be strengthened, not destroyed."

Something like this would be subtly threatening and slightly less-subtly blame the wife (which domestic abusers are likely to do), while giving a government option (which options have to do) and apparently presenting an alternative to divorce.

I'd change the effect line to something like:
standard counselling advice is "love the one you're with"


Outlawing marriage is certainly a valid possibility with this issue. Though, it's worth mentioning that the effect doesn't work -- no marriage, equals no wedding cake.

Have a think, though, about if there's another way this could be tackled: perhaps stronger prosecution and harsher sentencing for abusers (including abusive spouses) would be another viable option?

EDIT:
Angshire wrote:Please be sure to give me some feedback! :)

There's was really no need to make this post six minutes after your original post. People aren't on the forum constantly. People will get to it when they get to it [/notamod]
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:57 am, edited 2 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Angshire
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Sep 17, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Angshire » Sun Dec 01, 2019 7:34 am

Thanks for the feedback! I definitely think it's a great change to the issue. Is it fine if I use what you wrote in my issue?
The Kingdom of Angshire

User avatar
Angshire
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Sep 17, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Angshire » Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:12 am

The Free Joy State wrote:Outlawing marriage is certainly a valid possibility with this issue. Though, it's worth mentioning that the effect doesn't work -- no marriage, equals no wedding cake.


I mainly gave that effect for comedic effect, but also because choosing this option wouldn't outlaw weddings, it would just outlaw marriages (in other words, weddings would be just for show, but would not actually involve an actual marriage or vows).
The Kingdom of Angshire

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 10591
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Sun Dec 01, 2019 8:25 pm

Angshire wrote:Thanks for the feedback! I definitely think it's a great change to the issue. Is it fine if I use what you wrote in my issue?

You can use it.

Angshire wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:Outlawing marriage is certainly a valid possibility with this issue. Though, it's worth mentioning that the effect doesn't work -- no marriage, equals no wedding cake.


I mainly gave that effect for comedic effect, but also because choosing this option wouldn't outlaw weddings, it would just outlaw marriages (in other words, weddings would be just for show, but would not actually involve an actual marriage or vows).

I still think you should think about another effect line.

And, if no-one else has posted since your last post and you forgot to say something (or realised there's something you need to add), there's an EDIT button on your own posts. You can use that -- even hours later -- to add in what you need to say. It just helps prevent lots of successive posts by one person.

EDIT:
Angshire wrote:OPTION 3: "All this talk about marriage has got me thinking," says renowned LGBT activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, a proud homosexual. "Maybe it's time that @@NAME@@ finally legalizes gay marriage. After all, everyone knows that gay marriages are more stable than straight ones. It'll definitely reduce the rate of domestic violence, right?"

EFFECT: ?

OPTION 3 VALIDITY: Nation does not have Marriage Equality enacted.

I don't see the relevance of this new option to an issue about permanent marriage trapping people in abusive marriages: marriages will still be permanent and those in abusive marriages (whether heterosexual or same-sex) will still be trapped in them for life.

I suggest you rethink this and replace it with something more aimed at dealing with abusive spouses.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:01 am, edited 2 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Angshire
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Sep 17, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Angshire » Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:48 am

The Free Joy State wrote:I don't see the relevance of this new option to an issue about permanent marriage trapping people in abusive marriages: marriages will still be permanent and those in abusive marriages (whether heterosexual or same-sex) will still be trapped in them for life.

I suggest you rethink this and replace it with something more aimed at dealing with abusive spouses.


You make a good point, maybe this wouldn't be the best issue to introduce gay marriage into.

I liked your earlier idea of making harsher punishments for abuse. Maybe I can make an option for that?
The Kingdom of Angshire

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 10591
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:35 pm

Angshire wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:I don't see the relevance of this new option to an issue about permanent marriage trapping people in abusive marriages: marriages will still be permanent and those in abusive marriages (whether heterosexual or same-sex) will still be trapped in them for life.

I suggest you rethink this and replace it with something more aimed at dealing with abusive spouses.


You make a good point, maybe this wouldn't be the best issue to introduce gay marriage into.

I liked your earlier idea of making harsher punishments for abuse. Maybe I can make an option for that?

That might work.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Angshire
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Sep 17, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Angshire » Tue Dec 03, 2019 12:35 pm

After looking at it further, I think I'll leave out the part regarding harsher punishments, as it seems unneeded. I'm sure a 3-option issue will be fine.

Also, this is gonna be the final call, for any last minute changes I should make before submitting the issue.
The Kingdom of Angshire

User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 6343
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Ransium » Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:09 pm

The nation received this issue because they made marriage permanent, why would they choose 3? I think you have a potentially publishable issue here, but as written I certainly wouldn’t edit it. It’s both too dull and superficial. I think you should spend more time drafting before submitting.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

User avatar
Eternal Lotharia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11501
Founded: Dec 27, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Eternal Lotharia » Tue Dec 03, 2019 2:11 pm

Ransium wrote:The nation received this issue because they made marriage permanent, why would they choose 3? I think you have a potentially publishable issue here, but as written I certainly wouldn’t edit it. It’s both too dull and superficial. I think you should spend more time drafting before submitting.

What about realism?
#Yang2020
Left-Wing Christian Pro-Life Pragmatic Populist. Oregonian.
A little too obsessed with food.
Farnhamia wrote:
Geneviev wrote:You scare me sometimes, Loth.

"Local Candidate Admits To Enjoying Human Flesh; Police Seeking Missing Family Members"

User avatar
Angshire
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Sep 17, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Angshire » Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:09 pm

Ransium wrote:The nation received this issue because they made marriage permanent, why would they choose 3? I think you have a potentially publishable issue here, but as written I certainly wouldn’t edit it. It’s both too dull and superficial. I think you should spend more time drafting before submitting.


Personally, I think that in this issue option 3 is a viable suggestion, as it seems to make sense in this situation. (Someone is abused in a marriage, therefore, ban marriage and abuse stops). I think that option 3 has a somewhat logical argument and fits the backstory of the issue.

According to http://www.mwq.dds.nl/ns/results/policies.html, only 5 out of the ~1300 issues enact the No Marriage policy. I think having this as an option can make it easier to obtain that policy.

Finally, bear in mind that a lot of the nations that have the Permanent Marriage policy enacted do so purely because they want to inhibit civil rights on their nations. Since banning marriage altogether would further lower civil rights, this option could appease those nations that are actively seeking to do that.

Regardless, thank you so much for the feedback! If you have any other specific ways in which I can improve this draft, please let me know!
The Kingdom of Angshire

User avatar
Union of Pepe
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 52
Founded: Feb 08, 2019
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Union of Pepe » Tue Dec 03, 2019 4:11 pm

Angshire wrote:TITLE: Is Love Forever?

VALIDITY: Nation must have Permanent Marriage enacted.

DESCRIPTION: An investigation following the hospitalization of @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEFEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ has revealed that she had suffered domestic abuse at the hands of her husband for years. Her death has brought into question @@NAME@@'s stance on permanent marriage.

OPTION 1: "Think about all the suffering she had to go through," explains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a well-known civil rights activist. "She can't possibly heal from that in the same home as the perpetrator. And I won't even mention the ongoing risk... Well, alright, I did. Abused spouses -- all spouses trapped in hopeless, loveless relationships -- need an escape. And that's only possible if divorce is legal."

EFFECT: "till death do us part" has been fully omitted from wedding vows.

OPTION 2: "We had our ups and downs; every marriage does," says the victim's husband @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, nonchalantly kicking his steel-capped boots against your desk. "My wife isn't always perfect. But I made a vow to keep that woman forever and people shouldn't be able to abandon sacred vows on a whim. What we need is government-enforced marriage counselling, to help women like my wife work through their problems with their spouses. Then marriage would be strengthened, not destroyed."

EFFECT: standard counselling advice is "love the one you're with."

OPTION 3: "I have an idea!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, a single creative thinker. "Why don't we just outlaw marriages altogether? No more marriage means no one will ever be stuck in an abusive relationship ever again! Problem solved!"

EFFECT: jewelry sales are plummeting due to @@NAME@@'s new ban on marriage.

TITLE: Is Love Forever?

VALIDITY: Nation must have Permanent Marriage enacted.

DESCRIPTION: An investigation following the hospitalization of @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEFEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ has revealed that she had suffered domestic abuse at the hands of her husband for years. Her death has brought into question @@NAME@@'s stance on permanent marriage.

OPTION 1: "Think about all the suffering she had to go through," explains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a well-known civil rights activist. "She can't possibly heal from that in the same home as the perpetrator. And I won't even mention the ongoing risk... Well, alright, I did. Abused spouses -- all spouses trapped in hopeless, loveless relationships -- need an escape. And that's only possible if divorce is legal."

EFFECT: "till death do us part" has been fully omitted from wedding vows.

OPTION 2: "We had our ups and downs; every marriage does," says the victim's husband @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, nonchalantly kicking his steel-capped boots against your desk. "My wife isn't always perfect. But I made a vow to keep that woman forever and people shouldn't be able to abandon sacred vows on a whim. What we need is government-enforced marriage counselling, to help women like my wife work through their problems with their spouses. Then marriage would be strengthened, not destroyed."

EFFECT: standard counselling advice is "love the one you're with."

OPTION 3: "All this talk about marriage has got me thinking," says renowned LGBT activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, a proud homosexual. "Maybe it's time that @@NAME@@ finally legalizes gay marriage. After all, everyone knows that gay marriages are more stable than straight ones. It'll definitely reduce the rate of domestic violence, right?"

EFFECT: ?

OPTION 3 VALIDITY: Nation does not have Marriage Equality enacted.

OPTION 4: "I have an idea!" exclaims creative thinker @@RANDOMNAME@@, who has been single all @@HIS@@ life. "Why don't we just outlaw marriages altogether? No more marriage means no one will ever be stuck in an abusive relationship ever again! Problem solved!"

EFFECT: jewelry sales are plummeting due to @@NAME@@'s new ban on marriage.


TITLE: Is Love Forever?

VALIDITY: Nation must have Permanent Marriage enacted.

DESCRIPTION: An autopsy into the tragic death of @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEFEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ has revealed that she had suffered domestic abuse at the hands of her husband for more than twenty years. Her death has brought into question @@NAME@@'s stance on permanent marriage.

OPTION 1: "This poor woman was trapped in an abusive relationship that she could not escape!" explains women's rights activist @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@ as she frantically waves her arms in the air to emphasize her point. "This law on permanent marriage is archaic and absurd, and needs to be outlawed at once! Think about all the suffering she had to go through. It could've all been avoided if divorce was legal."

EFFECT: "till death do us part" has been fully omitted from wedding vows.

OPTION 2: "Oh please," remarks the victim's husband @@RANDOMFIRSTNAMEMALE@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@, the accused abuser. "Legalizing divorce means that women will just lie to get out of any marriage they don't like! We all know that women can't be trusted. Besides, how do we even know that this so-called 'domestic abuse' even happened?" He then looks down at his scratched-up arms, quickly hiding them from your view.

EFFECT: women claiming to be abused are quickly dismissed and sent back to their abusers.

OPTION 3: "I have an idea!" exclaims well-known single celebrity @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Why don't we just outlaw marriages altogether? No marriage means no one will ever be legally binded to an abusive relationship ever again! Problem solved!"

EFFECT: weddings are just an excuse to eat cake.

Honestly I like it. We need more of people like you.
Secretary of Oversight of the United Meritocrats
Role Play Region
Some Strange Things I Have Said
Union of Pepe wrote:Elon Musk riding in a chariot pulled by a Tesla Cybertruck with a Tesla flamethrower in hand...
Cheeki Breeki wrote:
Trumpy America wrote:"You know, there is actually a surprising amount of recreational fishing that can be done right here off the coast of New York City, a..."

*bright flash in distance*

"Oh, what is that?!"

*changes channel*

Que the Fallout Theme!

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 10591
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:37 pm

Ransium wrote:The nation received this issue because they made marriage permanent, why would they choose 3? I think you have a potentially publishable issue here, but as written I certainly wouldn’t edit it. It’s both too dull and superficial. I think you should spend more time drafting before submitting.

I agree with Ransium. You really need to leave it longer. Issues can take weeks, even months to get right.

I don't think it's there yet. You really, really need to look at other ways nations that want to keep Permanent Marriage could help abused spouses in order for this draft to work.

With a reversal policy, an ideal ratio is at least two options to keep the policy and one to get rid of it.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Angshire
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Sep 17, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Angshire » Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:45 pm

The Free Joy State wrote:
Ransium wrote:The nation received this issue because they made marriage permanent, why would they choose 3? I think you have a potentially publishable issue here, but as written I certainly wouldn’t edit it. It’s both too dull and superficial. I think you should spend more time drafting before submitting.

I agree with Ransium. You really need to leave it longer. Issues can take weeks, even months to get right.

I don't think it's there yet. You really, really need to look at other ways nations that want to keep Permanent Marriage could help abused spouses in order for this draft to work.

With a reversal policy, an ideal ratio is at least two options to keep the policy and one to get rid of it.


Noted. I'll take it off of final call. After seeing your responses I definitely think that this issue could use a bit more fine-tuning before submittance.
The Kingdom of Angshire

User avatar
Ransium
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 6343
Founded: Oct 17, 2006
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Ransium » Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:52 pm

To me more than anything the problem is lack of humor. Starting with spousal abuse doesn’t leave tons of avenues for humor. There are a few issues that aren’t really funny and are more meant to be deep and thought provoking, but these are few and far between and I don’t actually like many of those myself, and as a new author I wouldn’t set out to write one.

Also, two doesn’t even really make sense. Sure ever marriage has its ups and downs but the death of a spouse seems like one of those unrecoverable moments for most marriages, so the characters focus on reconciliation seems odd.

Commended by SC 236,
WA Delegate of Forest since March 20th, 2007.
Author of WA Resolutions: SC 221, SC 224, SC 233, SC 243, SC 265, GA 403, GA 439, GA 445,GA 463,GA 465,
Issues Editor since January 20th, 2017.
Author of 22 issues. First editor of 44.
Forum Moderator since November 10th, 2017. Game Moderator since March 15th, 2018.

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 10591
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:55 pm

Angshire, I suggest you use the hospitalisation idea (rather than her being dead). It might give more room for humour and also make the draft less disjointed.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Angshire
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Sep 17, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Angshire » Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:03 pm

The Free Joy State wrote:Angshire, I suggest you use the hospitalisation idea (rather than her being dead). It might give more room for humour and also make the draft less disjointed.


I've already edited that into the draft. :)
The Kingdom of Angshire

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 10591
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:05 pm

Angshire wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:Angshire, I suggest you use the hospitalisation idea (rather than her being dead). It might give more room for humour and also make the draft less disjointed.


I've already edited that into the draft. :)

And then the woman dies anyway, which makes the second option disjointed -- as Ransium says -- and leaves very little room for humour.

I am suggesting you remove the part where she dies and have her still alive for the entirety of the draft.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 20156
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Anarchy

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:53 am

Ransium wrote:To me more than anything the problem is lack of humor. Starting with spousal abuse doesn’t leave tons of avenues for humor. There are a few issues that aren’t really funny and are more meant to be deep and thought provoking, but these are few and far between and I don’t actually like many of those myself, and as a new author I wouldn’t set out to write one.

Also, two doesn’t even really make sense. Sure ever marriage has its ups and downs but the death of a spouse seems like one of those unrecoverable moments for most marriages, so the characters focus on reconciliation seems odd.


I'd it's possible to have have serious and sad issues that also contain humour. 576 is about euthanasia being extended to the suicidally depressed, 632 is about honour killing. Both are pretty dark topics, but both find room for at least some humour along the way.

User avatar
Angshire
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Sep 17, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Angshire » Wed Dec 04, 2019 6:30 am

The Free Joy State wrote:
Angshire wrote:
I've already edited that into the draft. :)

And then the woman dies anyway, which makes the second option disjointed -- as Ransium says -- and leaves very little room for humour.

I am suggesting you remove the part where she dies and have her still alive for the entirety of the draft.


Oh lol, I just realized I forgot to take out that part. Give me one second.

EDIT: Done.
Last edited by Angshire on Wed Dec 04, 2019 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Kingdom of Angshire

User avatar
Angshire
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Sep 17, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Angshire » Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:36 pm

The Free Joy State wrote:
Ransium wrote:With a reversal policy, an ideal ratio is at least two options to keep the policy and one to get rid of it.


Noted. I'll add another option to the draft.
The Kingdom of Angshire

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 10591
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby The Free Joy State » Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:33 pm

Angshire wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:


Noted. I'll add another option to the draft.

Yeah... I was thinking more along the lines of an option for tackling spousal abuse, rather than openly encouraging it.

If you wanted an option that tacitly allowed it, you could change the husband's approach to being one of keeping the government out of "private family business".

And, I can see you really, really like that option for banning marriage. But consider if replacing it altogether with another option more related to abuse -- not encouraging it -- might be better for the draft.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Angshire
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 25
Founded: Sep 17, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Angshire » Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:30 am

The Free Joy State wrote:Yeah... I was thinking more along the lines of an option for tackling spousal abuse, rather than openly encouraging it.

If you wanted an option that tacitly allowed it, you could change the husband's approach to being one of keeping the government out of "private family business".


I might just do that. I think it accomplishes more and makes more sense from the husband's point of view. That being said, I might add in marriage counseling as it's own separate option and replace the current Option 3.

The Free Joy State wrote:And, I can see you really, really like that option for banning marriage. But consider if replacing it altogether with another option more related to abuse -- not encouraging it -- might be better for the draft.


You make a fair point. I'll try and think of another option perhaps to replace it.
The Kingdom of Angshire


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Got Issues?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads