[SUBMITTED] Parking-Place Pandemonium

[East Priapistan]

Or about women only gyms dedicating half their spots to men, or something like that

Women-only gyms being legally forced to dedicate half the spots for men. Brilliant

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

I know it took me a while to get this draft out. My real life has gotten a bit too big for its britches, in that it is now interfering with my NationStates life. This is not okay. I will sit down with it and have a talk about reasonable expectations.

Anywho, third draft up, and I think it solves the problems you all brought up! in particular, I've removed most drawbacks to options. Thoughts, anyone?

For the author:

My feedback on the present draft would be this: why are the police involved in arresting somebody for a parking infraction at a shopping mall? The police aren't going to arrest you for incorrectly parking in an "Expectant mothers" spot or a "loading zone only" area - those aren't legally enforced. The fact that tickets can be issued (in the United States) for parking in the ADA spots is because those spots exist due to federal law.

In the case of your draft, there is no legal authority here. The mall designated a special parking zone, and at best can enforce that by calling a tow truck. This gets back to the issue of introducing this concept. Explaining why they exist (well done in the current draft) doesn't make it national law - that would have to be its own issue. I think it would be better to say that the CEO's fancy car got towed and maybe damaged, and now the windbag is trying to sue to have such spots outlawed, or something similar (work around various legal validities here - capitalism, courts, etc).

Thanks Verdant Haven. I've made the guy an influential celebrity (CEOs might not be a thing in communist nations) whose car has been towed. Rather than having him sue (which would require courts) or whine on social media (which would require Internet), I've just had the issue "hit the headlines". I think this is ambiguous enough to work without validities while not being overly mysterious.

I call it misandrist. And this issue is still one-sided and bias AF.

Alternatively, the guy could have written a letter to leader to complain

Thanks for your advice. I've added a comment in the first option pointing out that men get assaulted too, and the third speaker no longer makes any claim about the safety of the spaces. I honestly think this is pretty balanced now. One speaker against, one speaker for, one speaker apathetic, and the last one for-but-focusing-on-other-stuff.

Some title ideas for your troubles. Not great, some of them seem a little unintentionally misogynistic, but I'm doing the best I can here lol

1. Parallel Rights Parking
2. Safe Stations for Shopping Sheilas
3. Pink's Parking Plaza
4. Femme Fatale Fast-lane
5. Detour Ahead
6. Maidens of the Meter
7. Ladies First
8. Vehicular Vestals (this should be the name of a motorbike gang for attack lesbians. someone make it happen)
9. Parking for (Patty, Patricia, Penelope, Phoebe, Priscilla, Poppy...)
10. Princess Parking

Thanks for your suggestions. In the end, I've gone with "Parking-Place Pandemonium", but I still really appreciate all your ideas!

The last part is indeed better - at least the description now makes the situation clear for those who are lucky enough not to live in places where those parking spots already exist.

The options are still rather unbalanced, though; the improvement is that they are all crazy in a way. Still, some things I'm unsure of:

A mall in a high-crime neighbourhood recently implemented safer, female-only parking spaces in its garage, offering extra lighting and a short exit path. After rich company-CEO @@RANDOMMALEFIRSTNAME@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ was arrested for using one himself, they’ve hit the headlines.

As Verdant Haven remarked, I doubt police would bother with something as minor as parking in a wrongly designated spot. Maybe something like "After rich company-CEO @@RANDOMMALEFIRSTNAME@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@'s fancy Aston Ferraghini was towed away for parking in such a spot himself, the discussion about female-only parking spots hit the headlines again" would make it more credible.

Option 1:
"There were no spaces left — what was I meant to do?" exclaims Mr. @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1, "I don't care if women are safer this way — this is sexist. Assault schmault — I believe that everyone should be given an equal opportunity in this country, regardless of piddly things like gender or inheritance size! Get rid of these spaces, and ditch those wheelchair-accessible ones while you're at it — if you're that disabled, you shouldn't be driving anyway!"
Effect: women often carry shields to parking garages

Still has the asshole-factor. But from what I read, this is intentional.

Option 2:
“For ages, parking hasn’t been going anywhere, but these new spaces will make safety a walk in the park!“ interjects black-clad @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, after rising slowly from a hiding place behind your desk, "If anything, we need MORE of them! @@LEADER@@, I believe we should mark half of all public parking — nah, 70% — as female-only. It's the best way to keep @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ women safe from those creeps hiding in the shadows!" He disappears behind your desk again.
Effect: desperate men have been known to leave their cars in the middle of the street

Not sure what you mean to say by "For ages, parking hasn’t been going anywhere", and the general message is a strange one to get from a dude in black that pops up from under your desk.

Idea for an alternative effect line: "@@DEMONYM@@ men grow massive muscly legs from walking the 17.2 kilometers to the nearest allowed parking space"

Option 3:
“I’m all for public safety, but we need to back up — this is an infringement on our civil rights!” points out activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, “I’m tyred of all this control — why should the government decide where people can park? And come to think of it, why does it get to regulate parking at all? Double-parking does drive me insane, but it’s not the government’s business. Give us some space with our spaces, and stay in your lane, @@LEADER@@!”
Effect: parking spots are interpreted as “suggestions”

s/tyred/tired/ I would simplify this one a bit, it contains some redundant parts ("why should the government decide where people can park" is basically the same as "why does it get to regulate parking at all"). Also, if double-parking drives the person insane, they wouldn't be protesting to make it worse, would they?

Option 4:
"Has no one else noticed the real problem here?" asks feminist @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, scowling, "Those female spaces are PINK. Why are we indoctrinating young girls with the notion that colour is so important? You don't see regular spaces painted baby blue. Keep female-only spaces, but mark them differently, and crack down on toy colouring for young girls — THAT's where all the trouble starts. No pink, no exceptions!"
Effect: "politically correct" toys only come in brown and beige

I love crazy options. Sometimes I choose those even if the other ones make more sense.

Thanks for your feedback! I've pulled back a bit with crazy options — now we've got just one of those. And the issue now concerns a celebrity whose car is towed, which fixes the arrest problem.
The first speaker is supposed to be a bit whiny, though I dialed it back a bit to give him a bit more credibility.
With the second option, I was trying to be ironic. In retrospect, the humour didn't make up for the strangeness of it, so I removed that joke. As for parking not going anywhere, I just meant that parking hasn't improved much over the years. It was a pun — when you're parked, you're not going anywhere! Anyway, for conciseness and flow, I removed it.
"Tyred" is a pun as well — in many parts of the world, the rubber things on wheels are called "tyres". I merged that with "tired" on purpose. That one I've kept.
And I've simplified the third option a bit — it now advocates for privatisation of parking.

The core premise here is strong, as evidenced by the emotional responses it has evoked.

However I'd agree that the execution is a little poor in the options, with every reasonable sounding approach adding a "gotcha" to make it less appealing.

I'd suggest trying to structure it more as:

1) reasonable approach - like "this is a good idea, let's roll it out in government-owned and public car parks to encourage it"
2) opposite but still reasonable approach - like "this is active sex discrimination, and should be treated as such under the law"
3) almost reasonable impractical approach - like "in fact, lets make all car parks divided into male and female halves, with separate entrances".
4) crazy ass funny idea.

Thanks, Candlewhisper Archive! I've removed the "gotcha"s. Now it goes:
1) reasonable argument against
2) reasonable argument for (I don't think 20% is too much, considering it's as high as 30% in parts of Germany)
3) reasonable sideways option (I'm thinking maybe this one should be a little bit less on-the-ground, advice welcome)
4) extreme feminist argument
Hopefully this is better.

As always, any further advice is greatly appreciated!

[Trotterdam]

Option 3:
“It's not a matter of equality versus safety. We need to back up — this is an infringement on our civil rights!” points out activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, “I’m tyred of all this control — why does the government need to regulate parking? I say we privatise all parking, and let the people do whatever they want! Give us some space with our spaces, @@LEADER@@ and stay in your lane!”

Isn't this what was already happening? The mall was operating private parking spaces, and decided to make some of them female-only.

I guess the part about privatizing all parking makes the option not quite a dismiss, but it still needs to be clearer that its angle is "what happened is fine, but we need to go further", rather than "I'm tired of this nonsense".

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

Option 3:
“It's not a matter of equality versus safety. We need to back up — this is an infringement on our civil rights!” points out activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, “I’m tyred of all this control — why does the government need to regulate parking? I say we privatise all parking, and let the people do whatever they want! Give us some space with our spaces, @@LEADER@@ and stay in your lane!”

Isn't this what was already happening? The mall was operating private parking spaces, and decided to make some of them female-only.

I guess the part about privatizing all parking makes the option not quite a dismiss, but it still needs to be clearer that its angle is "what happened is fine, but we need to go further", rather than "I'm tired of this nonsense".

I added a line:

That mall deserves the freedom to decide this stuff for itself.

This should help clarify the speaker's opinion. Thanks for the advice, Trotterdam!

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

I've resurrected this one from the deep! Some new changes have been made — in particular, I dropped the third option to keep things simpler. Thoughts are welcome. I really tried to address the original feedback I got, but I'm not sure how well I did.

[Baggieland]

Malls usually have their parking area in the basement, not in garages.

I don't think the last option is that great. Traditional toys / colours for boys and girls has nothing to do with parking spaces. If I were you, I would follow Candle's suggestion more closely.

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

Malls usually have their parking area in the basement, not in garages.

I don't feel like the parking garage/basement disparity is significant, since the thing in the basement is still a garage. If I get more comments about this I can change it.

I don't think the last option is that great. Traditional toys / colours for boys and girls has nothing to do with parking spaces. If I were you, I would follow Candle's suggestion more closely.

I took your advice and scrapped the last option, also adding a new third option in accordance with the wisdom of Candlewhisper Archive. We're back at four now! Thanks Baggieland!

To everyone: I could really use some feedback on my new options, and the issue as a whole. Any takers?

[Fauxia]

Hey there! Welcome to Got Issues, I haven’t seen you before, so I’m assuming you’re new, sorry if I’m wrong.

I like the issue, and it’s well-written but I have a couple of comments.

Option 3: Toggle this option in two condition-controlled variants. Some nations are very anti-LGBTQ and would not have anyone, let alone the Leader’s mother, talk about genderqueer persons.

Option 4: I like making Violetism silly, but I think typically it’s depicted as Luddite more than just insane. I could be wrong but I’d consider trawling through the list of religions and cults for a good fit or come up with an entirely new cult that would propose this.

I could just be mistaken about Violetism but that’s how I feel.

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

Hey there! Welcome to Got Issues, I haven’t seen you before, so I’m assuming you’re new, sorry if I’m wrong.

I like the issue, and it’s well-written but I have a couple of comments.

Option 3: Toggle this option in two condition-controlled variants. Some nations are very anti-LGBTQ and would not have anyone, let alone the Leader’s mother, talk about genderqueer persons.

Option 4: I like making Violetism silly, but I think typically it’s depicted as Luddite more than just insane. I could be wrong but I’d consider trawling through the list of religions and cults for a good fit or come up with an entirely new cult that would propose this.

I could just be mistaken about Violetism but that’s how I feel.

Hi, and thanks for your response! I'm not "new" here, but I haven't been around long enough to get anything published yet.
I'll make Option 3 into two variants like you suggested. Thanks! As for Option 4, I may have found a "religion" that works:

Cult of Cyan First ppearing in #502: Scientists Declare That @@ANIMAL@@s Are Persons, they apparently are a cult so bizarre that Violetism looks straightforward. The interesting fact is that this also seems to be based off of irl religions.

#502: Scientists Declare That @@ANIMAL@@s Are Persons
#851: Commercial Tidings Well In Advance (Alt to Violetism)
#997: The Enemy Within: Not a Second Time
#1066: It’s an Honour Just to Be Condemned

"So bizarre that Violetism looks straightforward." I think I can work with this.

Like I said, thanks for your response — this one hasn't been getting much attention. Do my changes fix the problems?

[Fauxia]

Well, I’m not sure if that’s exactly the right way the validity should be toggled, as the flag is probably more nuanced, but you would probably have to ask an editor.

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

Well, I’m not sure if that’s exactly the right way the validity should be toggled, as the flag is probably more nuanced, but you would probably have to ask an editor.

If you mean the "tolerant of non-binary sexuality" thing, then yeah… I'm just gonna leave it for the editors to figure out. I have no clue how they'd measure that, but it shouldn't hurt to have it in there.

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

Bumping this draft since it's fallen halfway down the second forum page. I've made some new changes as well — be sure to check 'em out!
- there's a new introduction!
- we've got new effect lines for options 1 and 2! The second one is directly inspired by another issue effect line: "The tax rate for the rich is 100%."

Lately, feedback has been pretty sparse for this draft. I would seriously appreciate some more advice — even just "this is good!" or "improve this effect line!"

[Baggieland]

This issue seems okay to me now.

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

This issue seems okay to me now.

Excellent, thanks so much.

All right, the issue's officially on last call. Throw your thoughts at me! Metaphorically!

[Fauxia]

Looks good to me, at least.

[Apabeossie]

Effect: parents who tell their child "life's not fair" are lying

hmm. Even if you remove the parking spots inequality would still exist. Also removing designated parking spots may not sound fair for some people. Maybe I'd change the effect line to "children who are told "life's not fair" think they're being lied to" or something like that. (I'm not really fond of my suggestion though, there should be better ideas)
Other than it looks good
Good luck whenever you decide to submit!

[Ender VI]

Effect: parents who tell their child "life's not fair" are lying

hmm. Even if you remove the parking spots inequality would still exist. Also removing designated parking spots may not sound fair for some people. Maybe I'd change the effect line to "children who are told "life's not fair" think they're being lied to" or something like that. (I'm not really fond of my suggestion though, there should be better ideas)
Other than it looks good
Good luck whenever you decide to submit!

Seconded! I'll throw some out there:
"there's always a place for fairness"
"equality parks in the back"
"parents who tell their child "life's not fair" were(n't) late to the store that morning"
"the Great Third-From-The-Door Parking Spot Clash of @@CAPITAL@@ is spoken of in hushed tones"
"parking garages are host to daily amateur drag races"

What was the rationale for naming the celebrity Bill Fences instead of using a macro? Is that a reference I'm not catching?
I like the issue, solid work!

(shameless-ish plug: I need feedback too)

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

Looks good to me, at least.

Awesome, thanks!

Effect: parents who tell their child "life's not fair" are lying

hmm. Even if you remove the parking spots inequality would still exist. Also removing designated parking spots may not sound fair for some people. Maybe I'd change the effect line to "children who are told "life's not fair" think they're being lied to" or something like that. (I'm not really fond of my suggestion though, there should be better ideas)
Other than it looks good
Good luck whenever you decide to submit!

All right, I've changed the effect line to describe the unfairness of one-gender university Greek life. Thanks for your response!

hmm. Even if you remove the parking spots inequality would still exist. Also removing designated parking spots may not sound fair for some people. Maybe I'd change the effect line to "children who are told "life's not fair" think they're being lied to" or something like that. (I'm not really fond of my suggestion though, there should be better ideas)
Other than it looks good
Good luck whenever you decide to submit!

Seconded! I'll throw some out there:
"there's always a place for fairness"
"equality parks in the back"
"parents who tell their child "life's not fair" were(n't) late to the store that morning"
"the Great Third-From-The-Door Parking Spot Clash of @@CAPITAL@@ is spoken of in hushed tones"
"parking garages are host to daily amateur drag races"

What was the rationale for naming the celebrity Bill Fences instead of using a macro? Is that a reference I'm not catching?
I like the issue, solid work!

(shameless-ish plug: I need feedback too)

Serious thanks for all the suggestions! In the end I went with "college fraternities are considered gender-discriminatory". It over-exaggerates the "fairness" perspective.
Oh. Bill "Fences" is Bill Gates. That's not too obscure/hard-to-get, right? :/
And thanks for your response!

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

After over two months of blood, sweat, and tears, this issue has been submitted! I'd like to thank everyone who helped me out with the drafting process:

• Verdant Haven
• Australian rePublic
• East Priapistan
• Eotenses
• Candlewhisper Archive
• Trotterdam
• Baggieland
• Fauxia
• Apabeossie
• Ender VI

You guys are truly fantastic!

I'll edit this post to mention if the issue's accepted. In the meantime, I'll get started on my next draft!

Edit: This Issue was ACCEPTED today after diligent editing by Electrum! I’m so grateful for everyone’s help; thank you all!

[Australian rePublic]

Good luck

[Fauxia]

G’luck