[SUBMITTED] A (Lot of) Pennies For Your Thoughts

[Fauxia]

Hi, I’m just gonna plunk this here.

Draft Status: 1.4

[description] No one in @@NAME@@ imagined that the "March Against CWA221, Part 19, Clause F" would attract the thousands of protestors it drew; it just seemed like too niche of a part of the tax code. An investigative report published in a number of highbrow media sources today revealed that a number of the protestors were paid to march and have no interest whatsoever in the actual issue.

[validity] must have taxes, must have public protest, must not have high income equality

[option] "No politician would take money for policy considerations," claims member of parliament @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@, who is widely rumored to have helped write the tax policy in question while taking money for policy considerations. "There’s no reason citizens should be allowed to either. No one except those corrupt fat cats - our upstanding wealthy citizens, I mean, could oppose my policy! You must ban the payment of protestors!"
[fallout] celebrities seem to have fewer causes than they used to

[option] "I don’t see what’s wrong with it," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, wealthy friend-turned-recent-enemy of @@LASTNAME(1)@@, one of the employers of the protestors. "In a free country, people should march for what they want for whatever reason they want. All I’m doing is giving people a little incentive to be politically engaged. What’s wrong with that? Shouldn’t we have an intelligent populace?"
[fallout] most celebrities are vocally opposed to @@LEADER@@

must not have geronticide
[option] "I understand that this seems corrupt," remarks the elderly @@RANDOMNAME@@ from @@HIS@@ retirement home. "But some of us old folks don’t have the legs to protest anymore. Don’t we still have a right to have our voices heard? You can restrict this practice, but let the elderly and disabled hire a proxy or two to protest in our stead. Actually, maybe the government can pay the bill, since other people don’t have to pay to protest."
[fallout] the Octogenarian Opposition to the Government Agency is the fastest-growing government agency

[option] "Let’s be smart about this," encourages that stupid party official who always comes up with the worst ideas. "You should let the rich pay protestors, but pay some yourself to counterprotest, or even to start a riot! The protests will be discredited as violent and support for you will be be through the roof! Assuming no one leaks anything, but everyone in the party is loyal to you, right?"
[fallout] there’s never been more violence caused by protestors protesting protestors protesting protestors

[Candlewhisper Archive]

CWA221? Nice.

Does mean I wouldn't be able to edit it without being accused of author insertion, of course.

I like this issue though, it's a sound premise, and is well executed. Last effect line is a little weak though.

[Australian rePublic]

What exactly were they protesting? Why is a tax cut a big enough deal to warranting the cause by paying people to protest?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

The point is that it doesn't matter, Aussie. It's just a framing device for the actual issue.

[Fauxia]

CWA221? Nice.

Does mean I wouldn't be able to edit it without being accused of author insertion, of course.

I like this issue though, it's a sound premise, and is well executed. Last effect line is a little weak though.

Thanks CW! Glad you like the reference.

221, meanwhile is a reference to the issue about bloated tax codes which has a similar code, "NOQ112", which gave me the idea.

Tweaked the draft a bit. Hopefully this new effect line in option 4 is better.

[Chan Island]

[fallout] there’s never been more violence caused by protestors protesting protestors protesting protestors

Win

One interesting aspect of astroturfing that may be worth considering is that they are often used to protest in far off locations. For example, I remember in one John Oliver he discussed how a businessman in some place like Kentucky was paying for protesters in some place like Oregon because their new local ordinance was going to affect his business.

Perhaps not for this draft but something worth looking into.

[Baggieland]

encourages that stupid party official with the worst ideas

How about: encourages that stupid party official who always comes up with the worst ideas.

Another interesting aspect; where I live, whenever a politician holds a rally, they pay people to attend. The payment is usually a t-shirt, a lunchbox and about $2. Some people here are so poor - that payment makes it worthwhile to attend. Then the opposing politician holds his rally, offers the same payment, and the same people turn up to the rival rally.

[Fauxia]

Tweaked it a bit.

encourages that stupid party official with the worst ideas

How about: encourages that stupid party official who always comes up with the worst ideas.

Another interesting aspect; where I live, whenever a politician holds a rally, they pay people to attend. The payment is usually a t-shirt, a lunchbox and about $2. Some people here are so poor - that payment makes it worthwhile to attend. Then the opposing politician holds his rally, offers the same payment, and the same people turn up to the rival rally.

Is it worth pointing this out and having someone propose to ban this as well in another option? Or perhaps should I combine it with option 1? What does everyone think?

[Baggieland]

Nah, I just thought it would be interesting to share. It might work as the effect line for option 2 though.

[Imperial Summaville]

This is a great draft. Nice job!

[fallout] celebrities seem to have less causes than they used to

Not a super big deal, but here "less" should actually be "fewer", as a "cause" is a countable noun. You say "less water" because "water" doesn't imply a specific unit, but "fewer glasses of water" because there is a unit there.
That's my mini-grammar lecture over and done with. Like I said, not a big deal, but anyone who cares about that kind of thing will wince if you say "less".

Best of luck whenever you decide to submit!

[Fauxia]

This is a great draft. Nice job!

[fallout] celebrities seem to have less causes than they used to

Not a super big deal, but here "less" should actually be "fewer", as a "cause" is a countable noun. You say "less water" because "water" doesn't imply a specific unit, but "fewer glasses of water" because there is a unit there.
That's my mini-grammar lecture over and done with. Like I said, not a big deal, but anyone who cares about that kind of thing will wince if you say "less".

Best of luck whenever you decide to submit!

I’m usually very well at grammar ( ), that’s the one thing I really don’t think about. Thanks!

[One Small Island]

I like this issue quite a bit, but there's something that sticks out to me as not quite making sense and it could just be that I'm misreading it... buuuuuuuuuut in option one it states that the politician has (or is rumored to have) taken money for policy consideration, and then he says 'nobody except my friends... could oppose my policy'.

If this politician has taken bribes while writing the tax code, wouldn't the fat cats who bribed him be supporting the tax code? It just doesn't seem to make sense to me that the people who bribed him, who he even refers to as his friends (albeit in a Freudian manner), would oppose his policy. Wouldn't it make more sense if his slip wasn't in referring to the fat cats as his friends but as like skinflints or penny-pinchers or some other pejorative that implies it's the people who didn't bribe him who are opposed to his bill?

[Fauxia]

I like this issue quite a bit, but there's something that sticks out to me as not quite making sense and it could just be that I'm misreading it... buuuuuuuuuut in option one it states that the politician has (or is rumored to have) taken money for policy consideration, and then he says 'nobody except my friends... could oppose my policy'.

If this politician has taken bribes while writing the tax code, wouldn't the fat cats who bribed him be supporting the tax code? It just doesn't seem to make sense to me that the people who bribed him, who he even refers to as his friends (albeit in a Freudian manner), would oppose his policy. Wouldn't it make more sense if his slip wasn't in referring to the fat cats as his friends but as like skinflints or penny-pinchers or some other pejorative that implies it's the people who didn't bribe him who are opposed to his bill?

That’s a good point. I’ll fix it.

[Fauxia]

Tweaked and addressed One Small Island’s point.

If there are no objections, I will likely submit this soon.

[Newvigen]

looking good. But who paid the protestors? (isn't a serious problem though)

[SherpDaWerp]

looking good. But who paid the protestors? (isn't a serious problem though)

Option 2's speaker is implied to have paid the protestors that sparked the debate:

@@RANDOMNAME@@, wealthy friend-turned-recent-enemy of @@LASTNAME(1)@@, one of the employers of the protestors.

Looks like a good issue, from where I'm stood. Effect 1 and 2 might be a little funnier, but that's personal preference, not objective correction.

[Fauxia]

This has been submitted (with a few more tweaks). Thanks to all who contributed

[Candensia]

Best wishes!

[Australian rePublic]

Good Luck!