NATION

PASSWORD

[SUBMITTED] Camera Shy

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
Jim the Baptist
Attaché
 
Posts: 88
Founded: Aug 08, 2019
Corporate Bordello

[SUBMITTED] Camera Shy

Postby Jim the Baptist » Thu May 14, 2020 11:26 pm

THE ISSUE
Recently, one of your citizens while out and about caught the eyes of passers by as she adorned a rather ostentatious costume inspired by Britney Pears, complete with leotard and tropical fruit hat. The photos circulated on various social media platforms and now the young lady seeks justice. She claims the “excessive” amount of photos taken were burdensome and posed an infringement of her portrait rights. In the absence of specific laws relating to this issue, the public is divided on how to proceed.

1. “She chose to wear such a ridiculous outfit – so she must have wanted photos taken,” exclaims camera shop owner @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Hyper regulation and sensitivity is not the answer. People have a right to take photos of what they like, when they like. Hey, while we’re at it, @@LEADER@@, say cheese!”
Effect: embarrassing photos of @@LEADER@@ are circulated on a daily basis

2. Concerned churchgoer @@RANDOMNAME@@ interrupts. “If people would stop dressing so aggressively flamboyant then we wouldn’t have this issue in the first place! We should introduce strict rules on what people are and are not allowed to wear out. If not in the name of God then at least for a little modesty! You could even model for us state-ordained outfits, @@LEADER@@; more people would benefit from emulating your style.”
Effect: anyone caught with a Mo-hawk mysteriously disappears
Adds policy: Prudism

3. Your power-hungry police chief, @@RANDOMNAME@@, enters the room. “Why don’t we just ban all photos in public places? Then people can wear what they want without the fear of being photographed. Okay, we might annoy a few bird watchers and street bloggers but at least we can all keep our privacy. Plus a few more arrests every so often always looks good on my record… oops, did I say that out loud?”
Effect: pointing a phone near someone’s face almost always results in being arrested

4. “Banning public photos is not the answer,“ prominent public defence lawyer @@RANDOMNAME@@ asserts. “Photographing people is different from photographing a public landscape which happens to have people in it. Photos in public places are fine so long as the focus is not targeting a specific individual. In this case, the young lady is clearly a victim of unnecessary harassment. Anyone with photos and those responsible for circulating them should face punishment.”
Effect: citizens must receive written consent before taking a photo of anyone

1. “She chose to wear such a ridiculous outfit – so she must have wanted photos taken,” exclaims camera shop owner @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Hyper regulation and sensitivity is not the answer. People have a right to take photos of what they like, when they like. Hey, while we’re at it, @@LEADER@@, say cheese!”
Effect: embarrassing photos of @@LEADER@@ are circulated on a daily basis

2. Concerned churchgoer @@RANDOMNAME@@ interrupts. “If people would stop dressing so aggressively flamboyant then we wouldn’t have this issue in the first place! We should introduce strict rules on what people are and are not allowed to wear out. If not in the name of God then at least for a little modesty! You could even model for us state-ordained outfits, @@LEADER@@; more people would benefit from emulating your style.”
Effect: anyone caught with a Mo-hawk mysteriously disappears
Adds policy: Prudism

3. Your power-hungry police chief, @@RANDOMNAME@@, enters the room. “Why don’t we just ban all photos in public places? Then people can wear what they want without the fear of being photographed. Okay, we might annoy a few bird watchers and street bloggers but at least we can all keep our privacy. Plus a few more arrests every so often always looks good on my record… oops, did I say that out loud?”
Effect: pointing a phone near someone’s face almost always results in being arrested

4. “Banning public photos is not the answer,“ prominent public defence lawyer @@RANDOMNAME@@ asserts. “Photographing people is different from photographing a public landscape which happens to have people in it. Photos in public places are fine so long as the focus is not targeting a specific individual. Each case will be different but we can use our common sense and better judgment to assess the photographer's intent. We should punish those responsible for harassing this lady and many others by establishing formal legal precedent.”
Effect: citizens must receive written consent before taking a photo of anyone

1. “She chose to wear such a ridiculous outfit – so she must have wanted photos taken,” exclaims camera shop owner @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Hyper regulation and sensitivity is not the answer. People have a right to take photos of what they like, when they like. Hey, while we’re at it, @@LEADER@@, say cheese!”
Effect: peeping Toms are applauded as they photograph half-dressed young women through bedroom windows

2a [only valid for nations without religion banned]. Concerned churchgoer @@RANDOMNAME@@ interrupts. “If people would stop dressing so aggressively flamboyant then we wouldn’t have this issue in the first place! We should introduce strict rules on what people are and are not allowed to wear out. If not in the name of God then at least for a little modesty! You could even model for us state-ordained outfits, @@LEADER@@; more people would benefit from emulating your style.”
Effect: anyone caught with a Mo-hawk mysteriously disappears

2b [only valid for nations with religion banned]. Concerned senior citizen @@RANDOMNAME@@ interrupts. “If people would stop dressing so aggressively flamboyant then we wouldn’t have this issue in the first place! We should introduce strict rules on what people are and are not allowed to wear out. Why can't we just go back to the good old days when ankles were sexy? Say, @@LEADER@@, you've got a fine pair yourself!"
Effect: anyone caught with a Mo-hawk mysteriously disappears

3. Your power-hungry police chief, @@RANDOMNAME@@, enters the room. “I have a better idea. Let's ban taking someone's photograph without their permission, unless that activity relates to matters such as law enforcement, journalism or reasonable promotion of the public good. OK, we might annoy a few tourists, but you can trust our fine nation's police force to use our honest and fair discretion. Plus a few more arrests every so often always looks good on my record… oops, did I say that out loud?”
Effect: pointing a phone near someone’s face almost always results in being arrested

4. “Banning public photos is not the answer,“ prominent public defence lawyer @@RANDOMNAME@@ asserts. “Photographing people is different from photographing a public landscape which happens to have people in it. Photos in public places are fine so long as the focus is not targeting a specific individual. Each case will be different but we can use our common sense and better judgment to assess the photographer's intent. We should punish those responsible for harassing this lady and many others by establishing formal legal precedent.”
Effect: birdwatcher's photos often include incidental cleavage
Last edited by Jim the Baptist on Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:44 pm, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
Atheris
Minister
 
Posts: 2118
Founded: Oct 05, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Atheris » Thu May 14, 2020 11:31 pm

There are some grammatical, personal preference, and coding issues. Highlighted in red.

Jim the Baptist wrote:THE ISSUE
Recently, one of your citizens while out and about caught the eyes of passers by as she adorned a rather ostentatious costume inspired by Britney Pears, complete with leotard and tropical fruit hat. The photos circulated on various social media platforms and now the young lady seeks justice. She claims the “excessive” amount of photos taken were burdensome and posed an infringement of her portrait rights. In the absence of specific laws relating to this issue, the public is divided on how to proceed.

1. “She chose to wear such a ridiculous outfit – so she must have wanted photos taken,” exclaims camera shop owner @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Hyper regulation and sensitivity is not the answer. People have a right to take photos of what they like, when they like. Hey, while we’re at it, @@LEADER@@, say cheese!”
Effect: embarrassing photos of @@LEADER@@ are circulated on a daily basis

2. Concerned churchgoer @@RANDOMNAME@@ interrupts. “If people would stop dressing so aggressively flamboyant then we wouldn’t have this issue in the first place! We should introduce strict rules on what people are and are not allowed to wear out. If not in the name of God then at least for a little modesty! You could even model for us state-ordained outfits, @@LEADER@@; more people would benefit from emulating your style.”
Effect: anyone caught with a Mo-hawk mysteriously disappears
Adds policy: Prudism

3. Your power-hungry police chief, @@RANDOMANME, enters the room. “Why don’t we just ban all photos in public places? Then people can wear what they want without the fear of being photographed. Okay, we might annoy a few bird watchers and street bloggers, but at least we can all keep our privacy. Plus, a few more arrests every so often always looks good on my record… oops, did I say that out loud?”
Effect: pointing a phone near someone’s face almost always results in being arrested

4. “Banning public photos is not the answer,“ prominent public defence lawyer @@RANDOMNAME@@ asserts. “Photographing people is different from photographing a public landscape which happens to have people in it. Photos in public places are fine so long as the focus is not targeting a specific individual. In this case, the young lady is clearly a victim of unnecessary harassment. Anyone with photos and those responsible for circulating them should face punishment.”
Effect: citizens must receive written consent before taking a photo of anyone


That being said, I'm a fan of this issue. I don't know if it contradicts any, but I'm not an issue expert.
Dollystana wrote:The one nation that you can’t get rid of.
Ceranapis wrote:"Who needs a country when you can write Ace Attorney fan fiction?"
Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?
Nouveau Quebecois did nothing wrong!
The self-proclaimed Resident Shitposter of NSG.
Ace/aro. Cis he/him. Trans ally.
"To comment is human, to preview, divine." - Godot
Orthodox Preterist Lutheran Christian.
I write AA fanfiction. Fuck you if you judge me.
WA RP nation: Union of Sovereign States and Republics
"What tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive." - Sir Walter Scott

User avatar
Jim the Baptist
Attaché
 
Posts: 88
Founded: Aug 08, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Jim the Baptist » Thu May 14, 2020 11:36 pm

Atheris wrote:There are some grammatical, personal preference, and coding issues. Highlighted in red.

I like your suggestions and I have added all of them.

User avatar
Atheris
Minister
 
Posts: 2118
Founded: Oct 05, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Atheris » Thu May 14, 2020 11:40 pm

Jim the Baptist wrote:
Atheris wrote:There are some grammatical, personal preference, and coding issues. Highlighted in red.

I like your suggestions and I have added all of them.

I'd also recommend editing the thread by keeping past drafts in spoilers.
Dollystana wrote:The one nation that you can’t get rid of.
Ceranapis wrote:"Who needs a country when you can write Ace Attorney fan fiction?"
Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?
Nouveau Quebecois did nothing wrong!
The self-proclaimed Resident Shitposter of NSG.
Ace/aro. Cis he/him. Trans ally.
"To comment is human, to preview, divine." - Godot
Orthodox Preterist Lutheran Christian.
I write AA fanfiction. Fuck you if you judge me.
WA RP nation: Union of Sovereign States and Republics
"What tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive." - Sir Walter Scott

User avatar
Jim the Baptist
Attaché
 
Posts: 88
Founded: Aug 08, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Jim the Baptist » Fri May 15, 2020 12:02 am

Atheris wrote:
Jim the Baptist wrote:I like your suggestions and I have added all of them.

I'd also recommend editing the thread by keeping past drafts in spoilers.

I normally would but considering I only fixed grammatical/small formatting errors I didn't bother this time.

User avatar
Mudreuque
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 9
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Mudreuque » Fri May 15, 2020 12:14 am

I really like this issue! Any mistakes have already been said.
Last edited by Mudreuque on Fri May 15, 2020 12:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I like to tell people I have the heart of a small boy. Then I say it's in a jar on my desk." —Stephen King

Hystaria wrote:A Royal House and a Royal Anthem
I'm an asexual, panromantic female
Alignment: 86% Neutral Good
Myers–Briggs Type Indicator: INFP-T
Official Nation Name: The United Kingdom of Mudreuque
Capital City: Vladburgh
Largest city (by population): Inasving
Government Type: Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy
Head of State: King Foulqueret (and Queen Alianora)
Head of Government: Prime Minister Cúc Mašek
Population: 6 million
Official Language: English
National languages: English, French, Polish
National sport: Golf
Current Year: 2014

#LoveIsLove
I don't use all the NS stats.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6996
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Fri May 15, 2020 12:52 am

Why does this not overlap with Issue #1145 "Your Wild Self(ie)" - which also pertains to image rights?
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP) ~ Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador ~ Achievements
3 SC Resolutions + 0 co-authored:
A: SC#250, Repeal "Liberate Femdom Empire" (87%)
A: SC#251, Commend Alasdair I Frosticus (91%)
A: SC#267, Repeal "Liberate The East Pacific" (90%)

1 GA Resolution + 1 co-authored:
A: GA#484, Disease Naming Compact (54%)
C: GA#491, Rights of the employed (54%)

0 Issues + 1 co-authored:
C: #1115, One in the Arm for @@LEADER@@?

Winners of the 73rd Cup of Harmony

User avatar
Jim the Baptist
Attaché
 
Posts: 88
Founded: Aug 08, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Jim the Baptist » Fri May 15, 2020 12:57 am

Tinhampton wrote:Why does this not overlap with Issue #1145 "Your Wild Self(ie)" - which also pertains to image rights?

That issue is totally different, as you said it's about image rights and it talks about who is owed the earnings generated as a result of an image or photo. That issue was also about an animal and even suggested giving the revenue to the animal. Moreover, it talks about selfies rather than taking photos of others. Mine is more from a privacy/harassment perspective (rather than revenue or earnings) and whether people have the right to take photos of others in public places. It's completely different.

User avatar
Australian rePublic
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20683
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Australian rePublic » Fri May 15, 2020 1:24 am

Was she in an embarrassing post/position, or was she just walking?
From Greek Ansestry Orthodox Christian
17 Published Issues and 1 WA Resolution
This account is fictious. Any In-Character posts made by this account do not reflect the actions of any real world government

User avatar
Jim the Baptist
Attaché
 
Posts: 88
Founded: Aug 08, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Jim the Baptist » Fri May 15, 2020 1:29 am

Australian rePublic wrote:Was she in an embarrassing post/position, or was she just walking?

A valid point, but I think whether she was in an embarrassing position or not is irrelevant because it's a subjective matter and doesn't factor into the issue. It's more about whether people have a right to take photos of her rather than whether she looked objectively "embarrassing" or not.
Last edited by Jim the Baptist on Fri May 15, 2020 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Australian rePublic
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20683
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Australian rePublic » Fri May 15, 2020 1:32 am

Jim the Baptist wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:Was she in an embarrassing post/position, or was she just walking?

A valid point, but I think whether she was in an embarrassing position or not is irrelevant because it's a subjective matter and doesn't factor into the issue. It's more about whether people have a right to take photos of her rather than whether she looked objectively "embarrassing" or not.

Yes it does. If she was picking her nose, vs she was just walking randomly by makes a big difference
From Greek Ansestry Orthodox Christian
17 Published Issues and 1 WA Resolution
This account is fictious. Any In-Character posts made by this account do not reflect the actions of any real world government

User avatar
Jim the Baptist
Attaché
 
Posts: 88
Founded: Aug 08, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Jim the Baptist » Fri May 15, 2020 1:36 am

Australian rePublic wrote:
Jim the Baptist wrote:A valid point, but I think whether she was in an embarrassing position or not is irrelevant because it's a subjective matter and doesn't factor into the issue. It's more about whether people have a right to take photos of her rather than whether she looked objectively "embarrassing" or not.

Yes it does. If she was picking her nose, vs she was just walking randomly by makes a big difference

The issue is encompassing all scenarios of public photography (including picking her nose and walking around randomly). As I say, it's all encompassing because it's about public photography of people in general as a form of harassment rather than "embarrassing" public photography of people. But for what it's worth I think it's implied that she was *not* doing anything embarrassing and simply minding her own business.
Last edited by Jim the Baptist on Fri May 15, 2020 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ko-oren
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5083
Founded: Nov 26, 2010
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ko-oren » Fri May 15, 2020 5:26 am

Good issue at its core, I want to see how this develops.

How do options #1 and #4 differ in consequence? Option #1 allows all photos to be taken, while option #4 effectively allows the same, as long as you pretend like you were taking photos of something else. Adding to that, the dismiss button is very similar to either option as well. I suggest editing the options to stronger wording in order to make them stand out from each other as well as the dismiss button.
Trigramme: KOR - Demonym: Ko-orenite - Population: 27.270.096
Sports Domestic Sports Newswires - RPable People - Info Factbook Storefronts Loro Language Schools - Goliæth Sports Café - Call for bids!
Champions 1x CoH - 1x AOCAF - 1x WBC - 3x World Bowl - 1x IBC - 1x T20 WC - 3x RUWC - 1x RLWC - 1x HWC - 1x Beach Cup
Runners-up 1x AOCAF - 1x WBC - 2x World Bowl - 4x IBC - 1x AOHC - 1x GCF Test Cricket - 2x RUWC - 1x WLC - 1x FHWC
Hosts 1x World Bowl - 1x WCOH - 1x T20 WC - 1x RUWC - 1x FHWC

User avatar
Jim the Baptist
Attaché
 
Posts: 88
Founded: Aug 08, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Jim the Baptist » Fri May 15, 2020 7:09 am

Ko-oren wrote:Good issue at its core, I want to see how this develops.

How do options #1 and #4 differ in consequence? Option #1 allows all photos to be taken, while option #4 effectively allows the same, as long as you pretend like you were taking photos of something else. Adding to that, the dismiss button is very similar to either option as well. I suggest editing the options to stronger wording in order to make them stand out from each other as well as the dismiss button.

I agree with you to some extent - options 1 and 4 are similar but I think they differ in terms of how liberal or "pro civil rights-y" they are. Option 1 is basically for anarchy - do nothing and shut up. Meanwhile option 4 is a compromise, banning all photos is too extreme so let's punish those responsible for the photos circulating. So there is a difference in the sense that option 4 has meaningful consequences while 1 is anti nanny state/pro de-regulation. How would you suggest making them more strongly worded?
Edit: I guess 1 may come across as a little dismiss-y, I could try making the option longer to emphasise more strongly that its anti-nanny state etc. but it would really just be repeating itself.
Last edited by Jim the Baptist on Fri May 15, 2020 7:16 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Ko-oren
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5083
Founded: Nov 26, 2010
Democratic Socialists

Postby Ko-oren » Fri May 15, 2020 8:06 am

I'd push option 4 further towards legal red tape.

“Banning public photos is not the answer, but allowing everything isn't the way forward either,“ prominent public defence lawyer @@RANDOMNAME@@ asserts. “We will need to look at each case, establish precedents, tie every rule down so everyone is happy and safe. We need to compare each photographer's intent to the result. What percent of a photo contains passers-by, and what percent of a photo is actually what they wanted to eternalise on film. The legal world can provide a wonderful middle ground!"

or something to that effect. I haven't worded everything as well as I could have, but this could be a start (depending on what the other readers say).
Trigramme: KOR - Demonym: Ko-orenite - Population: 27.270.096
Sports Domestic Sports Newswires - RPable People - Info Factbook Storefronts Loro Language Schools - Goliæth Sports Café - Call for bids!
Champions 1x CoH - 1x AOCAF - 1x WBC - 3x World Bowl - 1x IBC - 1x T20 WC - 3x RUWC - 1x RLWC - 1x HWC - 1x Beach Cup
Runners-up 1x AOCAF - 1x WBC - 2x World Bowl - 4x IBC - 1x AOHC - 1x GCF Test Cricket - 2x RUWC - 1x WLC - 1x FHWC
Hosts 1x World Bowl - 1x WCOH - 1x T20 WC - 1x RUWC - 1x FHWC

User avatar
Jim the Baptist
Attaché
 
Posts: 88
Founded: Aug 08, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Jim the Baptist » Fri May 15, 2020 11:10 pm

Ko-oren wrote:I'd push option 4 further towards legal red tape.

“Banning public photos is not the answer, but allowing everything isn't the way forward either,“ prominent public defence lawyer @@RANDOMNAME@@ asserts. “We will need to look at each case, establish precedents, tie every rule down so everyone is happy and safe. We need to compare each photographer's intent to the result. What percent of a photo contains passers-by, and what percent of a photo is actually what they wanted to eternalise on film. The legal world can provide a wonderful middle ground!"

or something to that effect. I haven't worded everything as well as I could have, but this could be a start (depending on what the other readers say).

I like that idea, I'll edit option 4 to sort of emphasise the legal aspect of it and make it sound less dismiss-y. Thanks!

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 21614
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Anarchy

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Mon May 18, 2020 4:30 am

Jim the Baptist wrote:THE ISSUE
Recently, one of your citizens while out and about caught the eyes of passers by as she adorned a rather ostentatious costume inspired by Britney Pears, complete with leotard and tropical fruit hat. The photos circulated on various social media platforms and now the young lady seeks justice. She claims the “excessive” amount of photos taken were burdensome and posed an infringement of her portrait rights. In the absence of specific laws relating to this issue, the public is divided on how to proceed.


Good premise. A little too wordy, see if you can trim it.

1. “She chose to wear such a ridiculous outfit – so she must have wanted photos taken,” exclaims camera shop owner @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Hyper regulation and sensitivity is not the answer. People have a right to take photos of what they like, when they like. Hey, while we’re at it, @@LEADER@@, say cheese!”
Effect: embarrassing photos of @@LEADER@@ are circulated on a daily basis


Effect line seems a little mild.

I'd go with something like "the right to take photos of half-dressed young women through bedroom windows is held to be sacrosanct". Though possibly that's too wordy.

2. Concerned churchgoer @@RANDOMNAME@@ interrupts. “If people would stop dressing so aggressively flamboyant then we wouldn’t have this issue in the first place! We should introduce strict rules on what people are and are not allowed to wear out. If not in the name of God then at least for a little modesty! You could even model for us state-ordained outfits, @@LEADER@@; more people would benefit from emulating your style.”
Effect: anyone caught with a Mo-hawk mysteriously disappears
Adds policy: Prudism


We don't need policy suggestions, and Prudism is not actually coded by issue outcomes directly, but is allocated according to game stats being past a given threshold.

I'd note that the religious trappings of this option mean that it couldn't be presented in nations where religion is banned. That's fine, as long as the issue still flows without this option present.

3. Your power-hungry police chief, @@RANDOMNAME@@, enters the room. “Why don’t we just ban all photos in public places? Then people can wear what they want without the fear of being photographed. Okay, we might annoy a few bird watchers and street bloggers but at least we can all keep our privacy. Plus a few more arrests every so often always looks good on my record… oops, did I say that out loud?”
Effect: pointing a phone near someone’s face almost always results in being arrested


I'd suggest moderating this position as there's not enough reasonable positions in this issue.

Instead perhaps make it "ban taking someone's photograph without their permission, unless that activity relates to law enforcement, journalism or reasonable promotion of the public good."

4. “Banning public photos is not the answer,“ prominent public defence lawyer @@RANDOMNAME@@ asserts. “Photographing people is different from photographing a public landscape which happens to have people in it. Photos in public places are fine so long as the focus is not targeting a specific individual. In this case, the young lady is clearly a victim of unnecessary harassment. Anyone with photos and those responsible for circulating them should face punishment.”
Effect: citizens must receive written consent before taking a photo of anyone


This is a decent reasonable position, but the effect line doesn't follow. I'd suggest something more like "birdwatcher's photos often include incidental tits", but I'd likely get told off by my fellow editors.
Last edited by Luna Amore on Mon May 18, 2020 4:49 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Reason: Fixing misnested tags. Also, "birdwatcher's photos often include incidental tits" would be a hilarious effect line :p
editors like linguistic ambiguity more than most people

User avatar
Jim the Baptist
Attaché
 
Posts: 88
Founded: Aug 08, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Jim the Baptist » Thu Jul 02, 2020 2:16 am

I was on hiatus for a while but this issue draft has been revived. Because of the religious implications of option 2, I made that into 2 options for nations with both religion banned/not banned.
Also I took into consideration all of Candlewhisper's other feedback and suggestions.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Got Issues?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Paffnia, Westinor

Advertisement

Remove ads