[REVISITED, DRAFT 7] Ewe Can't Live Without Zoos

by **Lansaka** » Sun Jun 07, 2020 5:32 pm

[TITLE]: Ewe Can't Live Without Zoos

[DESCRIPTION]: After zoos were banned in @@NAME@@, they were made into private sanctuaries. However, recent reports show that most of the former public zoos have not been taking proper care of the animals within their walls. Thousands of people are protesting outside your office demanding a change.

[VALIDITY] Zoos are banned, dissent is allowed, capitalism is in place

[CHOICE I]: "@@LEADER@@, you have to believe me when I say we are not the problem!" says the owner of @@CAPITAL@@ Animal Fields, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Since zoos were banned, we have received no income from visitors. We simply cannot afford to take care of our animals. Please reopen the zoos. We desperately need the cash."

[EFFECT]: animals are no longer owl by themselves

[POLICY CHANGE]: No Zoos is removed.

[CHOICE II]: "NOOOO!" screams @@RANDOMNAME@@, the leader of the protests, while hitting a pitch so high it shatters your million-@@CURRENCY@@ glass @@ANIMAL@@ statue. "Save the animals from being laughed at and poked by all the nincompoops around the country! Instead, help fund animal sanctuaries through taxes! This helps prevent them from going bankrupt, while also letting the animals keep their dignity! Who cares if we have to pay a few extra @@CURRENCY@@s. It's not like that stuff adds up or anything."

[EFFECT]: people have mole idea how sanctuaries make so much money

[CHOICE III]: "@@HE@@ clearly doesn't know what @@HE@@'s talking about." states @@RANDOMNAME@@, your mother's friend's nephew's baseball coach's son's boss, as @@HE@@ climbs through your window to bypass the crowded hallways. "Either way, they are going to be neglected, whether intentionally or not. There's no way to stop neglect, so why not release them all to the wild, and let nature run its course? And while you're at it, @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ have no idea how to take care of pets. Release them, too! Surely, they will not go all wild and aggressive on us." As @@HE@@ puts @@HIS@@ foot on the windowsill, it breaks and @@HE@@ falls back out into the massive pool of people.

[EFFECT]: man's best friend is now man's worst enemy

[POLICY CHANGE]: No Pets is added.

[Draft 7]

[DESCRIPTION]: @@NAME@@'s complete banning of zoos has hit animal sanctuaries hard, having caused a tank in visitors, and thereby income, resulting in the sanctuaries being unable to afford to properly take care of their resident animals.

[ISSUE VALIDITY]: Zoos are banned, capitalism is in place

[CHOICE I]: "Please do something, @@LEADER@@, we can't bear to watch our furry friends go hungry!" cries @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, the owner of the tiny @@CAPITAL@@ Fields sanctuary, as he gets down on his knees and bursts into tears. "Please, we need federal funding for private sanctuaries, I beg of you!" Still soaking your brand new carpet in tears, he pulls out his phone, showing you a photo of a young giraffe. "Look into this baby's adorable eyes, you can't say no to this poor little thing, can you?"

[EFFECT]: the richest @@DEMONYM@@ is a squirrel

[CHOICE II]: "Wait, think about the little guy!" says @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, a massive man in a fancy business suit and your mother's friend's nephew's baseball coach's son's boss. "All animal-related industries have dropped significantly ever since zoos were illegalized. I- ...err, I mean we, are losing lots of money, too! No one wants to buy an exotic leopard or chimpanzee anymore, out of fear their own homes will be considered a zoo and shut down! I... implore you, please repeal the ban on zoos, so I- ...I mean we, can heal the industries!" He pulls out a very expensive phone with embedded jewelry and shows you a fancy painting of a huge, and rather intimidating, adult elephant. "Look into this... baby's eyes? Err... you can't say no now, can you?"

[EFFECT]: wealthy @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ list their residential properties as zoos for tax purposes

[POLICY CHANGE]: No Zoos is removed.

[CHOICE III]: "Why are we keeping these poor animals hostage, anyway?" asks @@RANDOMNAME1@@, an animal rights activist who has just tried to release your @@ANIMAL@@ sculpture into the wild. "These animals need to be in their natural habitat, outside, far from these inhumane and money-hungry facilities! I read somewhere that sanctuaries are the worst offenders of animal cruelty. Please, shut them all down and let nature run its course as intended!" @@HE@@ pulls out @@HIS@@ phone, showing you a stock photo of an angry hippopotamus very clearly in the wild. "Look at this poor thing, you can clearly see it hates being in captivity! You wouldn't dare say no to this poor thing's face, would you?"

[EFFECT]: it is no longer possible to buy a child a hippopotamus for the holidays

[CHOICE IV]: "That's a good direction, yes, but it doesn't go far enough," says @@RANDOMNAME2@@, your Minister of Deciding Whether Solutions Go Far Enough. "Let's assume sanctuaries ARE the number one cause of animal cruelty. Take them away, and who's the new winner? Pet owners. Countless dogs, cats, fish, reptiles, and other animals are held hostage in nearly every @@DEMONYM@@ home right now, suffering in the horrifying world of captivity. They want to roam free in the wild, so let them! Here, take a look at this cute kitten-" @@HE@@ pulls out @@HIS@@ phone, but it doesn't turn on. "Dang it, battery's dead."

[EFFECT]: @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ are regularly fined over harboring ants in their pants

[CHOICE VALIDITY]: Owning pets is legal.

[POLICY CHANGE]: No Pets is added.

by **Minskiev** » Sun Jun 07, 2020 5:47 pm

If it was your mother’s friend’s baseball coach’s son’s boss, that’d be the mother of someone middle aged, but their friend, same age, then their baseball coach, at such a high age? That’s like a grandfather or grandmother...

by **Lansaka** » Sun Jun 07, 2020 5:50 pm

Minskiev wrote:If it was your mother’s friend’s baseball coach’s son’s boss, that’d be the mother of someone middle aged, but their friend, same age, then their baseball coach, at such a high age? That’s like a grandfather or grandmother...

Edited.

by **Australian rePublic** » Mon Jun 08, 2020 2:17 pm

What's the difference between a sanctuary and a zoo?

by **SherpDaWerp** » Mon Jun 08, 2020 4:31 pm

Also, while there is need for a "No Zoos" policy reversal, this isn't the way to do it - basically, it reads as

You made a decision, and people don't like that decision. Are you sure you want to keep that decision in place?

The best policy reversals focus on an unintended consequence of the new policy, something that isn't covered by the original issue.

by **Lansaka** » Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:18 pm

Edited. Also bumped.

by **Minskiev** » Tue Jun 09, 2020 4:50 pm

What’s with the random capital letters in the description? Besides that, it looks pretty good. However, you should rewrite the NOOO! Okay yes part to be less random. Maybe something like NOOOO! We must stop abuse, not create it!

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:40 am

There's seeds of a good reversal premise here.

The obvious hole here is that you can have sanctuaries that aren't zoos.

Instead I'd suggest that this be an issue for capitalist nations only, and read something like:

[DESCRIPTION]: The ban on zoos has hit animal sanctuaries hard, who say that the income stream from paying visitors was what was allowing them to fund their vital work in looking after abused and abandoned animals.

Then, options, make them more:

1) Allow zoos to reopen, but only if this is secondary to another purpose, as it is here.
2) Just fund the sanctuaries from the public purse. That way they can survive, but animals remain free of the humiliation of being gawked at.
3) Sanctuaries shouldn't be holding animals captive anyway, release them to the wild.

This is similar to your current build, of course, but I think maybe just focus it in.

by **Socio Polor** » Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:54 am

Hey there, I see I'm not the only one attempting the "No Zoos reversal"

records from the animal sanctuaries the animals

I believe you're missing a word or two here

[CHOICE II]: "NO!" screams @@RANDOMNAME@@, the leader of the protests, while hitting a pitch so high it shatters the expensive windows along with cracking your glass @@ANIMAL@@ statue. "Okay, yes. They are being abused at the sanctuaries, but opening the zoos will do no better! We must pass legislation that forces sanctuaries to actually take care of the animals."

Shouldn't there already be legislation in place where animals can't be abused? Even so, how exactly will this gaurantee the animals won't be abused more? Maybe stricter supervision over sanctuaries?

[CHOICE I]: "@@LEADER@@, you have to help these poor animals!" says Animal Rights Activist @@RANDOMNAME@@. "They are being mistreated all over the nation! I believe reopening zoos all across the nation will make the mistreatments stop!"

[CHOICE IV]: "That will not help," says Elviz Presslee, the renowned @@DEMONYM@@ singer. "No matter what we do, animals will be owned and abused. But if we don't reopen the zoos, our children will never be able to learn about these animals and see them for real. Please reopen the zoos, but keep a close eye on them so they don't neglect the animals."

These two options suggest the same thing. Either remove one of them, or change one of them

by **Lansaka** » Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:44 am

Edited and bumped.

by **Lansaka** » Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:42 am

Bump.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:21 am

I don't feel like you've taken suggestions on board, and as such, don't feel this issue currently works.

by **Lansaka** » Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:57 am

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I don't feel like you've taken suggestions on board, and as such, don't feel this issue currently works.

I'm not entirely sure I know what you mean. I've been editing the issue based on the suggestions I have received. ~~Nearly every~~ Every edit on this issue was done to fit in a suggestion. I took all of them into account, and I edited the issue to fit those parameters set by people's suggestions. May I request an explanation of what you meant?

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri Jun 19, 2020 8:19 am

I think I was pretty clear in the post I made before, but let's look at the premise again:

[DESCRIPTION]: After your recent decision banning all zoos in the nation, records from now private animal care facilities all over @@NATION@@ have shown that the sanctuaries have not been taking proper care of the creatures within their fences.

So there's a core non-sequitur here.

First clause:

After your recent decision banning all zoos in the nation,

has no relation to the second clause:

records from now private animal care facilities all over @@NATION@@ have shown that the sanctuaries have not been taking proper care of the creatures within their fences.

zoos =/= animal care facilities =/= sanctuaries.

A ban on zoos would have no bearing on the standard of care within a sanctuary.

My advice would be...

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:There's seeds of a good reversal premise here.

The obvious hole here is that you can have sanctuaries that aren't zoos.

Instead I'd suggest that this be an issue for capitalist nations only, and read something like:

[DESCRIPTION]: The ban on zoos has hit animal sanctuaries hard, who say that the income stream from paying visitors was what was allowing them to fund their vital work in looking after abused and abandoned animals.

Then, options, make them more:

1) Allow zoos to reopen, but only if this is secondary to another purpose, as it is here.
2) Just fund the sanctuaries from the public purse. That way they can survive, but animals remain free of the humiliation of being gawked at.
3) Sanctuaries shouldn't be holding animals captive anyway, release them to the wild.

This is similar to your current build, of course, but I think maybe just focus it in.

by **Jutsa** » Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:57 pm

I think what you two are aiming for is the same thing, I just think CWA's description is more descriptive. So, to explain my interpretation of what's going on:

Alongside the fact there's no reference to animal care facility records in CWA's version* (Idk at this pointm the water's muddy; might wanna leave that part out of yours too),
the big difference is that the connection between "banned zoos" and "sanctuaries not taking proper care of animals" is made not in the description, but in option 1.
CWA's description basically explains this in-description, whereas yours currently doesn't. And that's honestly somewhat OK, because option one specifically states:

Since zoos were banned, we have received no income from visitors. We simply cannot afford to take care of our animals.

That is pretty much exactly what CWA's says with "the income stream from paying visitors was what was allowing them to fund their vital work".

Personally, I don't see a need to change that because the issue is still the same, just the connection made in option 1 in your version, and actually,
"sanctuaries not taking good enough care of animals" sets up a very good line of logic towards option 3, in my opinion. But that's just me.

So, point of what I just said: I honestly kinda am siding with the author here, although I get where CWA's coming from, and in the end it really wouldn't be a huge deal if
the change was made post-submission or not imo since there's really not much of a difference to begin with. :roll:

That said, I'd still remove the bit about the now-private animal care facility records, or at least change it to "animal sanctuary records have shown".

OK, now that I've said that, I'd like to also say that I really do not think this is at all where your issue needs the most work. Not that it needs a terrible much more.

The main thing imo is that the writing could use some touching up (although it's still definitely a far cry better than many ~~if not most~~ of my earlier ~~and later~~ ones).
It could use some tidying up and cleaner language, and it definitely could use a bit more strive for humor, although ngl, the second speaker's narrative did give me a smile.

As for tidying up, there are a couple of little things in particular that jump at me. In option 2, "This helps them stay open" kinda implies they're still open to the public,
whereas "This helps keep them from being overwhelmed" would be a much less ambiguous (and imo more accurate) way of saying a similar thing.

Similarly, "Please reopen everyone to the public" (which might be another spark of the whole "sanctuary ≠ zoos" dispute) could be rephrased to "Please let us reopen public zoos" which, to me, conveys the same meaning with less ambiguity.
^ Note, these are not musts, though personally I'd read them a bit easier if they were phrased differently.

Aside from that, though... y'know, the premise's idea is pretty solid, and the options pretty good. For sure, I'd like to see this one added to the game. Just needs a little sprucing up is all (I hope).

Not huge on the effect lines but then again some people like puns and like I'm bad at them myself so no additional comments on those will be made by yours truly at this time.

ed 47: Yeah have to edit my own post because for some reason I forgot to preview it.

ed 923.4½: Oh yeah and definitely remove "recently" from the description. There's no reason this issue couldn't just not appear in someone's inbox for a year.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:45 am

My belief is that if the opening description doesn't make sense, then editors should read no further before binning the issue, just as players need read no further before dismissing.

Expand on things in the options, for sure, but don't leave the initial premise incomplete.

[DESCRIPTION]: After your recent decision banning all zoos in the nation, records from now private animal care facilities all over @@NATION@@ have shown that the sanctuaries have not been taking proper care of the creatures within their fences.

This is a non-sequitur. Therefore the issue fails.

Rearrange the information, and you'll be there.

by **Lansaka** » Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:27 pm

Sorry, I was distracted because I was running a campaign for Delegate of TRR. The issue has been edited and bumped.

by **Minskiev** » Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:43 pm

Oh, big mistake here. It’s @@NAME@@, not @@NATION@@.

Those damn macros.

by **Lansaka** » Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:21 pm

Edited.

by **Lansaka** » Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:57 pm

Edited and bumped.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 1:35 am

You're still not getting why the premise isn't working, I feel.

[DESCRIPTION]: After zoos were banned in @@NAME@@, they were made into private sanctuaries.

What, ALL of them? Seems more likely to me that after a ban on zoos the animals would be sent to different locations, be it private owners, overseas zoos or charitable sanctuaries. A zoo wouldn't just close its doors and say "we're a sanctuary now." Who would run such a thing?

However, recent reports show that most of the former public zoos have not been taking proper care of the animals within their walls.

Where's this assumption coming from?

Thousands of people are protesting outside your office demanding a change.

Redundant line.

I hate to just write things for people, but I don't think you're going to make any progress till we get that opening sorted. Try this:

Description:

The ban on zoos has hit animal sanctuaries hard, with many of them largely dependent on the commercial income that paid visitors brought. Without this funding they're struggling to fulfil their core function of caring for and sheltering vulnerable animals.

More believable, right? You don't need to tell the story of what happened to every place that called itself a zoo, you just need to play out the consequences of a ban, and look at what might have happened to one group. That's the sort of thing that good consequence issues are built on.

by **Lansaka** » Wed Jul 15, 2020 1:48 pm

Edited. However, I believe I should keep the mention of the protesters. If thousands of animals across the country are being neglected, does anyone expect the animal rights activists to just sit on their couch and not give a care? No. They are going to go to someone that can do something about it. Since this is nationwide neglect, they're going to go to the federal/national government. In this case, the best person they can find is the leader of the nation.

by **Minskiev** » Wed Jul 15, 2020 2:07 pm

How has nobody gotten this? The first @@NATION@@ should be @@NAME@@.

Also, the @@CURRENCY@@s should be @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@.

by **Lansaka** » Thu Jul 16, 2020 10:19 am

Edited.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri Jul 17, 2020 2:05 am

Well, that's the opening sorted, let's look at the options.

[CHOICE I]: "Please, @@LEADER@@, our animals are starving because we have no money!" says the owner of @@CAPITAL@@ Animal Fields, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Please unban the public zoos. We desperately need the cash."

[EFFECT]: animals are no longer owl by themselves

The option itself seems a little thin, and "unban" isn't the sort of word that people colloquially use except while online, I think. Maybe "repeal the ban"?

The first and last sentence of this option basically say the same thing. I suggest cut the last sentence, and then add 2-3 more sentences that add contextual information and humour to the issue. Paint a picture with words.

Finally, the animal puns in the effect lines are very weak. Weak puns in effect lines are generally frowned upon, except in issues where the whole raison d'etre of the issue is the weak puns (like the cheese one). I think try to find wit from some other direction.

[CHOICE II]: "NOOOO!" screams @@RANDOMNAME@@, the leader of the protests, while hitting a pitch so high it shatters your million-@@CURRENCY@@ glass @@ANIMAL@@ statue. "Save the animals from being laughed at and poked by all the nincompoops around the country! Instead, help fund animal sanctuaries through taxes! This helps prevent them from going bankrupt, while also letting the animals keep their dignity! Who cares if we have to pay a few extra @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@. It's not like that stuff adds up or anything."
[EFFECT]: people have mole idea how sanctuaries make so much money

Last two sentences are arguing against the speaker's position. People don't do that IRL.

Also, weak animal pun effect line needs to go, again.

[CHOICE III]: "@@HE@@ clearly doesn't know what @@HE@@'s talking about." states @@RANDOMNAME@@, your mother's friend's nephew's baseball coach's son's boss,

Ha, nice!

as @@HE@@ climbs through your window to bypass the crowded hallways. "If a zoo cannot afford to take care of their animals, they shouldn't have them! So why not release all animals to the wild, and let nature run its course? And while you're at it, @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ have no idea how to take care of pets. Release them, too! Surely, they will not go all wild and aggressive on us."

That sentence, besides being an entirely unnatural way of speaking, is again arguing against the speaker's own position.

As @@HE@@ puts @@HIS@@ foot on the windowsill, it breaks and @@HE@@ falls back out into the massive pool of people.

Eh. There needs to be a very good reason to go back from direct speech to description of speaker options, and this slapstick is not quite enough. I'd cut this sentence.

[REVISITED, DRAFT 7] Ewe Can't Live Without Zoos

[REVISITED, DRAFT 7] Ewe Can't Live Without Zoos

Who is online