[DRAFT] Can't think of a creative name

[Dominioan]

(based on this)

Hi everyone! This is coincidentally my first thread ever and my first issue draft ever, so theres that . So this is a very early draft (there isnt even a title =/), so im accepting any criticism.
(probably bad grammar too)

[title] -Pretend there is a title here for now

[description] During your re-election campaign, your signature campaign song was chart-topper "@@DEMONYM@@ sometimes don't get the stuff that they might want" from a few decades ago. But it turns out you never got permission from the band who made the song, Flaming @@ANIMAL@@. Now they are suing you for a huge amount of @@CURRENCY@@, enough to cripple your chances of re-election.
[validity]Democratic, Term Limits

[option] "This is slightly worrying..." mutters your suspicious PR Director, @@RANDOMNAME1@@, "we should have taken care of the...I mean, gained their support much earlier on. Tell you what, lets just offer them an incredibly small compensation, but not specify when we will give it to them. Then, once you inevitably get re-elected, we'll give them them money. Or maybe an accident might happen while they wait..." @@HE@@ starts to laugh evilly as lightning inexplicably flashes behind him.
[effect]people who try to sue @@LEADER@@ are given a pat on the back and a lollipop.

[option] "WHOAH, DUDE!!!" Shouts the incredibly old lead guitarist and singer for Flaming @@ANIMAL@@, @@RANDOMNAME2@@, as @@HE@@ jumps through the window (subsequently hurting their back). "Oww...anyway, you can't just brush us off like that, what kind of image will that make? You should concede that you made a mistake, and give us what we are offering. After all, it's not like you need funds for a campaign!"
[effect]little kids sue @@LEADER@@ for a few @@CURENCY@@ so they can buy the newest toys.

[option]"Now, now, I'm sure there's a compromise," soothes your Minister of Deescalation, @@RANDOMNAME3@@, "I am sure you can both get what you want." @@HE@@ hands everyone a cup of tea as @@HE@@ continues; "The Flaming @@ANIMAL@@ are asking for an unreasonable amount of compensation, but they do have a point about what you did. How about you recognize them at the end of commercials and events, so everyone knows who made the content? And give them a small amount cash too."
[effect]campaign commercials have doubled in length after being required to mention everyone who was involved with inventing the commercial.

[option]"Bah. All these elections are annoying." grumbles Crazy Old @@RANDONAME4@@, who is known for his ultraconservative authoritarian views, who somehow manged to get in your election headquarters. "In fact, the whole democratic system is a mess. It just slows things down, and lets idiots who don't know how to add choose our leaders. Just don't have elections, give yourself absolute power! Its so much more simple, I mean it...it..." He stops talking as he nods off.
[effect]@@LEADER@@ has justified their dictatorship with the idea that "it gives you more time to do stuff"

Things I don't like:
The effect lines, especially the last one
The fact that I have no title

So here it is, tear it apart how you wish

[Minskiev]

It could use a little tuning, but it’s workable.

[Westinor]

Is this not a problem for the courts/law, and if @@LEADER@@ chooses option 2 does that not end the player's reign/violate player autonomy? Option 3 also seems like straight up extortion to me, though I understand that may be the point and appears to have happened in other issues, though it still doesn't seem quite right. Overall, is this something @@LEADER@@ has a choice on? There's no real reason for a player to choose the only honest option because that effectively ends their campaign (which also, again, feels like a violation of player autonomy though I may need clarification on this) and because of the nature of the issue @@LEADER@@ and their administration are corrupt to a rather large extent if they choose any other choice.

[Free Ravensburg]

Here’s a title
Knocking on @@LEADER@@‘s Door

[Dominioan]

Is this not a problem for the courts/law, and if @@LEADER@@ chooses option 2 does that not end the player's reign/violate player autonomy? Option 3 also seems like straight up extortion to me, though I understand that may be the point and appears to have happened in other issues, though it still doesn't seem quite right. Overall, is this something @@LEADER@@ has a choice on? There's no real reason for a player to choose the only honest option because that effectively ends their campaign (which also, again, feels like a violation of player autonomy though I may need clarification on this) and because of the nature of the issue @@LEADER@@ and their administration are corrupt to a rather large extent if they choose any other choice.

So what would you suggest? Should I lower the amount they are suing? And also leader (i think) will want to avoid getting this to court, because they might lose the case.

[Westinor]

Is this not a problem for the courts/law, and if @@LEADER@@ chooses option 2 does that not end the player's reign/violate player autonomy? Option 3 also seems like straight up extortion to me, though I understand that may be the point and appears to have happened in other issues, though it still doesn't seem quite right. Overall, is this something @@LEADER@@ has a choice on? There's no real reason for a player to choose the only honest option because that effectively ends their campaign (which also, again, feels like a violation of player autonomy though I may need clarification on this) and because of the nature of the issue @@LEADER@@ and their administration are corrupt to a rather large extent if they choose any other choice.

So what would you suggest? Should I lower the amount they are suing? And also leader (i think) will want to avoid getting this to court, because they might lose the case.

That's my point - this is more of a PR thing that is an internal decision, which would normally be dealt with before it spiraled out of control. Seeing as it already has, it's essentially a choice between does leader pay or become a corrupt official. More likely than not, there are different ways this could be solved besides paying them different amounts (dragging on a legal process in court, propaganda, changing copyright laws). I like that you framed it in a way that makes it an immediate solution - but the long term problem becomes leader is out of money (which is pivotal and the first step in getting re-elected at all) or leader is (again) corrupt. In terms of fixing it, I've listed a few things above, though in general your option 4 doesn't need to be there. It could serve as a long-term solution, or some other generally wacko speaker - we have quite a few issues establishing autocracy already, and we don't need one in every single election based issue.

The parentheses in option 2 aren't needed and the sentence can be rephrased to remove them, and the ending "After all, it's not like you need..." doesn't need to be there as it's a well established fact in and out of the issue that you need money. And yes, the idea that you're being sued for enough money to handicap a campaign on the use (albeit repeatedly) of an entrance song is a bit drastic.

Also, option 1 and 3 nearly overlap in solution, except one is "pay them back later" and three is "give them ads". Option 3 doesn't make sense in this regard, in that "mentioning" a musical group is basically playing their songs, which is (guess what?) exactly what you've already been doing without their permission.

[Australian rePublic]

"The people of this nation don't always get what they want" is either the worst campaign song ever or the most honest campaign song ever. Also, option 3- we already have enough issues that do away with democracy. Why not one that does away with copyright?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

[description] During your re-election campaign, your signature campaign song was chart-topper "@@DEMONYM@@ sometimes don't get the stuff that they might want" from a few decades ago. But it turns out you never got permission from the band who made the song, Flaming @@ANIMAL@@. Now they are suing you for a huge amount of @@CURRENCY@@, enough to cripple your chances of re-election.
[validity]Democratic, Term Limits

Trump's shenanigans often make good issues, but I think you could benefit here from hewing closer to reality.

Make it an issue for democracies with a high level of free speech, so it is assumed to be legal to use whatever music you want for campaigns, but have the band objecting to your use of their song, and publicly stating their disgust for your use of their song.

You can then have advisers suggesting to how you might react to that slight, ranging from the sensible (just use different songs, from bands that support you politically; mobilise your supporters to hit back and organise a boycott of their music; use the music anyway and say they've obviously lost touch with their own music's REAL message) to the mad (point guns at their families and force them to declare loyalty on camera, spread false rumours about the band to take public sympathy away from them).

I think that angle of approach might work better.

[Trotterdam]

I'm concerned about player autonomy issues with telling me what song I'm using (or even that I'm using a song).

[Candlewhisper Archive]

That's true, though it could be sidestepped by saying your campaign manager picked that song for your entrance during a recent political rally.

[Pythaga]

(subsequently hurting their back)

You should probably replace their with @@HIS@@, which will either appear as his or her depending on the random gender assigned.


Also, you don't need to enumerate your @@RANDOMNAME@@s in this case, as none of them are being referenced multiple times. Just make all of them @@RANDOMNAME@@.