[SUBMITTED 6/10/20] Spare Any Change?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Third Draft:

TITLE:
Spare Any Change?

VALIDITY:
Wealth Gaps ratio 1.9 or higher, capitalism, video games not banned, divorce not illegal

DESCRIPTION:
Multi-billionaire Scotia Mackenzie -- famous for being a novelist and an activist, but most of all for marrying then divorcing someone MUCH richer than her -- recently donated a staggering 1.7 billion @@PLURALCURRENCY@@ to good causes.

OPTION 1
"She's a true hero of our time! That money is going to make a lot of difference to a lot of young llamas," enthuses Wally, the cheerful CEO of the 'Oh! Llamas' Foundation, a major beneficiary. "The common folk are lauding her, from celebrity Twitcher influencers to her humble fellow billionaires. They've even added a new daily episode about her on that famous game, NationCrates. You should join in, and maybe lead the nation in a joint standing ovation for this lovely and generous lady."

OUTCOME:
money can't buy you love but you can purchase a reasonable approximation of it

OPTION 2
"She gave away less than 5% of her total wealth, and we're supposed to applaud?" asks an ordinary joe whose net donations last year consisted of an old button in the collection plate, and a written note explaining his philosophical objections to charitable funding for key services. "Her ex-husband is even richer, and donates almost nothing. Let's face it, nobody should be that wealthy anyway. We need to shrink wealth gaps for any individual by taxing savings, and redistribute riches to the poorest in society."

OUTCOME:
kids often get their first savings accounts before they get their first teeth

OPTION 3
"I think we can respect personal property while simultaneously creating a culture of philanthropic giving," suggests William Doors, multibillionaire creator of the Windoors operating system. "I've personally pledged to give away almost my entire fortune, and to scrape by on a mere billion or so. We should shame the super-rich who aren't as great as me. Put up unflattering portrait posters, decrying them as selfish bozos! Encourage people to pelt them with rotten eggs, and to break wind in their general direction. They'll soon change their ways!"

OUTCOME:
rich people are often stinking rich

Second draft:

TITLE:
Spare Any Change?

VALIDITY:
Wealth Gaps ratio 1.9 or higher, capitalism, video games not banned

DESCRIPTION:
Multi-billionaire Scotia Mackenzie -- famous for being a novelist and an activist, but most of all for marrying then divorcing someone MUCH richer than her -- recently donated a staggering 1.7 billion @@PLURALCURRENCY@@ to good causes.

OPTION 1
"She's a true hero of our time! That money is going to make a lot of difference to a lot of young llamas," enthuses Wally, the cheerful CEO of the 'Oh! Llamas' Foundation, a major beneficiary. "The common folk are lauding her, from celebrity Twitcher influencers to her humble fellow billionaires. They've even added a new daily episode about her on that famous game, NationCrates. You should join in, and maybe lead the nation in a joint standing ovation for this lovely and generous lady."

OUTCOME:
money can't buy you love but you can purchase a reasonable approximation of it

((note the overlap here with existing effect lines like 1326.1 is known and intentional here -- my read is that if placed into the same paragraph it'd work as a recurring motif rather than as a stilted repetition, but we can discuss that in editing, of course))

OPTION 2
"She gave away less than 5% of her total wealth, and we're supposed to applaud?" asks an ordinary joe whose net donations last year consisted of an old button in the collection plate, and a written note explaining his philosophical objections to charitable funding for key services. "Her ex-husband is even richer, and donates almost nothing. Let's face it, nobody should be that wealthy anyway. We need to shrink wealth gaps for any individual by taxing savings, and redistribute riches to the poorest in society."

OUTCOME:
kids often get their first savings accounts before they get their first teeth

OPTION 3
"I think we can respect personal property while simultaneously creating a culture of philanthropic giving," suggests William Doors, multibillionaire creator of the Windoors operating system. "I've personally pledged to give away almost my entire fortune, and to scrape by on a mere billion or so. We should shame the super-rich who aren't as great as me. Put up unflattering portrait posters, naming them as selfish bozos! Encourage people to pelt them with rotten eggs, and to break wind in their general direction. They'll soon change their ways!"

OUTCOME:
rich people are often stinking rich

First draft:

TITLE:
Spare Any Change?

VALIDITY:
Wealth Gaps ratio 1.9 or higher, capitalism, video games not banned

DESCRIPTION:
Multi-billionaire Scotia Mackenzie -- famous for being a novelist and an activist, but most of all for marrying then divorcing someone MUCH richer than her -- recently donated a staggering 1.7 billion @@PLURALCURRENCY@@ to good causes.

OPTION 1
"She's a true hero of our time! That money is going to make a lot of difference to a lot of young llamas," enthuses Wally, the cheerful CEO of the 'Oh! Llamas' Foundation, a major beneficiary. "I hear all sorts of common folk are lauding her, from celebrity Twitcher influencers to her humble fellow billionaires. They've even added a new daily episode about her on that famous game, NationCrates. You should join in, @@LEADER@@, and maybe lead the nation in a joint standing ovation for one of loveliest and most generous people in this world."

OUTCOME:
money can't buy you love but you can purchase a reasonable approximation of it

OPTION 2
"She gave away less than 5% of her total wealth, and we're supposed to applaud?" asks an ordinary joe whose net donations last year consisted of an old button in the collection plate, and a written note explaining his philosophical objections to charitable funding for key services. "You know who else has even more billions, and is donating nothing at all? Her ex-husband, that's who! Let's face it, nobody should have more than a few million @@currency@@ anyway. We need to cap total wealth for any individual by taking a proportion of savings over a certain threshold as tax, and then redistribute society's riches to the poorest in society."

OUTCOME:
kids often get their first savings accounts before they get their first teeth

OPTION 3
"I think we can respect personal property while simultaneously creating a culture of philanthropic giving," suggests William Doors, multibillionaire creator of the Windoors operating system. "Some of us personally have pledged to give away almost our entire fortunes, and to scrape by on a mere billion or so. What we perhaps need to do is to shame those who don't make such pledges. You know, maybe put up some government posters that show their faces, and say 'Don't buy products from guys like this. Selfish bozos!' We also could encourage people to pelt them with rotten eggs, and to break wind in their general direction, until the sheer shame makes them change their ways. That'll show them!"

OUTCOME:
rich people are often stinking rich

[Tinhampton]

1.7 billion @@PLURALCURRENCY@@

Why is this number significant - why not 1.5 billion or 2 billion? Or is this because Mackenzie Bezos donated $1.7bn to assorted charities in a recent RealWorldStates roleplay?

RE "NationCrates" - a reminder that I suspect you don't need: NationStates (which has something resembling R/D and is run by one Max Barry) does exist in the Issuesverse, to the point where Issue #535 is literally entitled "NationStates Destroys @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Economy". NationCrates only appears in Issue #711, where it is described as a "popular business simulation game."

[Honeydewistania]

The reference to the Bezos divorce settlement doesn't really add much to the premise or the options.

[Daarwyrth]

Initially when reading option 2, it reminded me strongly about issue #161 Where There's A Will There's A Tax, as option 3 of that issue also sets a cap on how much people can inherit. Rereading it, I'd say the options are distinct enough and don't overlap too much, especially since option 2 in this draft speaks of redistributing the wealth exceeding the cap, while issue 161 doesn't.

And while this is something I do myself very often as well, I do think some sentences are a bit wordy. Personally, I don't mind wordy, but I do see that more concise texts also have their beauty. Cutting away a few words from the option sentences would go a long way in that! But not from the premise, I like the way the description is written and personally, I don't mind the reference about the serial bride I think it gives flavour to the issue text!

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Why is this number significant - why not 1.5 billion or 2 billion? Or is this because Mackenzie Bezos donated $1.7bn to assorted charities in a recent RealWorldStates roleplay?

Obviously, yes, because of RealWorldStates. Besides, 1.7 as a number has a nice ring of truth to it.

RE "NationCrates" - a reminder that I suspect you don't need: NationStates (which has something resembling R/D and is run by one Max Barry) does exist in the Issuesverse, to the point where Issue #535 is literally entitled "NationStates Destroys @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Economy". NationCrates only appears in Issue #711, where it is described as a "popular business simulation game."

True, but you can ban NationStates (in an untracked way), whereas NationCrates can't be specifically banned short of banning all video games.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

The reference to the Bezos divorce settlement doesn't really add much to the premise or the options.

Going to disagree with you there. It's a dig at those who marry into vast wealth, who I think are fair game. It's also important here, as teal life Mackenzie Scott isn't giving away vast fortunes that she made through her corporate activities -- she's basically wealthy from a divorce settlement. Whether that means she's more or less entitled to that wealth is up to a player to decide, but it has contextual importance.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Initially when reading option 2, it reminded me strongly about issue #161 Where There's A Will There's A Tax, as option 3 of that issue also sets a cap on how much people can inherit. Rereading it, I'd say the options are distinct enough and don't overlap too much, especially since option 2 in this draft speaks of redistributing the wealth exceeding the cap, while issue 161 doesn't.

And while this is something I do myself very often as well, I do think some sentences are a bit wordy. Personally, I don't mind wordy, but I do see that more concise texts also have their beauty. Cutting away a few words from the option sentences would go a long way in that! But not from the premise, I like the way the description is written and personally, I don't mind the reference about the serial bride I think it gives flavour to the issue text!

I agree, I think there is definitely a mild over-wordiness problem here, and I'll make some cuts towards draft 2. I was thinking that as a three option draft the length was more forgiveable, but even so, there's some non-necessary fat to some of the options.

[Trotterdam]

Going to disagree with you there. It's a dig at those who marry into vast wealth, who I think are fair game. It's also important here, as teal life Mackenzie Scott isn't giving away vast fortunes that she made through her corporate activities -- she's basically wealthy from a divorce settlement. Whether that means she's more or less entitled to that wealth is up to a player to decide, but it has contextual importance.

It would be important if the issue were about the propriety of divorce settlements. It is not. It is about the propriety of charity.

Though really, it seems unlikely that a rich person giving to charity would suddenly spark a big debate about this. Sure, some people might believe that she isn't giving enough, but it's still a step in the right direction compared to how things were before. The people who really want to raise a stink about rich people will already have been doing so, not suddenly started now.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

They're doing more so now.

https://www.cracked.com/article_28310_a ... ating.html

[Comfed]

I like the premise, but the validity is... weird. Couldn’t you make it unrelated to video games, so that nations who have that policy can still get the issue? Like, maybe instead of NationCrates it could be a new line of, say, vacuum cleaners?

Also, the part about the divorce settlement is not necessary, and distracts from the premise.

[Jutsa]

Plus, unimportant note, but having divorce would require one to not have the "no divorce" policy also.

Otherwise, nice premise. Admittedly not 100% certain why small donations feel like a government issue, but it's still a nice subject.

[Daarwyrth]

((note the overlap here with existing effect lines like 1326.1 is known and intentional here -- my read is that if placed into the same paragraph it'd work as a recurring motif rather than as a stilted repetition, but we can discuss that in editing, of course))

I think this idea works and agree with the sentiment. I'd have no problem with seeing this as a recurring theme.

who aren't as great as me

I feel "generous" or "big-hearted" would work better instead of "great" here.

naming them as selfish bozos

Maybe this comes down to personal stylistics, but consider changing it to "decrying them selfish bozos". To me it comes across stronger.

Aside from these comments, I like the direction where this draft is heading. The general feel of the issue is also less wordy now, so I am certain that will be appreciated

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I like the premise, but the validity is... weird. Couldn’t you make it unrelated to video games, so that nations who have that policy can still get the issue? Like, maybe instead of NationCrates it could be a new line of, say, vacuum cleaners?

The whole point is the meta-joke, over how she's got a real NationStates issue about her now (once this issue is published). Wouldn't work if it was vacuum cleaners.

Also, the part about the divorce settlement is not necessary, and distracts from the premise.

Naa, I disagree.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Plus, unimportant note, but having divorce would require one to not have the "no divorce" policy also.

Otherwise, nice premise. Admittedly not 100% certain why small donations feel like a government issue, but it's still a nice subject.

Ooh, yes, will add that validity check.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

((note the overlap here with existing effect lines like 1326.1 is known and intentional here -- my read is that if placed into the same paragraph it'd work as a recurring motif rather than as a stilted repetition, but we can discuss that in editing, of course))

I think this idea works and agree with the sentiment. I'd have no problem with seeing this as a recurring theme.

who aren't as great as me

I feel "generous" or "big-hearted" would work better instead of "great" here.

naming them as selfish bozos

Maybe this comes down to personal stylistics, but consider changing it to "decrying them selfish bozos". To me it comes across stronger.

Aside from these comments, I like the direction where this draft is heading. The general feel of the issue is also less wordy now, so I am certain that will be appreciated

I like "decrying", will use that one.