[DRAFT] Untitled Nudist Camp Issue

[Minskiev]

Idea by Jutsa. Titling skills improving by the nanosecond. Thanks for reading?

[title] none yet

[description] Many are escaping their binding clothes and clothing laws inside their private property. However, after adventurers recently stumbled upon someone going for a nice stroll naked, people are unsure where the harsh nudism laws affect.

[validity] must have Prudism, must have Capitalism

[option] “I can’t believe this!” protests @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, the libertarian @@MAN_1@@ found nude, as @@HE_1@@ is conveniently covered by an intern’s shaky hands. “My private property was intruded without permission, but I’m the one breaking the law? Those draconian nudism laws shouldn’t take effect on private property! Today it’s thirty-minute morning hikes completely naked, tomorrow it’s basic hygiene.”

[effect] nudists kidnap children to take with them down their slippery slope

[option] “I can’t believe this!” hollers conservative do-gooder and said adventurer @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ covers up @@HIS@@ lack of a tan line. “The laws of @@NAME@@ only stop outside of @@NAME@@! How do you think my children felt seeing you like that during our camping trip? These laws help shield our eyes from these immoral, disgusting, and perverted freaks, and these same laws need to lock them up, no matter where they are!”

[effect] @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ are nicknamed ‘Morlocks’ as basic hygiene is often illegal in @@NAME@@

[option] “You know, I can probably believe this,” blankly @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, noted nihilist teenage philosopher, covering his suspiciously light red eyes. “We stupid, dumb, minuscule, and irrelevant specks of dust in the grand scheme of things shouldn’t care about what @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME_1@@ is wearing, or rather, not wearing. After all, we’re all going to die in the end, and nothing matters and love is fake, unlike my parent’s neglect of me.” He begins to tear up, but he snaps out of it and sighs.

[effect] therapists only seem to answer with who cares, it doesn’t matter, and what

[Noahs Second Country]

How are these options functionally different from what already exists in #8?

I know that option 3 is frequently a crazy option but I don't see how any nation would actually choose said option since it isn't really beneficial to either side of the debate.

[Honeydewistania]

Try and make the options more unique

[Minskiev]

Try and make the options more unique

I did kind of feel they were too run-of-the-mill, yeah.

[Jutsa]

Not gonna lie, I'm happy to see you working on this one.
Honeydewistania actually made a draft based on a similar concept, but it was actually involved tourists flying in, so they're different anyway,
though even if they were the same that shouldn't make you stop working on it.

So, the issue here is that the premise itself is solid — nudist colonies popping up, all that jazz. The problem is the issue options.
The options basically treat the premise as an onset for a debate about nudity in general. In other words, basically issue number 8.

The options should instead be about the nudist camps themselves. Something like, I dunno,
"They are immoral and disgusting! These people should be (publicly shunned/punished by the state)",
"They provide an outlet for those who wish to be natural! They're away from the rest of society; you should be subsidizing them".
and "You know, maybe the problem is we're too prudish as a society. I mean, I like my clothing, but I wouldn't care if (previous speaker) went out in the buff."

Not that you need to go down this route, but I think it's a pretty solid base to work from if at least two options were specifically about the nudist camp
(like, in my example, criminalize and subsidize), and maybe throw in a final option involving the nation's stance on nudity as a whole. Again, though, your draft; just a suggestion.

[Minskiev]

Jutsa, thank you for the tips! I notice you kind of going “But you don’t have to follow my advice” every other sentence. You don’t have to do that, since I know that if you’re giving advice, you’re not gonna be crazy harsh or whatever. I know my draft isn’t what I want it to be, thank you for some other tips on how to get there.

[Minskiev]

/bump

[Jutsa]

OK. So, steps in the right direction. I still feel like options 1 and 2 could be improved though.
for instance, 1 I feel could subsidize the resorts, or maybe have the government encourage it as a getaway outlet, or something. Still, applauding would suffice if you'd rather not beef it up.
2 feels a little out-of-focus by the second half, but maybe you could change "some creep" to be "one of these nudist-camp freaks" to link things a bit better.

3, however. I must admit. Hmm. how should I put this...

I like it.

It's very weird, and the character's dialogue is mostly fluff, but... to be honest, it's some of the best writing I think I've ever seen from you.
I think it's a beautiful way to build character to the speaker, as well as make the option distinct from other "let people wear clothes" options. Very nicely done imo.
edit: and it genuinely made me laugh. I feel sorta bad given it's honestly a sad character, but it's done in such a way that's genuinely amusing, so I applaud you for that as well.

Also, not gonna lie, I do appreciate the "I can't believe this" theme broken up in the end. Another nice little touch, if I do say so.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I'd agree that the overlap with #8 is significant, and #8 has a much better title.

I'd suggest that if this were to work, it'd need to specifically focus on the fact that we're looking at exceptions to public nudity laws for private areas, and defining the limits of that. More nuance in the presentation and the options is the key.

[Australian rePublic]

People are nude at a nudist camp. Why exactly is this a leader issue? Focus on the why

[Minskiev]

I'd agree that the overlap with #8 is significant, and #8 has a much better title.

I'd suggest that if this were to work, it'd need to specifically focus on the fact that we're looking at exceptions to public nudity laws for private areas, and defining the limits of that. More nuance in the presentation and the options is the key.

Hmm. Good advice, because I guess that questions your beliefs more.

[Trotterdam]

I'd suggest that if this were to work, it'd need to specifically focus on the fact that we're looking at exceptions to public nudity laws for private areas, and defining the limits of that.

Specifically whether any area that's outdoors can be considered properly "private". Pretty much no-one objects to people being naked in their own homes (when they don't have guests over), but in an outdoors area, even people who are walking past outside the area officially belonging to you might see you. (Though that could apply indoors if you forget to close the curtains.) It you own a large enough buffer zone around the nudist camp it reduces the chance of someone unintentionally stumbling across, but it still seems like the biggest justification for being opposed to such a thing.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Exactly. That's the angle.

[Minskiev]

So, to twist a little bit from the original idea, and make it about whether being naked on your private property OUTDOORS is legal or not?

[Minskiev]

/bump

[Australian rePublic]

Another potential angle is where exactly are these nude camps? Crowded urban areas? Near schools? At the bottom of an over populated cliff?

[Minskiev]

Another potential angle is where exactly are these nude camps? Crowded urban areas? Near schools? At the bottom of an overpopulated cliff?

I'm not following. Why would that matter? Switch out nudist camp, for say, school, and...you get basically nothing. Or an overlap of that 'farm animals in class" issue.

[Australian rePublic]

Another potential angle is where exactly are these nude camps? Crowded urban areas? Near schools? At the bottom of an overpopulated cliff?

I'm not following. Why would that matter? Switch out nudist camp, for say, school, and...you get basically nothing. Or an overlap of that 'farm animals in class" issue.

How could not see why it would be an issue to have a nudist camp next to a school? The thing about crowded areas is that there are many people who go to those crowded areas, walk past the nudist camp and see all the nudists practicing their philosophy. The same applies next to a school, only with children. It's a bit redundant to ban nudity only for nudist camps to pop-up around the nation's largest and most crowded cities, only to have passers-by be able to see into those nude camps

[Verdant Haven]

[description] Many are escaping their binding clothes and clothing laws inside their private property. However, after adventurers recently stumbled upon someone going for a nice stroll naked, people are unsure where the harsh nudism laws affect.

There is some roughness to the sentence structure here that makes it a bit hard to read. Many who? Clothing laws are personal property now (context of "their... clothing laws")? What are adventurers? That seems like a curious word to describe somebody apparently on a family camping trip.

I would suggest providing a little bit more context and clarity about the situation that occurred. Something like...

"Feeling bound up by @@NAME@@'s strict modesty laws, many citizens are escaping their clothes by going nude on private property. Recently however, a family of campers was traumatized when they stumbled upon an individual going for a stroll in the nude on what the family had mistakenly thought was public land, and all involved are now screaming for clarification about the boundaries of the law."

[option] “I can’t believe this!” protests @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, the libertarian @@MAN_1@@ found nude, as @@HE_1@@ is conveniently covered by an intern’s shaky hands. “My private property was intruded without permission, but I’m the one breaking the law? Those draconian nudism laws shouldn’t take effect on private property! Today it’s thirty-minute morning hikes completely naked, tomorrow it’s basic hygiene.”

[effect] nudists kidnap children to take with them down their slippery slope

I don't know if "libertarian" is relevant here, as it wasn't previously mentioned, and political affiliation needn't be specified to make their position clear. Was the word meant to be libertine? That has more of a morale judgement to it, and it would be fair to call @@HIM@@ an "accused libertine" in this context.

I would probably refer to "those draconian prudism laws" rather than "nudism laws" since it isn't just nudism that is regulated, but all manner of how citizens dress.

This doesn't make clear where nudism and basic hygiene are connected. Where is the logical leap from banning public nudity to banning brushing your teeth? Is it about the idea that if you can't be naked on your own land, soon you won't be allowed to be naked in your own home in order to bathe? I would make that a lot mores specific, if that's the intention. It is a good argument, but not at all clear presently.

What on earth does being permitted to hike naked have to do with kidnapping children? That unfortunately sounds sexual for lack of context, and anything sexual involving children has to be a huge no.

[option] “I can’t believe this!” hollers conservative do-gooder and said adventurer @@RANDOMNAME@@, as @@HE@@ covers up @@HIS@@ lack of a tan line. “The laws of @@NAME@@ only stop outside of @@NAME@@! How do you think my children felt seeing you like that during our camping trip? These laws help shield our eyes from these immoral, disgusting, and perverted freaks, and these same laws need to lock them up, no matter where they are!”

[effect] @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ are nicknamed ‘Morlocks’ as basic hygiene is often illegal in @@NAME@@

Again I'd alter the "adventurer" language to be more clear.

Is the "lack of a tan line" thing supposed to imply the plaintiff is themself a nudist? That doesn't seem overly congruent with the issue.

The lack of hygiene thing in the effect remains confusing. Clarifying it in the previous option text would help, but I'd probably modify it to be a bit more humorous and specific. "morality police routinely raid bathrooms to ensure everybody wears a bathing suit in the shower" or something along those lines.

[option] “You know, I can probably believe this,” blankly @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, noted nihilist teenage philosopher, covering his suspiciously light red eyes. “We stupid, dumb, minuscule, and irrelevant specks of dust in the grand scheme of things shouldn’t care about what @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME_1@@ is wearing, or rather, not wearing. After all, we’re all going to die in the end, and nothing matters and love is fake, unlike my parent’s neglect of me.” He begins to tear up, but he snaps out of it and sighs.

[effect] therapists only seem to answer with who cares, it doesn’t matter, and what[/box]

I think there's a missing word in the dialogue tag - blankly what? Are the light red eyes intended to be bloodshot? I'd probably use that word.

This option and effect in current form seem almost completely detached from anything to do with the issue, and could be inserted in practically any issue with minimal modification - "who cares" is a Dismiss Button. If this is meant to be an argument for removing the prudism laws, I'd suggest it be significantly more pointed to that end, with an actual suggestion of taking action - not just not caring.


One thing that seems to be left out of the discussion is the whole "they were trespassing" part of the scenario. I feel like that would be a good in for a "revoke prudism" option, setting something up where you can point out the hypocrisy of the situation. These trespassing folks are ignoring their own infractions to try and hypocritically punish other people for theirs - certainly we should get rid of laws that motivate that kind of behavior, and send a strong message to the trespassers, or some such similar argument.