Draft : A royal mess

[Sunhizria]

Draft 6
[TITLE]
A royal mess

[DESCRIPTION]
Henry Runningfields, The youngest Prince of the conservative nation Myrcia, whose famous in his nations for his efforts to improve diplomatic relations between Myrcia and @@NAME@@, and being in favour of same-sex marriage, was able to obtain political asylum in @@NAME@@. According to the @@ANIMAL@@ Daily, he also obtained for his three wives, one of whom appear to his sister.

[VALIDITY]
nation is secular leaning
nation does not have no marriage policy
nation does not have no immigration policy
nation is a monarchy

[CHOICE 1]
Your minister of international affairs is depressed. "Why did you accept such a degenerate @@LEADER@@, we are going to destroy our relation. Even if we could accept polygamy, there is not way we can accept incest. Imagine what could be next? Bestiality? Look, that's where we should stop, we should define marriage to be union between two persons nor related by blood, and send those polygamist back where they came from. Beside, I'm certain they do not share our secular values."
[EFFECT 1]
Unpleasant immigrants are send back to their country

[CHOICE 2]
Suddenly, Maria Runningfields, the former princess of Myrcia, find her way in your office. "Sup, good day. So yeah, I'm married to my brother, and he's married to two others girl. So what? We get along pretty well, and we all love him. And to fair, the only difference between adultery, and polygamy, is that polygamy is more honest. I know where my lover is, with who is he, and what he's doing, while you guys don't. I think you guys would have less marital problems if you just legalize polygamy. While we're at it. Your secretary is a real cutie, we just had a date and I think I love her too.
[EFFECT 2]
religious nations refer to @@NAME@@ as The most immoral country of @@REGION@@

[CHOICE 3]
Your phone ring, and you find the king of Myrcia on the other side of the lign. "Greetings to you @@LEADER@@, it seem your country has accepted to take that degenerate soon of mine. We salute this decision. after all, you are the government, you decide what's right and what's wrong in your country, and we respect that decision. If you want to legalize gay marriage, incest, adultery or polygamy, that's your sovereign right. While we are at it, we recently found other incestuous degenerates, you mind if we send them to your country, do you? We really don't need those thing in our country."
[EFFECT 3]
Countries ship the "undesirable" to the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ frontier.

[Sunhizria]

got a new draft

edit : 3rd draft

[Authoritaria-Imperia]

This is a really interesting angle to go from, so nice job on that front! I do think a more convincing case could be made as to why @@NAME@@ should grant this prince asylum though — I get the "really liberal with marriage" thing, but I feel like an additional element (i.e. he did a lot of work to improve international relations with @@NAME@@) would strengthen the first option and intensity of the overall dilemma a bit.

I think your options are nicely balanced; my only suggestion would be to switch options 2 and 3 so you're ending with the craziest choice rather than a rational counterargument to the first speaker's views.

Beyond those things, I'd say the spelling and grammar of your draft could use some cleaning up. Numerous typos and commas make it hard to read, so for the description, try something along the lines of:

The Prince of conservative nation Myrcia has demanded political asylum after being sentenced to death in his home country — and he also wants it for his three wives, one of whom is his sister.

(You're welcome to use this or something similar if you'd like.) Reordering the little parts of the description allows most of the commas and pauses to be eliminated, and the kicker — exactly what this Prince's marital situation is like — is saved for the end. Doing something like that for each of your options will strengthen your issue greatly. However, if English isn't your first language (my apologies if I'm assuming incorrectly), then I'd be happy to help you out personally with that. Running it through a spelling-/grammar-checker programme like Grammarly would help too.

Your effect lines could be stronger, I think (also don't start them with a capital letter by dafault). The numbers are off, by the way — surely it's effect 1 that goes with option 1?

I hope this is helpful. Like I said, this is a really interesting approach for an Issue — best of luck!

[Sunhizria]

This is a really interesting angle to go from, so nice job on that front! I do think a more convincing case could be made as to why @@NAME@@ should grant this prince asylum though — I get the "really liberal with marriage" thing, but I feel like an additional element (i.e. he did a lot of work to improve international relations with @@NAME@@) would strengthen the first option and intensity of the overall dilemma a bit.

I think your options are nicely balanced; my only suggestion would be to switch options 2 and 3 so you're ending with the craziest choice rather than a rational counterargument to the first speaker's views.

Beyond those things, I'd say the spelling and grammar of your draft could use some cleaning up. Numerous typos and commas make it hard to read, so for the description, try something along the lines of:

The Prince of conservative nation Myrcia has demanded political asylum after being sentenced to death in his home country — and he also wants it for his three wives, one of whom is his sister.

(You're welcome to use this or something similar if you'd like.) Reordering the little parts of the description allows most of the commas and pauses to be eliminated, and the kicker — exactly what this Prince's marital situation is like — is saved for the end. Doing something like that for each of your options will strengthen your issue greatly. However, if English isn't your first language (my apologies if I'm assuming incorrectly), then I'd be happy to help you out personally with that. Running it through a spelling-/grammar-checker programme like Grammarly would help too.


Your effect lines could be stronger, I think (also don't start them with a capital letter by dafault). The numbers are off, by the way — surely it's effect 1 that goes with option 1?

I hope this is helpful. Like I said, this is a really interesting approach for an Issue — best of luck!

Nope English is not my first language, its french. I'll revisit the draft this night. thanks
well, draft 4.

[The Free Joy State]

You cannot add additional validities to an issue you are directly chaining from a previous issue. All validities would have to be added (no matter how irrelevant) to the previous issue, which would risk excluding numerous players who could receive the issue it's being chained from.

Not only that, but this issue does not seem to bring anything new to the discussion of marriage, polygamy or immigration in NS (for example, we already have the question on whether you should accept immigrants who risk death in their own country (#1260).

I really suggest checking the spoiler list for similar topics and asking in the Writer's Block before you start any new issue, so your idea can be checked for potential overlap.

EDIT: Also, I note this is draft four, and there are no previous drafts visible. It's the convention in GI to keep all previous drafts under a spoiler so thread-viewers can see the progression of a draft. Like so:

Current draft:

Title: This is my title

Validity: if necessary

Description: This is the situation

Option: "This is the first option," says Susie Sample, doing something amusing. "Oh, it's very funny."
Effect: this is the first effect line

Option: "This is the second option," says Emma Example, doing something characterising. "I disagree with the first speaker."
Effect: this is the second effect line

[Then, underneath the current draft]
Draft One (and so on)

Title: This is the original title.

Validity: if necessary

Description: This is the situation. And here is a lot of additional filler about the situation...

Option: "This is the first option," says Susie Sample, doing considerably less amusing. "Oh, dear, it can hardly raise a smile."
Effect: this is the original first effect line

Option: "This is the second option," says Emma Example. "I disagree with the first speaker."
Effect: this is the second effect line

[Sunhizria]

new draft
I'll need help on option 1, cause I'm a bit out of idea here.
option 2 and 3 should legalize polygamy, which is the goal here.

[The Free Joy State]

new draft
I'll need help on option 1, cause I'm a bit out of idea here.
option 2 and 3 should legalize polygamy, which is the goal here.

This basically read as "Are you sure you wanted to legalise incest... and now why not add polygamy?"

To repeat my earlier comment, it brings nothing new -- nothing that is not already available in other issues -- to the question of marriage and polygamy in NationStates. We already have issues that legalise polygamy. In addition, #274 doesn't appear, to me, to need a follow up, and shoe-horning one in, simply because someone wants to see the option to activate polygamy added (so badly they already tried to insert it into the original issue) doesn't seem a compelling reason.

Follow-up issues should present a possible, unforeseen, likely outcome to a response to an issue -- not just be a chance to add in more policies.

I suggest you start looking at other ideas and that, before you begin working on anything, you check the spoiler list for similar topics and ask in the Writer's Block, so your idea can be checked for potential overlap.

[Sunhizria]

new draft
I'll need help on option 1, cause I'm a bit out of idea here.
option 2 and 3 should legalize polygamy, which is the goal here.

This basically read as "Are you sure you wanted to legalise incest... and now why not add polygamy?"

To repeat my earlier comment, it brings nothing new -- nothing that is not already available in other issues -- to the question of marriage and polygamy in NationStates. We already have issues that legalise polygamy. In addition, #274 doesn't appear, to me, to need a follow up, and shoe-horning one in, simply because someone wants to see the option to activate polygamy added (so badly they already tried to insert it into the original issue) doesn't seem a compelling reason.

Follow-up issues should present a possible, unforeseen, likely outcome to a response to an issue -- not just be a chance to add in more policies.

I suggest you start looking at other ideas and that, before you begin working on anything, you check the spoiler list for similar topics and ask in the Writer's Block, so your idea can be checked for potential overlap.

We have 4 issues that legalize polygamy, but none of them are available to nations that are secular.
so, new nations can be lucky and receive #32, but nations that travel on a secular path, just cannot legalize polygamy no matter what they do.

like 32 : One Wife Is Never Enough, Say Polygamists ---- For some reason, Secular nations do not receive this issues
165 Wedlock Worries === never saw this for secular nations,
and I believe #1155 The Banquet of Walnuts has some requirement I was never able to match.

[Empirical Switzerland]

I think it should be "The conservative nation"
Just my thoughts.

[The Free Joy State]

This basically read as "Are you sure you wanted to legalise incest... and now why not add polygamy?"

To repeat my earlier comment, it brings nothing new -- nothing that is not already available in other issues -- to the question of marriage and polygamy in NationStates. We already have issues that legalise polygamy. In addition, #274 doesn't appear, to me, to need a follow up, and shoe-horning one in, simply because someone wants to see the option to activate polygamy added (so badly they already tried to insert it into the original issue) doesn't seem a compelling reason.

Follow-up issues should present a possible, unforeseen, likely outcome to a response to an issue -- not just be a chance to add in more policies.

I suggest you start looking at other ideas and that, before you begin working on anything, you check the spoiler list for similar topics and ask in the Writer's Block, so your idea can be checked for potential overlap.

We have 4 issues that legalize polygamy, but none of them are available to nations that are secular.
so, new nations can be lucky and receive #32, but nations that travel on a secular path, just cannot legalize polygamy no matter what they do.

like 32 : One Wife Is Never Enough, Say Polygamists ---- For some reason, Secular nations do not receive this issues

That is something that could have been raised (in the Writers' Block, and then possibly its own thread) with very little problem. It doesn't merit an unneeded follow-on issue.

I have taken #32 backstage for discussion.

165 Wedlock Worries === never saw this for secular nations,

This issue is unrelated to religiousness.

and I believe #1155 The Banquet of Walnuts has some requirement I was never able to match.

I am unsure how you came to understand polygamy was related to this issue. It is not.

[Sunhizria]

We have 4 issues that legalize polygamy, but none of them are available to nations that are secular.
so, new nations can be lucky and receive #32, but nations that travel on a secular path, just cannot legalize polygamy no matter what they do.

like 32 : One Wife Is Never Enough, Say Polygamists ---- For some reason, Secular nations do not receive this issues

That is something that could have been raised (in the Writers' Block, and then possibly its own thread) with very little problem. It doesn't merit an unneeded follow-on issue.

I have taken #32 backstage for discussion.

165 Wedlock Worries === never saw this for secular nations,

This issue is unrelated to religiousness.

and I believe #1155 The Banquet of Walnuts has some requirement I was never able to match.

I am unsure how you came to understand polygamy was related to this issue. It is not.

http://www.mwq.dds.nl/ns/results/policies.html#Polygamy, tell us the issues that can legalize polygamy, and as you may note, there is not a lot.
so, if ever, one of my secular nations, I do the bad mistake of Outlawing polygamy, (not marriage), that mistake I will not be able to fix it.

I'm not trying to write an follow issues, what i really want, is to be able to legalize polygamy on non-religious nations. (rather that on nation who are not super secular, since all my nations tend to in end top5 % secularism or even top 1%.

after all, we have plenty of opportunities to take away policies like death penalty, no internet, no computer, no immigration, no emmigration, weapon of mass destruction and I count..


Well. I made some changes, but I don't really feel there is any chance for that draft to become an issue

[The Free Joy State]

That is something that could have been raised (in the Writers' Block, and then possibly its own thread) with very little problem. It doesn't merit an unneeded follow-on issue.

I have taken #32 backstage for discussion.

This issue is unrelated to religiousness.

I am unsure how you came to understand polygamy was related to this issue. It is not.

http://www.mwq.dds.nl/ns/results/policies.html#Polygamy, tell us the issues that can legalize polygamy, and as you may note, there is not a lot.
so, if ever, one of my secular nations, I do the bad mistake of Outlawing polygamy, (not marriage), that mistake I will not be able to fix it.

That is an external site. NationStates accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of any information on that (or any other) external site, and we do not accept any external site as the basis for any report regarding suspected problems of an issue-related nature at any time. Polygamy is unrelated to #1155.

I'm not trying to write an follow issues, what i really want, is to be able to legalize polygamy on non-religious nations. (rather that on nation who are not super secular, since all my nations tend to in end top5 % secularism or even top 1%.

Further to the discussion taken backstage, #32 has now been amended.

Secular nations can now receive this issue.

[Sunhizria]

Well. that's good news and confirmed.
I got 3 nations who recently legalized polygamy. that's very good news.
just wondering if its for atheists nation too. but Atheism has issues that can bring it back,

[Australian rePublic]

Why is this any of nation's business?

[Sunhizria]

The main goal of this issues was to give a chance to secular to legalize polygamy. since issues number 32, is not available to secular nation. which mean secular nation where not able to legalize polygamy nor where they able to bring it, if they deleted it by mistake.

I believe the validity of issues 32 where changed to not atheist