NATION

PASSWORD

[SUBMITTED 24/02/21] Cracks in the Foundation

A place to spoil daily issues for those who haven't had them yet, snigger at typos, and discuss ideas for new ones.
User avatar
Lelscrep
Envoy
 
Posts: 233
Founded: Apr 11, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

[SUBMITTED 24/02/21] Cracks in the Foundation

Postby Lelscrep » Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:32 am

I noticed that revoking option one in No. 560 is still a high priority issue, so I thought I'd have another go at it.
Draft 3 (Option two overhaul to become more logically sound, slight change to option three. Another title change, though it's honestly still TBD, any suggestions appreciated. Newer changes insignificant enough to warrant a new draft are underlined.)

Title: Cracks in the Foundation

Validity: Nation must not have the Autocracy policy. Nation must also have abolished the upper house via No. 560.

Description: A bill passed by the lower house several years ago regarding commercial crop regulation has recently been found to have an exploitable loophole, allowing the use of pesticides that had previously been banned due to their harmful side effects. Various opinions have sprouted regarding this dilemma.

Option One: "I, for one, cannot believe our elected officials either do not care enough to check, or are too incompetent to read properly!" exclaims @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, popular middle-of-the-road political pundit. "This is incredibly dangerous, and we should be thankful that most @@DEMONYM@@ farmers have avowed to act in good faith regarding this bill. It is now clear more than ever that all elected officials need to pass some form of competency test, even as basic as a reading comprehension quiz!"

Effect: high primary school reading levels are lauded among career politicians

Option Two: "You're all acting as if no one ever makes a mistake!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, the lower house representative responsible for proposition of the bill. "I mean, that bill encountered no issues in practice until that one lazy farmer with a tough lawyer wasn't bothered buying the proper pesticides. Why don't we just rectify the mistake with an amendment to the bill and be on our way? While we're at it, how about we introduce a limit on the amount of bills that can be proposed per month - that'd be a sure-fire to help reduce the amount of errors!"

Effect: it is standard practice for bills to be written with erasable ink

Option Three: "You know, this could have all been avoided from the start..." tuts Lady @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, the former Mother of the Upper House. "Problems of this manner will continue to occur with these representatives if nothing changes. I say you re-establish the upper house - I mean, you surely miss me, yes? I'm certain the effects of bicameralism will immediately sort out the mess of logical errors and... passion that comprise the lower house."

Effect: many representatives believe a second story is being constructed above parliament

Option Four: "Hey @@LEADER@@, doesn't this debate seem to be ignoring the little guy caught up in all this?" asks Harthur Oggett, the farmer who's pesticide-related lawsuit revealed the loophole. "While I'm not gonna be the one pouring cancer chemicals on my plants or nothin', I think we could do with some easing of restrictions - proper guv'ment approved pesticides have been in low supply lately. Besides, people wash their food!"

Effect: @@DEMONYM@@ commonly wash their vegetables with methylated spirits

Draft 2 (Addressing the premise. Added a fourth option to replace the one removed from Draft 1 - if it seems out of place, please let me know.)

Title: Condominium Pandemonium

Validity: Nation must not have the Autocracy policy. Nation must also have abolished the upper house via No. 560.

Description: A bill passed by the lower house several years ago regarding agricultural pesticides has been found to have an exploitable loophole, allowing some forms of petroleum to be used as insect repellent on crops. Various opinions have sprouted regarding this dilemma.

Option One: "I, for one, cannot believe our elected officials either do not care enough to check, or are too incompetent to read properly!" exclaims @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, popular middle-of-the-road political pundit. "This is incredibly dangerous, and we should be thankful that most @@DEMONYM@@ farmers have avowed to act in good faith regarding this bill. It is now clear more than ever that all elected officials need to pass some form of competency test, even as basic as a reading comprehension quiz!"

Effect: high primary school reading levels are lauded among career politicians

Option Two: "I think the issue here is that we're far too overworked!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, the sweaty lower house representative for Southera. "I mean, it's bill after bill after bill; it's a miracle alone that the lower house has managed to come this far without falling into chaos! @@LEADER@@ please, you must introduce a limit on the amount of bills proposed to the lower house per month, so we may maintain the integrity of our nation's fair governance!"

Effect: lobbyists and protesters are frequently told to "wait their turn"

Option Three: "You know, this could have all been avoided from the start..." tuts Lady @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, the former Mother of the Upper House. "...but it isn't too late to have a change of heart. I say you re-establish the upper house - I mean, you surely miss me, yes? I'm certain the effects of bicameralism will immediately sort out the mess of logical errors and... passion that comprise the lower house."

Effect: many representatives believe a second story is being constructed above parliament

Option Four: "Hey @@LEADER@@, doesn't this debate seem to be ignoring the little guy caught up in all this?" asks Harthur Oggett, the farmer who's pesticide-related lawsuit revealed the loophole. "While I'm not gonna be the one to pour petroleum on my plants, I think we could do with some easing of restrictions - proper guv'ment approved pesticides have been in low supply lately. Besides, people wash their food!"

Effect: @@DEMONYM@@ commonly wash their vegetables with methylated spirits

Draft 1

Title: Spellchekcing the House

Validity: Nation must not have the Autocracy policy. Nation must also have abolished the upper house via No. 560.

Description: A bill recently passed by the lower house was publicly found to be rife with spelling and grammatical mistakes, as well as poorly structured sentences. Various opinions have arisen punctually regarding this dilemma.

Option One: "I, for one, cannot believe our elected officials either do not care enough to check, or are too incompetent to read properly!" exclaims @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, popular middle-of-the-road political pundit. "This could potentially be very dangerous, what if a malformed sentence within a future bill implies something it was not intended to? It is now clear more than ever that all elected officials need to pass some form of competency test, even as basic as a spelling and reading comprehension quiz!"

Effect: high primary school reading levels are lauded among career politicians

Option Two: "I think the issue here is that we're far too overworked!" cries @@RANDOMNAME@@, the sweaty lower house representative for Southera. "I mean, it's bill after bill after bill; it's a miracle alone that the lower house has managed to come this far without falling into chaos! @@LEADER@@ please, you must introduce a limit on the amount of bills proposed to the lower house per month, so we may maintain the integrity of our nation's fair governance!"

Effect: lobbyists and protesters are frequently told to "wait their turn"

Option Three: "wel onestli i dont c wat al the fus is about," begins a rapidly circulating blogpost written by notorious influencer @@RANDOMNAME@@. "i meen, did the senat or watever even do anything rong? speling propaly is stoopid and it taks 2 much time, so i think its about tim we stop carin about propr speling on wurds! besids, isnt the point 2 get thes laws or whatevs throo qickly?"

Effect: proof reading is considered old-fashioned

Option Four: "You know, this could have all been avoided from the start..." tuts Lady @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, the former Mother of the Upper House. "...but it isn't too late to have a change of heart. I say you re-establish the upper house - I mean, you surely miss me, yes? I'm certain the effects of bicameralism will immediately sort out the mess of grammatical errors and... passion that comprise the lower house."

Effect: many representatives believe a second story is being constructed above parliament
Last edited by Lelscrep on Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:25 am, edited 9 times in total.

User avatar
Lelscrep
Envoy
 
Posts: 233
Founded: Apr 11, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Lelscrep » Sat Jan 23, 2021 6:22 pm

Almost two weeks no reply so I'll bump this. If there's still nothing for another two weeks or so I'll just submit it.

User avatar
Electrum
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 3124
Founded: Jan 20, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Electrum » Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:34 pm

I just don't think it's plausible that any house of Parliament would allow an error-ridden bill become law. Typically, unicameral parliaments have additional committee processes to scrutinise the bills further. Perhaps the premise could be changed to the legislature accidentally passing a law with an unintended consequence?
Just a regular G.I. Joe - list of issue ideas

NationStates Tennis Tour President - rankings and season seven schedule

User avatar
Lelscrep
Envoy
 
Posts: 233
Founded: Apr 11, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Lelscrep » Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:20 pm

Electrum wrote:I just don't think it's plausible that any house of Parliament would allow an error-ridden bill become law. Typically, unicameral parliaments have additional committee processes to scrutinise the bills further. Perhaps the premise could be changed to the legislature accidentally passing a law with an unintended consequence?

That's fair - upon rereading it later it looks like I did sacrifice some believability with the goal of making the lower house seem incompetent. I've put up a second draft now, and I've been somewhat vague with the original bill, though the bills effect is explained.

User avatar
USS Monitor
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 29418
Founded: Jul 01, 2015
19th Century Iron Steamship

Postby USS Monitor » Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:59 am

I feel like this is overlooking the most obvious solution: pass a new law banning whatever pesticides they intended to ban.

Also, I don't get the title. The issue seems to have nothing to do with condominiums.
Don't take life so serious... it isn't permanent... RIP Dyakovo and Ashmoria
NationStates issues editors may be harmful or fatal if swallowed. In case of accidental ingestion, please seek immediate medical assistance.
༄༅། །འགྲོ་བ་མི་རིགས་ག་ར་དབང་ཆ་འདྲ་མཉམ་འབད་སྒྱེཝ་ལས་ག་ར་གིས་གཅིག་གིས་གཅིག་ལུ་སྤུན་ཆའི་དམ་ཚིག་བསྟན་དགོས།

User avatar
Frieden-und Freudenland
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 2163
Founded: Jul 30, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Frieden-und Freudenland » Mon Jan 25, 2021 12:48 pm

USS Monitor wrote:I feel like this is overlooking the most obvious solution: pass a new law banning whatever pesticides they intended to ban.

Also, I don't get the title. The issue seems to have nothing to do with condominiums.

I think it is meant to be a lower house/ upper house joke, but I agree that it is kinda obscure.
When I write, I don't have an accent.

My issues

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
~Walt Whitman

User avatar
Lelscrep
Envoy
 
Posts: 233
Founded: Apr 11, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Lelscrep » Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:18 pm

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:
USS Monitor wrote:I feel like this is overlooking the most obvious solution: pass a new law banning whatever pesticides they intended to ban.

Also, I don't get the title. The issue seems to have nothing to do with condominiums.

I think it is meant to be a lower house/ upper house joke, but I agree that it is kinda obscure.

This is the correct answer, and I agree as well - this issue has taught me coming up with housing-related puns is not my strong suit. :lol:

Draft 3 is up now to address USS' critique.
Last edited by Lelscrep on Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Australian rePublic
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21631
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Australian rePublic » Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:19 am

Why would anyone pour petroleum on their plants. Why would anyone sell pesticide with petroleum in it, even if they could get away with it?
When I was 24 years old, the whole world ran out of toilet paper
From Greek Ansestry Orthodox Christian
18 Published Issues and 1 WA Resolution List of NPC Nations
This account is fictious. Any In-Character posts made by this account do not reflect the actions of any real world government

User avatar
Lelscrep
Envoy
 
Posts: 233
Founded: Apr 11, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Lelscrep » Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:37 am

Australian rePublic wrote:Why would anyone pour petroleum on their plants. Why would anyone sell pesticide with petroleum in it, even if they could get away with it?

Basically no one would, for either question (well, some people use it as a weed killer, but those people generally aren't farmers, or smart). The point was meant to be that the bill is flawed/rushed enough that a loophole made it legal to put petrol on crops in the first place. I've changed the specific chemical from petroleum as it caused a problem while reading it - I only chose petrol specifically because it's something so obviously not meant to be used as a pesticide.

User avatar
Lelscrep
Envoy
 
Posts: 233
Founded: Apr 11, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Lelscrep » Sat Feb 13, 2021 2:57 am

I'm gonna give this a bump as it's been over two weeks with no activity. I'll just quietly submit this if there's no further feedback. :lol:


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Got Issues?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads