[SUBMITTED] The Golden Oldies

by **Terrabod** » Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:28 am

Hi folks, thanks for taking the time to look at my draft. Your feedback is very much appreciated!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title:
The Golden Oldies

The Issue:
As the likelihood of people reaching their one-hundredth birthday is greater than ever before, there is much discussion about how you can honour that special occasion.

VALIDITY: No geronticide, average or greater than average lifespan.

Option 1:
"Something personal, something meaningful…" mutters your Minister of Party Planning. "I've got it! What could be more personal than sending a card with your best wishes on the Big Day? Well, depending on the number of birthdays you might have to delegate that task to a group of aides, or maybe a machine. But hey, it's the thought that counts, right?"

EFFECT: @@LEADER@@'s "personal" cards are delivered straight to centenarians' shredders

Option 2:
"A signed card? I get loads of those every year on my birthday from people I actually know," remarks your secretary. "Yeah, loads and loads. No, give them old folks something special instead, something that they don't get every year. Like a bottle of something nice, or a free meal at a fancy restaurant, or a commemorative plate with your face on it."

EFFECT: the seven-piece tea set with its iconic "@@LEADER@@ running through a field of wheat" design is a surprise hit

Option 3:
"Oh, bugger that!" snaps nonagenarian @@RANDOMNAME@@, who you're told will reach a hundred in a matter of months. "I don't want some piffling piece of trifle from you when I turn a hundred. Cough up that cash for some celebratory perks instead, like free public transport, money off my heating bill or even a pension boost."

EFFECT: @@NAME@@ is renowned for its freeloading old-timers

Option 4:
"I'm, uh, not too keen on those ideas," mumbles your Minister of Party Pooping. "It's not that I don't like old people; some of my best friends are old people. It's just that… uhm… taxes! Yeah, it's because those ideas cost taxes. Just make a statement once a year wishing everyone in the nation a happy birthday – that includes old people too, by the way."

EFFECT: @@LEADER@@ "wishes everyone turning insert number here this year a very happy birthday"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by **Lelscrep** » Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:37 pm

I really like this issue, a simple premise with a short description that reads smoothly. The only thing I can point out is some nations will have the Prohibition policy, so maybe some slight wording change to option two would solve that.

by **Terrabod** » Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:08 pm

Lelscrep wrote:I really like this issue, a simple premise with a short description that reads smoothly. The only thing I can point out is some nations will have the Prohibition policy, so maybe some slight wording change to option two would solve that.

Hey, thanks for taking a look Lelscrep! I deliberately used the phrase "a bottle of something nice" to avoid references to alcohol - that way, it could also be referring to a non-alcoholic champagne substitute, a bottle of cream soda (yum!) or any kind of nationally-enjoyed beverage whether that be Cabernet Sauvignon or clam juice.

If it's still an issue I'd be happy to switch in something else, but I'd like to hear what you or others feel about the specific wording I've used. Our minds automatically go to something alcoholic, but it doesn't have to mean that. On the other hand, if I had the Prohibition policy would I be afraid to choose this option (or confused as to why I see that option)? I guess that's the real problem, but I need an outside opinion on that because I wrote it so I know what I meant. Thanks again!

by **Frieden-und Freudenland** » Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:10 pm

Lelscrep wrote:I really like this issue, a simple premise with a short description that reads smoothly. The only thing I can point out is some nations will have the Prohibition policy, so maybe some slight wording change to option two would solve that.

To be frank, it says "a bottle of something nice." My first thought has been wine or champagne (because celebration, d'uh), but who is to say it is not apple cider?

Anyways, I really like this issue as well. I think I would like to see a Minister of Party Pooping (like a nemesis to the Minister of Party Planning) who says that this is just a waste of taxpayer money, and should not be done. And just to make sure taking this option is not equivalent to hitting the Dismiss button, s/he could say that you should generically say Happy Birthday to all 100-year-olds in your regular New Year's message (or something like that). For example, in Korea, it is considered that everyone's age moves up by one year on New Year's Day, and not their birthday.

https://qz.com/745825/korean-age-explai ... -next-day/

So it is not an unprecedented idea.

by **Terrabod** » Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:24 pm

Frieden-und Freudenland wrote:
Lelscrep wrote:I really like this issue, a simple premise with a short description that reads smoothly. The only thing I can point out is some nations will have the Prohibition policy, so maybe some slight wording change to option two would solve that.

To be frank, it says "a bottle of something nice." My first thought has been wine or champagne (because celebration, d'uh), but who is to say it is not apple cider?

Anyways, I really like this issue as well. I think I would like to see a Minister of Party Pooping (like a nemesis to the Minister of Party Planning) who says that this is just a waste of taxpayer money, and should not be done. And just to make sure taking this option is not equivalent to hitting the Dismiss button, s/he could say that you should generically say Happy Birthday to all 100-year-olds in your regular New Year's message (or something like that). For example, in Korea, it is considered that everyone's age moves up by one year on New Year's Day, and not their birthday.

https://qz.com/745825/korean-age-explai ... -next-day/

So it is not an unprecedented idea.

Thanks for your advice! I deliberately avoided having a "let's not do this" option for the dismiss reason, but I think I'll be able to come up with something that works in the way you've suggested. I quite like the idea of someone saying "It's not that I don't like old people. Some of my best friends are old people." or something like that, so maybe I can give the Minister of Party Pooping that kind of energy.

by **Fauxia** » Thu Jan 21, 2021 2:00 pm

Terrabod wrote:As the likelihood of people reaching their one-hundredth birthday is greater than ever before, there is much discussion about how you can honour that special occasion.

Hm, ok. This isn't the most consequential premise for @@LEADER@@. What if a family friend or cousin (something like second cousin once or twice removed) is reaching their birthday, and that brings it up? Maybe that'll make it a bit too personal, like the issue about your niece's wedding. It's not a bad issue, but it is pushing the bounds a little, so I think there should be more reason for @@LEADER@@ to care.

Maybe you just had a surprisingly enjoyable time at a centenary birthday party. That would give a reason to care without making the issue about planning someone specific's party...not sure, just making suggestions.

Terrabod wrote:
VALIDITY: No geronticide, average or greater than average lifespan.

Not that it matters, but the no geronticide is implied by the high lifespan. Though I'm not sure whether the stats are cardinal or ordinal. If they're ordinal, as this implies, there could be an odd scenario where so many low lifespan nations exist that that could happen... anyway this isn't relevant. Moving on... or not. I have no qualms with the options.

by **Terrabod** » Thu Jan 21, 2021 4:59 pm

Fauxia wrote:
Terrabod wrote:As the likelihood of people reaching their one-hundredth birthday is greater than ever before, there is much discussion about how you can honour that special occasion.

Hm, ok. This isn't the most consequential premise for @@LEADER@@. What if a family friend or cousin (something like second cousin once or twice removed) is reaching their birthday, and that brings it up? Maybe that'll make it a bit too personal, like the issue about your niece's wedding. It's not a bad issue, but it is pushing the bounds a little, so I think there should be more reason for @@LEADER@@ to care.

Maybe you just had a surprisingly enjoyable time at a centenary birthday party. That would give a reason to care without making the issue about planning someone specific's party...not sure, just making suggestions.

I'm generally not a big fan of issues that rely on a personal event to kick it off, because I think that can sometimes be a trick to get around the "why should Leader care about this?" question. I don't mean to suggest what you've offered are bad ideas, they're just not what I had in mind for the premise here.

I've been looking into the real-world basis of this issue, so it's time for an episode of History With Terrabod! You may know that Queen Elizabeth II sends a physical birthday card to centenarians and has done so since 1999; between 1982 and 1999, she sent them a telemessage, and before 1982 it was a telegram (note: the Post Office discontinued its telegram service in 1982). However, she didn't invent the tradition of sending congratulatory birthday wishes to centenarians - that honour goes to her grandfather, George V, who started sending centenarians birthday telegrams in 1917. I've searched far and wide for about half an hour and I can't find any given reason why George started sending the telegrams; it looks like he just decided to do it one day. Back in 1917, reaching 100 was still very unusual - it's difficult to judge just how unusual, but we know that year there were only 100 or so living centenarians in the UK (not 100 people turning 100 that year, 100 living people that were 100 or older in total) which means fewer than 100 British people had their centenary birthday in 1917. So, on year number one of the congratulatory birthday telegram King George might have sent only 20 or so telegrams. Compare that to the over 8,000 centenary cards the Queen sends every year in the present day.

1917 was probably around the time when people in Britain started thinking "hey, a decent number of us are actually making it to 100", so given that it was very rare but actually now attainable (making it special and definitely worth celebrating) it's not too much of a stretch to believe that just having people reach 100 is enough to have this kind of centenary celebration be proposed.

So my main defence of this premise is that it would be so easy to overcomplicate when actually I think just noticing that people have started to reach a birthday we all thought was unattainable would be reason enough to discuss celebrating centenaries.

A Problem
With its current validity, this issue (if accepted) will be sent to nations where reaching 100 is commonplace. Why, then, is the topic only being brought up now? Should I find a way to make this issue valid only for nations who would have a low number of people reaching 100 - i.e. average lifespan only? Will nations with very long average lifespans be annoyed if the issue is worded like it is? Although technically "greater than ever before" can just mean notably high, it could be construed as meaning reaching 100 in no longer rare which doesn't make sense for nations that have had people regularly living to 115 for years. Or will those nations not really care? Your thoughts, folks?

Fauxia wrote:
Terrabod wrote:VALIDITY: No geronticide, average or greater than average lifespan.

Not that it matters, but the no geronticide is implied by the high lifespan. Though I'm not sure whether the stats are cardinal or ordinal. If they're ordinal, as this implies, there could be an odd scenario where so many low lifespan nations exist that that could happen... anyway this isn't relevant.

Yeah, my thoughts were that nations could have very long average lifespans but still kill people when they reach 65 which would mean they shouldn't get this issue.

by **Baggieland** » Thu Jan 21, 2021 7:12 pm

Terrabod wrote:With its current validity, this issue (if accepted) will be sent to nations where reaching 100 is commonplace. Why, then, is the topic only being brought up now? Should I find a way to make this issue valid only for nations who would have a low number of people reaching 100 - i.e. average lifespan only? Will nations with very long average lifespans be annoyed if the issue is worded like it is? Although technically "greater than ever before" can just mean notably high, it could be construed as meaning reaching 100 in no longer rare which doesn't make sense for nations that have had people regularly living to 115 for years. Or will those nations not really care? Your thoughts, folks?

I personally don't feel this is something you need to worry about. The "why am I getting an issue about this now?" dilemma could be asked about every issue (except consequence issues).

Nice issue.

by **Terrabod** » Fri Jan 22, 2021 5:05 am

Baggieland wrote:
Terrabod wrote:With its current validity, this issue (if accepted) will be sent to nations where reaching 100 is commonplace. Why, then, is the topic only being brought up now? Should I find a way to make this issue valid only for nations who would have a low number of people reaching 100 - i.e. average lifespan only? Will nations with very long average lifespans be annoyed if the issue is worded like it is? Although technically "greater than ever before" can just mean notably high, it could be construed as meaning reaching 100 in no longer rare which doesn't make sense for nations that have had people regularly living to 115 for years. Or will those nations not really care? Your thoughts, folks?

I personally don't feel this is something you need to worry about. The "why am I getting an issue about this now?" dilemma could be asked about every issue (except consequence issues).

Nice issue.

Phew, ok. I think I went into a spiral of self-doubt last night so I appreciate you sharing your perspective. And thanks for the compliment!

I'll try to put up a new draft with the fourth option today.

by **Terrabod** » Fri Jan 22, 2021 2:44 pm

New draft, new option (thanks to FuF for the advice and the inspiration). Let me know what you think!

by **Lelscrep** » Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:04 pm

Terrabod wrote:New draft, new option (thanks to FuF for the advice and the inspiration). Let me know what you think!

It's looking very good now, I can't find anything major to pick apart really. The only thing now is maybe one and four are a bit similar in what materially happens. Four is obviously more cynical than one, but they both entail sending out birthday wishes in an automated manner - machined signed cards or just happy x birthday - for basically zero cost to the government. It may do some good to differentiate them a little bit more?

by **Terrabod** » Fri Jan 22, 2021 5:14 pm

Lelscrep wrote:It's looking very good now, I can't find anything major to pick apart really. The only thing now is maybe one and four are a bit similar in what materially happens. Four is obviously more cynical than one, but they both entail sending out birthday wishes in an automated manner - machined signed cards or just happy x birthday - for basically zero cost to the government. It may do some good to differentiate them a little bit more?

I see where you're coming from, although remember that sending out cards on hundredth birthdays can get very expensive very quickly. I've found some better numbers now than my earlier history lesson stating that George V sent 24 birthday telegrams to centenarians in 1917. That was probably pretty cheap. Compare that to the present day, when the Queen sends out roughly 8,000 a year and this number is increasing faster than ever before due to major improvements in life expectancy. Technically due to population numbers some nations that receive this issue would be sending millions of these per year! And while we first think of the cost of industrial printing only, consider the cost of identifying those reaching 100 shortly before their birthday and sending personalised cards out to them individually and on time. It's not a newspaper, you don't send them all on the 1st of January or in big batches throughout the year, each has to be sent to one exact person at one exact time. The argument, then, for this option is that despite the cost/effort and even if the card is printed or signed by a team of aides it shows that each of the nation's centenarians is in Leader's thoughts on their special day.

Option 4 is different because it requires the minimum possible effort on behalf of Leader; it is at no extra cost or effort to the government and (as suggested by the effect line) doesn't need any emotional input from Leader. This one is genuinely free, just a sentence tacked on to an official announcement. It is intended as a counterpoint to the emotional argument for option 1.

As always, though, I welcome suggestions for improvements. The distinction between those options is clear in my head but if they are unclear to the reader I'll do what I can to fix things, though I'll probably need some pointers.

by **Lelscrep** » Fri Jan 22, 2021 5:26 pm

Terrabod wrote:
Lelscrep wrote:It's looking very good now, I can't find anything major to pick apart really. The only thing now is maybe one and four are a bit similar in what materially happens. Four is obviously more cynical than one, but they both entail sending out birthday wishes in an automated manner - machined signed cards or just happy x birthday - for basically zero cost to the government. It may do some good to differentiate them a little bit more?

I see where you're coming from, although remember that sending out cards on hundredth birthdays can get very expensive very quickly. I've found some better numbers now than my earlier history lesson stating that George V sent 24 birthday telegrams to centenarians in 1917. That was probably pretty cheap. Compare that to the present day, when the Queen sends out roughly 8,000 a year and this number is increasing faster than ever before due to major improvements in life expectancy. Technically due to population numbers some nations that receive this issue would be sending millions of these per year! And while we first think of the cost of industrial printing only, consider the cost of identifying those reaching 100 shortly before their birthday and sending personalised cards out to them individually and on time. It's not a newspaper, you don't send them all on the 1st of January or in big batches throughout the year, each has to be sent to one exact person at one exact time. The argument, then, for this option is that despite the cost/effort and even if the card is printed or signed by a team of aides it shows that each of the nation's centenarians is in Leader's thoughts on their special day.

Option 4 is different because it requires the minimum possible effort on behalf of Leader; it is at no extra cost or effort to the government and (as suggested by the effect line) doesn't need any emotional input from Leader. This one is genuinely free, just a sentence tacked on to an official announcement. It is intended as a counterpoint to the emotional argument for option 1.

As always, though, I welcome suggestions for improvements. The distinction between those options is clear in my head but if they are unclear to the reader I'll do what I can to fix things, though I'll probably need some pointers.

No actually upon doing some basic math I'm pretty sure you're right. According to royalmail.com an international signed letter is £6.85, so that times 8000 is £54,800, so not too expensive, but I still take back that feedback - I assumed it would be less. :lol:

by **Lelscrep** » Fri Jan 22, 2021 5:32 pm

Edit: Making the double-post smaller...

by **Terrabod** » Fri Jan 22, 2021 6:01 pm

Lelscrep wrote:No actually upon doing some basic math I'm pretty sure you're right. According to royalmail.com an international signed letter is £6.85, so that times 8000 is £54,800, so not too expensive, but I still take back that feedback - I assumed it would be less.

Well, sending the letters by post within the UK is cheaper (85p for a single letter to be delivered First Class) but any citizen in any country where the Queen is Head of State is allowed to apply for such a card and that is more expensive to send as you say. Add to that the price of laser printing the centenary cards (each of which as I mentioned is personalised so is more expensive to print) plus the resources required to make the cards (lots of expensive paper, I guess, plus fancy gold tassels, plus some kind of "special" envelopes according to the Royal Family website). Oh, and the Queen actually employs people to work in an "Anniversary Office" to coordinate the whole special cards thing, so you have to consider their wages too. In fact, the number of staff working in the Anniversary Office has apparently been increased due to the increase in the number of cards being sent in recent years. I think in reality the expenditure for this programme will be in the region of hundreds of thousands of pounds when totalled and rising year on year, because next year will be 8,400 cards, then 8,850 cards and new staff members to cope with demand etc etc.

Oh and that's not considering that the Queen also sends cards to people on their 105th birthday and every birthday after that, as well as for 60th wedding anniversaries, 65th wedding anniversaries, 70th wedding anniversaries and every wedding anniversary after that. That obviously isn't relevant to this issue, though.

EDIT: You've double-posted, you villain!

by **Terrabod** » Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:22 pm

Bump. I'm feeling quite good about this as it stands, particularly because of the positive feedback received so far (and even a compliment from Baggie!) but I'd still like to hear your thoughts. Thanks for taking a look!

by **Australian rePublic** » Fri Jan 29, 2021 7:06 pm

Does leader have time to host every centennial for dinner? What if people have 100th birthdays on the same day? What about someone who hates leader, isn't this a security threat?

by **Terrabod** » Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:38 am

Australian rePublic wrote:Does leader have time to host every centennial for dinner? What if people have 100th birthdays on the same day? What about someone who hates leader, isn't this a security threat?

Uh... this isn't one of the options.

by **USS Monitor** » Sat Jan 30, 2021 3:20 pm

What makes this an issue of concern for the leader of the nation? Is this not something the friends and families of the old folks can decide for themselves?

by **Terrabod** » Sat Jan 30, 2021 4:12 pm

USS Monitor wrote:What makes this an issue of concern for the leader of the nation? Is this not something the friends and families of the old folks can decide for themselves?

I think the number of real world nations where the federal or regional government sends congratulations or a gift attests to the cultural importance of recognising centenarians. To list a few:

Wishing for people to live to 100 is customary around the world, and it's most likely because 100 is seen as the ideal life expectancy (if you reach it you've had a life of good health and prosperity) but also unusual to reach. Furthermore, the sense of happiness when someone reaches 100 is not just found at an individual level with people we know - at a community level or national level, having an increasing number of centenarians is seen as something to be proud of because it shows that the community or nation takes care of its elders/is prosperous/is favoured by God/whatever reason. It's no surprise, then, that many countries in the real world have systems for personally congratulating centenarians. Just as many real world leaders have considered doing this, so too would your nation's leader.

by **Baggieland** » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:56 am

The only thing that I can nit-pick now is that the effect lines for options 1 and 2 are simiar. They both state that ungrateful recipients disgard leader's gift. Maybe make one of them different?

Great issue.

by **Terrabod** » Sat Feb 06, 2021 6:02 am

Baggieland wrote:The only thing that I can nit-pick now is that the effect lines for options 1 and 2 are simiar. They both state that ungrateful recipients disgard leader's gift. Maybe make one of them different?

Thanks for the pointing this out - I've changed the effect line of option 2. It's pretty long, but I'm not sure I could cut anything out without losing something important.

by **Honeydewistania** » Sat Feb 06, 2021 6:06 am

I think the validity about lifespan should be removed. If a nation has 100 years life expectancy people wouldn't count it as a particularly special occasion, but if the life expectancy is like 30 and someone reaches triple digits that's an amazing achievement

by **Terrabod** » Sat Feb 06, 2021 7:40 am

Honeydewistania wrote:I think the validity about lifespan should be removed. If a nation has 100 years life expectancy people wouldn't count it as a particularly special occasion, but if the life expectancy is like 30 and someone reaches triple digits that's an amazing achievement

I take your point, but some nations have average life expectancies of 15 in which case nobody is reaching 100. Removing the validity altogether therefore doesn't make sense. In fact, using the UK as an example again, the practice of sending birthday telegrams to centenarians only began when average life expectancy reached 55-60 (remember that on year number one of the congratulatory birthday telegram only 24 telegrams were sent) as before then people reaching 100 was too rare to be of note.

The upper limit has also been discussed before:

Baggieland wrote:
Terrabod wrote:With its current validity, this issue (if accepted) will be sent to nations where reaching 100 is commonplace. Why, then, is the topic only being brought up now?

The "why am I getting an issue about this now?" dilemma could be asked about every issue (except consequence issues).

I do think this resolves that particular problem. As Baggie points out, this sort of thing happens all the time in issues, we just don't think about it. Additionally, none of the options are incompatible with a large elderly population.

by **Terrabod** » Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:04 am

Ok, I've moved this to last call because I'm feeling pretty good about this as it stands. I'm still happy to hear what you think, though!

[SUBMITTED] The Golden Oldies

[SUBMITTED] The Golden Oldies

Who is online