[SUBMITTED] Cross-Country Custody

[North Macaronesa]

I'll add the expat community part into option one and the changes to option three, but I'm a little confused by your reasoning for option two. Do I include his pro-Cuba relatives? Also, I just added option four because "a crazy option contrived for the sake of this issue having a crazy option" as stated by Tinhampton. Should I remove it? I just felt like it would be a more extreme version of option three, since most issues have something like that.

Re: option 2 – the current text can be summarized as "We are awesome, do what we say. Ignore your process because you are wrong. You suck. By the way, you should do what we say in the future too." There isn't actually an *argument* being made. There is no appeal to any sentiment or law, nor any reason for you to listen to this person – they're just being rude and demanding. This speaker a diplomat! Have them be diplomatic, and give an argument a thinking person might agree with. I mentioned the relatives for this, because that would be a very strong argument – "The boy's father is alive and well back in San Vitenzo. As a parent, he has the strongest custodial claim!" would be a good case to make.

Re: option 4, even crazy options should be based on the actual issue that is occurring. This issue is about immigration, not the justice system, so "ban the courts" is pretty far afield to wander. You could have it be an option about removing all border controls and immigration laws, so that any future immigrants (or foundlings) will simply be able to do what they like without going through a hearing or visa process. That would be a logical follow-on to the premise. It isn't really necessary though.

Okay, thank you so much!

Not anything related to the forum but I'm a tad disappointed after reading through the forum that this was not a forum for cross country runners.

That's the best title I've gotten so far, sorry!

[North Macaronesa]

Is @@RANDOMMALEFIRSTNAME_1@@ a real macro? If so, does it take the first name of @@RANDOMMALENAME_1@@?

[Verdant Haven]

Is @@RANDOMMALEFIRSTNAME_1@@ a real macro? If so, does it take the first name of @@RANDOMMALENAME_1@@?

It's not the exact format used in the final product, but close enough we'd understand it. In terms of usage:

- if you've already generated a full random male name in the first position, then you can just use the random firstname (1) macro to recall that male individual's first name (you don't need to cite the gender a second time).

- If you haven't already generated a male name and you'd like to do so, but want it to be only the first name, then you do the random male firstname macro.

[North Macaronesa]

Is @@RANDOMMALEFIRSTNAME_1@@ a real macro? If so, does it take the first name of @@RANDOMMALENAME_1@@?

It's not the exact format used in the final product, but close enough we'd understand it. In terms of usage:

- if you've already generated a full random male name in the first position, then you can just use the random firstname (1) macro to recall that male individual's first name (you don't need to cite the gender a second time).

- If you haven't already generated a male name and you'd like to do so, but want it to be only the first name, then you do the random male firstname macro.

Ok, thank you!

[Cataleenia]

It's not the exact format used in the final product, but close enough we'd understand it. In terms of usage:

- if you've already generated a full random male name in the first position, then you can just use the random firstname (1) macro to recall that male individual's first name (you don't need to cite the gender a second time).

- If you haven't already generated a male name and you'd like to do so, but want it to be only the first name, then you do the random male firstname macro.

Ok, thank you!

As Verdant Haven said, the common macros aren’t what used behind the scenes and i’d like to leave you with this quote.

The macros that the editors use backscreen are different from the ones players are told about anyway, so don't worry about it too much. Just use whatever notation unambiguously demonstrates your intent, and the editors will figure out the rest.

The notation that's commonly used in draft threads and the spoiler thread is actually one that I came up with while knowing fully well that it's not how things really work, with the intent of being human-readable rather than computer-readable.

[North Macaronesa]

/bump

[Pennyslov]

/bump

Why Did You Bump

[Cuba 2022 RP]

/bump

Why is this specifically for capitalists with a socialist example country? This problem could happen the other way around, too. I wouldn’t suggest changing the validity, nor would I suggest editing everything o make it vague because that would ruin the issue, it’s too late for that. Perhaps once you’re done you can make a variant for socialist nations

[North Macaronesa]

/bump

Why is this specifically for capitalists with a socialist example country? This problem could happen the other way around, too. I wouldn’t suggest changing the validity, nor would I suggest editing everything o make it vague because that would ruin the issue, it’s too late for that. Perhaps once you’re done you can make a variant for socialist nations

Do you want me to write a socialist variant for select paragraphs? I could do that if you thought it would help.

[Cachard Calia]

You could just remove the communism mention, and then it would be all validities.

[North Macaronesa]

You could just remove the communism mention, and then it would be all validities.

This issue is aimed at specifically capitalist nations, but as AAN pointed out, the same could happen with socialist nations. I could make a socialist variant of every paragraph, but right now the validity is for capitalist nations since that's how it was IRL.

[North Macaronesa]

/bump, I'll submit this in the next few days if there's no other comments.

[Cataleenia]

If the boy is the sole survivor, why does he refer to himself in option 3 as “we and us”

"Why don't you just let us choose which country we want to go to?"

(Emphasis added to the parts that need changing)

[North Macaronesa]

If the boy is the sole survivor, why does he refer to himself in option 3 as “we and us”

"Why don't you just let us choose which country we want to go to?"

(Emphasis added to the parts that need changing)

I interpret it as the boy speaking on behalf of other migrants who might face the same situation, but I can change it if you want

[Cataleenia]

If the boy is the sole survivor, why does he refer to himself in option 3 as “we and us”



(Emphasis added to the parts that need changing)

I interpret it as the boy speaking on behalf of other migrants who might face the same situation, but I can change it if you want

I feel like more context needs to be added, like “Why don’t you just let us immigrants choose which country we want to go to?”

[North Macaronesa]

I interpret it as the boy speaking on behalf of other migrants who might face the same situation, but I can change it if you want

I feel like more context needs to be added, like “Why don’t you just let us immigrants choose which country we want to go to?”

Is it clear enough now?

[Cataleenia]

Seems good now

[North Macaronesa]

Seems good now

Thank you! I'll submit this issue by Sunday if there are no more comments

[Verdant Haven]

- Option 1 feels like it wants for a supporting argument. It could use a bit more of an appeal than just "We know best." Something espousing the idea of seeking a better life in a free market nation, or honoring the wishes of the boy's accompanying family who drowned – an emotional hook to make the Leader listen, and to tie in the amusing effect line about granting asylum to driftwood.

- Effect lines are not sentences. They shouldn't be capitalized or have periods.

- For Options 2 and 3, as previously mentioned, this wouldn't be a trial situation – there's no mention of a crime or a lawsuit. A hearing would be a better term.

- Effect 2 seems to assume that all minorities are foreign refugees escaped from hostile regimes. Some element of similar conflation in Effect 4, mixing the idea of "minority" with "immigrant."

- Effect 3 is about parental custody disputes, while the option text is about immigration/migrant choice.

- Option 4 is basically "throw open the borders," which is fine, but isn't that what Option 3 comes down to as well? Simply letting people choose what country they want without any sort of hearing or restriction is not significantly different from declaring an open border.

[North Macaronesa]

- Option 1 feels like it wants for a supporting argument. It could use a bit more of an appeal than just "We know best." Something espousing the idea of seeking a better life in a free market nation, or honoring the wishes of the boy's accompanying family who drowned – an emotional hook to make the Leader listen, and to tie in the amusing effect line about granting asylum to driftwood.

- Effect lines are not sentences. They shouldn't be capitalized or have periods.

- For Options 2 and 3, as previously mentioned, this wouldn't be a trial situation – there's no mention of a crime or a lawsuit. A hearing would be a better term.

- Effect 2 seems to assume that all minorities are foreign refugees escaped from hostile regimes. Some element of similar conflation in Effect 4, mixing the idea of "minority" with "immigrant."

- Effect 3 is about parental custody disputes, while the option text is about immigration/migrant choice.

- Option 4 is basically "throw open the borders," which is fine, but isn't that what Option 3 comes down to as well? Simply letting people choose what country they want without any sort of hearing or restriction is not significantly different from declaring an open border.

I'll edit it when I have time later today, but what should I change about Option 3&4? Should I change Option 3 to make it be about more efficient hearings/trials in general instead of open borders? Thank you though

[Verdant Haven]

- Option 1 feels like it wants for a supporting argument. It could use a bit more of an appeal than just "We know best." Something espousing the idea of seeking a better life in a free market nation, or honoring the wishes of the boy's accompanying family who drowned – an emotional hook to make the Leader listen, and to tie in the amusing effect line about granting asylum to driftwood.

- Effect lines are not sentences. They shouldn't be capitalized or have periods.

- For Options 2 and 3, as previously mentioned, this wouldn't be a trial situation – there's no mention of a crime or a lawsuit. A hearing would be a better term.

- Effect 2 seems to assume that all minorities are foreign refugees escaped from hostile regimes. Some element of similar conflation in Effect 4, mixing the idea of "minority" with "immigrant."

- Effect 3 is about parental custody disputes, while the option text is about immigration/migrant choice.

- Option 4 is basically "throw open the borders," which is fine, but isn't that what Option 3 comes down to as well? Simply letting people choose what country they want without any sort of hearing or restriction is not significantly different from declaring an open border.

I'll edit it when I have time later today, but what should I change about Option 3&4? Should I change Option 3 to make it be about more efficient hearings/trials in general instead of open borders? Thank you though

Personally I'd keep three and nuke four. Since the issue is largely about custody, rather than immigration specifically, having three be the "let me choose for myself, and maybe make it easier to enter the country so others don't lose their lives like my family members did" option is a bit more on-topic. Even the openest of borders doesn't by itself resolve the question of what to do with an unaccompanied minor whose family is fighting over custody, so the fourth option in current form doesn't really respond to the dilemma presented.

[North Macaronesa]

I'll edit it when I have time later today, but what should I change about Option 3&4? Should I change Option 3 to make it be about more efficient hearings/trials in general instead of open borders? Thank you though

Personally I'd keep three and nuke four. Since the issue is largely about custody, rather than immigration specifically, having three be the "let me choose for myself, and maybe make it easier to enter the country so others don't lose their lives like my family members did" option is a bit more on-topic. Even the openest of borders doesn't by itself resolve the question of what to do with an unaccompanied minor whose family is fighting over custody, so the fourth option in current form doesn't really respond to the dilemma presented.

Alright, thank you so much VH!

[Tinhampton]

I have no idea if you need still help with your title, but if you do: Should He Stay or Should He Go? (If he stays, there will be trouble. If he leaves, there will be double. )

Option 1 should just say Little San Vitenzo, not "the Little San Vitenzo." And its effect line should capitalise "san vitenzo."

Two realism concerns:
1. It seems as though most/all inhabitants of LSV are chanting out these demands, which would not be very practical. Consider assigning the speaking to a (conveniently unnamed!) community leader.
2. Seven-year-olds would not use bridging phrases such as "after all" and "while you're at it." (I didn't!)

[North Macaronesa]

I have no idea if you need still help with your title, but if you do: Should He Stay or Should He Go? (If he stays, there will be trouble. If he leaves, there will be double. )

Option 1 should just say Little San Vitenzo, not "the Little San Vitenzo." And its effect line should capitalise "san vitenzo."

Two realism concerns:
1. It seems as though most/all inhabitants of LSV are chanting out these demands, which would not be very practical. Consider assigning the speaking to a (conveniently unnamed!) community leader.
2. Seven-year-olds would not use bridging phrases such as "after all" and "while you're at it." (I didn't!)

Pokemon Team Rocket reference? Anyways, thanks for the feedback! Will do!

[Tinhampton]

I have no idea if you need still help with your title, but if you do: Should He Stay or Should He Go? (If he stays, there will be trouble. If he leaves, there will be double. )

Option 1 should just say Little San Vitenzo, not "the Little San Vitenzo." And its effect line should capitalise "san vitenzo."

Two realism concerns:
1. It seems as though most/all inhabitants of LSV are chanting out these demands, which would not be very practical. Consider assigning the speaking to a (conveniently unnamed!) community leader.
2. Seven-year-olds would not use bridging phrases such as "after all" and "while you're at it." (I didn't!)

Pokemon Team Rocket reference? Anyways, thanks for the feedback! Will do!

The Clash, actually. And thank you for listening at this late stage