[Draft 4.1] Tears of the Kingdom

[Improper Classifications]

While this is not my first time writing an issue, it's my first time with a serious draft, so feedback is appreciated. Now with another draft + The Ambis as co-author!

Title - Tears of the Kingdom
Validity - Absolute monarchy, low patriotism, cannot have "No Dissent" or "No Prisons"
Description:
Recently, an opposition group rioted in the main square of @@CAPITAL@@, causing the statue of you there to topple. The police quickly dispersed the protestors, but discontent continues to linger. After confirming with that the protestors were working in favor of democracy, you’ve met with your advisors to discuss solutions.
Option 1: "These protestors have confirmed what I have said from the beginning - the people crave democracy," frantically explains your perpetually paranoid Chief Security Officer Sidon @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@. "@@NAME@@ needs to become a direct democracy while we still can - if even a small portion of the public is willing to topple a statue of you, it won’t be long before they run out of statues and move on to the flesh and blood equivalent.” He panics, shoving you under the desk for your safety.
Effect - voters have been sent to the domain of the polls
Option 2: "The problem here is not our system of government, it is the way we are handling the people protesting against it - we are not being nearly harsh enough to your dissenters," whispers Advisor of Patriotic Affairs Riju @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, staring directly at Sidon. “I hear the plains of North @@NAME@@ are deliciously frigid this time of year. I’d be happy to provide anyone who speaks foul of your name with a complimentary visit to that general area for an extended time - with some more funding for my “reeducation” corps of course - to make sure they get the message.”
Effect - opponents of @@LEADER@@ seem to vanish into the night
Option 3: "We don’t need to go that far - yesterday, I bumped into someone out on the street, and they looked like they were about to cry,” states Advisor of Internal Affairs Yunobo @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@. "Virtually every citizen is already on edge, and there’s no reason to torture a population that won’t benefit from it; simply arrest the most prominent opposition to your rule, and you'll scare everyone else back into line. It’ll save us a load of @@CURRENCY@@ on prison expenditures too."
Effect - the opposition cares more about the poor prison quality than @@LEADER@@’s rule
Option 4: "Whoa now, doesn't all of that seem a little extreme?" questions Tulin @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, your Advisor of External Affairs. “I like Sidon’s idea. We certainly don’t need to give the people any sort of real choice, though. I hear Marche Noir runs elections where the ruling party seems to always be the only one on the ballot! Let's give that a try before we jail anyone?”
Effect - @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ are routinely asked to choose between @@LEADER@@, Totally not @@LEADER@@, and I Can't Believe It's Not @@LEADER@@
Option 5:* “The people of @@NAME@@ adore @@RELIGION@@,” preaches Bishop & Advisor on Religious Matters Mineru @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, holding the sacred text of @@RELIGION@@ in her right hand and a scepter in the left, “and by extension love anything related to it. If the monarchy and the church associate, popular support for the monarchy will grow.”
Effect - the church and the monarchy are so close they seem to be the same
*validity: nations with high religiousness only

Title - Tears of the Kingdom
Validity - Absolute monarchy, low(ish) patriotism, maybe others - would appreciate input
Description:
Recently, a small opposition group rioted in the main square of @@CAPITAL@@, causing the statue of you there to topple. After confirming with your advisors that the protestors were working in favor of a return to the polls, you’ve met with them to discuss solutions.
Option 1: "These protestors have confirmed what I have said from the beginning - the people crave democracy," seethes the Advisor of the Opposition Sidon @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@. "@@NAME@@ needs to become a direct democracy while we still can - if even a small portion of the public is willing to topple a statue of you, it won’t be long before they run out of statues and move on to the flesh and blood equivalent.”
Effect - voters have been sent to the domain of the polls
Option 2: "The problem here is not our system of government, it is the way we are handling the people protesting against it," whispers Advisor of Patriotic Affairs Riju @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, staring directly at Sidon. "Perhaps some ‘disappearances’ are in order for the dissenters…if you get what I mean…”
Effect - opponents of @@LEADER@@ have all but disappeared into the Depths
Option 3: "We don’t need to go that far - the citizenry will react to much less," states Advisor of Internal Affairs Yunobo @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@. "Simply making arrests of anyone who opposes your rule is enough, and we already know who that is."
Effect - any citizen who looks the wrong way at one of @@LEADER@@'s statues is toppled
Option 4: "Whoa, now, all of that seems a little extreme," cries Tulin @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, your Advisor of Agriculture. "What about some good old-fashioned sham elections? If these people get a little taste of democracy, even if it’s fake, they’ll quiet down right away.”
Effect - people who vote anyone other than @@LEADER@@ don’t get to vote at all
Option 5:* “The people of @@NAME@@ love @@RELIGION@@,” preaches Bishop Mineru @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, holding the sacred text of @@RELIGION@@ in her right hand and a scepter in the left, “and by extension love anything related to it. If the monarchy and the church associate themselves with each other, popular support for the monarchy will grow.”
Effect - the church and the monarchy are so close they seem to be the same

Title - Tears of the Kingdom
Validity - Absolute monarchy, low(ish) patriotism, maybe others - would appreciate input
Description:
Following your decision to convert @@NAME@@ to a monarchical system, a small anti-monarchy group has organized protests against you. Recently, a riot incited by one of its members toppled your statue in the main square of @@CAPITAL@@. Your advisors have gathered to help you decide how to proceed.
Option 1: "As usual, these protestors have gotten out of hand," states Advisor of Internal Affairs Yunobo @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, notorious for his anti-free speech stances. "Making mass arrests against people who protest your leadership is the only effective solution. After all, you are the undisputed leader, and a tiny group of squabbling citizens shouldn’t be changing that."
Effect - any citizen who looks the wrong way at one of @@LEADER@@'s statues is toppled
Option 2: "You can't just betray your people like that!" cries Tulin @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, your Advisor of Agriculture. "Look, we want to stay in power as much as you do, but maybe if the people don't view your image as favorably as they used to, you should allow some democracy as a cover for your intent - say, an elected Parliament that goes along with what you say.
Effect - @@LEADER@@'s not the only one calling the shots anymore, but they might as well be
Option 3: "As I warned, this monarchy isn't working out," muses the Advisor of the Opposition Sidon @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@. "We need to go back to a direct democracy while we still can - if the public is willing to topple a statue of you, it won’t be long before they run out of statues and move on to the flesh and blood equivalent. "
Effect - the voters have returned to the polls after a brief hiatus
Option 4: "Pfft, I've always known the Monarchy was just a cover for your dictatorial intent," whispers Advisor of Patriotic Affairs Riju @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, staring directly at Sidon, "so why not actually make it a dictatorship? Sure, the people won’t be too happy, but it’ll give us the chance we need to covertly murder leaders of the opposition and cement your grip on power permanently.”
Effect - opponents of @@LEADER@@have all but disappeared into the Depths
Option 5:* “The people of @@NATION@@ have strayed too far from the ways of religion,” preaches Bishop Mineru @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, holding the sacred text of @@RELIGION@@ in her right hand and a scepter in the left. “The monarchy should openly swear its fealty to the church, and all of your citizens will thus become truthful, zealous followers of the church.”
Effect - if you aren’t a member of @@RELIGION@@ then you aren’t anything at all
*Requires low secularism

[spoiler=Draft 1]

Title - Tears of the Kingdom
Validity - Absolute monarchy, low(ish) patriotism, maybe others - would appreciate input
Description:
Following @@NAME@@'s reversion to a monarchical system, faith in @@LEADER@@ has reached an all-time low. Recently, a disastrous riot in the main square of @@CAPITAL@@ toppled the statue of @@LEADER@@ in protest to the monarchy. Your cabinet has gathered to decide how to proceed.
Option 1: "As usual, these protestors have gotten out of hand," states Advisor of Internal Affairs Yunobo @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, notorious for his anti-free speech stances. "Cracking down on them is the only effective solution. After all, you are the undisputed leader."
Effect - any citizen who looks the wrong way at one of @@LEADER@@'s statues is toppled
Option 2: "You can't just betray your people like that!" cries Tulin @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, your Advisor of Agriculture. "Look, we want to stay in power as much as you do, but maybe if the people don't view your image as nicely as they used to, you should allow some democracy. Maybe one of those fancy Parliaments like Brancaland has?
Effect - @@LEADER@@'s not the only one calling the shots anymore
Option 3: "As I warned, this monarchy isn't working out," muses the Advisor of the Opposition Sidon @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@. "We need to go back to democracy while we still can - if the public is willing to topple a statue of you, soon they'll be willing to topple you too."
Effect - the voters have returned to the polls after a brief hiatus
Option 4: "Pfft, I've always thought the Monarchy was just a cover for your dictatorial intent," whispers Advisor of Patriotic Affairs Riju @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, "so we should change the title, maybe secretly murder dissenters, and boom! Instant patriotism boost."
Effect - opponents of @@LEADER@@have all but disappeared into the Depths

[Australian rePublic]

Option 3- it's possible yo have monarchistic democracies. Some of the most democratic countries in the world are monarchies- The Netherlands, Australia, Canada, NZ, Sweden, etc.

[Improper Classifications]

Option 3- it's possible yo have monarchistic democracies. Some of the most democratic countries in the world are monarchies- The Netherlands, Australia, Canada, NZ, Sweden, etc.

I'm aware - the idea is that if people want to continue the monarchy they can choose #2, giving them an elected Parliament (and therefore making the change to a constitutional monarchy), and if they want to go all the way to democracy they can choose #3.

[Improper Classifications]

Giving this a bump for feedback.

[Verdant Haven]

- Presently, this dilemma is pitched as "your choices are wrong." It assumes that a player made the decision to use absolute monarchy, and that this is bad, because people don't like it. One of the key conceits of NationStates is that a majority of your people like whatever you do – Leader is never truly in danger of being toppled. There can certainly be protests from the unhappy minority who want changes, but it should avoid being presented as saying the player's decision was wrong.

- Using the word "Reversion" is making a lot of assumptions about the nation's past, and pitches this as a direct attack on the player's choice rather than on some effect resulting from a choice. This is emphasized by the way the dilemma speaks in the third person about Leader. The player *is* Leader!

- Why are people protesting? What actually is making them upset?

- The options need a lot more details about what they're actually doing. "Cracking down" is a fine suggestion, but in what way? Similar with the others.

[Improper Classifications]

Okay. I think I've sufficiently edited it to accommodate VH's feedback, and so Draft 2 is now here. Further thoughts would be appreciated.

[Improper Classifications]

Still looking for feedback on this.

[Improper Classifications]

This is now on last call for feedback, all of which is appreciated.

[Verdant Haven]

- Nearly everything I said last time continues to hold true. This is pitched as "you made a decision and it's bad." Nothing is presented as being problematic except the actual decision by the player to install a monarchy. That is not a usable issue. There needs to be some problem in the nation that these protestors are actually upset about. For example:

Instead of:

Following your decision to convert @@NAME@@ to a monarchical system, a small anti-monarchy group has organized protests against you. Recently, a riot incited by one of its members toppled your statue in the main square of @@CAPITAL@@. Your advisors have gathered to help you decide how to proceed.

Try something like:

Recently, a group of rioters from a small opposition group toppled your statue in the main square of @@CAPITAL@@. Between their chants and the writing on their smoke-shrouded signs, your advisors were able to ascertain that the crowd had formed to demand access to the ballot box.

- Whatever is used, the options should then revolve around addressing the *problem* being presented, which forms the crux of the dilemma. The crowd doesn't hate that the player decided to be a monarchy. The crowd is trying to avoid a particular consequence of some forms of monarchism (The monarchy decision was already made! This is a decision about what *type* of monarchy).

- Do not assume the nation was previously a democracy. Do not assume the monarchy is recently installed.

- I'm not sure how Option 5 relates to the issue. If this is meant to be about making people love you by wrapping yourself in the cloak of the church, then make that clear. Right now it reads as "People hate monarchy" followed by "Make the monarchy religious so people are religious too." If people hate monarchy, why would they follow the monarchy's choice of religion? Make this about the dilemma.

[Tinhampton]

Nothing is presented as being problematic except the actual decision by the player to install a monarchy. That is not a usable issue. There needs to be some problem in the nation that these protestors are actually upset about.

On that point: this issue is entitled "Tears of the Kingdom" and, by the author's admission, is an attempt to reflect the plot of a game called "Tears of the Kingdom" - the latest entry in the Legend of Zelda franchise - in an issue.

IC says that his memory was jogged after getting an issue called Breath of the Wild. The issue of that name is not, however, an issue about "Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild." It is an issue about what happens when you revive an extinct animal so successfully that you need to make a decision about releasing some specimens from captivity. That the first names are hardcoded to resemble Zelda characters is a happy, if planned, coincidence. As far as I can tell, the game called "Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild" does not touch upon this matter at all.

Simply because there is an issue named after a video game does not mean you have to write an issue about another video game in that series, nor are you obliged to make it even more themed on the video game than the existing issue did with its video game. For an analogy: CWA once wrote an issue called Girls on Film. There is a song by Duran Duran called "Girls on Film." The issue by CWA is about a maid being fired after being caught on camera straying well outside the bounds of her job. The song by Duran Duran, on the off-chance you feel like looking the lyrics up on Genius... is not.

I'm not saying you're wrong to write an issue called Tears of the Kingdom. I'm not saying you're wrong to make it about how you should react to public protests against the monarchy. What I am saying is that you should not feel obliged to make your issue conform to real-world pop culture so much that it loses its train of thought.

[Improper Classifications]

The draft is updated as of two minutes after this post is made, hopefully in compliance of VH's requests. I've also responded to Tin's comment as seen below.

Nothing is presented as being problematic except the actual decision by the player to install a monarchy. That is not a usable issue. There needs to be some problem in the nation that these protestors are actually upset about.

is an attempt to reflect the plot of a game called "Tears of the Kingdom" - the latest entry in the Legend of Zelda franchise - in an issue.
----------------
IC says that his memory was jogged after getting an issue called Breath of the Wild. The issue of that name is not, however, an issue about "Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild." It is an issue about what happens when you revive an extinct animal so successfully that you need to make a decision about releasing some specimens from captivity. That the first names are hardcoded to resemble Zelda characters is a happy, if planned, coincidence. As far as I can tell, the game called "Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild" does not touch upon this matter at all.
----------------
What I am saying is that you should not feel obliged to make your issue conform to real-world pop culture so much that it loses its train of thought.

The reason I wrote "story spoilers" is because I essentially did what the Breath of the Wild issue did, the first-name thing, with four of the main characters in a similar fashion, not because there's massive spoilers for what happens in ToTK, other than a reference to the Depths in one of the effect lines. I've written below a few story spoilers that will explain further.

Tears of the Kingdom is essentially how the ruins of an ancient civilisation rise from the ground and into the sky, plus "gloom" emerges from the depths. The only dissatisfaction with the monarchy is from an all-powerful demon king who literally becomes a dragon, which (last I checked) was not an option in this issue.

I'm not sure how the author of the BotW issue got their idea, but I basically took the title of ToTK and thought, "What would be causing "tears" of the kingdom? Dissatisfaction with the monarchy."

[Verdant Haven]

- This has the opposite challenge of many drafts: most of the options are too short! There's so little being said in options 2-5, it feels a bit like reading a list of bullet points rather than cogent arguments. These could stand to be fleshed out with a bit of additional context from the speakers, to explain why they think their solutions will work. Short can work, but only when it's also complete! This is often done with only one option, to make it stand in counterpoint to lengthier traditional options.

- Options 2 and 3 are similar. "Arresting" people and "Disappearing" people are almost synonymous in some places, so I think it is desirable to use that extra length that's needed to explain more of the difference between proposals.

- Option 4: Sham elections for what? Enlarge this idea.

- Some wording stuff: In the description, "return" to the polls assumes the nation previously had elections. This cannot be assumed. Don't tell leader their purpose and action (you've met with them to discuss solutions) – stick to the situation (Your advisors have reported that...). Effect 1 "domain of the polls" doesn't make any sense. Effect 2 "Depths" should not be capitalized.

- Effect 4: This doesn't feel like it follows from the option. Is it meant to suggest that their vote doesn't count?

- Option 5: This option needs a validity for nations that are significantly religious.

[Improper Classifications]

I am dragging this out of the Depths for a comprehensive re-drafting and taking on of a new co-author, The Ambis, who helped me come up with some better lines than my dry ones. New feedback would be appreciated!

[Improper Classifications]

Bump on this, would really appreciate some feedback

[Thorn1000]

Heya IMPC, gunna throw some feedback at this one because I like the idea.

Recently, a small opposition group of protestors rioted in the main square of @@CAPITAL@@, causing the a statue of you there to topple.

It feels like you are missing a sentence between the two that you have for the description. There are protestors that topple a statue and then you meet with advisors that tell you what they wanted. Did they disperse after toppling the statue? Were they arrested? Did they get gunned down by your private security detail? Why do you care? Without breaking the autonomy of leader, did the news pick up on it or something? Feels like I just need a little more reason to care.

@@HE@@ panics, shoving you under the desk for your safety

Feels a bit weird to have a gender macro here when the first name is set in stone but the last name is not.

The problem here is not our system of government, it is the way we are handling the people protesting against it

I was willing to look it over as a potentially illegal protest in the description and first option but this sentence makes me think that the issue as a whole cant have the "No Dissent" policy in @@NAME@@.

I hear the plains of Northern @@NAME@@ are wonderfully cold delightfully chilly this time of year. I’d be more than happy to provide anyone who speaks foul of your name with a complimentary visit to that general area, for an extended period of time…with some more funding for my “reeducation” corps, of course, to make sure they get the message.

Ill admit, delightedly chilly just sounds cooler to me than wonderfully cold does. Other than that, the frequency of commas here trips me up a little bit reading it but I dont have specific ideas with regards to them.

delightedly states Advisor of Internal Affairs Yunobo @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@. "They’re already on edge, and there’s no reason to torture a population that won’t benefit from it

As for that last sentence, I dont like the order that it flows in with "they" being first then the conjection. Something to the tune of "The populous is alread on edge. No reason to torture them without any benefit" reads better to me.

simply making arrests of the most prominent opposition to your rule is enough to scare the rest of them back into line. It’ll save us a pretty penny on prison expenditures too.

This also has an overly verbose flow as I read it as an overcompensation to what VH stated. Something more along the lines of "Simply arrest the prominent oppositon to your rule and that will be enough to scare the rest into line. We will save a load of @@CURRENCY@@ on prison costs too." flows better to me. Additionally as it is I dont think that you can assume that nation has a penny (especially if there is something like the no physical currency policy) and as written you also cant have the "No Prison" policy in @@NAME@@ in order to have jails to throw opposition into. Come to think of it, where did we get from a small group of protesters to full blown opposition leaders within the scope of this issue?

"Whoa, now, doesn't all of that seems a little extreme," cries questions Tulin @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, your Advisor of External Affairs. “I like Sidon’s idea!. We certainly don’t need to give the people any sort of real choice, though. I hear Marche Noir runs elections where the ruling party seems to always be the only one on the ballot!. Why don’t we give that a go Let's give that a try before we jail anyone?”

Citizens @@DENONYNMPLURAL@@ are routinely asked to choose between @@LEADER@@, Totally not @@LEADER@@, and I Can't Believe It's Not @@LEADER@@

Noting that even if you dont take my suggestion on Denonymnsplural, citizens cannot be capitalised.

preaches your Advisor of Religion Bishop Mineru @@RANDOM_LAST_NAME@@, your Advisor of Religion, holding the sacred text of @@RELIGION@@ in her right hand and a scepter in the left, “aAnd by extension love anything related to it. If the monarchy and the church associate themselves with each other

[Improper Classifications]

Thank you for all the suggestions Thorn! I've incorporated the large majority of your feedback into the draft. I will note in regard to your question about going from a small opposition group to large-scale leaders that I've removed "small" from the description and added in that "discontent continues to linger" after the police disperse the protestors.

[Improper Classifications]

Giving this another bump!

[Improper Classifications]

Bump again, if there's no feedback soon I'll probably go ahead and take that as nothing meaningful can be added and hit submit

[Verdant Haven]

- Option 1 (and elsewhere): Is the name "Sidon" being used for any particular reason? Same query with the other options' first names... what are these referencing? If they're referencing something that is specifically relevant to this issue topic, that's fine, but if they're just using those names for the sake of some inside joke or reference that is unrelated, we should go random.

- Option 1: I think this option should provide clarity on whether it is a full renunciation of the idea of monarchy, or merely the absolute part (with a constitutional monarchy replacing it). That's a huge step either way, and we want to make sure it's clear to the player what their choice is meant to be.

- Effect 1: I'm not sure what "domain of the polls" is a reference to... obviously it means they're voting now, but is that phrasing a particular reference? It's a very awkward structure.

- Option 2: This is fine on principle, but if there's a way to express the funding need other than the classic "give more funding to my department" line (which we've overused in the past), that would be a good. It could just be slightly more detail about what the funding would be used for, rather than asking for unspecified outlay: something like "let's build another dozen re-education camps" instead of "just increase funding for re-education" is an instant improvement.

- Option 3: This starts getting into a fairly uncommon validity... happiness. We always say that no matter what, the majority of your population agrees with your choices and is supportive. This requires some massaging of the idea of unhappiness in this context. Saying everybody is already on edge or about to cry is a bit strong, but something about how you've already got most of the population cowed into meek compliance, so a bunch of new camps is unnecessary, could fit with the overarching meta.

- Option 4: Here's the counterpoint to my questions about Option 1. Is this *also* an option to eliminate absolute monarchy, but with some limitation? A transfer to a non-monarchal autocracy? In game terms, we either have elections or we don't, so we want to make sure that the actual outcomes of the options end up being distinct. Typically, we don't like assuming a player's past choices are wrong (I think I ranted about that a bit further up the thread), so we usually limit "reversal" options when possible. If the problem is protestors, it's not necessarily desirable to have multiple "give in to the protests" options unless really warranted by the narrative.

- Option 5: A lot of absolute monarchies will already be in a place where they're inexorably linked to the church, should one exist. I'm not sure that just "associating" the two represents something clearly new or different for some of the nations that would potentially receive this. Something a little more specifically active, like calling upon the church to preach loyalty from the pulpit, might be a way to use the religion angle without feeling too generic.

- Effect lines 3, 4, and 5 are a little bit wordy and could stand to be workshopped to make sure idea is getting across in a succinct and witty manner.

[Ancientania]

- Option 1 (and elsewhere): Is the name "Sidon" being used for any particular reason? Same query with the other options' first names... what are these referencing? If they're referencing something that is specifically relevant to this issue topic, that's fine, but if they're just using those names for the sake of some inside joke or reference that is unrelated, we should go random.

They're all characters from the game Tears of the Kingdom