Nationstates - The Federation Of Corkus - Community Project!

Sure, why not. I don't have much else to do anyway.

 

Great! In that case, I have 2 issues for you:

The Issue
In response to changing fashion trends amongst the youth of Corkus, new recruits to the military have petitioned the government to update the army’s dress code accordingly.

The Debate

1. “Permission to speak, sir?” asks Private Third Class Ayla Butt, saluting you. “Many of us are tired of looking the same, and would like the freedom to express ourselves through our appearance, sir. I mean, sir, it doesn’t hurt to let us dye our hair once in a while, does it?”
   
   
   
2. “This is ridiculous!” roars Colonel Ming Hesse, shaking his fist at you. “If I tell a soldier to put on pantaloons and a tunic, there’s a good reason for it - and I expect to be obeyed without question. And who are these soldiers demanding change anyways? I’d like to see them court-martialed!”
   
   
   
3. “You know,” murmurs romantic novelist Ksenya Patel, dreamily staring out the window. “A change of uniform might not be too bad. What if we made all our soldiers wear medieval suits of armour? It would sure highlight the chivalry and honour of Corkus’s armed forces.”
   
   
   
4. “Actually, battle armour is a great idea!” exclaims Richard Waialiki, representative from Better Future Inc, dumping a bundle of papers on your desk. “Here’s our blueprints for the latest battlesuits that we’ve come up with. Sure it will be costly, but it will make our soldiers invincible!”
   
   
   
5. “The solution is not through technology, but through religion,” declares zealot Kayla Cullen as she waves a censer under your nose. “Why not make all soldiers fight in the name of a major religion, and give them priestly robes while they’re at it?”
   
   
   
6. “Why make them wear anything?” asks nudist Daisy Kirk, standing to attention in your office. “Without clothes to impede them, your soldiers can move faster in battle - and we don’t have to waste any more money on uniforms. Besides, all you need is a gun to kill someone, right?”
   

The Issue
Five Corkusian journalists were captured and taken hostage by violent extremist rebels in unstable southern Maxtopia, and the captors are demanding a million Emeralds per hostage for their safe return.

The Debate

1. “These brave souls need to be brought home safely!” wails Leroy Lacombe, father to one of the journalists. “We can’t afford that sort of money, but you, the government can! Show some heart, Leader, and don’t stand in the way of my son’s freedom.”
   
   
   
2. “If they’re looking for money, they should know that we don’t have it to give to them,” argues former intelligence operative Neil Liamson. “But what we do have is a particular set of skills acquired over many years in government... I’m talking about reactionary counter-terrorist legislation! Let’s make paying ransoms a felony, and use the hostage situation to justify an increase in domestic surveillance and security. As for this situation, send in the special forces. We don’t negotiate with terrorists.”
   
   
   
3. Wild-haired scientist Heather Rudd barrels into your office, panting heavily. “Stop! We CAN have our cake and eat it too! We should make the drop, but insist on cash payment. Then, we liberally irradiate the bank-notes, and watch as the hostage-takers, their associates and their families die from radiation poisoning. That basically solves the problem!”
   
   
   
4. “You know, one of the hostages is the son of one of our closest media allies...” murmurs Magnus Allen, one of your policy advisors. “Can’t we publicly take a firm stance against terrorism, but privately strike a hush-hush deal with the terrorists? We can trade arms to them on the quiet, and they can make sure that they don’t hurt anyone important.”
   

@MinerDwarf222, another case for you:

The Issue

A large, silent mass of people have staged a sit-in around the government buildings in Corkus City to protest noise pollution.

The Debate

1. The leader of the protest, Sy Lance, slips a handwritten letter across your desk. It reads: “The noise level in this city has become simply unbearable. I cannot walk down the street without having my delicate auditory faculties assaulted! For the sake of Corkus’s hearing, you must enact stricter noise pollution laws. I implore you!”
   
   
   
2. “WHAT?! YOU WANT TO BAN NOISE?! WELL, SOME OF US AREN’T OVERSENSITIVE! WE LIKE NOISE!” bellows a local construction worker. “I DON’T BUST MY HUMP WORKING DAY IN AND DAY OUT JUST TO HAVE THESE SISSIES TELL ME I NEED TO KEEP IT DOWN! WE DEMAND THE RIGHT TO MAKE AS MUCH NOISE AS WE WANT, WHATEVER THE TIME, WHEREVER THE PLACE!”

 

Understood. I tend to go a bit overboard on the decision-making, and I haven't researched what Corkus needs, so it'll take a minute.

One piece of advice: Your rights are really high, which is good, but try not to step into anarchist territory... Unless you want that, of course :3

 

So let's see...

Option 1 will likely increase Civil Rights, probably Economic Output (More clothes sold), Culture, and lower Authoritarianism. However, income may become less equal due to large corporations selling more, and death rates will increase while defense forces, safety, and health may decrease. None of the changes are really needed, and we can afford them (except safety), so I'd say this is a fallback choice.

Option 2 may lower Civil Rights, which we can probably afford, and it'll probably increase authoritarianism, which we can also afford. It will increase defense forces and probably lower death rate, too. Health and Safety will likely increase, too. Youth rebelliousness will also go down.

Option 3 will increase... Uh... Something.

Option 4 will probably make scientific advancement skyrocket, which could be useful. The environment may be effected, but defense forces will also increase, followed by safety and life expectancy. Health may or may not lower a bit, not like it matters in the current situation.

Option 5 will increase religion and probably culture, along with MAYBE pacifism, though the last one is a longshot. Defense forces and death rates will be affected.

Option 6 is just... No.

I'd say 3, 5, and 6 are ruled out, 5 due to balancing issues. That leaves 1, 2, and 4. 1 and 2 give us things we have, but we're lacking in science... So I'll go with...

Option 4

________________________________

Option 1 will damage the economy, and I don't want to risk 5 million emeralds, since that will KILL our economy.

Option 2 will decrease crime (discouragement) and, in turn, increase safety. We'd also help Law Enforcement. Pacifism will, of course, get worse than it already is, but I think it's irreparable at this point anyway. Ideological Radicality will also decrease.

Option 3 is just... Why?! That will drop our pacifism to 0, is severely twisted, and I can't see many positive effects.

Before I cover option 4, I've made my choice. I choose...

Option 2

 

Huh, you guys are putting a lot more thought into these than I would have. Civil Rights has decreased from World Benchmark to Superb because of the terrorist one, but both have improved our strength somewhat.

 

Yeah, I thought we could sacrifice some level of Civil Rights since it's so ridiculously high. No solution is perfect.

 

The Issue
Recent technological developments in mobile phones are raising concerns from your citizens about the possible harm they are doing to the modern generation.

The Debate

1. “Everyone is just staring at their phone screens these days!” messages anti-mobile lobbyist Doris Emerald, via the WotsOn chat service. “Between social media, augmented reality games and personal assistant software, people now spend more time looking at and talking to their phones than they do interacting with real people! Let’s not forget the dangers of these distracting devices either: inattentive driving, pedestrian collisions, eye strain, repetitive strain injuries... They’ve caused more deaths than exploding cupboards, the ironing board, and Godzilla put together. I say we create just one hour every lunchtime where everybody is obliged to keep their phones off. Let’s rediscover the art of conversation!”
   
   
   
2. “This is utter nonsense. Mobile phones are nothing other than beneficial to society! I’ll have you know that not one of our privately-funded studies has found the slightest bit of evidence to the contrary!” argues Jack Flanders, CEO of Amber Phones, gesturing towards a wiggly line on a clipboard as he nonchalantly slips a wad of Emeralds into your back pocket. “Have you ever seen anyone drop dead in the street just because they were chatting on one of our new uPhone85 models for sale now at low, low prices? No! It’s just blatant scaremongering! I implore the government to dismiss these crackpots’ complaints.”
   
   
   
3. “I don’t believe they’re harmful either,” says Naki McBoatface, a teacher. “But it’s obvious to everyone what a detrimental effect it has on our children! Everywhere I look, I’m seeing children as young as four tapping away at the blasted things! Do you know how many lessons I’ve had interrupted by the ‘Crazy Corktopus’ ringtone, or by little Timmy saying there’s a collectable Pokeachew under my desk? Do you know how many of my pupils think ‘great’ is spelled with a number? Too many! Only adults should be allowed to own and use mobile phones!”
   

 

Wow all of theese bring up multiple Points, that is kinda interesting.

1: I would like to Point out that just because People comunicate over the Internet doesn't mean they don't "interact with real People", they are just interacting in a different way.
Also all of thoose dangers maybe wouldn't exist if phones didn't, but are generally caused by People being stupid with phones, not phones themself. Even the government can't stop you from being stupid.

Also the solution is completely unrelated to the Problems he just listed, and would also be incredibly hard to inforce by the government, create a lot of backfire and probably disturb people's lives at a pretty moderate Level.

3: First of all I shouldPoint out that her (I'm assuming Naki is a female Name sorry if I got it wrong names are complicated) last Name is McBoatface. And she's a teacher. Yea.

But more seriously now, while phones do cause some Trouble in the classroom, this Needs to be dealt with by the School System, and not the government. Not only would a law against children having Smartphones be incredibly hard to inforce, you can't really put children in the court. You could their parents but is it really right to give a child such a serious consequence if they do something that has become so usuall?

The School should decide whether they ban Smartphones in their bulding, and they should deffinetly have the right to do THAT, but banning them for children completely would not only be bad for the reasons above, but also because it would rob them of extremely valuable expirience for the future, because as Technology keeps evolving and making work easier, and companies will deffinetly want to do that to maximise Profits, it would be very valuable for the employees of tomottow to know how to use such Technology.

So Option 2 it is.

 

Yea, this was a pretty obvious choice. Feels weird agreeing with the guy who bribed me though...

 

Oh, SHIT.
This might be a problem.
Personally, I am very much against the capital punishment and the death penalty, and would like Corkus to be the same way. However... it is a democracy, right?
@MinerDwarf222, I may need your help.

The Issue
Following a tragic double-murder, capital punishment has surged as an election issue. There now appears a real possibility that right-wing candidate Lance MacIntyre, running on a “Do the Crime, pay the Penalty” platform, will gain power. While society’s intelligentsia is outraged, debate rages as to whether the government should intervene.

The Debate

1. “This is a democracy, remember?” rhetorically questions Professor Rory Sims of the University of Greater Corkus. “That means that if the people want something, the people get it. I hate to say it, but in the name of political freedom, we need to accept that our country will have the death penalty.”
   
   
   
2. “I’m sorry,” says Civil Rights Unionist Agatha Berenstain, “but this travesty cannot be allowed to pass. If the government needs to crack down on lunatic fringe groups in order to keep our great nation free of the death penalty, then so be it. We must ban the politics of hatred and fear!”
   
   

 

For Death Penalty, #2.
For Noise pollution idk at the moment.

 

@Florfy5
The Issue
A high profile case where a police officer used lethal force against a criminal suspect that he claimed “posed immediate danger” has the populace divided. Some claim he was defending himself in the line of duty, others that he was abusing his power. Lack of witness testimonies or evidence is making investigation difficult, and many are suggesting that the government should outfit all of its police force with camera equipment to record events as they transpire.

The Debate

1. “Cameras. Cameras would be good.” intones Patrol Officer and jungle war veteran Moff Freeman, twitching nervously and scanning the skyline for rooftop snipers. He takes a moment to look a thousand yards into the distance. “People don’t know what we’ve seen. They don’t know what it’s like to wear this uniform, to be a target, to know that each patrol might be the last. I know war, and it’s war out there on the streets. If people could see what we have to deal with each day... they’d understand. Give me a camera, and I’ll show them what it’s like out there.”
   
   
   
2. “Look, I’m not saying I don’t trust our fine police officers,” whispers transparency advocate Stephanie Juvenal, carefully moving any weapons and sharp objects away from the tremulous police officer, “but cameras are needed not just to support police testimony but also to protect the public from police excesses. The only way they can serve that dual purpose is if the police don’t control the cameras. Have 24/7 cameras on every police vehicle, surveillance drones following cops on patrol, all the footage streamed live on the internet, and stored on an open-access cloud. That way, we can keep an eye on those jackbooted th... uh... on our valued law enforcement officials.”
   
   
   
3. “Bwaahh?!?” exclaims moustache-twirling driving-goggle-wearing charlatan Anakin Stark, who was definitely not trying to tie your secretary to his toy train tracks. “Police with cameras? This is a breach of my civil liberties! What about privacy? Do we not have the inherent right to go about our daily, lawfully abiding lives without fearing these paparazzi pigs parading our precious picturesque moments to the putrid public as perfidious publications? Say no to copper cameras! Keep your eyes off my private business!”
   

________________________________

@MinerDwarf222, I'm going to have to disagree with you on the death penalty one. In my opinion, we have to hold our standard of democracy higher than anything else. Which means, it's the time for our first referendum!

@Relja_J_3, @TempleOfDJ, @Florfy5: If 2 of you agree with Miner's stance on this issue, it passes. However, if not, my veto goes through.

 

I am against the death penalty as well, but let's look at things through a practical standpoint.

I don't want to hurt our rights, but most of the things agreeing with miner will damage are already in good standing... Except pacifism, which we physically can't fix (good job there, guys).

In the end, I think I'll agree with @Endertricity. It'll improve our rights, law enforcement, and safety (and, since I'm basically borderline liberal, it'll decrease weaponization). The death rate WILL increase, but it's only criminal scum that die, right?

Back to overanalyzing my issue because of my philosophy of "If you're going to do it, go overboard".

 

My reasons for picking #2 is:
1. What if the wrong person gets executed? Can't undo that.
2. Doesn't really deter crime considering quite a few criminals are mentally ill and wouldn't care.
3. Its 50/50 if it saves money.
4. (add later).

________________________________

But what if innocent people are convicted of crimes and are executed? Then its not just "Criminal scum". In the united states, at least 4% of death penalty victims were innocent.
http://www.ncadp.org/pages/innocence

 

Option 1 would probably help Law Enforcement, Safety, and will kill Crime. Because I'm rather left-wing (you elected a liberalist VP. Good job), I try to keep weaponization low, but not zero, and this will probably decrease it. 0.35 isn't bad though. May damage Pacifism, which is at an irreparable point.

Option 2 will further improve the above. However, it seems really overboard and TERRIBLE for the economy. If we have cameras on police, why do we need it on their cars? Seriously. Also, that woman just pushed my sandwich off the table.

Honestly, I'll go for Option 1

________________________________

Actually, you're correct. @Endertricity my stance has changed, I vote to undo your decision.

If we get 1 more vote, it's undone. Meh, if stuff goes down the drain because of it, we can blame Miner :D

________________________________

Y'know, I'm going to make an oppressive society to see what it's like :D

 

Okay, thank you for the opinions. I'll wait to see what the others have to say.

I'll go with option 1 for the police cameras, though.

________________________________

Great! I agree with pretty much everything you do.

Miner, any news on noise pollution?

________________________________

I am aware of all that and am fully against capital punishment. However, my main concern is #2's radicality. Denying ideas before they are allowed to be spread is not something I want, far too authoritarian for Corkus. Earlier in the game, I did allow a Nazi rally to take place, which boosted Civil Rights a ton... isn't this kinda reversing that? Even if it claims to block out hate, I'm hesitant to start censoring. #1, even if I don't like it, will have us remain as a free democracy.

 

The Issue

A large, silent mass of people have staged a sit-in around the government buildings in Corkus City to protest noise pollution.

The Debate

1. The leader of the protest, Sy Lance, slips a handwritten letter across your desk. It reads: “The noise level in this city has become simply unbearable. I cannot walk down the street without having my delicate auditory faculties assaulted! For the sake of Corkus’s hearing, you must enact stricter noise pollution laws. I implore you!”
   
   
   
2. “WHAT?! YOU WANT TO BAN NOISE?! WELL, SOME OF US AREN’T OVERSENSITIVE! WE LIKE NOISE!” bellows a local construction worker. “I DON’T BUST MY HUMP WORKING DAY IN AND DAY OUT JUST TO HAVE THESE SISSIES TELL ME I NEED TO KEEP IT DOWN! WE DEMAND THE RIGHT TO MAKE AS MUCH NOISE AS WE WANT, WHATEVER THE TIME, WHEREVER THE PLACE!”

1. Decrease economy.
2. Decrease civil rights maybe, and health
Wish there was a third option...
But I pick #2, cause we have really high civil rights vs economy. *waits for another referendum.

 

However, Corkus's economic output is higher than any of our's. Law Enforcement, Safety, and Compliance will increase. Tourism will likely be effected, but the tourism in Corkus is already lower than that of my new dictatorship (extra country. Wanted to see what a dictatorship was like).

To look at the other perspective, there's also the moral standpoint. It's like one of the reasons the atomic bombing was questioned (sorry if anyone is sensitive to this): People asked if America wanted to be seen as the only country to use an atomic bomb, and potentially be seen as the "bad guys" in WWII. Same with this: Does Corkus want to be seen as a country that supports capital punishment (death penalty)?

I take no stance since I am divided.

 

It's certainly a much harder issue than what we've encountered before.

By the way, are you guys enjoying this? I definitely didn't expect myself and other to become so involved in the running of a nation just like that

 

Actually, yes.

And this issue is even more trivial here than it is irl (even for the politicians because it's whichever side pays more that decides the outcome *political flames*)