NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been kicking around the idea of submitting an issue for a while. Thanks to a few helpful suggestions on the IRC chat, I'm ready to actually kick around an idea for an issue. It is rather morbid, but I hope it gets through the screening process anyway. I'd like some feedback from the NS community before I actually submit it, though.

Who Gets It: Nations with high Civil Rights
Issue: "New Food Fad in @@@NATION@@@"
Summary: A disturbing new trend in buffet-style cannibalism among the wealthy and affluent is turning the stomachs and heads of the less fortunate everywhere.

[option] "The matter is handled tastefully and humanely. Those who volunteer to be consumed are just that - volunteers, they understand and desire that they will be processed and eaten," @@@NAME@@@ argues passionately. "Who are we to deny people what they want?"

Effects: Raise Beef Industry, Raise Crime, Lower Compassion, Lower Health
Flavor Text: The government has recently legalized consentual cannibalism,

[option] "I... have not the words," sputters @@@NAME@@@ indignantly. "It's illegal, and disgusting! That's not even mentioning the diseases involved. Germs that affect people will affect people who eat the flesh of someone who's infected. It's like dumping sewage in our drinking water."

Effects: Lower Civil Rights, Raise Political Freedoms

Flavor Text: Cannibalism is still strictly forbidden,

[option] @@@NAME@@@, your cousin, muses, "I don't see why it has to be either-or. We have the technology to ensure the safety of the meat, and the harvesting need not take the life of the volunteer. Stable sources of volunteers could be found and maintained. Everyone's happy."

Effects: Raise Civil Rights, Raise Crime, Lower Compassion

Flavor Text: Government agencies have been set up to regulate the longpig market,

[option] "Why stop at voluntary consumption?" asks noted social anthropologist @@@NAME@@@. "Wouldn't it be so much easier to ship our convicts off to be processed for food? It would save the government untold expenses."

Effects: Lower Civil Rights, KILL Crime, Lower Compassion, Raise Beef Industry, Raise Economy

Flavor Text: Convicted felons are now cooked and eaten instead of imprisoned,

[option] "Well, you know what I think?" says @@@NAME@@@, head of Unwed Teenage Mothers, "I think that as long as abortion is legal, why not sell the babies to the restaurants? It would do wonders for our out-of-control birthrates and rampant problems with teenage pregnancy."

Effects: Lower Population Growth, Raise Civil Rights, Lower Compassion, Raise Beef Industry

Flavor Text: @@@NATION@@@'s new favorite dish is infanticide en flambe,

First off, this is cannibalism that you are reffering to right? It is not very clear.

Secondly (assuming that this is cannabalism which we are speaking of), the second option should raise civil rights not the third.

Third, how would you havest the flesh without harming a person.

Fourth, although I find the issue sickening, we already have ones on sado-masochism, human sacrifice, and feudalism, so, I guess this isn't really all that much worse.

I'll state that it's about cannibalism more explicitly (edit).

I don't see how denying someone a choice reinforces civil rights. That's why I gave it to the third option.

Personally, I feel no particular revulsion towards the subject. It can be a useful survival tool. Many of the cultures that practiced it did so in a humane way, for survival purposes.

IE - they would only eat those who had died of natural causes or injuries. Never eat those who had died of illness. Only women and children were permitted to eat it (because the men could hunt), etc.

How would the second option lower the economy? I think it should just lower civil rights, while the first raises them.

Secondly, how would the first raise crime?

As to lowering the economy, it stifles an obvious market that could be exploited. Reinforcing the laws against it would kill (pun not intended) the market. I think I will, in line with my previous opinions, add the lowering of civil rights to the second option.

Raising crime was the suggestion of one of the Mods, to whom I broached this issue first. I think the line of thought was that legalizing it under certain conditions might encourage those who can't meet those conditions to try it at home.

As to lowering the economy, it stifles an obvious market that could be exploited. Reinforcing the laws against it would kill (pun not intended) the market.
You can't stifle a market that doesn't yet exist. If this kind of thing is just hapenning in a nation, then obviously not many people are doing it, so therefore outlawing it would not have any noticeable impact.

It says in the title, "Food fad". If it's sufficiently widespread and legitimate that it could possibly be legalized, then the market does exist, and taking action against it would squelch it, by definition, yes?

Yes, if it is legalized and becomes very widespread and rakes in billions of dollars, but is then outlawed, it will be squelched. However, that is not the question at hand.

I never said it was a large market, merely that it existed.

Im not against the issue on the topic at hand, but I am against it on the grounds that it too specified towards what is obviously a very small niche of deviants and that the effects of said issue should not be so wide ranging.

The topic of Cannibalism would be better addressed in nations with food shortages, which tend to be in nations with imploded economies.

I've been kicking around the idea of submitting an issue for a while. Thanks to a few helpful suggestions on the IRC chat, I'm ready to actually kick around an idea for an issue. It is rather morbid, but I hope it gets through the screening process anyway. I'd like some feedback from the NS community before I actually submit it, though.


Issue: "New Food Fad in @@@NATION@@@"
Summary: A disturbing new trend among the wealthy an affluent is turning the stomachs and heads of the less fortunate everywhere.

[option] "The matter is handled tastefully and humanely. Those who volunteer to be consumed are just that - volunteers," @@@NAME@@@ argues passionately. "Who are we to deny people what they want?"

Effects: Raise Beef Industry, Raise Crime, Lower Compassion, Lower Health

[option] "I... have not the words," sputters @@@NAME@@@ indignantly. "It's illegal, and disgusting! That's not even mentioning the diseases involved."

Effects: Lower Economy

[option] @@@NAME@@@, your cousin, muses, "I don't see why it has to be either-or. We have the technology to ensure the safety of the meat, and the harvesting need not take the life of the volunteer. Everyone's happy."

Effects: Raise Civil Rights, Raise Crime, Lower Compassion

You definitely need to provide more details in the verbal descriptions, athough I think I see precisely what you aim at in each case...

I would also recommend the option that condemned criminals be added to the food stocks, and the of course classic Swift option of parents selling their kids (classic Swift would be the babies, but the more general option may fit NS better... and I think you can have five options, yes?)

It may be particularly appropriate for one or more options to appeal to food shortages locally or globally in a rhetorical fashion, although cannibalism is at best a very inefficient solution for that.

I would also have to recommend that a radically realigned version of this issue may be of interest to nations with compulsory vegetarianism... hmm... but it would have to be a different issue, I think. Maybe that one later, after this one has percolated down.

I think it's a very good idea for an issue; other issues talk a great deal about national dietary policy, and this fits right in a big hole.

Im not against the issue on the topic at hand, but I am against it on the grounds that it too specified towards what is obviously a very small niche of deviants and that the effects of said issue should not be so wide ranging.

The topic of Cannibalism would be better addressed in nations with food shortages, which tend to be in nations with imploded economies.

You are, of course, referring to first or second world countries. Some societies have huge populations of cannibals, speaking in percentages, and sustain those populations through responsible use of the practice (ie, eating only those who have died naturally or from injury, or outsiders). The practice of primitive-culture cannibalism is not barbaric, but instead tends to create tightly knit communities who often regard being eaten the only proper funerary rite. How better to remember Grandpa than to take part of him into yourself, and gain a bit of his wisdom, besides?

Also, it's an increasingly common trend in America and elsewhere for women to eat the placentas of other women - a kind of supplemental nutrition that, I've heard, is quite good sauteed. Is that not cannibalism, the eating of the flesh of one of your species?

Lastly, cannibalism can be successfully employed to help stave off food shortages. Just eat those who die from hunger, without killing anyone. This, necessarily, leads to a rapidly dwindling population, but if you're in such bad straits that people are dropping in the streets, you're gonna lose people anyway.

Legitimate cannibalism aside, I proposed this issue because my nation is one of malevolent hedonists who would see the consumption of others an odd, even eccentric, but not unusual, quirk.

TJ - I will take your suggestions in mind and work on a rewrite, to be posted as soon as I get around to it.

EDIT- Rewrite posted.

Whatever, if this issue is actually introduced I can just dismiss it.

I stand by my original opinions, and hell, I'll go so far as to call you a sicko.

Shouldn't the second option raise health and compassion?

First: Why would any pro-munchers option improve the beef-raising industry? If anything, it should worsen it, due to competition. Although, the real effect would be to worsen the pork-raising industry, but I don't believe such a thing is part of the NS software.

Second: All pro-muncher options should drop health into the basement. Direct transmission of parasites and disease organisms would be a huge problem.

Third: this is predicated on a common, falacious idea of cannibalism. There are three broad types of cannibalism.
1: a group, cut-off and starving, may rarely resort to eating some of its members. The Donner Party is the premier example. NB: Many groups have gotten in similar situations, and not resorted to cannibalism, even when they all die. The Scott Party is the perfect example of this
2: The rare case of insanity.
3: Ritualistic feeding on an enemy, in order to "absorb" the strength, courage, or prowess of said enemy. This category makes up more than 95% of known, documented cannibalism. It is a ritual--a religious act--and is invariably performed only by health adult males. It never makes up a significant part of the diet.

This issue, by assuming anyone would eat other humans for "kicks", or to suppliment diet, is so far from reality that it is, IMO, unusable. While NS is not reality, nor meant as a model of the real world, it should maintain a high level of verisimilitude. Otherwise, it becomes a directionless farce.

First: Why would any pro-munchers option improve the beef-raising industry? If anything, it should worsen it, due to competition. Although, the real effect would be to worsen the pork-raising industry, but I don't believe such a thing is part of the NS software.\



Suggested by the moderator who helped me with the initial idea. Also, the "beef" industry pretty much covers all meat-related industries, as far as I know.


Second: All pro-muncher options should drop health into the basement. Direct transmission of parasites and disease organisms would be a huge problem.


Not necessarily. I will address why next.


Third: this is predicated on a common, falacious idea of cannibalism. There are three broad types of cannibalism.
1: a group, cut-off and starving, may rarely resort to eating some of its members. The Donner Party is the premier example. NB: Many groups have gotten in similar situations, and not resorted to cannibalism, even when they all die. The Scott Party is the perfect example of this
2: The rare case of insanity.
3: Ritualistic feeding on an enemy, in order to "absorb" the strength, courage, or prowess of said enemy. This category makes up more than 95% of known, documented cannibalism. It is a ritual--a religious act--and is invariably performed only by health adult males. It never makes up a significant part of the diet.


3: Wrong. Many cultural practices of cannibalism occur when protein supplies are insufficient for the entire population. One noted case of cultural cannibalism did not end until the 60's. The tribe would consume the bodies of those who died of natural causes or injuries - but never those who died of diseases. Furthermore, men were not allowed to join the women and children in the feasts, because the men hunted wild pigs for themselves. Not enough pigs were hunted to feed everyone, so the women and children, over time, came to eat those who had died. This is a perfectly responsible and safe example of the practice that ended because of Christianity and a misunderstanding of a rare type of disease.

Furthermore, I've heard of many cases of cannibalism as a funerary rite rather than a victory celebration. It's easy to believe that "primitives" just don't know any better, but it's just cultural conceit.



This issue, by assuming anyone would eat other humans for "kicks", or to suppliment diet, is so far from reality that it is, IMO, unusable. While NS is not reality, nor meant as a model of the real world, it should maintain a high level of verisimilitude. Otherwise, it becomes a directionless farce.

Have you read my posts? I created this because I have a nation of intelligents who would indulge in this kind of behavior. Just because you can't imagine a first or second world nation would get this issue, doesn't mean a third world nation, or a culture that behaves in alien ways, wouldn't.

Whatever, if this issue is actually introduced I can just dismiss it.

I stand by my original opinions, and hell, I'll go so far as to call you a sicko.

Why thank you. Perhaps you should have been tipped off by the fact that I've written intimately detailed accounts of people being ripped apart? :) It's my shtick.

Shouldn't the second option raise health and compassion?

Why should denying people a choice, and exposing dirty little secrets raise compassion?

Why should denying people a choice, and exposing dirty little secrets raise compassion?

because they arent eating peopleas part of a fetish demmed illegal by the standards of most nations. I sincerely hope a mod quashes this issue before it even makes it for submission.

Why should denying people a choice, and exposing dirty little secrets raise compassion?

because they arent eating peopleas part of a fetish demmed illegal by the standards of most nations. I sincerely hope a mod quashes this issue before it even makes it for submission.

Not likely. I know I have the support of at least two mods.

Given that this sort of issue would never make it in real life, I really think it's a bad idea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Why should denying people a choice, and exposing dirty little secrets raise compassion?

because they arent eating peopleas part of a fetish demmed illegal by the standards of most nations. I sincerely hope a mod quashes this issue before it even makes it for submission.

Not likely. I know I have the support of at least two mods.

you're kidding...

The issues allow you to decide a great deal about your nation.

It seems to most far fetched that you could require everybody to walk around naked with barcode tattoos all the time while surveilance cameras watch, with dissenters summarily executed, or illegalize cars and meat-eating, or simply install a despotic unelected regime without having to resort to military force, but the issues allow you to explore these possibilities.

I dont think that the issues described in this game have to have much touch with reasonable reality - i just had an issue where i choose yes to allowing BDSM's to take their slaves walkies in public - cause that sounds so damn cute.

you're kidding...

Nope. Read on.

The issues allow you to decide a great deal about your nation.

It seems to most far fetched that you could require everybody to walk around naked with barcode tattoos all the time while surveilance cameras watch, with dissenters summarily executed, or illegalize cars and meat-eating, or simply install a despotic unelected regime without having to resort to military force, but the issues allow you to explore these possibilities.

And another of the mods helped me come up with the issue and the effects of the first answer.

Edit: Issue edited to include "Who Gets This" and flavor text for each option. Critiques and suggestions are still encouraged.

Hmmm... I'm somewhat curious ... if you started cooking convicted felons, there might be something of a business incentive to convict more felons in the long run of things... can't say I have much more to add in the way of suggestions though.

It's called incentive for a reason, TJ. Incentive not to commit crimes, and not to get caught. :twisted:

The issue has been submitted for review and (hopefully) implementation.

<snip>
Second: All pro-muncher options should drop health into the basement. Direct transmission of parasites and disease organisms would be a huge problem.


Not necessarily. I will address why next.

You never did.



Third: this is predicated on a common, falacious idea of cannibalism. There are three broad types of cannibalism.
1: a group, cut-off and starving, may rarely resort to eating some of its members. The Donner Party is the premier example. NB: Many groups have gotten in similar situations, and not resorted to cannibalism, even when they all die. The Scott Party is the perfect example of this
2: The rare case of insanity.
3: Ritualistic feeding on an enemy, in order to "absorb" the strength, courage, or prowess of said enemy. This category makes up more than 95% of known, documented cannibalism. It is a ritual--a religious act--and is invariably performed only by health adult males. It never makes up a significant part of the diet.


3: Wrong. Many cultural practices of cannibalism occur when protein supplies are insufficient for the entire population.

Citation, please.

BTW, I took an upperclassman-level course in Anthro, in which cannibalism was covered. Albeit that was 25+ years ago, I remember it quite well.

Including the fact that 35%-80% of earlier reports of cannibalism are now consideder false. Most of them were copies of hearsay accounts by tribes that were enemies of the tribes accused of cannibalism. Those reports considered fully reliable all rotated around ritual "ingestion" of an enemy warriors "spirt."


One noted case of cultural cannibalism did not end until the 60's.
How recent the account is, is irrelevant.



This issue, by assuming anyone would eat other humans for "kicks", or to suppliment diet, is so far from reality that it is, IMO, unusable. While NS is not reality, nor meant as a model of the real world, it should maintain a high level of verisimilitude. Otherwise, it becomes a directionless farce.

Have you read my posts? I created this because I have a nation of intelligents who would indulge in this kind of behavior.

Have you looked up the word "verisimilitude"? That you can imagine your creation behaving in such a manner does not mean it has the appearance of truth, the degree of likelihood that good roleplay is dependant on.

And that last point is why I think this is a very poor issue; while you --- and I, for what it's worth --- might see a way in which such behavior might come to be accepted in some society, it is so unlikely, so outré, that for it to develop in the huge majority of societies does not suspend disbelief, it hangs it by its neck until it is dead, DEAD, DEAD. And that is unacceptable in a shared-world RP.

Whatever, if this issue is actually introduced I can just dismiss it.

I stand by my original opinions, and hell, I'll go so far as to call you a sicko.

Why thank you. Perhaps you should have been tipped off by the fact that I've written intimately detailed accounts of people being ripped apart? :) It's my shtick.

Shouldn't the second option raise health and compassion?

Why should denying people a choice, and exposing dirty little secrets raise compassion?


You have the options that allow it lowering compassion, the options against it should have the inverse affect.

You admit that you haven't taken the Anthro course in ~25 years, and you admit that significant percentages of the stories about cannibalism before that time were false, yet your arguments are those stories. You're not inspiring me to believe your arguments.

I did address the disease and parasite argument, though indirectly. Reread the post.

I still don't see why stirring up hostility and self-righteousness causes compassion.

Then why would allowing it lower compassion?

You contradict yourself...

Then why would allowing it lower compassion?

You contradict yourself...

Because murdering and butchering people doesn't tend to make one a saint?

Just because a choice is opposite of another choice doesn't mean it has the opposite effects. Either way, people inflict suffering on each other, and suffering != compassion.

Then why would allowing it lower compassion?

You contradict yourself...

Because murdering and butchering people doesn't tend to make one a saint?

Just because a choice is opposite of another choice doesn't mean it has the opposite effects. Either way, people inflict suffering on each other, and suffering != compassion.

I agree that should lower compassion, but the other I think should raise it, tis your issue though

You admit that you haven't taken the Anthro course in ~25 years,

Are you insinuating my memory is faulty? If so, please have the integrity to say so directly.

and you admit that significant percentages of the stories about cannibalism before that time were false, yet your arguments are those stories.

No, as I clearly stated, I am basing my arguement on the stories found to be true.

I did address the disease and parasite argument, though indirectly. Reread the post.

Direct is preferable to indirect. I still see nothing regarding disease and parasites. That someone did not die of a disease does not mean that person was disease-free.


I still don't see why stirring up hostility and self-righteousness causes compassion.
Don't ask me, I haven't said a thing about the results/stats-changes.

My contention is that the entire issue is so unlikely, so outré, that it is inappropriate in shared-world RP. Now, a re-write to the introduction might lessen that, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to work on that.