NationStates Jolt Archive

PROPOSED ISSUE

Name:
Airport neighbours complain about noise

Description:
People living near one of @@NAME@@'s major airports are complaining about the excessive noise generated by the low-flying aircraft

Validity:
valid for all

Options:

[option]"That's a terrible idea!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@ of the aircraft management section. "Do you know how much that would cost!? It would cripple the whole industry! Just because they can't afford housing anywhere else doesnt mean they can govern our airbases. We shouldn't have to deal with any noise restrictions at all. The government should be giving us a freer hand, and maybe a few @@CURRENCY@@s, considering how vital we are to the economic well-being of this nation."
[effect]airplane pilots try setting records for most house windows shattered while landing
[stats]tax rate up, commerce budget up, happiness down, environment down, economy up

[option]"Chill out, man!" says hippie clan leader @@RANDOMNAME@@ "Hey man, airplanes are so, like, not cool! Maybe we should just, like, chill out in the place where we are! Get totally used to it and like it, man! Ban these iron birds, man!"
[effect]aircraft are banned from @@NAME@@'s skies
[stats]tax rate up, equality down, economy down

[option]Military General @@RANDOMNAME@@ says "This cannot be allowed to continue! I believe those citizens forced to live by these airports should be allowed to install military-grade anti-aircraft missile launchers and flak guns on their lawns! Give the public the right to take action! Of course, some of the public may disagree with this strategy, but I'm sure we can give them free airplane tickets to make up for it!"
[effect]aircraft are regularly downed by anti-aircraft guns
[stats]personal freedoms up a bit, tax rate down, compassion down, happiness up, intelligence up a bit, arms manufacturing up

[option]"This is outrageous!" screams widely-laughed-at supermodel @@RANDOMNAME@@. "All those soundwaves are damaging my skin! We need to ban all noise and have everyone speak in sign language!"
[effect]citizens can only talk in the privacy of remote mountain caves
[stats]happiness down, police funding up, environment up

option 3 makes no sense. Aviod making for/against issues. An issue should have a good six choices. Also, your Choices need some cons, not just pros. Also, shooting down planes is not what a civil-rights activist would propose. It would be something a millitary general would propose. Also, the [effect] part of option one should be shortened to "airports are closed down if they do not install excessive noise-screens".

there, happy now? :p ;)

I find the last option to be humorous, but the first one didn't seem ... intriguing. The second option doesn't seem like the most feasible thing an airport worker would propose. I think that they would just argue that they should be allowed to make as much noise as they want. Taking a quick look at it, I would personally rewrite it more as:

[option]"That's a terrible idea!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@ of the aircraft management section. "Do you know how much that would cost!? It would cripple the whole industry! Just because they can't afford housing anywhere else doesnt mean they can govern our airbases. We shouldn't have to deal with any noise restrictions at all. The government should be giving us a freer hand, and maybe a few @@CURRENCY@@s, considering how vital we are to the economic well-being of this nation."
[effect] airplane pilots try setting records for most house windows shattered while landing
-OR-
[effect] residents within a 10km radius of an airport are permanently deaf by the age of 20
[stats] tax rate up, commerce budget up, happiness down, environment down (perhaps), economy up

That's just my personal opinion on the matter, I have no clue how I would improve option 1, though. Feel free to borrow from anything I posted.

EDIT: Also, I think the validity should be for everyone. I don't see any reason people wouldn't complain about the noise with or without any law & order spending.

Idea for option four, maybe:

[option]"This is outrageous!" screams widely-laughed-at supermodel @@RANDOMNAME@@. "All those soundwaves are damaging my skin! We need to ban all noise and have everyone speak in sign language!"
[effect]citizens can only talk in the privacy of remote mountain caves
[stats]happiness down, police funding down, environment up

Sort of stupid/silly, but might make it a little more interesting.

Also, committee has two 't's.

Idea for option four, maybe:

[option]"This is outrageous!" screams widely-laughed-at supermodel @@RANDOMNAME@@. "All those soundwaves are damaging my skin! We need to ban all noise and have everyone speak in sign language!"
[effect]citizens can only talk in the privacy of remote mountain caves
[stats]happiness down, police funding down, environment up

Sort of stupid/silly, but might make it a little more interesting.

Also, committee has two 't's.

Wouldn't the banning of all noise need more law enforcement, not less? So police funding would be up, not down.

Wouldn't the banning of all noise need more law enforcement, not less? So police funding would be up, not down.
I was sort of thinking that no noise would mean less airplanes would mean less police, but you're right.

thanks everyone, i have stolen all these ideas because they are so awesome :P ;)

nice to see you again stalin

reeplace "new fenniq" with "@@NAME@@

"That's a terrible idea!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@ of the aircraft management section. "Do you know how much that would cost!? It would cripple the whole industry!This part of what is now option 1 makes no sense without an option like what was once option 1 before it. Either this first part needs to be changed or there needs to be an option before this one that restricts airplane noise, probably the latter.

For option 2, the hippie needs to explain why he/she is against them. Cite environmental impact, perhaps.

As for option 4, I would ask sirocco if that's even a valid option, as well as ask him if the rest of the issue looks acceptable. He can probably give better advice than we can.

Also, you can't submit an issue until your population reaches 500 million. If you ask another nation to submit it for you, that nation will get credit, not you.

As for option 4, I would ask sirocco if that's even a valid option, as well as ask him if the rest of the issue looks acceptable. He can probably give better advice than we can.

I would be a valid option if it was about proposing to ban any noises louder than a certain volume level.