Masturbation

[Hrafn]

Law: Government Policy Concerning Masturbation
Category: Civil Rights

Options:
1. Masturbation is legal. (Default)
2. Masturbation is illegal, but not prosecuted
3. Masturbation is illegal and prosecuted.
4. Masturbation is mandatory.
5. The policy on masturbation is set by local governments.

Effects:
1. Decrease in government responibilities. Increase in progressivism.
2. Increase in government responibilities. Decrease in progressivism.
3. Significant increase in government responibilities. Significant decrease in progressivism.
4. Significant increase in government responibilities and progressivism.
5. Increase in devolution.

[hadrex]

2. Masturbation is illegal, but not prosecuted
3. Masturbation is illegal and prosecuted.

Just a question, how do they catch someone in the act?

[Hrafn]

2. Masturbation is illegal, but not prosecuted
3. Masturbation is illegal and prosecuted.

Just a question, how do they catch someone in the act?

Good question.
The same question can be asked about sodomy laws.

[Afrocentric]

Not to offend you or anything but this law seems a little crazy.

[Hrafn]

Not to offend you or anything but this law seems a little crazy.

Masturbation has been illegal in some places in the real world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation#Law

PS: No offence It's not like I support such a law IRL.

[JuliaAJA]

What about a lack of policy regarding masturbation?

[Amazeroth]

I think "Masturbation is legal" is the same as no policy on masturbation (except for a very wicked country where everything not regulated by law is automatically illegal).

I think something like "Masturbation is mandatory" could be added though.

[JuliaAJA]

Not having a policy would be better for anarchists who would rather not recognise any control over civil liberties.

Mandatory masturbation would be interesting.

[GreekIdiot]

I think "Masturbation is legal" is the same as no policy on masturbation (except for a very wicked country where everything not regulated by law is automatically illegal).

Listen. There's a difference between what a variable can look like, when compared to RL legislatures, and what effect it can have on Particracy party mechanics. In the case policy is established, even closely similar to a "no policy" status, such as the "masturbation is legal" proposal as you say, government responsibilities should increase in the Particracy world, whereas a no policy government stance can make the liberals of Terra happier, because it shall decrease government responsibilities and ultimately government/state interference in society (all mechanically speaking, as they impact on visibilities).

And it's weird agreeing, but mandatory masturbation within private confines would be interesting indeed.

[Amazeroth]

I think "Masturbation is legal" is the same as no policy on masturbation (except for a very wicked country where everything not regulated by law is automatically illegal).

Listen. There's a difference between what a variable can look like, when compared to RL legislatures, and what effect it can have on Particracy party mechanics. In the case policy is established, even closely similar to a "no policy" status, such as the "masturbation is legal" proposal as you say, government responsibilities should increase in the Particracy world, whereas a no policy government stance can make the liberals of Terra happier, because it shall decrease government responsibilities and ultimately government/state interference in society (all mechanically speaking, as they impact on visibilities).

And it's weird agreeing, but mandatory masturbation within private confines would be interesting indeed.

It still is completely the same (in this case), a "no policy" status means that it is legal. The "no policy" option only makes sense in laws that aren't concerned with the legality of something, but with things like welfare and other matters where the state gives something to its citizen. In all cases where legality is concerned, "no policy" is only necessary if there's no "it's legal" option (and vice-versa). There is no reason, not even in the particracy world, why two things that are the same should have different effects on the game mechanics - the only reason behind this would be to allow players to have more influence on their parties' visibilities' specifics, but in a bad way, because it suddenly wouldn't be the effects of the proposed law that determine its influence on the visibilities, but just the way its formulated.