[DRAFT] Blast Off

by **New Garbanzia** » Fri Mar 08, 2024 5:39 pm

Version 3.1 (Latest)
Changed the description to say "critically injuring a few workers" instead of "killing a dozen workers". Rewriting choice 3 soon

Validity:
Must have the policy "Capitalism"
Must not have the policy "No dissent"
Must have top 60% Scientific Advancement

Description:
In a near fatal accident, a test rocket from private spaceflight company, SpaceQ, spontaneously blew up on the launchpad, critically injuring a few nearby workers. Angry protestors have barged into your office demanding action be taken.

Choice #1:
"It looked as if a nuclear bomb had exploded!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a particularly startled observer of the catastrophe. "These private companies and their reckless CEOs cheap out on safety in pursuit of money, leading to these disasters. This blatant carelessness almost ended the lives of innocent staff, and is completely unacceptable. Pass laws immediately that require more safety systems and crew training, so this will never happen again!"
Result:
Pre-flight safety checks are longer than the mission itself.

Choice #2:
"That's not going far enough!" remarks ex-SpaceQ employee, @@RANDOMNAME@@, who was just recently fired. "This whole space thing is just a big waste of money anyway. Why are we spending millions every year to send these hazards into orbit, just to collect some dust and rocks? The only sensible solution is to restrict the space industry, and then maybe things will stop blowing up in our faces."
Result:
What goes up must be shot down.

Choice #3:
"Let's not be too harsh, now," says SpaceQ CEO and multi-billionaire Elom Nusk. "That test rocket was meant to blow up... I think. Well, in any case, tests are done to ensure that we're ready for the real deal! This minor anomaly is simply paving the way for future success and discoveries, so let's not let it get in the way."
Result:
SpaceQ rockets have a tendency to crumple apart.

Choice #4 (Must have Space Program):
Just then, head administrator @@RANDOMNAME@@ of @@NAMEINITIALS@@SO, the @@NAME@@ Space Organization, walks in. "There's a bigger problem here, you know. It's that your putting a very important industry in the hands of these idiotic CEOs. If we didn't have the space industry obstructed by so many private, greedy, businesses, maybe we could make some actual progress. Oh, and surely a couple more million a year wouldn't hurt, right?"
Result:
All model rocket sets are @@NAMEINITIALS@@SO approved.

Version 2:

Version 1:

by **Ancientania** » Fri Mar 08, 2024 5:44 pm

Add:
Validity: Must have the policy "capitalism"
Must not have the policy "No dissent"
Must have top 30% Scientific Advancement

Take this as you will

This was written before I read the rest of the idea

Additional Validity for choice four: Must have the Policy "Space Program"

by **Trotterdam** » Fri Mar 08, 2024 6:08 pm

Umm.

I've read that SpaceX has had a lot of rockets exploding, enough for the FAA to get annoyed with them, but I don't recall anyone actually dying in those explosions. They're not that reckless.

by **New Garbanzia** » Fri Mar 08, 2024 6:17 pm

Ancientania wrote:Add:
Validity: Must have the policy "capitalism"
Must not have the policy "No dissent"
Must have top 30% Scientific Advancement

Take this as you will

This was written before I read the rest of the idea

Additional Validity for choice four: Must have the Policy "Space Program"

Thanks for the validity stuff, I had already put in capitalism but forgot to put it in the post

by **Ancientania** » Fri Mar 08, 2024 6:22 pm

Trotterdam wrote:Umm.

I've read that SpaceX has had a lot of rockets exploding, enough for the FAA to get annoyed with them, but I don't recall anyone actually dying in those explosions. They're not that reckless.

It doesn't have to be entirely factual

by **Trotterdam** » Fri Mar 08, 2024 8:04 pm

People are not going to shrug off an explosion that killed dozens of people as "just a planned test, no biggie". If you're expecting your rocket to explode and consider that a successful result, then you don't put people in the blast range.

by **New Garbanzia** » Tue Apr 30, 2024 7:31 pm

This is my 3rd rendition of this issue after a long break from thinking about it. After receiving purely negative feedback I'm going to try and work on this some more and take in suggestions.
Please don't comment if all you're going to say is that it sucks.

Validity:
Must have the policy "Capitalism"
Must not have the policy "No dissent"
Must have top 60% Scientific Advancement

Description:
In a fatal accident, a test rocket from private spaceflight company, SpaceQ, spontaneously blew up on the launchpad, killing dozens of nearby workers. Angry protestors have barged into your office demanding action be taken.

Choice #1:
"It looked as if a nuclear bomb had exploded!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a particularly startled observer of the catastrophe. "These private companies and their reckless CEOs cheap out on safety in pursuit of money, leading to these disasters. This blatant carelessness ended the lives of innocent staff, and is completely unacceptable. Pass laws immediately that require more safety systems and crew training, so this will never happen again!"
Result:
Pre-flight safety checks are longer than the mission itself.

Choice #2:
"That's not going far enough!" remarks ex-SpaceQ employee, @@RANDOMNAME@@, who was just recently fired. "This whole space thing is just a big waste of money anyway. Why are we spending millions every year to send these hazards into orbit, just to collect some dust and rocks? The only sensible solution is to restrict the space industry, and then maybe things will stop blowing up in our faces."
Result:
What goes up must be shot down.

Choice #3:
"Let's not be too harsh, now," says SpaceQ CEO and multi-billionaire Elom Nusk. "That test rocket was meant to blow up... I think. Well, in any case, tests are done to ensure that we're ready for the real deal! This minor anomaly is simply paving the way for future success and discoveries, so let's not let it get in the way."
Result:
SpaceQ rockets have a tendency to crumple apart.

Validity: Must have Space Program
Choice #4:
Just then, head administrator @@RANDOMNAME@@ of @@NAMEINITIALS@@SO, the @@NAME@@ Space Organization, walks in. "There's a bigger problem here, you know. It's that your putting a very important industry in the hands of these idiotic CEOs. If we didn't have the space industry obstructed by so many private, greedy, businesses, maybe we could make some actual progress. Oh, and surely a couple more million a year wouldn't hurt, right?"
Result:
All model rocket sets are @@NAMEINITIALS@@SO approved.

by **The Vooperian Union** » Tue Apr 30, 2024 7:39 pm

Add a variant of the one that requires a space agency for if you do not have one? To start one?

by **Fauxia** » Tue Apr 30, 2024 8:38 pm

Hi, welcome to Got Issues. I have to make a couple of comments.

In the first place, standard procedure is to edit new drafts into the original post, spoilering old drafts to make it not look too cluttered. It's much easier to address the latest draft if we can see it off the bat. Secondly, Got Issues? is here to help. Sometimes something in a draft doesn't cut the mustard, and the author needs to be told that in order to improve the draft. It's really nothing personal—we're trying to make your issue better. I understand some posters may be gentler about this than others, but if someone like Trotterdam, who has been around for years, makes a comment about your issue, you really should consider listening to it. If you're going to take criticism personally, you can send in drafts without posting them on this forum, but you may not achieve your fullest potential as an author.

With that out of the way, let's actually get to the draft. Your correct that the issue doesn't need to be fully realistic, but Trotterdam's point definitely holds for Option 3 as it stands—Elon is not going to just admit to killing dozens like that (and that number probably is too high). That option also doesn't do anything at the moment, so there's barely a reason for it. What's a change (even if minor) that Elon could propose as an alternative response?

Overall, the execution feels a bit flat. That's not to say that it's poor writing, but it's not that humorous and the options are rather predictable. See if you can spice it up a little. For one, you simply switched some consonants in Elon's name, but there's a long tradition of variations on it in NS—is there a funnier version you can come up with?

Best of luck.

by **New Garbanzia** » Tue Apr 30, 2024 9:01 pm

Fauxia wrote:Hi, welcome to Got Issues. I have to make a couple of comments.

In the first place, standard procedure is to edit new drafts into the original post, spoilering old drafts to make it not look too cluttered. It's much easier to address the latest draft if we can see it off the bat. Secondly, Got Issues? is here to help. Sometimes something in a draft doesn't cut the mustard, and the author needs to be told that in order to improve the draft. It's really nothing personal—we're trying to make your issue better. I understand some posters may be gentler about this than others, but if someone like Trotterdam, who has been around for years, makes a comment about your issue, you really should consider listening to it. If you're going to take criticism personally, you can send in drafts without posting them on this forum, but you may not achieve your fullest potential as an author.

With that out of the way, let's actually get to the draft. Your correct that the issue doesn't need to be fully realistic, but Trotterdam's point definitely holds for Option 3 as it stands—Elon is not going to just admit to killing dozens like that (and that number probably is too high). That option also doesn't do anything at the moment, so there's barely a reason for it. What's a change (even if minor) that Elon could propose as an alternative response?

Overall, the execution feels a bit flat. That's not to say that it's poor writing, but it's not that humorous and the options are rather predictable. See if you can spice it up a little. For one, you simply switched some consonants in Elon's name, but there's a long tradition of variations on it in NS—is there a funnier version you can come up with?

Best of luck.

I appreciate your honest feedback, and I have a few questions. Firstly, can you clarify on what you mean by editing new drafts into the original post and whatnot? I am relatively new to this website and never written an issue before (bit of a tangent but I was not expecting this whole process of writing, revisions and feedback). I'm still very confused about where to paste in new drafts, what old stuff to edit out, and all that like you said. Secondly, what would you suggest to help with unpredictability? While writing I did feel this a bit, the standard issue template of argument for, counter-argument against, etc. I wouldn't know how to go about changing it up

You don't have to spend time out of your day responding to a random person's internet thread, but I would appreciate the help greatly.
Thanks

by **Fauxia** » Tue Apr 30, 2024 10:41 pm

New Garbanzia wrote:
Fauxia wrote:Hi, welcome to Got Issues. I have to make a couple of comments.

In the first place, standard procedure is to edit new drafts into the original post, spoilering old drafts to make it not look too cluttered. It's much easier to address the latest draft if we can see it off the bat. Secondly, Got Issues? is here to help. Sometimes something in a draft doesn't cut the mustard, and the author needs to be told that in order to improve the draft. It's really nothing personal—we're trying to make your issue better. I understand some posters may be gentler about this than others, but if someone like Trotterdam, who has been around for years, makes a comment about your issue, you really should consider listening to it. If you're going to take criticism personally, you can send in drafts without posting them on this forum, but you may not achieve your fullest potential as an author.

With that out of the way, let's actually get to the draft. Your correct that the issue doesn't need to be fully realistic, but Trotterdam's point definitely holds for Option 3 as it stands—Elon is not going to just admit to killing dozens like that (and that number probably is too high). That option also doesn't do anything at the moment, so there's barely a reason for it. What's a change (even if minor) that Elon could propose as an alternative response?

Overall, the execution feels a bit flat. That's not to say that it's poor writing, but it's not that humorous and the options are rather predictable. See if you can spice it up a little. For one, you simply switched some consonants in Elon's name, but there's a long tradition of variations on it in NS—is there a funnier version you can come up with?

Best of luck.

I appreciate your honest feedback, and I have a few questions. Firstly, can you clarify on what you mean by editing new drafts into the original post and whatnot? I am relatively new to this website and never written an issue before (bit of a tangent but I was not expecting this whole process of writing, revisions and feedback). I'm still very confused about where to paste in new drafts, what old stuff to edit out, and all that like you said. Secondly, what would you suggest to help with unpredictability? While writing I did feel this a bit, the standard issue template of argument for, counter-argument against, etc. I wouldn't know how to go about changing it up

You don't have to spend time out of your day responding to a random person's internet thread, but I would appreciate the help greatly.
Thanks

No worries

I also sometimes come off as more blunt than I mean to, so I apologize for that. I don't want to scare you away from writing issues in any case; you seem to have picked up a lot of the idea in just a couple of months on the site.

As for the issue, I'm not saying you necessarily need to change the structure of the issue radically. It's okay if issues generally follow the same formula. However, since nations can always dismiss the issue, options that don't really do anything are generally frowned upon, so in the specific case of Option 3, I think the option could use a tweak where Elon proposes some change, even if small. As for my point about humor, issues are supposed to be funny, so any jokes you might be able to add are always appreciated.

When it comes to posting new drafts, standard practice in GI is that whoever's reading your draft should be able to just open the thread and read it immediately; that helps to contextualize discussion and is just easier to find if someone's commenting on the draft. So instead of posting the draft in a completely new post (that will be displayed later down the page), we edit the original post containing the original draft, copy-paste/type in the new draft into the top of that post, and hide the old one behind a spoiler using the command

Code: Select all: [spoiler][/spoiler]

I hope that helps

[DRAFT] Blast Off

[DRAFT] Blast Off

Who is online