[ABANDONED] An Eye for Ophthalmology

[My Nation]

Option 3 Validity: Not valid for nations which have banned TVs.
Option 4: “You’re onto something here, but I don’t think it’s actually the screens that are causing the problems,”

If I have banned TVs in my nation, then I won't receive option 3, but I will receive option 4. So how does the opening line of option 4 make any sense if I didn't get option 3?

Oh, true. But if banning of TVs isn’t tracked, then I’ll remove that validity and Option 4 won’t be an issue. Could someone check that please?

[Baggieland]

Just checked, banning TVs isn't checked, so it's good to go.

[My Nation]

Just checked, banning TVs isn't checked, so it's good to go.

Great, thanks!

[My Nation]

Any more suggestions?

[Jutsa]

Hmmm... so, I see this as:

Someone famous got blinded by laser eye surgery:
1) Ban it
2) Subsidize it and enforce even better standards
3) Reduce risk of needing it by reading instead of TV
4) Reduce risk of it by having better nutrition.

Now, I'm not going to say "Prevent people from needing it so much" is a bad idea; I frankly like that idea.
But I am pretty firmly against having two options involving that.

In particular, I'm not fond of option 3. 4 makes some sense, but I'd argue reading isn't really much better on the eyes than TV.
A little? idk, maybe, but frankly getting out in the sun is more useful overall.
Maybe you could try to find a way to better merge the two options as a "promote outdoor activities and healthy eating to reduce risk of eyecare" alternative?

[Trotterdam]

A little? idk, maybe, but frankly getting out in the sun is more useful overall.

Is it? The sun can be quite bad for your eyes.

[My Nation]

Sorry I’ve been really inactive on this forum recently… it’s been forever since I’ve worked on my issue, but I figured now would be the time to get back at it. I have two ideas for how I could modify my issue based on Jutsa’s suggestions.

1) Only have three options in my issue instead of four. I could try to combine Options 3 & 4 to encourage people to overall just take better care of themselves by getting better nutrition, and by getting less screen time. OR…

2) Swap out either Option 3 or 4 for a silly option about how the Sun is terrible for your eyes. That way, I can add a bit more humour to my issue, and I won’t have two options both about straight-up trying to prevent need for eye care.

What do you guys think? Once I get a few replies, I’ll begin editing my issue again. Thanks!

[Jutsa]

Ermagurd! Really glad to see you're still workin' on this one!

Really like both ideas
That said, I personally prefer the first of the two ideas. But that's just me.

Good luck.

[Australian rePublic]

Why can't you just put a disclaimer and be done with it?

[My Nation]

Ermagurd! Really glad to see you're still workin' on this one!

Really like both ideas
That said, I personally prefer the first of the two ideas. But that's just me.

Good luck.

Thanks for the encouraging words! It really helps to motivate me to continue with this issue. I’m going with my first idea, like you said. Hopefully I’ll have my next draft up soon!

[My Nation]

Done! Ready for more feedback!

[Jutsa]

Yes, I quite like it!

I've not really much to add, myself, though I would keep this up for at least another week for more feedback
(longer if you'd like, shorter if you really super duper want to).

Also, could you please change all of your “fancy” quotes/‘apostrophes’ to "dumb" quotes/'apostrophes'?
NS automatically makes them fancy-looking, but it breaks if you submit it using fancy things. I think.
Not entirely sure how/why but that's how it's been explained to me.

[My Nation]

Also, could you please change all of your “fancy” quotes/‘apostrophes’ to "dumb" quotes/'apostrophes'?
NS automatically makes them fancy-looking, but it breaks if you submit it using fancy things. I think.
Not entirely sure how/why but that's how it's been explained to me.

Ok, will do. Does this apply to commas too?

I’ll leave this issue up for editing for another week as suggested, then I’ll submit it if/when it’s ready.

[Jutsa]

Does this apply to commas too?

No, actually.

[My Nation]

Last call for suggestions on this issue! I’ll be resubmitting in just a few days!

EDIT: Final day for suggestions! Will be submitting tomorrow!

[Jutsa]

Yeah, I think this is probably safe to submit, if nobody else's spotted anything.

I haven't taken a microscope to it, but I think it's pretty good at this point. Good luck.

[My Nation]

Yeah, I think this is probably safe to submit, if nobody else's spotted anything.

I haven't taken a microscope to it, but I think it's pretty good at this point. Good luck.

Thanks! I am submitting right now.

[My Nation]

Hello! It’s been a little while since I submitted this issue, and I haven’t gotten any sort of response letting me know that an editor has decided to take a look at it. I don’t know how long that usually takes, but I’m starting to get a little worried that my issue has been rejected. So, if anyone has any suggestions about how I could make my issue better, it would be greatly appreciated!

[Australian rePublic]

Get rid of the "Submitted" thread title, and write "draft"

[Australian rePublic]

Why is this suddenly an issue now? Weren't the millions of affected @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ up in arms?

[My Nation]

Get rid of the "Submitted" thread title, and write "draft"

Should I? I did submit this issue, so I’m not really sure if I can say it’s a draft anymore. I’m just looking for a few tips on how I could make it even better.

Why is this suddenly an issue now? Weren't the millions of affected @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ up in arms?

What?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I think the main problem here is the solutions, which are:

1) Ban it.
2) Raise standards.
3) Restrict TV.

Option 1 is clearly an OTT response. 2 is kinda boring. 3 is obviously nonsense. That leaves the issue with exactly one sensible response, which is a boring one.

To make this issue work it essentially needs to be more entertaining, and needs more than one reasonable response.

[My Nation]

I think the main problem here is the solutions, which are:

1) Ban it.
2) Raise standards.
3) Restrict TV.

Option 1 is clearly an OTT response. 2 is kinda boring. 3 is obviously nonsense. That leaves the issue with exactly one sensible response, which is a boring one.

To make this issue work it essentially needs to be more entertaining, and needs more than one reasonable response.

Okay, so options 1 & 3 I need to make more reasonable, and Option 2 I need to make more interesting. I can do that. So should I change the thread title back to [DRAFT], even though I submitted this issue?

Also, what is OTT?

[Australian rePublic]

Option 3- near sightedness has always existed, but became a more significant problem since the invention of the printing press. There a was a far greater increase in near sightedness amongst literate non-slaves with the invention of books than there was with the invention of screens. If you wanna ban TVs, you gotta ban books too. In fact, banning books would probably do more good than banning TV, because most people sit far enough away from the TV to atleast stretch their eyes a little, whilst book readers have to remain close to their medium. The exception to this is CRT screens, which actively hurt your eyes in non-nearsightedness ways, but, you'd be hard pressed to find one these days. If you wanted to go down that path, keep in mind that it'd be neglible. The government would need to spend like $60000 to replace the 1500 or so which remain.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

So should I change the thread title back to [DRAFT], even though I submitted this issue?

Sure, go ahead.

Also, what is OTT?

Over the top.