Lamebrainia wrote:"Would" should definitely be used instead of "will" here. The only Present tense verb here is "needs", and it belongs to a separate subclause. The simplified structure of the main compound sentence is "If we adopted [...], there would be [...] and [...] would feel [...]".
Yes, your suggestion is the most correct way to write this sentence. However, we don't expect all in-character speech to use perfect grammar. Here are some other examples of issue options where a character uses poor grammar and/or punctuation:
Your phone chimes, as a WotsOn message comes through from your brother: "LOL, M8, ding dong ding dong news Just-yn, POP iz DED, long live GOOD TASTE. U want me to get together a list of other poop-star targets? Haha. I got secure PayBuddy set up, u just say the word, and u strike a blow for music lovers everywhere. BANG BANG BANG! b c-ing u."
"Punctuation is but a way for the elites to once again restrain the exchange of free ideas," begins noted windba— "in order to further hold down oppress and smother and stamp out the honest working men and women of this country into a state of utter and complete impotence," @@HE@@ continues, "so that the entitled and ruthless would be leaders of this world could sit in their castles built on the backs and labor of the commoner," @@HE@@ continues further, "and smugly judge and spit on them in disdain but to that I say no we shall not take on your shackles and chains of punctuation as we will not be bullied into constrained or controlled or ignoble speech..." showing no sign of stopping, @@HE@@ is gently nudged out the door by your guards and — surprising no one — continues as @@HE@@ leaves.
"Who needs some fancy-schmancy cash-draining school system, anyway?" @@RANDOMNAME@@ declares from the front steps of a double-wide mobile home, shotgun in hand. "My Pa raised me and my eight brothers and three sisters without no waste of time schoolin'! My Pa taught me everythin' I need t'know, let all these whippersnappers' Mas and Pas teach 'em what they need t'know!"
Although I personally encourage everyone to use proper grammar, it would be unrealistic for all characters to do so. That would not reflect the breadth of colloquial diction that will always remain prevalent in real-world societies.
Verdant Haven wrote:Ahoy ahoy - have another grammatical one -
Issue 445 "Evasive Maneuvers"
The text for the first option (Choice 0) ends with:
"the mere idea that a change in which behaviours to reward, and that my organisation should finance that change retroactively, amounts to legislative tyranny."
The first statement - "the mere idea that a change in..." does not agree with "amounts to legislative tyranny." At a minimum the word "that" in the beginning needs to be changed, but I think it would maintain the meaning better if the clause about retroactivity were moved to keep the argument the same:
Suggested solutions -
Just changing the word so it reads: "the mere idea of a change in which behaviours to reward..." would fix it grammatically, but makes the argument completely bonkers and self-contradicting.
Moving the clause so it reads: "the mere idea that a change in which behaviours to reward can be applied retroactively, and that my organization should finance that change, amount to legislative tyranny" would resolve both the grammar and the logic, and I think is probably what the intended meaning was when written.
Conversely, this looks like an editorial error, so I'm going to change it.