NationStates

Edits:
1. Replaced the names of people with @@RANDOMNAME@@ and @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@ macros
2. Gotten rid of, "Who just so happens to have started this debate"
3. Change the effect line of Option two to, "Tourists often come to the nation to only take a picture of @@NAME@@'s top secret military bases."
4. Merged options 2 and 5
5. Merged options 1 and 3
6. Grammar check it on Grammarly
7. Added the validity of "Valid for nations who have a large military and above average corruption."

I took me a while to think of a possible new issue, and I looked around The Writers’ Block for a while, and I saw an idea about citizens accidentally finding a military base. But I thought that instead of citizens, I though it was going to be tourists taking photos of said base. Before I put it here for you guys to check, I had some of my region mates check it, and they said thought that the idea was pretty good. There was some editing to do, but I think right now the issue is pretty good, but I'll have you guys check it as well.

---

[title]Area 52 Discovered?

[desc]After recent tourists had discovered a secret government base, they began to take pictures and bring them home. The issue has been brought to your table by the Minister of Privacy and has since been talked about throughout the government until it has finally reached you.

[validity]Valid for nations who have a large military and above average corruption

1. [option]"They did what?!?" shouts Sergeant McWilliams@@RANDOMLASTNAME@@ as he throws his hat to the ground. "How could the security of our bases be so unprotected? I'm in for them taking pictures of our military bases, but we should only allow them to take parts which won't contain anything that could show what's inside or where it is. Who cares if the tourists don't like it, we'll tell them it's for our @@NAME@@ protection."
[effect] People often takes pictures of only the color of the wall due to strict tourist photography laws.

2. [option]"Maybe you’re blowing it a bit out of proportion?" asks Maxtopian tourist Frederick Tarola@@RANDOMNAME@@, as he proceeds to take a photo of you. "All I did was take a picture. And afterward, I was going to only show it to my family, and maybe some friends, and possibly then some strangers. And heck, while you're at it, you could release the information about what's on the military base. It's always been my dream to take a picture of what is in there."
[effect]Tourists often come to the nation to only take a picture of what is inside @@NAME@@'s military bases.

3. [option]"How about you just have heightened security around our bases?" questions Minister of Privacy Robert Shawn@@RANDOMNAME@@. “I mean, we should let the tourists take pictures of @@CAPITAL@@, prized monuments, stuff like that. But we shouldn’t let them take pictures of our military bases. Who knows, they could be spies trying to send the pictures to their own government. It might restrict them from doing what they want to do, but hey, no military leakage!”
[effect]@@CAPITAL@@ and several monuments get overcrowded ever since seeing military bases was banned.
This option was merged with option 1

4. [option]"Not just the military bases, we need to go further!" yells father @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@. “Ban tourists all together! They always clutter up our great nation with flashing lights. And I can hardly get my family to go to anything, such as a theater play based on "The Great @@REGION@@ War, And How @@NAME@@ Was In It" due to all the tickets being sold out to them tourists! May hurt our economy, but at least families all across @@NAME@@ will be happy."
[effect]Tourists are shunned by local airports for "disturbing the peace."

5. [option]”I actually have a better option.” says local @@RANDOMNAME@@. “How about you just release everything that is in the military base? That way, tourists won’t go there as much due to them knowing what it is. Think of it like eating something blindfolded, but someone tells you you already had it before. It ruins the point in going to the place. In fact, you could release whatever is in there to the public as well. Freedom of speech! He is soon grabbed by bodyguards as he tries to lunge at you. “Freedom of speech!!”
[effect]Highly classified information is released to both tourists and the public. This option was merged with option 2.

---

Here are the options summed up.
1. A sergeant wants only non-revealing photos to be taken
2. A tourist wants freedom to take whatever part of the military base.
3. The Minister of Privacy wants heighten security around military bases only.
4. A father wants tourists banned altogether.
5. A man wants whatever is in the base to be released to the tourists and the public.

Some of the options seem familiar and almost similar to other answers, but I think the concept overall is great.
Mods, approve dis!

I just wrote a draft like this, that may have been accepted.
Take a look.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=396192

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:I just wrote a draft like this, that may have been accepted.
Take a look.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=396192

I'm sorry if this sounds a lot like yours, I went searching through the Writers' Block and found an issue involving citizens finding a secret military base. All I did was replace citizens with tourists.

Dytarma wrote:

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:I just wrote a draft like this, that may have been accepted.
Take a look.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=396192

I'm sorry if this sounds a lot like yours, I went searching through the Writers' Block and found an issue involving citizens finding a secret military base. All I did was replace citizens with tourists.

Go ahead and continue to develop this. I guess if it turns out better then your issue will replace mine.

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:

Dytarma wrote:I'm sorry if this sounds a lot like yours, I went searching through the Writers' Block and found an issue involving citizens finding a secret military base. All I did was replace citizens with tourists.

Go ahead and continue to develop this. I guess if it turns out better then your issue will replace mine.

Look on the bright side, by your signature, it seems that you've already submitted an issue.

Dytarma wrote:

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:Go ahead and continue to develop this. I guess if it turns out better then your issue will replace mine.

Look on the bright side, by your signature, it seems that you've already submitted an issue.

I've had one published and the one I just submitted was the one that is based off of the same concept of this draft.

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:

Dytarma wrote:Look on the bright side, by your signature, it seems that you've already submitted an issue.

I've had one published and the one I just submitted was the one that is based off of the same concept of this draft.

Eh, that's what I meant by you already had one published.

"If it's just your idea that's been stolen, however, there's not much we can do."
Looks like I can't do anything about it.

Good luck I guess.

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:"If it's just your idea that's been stolen, however, there's not much we can do."
Looks like I can't do anything about it.

Good luck I guess.

Thank you! Also, while you're here, what do you think I should fix?

Dytarma wrote:

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:"If it's just your idea that's been stolen, however, there's not much we can do."
Looks like I can't do anything about it.

Good luck I guess.

Thank you! Also, while you're here, what do you think I should fix?

You are asking me to fix exactly what is trying to beat me?

There are a couple subject/verb disagreements, run it through a grammar checker. It's also kind of bulky and the options are really broad and similar to each other.

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:

Dytarma wrote:Thank you! Also, while you're here, what do you think I should fix?

You are asking me to fix exactly what is trying to beat me?

There are a couple subject/verb disagreements, run it through a grammar checker. It's also kind of bulky and the options are really broad and similar to each other.

Yeah, it's worth a shot. And I'll try making them more diverse, so to say.

I don't know why you didn't use the @@RANDOMNAME@@ tags, except in options 4 and 5. Is there a joke I'm not getting here?

Options 1 and 3 could definitely be the same option with minor reworking (which would also make it feel a bit less cluttered), perhaps options 2 and 5 could also be rolled into one neat package. The issue right now feels as though it isn't interesting enough to warrant 5 options, 3 would be more realistic and enables you to add a bit more to each option. Because right now, some of them feel a bit flat.

The cover-up for why the tourists aren't interested in leaving needs to be explained more, I feel.

The effect line for option 2 is unrelated to the military bases issue.

The "who just so happens to have started this debate" is redundant given the description.

There's also a few grammatical mistakes that I won't get into here, just re-read your draft a few more times.

Valrifell wrote:I why you didn't use the @@RANDOMNAME@@ tags, except in options 4 and 5. Is there a joke I'm not getting here?

Options 1 and 3 could definitely be the same option with minor reworking (which would also make it feel a bit less cluttered), perhaps options 2 and 5 could also be rolled into one neat package. The issue right now feels as though it isn't interesting enough to warrant 5 options, 3 would be more realistic and enables you to add a bit more to each option. Because right now, some of them feel a bit flat.

The cover-up for why the tourists aren't interested in leaving needs to be explained more, I feel.

The effect line for option 2 is unrelated to the military bases issue.

The "who just so happens to have started this debate" is redundant given the description.

There's also a few grammatical mistakes that I won't get into here, just re-read your draft a few more times.

I'm missing the joke too. Explain?

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:

Valrifell wrote:I why you didn't use the @@RANDOMNAME@@ tags, except in options 4 and 5. Is there a joke I'm not getting here?

Options 1 and 3 could definitely be the same option with minor reworking (which would also make it feel a bit less cluttered), perhaps options 2 and 5 could also be rolled into one neat package. The issue right now feels as though it isn't interesting enough to warrant 5 options, 3 would be more realistic and enables you to add a bit more to each option. Because right now, some of them feel a bit flat.

The cover-up for why the tourists aren't interested in leaving needs to be explained more, I feel.

The effect line for option 2 is unrelated to the military bases issue.

The "who just so happens to have started this debate" is redundant given the description.

There's also a few grammatical mistakes that I won't get into here, just re-read your draft a few more times.

I'm missing the joke too. Explain?

Valrifell wrote:I don't know why you didn't use the @@RANDOMNAME@@ tags, except in options 4 and 5. Is there a joke I'm not getting here?

Options 1 and 3 could definitely be the same option with minor reworking (which would also make it feel a bit less cluttered), perhaps options 2 and 5 could also be rolled into one neat package. The issue right now feels as though it isn't interesting enough to warrant 5 options, 3 would be more realistic and enables you to add a bit more to each option. Because right now, some of them feel a bit flat.

The cover-up for why the tourists aren't interested in leaving needs to be explained more, I feel.

The effect line for option 2 is unrelated to the military bases issue.

The "who just so happens to have started this debate" is redundant given the description.

There's also a few grammatical mistakes that I won't get into here, just re-read your draft a few more times.

There's not really a joke, I just chose names. I guess I could replace them with @@RANDOMENAME@@ macros

Dytarma wrote:

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:I'm missing the joke too. Explain?

Valrifell wrote:I don't know why you didn't use the @@RANDOMNAME@@ tags, except in options 4 and 5. Is there a joke I'm not getting here?

Options 1 and 3 could definitely be the same option with minor reworking (which would also make it feel a bit less cluttered), perhaps options 2 and 5 could also be rolled into one neat package. The issue right now feels as though it isn't interesting enough to warrant 5 options, 3 would be more realistic and enables you to add a bit more to each option. Because right now, some of them feel a bit flat.

The cover-up for why the tourists aren't interested in leaving needs to be explained more, I feel.

The effect line for option 2 is unrelated to the military bases issue.

The "who just so happens to have started this debate" is redundant given the description.

There's also a few grammatical mistakes that I won't get into here, just re-read your draft a few more times.

There's not really a joke, I just chose names. I guess I could replace them with @@RANDOMENAME@@ macros

You could use things such as Sergeant @@RANDOMMALELASTNAME@@ as well

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:

Dytarma wrote:There's not really a joke, I just chose names. I guess I could replace them with @@RANDOMENAME@@ macros

You could use things such as Sergeant @@RANDOMMALELASTNAME@@ as well

Last names are not gendered.

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:

Dytarma wrote:There's not really a joke, I just chose names. I guess I could replace them with @@RANDOMENAME@@ macros

You could use things such as Sergeant @@RANDOMMALELASTNAME@@ as well

For the last name part, I might make it @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@ due to me not being biased that only males can be Sergeants.

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:

Dytarma wrote:I'm sorry if this sounds a lot like yours, I went searching through the Writers' Block and found an issue involving citizens finding a secret military base. All I did was replace citizens with tourists.

Go ahead and continue to develop this. I guess if it turns out better then your issue will replace mine.

Actually, from what CWA was saying, it might replace it anyway. I've only had 3 published issues, but because I'm considered a regular, mine are pushed to the bottom of the list and given last priority, meaning that if in the meantime, a new author comes and has the same idea, they may get publised before you, because, new me, because, new author, and make mine redundant

Australian Republic wrote:

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:Go ahead and continue to develop this. I guess if it turns out better then your issue will replace mine.

Actually, from what CWA was saying, it might replace it anyway. I've only had 3 published issues, but because I'm considered a regular, mine are pushed to the bottom of the list and given last priority, meaning that if in the meantime, a new author comes and has the same idea, they may get publised before you, because, new me, because, new author, and make mine redundant

Wait... am I still a new author?

So, other than the edits I made, is/are there anything left to fix?

Dytarma wrote:So, other than the edits I made, is/are there anything left to fix?

Woops, I remembered I need to choose a validity. What do you guys think would be good? I'm personally thinking they must have above average corruption.

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:

Australian Republic wrote:Actually, from what CWA was saying, it might replace it anyway. I've only had 3 published issues, but because I'm considered a regular, mine are pushed to the bottom of the list and given last priority, meaning that if in the meantime, a new author comes and has the same idea, they may get publised before you, because, new me, because, new author, and make mine redundant

Wait... am I still a new author?

The price you pay for being a "regular"

Australian Republic wrote:

NoahS SeconD CountrY wrote:Go ahead and continue to develop this. I guess if it turns out better then your issue will replace mine.

Actually, from what CWA was saying, it might replace it anyway. I've only had 3 published issues, but because I'm considered a regular, mine are pushed to the bottom of the list and given last priority, meaning that if in the meantime, a new author comes and has the same idea, they may get publised before you, because, new me, because, new author, and make mine redundant

Aussie, please don't put words in my mouth. You've completely paraphrased and misinterpreted my comments. That is not how it works at all.

For the record, Australian Republic is mistaken. This is not how things work.

All accepted issues go into the same pool. We then select the issues we want from the pools.

We do generally make an effort to publish good new authors, in order to encourage them. That's all.

The system that Aussie is describing does not exist.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

Australian Republic wrote:Actually, from what CWA was saying, it might replace it anyway. I've only had 3 published issues, but because I'm considered a regular, mine are pushed to the bottom of the list and given last priority, meaning that if in the meantime, a new author comes and has the same idea, they may get publised before you, because, new me, because, new author, and make mine redundant

Aussie, please don't put words in my mouth. You've completely paraphrased and misinterpreted my comments. That is not how it works at all.

For the record, Australian Republic is mistaken. This is not how things work.

All accepted issues go into the same pool. We then select the issues we want from the pools.

We do generally make an effort to publish good new authors, in order to encourage them. That's all.

The system that Aussie is describing does not exist.

Oops. Sorry about the misinterpretation