Planes Going Down? [DRAFT]

[East Kerbin]

This is for nations where protests are legal.

Issue: The idea that chemtrails are streaked through out the plains of @@NAME@@. People are protesting outside the capitol building to ban planes, and it is on your desk to decide what to do.

The Debate:

Choice 1: "Can't you see them, bro?" @@RANDOMNAME@@, a protester, says while pointing towards the sky. "We got to ban these any and all of man's flying machines!"

Fallout: children making paper airplanes are given a fine

Choice 2: "Evil Chemical Sprayers? You've got to be kidding me!" replies @@RANDOMNAME@@, owner of Airtrain. "We don't need a ban, we need more airports and airliners. We can create more jobs for the people!"

Fallout: under-trained teenagers are captains of giant Airtrains

Choice 3: "If we ban aircraft, @@NAME@@ is defenseless!" shrieks @@RANDOMNAME@@, an fighter jet pilot. "We should arrest these hippies! They aren't saving the environment, they are destroying out nation!"

Fallout: chemtrail believers are arrested on a daily basis

[Australian rePublic]

Hello and welcome to Got Issues! It's always nice to see a new writer!

Not bad for a first draft

Now let's take a look. I'm gonna be abrupt and to the point here, which is a reflection of my personality, not your work:
1. Effect for option 1, R/C planes don't chemtrail
2. I thought they were called "chematrails" whether or not you think they're bad
3. Option 3, planes already contribute to smog

[East Kerbin]

(Image)

Hello and welcome to Got Issues! It's always nice to see a new writer!

Not bad for a first draft

Now let's take a look. I'm gonna be abrupt and to the point here, which is a reflection of my personality, not your work:
1. Effect for option 1, R/C planes don't chemtrail
2. I thought they were called "chematrails" whether or not you think they're bad
3. Option 3, planes already contribute to smog

For option one, it is banning all man-made flying objects. I will try to make it clearer, so thank you for that opinion.

For option two, I googled it to make sure I wasn't spelling it wrong. It may differ where you live, I don't know.

For option three, the smog would be like Hong Kong level. This is due to the fact air travel by flying car becomes the #1 way of transportation. I will try to improve it, thank you for the opinion.

Thanks for the fruit basket!

[Australian rePublic]

Nope, it's spelt chemtrails. That was a typo

[Jutsa]

Hello, East Kerbin! (nice KSP name btw)
Wow, this is one brief-and-to-the-point issue. Well, lets take a look at this, shall we?

The Title/Issue/Validity:

The idea that chemtrails are real has gone out of hand, and is at your desk to deal with.

On one hand, this is nice, short, and direct. On the other hand, it doesn't add any engaging dialogue, nor a real spark for why this issue is at your desk.
Moreover, the "and is at your desk to deal with" is usually not important.

Also, an issue validity should include planes. Granted, jet trails will float over other nations, but if this issue is about banning planes and junk,
then I highly recommend you add "has plains" as a validity.

Option 1:

Can't you see them bro?"

Comma after them.

@@RANDOMNAME@@ says pointing towards the sky.

I highly recommend changing this to something like:
asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, (a random/concerned citizen, or whatever), while pointing to the clear sky.
The clear sky part is probably not necessary, but my gosh, I'm glad I thought of it.

Fallout: Children's RC planes are now outlawed.

A little simple, plus I'd think that banning plains would result in a much more dramatic fallout,
but I'll give it this: it's silly, and unexpected.

Option 2:

"Evil Chemical Bombers? You got to be kidding me!"

I believe that "Chemical Bombers" should be "chemical sprayers", lowercase at tha. Also, I think "You've" would be better than you.

"We don't need a ban, we need more airports and airliners. We can create more jobs for the people!"

Wait, this isn't an option about putting down chem-trail believers? It's about subsidizing he plane industry?
I recommend changing this into an option that focuses on the chem-trails, and not the planes. That being said, it's your issue, so do what you want with it - even nothing, if you so choose.

Under-trained teenagers run Customer Service at airports.

This fits an option about subsidizing planes, but 1)I recommend changing the option and
2) What, you didn't instead have "under-trained teenagers now frequently fly commercial jets"?

Option 3:

*snip everything*

Uh...
Aside from the strange grammar in the first sentence and effect line, again...
isn't this an issue about chem trails?

Also, I highly recommend changing the effect lines to be un-sentencified. In other words,

Children's RC planes are now outlawed.

would become

children's RC planes are now outlawed

To summarize:
1) I recommend changing options 2 and 3 to fit the issue at hand. If not, then the issue at hand should be changed to fix this issue.
2) Change the effect lines to not only be somewhat more interesting, but also not be sentences.
3) The description needs a little bit more meat in some places and, strangely, less in others.
4) Some grammar needs to be fixed, and
5) Add an airplane validity.

Overall, chem-trails, I believe, are a highly-debated thing, and make for a good issue.
On the other hand, this issue really doesn't seem to be centered around chem trails...
it's more about banning planes, subsidizing planes, and turning cars into planes
(which is a little too high-tech for ns standards anyways, as well as maybe impossible).

I hope to see this issue go a little bit more in-depth about the controversy of chem trails,
and the issue's not bad... it just needs some work.

I wish you well, East Kerbin.

[East Kerbin]

Hello, East Kerbin! (nice KSP name btw)
Wow, this is one brief-and-to-the-point issue. Well, lets take a look at this, shall we?

The Title/Issue/Validity:

The idea that chemtrails are real has gone out of hand, and is at your desk to deal with.

On one hand, this is nice, short, and direct. On the other hand, it doesn't add any engaging dialogue, nor a real spark for why this issue is at your desk.
Moreover, the "and is at your desk to deal with" is usually not important.

Also, an issue validity should include planes. Granted, jet trails will float over other nations, but if this issue is about banning planes and junk,
then I highly recommend you add "has plains" as a validity.

Option 1:

Can't you see them bro?"

Comma after them.

@@RANDOMNAME@@ says pointing towards the sky.

I highly recommend changing this to something like:
asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, (a random/concerned citizen, or whatever), while pointing to the clear sky.
The clear sky part is probably not necessary, but my gosh, I'm glad I thought of it.

Fallout: Children's RC planes are now outlawed.

A little simple, plus I'd think that banning plains would result in a much more dramatic fallout,
but I'll give it this: it's silly, and unexpected.

Option 2:

"Evil Chemical Bombers? You got to be kidding me!"

I believe that "Chemical Bombers" should be "chemical sprayers", lowercase at tha. Also, I think "You've" would be better than you.

"We don't need a ban, we need more airports and airliners. We can create more jobs for the people!"

Wait, this isn't an option about putting down chem-trail believers? It's about subsidizing he plane industry?
I recommend changing this into an option that focuses on the chem-trails, and not the planes. That being said, it's your issue, so do what you want with it - even nothing, if you so choose.

Under-trained teenagers run Customer Service at airports.

This fits an option about subsidizing planes, but 1)I recommend changing the option and
2) What, you didn't instead have "under-trained teenagers now frequently fly commercial jets"?

Option 3:

*snip everything*

Uh...
Aside from the strange grammar in the first sentence and effect line, again...
isn't this an issue about chem trails?

Also, I highly recommend changing the effect lines to be un-sentencified. In other words,

Children's RC planes are now outlawed.

would become

children's RC planes are now outlawed

To summarize:
1) I recommend changing options 2 and 3 to fit the issue at hand. If not, then the issue at hand should be changed to fix this issue.
2) Change the effect lines to not only be somewhat more interesting, but also not be sentences.
3) The description needs a little bit more meat in some places and, strangely, less in others.
4) Some grammar needs to be fixed, and
5) Add an airplane validity.

Overall, chem-trails, I believe, are a highly-debated thing, and make for a good issue.
On the other hand, this issue really doesn't seem to be centered around chem trails...
it's more about banning planes, subsidizing planes, and turning cars into planes
(which is a little too high-tech for ns standards anyways, as well as maybe impossible).

I hope to see this issue go a little bit more in-depth about the controversy of chem trails,
and the issue's not bad... it just needs some work.

I wish you well, East Kerbin.

Thank you, I will look into all you've said. On the subsidizing the plane industry, I was using what the Car Ban issue was doing. It was the Automobile Industry asking for more money.

[Jutsa]

Well, maybe so, but the car ban issue also had an option about arresting the people protesting cars.

Moreover, I can see this issue being similar to the ban on cars, but for planes,
but I still recommend having more dialogue to the other two options about chemtrails,
and I'm still not so sure that flying cars are the most connected option in this instance.

[East Kerbin]

Well, maybe so, but the car ban issue also had an option about arresting the people protesting cars.

Moreover, I can see this issue being similar to the ban on cars, but for planes,
but I still recommend having more dialogue to the other two options about chemtrails,
and I'm still not so sure that flying cars are the most connected option in this instance.

Oh, well this is basically the airplane version of that... I have edited it following what you have said.

[Bears Armed]

You really don't want to see the image that this draft's title conjured-up in my mind...

[East Kerbin]

You really don't want to see the image that this draft's title conjured-up in my mind...

9/11?

[Ransium]

My guess is BA was referring to something a bit more pleasurable.

The opening text is a bit of a red herring this draft has very little to do with chem trails and is more a general referendum on planes that sort of discusses chem trails. Personally, I do not want to see the concept of chem trails given anymore creedance than it already is, and would fight tooth and nail against an issue including them in a way the doesn't make them the domain of completely crazy conspiracy theory. Im just lizard man like that. Beyond that, your draft is just not very interesting or funny in a way I don't quite know how to advise you to fix. Sorry.