NationStates

A thank-you to CWA for recommending an issue like this. I hope you can parse through the confusing nature of this draft and enjoy it!

Title: Soda Trademarks Sucrose Yet So Far
The Issue: For a long time now, the famous Eckie-Ecola and ancient Eckie-Cola have fought over both soda sales and name rights within @@NAME@@. The final straw was when a survey revealed that the minority which even knew they were separate businesses mixed them up when they were served an Eckie-Ecola product with its signature label hued slightly pinker to match Eckie-Cola's.
Validity: Must have a decent and privatized soda economy

Option 1: "This is outrageous!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, the representative of Eckie-Cola, as @@HE@@ slams an Eckie-Cola product onto your desk. "We've been around in @@NAME@@ far longer than that Eckie-Ecola has been. Sure, our company may not be quite as well known, but we came up with the idea that Eckie-Ecola stole! We demand that they change their name and logo. The original should always be the one that has title rights!"
[effect]rundown burger stands force five-day-younger established chains to add a letter to their name

Option 2: "That is outrageous!" yells @@RANDOMNAME@@, the representative of Eckie-Ecola, as @@HE@@ also slams an Eckie-Cola product onto your desk, mistaking it for an Eckie-Ecola product. "So what if they came up with the name first? We're the famous ones! Everyone loves our products - way more than those Eckie-Cola losers! We demand that they be the ones to change their name and logo. The favorable should always be the one that has title rights!"
[effect]people are confused as companies frequently force their rivals to change their names

Option 3: "You two are outrageous," calmly mutters @@RANDOMNAME@@, your long-forgotten Head of the Beverage Department, gently setting down an Addison Cola Corporation product on your desk. "If you ask me, this kind of fighting because of brand names is the problem. We should just remove brand names alltogether. That will hopefully lead to a community that adds to a larger collective of goods out of kindness, rather than competing to get recognition. Plus, it'd make my job easier."
[effect]citizens aren't exactly enthusiastic about carbonated sugar containing beverage with vegetable extract flavouring

Option 4: "This whole debate is outrageous, my dude! The fact is that these corporations are actually the same!" announces conspiracy theorist @@RANDOMNAME@@, shoving everything off of your desk to make room for a Seppsi product. "Sure, they may be only slightly different in any way possible, but that's because there was a slip in the space-time continuum, resulting in the two same companies to both exist - only slightly differently. I mean, how else would you explain their founders, Elan Mustcat and Etone Music?"
[effect]it's widely believed that @@LEADER@@ is also a Maxtopian barber

Hello Jutsa! I think this is a brilliant issue!

Now, let's get to work.

Jutsa wrote:A thank-you to CWA for recommending an issue like this. I hope you can parse through the confusing nature of this draft and enjoy it!

Title: Is That Two or Three Es?
The Issue: For a long time now, Eckie-Ecola and Eckie-Cola have fought over both soda sales and name rights. The confusion's gotten so bad, a slew of advertisements for Eckie-Cola's latest product claimed that Eckie-Ecola was selling it, which resulted in an attempted lawsuit against Eckie-Ecola for false advertising. Being the final straw, representatives from both sides burst through your office door simultaineously.
Validity: Must have a decent and privatized soda economy

1) Hmm, is there a joke in the title? If this is a TV trope or something, it is no surprise that I am not familiar with it. But if it isn't, maybe you could find a better title? I'd personally suggest something like "Don't Be So Cokesure!"

2) I can't say I agree with the part in red. This particular problem does not sound very believable, does it? And it shows too clearly that there is a false advertising here, even if it might have been unintentional. I think you should give Eckie-Cola the chance of hiding behind plausible deniability.

Fun fact from Turkey: I once saw a brand of sneakers in a shoe shop and the brand's name was Aclidas. Yes, I did not misspell it, it was Aclidas. Apparently, a clever business owner thought that people who did not have 20/20 vision could mistake adjacent C and L for a D, and buy his/her shoes thinking they were Adidas products.

The same can go here. For example, what if @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ are all mistakenly buying Eckie-Cola, thinking that it is a product of Eckie-Ecola? The officials from Eckie-Ecola could say that they have realized this when they dealt out a questionnaire to their customers during a marketing research, for example. (A possible scenario could be this: Suppose Eckie-Ecola comes in dark red cans and Eckie-Cola comes in light red cans. Then, upon being asked about their preferences, most customers say that they love Eckie-Ecola and they think its light-red cans look just adorable! Uh-oh!)

simultaineously --> simultaneously (well, you would have corrected this anyway, I am sure. But just saying )

Option 1: "THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, the representative of Eckie-Ecola, as @@HE@@ slams an eckie-ecola product onto your desk. "We came up with the name first! Why should we be penalized by your ungreatful bureaucrats because those rip-off snobs can't manage their own advertising? @@LEADER@@, demand that they change their name. The original should always be the one that has title rights!"
[effect]rundown burger stands force five-day-younger multinational chains to change their name

ungreatful--> ungrateful

Also, I think one question here is how different the names have to be to be considered sufficiently different. Well, one letter is not enough, obviously. But two letters? Three letters? Where do you draw the line? (and this could give rise to a funny effect line, I suppose.) Also, colors and packaging can be as confusing as the name

Option 3: "You two are outrageous," calmly mutters @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Head of the Beverage Department, as @@HE@@ sets an Addison Cola Corporation product onto your desk. "What's wrong with keeping both of their names? We'll simply change our laws to allow for tiny mistakes like this from arising. Besides, if the two companies have been around forever, then people should be smart enough to tell the difference - even if they did both try drugged beverages at one time or another."
[effect]false advertising is perfectly fine as long as a company's name is a ripoff

Option 4: "Everything is outrageous, my dude, and so is this whole debate!" abruptly protests @@RANDOMNAME@@, who means nothing to you, as @@HE@@ pushes everything off your desk to make room for a Seppsi product. "This is what happens when you let corporations take over. They spend all their time and money arguing over meaningless things like similarities in spelling. If everything were government-controlled, then we wouldn't even be discussing this. Hey, how's about you collectivize the soda business and merge all of their products? That'll fix everything!"
[effect]businesses are forced to get along for fear of government takeover

Well, slamming the Eckie-Ecola cans on the desk was funny in the first two options, but I guess it is no longer funny here. There is really not much of a context to bring up Addison Cola Corporation or Seppsi. Maybe you could use those lines to squeeze in different jokes here?

This raises an interesting question, you might want to get into how the two different companies both got a similar name to eachother in the first place. Also, are these domestic or international companies? As that makes a big difference (i.e. a company with the same name in every other country should have the ability to have the same name in @@NAME@@- then you have the whole Hungry Jacks dilemma, which is a different topic in and of itself). Or was it that the two companies started off as a single company, and then they broke away, both of which maintaining the same name (such as Weet-Bix [apparently]), but in this case, with a slightly spelling. Alteratively, (if you're willing to scare the shit out of yourself), you can get more creative and Google the Mandella effect regarding the Berenstain Bears spelling controversy (Just Google Barenstain Bears Mandella effect) and have some kind of whack-job state that the two companies are really actually supposed to be one, but there was some kind of weird glitch during the great merger, and you somehow ended up with two companies which are supposed to be the same company, and therefore should be forced to merge into the one, flipping a coin about which name should be kept

Warning, however, the Mandella effect MIGHT scare the shit out of you

EDIT: The domestic/international name thing could work well. One of the soft-drink brands could be exclusively sold in @@NAME@@, whilst the other could be the international traiding name of the other company. When the international company moved in, there was already a domestic product with the same name. Now you face the dilemma- should the international product be allowed to have the same name as it does everywhere overseas vs should the domestic product, who got into @@NAME@@'s market first, retain its name, forcing the international company to trade under a different name in @@NAME@@? (Of coarse, this, however, will mean no Mandella effect option)

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

Not bad for a first draft

Now, I'm gonna be abrupt and to the point, which is most certainly not a reflection of my personality.

1. Hi Jutsa! You're new, right?
2. Falloutsssssssss... idk about 4. It seems unfunny to me, but I have a weird sense of humor. Anywho, can I suggest something along the lines of "Industries with wide competition are immediately nationalized?"

Also, option 1, option 1, no more cheap Chinese knock-offs **nods suspitiously**

Australian Republic wrote:**nods suspitiously**

It's suspiciously.

Sanctaria wrote:

Australian Republic wrote:**nods suspitiously**

It's suspiciously.

No, this is the alternate brand equivalent.

Trotterdam wrote:

Sanctaria wrote:It's suspiciously.

No, this is the alternate brand equivalent.

Wut?

@Frieden-und-Freudenland:

Hello Jutsa! I think this is a brilliant issue!

Thanks - although, again, CWA gets credit for the idea, and given the walls of text,
I'm not so sure as to how brilliant this one actually was.

1) Hmm, is there a joke in the title?

Nope! I just couldn't think of a better one.

"Don't Be So Cokesure!"

Cokesure...
Looking at google, "kosher" means "legitimate". Maybe "We're Cokesure, Not Them!" would be better? I'll wait to change this based on your input.

I can't say I agree with the part in red. [...] what if @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ are all mistakenly buying Eckie-Cola, thinking that it is a product of Eckie-Ecola?

Ah... yes, this seems much more believable, thank you.

Suppose Eckie-Ecola comes in dark red cans and Eckie-Cola comes in light red cans [...] most customers say that they love Eckie-Ecola and they think its light-red cans look just adorable! Uh-oh!

Oh gosh, this is great. Yeah, I'll try incorporating this.

simultaineously --> simultaneously

Thank you.

ungreatful--> ungrateful

Thank you again

how different the names have to be to be considered sufficiently different. [...] two letters? Three letters? Where do you draw the line?
(and this could give rise to a funny effect line, I suppose.) Also, colors and packaging can be as confusing as the name

Ahah! Thank you. I'll work with this as well.

Well, slamming the Eckie-Ecola cans on the desk was funny in the first two options, but I guess it is no longer funny here.

I originally did have other stuff, but then I read that Addie and Seppsi were pretty much never used outside of one option,
so I sorta figured this'd work instead. Addie's like a simple back-burner option while Seppsi, being for an easter egg option,
I figured would work nicely for a good final option - especially since the last guy shoves everything off your desk to make room for one of their products. :3

Idk, do you still think I should change that?

I'll get to work on this a little later. In the meantime, if you happen to catch this post, I'd like your opinions on any idea that I might try bending a little bit.

@Aussie:

Warning, however, the Mandella effect MIGHT scare [...] you

Yeah, I'm familiar with it...
I'm kind of thinking that the Mandella effect should be for a different issue, though - if it's believable enough for the editors to accept it, that is.

When the international company moved in, there was already a domestic product with the same name.

Now this is an interesting idea...
I kind of wanted to have two in-nation companies, but since Coca-Cola irl is kinda international, I'm thinking that I'll have the one come in from the United Federation or something.
In fact, maybe Eckie-Cola was in fact the rip-off of Eckie-Cola before they decided to come in and challenge that idea? Hmmm... I'll think about it.

@Fauxia:

Nice.

Alrighty, so a changelog to help you navigate the turmoil that is the change to Draft 2.0:

> Fixed "simultaneously", "ungrateful", and "powerful" - yes, I spelled poweful, although that was changed to "favorable" anyways.
> Changed title to "That's Not Cokesher". I found out that "That's not kosher" means something along the lines of "That's not acceptable".
> Changed description to match the slightly redder shaded label idea, also incorporating a sort-of mandella-like "didn't even know they were different" effect.
> Changed every option a fair bit, though not by much, to fit the description. (Also changed the effects to reflect the minor changes and non-multinationalism.

Here, I should point out that I decided to keep both companies inside of @@NAME@@, for the sake of simplicity.
I also want to note that this is almost an entire rewrite, so I apologize if it's any worse.
I also kept the soda things, although hopefully it's reflected a bit better in how the characters act, and also builds up to the following:

> Added a fifth option, which... I mean, it's pretty unbelievable, so I wouldn't be hurt if I had to remove it, but...
I figured it wouldn't hurt to add it on the chance that it's alright.

That's not cokesher?

Lol, I was actually trying to make a pun on "cocksure." Something like "Don't be so cocksure (Cokesure) that you're drinking Eckie-Ecola right now.)

I am on mobile at the moment, I can post something on the other points later

Oooh, I thought it was a pun based off of kosher...

Edit: Also added an e after one of the names.

I hate the title.

Do you have a recommendation I could use aside from a cheap pun?

Edit: Also, fixed the "sure" to "sher" in the thread title. Whoops

Edit2: Thanks to Sanc, uh... hopefully untangled the Eckie-(E)Cola mess that were options 1 and 2 where I couldn't even tell who I was talking about.

A Cola By Any Other Name
Soda Trademarks Surcose Yet So Far
Hot Around The Cola

Luna Amore wrote:A Cola By Any Other Name

That's the one I'd suggest too.

Either "great minds" or "really boring and obvious".

Effect for option 1-but isn't the problem in the first place a single lettter?

yes, but by adding another letter, they resolve the matter.

For instance, Mama Joe's vs. Mana Joe's would just have Mana change their name to Manna Joe's.
It's a horrible solution, but that's intentionally the worst possible outcome I could think of.

Title: That's Not Cokesher
The Issue: For a long time now, Eckie-Ecola and Eckie-Cola have fought over both soda sales and name rights within @@NAME@@. The final straw was when a survey revealed that the minority which even knew they were separate businesses mixed them up when they were served an Eckie-Ecola product with its signature label hued slightly pinker to match Eckie-Cola's, which has resulted in representatives from both sides violently bust through your office door simultaneously.
Validity: Must have a decent and privatized soda economy

Looking good, though I'd probably recommend changing the title. Also, can you perhaps think of a way to introduce this story to us that doesn't result in 1) a survey and then 2) people barging into your office?

Option 1: "THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, the representative of Eckie-Cola, as @@HE@@ slams an Eckie-Cola product onto your desk. "We've been around in @@NAME@@ far longer than that Eckie-Ecola has been. Sure, our company may not be quite as well known, but we came up with the idea that Eckie-Ecola stole! We demand that they change their name and logo. The original should always be the one that has title rights!"
[effect]rundown burger stands force five-day-younger established chains to add a letter to their name

Okay, so who came first? It might be an idea to set this up in your issue. One came first, but the other is more popular in your nation, is that correct?

Option 2: "THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS!" yells @@RANDOMNAME@@, the representative of Eckie-Ecola, as @@HE@@ also slams an Eckie-Cola product onto your desk, mistaking it for an Eckie-Ecola product. "So what if they came up with the name first? We're the famous ones! Everyone loves our products - way more than those Eckie-Cola losers! We demand that they be the ones to change their name and logo. The favorable should always be the one that has title rights!"
[effect]people are confused as companies frequently force their rivals to change their names

As with the first option, steer clear of all-caps.

Option 3: "You two are outrageous," calmly mutters @@RANDOMNAME@@, your long-forgotten Head of the Beverage Department, as @@HE@@ sets a rarely seen Addison Cola Corporation product onto your desk. "To what extent would something be considered too similar? It'd be a lot easier just advertising Eckie-Cola as not Eckie-Ecola, and vise versa."
[effect]a worryingly large sum of corporations have "not" in their names

I don't see how this option solves anything, or even does a whole lot... I'd consider merging it with the one below. Perhaps force companies to forgo adverts and brand names and instead just have a description of the product. It'd also allow for an effect line along the lines of:

the nation isn't exactly enthusiastic about carbonated sugar containing beverage with vegetable extract flavouring

Option 4: "Everything is outrageous, my dude, and so is this whole debate!" abruptly protests @@RANDOMNAME@@, who means nothing to you, as @@HE@@ shoves everything off your desk to make room for a Seppsi product. "This is the problem with capitalism: Two people come up with the same idea at the same time and the result is nothing but fighting. We should just remove brand-names all-together. That will hopefully lead to a community that adds to a larger collective of goods out of kindness, rather than competing to get recognition."
[effect]objects are often named after outlawed brand-names

See above.

Option 5: "Do you want to know what's truly outrageous? The fact that you think these corporations are different at all!" announces @@RANDOMNAME@@, pointing at everyone with a soda which has a label that appears to read "Eckie-Ccola". "Sure, they may be only slightly different in any way possible, but that's because there was a slip in the space-time continuum, resulting in the two same companies to both exist - only slightly differently. I mean, how else would you explain their founders, Elan Mustcat and Etone Music?"
[effect]it's widely believed that @@LEADER@@ is also a Maxtopian barber

Okay, maybe I'm tired but I don't really get what's going on with this option...

Looking good, though I'd probably recommend changing the title. Also, can you perhaps think of a way to introduce this story to us that doesn't result in 1) a survey and then 2) people barging into your office?

I did, but that wasn't realistic enough and I legitimately can't think of a better way to frame this.
I had hoped adding a bunch of flare to their intrusion would make it a little better.
Also, I know the title sucks. I'm going to pick something that was recommended by Luna Amore.

Okay, so who came first? It might be an idea to set this up in your issue. One came first, but the other is more popular in your nation, is that correct?

Yes, this is correct: Eckie-Cola came first. I could try setting it up in the description, but it's kind of... long, as-is. I could cut out the "bursting through your office",
if you feel strongly that I should set this up in the description.

As with the first option, steer clear of all-caps.

Alrighty, will un-capitalize them.

I'd consider merging it with the one below.

Alrighty. Cutting down options is generally good if some are unnecessary, so thank you.

the nation isn't exactly enthusiastic about carbonated sugar containing beverage with vegetable extract flavouring

I really like this.
[edited out: changed my mind, keeping it. :3]

Okay, maybe I'm tired but I don't really get what's going on with this option...

I probably should specify that he's a conspiracy theorist... although, again, I myself doubt this option's super viable anyway, so let me know if I should toss it.

Edit: Hmm... looks like I may have to get rid of my Addison Corporation / Seppsi product references and let them further be buried in time.

Edit: Hmm... looks like I may have to get rid of my Addison Corporation / Seppsi product references and let them further be buried in time.

Find a way to include them somewhere. I liked them.

As for the crazy option, stick it up in the next draft and give it a polish. It can always be chucked later. It's getting there Justa, you'll make an issue author yet!

Teehee, thanks Caracasus. I updated it~

Hopefully it's in a better condition. I removed the "barging in" part and added "famous" and "ancient" to hopefully help give the reader an idea of what's going on.

Also, I did manage to keep the Seppsi and Adison colas - just needed to remove that useless ccola thing.

I also merged 3/4 and made 5's speaker a conspiracy theorist. I think that's it.
Hopefully it's better now.

Edit: Oh yeah! Of course! I also adopted Luna Amore's second title suggestion. And decapitalized text.

Edit2: If you can come up with a better premise, btw, I'm all ears.

Jutsa wrote:A thank-you to CWA for recommending an issue like this. I hope you can parse through the confusing nature of this draft and enjoy it!

Drawing a blank here.

Thanks for listening to this old fool, even when I blather so much I can't remember what I've said and not said.

Next question- which one has to add the extra letter?

Ah, indeed, that is the premise of this whole issue, which quickly devolves into utter madness soon after.