[SUBMITTED] Crossing The Streams

[Caracasus]

Hmmm. Let's take a look:

DESCRIPTION:

After tensions between WhoTube Streamers PooDiePoo and WeSeries reached a breaking point, a young @@DEMONYM@@ man threw himself in front of a car "to save his King PooDiePoo". The news has cooked up a storm about the tremendous, and even dangerous amount of influence these "WhoTubers" have in modern @@NAME@@. With all this chaos, your advisors have decided to bring this situation to your knowledge.

I'm struggling to see the link here. How is this saving PooDiePoo? At present I'm reading this more as an issue regarding mental health treatment for the nation's young. Perhaps one of the whotubers saught submissions from their viewers doing really dangerous things to bump their ratings?

OPTION ONE (1) Validity: Nation Not Atheist

After some heated debate, @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Deputy of Religion, tearfully speaks up. "This is terrible... that poor boy. He threw himself in front of a car for no reason other than some 'WhoTube' channel being about to pass this 'PooDiePoo'. This can tell us only one thing; WhoTube is extremely dangerous. Those faithless heathens on WhoTube are corrupting the youth, and are treated like gods for it! Gods! These fanatical and dangerous acts of devotion are blasphemy. Children shouldn't be devoted to these WhoTubers, they should be devoted to the faith! @@LEADER@@, you should subsidize @@FAITH@@ to teach children morality and devotion from a young age, because if they do not know what the faith is, they won't ever escape from the horrific trap that is WhoTube."

OUTCOME: aspiring @@DEMONYM@@ WhoTubers are now considered heresiarchs

Better - but you've got to remember that not everyone knows what the hell this is referencing, or even what these channels are. I feel this would make more sense to us old gits if you were to rescript the opening part so it clearly laid out the contest between the two whotubers and then demonstrated the dangerous power these people have over young people.

OPTION TWO

"I am not sure about this" whispers your rather stout Minister of Tradition. "The problem here isn't who the children are serving or devoted to. That is a matter of choice that we shouldn't infringe upon. But, I do think we could curb this violent behavior by-" he lowers his voice, "banning the internet. I mean think about it, it is such a dangerous tool. It isn't just WhoTube. People use the internet to recruit children into terrorist groups. I mean, we just caught a young boy trying to go off and become a Liliputian rebel. The internet is bad stuff. I say we get rid of it altogether, and let @@NAME@@ take a breath of fresh air!"

OUTCOME: @@DEMONYM@@ Children can often be found secretly trading WhoTube CDs

Why ban the internet when it's one site that's a problem?

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Hmmm. Let's take a look:
I'm struggling to see the link here. How is this saving PooDiePoo? At present I'm reading this more as an issue regarding mental health treatment for the nation's young. Perhaps one of the whotubers saught submissions from their viewers doing really dangerous things to bump their ratings?

Better - but you've got to remember that not everyone knows what the hell this is referencing, or even what these channels are. I feel this would make more sense to us old gits if you were to rescript the opening part so it clearly laid out the contest between the two whotubers and then demonstrated the dangerous power these people have over young people.

Actually this is a great point. How might I rescript the opening to be self-explanatory and not require previous knowledge?

I made a couple new possibilities, if you could tell me which look best, that would be excellent:

After tensions between WhoTube Streamers PooDiePoo and WeSeries reached a breaking point, a young @@DEMONYM@@ man threw himself in front of a car after his preferred streamer, PooDiePoo, had asked viewers to do "their part" to save his channel. The news has cooked up a storm about the tremendous, and even dangerous amount of influence these "WhoTubers" have in modern @@NAME@@. With all this chaos, your advisors have decided to bring this situation to your knowledge.

This one is changing the reason he jumped in front of the car.

When tensions began to escalate between WhoTube Streamers PooDiePoo and WeSeries earlier this year as they tried to get more followers than one another, no one gave it much thought. But recently, as those same tensions reached a breaking point, a young @@DEMONYM@@ man threw himself in front of a car to "save his King, PooDiePoo". This has caused an outrage among the media, cooking up a storm about the tremendous, and even dangerous amounts of influence these "WhoTube Streamers" have with the youth in @@NAME@@. In all the chaos, your advisors have brought the situation to your attention.

This one sets up the battle in more detail.

When tensions began to escalate between WhoTube Streamers PooDiePoo and WeSeries earlier this year as they tried to get more followers than one another, no one gave it much thought. But recently, as those same tensions reached a breaking point, a young @@DEMONYM@@ man threw himself in front of a car after the driver "refused to follow his King, PooDiePoo". This has caused an outrage among the media, cooking up a storm about the tremendous, and even dangerous amounts of influence these "WhoTube Streamers" have with the youth in @@NAME@@. In all the chaos, your advisors have brought the situation to your attention.

This one does both.

Do any of them look like good candidates for change in the description?

Why ban the internet when it's one site that's a problem?

Well, the minister does say "I mean think about it, it is such a dangerous tool. It isn't just WhoTube. People use the internet to recruit children into terrorist groups. I mean, we just caught a young boy trying to go off and become a Liliputian rebel. The internet is bad stuff. I say we get rid of it altogether, and let @@NAME@@ take a breath of fresh air!"

Would you suggest a change to plain internet censorship? Again, any feedback is fantastic.

[Sacara]

Personally, I think the basic premise that internet celebrities have too much influence on the younger generation is a decent concept. However, I don't like the very explicit reference to the whole Pewdiepie/T-Series thing. That will be irrelevant in about a year's time and many people won't understand it. I think you can reframe the issue description, whilst keeping the basic premise.

Overall, this is much better than where you started at.

[Pronalle]

Personally, I think the basic premise that internet celebrities have too much influence on the younger generation is a decent concept. However, I don't like the very explicit reference to the whole Pewdiepie/T-Series thing. That will be irrelevant in about a year's time and many people won't understand it. I think you can reframe the issue description, whilst keeping the basic premise.

Overall, this is much better than where you started at.

Isn't the beauty of issues the fact that some people get the jokes, and some people just answer them without giving much thought to the whole situation?

Would they be as funny and entertaining if the all the jokes were understood by everyone, and the descriptions ambiguous enough to cater to that?

I dont think changing it will make the issue better, TBH.

[Australian rePublic]

--EDITED-OUT--

[Australian rePublic]

Option 1 is very bipolar with the two variants assuming that name is either a theocracy or has completely criminalised religion. What about the vast majority of nations who have freedom of no religion, but with no state religion? What about the nations such as the USA who are unsure whether they're Christian or atheistic? What about countries such as Russia, which are somewhat religious but allow freedom of faith?

Also, why is this trend specifically more noteworthy than any other idiotic trend? Trends such as planking, the duck tape challange, the three litre milk challange, or any of the trends which are pleasing to social Darwinists as they are frightening to those who predict Idiocracy. Why is YouTube celebrity worship different to any other trend? (And probably trends which predate the internet, I was born in the mid 90s, so I wouldn't know). And, for that matter, why is YouTube celebrity worship different to any other celebrity worship? People have done stupid things in the name of non-YouTube celebrities. Why is YouTube so special in all this?

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Option 1 is very bipolar with the two variants assuming that name is either a theocracy or has completely criminalised religion. What about the vast majority of nations who have freedom of no religion, but with no state religion? What about the nations such as the USA who are unsure whether they're Christian or atheistic? What about countries such as Russia, which are somewhat religious but allow freedom of faith?

Also, why is this trend specifically more noteworthy than any other idiotic trend? Trends such as planking, the duck tape challange, the three litre milk challange, or any of the trends which are pleasing to social Darwinists as they are frightening to those who predict Idiocracy. Why is YouTube celebrity worship different to any other trend? (And probably trends which predate the internet, I was born in the mid 90s, so I wouldn't know). And, for that matter, why is YouTube celebrity worship different to any other celebrity worship? People have done stupid things in the name of non-YouTube celebrities. Why is YouTube so special in all this?

Well, actually the whole point of option one is that in both cases, there is a belief that there isn't enough religion in name. Also, this isn't a trend (defined as: "a general direction in which something is developing or changing; a fashion") this is an argument. Why did I not choose normal celebrity worship? Same reason there was that one issue that used WhoTubers boxing instead of actual boxers to talk about manslaughter. Just as Pronalle said, it is the cleverness of the inside joke - some will get it, and some won't. Some will just get the concept, not the reference.

[Sacara]

Isn't the beauty of issues the fact that some people get the jokes, and some people just answer them without giving much thought to the whole situation?

Would they be as funny and entertaining if the all the jokes were understood by everyone, and the descriptions ambiguous enough to cater to that?

I don't think to change it will make the issue better, TBH.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure this one passes the muster. First, it introduces three new things to the reader within the first two sentences of the description. Second, as I already mentioned, this will become irrelevant in a year's time and no longer warrant a reference (not even sure it does now). However, the basic premise is fine (popular internet personality holds too much influence over the younger generation), but I was wondering if there is a real-life example of this?

Remember, I'm just trying to help OP get this issue accepted and into the game, but with the current description about "Whotube" and "WeSeries" and the sorts, I don't think it will. /notaneditor

[South Ccanda]

Isn't the beauty of issues the fact that some people get the jokes, and some people just answer them without giving much thought to the whole situation?

Would they be as funny and entertaining if the all the jokes were understood by everyone, and the descriptions ambiguous enough to cater to that?

I don't think to change it will make the issue better, TBH.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure this one passes the muster. First, it introduces three new things to the reader within the first two sentences of the description. Second, as I already mentioned, this will become irrelevant in a year's time and no longer warrant a reference (not even sure it does now). However, the basic premise is fine (popular internet personality holds too much influence over the younger generation), but I was wondering if there is a real-life example of this?

Remember, I'm just trying to help OP get this issue accepted and into the game, but with the current description about "Whotube" and "WeSeries" and the sorts, I don't think it will. /notaneditor

Bur why does that even matter? plus, actual fans of pewdiepie will probably never forget.

*EDIT* There have already been issue that have been accepted with "WhoTube" In it

*EDITEDIT* IRL exampl would be the Pewdiepie Vs. T-series meme.

[Sacara]

*EDIT* There have already been issue that have been accepted with "WhoTube" In it

*EDITEDIT* IRL exampl would be the Pewdiepie Vs. T-series meme.

I know there has been another issue with WhoTube in it, however, there hasn't been another issue with "WeSeries" or whatever Pewdiepie's alternative is. Also, my question was referencing to is there an example of a kid jumping in front of a car for 'their King'?

[South Ccanda]

*EDIT* There have already been issue that have been accepted with "WhoTube" In it

*EDITEDIT* IRL exampl would be the Pewdiepie Vs. T-series meme.

I know there has been another issue with WhoTube in it, however, there hasn't been another issue with "WeSeries" or whatever Pewdiepie's alternative is. Also, my question was referencing to is there an example of a kid jumping in front of a car for 'their King'?

no kids jumping in front of cars, but there have been hacked printers and probably millions of dollars spent in advertising Pewdiepie's channel.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Isn't the beauty of issues the fact that some people get the jokes, and some people just answer them without giving much thought to the whole situation?

Would they be as funny and entertaining if the all the jokes were understood by everyone, and the descriptions ambiguous enough to cater to that?

I don't think to change it will make the issue better, TBH.

Perhaps, but I'm not sure this one passes the muster. First, it introduces three new things to the reader within the first two sentences of the description. Second, as I already mentioned, this will become irrelevant in a year's time and no longer warrant a reference (not even sure it does now). However, the basic premise is fine (popular internet personality holds too much influence over the younger generation), but I was wondering if there is a real-life example of this?

Remember, I'm just trying to help OP get this issue accepted and into the game, but with the current description about "Whotube" and "WeSeries" and the sorts, I don't think it will. /notaneditor

So, I actually already have been getting a lot of suggestions to make the description more explanatory, so I came up with one I think would fit well:

When tensions began to escalate between WhoTube Streamers PooDiePoo and WeSeries earlier this year as they tried to get more followers than one another, no one gave it much thought. But recently, as those same tensions reached a breaking point, a young @@DEMONYM@@ man threw himself in front of a car after the driver "refused to follow his King, PooDiePoo". This has caused an outrage among the media, cooking up a storm about the tremendous, and even dangerous amounts of influence these "WhoTube Streamers" have with the youth in @@NAME@@. In all the chaos, your advisors have brought the situation to your attention.

It keeps with the original theme, but explains a little more to the uninformed, while still keeping the 'inside joke' a thing.

I know there has been another issue with WhoTube in it, however, there hasn't been another issue with "WeSeries" or whatever Pewdiepie's alternative is. Also, my question was referencing to is there an example of a kid jumping in front of a car for 'their King'?

The car thing was just a narrative device. Couldn't find many other ways to kickstart the media in the issue. I even revise the reasons in the above proposition. What do you think?

The car was inspired by this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -clip.html but that is irrelevant.

[Australian rePublic]

Option 1 is very bipolar with the two variants assuming that name is either a theocracy or has completely criminalised religion. What about the vast majority of nations who have freedom of no religion, but with no state religion? What about the nations such as the USA who are unsure whether they're Christian or atheistic? What about countries such as Russia, which are somewhat religious but allow freedom of faith?

Also, why is this trend specifically more noteworthy than any other idiotic trend? Trends such as planking, the duck tape challange, the three litre milk challange, or any of the trends which are pleasing to social Darwinists as they are frightening to those who predict Idiocracy. Why is YouTube celebrity worship different to any other trend? (And probably trends which predate the internet, I was born in the mid 90s, so I wouldn't know). And, for that matter, why is YouTube celebrity worship different to any other celebrity worship? People have done stupid things in the name of non-YouTube celebrities. Why is YouTube so special in all this?

Well, actually the whole point of option one is that in both cases, there is a belief that there isn't enough religion in name. Also, this isn't a trend (defined as: "a general direction in which something is developing or changing; a fashion") this is an argument. Why did I not choose normal celebrity worship? Same reason there was that one issue that used WhoTubers boxing instead of actual boxers to talk about manslaughter. Just as Pronalle said, it is the cleverness of the inside joke - some will get it, and some won't. Some will just get the concept, not the reference.

What's the inside joke?

[Caracasus]

Okay, you do still need to spell out the link between the action in the opening part, the growing influence of these streamers and such. May I recommend the following change?

After tensions between WhoTube Streamers PooDiePoo and WeSeries reached breaking point, a young @@DEMONYM@@ man was tragically killed while videoing himself jumping out of a fast moving car "to save his King PooDiePoo" This apparently followed a request from the WhoTube star for stunt clips to use on their channel.

For starters, throwing yourself in front of a fast moving car isn't exactly a stunt; it's just stupidity. Playing chicken with a car, jumping out of a fast moving car etc. are all very, very dangerous (and certainly not recommended) but they're not obviously lethal.

You've also got a demo of this streamer's influence among their fans, as well as a proper link between these two previously disconnected ideas.

I'd also recommend (as I've done here) losing the last two lines and working the media storm into the following options. There's no point in repeating yourself here.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Okay, you do still need to spell out the link between the action in the opening part, the growing influence of these streamers and such. May I recommend the following change?

After tensions between WhoTube Streamers PooDiePoo and WeSeries reached breaking point, a young @@DEMONYM@@ man was tragically killed while videoing himself jumping out of a fast moving car "to save his King PooDiePoo" This apparently followed a request from the WhoTube star for stunt clips to use on their channel.

For starters, throwing yourself in front of a fast moving car isn't exactly a stunt; it's just stupidity. Playing chicken with a car, jumping out of a fast moving car etc. are all very, very dangerous (and certainly not recommended) but they're not obviously lethal.

You've also got a demo of this streamer's influence among their fans, as well as a proper link between these two previously disconnected ideas.

I'd also recommend (as I've done here) losing the last two lines and working the media storm into the following options. There's no point in repeating yourself here.

Thank you! Making that change right away!

After that, I am going to see what people think, and then submit it once it looks good.

Thank you for your continued support, Caracasus.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Okay Folks!

I am glad to announce that "Crossing the Streams" is going into its final phase, and I will submit it in 24 should no more major issues with the draft come up in that time!

I will try to fix as many things as people have qualms with the draft in this next day, and hope I can submit a quality issue draft in the end!

Thanks to you all,
Nagatar

[Aclion]

I think CWA comment is still relevent. There's not really a reason for this to be a nationally important issue. Now if there were a trend of people performing ever more dangerous stunts rather then a single incident that might help bring it to national attention, or if the stunt involved a national landmark.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

I think CWA comment is still relevent. There's not really a reason for this to be a nationally important issue. Now if there were a trend of people performing ever more dangerous stunts rather then a single incident that might help bring it to national attention, or if the stunt involved a national landmark.

Editing the options can fix that! That actually makes a lot of sense! Thanks!

EDIT: Option 1 now says: "'This is terrible... that poor boy. He threw himself our of a car for no reason other than some 'WhoTube' channel being about to pass this 'PooDiePoo' - whats worse is that this isn't even the first instance... just the climax of a deadly trend.'"

Instead of: "This is terrible... that poor boy. He threw himself our of a car for no reason other than some 'WhoTube' channel being about to pass this 'PooDiePoo'" in the beginning of it!

Also, the beginning of the issue description implies that this isn't the first instance when it says "After tensions between WhoTube Streamers PooDiePoo and WeSeries reached a breaking point, a young @@DEMONYM@@ man was tragically killed while videoing himself jumping out of a fast moving car "to save his King PooDiePoo" This apparently followed a request from the WhoTube star for stunt clips to use on their channel." with the reached a breaking point thing.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Okay! I am submitting this in the next couple minutes, so any last minute advice is appreciated!

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Okay. I submitted it. Wish me luck everyone!

I am so nervous.

[Jutsa]

Good luck! Here's hoping this is the one.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Good luck! Here's hoping this is the one.

Thanks , but I think it is safe to say two weeks means it was denied, right?

I should stop being lazy and start on another draft...

[Jutsa]

Naeh, it's safe to assume it's denied the moment you submit it.

That's not to say it won't be added; it can take up to a year for that.
But it is to say you should definitely forget the draft and move onto another one.

[Australian rePublic]

Good Lucky!