[1224] Shine On, You Crazy Diamond

[Verdant Haven]

[TITLE] Shine On, You Crazy Diamond?

[DESCRIPTION] What was supposed to be a celebratory occasion – the addition of a flawless (and enormous) new diamond to the national collection at The @@NAME@@ Institution – has turned in to a national embarrassment. Independent experts have released a statement declaring the stone to be lab-created, and the question of "what does it mean to be real?" has become a hot-button topic.

[VALIDITY] All


[OPTION 1] "This isn’t my fault!" trembles gem curator @@RANDOMNAME@@, who was responsible for approving the enormously expensive purchase. "The dealer called it a diamond, and told us it was the real thing! An opportunity like that only comes around once in a blue moon, so we had to jump on it! There needs to be a law. Anything that looks too much like something else needs to be clearly labeled as knock-off, or… or… or send the dealer to prison!"

[EFFECT 1] fashion designers get arrested for their derivative "pants with two legs" designs


[OPTION 2a] [VALIDITY: Private Industry] "That doesn’t go far enough!" roars cartel boss @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ De Beers, waving a diamond-studded cane wildly. "Just think! People buying luxury goods for low prices? Outrageous. They’re terrible for my bottom line, and for the economy of @@NAME@@. Where will your taxes go when every John and Jane can get anything they want for just a few @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@? These lab-created diamonds, and all knock-off goods, must be banned!"

[EFFECT 2a] sumptuary laws are making a come-back as only the rich can afford fashionable clothes


[OPTION 2b] [VALIDITY: No Private Industry] "That doesn’t go far enough!" roars Division of Mining chairperson @@RANDOMNAME@@, waving this month’s production reports. "Workers buying luxury goods, at low prices no less? Outrageous. This has the making of a bourgeois uprising! They’re terrible for the moral and economic future of @@NAME@@. What will happen to our production rates when every John and Jane thinks they have risen above their fellow workers? Lab-created diamonds, and all knock-off goods, must be banned!"

[EFFECT 2b] bargain-hunting is considered unpatriotic


[OPTION 3] "They really are fascinating, @@LEADER@@" muses gemologist @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Hall, examining a lab-created stone through a microscope. "The only difference between these and the real thing is that these are even more perfect, without all the flaws nature creates. To heck with pulling them from the ground; we should start churning these out in the lab and dominating the international market! Think of the boon to our economy when other nations see the quality of the stones we’re ‘mining’ here! No need to tell them source."

[EFFECT 3] the closed down mines of @@NAME@@ are surprisingly productive


[OPTION 4] [VALIDITY: Private Industry] "Who cares where it came from, it’s pretty!" spouts teenage survey-taker @@RANDOMNAME@@, gazing at the giant diamond. "All that high price rarity nonsense is just supply manipulation by the cartel. You should encourage people to make whatever they want, and let the shoppers decide if it's worth buying! I heard one of my teachers say that’s what the free market is all about!"

[EFFECT 4] @@NAME@@ is widely regarded as the copy-cat capital of @@REGION@@


[OPTION 5] "This obsession with extravagance is unhealthy," admonishes noted ascetic @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Fake? Real? Why does it matter in the end? We must look to the soul of @@NAME@@, and pull back from this worship at the altar of luxury. Renounce riches, renounce commercialism, and encourage the people to do the same. Only in this way shall we reach enlightenment."

[EFFECT 5] the official government response to popular issues is that they doesn't matter either way

3rd draft:

[TITLE] Shine On, You Crazy Diamond?

[DESCRIPTION] What was supposed to be a celebratory occasion – the addition of a flawless (and enormous) new diamond to the national collection at The @@NAME@@ Institution – has turned in to a national embarrassment. Independent experts have released a statement declaring the stone to be lab-created, and the question of "what does it mean to be real?" has become a hot-button topic.

[VALIDITY] All


[OPTION 1] "This isn’t my fault!" trembles gem curator @@RANDOMNAME@@, who was responsible for approving the enormously expensive purchase. "The dealer called it a diamond, and told us it was the real thing! An opportunity like that only comes around once in a blue moon, so we had to jump on it! There needs to be a law. Anything that looks too much like something else needs to be clearly labeled as knock-off, or… or… or send the dealer to prison!"

[EFFECT 1] fashion designers get arrested for their derivative "pants with two legs" designs


[OPTION 2a] [VALIDITY: Private Industry] "That doesn’t go far enough!" roars cartel boss @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ De Beers, waving a diamond-studded cane wildly. "Just think! People buying luxury goods for low prices? Outrageous. They’re terrible for my bottom line, and for the economy of @@NAME@@. Where will your taxes go when every John and Jane can get anything they want for just a few @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@? These lab-created diamonds, and all knock-off goods, must be banned!"

[EFFECT 2a] sumptuary laws are making a come-back as only the rich can afford fashionable clothes


[OPTION 2b] [VALIDITY: No Private Industry] "That doesn’t go far enough!" roars Division of Mining chairperson @@RANDOMNAME@@, waving this month’s production reports. "Workers buying luxury goods, at low prices no less? Outrageous. This has the making of a bourgeois uprising! They’re terrible for the moral and economic future of @@NAME@@. What will happen to our production rates when every John and Jane thinks they have risen above their fellow workers? Lab-created diamonds, and all knock-off goods, must be banned!"

[EFFECT 2b] bargain-hunting is considered unpatriotic


[OPTION 3] "They really are fascinating, @@LEADER@@" muses gemologist @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Hall, examining a lab-created stone through a microscope. "Truly, they are chemically identical to the real thing in every way, meaning they are the real thing. The only difference is that they are even more perfect, without all the flaws nature creates. To heck with pulling them from the ground; we should produce more of these, and go in to business internationally! Think of the boon to our economy when other nations see the quality of the stones we’re ‘mining’ here!"

[EFFECT 3] the closed down mines of @@NAME@@ are surprisingly productive


[OPTION 4a] [VALIDITY: Private Industry] "Who cares where it came from, it’s pretty!" spouts teenage survey-taker @@RANDOMNAME@@, gazing at the giant diamond. "Anybody who is hung up about real or not-real is missing the point. All that high price business is just supply manipulation by the cartel. Let people make what they want, and if it’s nice, other people will buy it. I heard one of my teachers say that’s what the free market is all about!"

[EFFECT 4a] @@NAME@@ is widely regarded as the copy-cat capital of @@REGION@@


[OPTION 4b] [VALIDITY: No Private Industry] "Who cares where it came from, it’s pretty!" spouts teenage survey-taker @@RANDOMNAME@@, gazing at the giant diamond. "Anybody who is hung up about real or not-real is missing the point. All that high price business is just supply manipulation by the cartel. The government should make what the people want as cheaply as possible, and if they do a good job, the people will buy it. I heard one of my teachers say that’s what seizing the means of production is all about!"

[EFFECT 4b] @@NAME@@ is widely regarded as the copy-cat capital of @@REGION@@


[OPTION 5] "This obsession with extravagance is unhealthy," admonishes noted ascetic @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Fake? Real? Why does it matter in the end? We must look to the soul of @@NAME@@, and pull back from this worship at the altar of luxury. Renounce riches, renounce commercialism, and encourage the people to do the same. Only in this way shall we reach enlightenment."

[EFFECT 5] the official government response to important issues is that they doesn't matter either way

2nd draft:

Alright – conflict diamonds was already addressed (by a chain, no less!), so I’m redirecting this from that subject towards the challenges of dealing with real vs lab-produced stones, in public perspective and in industry. Many of the root positions are based on brief discussions with a jewelry shop manager I know and spoke with on the subject recently, but obviously I’ve expanded and interpolated for the same of an issue. Let’s see if it’s worthwhile!

Also, please note the name change. This was formerly being drafted as "All That Glitters," but that is in use by another draft, and I don’t want to step on toes! I'm open to changing this new title if a better one comes along.

[TITLE] Shine On, You Crazy Diamond?

[DESCRIPTION] What was supposed to be a celebratory occasion – the addition of a flawless (and enormous) new diamond to the national collection at The @@NAME@@ Institution – has turned in to a national embarrassment. Independent experts have released a statement declaring the stone to be lab-created, and the question of "what does it mean to be real?" has become a hot-button topic.

[VALIDITY] All


[OPTION 1] "This isn’t my fault!" trembles gem curator @@RANDOMNAME@@, who was responsible for approving the enormously expensive purchase. "The dealer called it a diamond, and told us it was the real thing! An opportunity like that only comes around once in a blue moon, so we had to jump on it! There needs to be a law. Anything that looks too much like something else needs to be clearly labeled as knock-off, or… or… or send the dealer to prison!"

[EFFECT 1] fashion designers get arrested for their derivative "pants with two legs" designs


[OPTION 2a] [VALIDITY: Private Industry] "That doesn’t go far enough!" roars cartel boss @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ De Beers, waving a diamond-studded cane wildly. "Just think! People buying luxury goods for low prices? Outrageous. They’re terrible for my bottom line, and for the economy of @@NAME@@. Where will your taxes go when every John and Jane can get anything they want for just a few @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@? These lab-created diamonds, and all knock-off goods, must be banned!"

[EFFECT 2a] sumptuary laws are making a come-back as only the rich can afford fashionable clothes


[OPTION 2b] [VALIDITY: No Private Industry] "That doesn’t go far enough!" roars Division of Mining chairperson @@RANDOMNAME@@, waving this month’s production reports. "Workers buying luxury goods, at low prices no less? Outrageous. This has the making of a bourgeois uprising! They’re terrible for the moral and economic future of @@NAME@@. What will happen to our production rates when every John and Jane thinks they have risen above their fellow workers? Lab-created diamonds, and all knock-off goods, must be banned!"

[EFFECT 2b] bargain-hunting is considered unpatriotic


[OPTION 3] "They really are fascinating, @@LEADER@@" muses gemologist @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Hall, examining a lab-created stone through a microscope. "Truly, they are chemically identical to the real thing in every way, meaning they are the real thing. The only difference is that they are even more perfect, without all the flaws nature creates. To heck with pulling them from the ground; we should produce more of these, and go in to business internationally! Think of the boon to our economy when other nations see the quality of the stones we’re ‘mining’ here!"

[EFFECT 3] the closed down mines of @@NAME@@ are surprisingly productive


[OPTION 4a] [VALIDITY: Private Industry] "Who cares where it came from, it’s pretty!" spouts teenage survey-taker @@RANDOMNAME@@, gazing at the giant diamond. "Anybody who is hung up about real or not-real is missing the point. People like it – isn’t that enough? You should get rid of all those dumb laws about trademarks and copyrights and stuff like that. Let people make what they want, and if it’s nice, other people will buy it. I heard one of my teachers say that’s what the free market is all about!"

[EFFECT 4a] @@NAME@@ is widely regarded as the copy-cat capital of @@REGION@@


[OPTION 4b] [VALIDITY: No Private Industry] "Who cares where it came from, it’s pretty!" spouts teenage survey-taker @@RANDOMNAME@@, gazing at the giant diamond. "Anybody who is hung up about real or not-real is missing the point. People like it – isn’t that enough? You should get rid of all those dumb laws about trademarks and copyrights and stuff like that. The government should just make what the people want as cheaply as possible, and if they do a good job, the people will buy it. I heard one of my teachers say that’s what seizing the means of production is all about!"

[EFFECT 4b] @@NAME@@ is widely regarded as the copy-cat capital of @@REGION@@

1st Draft:

This is one I've been stewing over for a while. I wasn’t able to find any issues in my searches related to conflict diamonds or other supply-chain woes related to rare/precious minerals and metals. It's certainly an issue at play, and after talking a bit about it with the manager of a jewelry shop a couple days ago, I got the last little push to write it up. For a bit of context if you’re unfamiliar, here’s a BBC piece on the increasing sentiment towards sustainable/guilt-free gem sourcing for jewelry, supply-chain tracking, etc.

[TITLE] All That Glitters

[DESCRIPTION] What was supposed to be a celebratory occasion – the addition of a famous (and enormous) new gemstone to the national collection at The @@NAME@@ Institution – went horribly wrong, as activists burst from the crowd. Chanting about "conflict diamonds" and "child exploitation in the mines," these primetime protestors have sparked nationwide debate about the sources of luxury goods in @@NAME@@.

[VALIDITY] Public Protest not forbidden


[OPTION 1a] [VALIDITY: Private Industry] "I already know the answer!" announces mining syndicate president @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ De Beers, proudly displaying a piece of paper with a shiny gold sticker. "Supply chain certification! We in the industry can establish a certification board made of up of experts from our companies, who will investigate the mines we work with in order to ensure that there is no exploitation going on. We’ll only bring gems to market that come from mines meeting these stringent requirements, and which earn our gold seal of approval!"

[EFFECT 1a] industries pinky-promise that they are not exploiting workers


[OPTION 1b] [VALIDITY: No Private Industry] "I already know the answer!" announces Division of Mining chairperson @@RANDOMNAME@@, proudly displaying a piece of paper with a shiny gold sticker. "Supply chain certification! Our department can establish an internal certification board, made up of our senior officials, who will investigate the mines we work with in order to ensure that there is no exploitation of the working class. We’ll only work with mines that meet these stringent requirements, and which earn our gold seal of approval!"

[EFFECT 1b] it’s not exploitation if it isn’t the bourgeoisie doing it


[OPTION 2] "Why not forget about mining?" inquires @@RANDOMMALEFIRSTNAME@@ Hall, swishing @@HIS@@ lab coat dramatically. "We scientists have perfected the art of lab-grown gems! They have a lighter carbon footprint, are much less expensive, and are chemically identical to the real thing! We’ll need some funding to get it going at a truly industrial level, but just say the word, and we can make you guilt-free diamonds, emeralds, and sapphires aplenty.

[EFFECT 2] symbols of undying love are a dime-a-dozen from the lab


[OPTION 3] "There’s simply no substitute for the real thing!" declares @@RANDOMFEMALEFIRSTNAME@@ de Vil, resplendent in her black and white fur coat. "If there’s blood shed over it, that’s just an unfortunate cost of doing business. Perfection has its flaws, you know! If we want to help those poor oppressed miners and minors, we should encourage people to increase spending on luxury goods. That way our money will flow to them, and they can better their situation for themselves."

[EFFECT 3] morally-questionable activities draw big-time investors


[OPTION 4] "What need have we of luxury goods?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a well-known author on ascetic living. "Jewelry, fine clothing, expensive haircuts, rich foods – these are the worldly distractions that draw the mind away from peace and productivity. Tell people to follow my six easy steps for abandoning material wealth, and these moral qualms will be washed away like bad dreams in the morning sun."

[EFFECT 4] trash collectors make a fortune off the discarded wealth of citizens

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I've got an unpublished issue drafted a little while back that uses this title, but you don't have to avoid overlap with unpublished stuff of course (viewtopic.php?f=13&t=443463)

More pertinently, the International Incident chain is based on the idea of responding to unethical diamond mining, and one option of 625 tangentially mentions blood diamonds. Also worth noting that other authors have tried blood diamond issues in the past, and not made it to publication, but that was more about quality than topic. However, the overlap with International Incident certainly feels very strong here.

[Verdant Haven]

Thanks for the heads-up about the title overlap, and the issue chain I'm crossing. That didn't turn up in my searches (I probably didn't hit the right terms for it). I'll look in to it.

[Chan Island]

I've got an unpublished issue drafted a little while back that uses this title, but you don't have to avoid overlap with unpublished stuff of course (viewtopic.php?f=13&t=443463)

More pertinently, the International Incident chain is based on the idea of responding to unethical diamond mining, and one option of 625 tangentially mentions blood diamonds. Also worth noting that other authors have tried blood diamond issues in the past, and not made it to publication, but that was more about quality than topic. However, the overlap with International Incident certainly feels very strong here.

Knew that title looked familiar.

One approach I think might be interesting Verdant is (if you can), follow-up with the jewellery shop manager and try and see if that position can offer any unique insights into this issue. Perhaps there is some kind of supply, or corporate angle, or some horrible truth about blood diamonds that will make tackling this much more difficult.

[Trotterdam]

or some horrible truth about blood diamonds that will make tackling this much more difficult.

The horrible truth is that advertisement campaigns about natural diamonds being the only proper way to show your love, by a company which held a monopoly on the diamond trade between 1888 and 2005 (and which still controls 35% of the market), have massively inflated diamond prices compared to what they're realistically worth.

[Verdant Haven]

Knew that title looked familiar.

One approach I think might be interesting Verdant is (if you can), follow-up with the jewellery shop manager and try and see if that position can offer any unique insights into this issue. Perhaps there is some kind of supply, or corporate angle, or some horrible truth about blood diamonds that will make tackling this much more difficult.

One of the frustrations the manager mentioned was the fact that it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between lab grown gems and real ones. The biggest giveaway, perhaps the only one, is that lab grown gems are actually more perfect than natural ones (which I was vaguely alluding to with the "perfection has it's flaws" line). The primary value of the real thing is what folks in my line of work sometimes call "aura" - the knowledge that it is a real, natural thing. It's the same reason it's more interesting to see Abraham Lincoln's actual top hat than an identical copy made from it (insert similar historic artifact as needed).

I will probably take the issue in that direction after some major re-working, and have it be about real vs lab-created stones, what it means to be real, and what industries therefore should be supported. I will also changes the title to avoid conflict with CWA's WIP.

[Australian rePublic]

Option 3- Why does blood have to be shed over it?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I will probably take the issue in that direction after some major re-working, and have it be about real vs lab-created stones, what it means to be real, and what industries therefore should be supported. I will also changes the title to avoid conflict with CWA's WIP.

I like that direction.

[Verdant Haven]

Alright - I've rewritten this with a new angle, and given it a new name! Take a look and let me know what y'all think :-)

[Bears Armed]

One of the frustrations the manager mentioned was the fact that it is extremely difficult to tell the difference between lab grown gems and real ones.

Do you already know the story about how the Russians conned De Beers for several years?

[Jutsa]

Something tells me the formatting's a tiny bit broken on this one...

[The Free Joy State]

Something tells me the formatting's a tiny bit broken on this one...

I believe it's that Verdant Haven didn't close the quote on his new draft before opening the spoiler and box for his original draft. Looking at it, I believe that's what's sent the formatting wonky.

[USS Monitor]

Something tells me the formatting's a tiny bit broken on this one...

Just saw that and fixed it. Quote and spoiler tags in the OP were misnested.

Draft looks promising though. New title and new topic are a good choice.

[USS Monitor]

Something tells me the formatting's a tiny bit broken on this one...

I believe it's that Verdant Haven didn't close the quote on his new draft before opening the spoiler and box for his original draft. Looking at it, I believe that's what's sent the formatting wonky.

Actually it's that the he didn't close the spoiler before the end of the quote box.

[Jutsa]

Gotta say, this really is a pretty nifty draft.
Could be cause my head's still swimmy, but I couldn't find anything wrong with it (ok, the length, but I appreciate the capitalist vs. communist divide).

Option 3 as it exists also happens to be a perfect opportunity to remove autarky, by the looks of it.

[The Free Joy State]

I believe it's that Verdant Haven didn't close the quote on his new draft before opening the spoiler and box for his original draft. Looking at it, I believe that's what's sent the formatting wonky.

Actually it's that the he didn't close the spoiler before the end of the quote box.

Ah. It's somewhat hard to tell with the drafts nested like that.

As to the actual draft, good new title.

I'd personally italicise The @@NAME@@ Institution -- but not every editor would, so that's a personal recommendation, but by no means mandatory.

With option #3, I'm not sure why you're not mentioning more of the ethical side of fake diamonds. The new draft seems a little flat while it focuses so much on money and doesn't even mention ethics at all (even in passing). Another editor may disagree, of course.

I agree with Trotterdam's point about how effectively diamonds are advertised: those adverts of sparking things on polished fingers are such an excellent exercise in marketing -- because they're very good at making people forget all the cruelty in the diamond trade and instead think: ooh, pretty!

And, I think by throwing in general counterfeiting you've made it too wide. Copyright has already been covered, such as in A Cola By Any Other Name, which similarly covers physical products.

My personal feeling is that you would be better making the issue more closely related to diamonds.

[USS Monitor]

Actually it's that the he didn't close the spoiler before the end of the quote box.

Ah. It's somewhat hard to tell with the drafts nested like that.

That and there is more than one way to fix it.

[Trotterdam]

With option #3, I'm not sure why you're not mentioning more of the ethical side of fake diamonds. The new draft seems a little flat while it focuses so much on money and doesn't even mention ethics at all (even in passing).

Well, there's the ethics of selling synthetic diamonds without explicitly labelling them as such. That's rather different from the ethics of blood diamonds, but it's still an ethics issue.

One way that companies have dealt with this in real life is by etching synthetic diamonds with serial numbers (I would assume these to be too small to see with the naked eye, so they don't hurt gem quality, but easily findable by an experienced jeweler with a microscope) - I thought that some places had laws mandating this, but looking now I can find no evidence of that, only that some synthethic diamond manufacturers have decided to do this voluntarily. It still raises the question of why it isn't natural diamonds which get inscribed to prevent them from being confused with the superior synthetic diamonds.

I agree with Trotterdam's point about how effectively diamonds are advertised: those adverts of sparking things on polished fingers are such an excellent exercise in marketing -- because they're very good at making people forget all the cruelty in the diamond trade and instead think: ooh, pretty!

Thing is, I don't even like diamonds much. I mean, they're transparent. That's just about the most boring "color" you can be. Any other gemstone would be more fun.

And, I think by throwing in general counterfeiting you've made it too wide. Copyright has already been covered, such as in A Cola By Any Other Name, which similarly covers physical products.

Copyright is very different from synthetic diamonds. Diamonds are not anyone's intellectual property, unless God would like to file for patent ownership under @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ law. (Even then, even assuming young-earth creationism, the patent would surely have expired by now... Copyright might not have, though, since that traditionally lasts at least until some time past the author's death. That always seemed like a questionable rule to me, since I don't think we want to be encouraging people to murder authors...)

My personal feeling is that you would be better making the issue more closely related to diamonds.

Agree.

Some possible options could be:
1. Ban synthetic diamonds.
2. Restrict synthetic diamonds in a way that implies they're inferior knock-offs which should be ashamed of what they are.
3. Free market bla bla. If customers can't figure out on their own whether a particular diamond is natural, it clearly can't matter that much.
4. Allow free trade in synthetic diamonds, and in fact encourage it and crack down on all those blood diamonds instead.
5. Ban diamonds entirely! Diamonds are for decadent snobs.

Another angle to consider, though it might scatter the issue too much, is industrial diamonds. Diamond has valid practical uses due to being the hardest material we have, making it useful for cutting tools and such, particularly ones meant to work on metal. Naturally, industrial users care a lot less about whether their stuff is natural or not (and also about whether it's pretty or not), making them far less resistant to synthetic sources.

[Verdant Haven]

Just saw that and fixed it. Quote and spoiler tags in the OP were misnested.

Draft looks promising though. New title and new topic are a good choice.

Thanks, Monitor! I went ahead and pulled it fully out of the quote box, for clarity. I need to double-checking my drafting process, that's the second time I've done that recently without noticing!

Do you already know the story about how the Russians conned De Beers for several years?

I don't, actually! Not surprising to hear that, but I don't know the details at all. I know De Beers was in an exclusivity agreement with them for some time, which definitely would open them to getting pwned by their scientists.

Gotta say, this really is a pretty nifty draft.
Could be cause my head's still swimmy, but I couldn't find anything wrong with it (ok, the length, but I appreciate the capitalist vs. communist divide).

Option 3 as it exists also happens to be a perfect opportunity to remove autarky, by the looks of it.

Thanks, Jutsa! Yeah, it does look long, but that's due to the multiple split options :-D

Having it remove autarky was definitely part of my plan for option 3 :-) I just didn't want to be presumptuous by putting in flag suggestions (as the editors have said - if they can't tell from the writing what it should do, I didn't write it well).

As to the actual draft, good new title.

I'd personally italicise The @@NAME@@ Institution -- but not every editor would, so that's a personal recommendation, but by no means mandatory.

With option #3, I'm not sure why you're not mentioning more of the ethical side of fake diamonds. The new draft seems a little flat while it focuses so much on money and doesn't even mention ethics at all (even in passing). Another editor may disagree, of course.

I agree with Trotterdam's point about how effectively diamonds are advertised: those adverts of sparking things on polished fingers are such an excellent exercise in marketing -- because they're very good at making people forget all the cruelty in the diamond trade and instead think: ooh, pretty!

And, I think by throwing in general counterfeiting you've made it too wide. Copyright has already been covered, such as in A Cola By Any Other Name, which similarly covers physical products.

My personal feeling is that you would be better making the issue more closely related to diamonds.

With regards to italics, I checked my style guides, and they're pretty firm that institutional names such as schools and museums are capitalized (including "The"), but do not receive italics. Titles of works, such as a specific exhibition within a museum, are italicized, but the museum name itself isn't.

For option 3 I can definitely put some more emphasis on the deception that is being suggested. I was largely trying to move away from the ethical side of things, since that was the whole conflict diamond first draft that was scrapped for overlap, and wanted to make this more about "real vs fake," which is why it also extended in to copyright and trademark stuff. The diamonds became the vehicle for exploring a broader issue, partly because of that overlap, and partly because I didn't want to run the risk of making it exclusively about gemstones and having people say "who cares?" I'll see if I can tighten it up a bit.

With option #3, I'm not sure why you're not mentioning more of the ethical side of fake diamonds. The new draft seems a little flat while it focuses so much on money and doesn't even mention ethics at all (even in passing).

Well, there's the ethics of selling synthetic diamonds without explicitly labelling them as such. That's rather different from the ethics of blood diamonds, but it's still an ethics issue.

One way that companies have dealt with this in real life is by etching synthetic diamonds with serial numbers (I would assume these to be too small to see with the naked eye, so they don't hurt gem quality, but easily findable by an experienced jeweler with a microscope) - I thought that some places had laws mandating this, but looking now I can find no evidence of that, only that some synthethic diamond manufacturers have decided to do this voluntarily. It still raises the question of why it isn't natural diamonds which get inscribed to prevent them from being confused with the superior synthetic diamonds.

I agree with Trotterdam's point about how effectively diamonds are advertised: those adverts of sparking things on polished fingers are such an excellent exercise in marketing -- because they're very good at making people forget all the cruelty in the diamond trade and instead think: ooh, pretty!

Thing is, I don't even like diamonds much. I mean, they're transparent. That's just about the most boring "color" you can be. Any other gemstone would be more fun.

And, I think by throwing in general counterfeiting you've made it too wide. Copyright has already been covered, such as in A Cola By Any Other Name, which similarly covers physical products.

Copyright is very different from synthetic diamonds. Diamonds are not anyone's intellectual property, unless God would like to file for patent ownership under @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ law. (Even then, even assuming young-earth creationism, the patent would surely have expired by now... Copyright might not have, though, since that traditionally lasts at least until some time past the author's death. That always seemed like a questionable rule to me, since I don't think we want to be encouraging people to murder authors...)

My personal feeling is that you would be better making the issue more closely related to diamonds.

Agree.

Some possible options could be:
1. Ban synthetic diamonds.
2. Restrict synthetic diamonds in a way that implies they're inferior knock-offs which should be ashamed of what they are.
3. Free market bla bla. If customers can't figure out on their own whether a particular diamond is natural, it clearly can't matter that much.
4. Allow free trade in synthetic diamonds, and in fact encourage it and crack down on all those blood diamonds instead.
5. Ban diamonds entirely! Diamonds are for decadent snobs.

Another angle to consider, though it might scatter the issue too much, is industrial diamonds. Diamond has valid practical uses due to being the hardest material we have, making it useful for cutting tools and such, particularly ones meant to work on metal. Naturally, industrial users care a lot less about whether their stuff is natural or not (and also about whether it's pretty or not), making them far less resistant to synthetic sources.

For the laser-etching, there are no legal requirements related to it. To my knowledge, it's actually more often natural stones that are inscribed, as it is a service typically performed by a certification agency when certifying the stone. They do it to to provide assurance down the road that a given set of papers does in fact match a specific stone, and to give safety to an owner who, for example, leaves it with a repair shop, to verify that what they get back is the same as what they started with. I toyed with including a requirement to laser-inscribe stones in the options 2a and 2b, but didn't want to make them too long. I'll see if I can fit it in, because it is definitely a real-world thing.

The effectiveness of the "ooh, shiny!" adverts is what the teen in option 4 was basically supporting, but without specific citation. I'll make it more distinctly about that! Well-cut diamonds do have a certain unique luster that no other clear surface matches, but I agree that they aren't the most interesting. My wife would agree too - she didn't want a diamond, and sports blue sapphire instead.

I'll pull back the copyright/trademark stuff, and see if I can have speaker 4 focus more on falling for the advertisements. "Shiny is forever!"

I can add an option 5 to re-insert the "ban luxury!" person from the first draft. I'm aware this is a fairly wordy draft already due to the split options, and don't want to turn people off, but I mean... I like that option myself, so it certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings to make it available. At the very least I can work it back in, and it can be dropped or voted out if people feel like it's just too much.

[Verdant Haven]

Pulling up another of my older drafts, I've got another round of tweaks done on this one and am looking for some more feedback.

Edits for this draft largely revolve around altering option 4 to pull it back from the excessive breadth of scope that was its copyright stuff, and have added option 5 to include outright renunciation of diamonds, and all forms of luxury.

[Trotterdam]

I think you messed up when spoiler-tagging your old versions. Your "3rd draft" looks identical to your "1st draft", rather than being a refinement of the "2nd draft".

[OPTION 3] “They really are fascinating, @@LEADER@@” muses gemologist @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Hall, examining a lab-created stone through a microscope. “Truly, they are chemically identical to the real thing in every way, meaning they are the real thing. The only difference is that they are even more perfect, without all the flaws nature creates. To heck with pulling them from the ground; we should produce more of these, and go in to business internationally! Think of the boon to our economy when other nations see the quality of the stones we’re ‘mining’ here!”

[EFFECT 3] the closed down mines of @@NAME@@ are surprisingly productive


[OPTION 4a] [VALIDITY: Private Industry] “Who cares where it came from, it’s pretty!” spouts teenage survey-taker @@RANDOMNAME@@, gazing at the giant diamond. “Anybody who is hung up about real or not-real is missing the point. All that high price business is just supply manipulation by the cartel. Let people make what they want, and if it’s nice, other people will buy it. I heard one of my teachers say that’s what the free market is all about!”

[EFFECT 4a] @@NAME@@ is widely regarded as the copy-cat capital of @@REGION@@

So, hmm... what are these options doing actually?

For 3, of course companies will sell internationally (unless you're an autarky). The option doesn't propose any action that would encourage manufacture or sale of synthetic diamonds, such as subsidizing manufacturers or regulating mined diamonds.

4 doesn't really do anything different. In theory, 4's important point is the lack of distinguishability between grown and mined diamonds on the market, but since 3 also doesn't introduce any way to enforce such distinguishability, it barely matters. Also, is the effect line still appropiate?

As a side note:

Well-cut diamonds do have a certain unique luster that no other clear surface matches,

Actually, moissanite has a higher refractive index than diamond.

[Verdant Haven]

Thanks for the heads-up on the spoiler tagging. I mixed that up in my local copy - the present version is the 3rd draft.

It's obviously up to the editors what stats things effect, but the intentions, and the major things I would anticipate in this draft would be:

- Choice 3 is a proposal to reduce government funding for the mining industry and instead subsidize manufacturing, with a specific governmental targeting of the international market with fraudulent goods. I think it would see increases in manufacturing, eco-friendliness, corruption, and crime. Reductions in mining, integrity, employment, and income equality.

- Choice 4 pointedly is to not have the government get involved, and instead basically legalize a free-for-all in the domestic market. I would imagine it seeing increases in economic freedom, average disposable income, retail, and employment. Reductions in law enforcement, mining, business subsidization, and taxation.

With regards to moissanite, there are other measures than refractive index :-D But yes, it is pretty fancy stuff!

[Trotterdam]

It's obviously up to the editors what stats things effect, but the intentions, and the major things I would anticipate in this draft would be:

- Choice 3 is a proposal to reduce government funding for the mining industry and instead subsidize manufacturing, with a specific governmental targeting of the international market with fraudulent goods. I think it would see increases in manufacturing, eco-friendliness, corruption, and crime. Reductions in mining, integrity, employment, and income equality.

- Choice 4 pointedly is to not have the government get involved, and instead basically legalize a free-for-all in the domestic market. I would imagine it seeing increases in economic freedom, average disposable income, retail, and employment. Reductions in law enforcement, mining, business subsidization, and taxation.

Don't tell me. Explain it in the issue.

[Verdant Haven]

New draft submitted:

Changelog 3rd – 4th
- Changed a word in Option 1 (dealer > seller) to clarify meaning
- Altered language in Option 3 to make it clear what was being proposed
- Eliminated Option 4b, since encouraging commercial competition doesn't make sense in NS Socialism

[Verdant Haven]

I'm going to roll this one to Last Call.

Thank you for all the feedback thus far! As always, I'm open to more.