[DRAFT] Handle With Scare

[Sacara]

Description: Extreme haunted houses have become a thrill-seekers joy ride throughout @@name@@. However, when multiple reports come in of people experiencing heart attacks, physical injuries, mental impairment, and even death through these amusement tours, moral principles come into question.

You add in at the end here "Moral principles come into question", yet none of the options even touches upon morals, really. Maybe instead you should end it with "...tours, the question of whether safety outweighs the need for excitement arises" or something of the sort.

Option 1: “Woah there bro!" shouts @@randommalename@@, a famous Whotuber known for his wacky daredevil stunts. "No one has the right to tell me what's good. My life, my way of living it. If anything there should be more support and understanding of what we do, that's the problem," he contends while doing his famous one-handed wheelie across your office. "Why don't we run a tv series on extreme haunted houses with me as host? We'll call it, '@@name@@s Got Horror!'"

This might be just a personal preference for myself here, but I think the word contends sounds a bit too formal in regards to who is speaking. I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I'd rather just see the word "says" instead. Make tv -> TV.

Option 2: “A TV series? What so our kids can copy what they see and wind up in the ER?” questions @@randomname@@, a horror enthusiast. “I like thrills as much as the next guy but dying over it, getting beaten and forced to consume undrinkable liquids like @@animal@@ urine pushes the boundary. Torture houses are what they are and must be shut down accordingly.”

I'm confused about why the speaker is a horror enthusiast. You'd think someone who likes horror would like this, and I think you did it so you could say "I like thrills as much as the next guy", but you could also say that about anyone. I think it would be beneficial to change his title to something else, maybe like a concerned parent or something.

Option 3: “I agree this is insane, but with so many people waiting to get into these places, it wouldn’t be right to shut them down,” reasons @@randomname@@, former owner of the park shutdown across from your office. “As long as these places have ‘safe words’ entrants can use to quit, I see no reason to pull the plug here.”
Effect: extreme haunted house "safewords" are inaudible in all the screams

Umm... Not really convinced about this option, to be honest. Maybe discuss more all the regulations you'd put on these haunted houses. Also not sold on the effect line.

Option 4: "None of y'all truly comprehend how dangerous this is," comments @@randomname@@ who was injured from a carousel. "Amusement my behind! There's nothin' amusin' 'bout fallin' off a pony and breakin' your tailbone! Think of the youth and BURN ALL AMUSEMENT PARKS, EXTREME OR NOT, TO THE FUC-to the ground, just... do it."
Effect: angry mobs have to be yay tall to burn the ultimate coaster

This just seems like option two but instead of shutting it down you're suggesting we shut it down AND burn it. Not sure it's needed.

[Socio Polor]

Description: Extreme haunted houses have become a thrill-seekers joy ride throughout @@name@@. However, when multiple reports come in of people experiencing heart attacks, physical injuries, mental impairment, and even death through these amusement tours, moral principles come into question.

You add in at the end here "Moral principles come into question", yet none of the options even touches upon morals, really. Maybe instead you should end it with "...tours, the question of whether safety outweighs the need for excitement arises" or something of the sort.

Moral principles as in whether these haunted houses are proper or acceptable. Though I'll consider editing it out or altering it.

I'm confused about why the speaker is a horror enthusiast. You'd think someone who likes horror would like this, and I think you did it so you could say "I like thrills as much as the next guy", but you could also say that about anyone. I think it would be beneficial to change his title to something else, maybe like a concerned parent or something.

Not necessarily. The people who are into the extreme haunted houses are more like thrill-seekers (daredevils) than your typical horror enthusiasts. Also, I feel having someone into horror going for a place like this would be a tad too cliche. Having a horror enthusiast against these haunted houses I feel really sets the tone to how EXTREME these places are. If a horror fan is against a haunted house, you know it's crazy. See where I'm coming from? Though if more people comment against this, I'll alter it

Umm... Not really convinced about this option, to be honest. Maybe discuss more all the regulations you'd put on these haunted houses. Also not sold on the effect line.

Hmm, you have a point, I'll change it

This just seems like option two but instead of shutting it down you're suggesting we shut it down AND burn it. Not sure it's needed.

No, with this option, not only are you shutting down extreme haunted houses, you're shutting down ALL amusement parks. This includes roller coasters, drop rides, carousels, etc.

[USS Monitor]

This still has a lot of little things that are not as polished as they could be. I agree with Sacara that the "moral principles" line is awkward. I'm not into the title. I don't think the WhoTuber needs an assigned gender. I don't think we can leave "FUC-" even with the final K cut off.

[Australian rePublic]

Why are these people experiencing all these things? Faulty infrastructure or too scary?

[Socio Polor]

This still has a lot of little things that are not as polished as they could be. I agree with Sacara that the "moral principles" line is awkward. I'm not into the title. I don't think the WhoTuber needs an assigned gender. I don't think we can leave "FUC-" even with the final K cut off.

Ok, I'll alter those. Really, the title isn't good I thought this one would be better

Why are these people experiencing all these things? Faulty infrastructure or too scary?

Watch the links I provided to see, it'll give you a good understanding Aussie

[Jutsa]

Nope, no need to worry about that one.

We've got one that bans phones, but that's already dealt with in a followup issue and then waved off elsewhere.

[Sacara]

Title Suggestions:

• Keep Calm and Spook On
• Handle With Scare
• No Guts, No Gory

[Australian rePublic]

This still has a lot of little things that are not as polished as they could be. I agree with Sacara that the "moral principles" line is awkward. I'm not into the title. I don't think the WhoTuber needs an assigned gender. I don't think we can leave "FUC-" even with the final K cut off.

Ok, I'll alter those. Really, the title isn't good I thought this one would be better

Why are these people experiencing all these things? Faulty infrastructure or too scary?

Watch the links I provided to see, it'll give you a good understanding Aussie

Links are useless out of the drafting thread. All context (within reason) should be placed in issue. The only purpose that links posted in the OP should serve is explaining your inspiration

[Socio Polor]

Crazy to think that I started this issue three years ago and still working on it to this day! But here I am, back at it again, with a new and improved draft for the contest. Hopefully, it's not as rough as the last one was. The only thing missing is the effect lines which I'll add when I get back. Feel free to nitpick and comment to your hearts desires and hopefully I can get this one out of drafting hell and into the game

[Tinhampton]

Youre still missing an apostrophe in the title

What is the difference between Options 3a and 3b supposed to be? The option text for both is identical.

[Socio Polor]

Youre still missing an apostrophe in the title

Heh, that's what happens when you leave an issue for a few years and then come back. I'll be changing the title so it won't matter

What is the difference between Options 3a and 3b supposed to be? The option text for both is identical.

Just slight wording alterations, in 3a the speaker is referred to as "owner" and uses the term "business," which would only be existent in a capitalist society; so I made 3b so that communist nations could receive this option as well.

[Verdant Haven]

Hello there, fun old draft :-P Good to see it picked up again. My current thoughts:

- Apostrophe needed in the title, as mentioned above, as well as on "thrill-seeker's" in the description.

- "Mental impairment" may not be the best term to use in the description. Are you wanting to suggest something along the lines of "lasting trauma" or perhaps a specific item like "reoccurring nightmares" for this?

- I'm guessing this is based on McKamey Manor? Either way, it might be worth explaining a bit more about why or how people are getting these injuries, since even an "extreme" version of a traditional haunted house wouldn't result in physical harm. Just a quick note about their inclusion of physical injuries, torture, a lack of safe words, etc could help frame why this is so big a deal.

- The speaker in Option 1 doesn't really land for me. A WhoTuber is fine (though will require computer and internet validities, which otherwise aren't necessary for the issue), but popping a one-handed wheelie (on what?) and then shooting your intern (that isn't reasonable) seems a bit disconnected.

- Stakes are raised, Steaks are cooked. Ray's The Steaks was a nice steakhouse near Washington DC some years ago, run by a guy named Ray, but I don't think that's what you mean!

- Unless the idea is that this is a government-owned experience, the government isn't able to raise the stakes itself. This argument should be for regulations to permit the raising of stakes, rather than an insistence that it be made to happen. The idea of what sounds like execution for failure is… not really believable. Again with the regulations though, asking for the law to look the other way in extreme cases up to and including death, if the waivers are signed, could be a thing.

- Why are the first three speakers hardcoded to be male? I don't see anything needing that. You can macro their pronouns to adjust genders as needed. Also, Leader shouldn't be assumed to be male. I realize "bro" is sometimes used in a gender-neutral manner, but food for thought on Option 1.

- Speaker 2 comes in with "as we have read" and then asks "have you read?" about the same things. Definitely good stuff to emphasize, but just double-check for consistency in their thought process there. Who the speaker means to be the antecedent of "they do it all for fun" is unclear. Is "they" the guests, or the staff of the haunted houses who might be alleged to get off on inflicting this pain on others?

- Unless further differentiation is made between them, I think the two Option 3s could be combined without major loss to either side. The current option 3b would work for capitalists a well, in current format.

- For the fourth option, I'd focus the text a bit less on the thing about the WhoTuber and the intern, and a bit more on how this suggestion is going to actually help the government (which again, probably isn't the one currently running the haunts). Boosting an industry is valid, but it'd be worth laying out what the government needs to provide and what benefits it will gain from supporting the creation of this show.

[Socio Polor]

Hello there, fun old draft :-P Good to see it picked up again. My current thoughts:

- Apostrophe needed in the title, as mentioned above, as well as on "thrill-seeker's" in the description.

Yep, got it!

- "Mental impairment" may not be the best term to use in the description. Are you wanting to suggest something along the lines of "lasting trauma" or perhaps a specific item like "reoccurring nightmares" for this?

Done!

- I'm guessing this is based on McKamey Manor? Either way, it might be worth explaining a bit more about why or how people are getting these injuries, since even an "extreme" version of a traditional haunted house wouldn't result in physical harm. Just a quick note about their inclusion of physical injuries, torture, a lack of safe words, etc could help frame why this is so big a deal.

Just a quick note or a more in-depth explanation? Cause it's mentioned not only in the description but in option 2 and briefly in option 3 that inflictions of injury, forceable consumption of waste (urine, poop, and other things you probably shouldn't consume), and lack of safe words are why this issue matters and is being taken all the way to @@leader@@'s attention.

- The speaker in Option 1 doesn't really land for me. A WhoTuber is fine (though will require computer and internet validities, which otherwise aren't necessary for the issue), but popping a one-handed wheelie (on what?) and then shooting your intern (that isn't reasonable) seems a bit disconnected.

I'll drop the speaker as being a WhoTuber since I just remembered it would require a computer/internet validity. As for what he's doing a wheelie on, I'll say it's a bike or something which I'll specify, and as for shooting the intern it was meant to be viewed as comedic due to the sheer randomness of it and to imply the speaker as being a bit of a nutjob. Though if others don't like this, I'll change the line.

- Stakes are raised, Steaks are cooked. Ray's The Steaks was a nice steakhouse near Washington DC some years ago, run by a guy named Ray, but I don't think that's what you mean!

*Sigh* No it isn't, I'll fix this.

- Unless the idea is that this is a government-owned experience, the government isn't able to raise the stakes itself. This argument should be for regulations to permit the raising of stakes, rather than an insistence that it be made to happen. The idea of what sounds like execution for failure is… not really believable. Again with the regulations though, asking for the law to look the other way in extreme cases up to and including death, if the waivers are signed, could be a thing.

Will definitely look into this, thanks!

- Why are the first three speakers hardcoded to be male? I don't see anything needing that. You can macro their pronouns to adjust genders as needed. Also, Leader shouldn't be assumed to be male. I realize "bro" is sometimes used in a gender-neutral manner, but food for thought on Option 1.

Personally, I view the first three speakers as being male as their personality and mannerisms give off that impression, at least to me. Is choosing their genders in this instance necessarily a bad thing though? If so, I'll undo this. Also, I'll consider changing the usage of the term "bro" if others bring it up.

- Speaker 2 comes in with "as we have read" and then asks "have you read?" about the same things. Definitely good stuff to emphasize, but just double-check for consistency in their thought process there. Who the speaker means to be the antecedent of "they do it all for fun" is unclear. Is "they" the guests, or the staff of the haunted houses who might be alleged to get off on inflicting this pain on others?

So, when the Secretary of Safety says "...have you actually read the profile of these places?" it's meant to be a rhetorical question. As for who the "they" is, I'll make that clear.

- Unless further differentiation is made between them, I think the two Option 3s could be combined without major loss to either side. The current option 3b would work for capitalists a well, in current format.

Yeah, I thought of this myself subsequent to posting the new draft as the inclusion of two option 3s seems rather unnecessary considering how similar in wording they are. I'll remove 3a and just leave 3b in there.

- For the fourth option, I'd focus the text a bit less on the thing about the WhoTuber and the intern, and a bit more on how this suggestion is going to actually help the government (which again, probably isn't the one currently running the haunts). Boosting an industry is valid, but it'd be worth laying out what the government needs to provide and what benefits it will gain from supporting the creation of this show.

Duly noted! Thanks!

[Socio Polor]

Another issue that's been sitting in the "FINISH HIM" pile for some time. I changed the title and reworked a few of the options according to some previous feedback and what I thought should be altered. Let's get this one home to the publishing house, shall we?

Edit: Yes, I'm aware the effect lines are still missing; I'll be sure to fill those in

[Socio Polor]

Got the effect lines in, not sure how good they are though

[Fauxia]

Hey there! Solid issue topic.

Description

The independent clause of the second sentence is superfluous, as the options will address it, and @@leader@@ is capable of coming to his/her own conclusions about what the injuries mean.

Option 1

I'm not sure this is a great choice for an option 1, which usually is not the slot for crazy options. Regardless, it's rather long as it stands, and is in need of a trim. As for the effect line, it's not quite clicking, but I think you ought to be able to find one in that vein--there's a non-irony in haunted houses killing people that has the potential to be quite humorous.

Option 2

Also a long option. I think the reference to sexual assault ought to be dropped, as that's an adult topic for something that I don't think needs to be an adult issue.

Option 3

Also a long option. Close to the dismiss button. You could maybe strengthen this option by having him say that other haunted houses ought to join his in being able to tap out.

Option 4

I don't know that this option is necessary, as it kind of doesn't address anything, especially given that it seems like there isn't so much different from this and just watching a horror movie or thriller. Speaking of that, if anyone bans movies, I suppose you could have an option saying to ban this but bring those back so that people can experience terror in their lives or something. Not mandatory by any means.

There's a solid core here, but a lot of work to be done. Good luck! Hope to see this in the game if I'm still playing in a couple of months