ISSUE IDEA: Water, Loos and Waterloos

[Baggieland]

Australian rePublic wrote:
complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a citizen who is disgusted by the idea.

Can you give this speaker some more character please?

How?

Most citizens would be disgusted by the idea, why is it this one John Doe gets to meet LEADER? Give him some kind of job or a specific interest that would make his invitation to the office plausible.

Also, option 2 feels like the dismiss button. The speaker isn't proposing that LEADER take any new action. He has to propose something.

who captains tourist expeditions on replicas of Medieval ships for the @@ANIMAL@@ City Maritime Museum

I would just say "who captains tourist excursions on replicas of Medieval ships around @@ANIMAL@@ City harbour."

Also, option 3 is a bit long. Can you take the scissors to it?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

On a related note, punctuation / grammar / capitalisation fails like this...

"After multiple scientific studies, water recycling has proven time and time again to be hygienic." Suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@, secretly gagging at a bottle recycled water.

...should not be happening at this stage of your writing career. While these sorts of things aren't dealbreakers, they give an overall impression of writing incompetence, and make your submission harder to take seriously.

[Australian rePublic]

New draft is up. Thanks Sherp, Baggie and CWA!

sewerage

Sewerage is actually the infrastructure that moves refuse and waste around. The term for the refuse and waste is Sewage.

"Yuck!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a citizen who is disgusted by the idea, carrying around a vile of fake defecation to demonstrate @@HIS@@ point "I don't care what no fake scientians say. I ain't drinking this crap! Why would I wanna drink sewerage? I ain't got no time for cholera! Yucky!"

I assume you mean vial, the noun for a container of stuff, not vile, the adjective for a disgusting thing.
Personal opinion: saying Yuck and then Yucky sounds a bit weird, maybe remove the Yucky from the end?

Fixed, thanks

Australian rePublic wrote:
complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, a citizen who is disgusted by the idea.

Can you give this speaker some more character please?

How?

Most citizens would be disgusted by the idea, why is it this one John Doe gets to meet LEADER? Give him some kind of job or a specific interest that would make his invitation to the office plausible.

Also, option 2 feels like the dismiss button. The speaker isn't proposing that LEADER take any new action. He has to propose something.

who captains tourist expeditions on replicas of Medieval ships for the @@ANIMAL@@ City Maritime Museum

I would just say "who captains tourist excursions on replicas of Medieval ships around @@ANIMAL@@ City harbour."
Fixed, thanks. H
Also, option 3 is a bit long. Can you take the scissors to it?

Fixed, thanks. He's now leader's mailman

On a related note, punctuation / grammar / capitalisation fails like this...

"After multiple scientific studies, water recycling has proven time and time again to be hygienic." Suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@, secretly gagging at a bottle recycled water.

...should not be happening at this stage of your writing career. While these sorts of things aren't dealbreakers, they give an overall impression of writing incompetence, and make your submission harder to take seriously.

Fixed, thanks!

[Baggieland]

Option 1 effect line doesn't work. The speaker is asking for the treatment of wastewater. The effect line for option 1 fits better in option 2.

Also, why the good weather validity?

[Australian rePublic]

Option 1 effect line doesn't work. The speaker is asking for the treatment of wastewater. The effect line for option 1 fits better in option 2.

Cheers, moved it back. Since it was a minor edit, I didn't bother with a new draft

Also, why the good weather validity?

Good weather, according to NS, is measured by amount of sunlight. Sunlight=no clouds=no rain=drought
No sunlight=clouds=rain=flood=no water shortage

[Baggieland]

Good weather, according to NS, is measured by amount of sunlight. Sunlight=no clouds=no rain=drought
No sunlight=clouds=rain=flood=no water shortage

I thought you had changed the premise from drought to water security? Water security is now an issue facing many nations in RL.

[Australian rePublic]

Good weather, according to NS, is measured by amount of sunlight. Sunlight=no clouds=no rain=drought
No sunlight=clouds=rain=flood=no water shortage

I thought you had changed the premise from drought to water security? Water security is now an issue facing many nations in RL.

Yes, particularly those with low rainfall. Validity still stands, but if you think I should remove it, then I shall

[Australian rePublic]

Last call

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Hold fire, it's getting there but needs some tuning. Be back to this shortly.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

title] Water Load of Crap

This title can't pass the censor. Can you do one that doesn't involve swearing, even if it's a mild swearword?

[desc] Reclaimed wastewater has historically been used for irrigation, industry and as flushwater. There are now plans to make it drinkable in order to secure the nation's water supply into the future

I'd amend the second part to:

There are now proposals to return it to the drinking water supply, with mixed responses.

The water security angle should be an argument within an option, if it is used at all, as it's a little bit of an unsubstantiated assertion in its current form.

[validity] "good" weather

Irrelevant validity, can be cut.

[option] "After multiple scientific studies, water recycling has proven time and time again to be hygienic." Suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@, secretly gagging at a bottle recycled water.

Please learn how interrupted speech is punctuated and capitalised. It's not hard.

After 'hygenic' should be a comma, not a full stop. The word 'suggests' should not be capitalised.

Harder to master here is that this just doesn't read naturally -- it's just bad writing. In English, you don't say "after multiple scientific studies", you say "multiple scientific studies have shown". You don't show water recycling to be hygienic, you show that it is safe or that the water is clean, or you assert that the process is hygienic. You can't speak while gagging. You can't secretly gag on something. Even if you could, the narrator can't communicate to a reader whose character is within the situation that something has happened secretly. For example, you wouldn't write "as he secretly laughs at you behind your back" as there's no way for the viewpoint character to know he's doing this.

Step back, read the option out loud, and ask yourself if it sounds like the speaker would actually speak, and if it reads like a description of the situation you might narrate to someone in a roleplaying game.

"Through reverse osmosis, we can speed up the natural water cycle, and turn sewerage into potable water.

Almost, but not quite. Try to make it sound like someone who knows what they're talking about rather than someone who has just heard the words.

As has been pointed out to you, sewerage is not the same as sewage. You can no more turn sewerage into potable water than you can turn an aluminium can into coca-cola.

It's the only way to ensure our national water security into the future!”

Unfounded assertion.

[effect] the nation's tap water smells faintly like sewage

Unjustifiable effect line, given the option is arguing that the process is hygienic.

And so on. I won't do the rest of the options - instead, review them yourself with the same approach, and make them better.

[Australian rePublic]

Thanks CWA, The next draft is up!

title] Water Load of Crap

This title can't pass the censor. Can you do one that doesn't involve swearing, even if it's a mild swearword?

Oh There goes the cleverest title I've ever come up with

[desc] Reclaimed wastewater has historically been used for irrigation, industry and as flushwater. There are now plans to make it drinkable in order to secure the nation's water supply into the future

I'd amend the second part to:

There are now proposals to return it to the drinking water supply, with mixed responses.

The water security angle should be an argument within an option, if it is used at all, as it's a little bit of an unsubstantiated assertion in its current form.

[validity] "good" weather

Irrelevant validity, can be cut.

Fixed, thanks!

[option] "After multiple scientific studies, water recycling has proven time and time again to be hygienic." Suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@, secretly gagging at a bottle recycled water.

Please learn how interrupted speech is punctuated and capitalised. It's not hard.

After 'hygenic' should be a comma, not a full stop. The word 'suggests' should not be capitalised.

Harder to master here is that this just doesn't read naturally -- it's just bad writing. In English, you don't say "after multiple scientific studies", you say "multiple scientific studies have shown". You don't show water recycling to be hygienic, you show that it is safe or that the water is clean, or you assert that the process is hygienic. You can't speak while gagging. You can't secretly gag on something. Even if you could, the narrator can't communicate to a reader whose character is within the situation that something has happened secretly. For example, you wouldn't write "as he secretly laughs at you behind your back" as there's no way for the viewpoint character to know he's doing this.

Step back, read the option out loud, and ask yourself if it sounds like the speaker would actually speak, and if it reads like a description of the situation you might narrate to someone in a roleplaying game.

Fixed, thanks

"Through reverse osmosis, we can speed up the natural water cycle, and turn sewerage into potable water.

Almost, but not quite. Try to make it sound like someone who knows what they're talking about rather than someone who has just heard the words.

As has been pointed out to you, sewerage is not the same as sewage. You can no more turn sewerage into potable water than you can turn an aluminium can into coca-cola.

Fixed, thanks! He's now the minister of water

It's the only way to ensure our national water security into the future!”

Unfounded assertion.

According to Baggie, I have to justify a reason somehow

[effect] the nation's tap water smells faintly like sewage

Unjustifiable effect line, given the option is arguing that the process is hygienic.

Thanks. I moved the second effect line to hear. Reason being that noone would refuse to drink non-recycled water, as non-recycled water isn't the issue

And so on. I won't do the rest of the options - instead, review them yourself with the same approach, and make them better.

Fixed, thanks. I felt the third option was good as-is

[Nooooooooooooooo]

compla@@RANDOMNAMEFEMALENAME@@

Should be:

complains @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@

Even though I do know that this is under major re-drafting, and you would probably find it after proofreading, I'm picky about things like this, so...

Anyway, I wish you luck!

[Australian rePublic]

compla@@RANDOMNAMEFEMALENAME@@

Should be:

complains @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@

Even though I do know that this is under major re-drafting, and you would probably find it after proofreading, I'm picky about things like this, so...

Anyway, I wish you luck!

Cheers. Since it's a minor edit, I won't bother with a new draft

[Omniabstracta]

Just a couple other minor fixes I can see:

---

recycled water is clean and safe for human consumption "suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@

The end of the quotes here seem a bit messed up, it should be:

recycled water is clean and safe for human consumption," suggests @@RANDOMNAME@@

---

“Organisation of Mothers Concerned About Everything".

Period here should go inside the quotes for consistency, I believe, since the rest of the issue follows the American punctuation standard. Could be wrong, though.

---

[effect] the government rejects the portability of clean water

Portability here should be potability (honestly a mistake I've probably made a few times before).

---

[option] "You landlubbers are all cowards!" Comments @@RANDOMNAME@@,

The c in comments doesn't need to be capitalized.

---

tourist excursions on replicas of Medieval ships around @@ANIMAL@@ City harbour.

Medieval isn't really a proper adjective in this case, I don't think it should be capitalized.

---

Besides, we desalinated water, though other countries dump raw sewerage into the sea.

A little bit of a tense mix-up here, should either change desalinated to desalinate, or dump to were dumping, and personally I'd change "though" to "while" for better flow. Also, you have the character use sewage earlier in the option, but sewerage here, I'd suggest changing them to match. Love the little accent you gave them, though.

---

must be backed by atleast 700 years of success

At least should be two words.

No doubt you'd get these on your own eventually, just thought I could help

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Oh There goes the cleverest title I've ever come up with

The pun has been used before, anyway, with Water Palaver.

Anyway, the word "poo" may not be as rude, but it also sounds like a primary school kid came up with the title, so that one isn't going to work either.

Fixed, thanks

No, it's not. You've decapitalised the word "suggests" but your spaces are in the wrong place, and the other options haven't been corrected.

If you fidn these things a struggle maybe cut and paste into a Word document and let the computer grammar check it for you?

Fixed, thanks! He's now the minister of water

He's very dull though. Try to give him something interesting to do as an action, with some layered meaning to it.

According to Baggie, I have to justify a reason somehow

I'm not contradicting Baggie. I'm saying that the assertion you're making is unfounded.

He says: 'It's the only way to ensure our national water security into the future!'

That's an unfounded assumption. You can't just assert that, you have to contextualise and explain why it is the case. Why is our national water security dependent on this water being drunk? Why is our national water security even an issue? How does drinking this water improve national water security?

[effect] the nation's tap water smells faintly like sewage

Thanks. I moved the second effect line to hear. Reason being that noone would refuse to drink non-recycled water, as non-recycled water isn't the issue

The new effect line still seems unlikely, but is better. Try instead:

[effect] many people prefer dehydration to drinking from the tap

which is weighted slightly differently, but more feasible.

Fixed, thanks. I felt the third option was good as-is

Fix the punctuation and the capitalisations, please.

[Australian rePublic]

Thanks for your help everyone, I've decided to revive this draft