[SUBMITTED] Service Dishonored

[Greater Cesnica]

Initiating last call for submission.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I guess the main concern here remains MI's worry that it's too much. Gang rape -- even with an adult tag -- is probably taking things beyond the limits of what we're happy to see in an NS issue.

The lines are blurry - we've always said absolutely no to any issues about paedophilia, but we've had issues refer to adult rape before, albeit not graphically or explicitly.

Do you think it's possible to preserve the narrative while toning down the content? For example, maybe it could be on the assault course rather than in the showers, and rather than rape being implied, the sexual assault could explicitly be something milder (yet still unacceptable) like a group of male soldiers throwing water over her to leer at her in a wet t-shirt.

[Greater Cesnica]

I guess the main concern here remains MI's worry that it's too much. Gang rape -- even with an adult tag -- is probably taking things beyond the limits of what we're happy to see in an NS issue.

The lines are blurry - we've always said absolutely no to any issues about paedophilia, but we've had issues refer to adult rape before, albeit not graphically or explicitly.

Do you think it's possible to preserve the narrative while toning down the content? For example, maybe it could be on the assault course rather than in the showers, and rather than rape being implied, the sexual assault could explicitly be something milder (yet still unacceptable) like a group of male soldiers throwing water over her to leer at her in a wet t-shirt.

I wanted to produce a reaction in the person receiving the issue. A visceral reckoning of the atrocity being described. Option Two is the 'nuclear' reaction- a blanket capital punishment to satisfy both the Leader's and the nation's desire for vengeance. I've removed all reference to stabbings and the specific number of attackers to tone it down. So my question is then, can something this graphic fly as an issue with the appropriate tagging?

Also, as for the scenarios you suggested- those incidents never make the papers in real life. It takes widespread abuse or a single horrific event to sear such events into the national consciousness. For instance, every single day an Allied Coalition soldier will commit an act of sexual assault overseas. But the Mahmudiyah rape and killings brought this to the front of the public consciousness, and seriously damaged the credibility of all U.S soldiers serving in Iraq.

[The Marsupial Illuminati]

I wanted to produce a reaction in the person receiving the issue. A visceral reckoning of the atrocity being described. Option Two is the 'nuclear' reaction- a blanket capital punishment to satisfy both the Leader's and the nation's desire for vengeance. I've removed all reference to stabbings and the specific number of attackers to tone it down. So my question is then, can something this graphic fly as an issue with the appropriate tagging?

Also, as for the scenarios you suggested- those incidents never make the papers in real life. It takes widespread abuse or a single horrific event to sear such events into the national consciousness. For instance, every single day an Allied Coalition soldier will commit an act of sexual assault overseas. But the Mahmudiyah rape and killings brought this to the front of the public consciousness, and seriously damaged the credibility of all U.S soldiers serving in Iraq.

I disagree with your approach in this issue. Although I understand the desire to justify why the issue is coming to Leader's attention by making the assault dramatic, I think it's unnecessary. As you say, news of widespread abuse will do. That is the route I encourage you to take in this issue, as it is more realistic. If you had read the articles that I recommended, you would know that actual military sex scandals are not the products of a single, big, dramatic event. Rather, they have to do with stories of multiple officers abusing their powers to sexually harass and/or assault multiple people over an extended period of time, with those in charge ignoring or participating in the abuse. This makes it difficult for people to come forward and thus allows what's happening to continue unabated, creating a toxic culture in these places where sexual abuse is a regular occurrence. To me, this kind of institutional corruption is far more disturbing than a single incident.

Also, you have not yet removed the parts where characters' speech is interrupted.

[Sanctaria]

So my question is then, can something this graphic fly as an issue with the appropriate tagging?

NS, gameside, is PG. You can be under 13 to use it. Schools use it. Even then, the adult tagging is for PG-13. The occasional damn is fine. Allusions to nudity/sex, fine.

I'm not aware of anywhere in the developed world where graphic sexual assault or sexual violence is permitted to be shown to those below 15/16 years of age. It's a no go here.

[Greater Cesnica]

I've decided to scrap the idea of a single atrocious, graphic assault and go with the theme of systemic sex abuse. I've also curbed instances where speech is interrupted, as per MI's suggestion.

[Greater Cesnica]

What do y'all think of it now, with the graphic details gone, and a more realistic scenario?

[Greater Cesnica]

(I know I know a triple post)

Initiating another last call for submission.

[Fauxia]

Hey there, Greater Cesnica! Nice to see a new writer in GI, and this is extremely promising. I’ll go through here and try to correct some things but this is quite good.

TITLE: Service Dishonored

VALIDITY: Has military, allows females in military, no capital punishment, strong law enforcement.

It’s possible this needs to have a "not extremely rare crime" tag, and not sure if it needs strong law enforcement. Not sure though.

DESCRIPTION: After the revelation of a systemic, high-reaching sex abuse against female soldiers over the span of over a decade and the failure of senior military officials in stopping it, the @@DENONYM@@ military has found itself in the midst of a public relations nightmare.

A systemic, high-reaching sex abuse? Sounds like one instance to me. Just get rid of "a" and it should be fine.

As pressure and scrutiny mounts against the armed forces, you have agreed to meet with one of the victims of the abuse.

"Pressure and scrutiny" sounds repetitive to me, but to be honest I’m not sure either one is right here. You could use something along the lines of "outrage" here, or something else entirely.

Option 1: "I joined the army to serve my country, because I've always f-felt there was a duty for me to do so." says Corporal @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@, a victim of rape by one of her superiors. "It started off as catcalling, staring, whispering, but then it c-changed. I began being summoned to the office of my platoon commander, first every week, and then every other night. And then my lieutenant s-started assaulting me. I want to see justice. I want to see women like me to feel safe serving their country. @@NAME@@ needs more protections for female soldiers and harsher penalties for r-rapists and those who enable them. Like life in prison."

Outcome: Male soldiers caught staring too long at their female counterparts may be charged with sexual harassment.

1) Since you use it later, I think the macro for the corporal should be @@RANDOMFEMALEFIRSTNAME(1)@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME(1)@@. Macros are weird!
2) Issue effects/fallouts aren’t written as sentences, so no capitalization.

Option 2: Colonel @@RANDOMMALE@@, commander of the base where this particular incident took place has accompanied Ms. @@RANDOMLASTNAMEFEMALE@@ to your office, and sits next to her across from your desk.

It should be @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ and probably Corporal @@RANDOMLASTNAME(1)@@.

"I tried to stop what was happening. I laid off dozens of officers, but they would simply be re-assigned to another base. What I see here is a culture of intimidation, of utter disregard for the dignity of @@DENONYM@@ women. A lack of basic human empathy for others. Most of the perpetrators won't see real punishment with our current punishments and culture. We need a serious deterrent, @@LEADER@@. The long drop with a short stop should do the trick.

Outcome: The government has purchased in bulk thousands of yards of manila rope.

Option 3: A few minutes later, the two leave your office. Just as they exit through your officer door, a second Colonel, @@RANDOMMALE@@ enters.

You could cut this option down a bit without losing the narrative by saying simply "as they leave, a second Colonel, @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, enters"

"This would have never happened if women were not allowed into combat roles in the first place. When men and women are in crowded barracks, these... incidents are bound to happen. Now now, I'm not condoning what has happened, or defending the people who committed these acts! But to effectively curb scandals like these occurring in the future, drastic action must be taken." He quickly salutes you before leaving your office.

Outcome: @@NAME@@ has censored all media depictions of the wildly popular video game and film protagonist Sara Colt.

Option 4: Hoping to take your mind off of this unfortunate topic, you pull out your phone only to find a text message from your nephew. Opening the message, you read: "idk about you but imo having women and men serve separately would solve this whole military rape thing". As you prepare to send a reply back another message appears on the screen: "also way more women could join cuz the standards for them would be lower lol".

Outcome: The @@DENONYM@@ military is experiencing a gender identity crisis.

Not sure whether the nephew is the right choice here, but perhaps.

Finally, it occurs to me that this should probably me ineligible for nations that have all-female militaries. If there’s no policy tag for that it should be ineligible for nations that chose 426.4.

Don’t rush submitting this. It still needs a good bit of work. It’s pretty good though.

[Greater Cesnica]

Hey there, Greater Cesnica! Nice to see a new writer in GI, and this is extremely promising. I’ll go through here and try to correct some things but this is quite good.

TITLE: Service Dishonored

VALIDITY: Has military, allows females in military, no capital punishment, strong law enforcement.

It’s possible this needs to have a "not extremely rare crime" tag, and not sure if it needs strong law enforcement. Not sure though.

DESCRIPTION: After the revelation of a systemic, high-reaching sex abuse against female soldiers over the span of over a decade and the failure of senior military officials in stopping it, the @@DENONYM@@ military has found itself in the midst of a public relations nightmare.

A systemic, high-reaching sex abuse? Sounds like one instance to me. Just get rid of "a" and it should be fine.

As pressure and scrutiny mounts against the armed forces, you have agreed to meet with one of the victims of the abuse.

"Pressure and scrutiny" sounds repetitive to me, but to be honest I’m not sure either one is right here. You could use something along the lines of "outrage" here, or something else entirely.

Option 1: "I joined the army to serve my country, because I've always f-felt there was a duty for me to do so." says Corporal @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@, a victim of rape by one of her superiors. "It started off as catcalling, staring, whispering, but then it c-changed. I began being summoned to the office of my platoon commander, first every week, and then every other night. And then my lieutenant s-started assaulting me. I want to see justice. I want to see women like me to feel safe serving their country. @@NAME@@ needs more protections for female soldiers and harsher penalties for r-rapists and those who enable them. Like life in prison."

Outcome: Male soldiers caught staring too long at their female counterparts may be charged with sexual harassment.

1) Since you use it later, I think the macro for the corporal should be @@RANDOMFEMALEFIRSTNAME(1)@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME(1)@@. Macros are weird!
2) Issue effects/fallouts aren’t written as sentences, so no capitalization.

Option 2: Colonel @@RANDOMMALE@@, commander of the base where this particular incident took place has accompanied Ms. @@RANDOMLASTNAMEFEMALE@@ to your office, and sits next to her across from your desk.

It should be @@RANDOMMALENAME@@ and probably Corporal @@RANDOMLASTNAME(1)@@.

"I tried to stop what was happening. I laid off dozens of officers, but they would simply be re-assigned to another base. What I see here is a culture of intimidation, of utter disregard for the dignity of @@DENONYM@@ women. A lack of basic human empathy for others. Most of the perpetrators won't see real punishment with our current punishments and culture. We need a serious deterrent, @@LEADER@@. The long drop with a short stop should do the trick.

Outcome: The government has purchased in bulk thousands of yards of manila rope.

Option 3: A few minutes later, the two leave your office. Just as they exit through your officer door, a second Colonel, @@RANDOMMALE@@ enters.

You could cut this option down a bit without losing the narrative by saying simply "as they leave, a second Colonel, @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, enters"

"This would have never happened if women were not allowed into combat roles in the first place. When men and women are in crowded barracks, these... incidents are bound to happen. Now now, I'm not condoning what has happened, or defending the people who committed these acts! But to effectively curb scandals like these occurring in the future, drastic action must be taken." He quickly salutes you before leaving your office.

Outcome: @@NAME@@ has censored all media depictions of the wildly popular video game and film protagonist Sara Colt.

Not sure whether the nephew is the right choice here, but perhaps.

Finally, it occurs to me that this should probably me ineligible for nations that have all-female militaries. If there’s no policy tag for that it should be ineligible for nations that chose 426.4.

Don’t rush submitting this. It still needs a good bit of work. It’s pretty good though.

I've inputted your advice

[Greater Cesnica]

This is looking really good, I hope it's accepted.

Thank you! Is there anything that I should refine that you see?

[Verdant Haven]

I'll jump in here and see if I can give some feedback, too! I wasn't at all comfortable with the initial form as an issue, but since you've modified it to a less graphic form, I think you've got a good basis to address this very real and serious problem. A lot of this will be just suggestions for smoothing the language flow and tweaking characterizations, since you've got the issue pretty well sculpted now.

DESCRIPTION: After the revelation of systemic, high-reaching sex abuse against female soldiers over the span of over a decade and the failure of senior military officials in stopping it, the @@DENONYM@@ military has found itself in the midst of a public relations nightmare. As scrutiny mounts against the armed forces and their ability to keep female soldier safe, you have agreed to meet with one of the victims of the abuse.

- The phrasing "over the span of over a decade" is a bit off, because of the repeated word "over." Perhaps "over the span of more than a decade..."

- I'd also probably use the term "sexual abuse" instead of "sex abuse" (at least in the US, that's the far more common form of the term. Disregard if it's the other way around where you are).

Option 1: "I joined the army to serve my country, because I've always f-felt there was a duty for me to do so." says Corporal @@RANDOMFEMALEFIRSTNAME(1)@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME(1)@@, a victim of rape by one of her superiors. "It started off as catcalling, staring, whispering, but then it c-changed. I began being summoned to the office of my platoon commander, first every week, and then every other night. And then my lieutenant s-started assaulting me. I want to see justice. I want to see women like me to feel safe serving their country. @@NAME@@ needs more protections for female soldiers and harsher penalties for r-rapists and those who enable them. Like life in prison."

- I'm glad you reduced the stuttering here - it was reaching caricature levels before. Honestly though, I would remove it completely. The victim doesn't need to be portrayed as weak or broken - I feel like they can make their point clearly and precisely despite the trauma they've undergone. It kind of undermines the argument for the strength of female service-members to have their spokesperson be blubbering through their testimony.

Outcome: male soldiers caught staring too long at their female counterparts may be charged with sexual harassment.

- Excessive staring is sexual harassment. It's not ok in any workplace for men to leer at women (or vice versa). I'd suggest having something far more innocuous being penalized - something like "saying 'good morning' in the elevator is prosecuted as sexual harassment"

Option 2: Colonel @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, commander of the base where this particular incident took place has accompanied Ms. @@RANDOMLASTNAME(1)@@ to your office, and sits next to her across from your desk. "I tried to stop what was happening. I laid off dozens of officers, but they would simply be re-assigned to another base. What I see here is a culture of intimidation, of utter disregard for the dignity of @@DENONYM@@ women. A lack of basic human empathy for others. Most of the perpetrators won't see real punishment with our current punishments and culture. We need a serious deterrent, @@LEADER@@. The long drop with a short stop should do the trick.

- I wonder if this might be more powerful with a female colonel, rather than a male. As is, this could be read somewhat paternalistic ally, with the idea that a female needs a male spokesperson to protect and represent her. I'm not suggesting you intended that, but I definitely can see that side of it.

- Perhaps identify them as "the newly-appointed commander of the base..." to suggest part of the changes underway, but she's asking for more.

- Also, I would suggest you refer to the victim with her rank rather than with "Ms." - she's still in the service and is there on at least semi-official business, so call her "corporal."

- Officers can't typically be "laid off" - that would require a court martial and revocation of their commission - "re-assigned" or "transferred" is probably the best the colonel could do on their own authority.

Outcome: the government has purchased in bulk thousands of yards of manila rope.

- This phrasing might flow more smoothly as "the government has bulk-purchased thousands..."

Option 3: After a few minutes the two leave. As they leave, a second Colonel, @@RANDOMMALE@@ enters. "This would have never happened if women were not allowed into combat roles in the first place. When men and women are in crowded barracks, these... incidents are bound to happen. Now now, I'm not condoning what has happened, or defending the people who committed these acts! But to effectively curb scandals like these occurring in the future, drastic action must be taken." He quickly salutes you before leaving your office.

- Don't need that first sentence - it contributes nothing not gained by the second sentence. Start with the "As they leave..."

- If you go with the suggestion above of having the colonel from Option 2 be the newly appointed base commander, it might make good narrative sense for this to be the former base commander.

- I don't entirely buy the "combat roles" line in his argument - this was in the barracks, at a base on home soil, over the course of many years. You don't have to be combat arms to live there and be exposed to that.

- The last sentence is also not needed - his salute and departure does not contribute to the issue or the decision.

Outcome: @@NAME@@ has censored all media depictions of the wildly popular video game and film protagonist Sara Colt.

- This effect is a bit of a stretch from the speaker's proposal - I feel like the player is going to be expecting this decision to be the removal of women from the military, not some sort of censorship of media. For this to land, I think the proposal in option 3 will have to include something about reinforcing gender roles, or telling girls they shouldn't try to serve. With a bit more context, then censorship would make sense as a result.

- I don't know who "Sara Colt" is or why I should care about her games, and I don't think that level of specificity makes sense for this effect. I'd probably go with censoring all media depictions "of strong female protagonists" to better capture the broad-ranging effects of such a misogynistic outlook.

Option 4: Hoping to take your mind off of this unfortunate topic, you pull out your phone only to find a text message from your nephew. Opening the message, you read: "idk about you but imo having women and men serve separately would solve this whole military rape thing". As you prepare to send a reply back another message appears on the screen: "also way more women could join cuz the standards for them would be lower lol".

- This is the only option here that's I'm iffy about keeping. What exactly is the speaker suggesting? Creating two full fledged armies, one for men and one for women? That doesn't feel like it matches the realism levels previous suggestions here do. Stronger discipline exists, harsh penalties exist, and gender segregation or outright prohibition exists... is the nephew suggesting something like the WWII WRNS/WAVES and similar, creating a special service just for women with limited roles? Make sure this suggestion is sufficiently different from option 3 in result, not just presentation.

- Where did the lower standards come in to it? This case so far has been all about having equality.

Outcome: the @@DENONYM@@ military is experiencing a gender identity crisis.

- Depending on how this option shakes out, this could be a reasonable effect line. As I said above, this is the option I feel the most uncertain about.


You've got a very powerful issue here, with important subject matter. Good on you for tackling it well, and let's see this through!

[Greater Cesnica]

I'll jump in here and see if I can give some feedback, too! I wasn't at all comfortable with the initial form as an issue, but since you've modified it to a less graphic form, I think you've got a good basis to address this very real and serious problem. A lot of this will be just suggestions for smoothing the language flow and tweaking characterizations, since you've got the issue pretty well sculpted now.

DESCRIPTION: After the revelation of systemic, high-reaching sex abuse against female soldiers over the span of over a decade and the failure of senior military officials in stopping it, the @@DENONYM@@ military has found itself in the midst of a public relations nightmare. As scrutiny mounts against the armed forces and their ability to keep female soldier safe, you have agreed to meet with one of the victims of the abuse.

- The phrasing "over the span of over a decade" is a bit off, because of the repeated word "over." Perhaps "over the span of more than a decade..."

- I'd also probably use the term "sexual abuse" instead of "sex abuse" (at least in the US, that's the far more common form of the term. Disregard if it's the other way around where you are).

Option 1: "I joined the army to serve my country, because I've always f-felt there was a duty for me to do so." says Corporal @@RANDOMFEMALEFIRSTNAME(1)@@ @@RANDOMLASTNAME(1)@@, a victim of rape by one of her superiors. "It started off as catcalling, staring, whispering, but then it c-changed. I began being summoned to the office of my platoon commander, first every week, and then every other night. And then my lieutenant s-started assaulting me. I want to see justice. I want to see women like me to feel safe serving their country. @@NAME@@ needs more protections for female soldiers and harsher penalties for r-rapists and those who enable them. Like life in prison."

- I'm glad you reduced the stuttering here - it was reaching caricature levels before. Honestly though, I would remove it completely. The victim doesn't need to be portrayed as weak or broken - I feel like they can make their point clearly and precisely despite the trauma they've undergone. It kind of undermines the argument for the strength of female service-members to have their spokesperson be blubbering through their testimony.

Outcome: male soldiers caught staring too long at their female counterparts may be charged with sexual harassment.

- Excessive staring is sexual harassment. It's not ok in any workplace for men to leer at women (or vice versa). I'd suggest having something far more innocuous being penalized - something like "saying 'good morning' in the elevator is prosecuted as sexual harassment"

Option 2: Colonel @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, commander of the base where this particular incident took place has accompanied Ms. @@RANDOMLASTNAME(1)@@ to your office, and sits next to her across from your desk. "I tried to stop what was happening. I laid off dozens of officers, but they would simply be re-assigned to another base. What I see here is a culture of intimidation, of utter disregard for the dignity of @@DENONYM@@ women. A lack of basic human empathy for others. Most of the perpetrators won't see real punishment with our current punishments and culture. We need a serious deterrent, @@LEADER@@. The long drop with a short stop should do the trick.

- I wonder if this might be more powerful with a female colonel, rather than a male. As is, this could be read somewhat paternalistic ally, with the idea that a female needs a male spokesperson to protect and represent her. I'm not suggesting you intended that, but I definitely can see that side of it.

- Perhaps identify them as "the newly-appointed commander of the base..." to suggest part of the changes underway, but she's asking for more.

- Also, I would suggest you refer to the victim with her rank rather than with "Ms." - she's still in the service and is there on at least semi-official business, so call her "corporal."

- Officers can't typically be "laid off" - that would require a court martial and revocation of their commission - "re-assigned" or "transferred" is probably the best the colonel could do on their own authority.

Outcome: the government has purchased in bulk thousands of yards of manila rope.

- This phrasing might flow more smoothly as "the government has bulk-purchased thousands..."

Option 3: After a few minutes the two leave. As they leave, a second Colonel, @@RANDOMMALE@@ enters. "This would have never happened if women were not allowed into combat roles in the first place. When men and women are in crowded barracks, these... incidents are bound to happen. Now now, I'm not condoning what has happened, or defending the people who committed these acts! But to effectively curb scandals like these occurring in the future, drastic action must be taken." He quickly salutes you before leaving your office.

- Don't need that first sentence - it contributes nothing not gained by the second sentence. Start with the "As they leave..."

- If you go with the suggestion above of having the colonel from Option 2 be the newly appointed base commander, it might make good narrative sense for this to be the former base commander.

- I don't entirely buy the "combat roles" line in his argument - this was in the barracks, at a base on home soil, over the course of many years. You don't have to be combat arms to live there and be exposed to that.

- The last sentence is also not needed - his salute and departure does not contribute to the issue or the decision.

Outcome: @@NAME@@ has censored all media depictions of the wildly popular video game and film protagonist Sara Colt.

- This effect is a bit of a stretch from the speaker's proposal - I feel like the player is going to be expecting this decision to be the removal of women from the military, not some sort of censorship of media. For this to land, I think the proposal in option 3 will have to include something about reinforcing gender roles, or telling girls they shouldn't try to serve. With a bit more context, then censorship would make sense as a result.

- I don't know who "Sara Colt" is or why I should care about her games, and I don't think that level of specificity makes sense for this effect. I'd probably go with censoring all media depictions "of strong female protagonists" to better capture the broad-ranging effects of such a misogynistic outlook.

Option 4: Hoping to take your mind off of this unfortunate topic, you pull out your phone only to find a text message from your nephew. Opening the message, you read: "idk about you but imo having women and men serve separately would solve this whole military rape thing". As you prepare to send a reply back another message appears on the screen: "also way more women could join cuz the standards for them would be lower lol".

- This is the only option here that's I'm iffy about keeping. What exactly is the speaker suggesting? Creating two full fledged armies, one for men and one for women? That doesn't feel like it matches the realism levels previous suggestions here do. Stronger discipline exists, harsh penalties exist, and gender segregation or outright prohibition exists... is the nephew suggesting something like the WWII WRNS/WAVES and similar, creating a special service just for women with limited roles? Make sure this suggestion is sufficiently different from option 3 in result, not just presentation.

- Where did the lower standards come in to it? This case so far has been all about having equality.

Outcome: the @@DENONYM@@ military is experiencing a gender identity crisis.

- Depending on how this option shakes out, this could be a reasonable effect line. As I said above, this is the option I feel the most uncertain about.


You've got a very powerful issue here, with important subject matter. Good on you for tackling it well, and let's see this through!

Thank you for your feedback! I'm currently visiting my brother up north so I don't have my computer with me. Once I get access to a computer I will input your suggestions. As for your qualms with the arguments presented in options 3 and 4, there are supposed to be misogynistic undertones- more blatant in the third option than the fourth option. The fourth option is supposed to be the "uninformed" opinion, but I will clarify further what they're trying to get across, since I have some space to play with.

[Greater Cesnica]

UPDATE: I've implemented most of the suggestions above. For the suggestions I did not implement: I did not make the Colonel in the second option female because I want to get across the message to the reader that there are virtuous, disciplined men in the military prepared to combat the insidious abuse occurring within its institutions. I have for the most part gotten rid of the misogynistic undertones evident in the original option four. I have shortened the ending sentence in option three but not removed it, as I want to keep a transition of sorts to the fourth option. And finally I have reinforced the misogynistic undertones in option three, including in the effect line.

[Verdant Haven]

Looks like dramatic improvements to me! I only have two minor items left:

- In option 2, you accidentally put both individuals as colonels - the option 1 speaker was a corporal.

- I'm just missing the boat on the Guns'n'Roses reference, so was wondering what that is? I'm familiar with the band, certainly, but not with how they're relates to gender-separated service branches.

This is looking quite good, in my opinion!

[Greater Cesnica]

Looks like dramatic improvements to me! I only have two minor items left:

- In option 2, you accidentally put both individuals as colonels - the option 1 speaker was a corporal.

- I'm just missing the boat on the Guns'n'Roses reference, so was wondering what that is? I'm familiar with the band, certainly, but not with how they're relates to gender-separated service branches.

This is looking quite good, in my opinion!

Right, thank you for pointing out the typo. As for the reference, I replaced it with the nephew just expressing his fantasies. Also, do the macros look good?

[Verdant Haven]

Good replacement for the nephew.

Macros look good to me (you could use @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ on the first one, but I think that's what it defaults too - Issue Editors will handle those in the end!)


I found two more small typos/suggestions as I was re-reading, both in the same sentence from Option 2:

"I wastried to stop what was happening. I re-assigned dozens of officers and recommended courts martial for them...

- "was" is probably just left over from a re-write.
- "courts martial" is the plural of court martial, so since there are many of them, you might want that (if you don't think it sounds too pretentious)

[Greater Cesnica]

Good replacement for the nephew.

Macros look good to me (you could use @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ on the first one, but I think that's what it defaults too - Issue Editors will handle those in the end!)


I found two more small typos/suggestions as I was re-reading, both in the same sentence from Option 2:

"I wastried to stop what was happening. I re-assigned dozens of officers and recommended courts martial for them...

- "was" is probably just left over from a re-write.
- "courts martial" is the plural of court martial, so since there are many of them, you might want that (if you don't think it sounds too pretentious)

Typo corrected, adjusted the courts martial sentence to fit in the proper terminology.

Thanks!

[Greater Cesnica]

So how does this draft look now?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

It remains well-written, but being centred around sexual abuse may still be too much for the game.

[Greater Cesnica]

It remains well-written, but being centred around sexual abuse may still be too much for the game.

Is it too much to bring attention to this serious real-life problem?

[Sanctaria]

Rape has been mentioned very few times in the issue base and never in the way you've done so here. We usually approach it as either mentioning it in passing along with murder when talking about crime in general, or in the one issue I think about castration it's more of a "rape happened" approach.

Here, and particularly through option 1, you go into a lot more detail, and I think that's what Candle is getting at. It's not a problem to discuss or do an issue on rape in the military, but it has to be done at a much more ... I don't want to use the phrase "intellectual level" but it's all I can think of right now.

This issue is also about how to prevent rape/sexual assault, and that's also something we have to consider. Even with the adult tag, kids of 13 (and less!) will receive it, and unlike in other issues where we can accept extremes of options, or crazy options, it would be abdicating our responsibility to treat an issue on sexual assault the same way. Not that our responsibility is to teach children, but it is our responsibility to ensure the game is a tool that everyone can use.

There's also the matter of actual rape victims and sexual abuse survivors would may receive this issue and so how we deal with it also has to take that into account.

It needs to be brought back to a "rape happened, what next" scenario.

"Private Mary X was sexually assaulted at her base - her attacker was court martialed and kicked out of the military. But now Private X is leading the charge on changing how women are perceived in the military."

Option 1: *demands female-only military*

Option 2: *keep military as, but make women only allowed become officers/hold positions of authority*

Option 3: *get rid of military*

Option 4: *get rid of women in the military*

Such an approach remains an issue about sexual assault in the military, but at a much more top-level approach. Right now it reads like they're explaining what happened to a prosecutor, as opposed to trying to formulate policy.

[Trotterdam]

"Private Mary X was sexually assaulted at her base - her attacker was court martialed and kicked out of the military. But now Private X is leading the charge on changing how women are perceived in the military."

Option 1: *demands female-only military*

Option 2: *keep military as, but make women only allowed become officers/hold positions of authority*

Option 3: *get rid of military*

Option 4: *get rid of women in the military*

What, 3 of 4 options are sexist and the remaining one abolishes the military entirely?

[Sanctaria]

"Private Mary X was sexually assaulted at her base - her attacker was court martialed and kicked out of the military. But now Private X is leading the charge on changing how women are perceived in the military."

Option 1: *demands female-only military*

Option 2: *keep military as, but make women only allowed become officers/hold positions of authority*

Option 3: *get rid of military*

Option 4: *get rid of women in the military*

What, 3 of 4 options are sexist and the remaining one abolishes the military entirely?

It was a suggested scenario, Trotterdam, not the word of God.

[Greater Cesnica]

What, 3 of 4 options are sexist and the remaining one abolishes the military entirely?

It was a suggested scenario, Trotterdam, not the word of God.

Should I just remove all graphic of the specific assault from Option one and curb it down to a more straight-forward request/position on behalf of the victim?

And I'm well aware that there will be victims of sexual assault or abuse that receive this issue. I wrote this issue as such a victim. I wanted to bring attention to this subject because I personally never received an issue talking about sexual abuse. There may be other issues that delve into this topic, but I wanted to highlight a hostile culture originally, and then later systemic abuse that would have affected hundreds, if not thousands of individuals. That was my intention with the draft. I apologize if the first several drafts offended anyone with the graphic details of the assault, but those details taken from personal (not my own experience) conversations, and changed a bit to tone down the severity of the assault. I then realized that the graphic sensationalist nature of the assault depicted in the first several drafts simply wouldn't do for keeping within issue guidelines, and I broadened the scope to include a much more insidious, widespread incidence of abuse and assault.

I hope this clarifies some of my intentions with this draft.

EDIT TWO: Looking over option one the only change I think I can make is to completely change the structure of the option and start from the ground up on it.