Australian rePublic wrote:Daarwyrth wrote:I am sorry if I make the wrong assumption, but I have a feeling you have a strong opinion on the matter and are trying to influence the drafting so that it would better suit you personally. I don't say this in any bad way or with any malicious intent, but it's why I think I shouldn't follow your feedback as it may be too much coloured by personal bias. Again, apologies if I make a wrong assumption here, but it does come across as such.
As I said, previous commentary on the premise was positive, so I will stick to that
I am grateful for your time and attention, however!
Personal bias is exactly my point. Every player playing as @@LEADER@@ would have some kind of personal bias, whether they completely agree with me or completely disagree with me. No which decision you make, you're gonna piss someone off. As @@LEADER@@ is meant to be the man or woman behind the keyboard, then there'll always be some kind of bias that pisses someone off, whether they agree me or disagree with me. Personal bias is the very reason why I'm so opposed to this issue being about @@LEADER@@. If, however, you make it the minister of transport or something, then it doesn't matter what the biases are of the person behind the key board, becaude he/she isn't the one who's affected by the posters. The imaginary minister of transport could have whatever biases the issue wants him to have, without vioating player autonomy. I have no issue with having a heterosexual minister kissing members of the same sex, I have an issue with that minister being @@LEADER@@. Remove the @@LEADER@@, make it any otner minister, specify that said is hetero and/or celebate, and you don't have a problem
As Sanctaria said, there already is no problem.
We already have issue where a beautiful, named bisexual fancies @@LEADER@@ and one of the options is for @@LEADER@@ to date them -- regardless of @@LEADER@@'s gender, sexual preference or marital status in the player's headcanon.
As for the latest draft, I can't help but feel that it needs more humour inserted (though it does work better without the religiousness)
Daarwyrth wrote:[DESCRIPTION] A civil rights activist group,
the Gay Liberation Front, have been trying to draw attention to - what they call - 'oppression of the LGBT community' in @@NAME@@, by recreating photo's of you, @@LEADER@@, in which you now appear to be kissing various members of the same-sex.
With the imagery spreading like wildfire across the nation, the question of inclusion of non-heteronormative individuals in society has taken a hold of the public debate.
I'm not sure you need this line. We don't use many "We need to hold a debate" lines anymore.
Although your not keeping the religiousness was a good move, maybe you could keep the burning -- to add urgency? Maybe replace the last line with:
Now, a group of outraged conservatives have gathered in @@CAPITAL@@ Centre to try to burn the offending images... and the offending artists.
[OPTION 1] "These lowlifes have absolutely no regard for this nation's proud figures of authority!" bellows Minister of Culture and National Heritage @@RANDOMNAME@@, angrily tearing apart the recreated photo of you and them. "Not only are they trying to subvert the traditions that have guided @@NAME@@ throughout its history, they have also made us the laughing stock of our nation! Only by clamping down on the expression of nontraditional values and ideologies, can we hope to remove this blight from our great society and remain unchanged."
If you did opt for burning, you could add "torch-holding" before Minister of Culture and National Heritage.
I can't help but feel that you need to be more distinct on "clamping down on" -- which is partly why I suggested burning return in the opening (because we do have some other issues that repress LGBT+ rights). I suggest,
Only by seizing and destroying all portrayals of non-traditional values and ideologies, and anything that could possibly be used to represent those ideologies, can we hope to remove that blight from our society."
[EFFECT 1] fathers have stopped hugging their sons out ot fear for being branded 'nontraditional'
Could be something like, "little girls cry as their pink crayons are seized by the Straight-Thought Police"
[OPTION 2] "Conceal, don't feel, don't let it go... No, I can't hold it back anymore!" your Chief of Staff Elsa @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@ suddenly breaks down, starting to sob violently. "@@LEADER@@, I have been hiding it for years, but I am one of them, I am gay. The activists are right, now for once you know what it's like to be mocked, to be laughed at, just for being different. Please, make it stop, please allow us to be who we are in @@NAME@@!"
If you go with the burning suggestion of mine (which isn't compulsory), I'd make this a "slightly singed artist".
[OPTION 4] "You know, all of this got me thinking," your Press Secretary and self-proclaimed number one fan says, lovingly stroking the recreated photo of you and them. "Your visage inspires people, gives them hope. It's clear that you are our nation's greatest and most sublime muse. You need to make it so that all artwork in @@NAME@@ can only depict your likeness!"
[EFFECT 4] Mona Lola’s famous mysterious smile is being altered to resemble @@LEADER@@’s enigmatic grin
Worth saying that this doesn't do anything about the artwork presenting in the opening -- technically, it
does represent @@LEADER@@
.
I like the action of them stroking the image of themselves with @@LEADER@@, though. Maybe reword it so that
all faces on all artwork must be the leader...