NationStates

Candensia wrote:I see the reference in option two, and it really has good comedic potential. Can you sell it more?

As in, make it more pronounced? I'll give it a try!

Candensia wrote:I see the reference in option two, and it really has good comedic potential. Can you sell it more?

How about this:

[OPTION 2] "Conceal? Don't feel? Don't let them know?" asks gay rights activist Elsa @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@, her ice-white hair slightly singed. "Well, now you know!" she exclaims, tearing off her coat, revealing a sparkly rainbow-colored dress. "Let it go, let it go! Don't hold the gay back anymore!"

[EFFECT 2] divorce rates are increasing as citizens come out of the closet in droves

Daarwyrth wrote:

Candensia wrote:I see the reference in option two, and it really has good comedic potential. Can you sell it more?

How about this:

[OPTION 2] "Conceal? Don't feel? Don't let them know?" asks gay rights activist Elsa @@RANDOMLASTNAME@@, her ice-white hair slightly singed. "Well, now you know!" she exclaims, tearing off her coat, revealing a sparkly rainbow-colored dress. "Let it go, let it go! Don't hold the gay back anymore!"

[EFFECT 2] divorce rates are increasing as citizens come out of the closet in droves

I love it

Alright, draft 9 is ready! I have altered Options 2 and 3 to fit in with the commentary about selling the Let It Go-trope more. What do people think, does it work?

Upon consideration, I've decided to change the title to "Give Your @@LEADER@@ A Kiss" in draft 9, as I believe it suits the narrative of the issue more. Do others agree?

Why is the only option which opposes this the one which makes him look like a ranging homophobe?why can't leader oppose being made to kiss the same gender without being a homophobe?

Australian rePublic wrote:Why is the only option which opposes this the one which makes him look like a ranging homophobe?why can't leader oppose being made to kiss the same gender without being a homophobe?

Leader is not made to kiss anyone? It's photoshopped images of leader, not actual footage of leader kissing someone of the same gender. Surely you see the difference here?

The nation has a homophobic status quo, as set by the validity. What else do you expect the response to be from a homophobic country? The option is written in light of the feedback I had gotten, which encouraged me to write it up this way. Option 3 is the more moderate option in this case, but if you don't want to come across as homophobic, there's option 2 or 4

Any commentary on draft 9? I'm eager to improve where necessary!

Daarwyrth wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Why is the only option which opposes this the one which makes him look like a ranging homophobe?why can't leader oppose being made to kiss the same gender without being a homophobe?

Leader is not made to kiss anyone? It's photoshopped images of leader, not actual footage of leader kissing someone of the same gender. Surely you see the difference here?

The nation has a homophobic status quo, as set by the validity. What else do you expect the response to be from a homophobic country? The option is written in light of the feedback I had gotten, which encouraged me to write it up this way. Option 3 is the more moderate option in this case, but if you don't want to come across as homophobic, there's option 2 or 4

I think it might be good to have an option where the leader oppose such images, limiting free speech, while still supporting the LGBT community. I would give the players more freedom without, I think, messing up the narrative

I'm not sure if this is intentional, but consider the @@LEADER@@ macro in the title.
"Come Give Your Leader A Kiss!" without the macro sounds fine, but for me, with the macro, it would be "Come Give Your Charles Dexter A Kiss!" which sounds a little bit off. I can kinda see where the second one could be intentional and work fine, but it still sounds kinda weird to me.

SherpDaWerp wrote:I'm not sure if this is intentional, but consider the @@LEADER@@ macro in the title.
"Come Give Your Leader A Kiss!" without the macro sounds fine, but for me, with the macro, it would be "Come Give Your Charles Dexter A Kiss!" which sounds a little bit off. I can kinda see where the second one could be intentional and work fine, but it still sounds kinda weird to me.

And what if I'd remove "your" from the title? So it would be "Come Give Leader A Kiss!"? In your case for example it would be "Come Give Charles Dexter A Kiss!", would it sound weird to you still? I wouldn't mind if it sounded awkward because it's meant to go along the "come give your uncle a kiss!" trope, which I am sure made many children feel awkward haha. But if it doesn't work, then I can change it to Leader instead of the macro.

Makdon wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:
Leader is not made to kiss anyone? It's photoshopped images of leader, not actual footage of leader kissing someone of the same gender. Surely you see the difference here?

The nation has a homophobic status quo, as set by the validity. What else do you expect the response to be from a homophobic country? The option is written in light of the feedback I had gotten, which encouraged me to write it up this way. Option 3 is the more moderate option in this case, but if you don't want to come across as homophobic, there's option 2 or 4

I think it might be good to have an option where the leader oppose such images, limiting free speech, while still supporting the LGBT community. I would give the players more freedom without, I think, messing up the narrative

Well, option 3 is sort of meant to reflect that. Because basically you let the LGBT community be free but it has to remain underground/unseen.

How would you see Leader being supportive of the LGBT community, but forbid images like that, though? Because to me it comes across as a bit contradictory, forbidding imagery like that but at the same time being supportive of the LGBT cause. Could you explain a bit more what you mean?

Daarwyrth wrote:

SherpDaWerp wrote:I'm not sure if this is intentional, but consider the @@LEADER@@ macro in the title.
"Come Give Your Leader A Kiss!" without the macro sounds fine, but for me, with the macro, it would be "Come Give Your Charles Dexter A Kiss!" which sounds a little bit off. I can kinda see where the second one could be intentional and work fine, but it still sounds kinda weird to me.

And what if I'd remove "your" from the title? So it would be "Come Give Leader A Kiss!"? In your case for example it would be "Come Give Charles Dexter A Kiss!", would it sound weird to you still? I wouldn't mind if it sounded awkward because it's meant to go along the "come give your uncle a kiss!" trope, which I am sure made many children feel awkward haha. But if it doesn't work, then I can change it to Leader instead of the macro.

Yeah, getting rid of the your would 100% work great. As another example, if the nation's leader was "holy emperor steve", the title would appear as "Come Give Holy Emperor Steve A Kiss!". Other than that, this issue is looking solid

SherpDaWerp wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:
And what if I'd remove "your" from the title? So it would be "Come Give Leader A Kiss!"? In your case for example it would be "Come Give Charles Dexter A Kiss!", would it sound weird to you still? I wouldn't mind if it sounded awkward because it's meant to go along the "come give your uncle a kiss!" trope, which I am sure made many children feel awkward haha. But if it doesn't work, then I can change it to Leader instead of the macro.

Yeah, getting rid of the your would 100% work great. As another example, if the nation's leader was "holy emperor steve", the title would appear as "Come Give Holy Emperor Steve A Kiss!". Other than that, this issue is looking solid

Then "your" is gone from the title! I think stuff like "Come Give Holy Emperor Steve A Kiss" could lead to really funny titles, so I don't mind keeping it in! But I agree, the "your" made it sound weird

You're presuming that kisses between adults must be sexual? there are RL cultures where it's just a perfectly acceptable non-sexual form of greeting between adults of the same sex.
There might even be some cultures where, due to sexual prudery, it's more acceptable between adults of the same sex than it is between adults [who aren't married to each other] of opposite sexes...

Bears Armed wrote:You're presuming that kisses between adults must be sexual? there are RL cultures where it's just a perfectly acceptable non-sexual form of greeting between adults of the same sex.
There might even be some cultures where, due to sexual prudery, it's more acceptable between adults of the same sex than it is between adults [who aren't married to each other] of opposite sexes...

No not at all, I don't mean to presume that all kisses between adults are inherently sexual. I know that for example in France people greet one another by kissing on the cheek, no matter the gender. But the photoshopped photos are used in a specific context, namely, to highlight low LGBT rights in a specific country and to make it more acceptable in the given nation.

I'm not sure I am getting your criticism here, what is it exactly that you're trying to point out? What should I change in your opinion?

As I am feeling content about draft 9, I think I'm ready to submit it! But before I do, I was hoping to gather any final comments or remarks about what could still receive improvement. So please, share your thoughts with me!

Daarwyrth wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:You're presuming that kisses between adults must be sexual? there are RL cultures where it's just a perfectly acceptable non-sexual form of greeting between adults of the same sex.
There might even be some cultures where, due to sexual prudery, it's more acceptable between adults of the same sex than it is between adults [who aren't married to each other] of opposite sexes...

No not at all, I don't mean to presume that all kisses between adults are inherently sexual. I know that for example in France people greet one another by kissing on the cheek, no matter the gender. But the photoshopped photos are used in a specific context, namely, to highlight low LGBT rights in a specific country and to make it more acceptable in the given nation.

I'm not sure I am getting your criticism here, what is it exactly that you're trying to point out?

just that, even with your specified validity, there are going to be people -- IC as well as OOC -- for whom this "issue" doesn't make sense, and would automatically be dismissed. Mind you, I'm not sure whether there's any alternative wording for which that wouldn't also be the case...

Bears Armed wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:
No not at all, I don't mean to presume that all kisses between adults are inherently sexual. I know that for example in France people greet one another by kissing on the cheek, no matter the gender. But the photoshopped photos are used in a specific context, namely, to highlight low LGBT rights in a specific country and to make it more acceptable in the given nation.

I'm not sure I am getting your criticism here, what is it exactly that you're trying to point out?

just that, even with your specified validity, there are going to be people -- IC as well as OOC -- for whom this "issue" doesn't make sense, and would automatically be dismissed. Mind you, I'm not sure whether there's any alternative wording for which that wouldn't also be the case...

But I don't understand why it wouldn't make sense? A particular group of society is being excluded, in this case the LGBT community, so to garner attention to their cause and their status of being oppressed in @@NAME@@, they're photoshopping pictures of the nation's head of state kissing members of the same gender. In a country that has a homophobic status quo that would definitely garner attention and be debated.

The initial draft had that the gay rights activists photoshopped the colours of the rainbow into @@LEADER@@'s skin tone. Commentary was that a rainbow was too ambiguous. So I changed it to @@LEADER@@ kissing members of the same gender in the pictures and that's ambiguous/vague as well? What else can I do to make it clearer? Commentary from the issue editors was the kissing was a good idea, so I kept that instead of the rainbow-trope based on their feedback.

Daarwyrth wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:just that, even with your specified validity, there are going to be people -- IC as well as OOC -- for whom this "issue" doesn't make sense, and would automatically be dismissed. Mind you, I'm not sure whether there's any alternative wording for which that wouldn't also be the case...

But I don't understand why it wouldn't make sense? A particular group of society is being excluded, in this case the LGBT community, so to garner attention to their cause and their status of being oppressed in @@NAME@@, they're photoshopping pictures of the nation's head of state kissing members of the same gender. In a country that has a homophobic status quo that would definitely garner attention and be debated.

If kissing members of the same-sex sex a standard greeting in @@NAME@@ then the homophobes there aren't going to see anything wrong about those photoshopped pictures in the first place, are they?

Bears Armed wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:
But I don't understand why it wouldn't make sense? A particular group of society is being excluded, in this case the LGBT community, so to garner attention to their cause and their status of being oppressed in @@NAME@@, they're photoshopping pictures of the nation's head of state kissing members of the same gender. In a country that has a homophobic status quo that would definitely garner attention and be debated.

If kissing members of the same-sex sex a standard greeting in @@NAME@@ then the homophobes there aren't going to see anything wrong about those photoshopped pictures in the first place, are they?

Ok, the nitpicking in this thread is getting seriously out of control.

We don't track such cultural idiosyncrasies. You've been playing this game long enough to know that. We do track attitudes toward LGBT and LGBT rights. The author's premise is sound.

Sanctaria wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:If kissing members of the same-sex sex a standard greeting in @@NAME@@ then the homophobes there aren't going to see anything wrong about those photoshopped pictures in the first place, are they?

Ok, the nitpicking in this thread is getting seriously out of control.

Do others get the same amount of criticism/nitpicking? I have a feeling I'm drawing in an unusual amount of it for some reason. Is it the LGBT related subject of the draft?

That said, if there is something I can improve upon, please tell me so I can better what needs bettering

So, any last commentaries or brief feedback before I submit the draft?

Daarwyrth wrote:Do others get the same amount of criticism/nitpicking? I have a feeling I'm drawing in an unusual amount of it for some reason. Is it the LGBT related subject of the draft?

I still say it's the similarity to existing issues. We already have issues about homosexuality, about artists drawing offensive stuff, and about people photoshopping images of @@LEADER@@. Details that would be unimportant in a more original issue become rife for nitpicking when they're the only thing separating your draft from existing issues.

As for me, I've picked most of the nits that I care to, and in the end it's not up to me to decide whether your issue makes it into the game or not. I only really have one more to add: Even if @@LEADER@@ has no problems with homosexuals, and even if @@LEADER@@ actually is homosexual, he/she could still be legitimately peeved at being drawn kissing someone that is not, in fact, his/her lover.

Trotterdam wrote:

Daarwyrth wrote:Do others get the same amount of criticism/nitpicking? I have a feeling I'm drawing in an unusual amount of it for some reason. Is it the LGBT related subject of the draft?

I still say it's the similarity to existing issues. We already have issues about homosexuality, about artists drawing offensive stuff, and about people photoshopping images of @@LEADER@@. Details that would be unimportant in a more original issue become rife for nitpicking when they're the only thing separating your draft from existing issues.

As for me, I've picked most of the nits that I care to, and in the end it's not up to me to decide whether your issue makes it into the game or not. I only really have one more to add: Even if @@LEADER@@ has no problems with homosexuals, and even if @@LEADER@@ actually is homosexual, he/she could still be legitimately peeved at being drawn kissing someone that is not, in fact, his/her lover.

If there are that many similarities as you claim there are, I trust that the editors will point this out to me as well. From the feedback I got from them in this thread, I have tried to make this issue as distinct as possible and they even said that there aren't that many issues where there's lgbt vs homophobic status quo.

As for your last comment: again, player autonomy. I would have to assume @@LEADER@@ has a partner, which may or may not be the case for the player in question. It's why I have left it ambiguous, so as to protect player autonomy. The "How To Write Issues" articles clearly say not to assume too much about @@LEADER@@.

I don't think there's any serious overlap. Premise is fine.