NationStates

Here’s a draft for an issue I thought of. Any help revising it is appreciated. I’m not sure which name I’ll go with, so Shooting Mad is just the working name right now.



Current Draft

[DRAFT] - A Shot in the Dark/Shooting mad/A Safer Shot

[The Issue] - After series of hunting related accidents got into the sights of the media, the public has been pressing you to do something about hunting safety.

[issuevalidity] – must have right to bear arms.

Option - "We need to make hunting safer." says Game and Fish officer @@RANDOMNAME@@. "If I need to explain to one more redneck that a truck-mounted minigun is not a safe weapon for hunting, I'm going to lose my mind. All hunters must pass hunter's education classes, and all the people going out there, including hunters, needs to wear high visibility clothing!"

[effect] - hunters are perplexed at their lack of success after hunting in bright orange with unloaded rifles

Option - "Even with safety classes, accidents will still happen," says insurance industry mogul @@RANDOMNAME@@. "We need to make sure somebody is there to pick up the pieces. Make it a law for hunters to have insurance policies, so that if the worst should happen, costs are covered. My company would be glad to offer such services, for a reasonable price. After all, the real problem here is the loss of money, not the loss of life, right?"

[effect] - insurance advertisements in the middle of forests make great tree stands

Option - At that point, you hear what might be the loudest truck in existence outside your window. When you look outside, you see a group of camouflaged men yelling up at you. "The last place the government should be messing with is the middle of nowhere! Our daddies taught us how to hunt, so we know what we're doing! If people don't want to risk getting hurt, they should just stay out of the forests!"

[effect] - the forests of @@NAME@@ are commonly known as war zones during hunting season

Option 3- isn't a spear more dangerous?

Kathol Rift wrote:Fifty year-olds

Kathol Rift wrote:fifteen year-olds

Kathol Rift wrote:forty year-old

These need to be fully hyphenated. Unless you're talking about fifty people who are each one year old.

Kathol Rift wrote:[Option 4] – Just then, the hunter who did the shooting gets brought into your office by a policeman. “Uh, thank you officer. @@LEADER@@, it wasn’t my fault that guy got shot. He was dressed in brown colors, and he had a whitish hat on! He looked exactly like a deer! I may have been a little drunk, and I may have shot without looking real hard, but trust me, I am innocent. There are no problems with the current system. Just leave it alone. And, uh, while you’re at it, can you get me a pardon here? I have a turkey hunt next week.”

The requested action came as a surprise. With that lead-up, I was expecting a suggestion that people in the wilderness be mandated to wear easily-visible safety clothing. (With the likely result that the deer can see them easily too, and so start fleeing much sooner.)

Australian rePublic wrote:Option 3- isn't a spear more dangerous?

Than a gun? I doubt it. There's a reason armies don't use spears anymore.

The main point is that with a melee weapon, or a relatively short-range projectile weapon like a thrown spear, you have much less chance of hitting something other than your intended target than with a long-range weapon like a gun.

Australian rePublic wrote:Option 3- isn't a spear more dangerous?

I don’t think so.

Trotterdam wrote:

Kathol Rift wrote:Fifty year-olds

Kathol Rift wrote:fifteen year-olds

Kathol Rift wrote:forty year-old

These need to be fully hyphenated. Unless you're talking about fifty people who are each one year old.

Kathol Rift wrote:[Option 4] – Just then, the hunter who did the shooting gets brought into your office by a policeman. “Uh, thank you officer. @@LEADER@@, it wasn’t my fault that guy got shot. He was dressed in brown colors, and he had a whitish hat on! He looked exactly like a deer! I may have been a little drunk, and I may have shot without looking real hard, but trust me, I am innocent. There are no problems with the current system. Just leave it alone. And, uh, while you’re at it, can you get me a pardon here? I have a turkey hunt next week.”

The requested action came as a surprise. With that lead-up, I was expecting a suggestion that people in the wilderness be mandated to wear easily-visible safety clothing. (With the likely result that the deer can see them easily too, and so start fleeing much sooner.)

Australian rePublic wrote:Option 3- isn't a spear more dangerous?

Than a gun? I doubt it. There's a reason armies don't use spears anymore.

The main point is that with a melee weapon, or a relatively short-range projectile weapon like a thrown spear, you have much less chance of hitting something other than your intended target than with a long-range weapon like a gun.

I was thinking about having him suggest orange, but I wanted one that would get the headline of hunting areas being war zones. I might need to add another option for that. I’ll change that option though.

Just a bump, just in case anyone has more suggestions.
/bump

Unless you really know what you’re doing, it’s best to leave an issue up for a week or two, minimum. For me, two weeks is par for the course, but among GI that’s probably quicker than most.

If it were me, I’d combine options 2 and 4. Mandating safety classes AND high visibility clothing in a single option would make the issue more manageable for the reader, since in my opinion they are both promoting essentially the same thing. That being safety, of course.

Candensia wrote:Unless you really know what you’re doing, it’s best to leave an issue up for a week or two, minimum. For me, two weeks is par for the course, but among GI that’s probably quicker than most.

If it were me, I’d combine options 2 and 4. Mandating safety classes AND high visibility clothing in a single option would make the issue more manageable for the reader, since in my opinion they are both promoting essentially the same thing. That being safety, of course.

Okay. That makes sense. I’ll have another draft up soon. Thanks!

I combined 2 and 4, and I got to have my “war zone” effect for the new option 4. I think that worked out rather well. Thanks!

Candensia wrote:If it were me, I’d combine options 2 and 4. Mandating safety classes AND high visibility clothing in a single option would make the issue more manageable for the reader, since in my opinion they are both promoting essentially the same thing. That being safety, of course.

I'm not so sure. While they're both "mandate safer behaviour", they differ in that one puts the burden on the shooter while the other puts the burden on the shootee. That can be an important difference in a situation where people like to point fingers and blame each other for whatever goes wrong.

Candensia wrote:Unless you really know what you’re doing, it’s best to leave an issue up for a week or two, minimum. For me, two weeks is par for the course, but among GI that’s probably quicker than most.

If it were me, I’d combine options 2 and 4. Mandating safety classes AND high visibility clothing in a single option would make the issue more manageable for the reader, since in my opinion they are both promoting essentially the same thing. That being safety, of course.

I disagree. Safety classes is something that is targeted at the hunters themselves, putting up a barrier to partaking in the activity. Meanwhile the high-vis vests would affect everybody who goes into the woods, including lots of people who are not hunters.

Speaking of which- we could absolutely have a funny effect line to do with scientists, park rangers or drunken teenagers wearing them.

Chan Island wrote:

Candensia wrote:Unless you really know what you’re doing, it’s best to leave an issue up for a week or two, minimum. For me, two weeks is par for the course, but among GI that’s probably quicker than most.

If it were me, I’d combine options 2 and 4. Mandating safety classes AND high visibility clothing in a single option would make the issue more manageable for the reader, since in my opinion they are both promoting essentially the same thing. That being safety, of course.

I disagree. Safety classes is something that is targeted at the hunters themselves, putting up a barrier to partaking in the activity. Meanwhile the high-vis vests would affect everybody who goes into the woods, including lots of people who are not hunters.

Speaking of which- we could absolutely have a funny effect line to do with scientists, park rangers or drunken teenagers wearing them.

I was operating off of the description, which said this,

For the third time this week, a man has been shot by accident while hunting in @@NAME@@‘s forests. As per the usual, several people have descended upon your office shouting for a solution.

Also some text in the option, which said this.

[Option 4] – Just then, the hunter who did the shooting gets brought into your office by a policeman. “Uh, thank you officer. @@LEADER@@, it wasn’t my fault that guy got shot. He was dressed in brown colors, and he had a whitish hat on! He looked exactly like a deer! I may have been a little drunk, and I may have shot without looking real hard, but trust me, I am innocent. He should have been wearing orange like I was. Just make hunter’s orange mandatory for hunting! And, uh, while you’re at it, can you get me a pardon here? I have a turkey hunt next week.”

"Shot while hunting" indicates that both the shooter and the shootee were hunting, and so I assumed the option was advocating for high-visibility clothing for hunters specifically, due to text in the option.

I do think that distinct options can be made for safety classes for hunters vs high-visibility clothing for everyone going into the wilderness, but if it were me, I probably still would combine both suggestions.

And now I’m not sure whether to go with the second draft or the current draft. I think I’ll have to wait for more feedback to decide.

Is there any other advice? Still trying to choose between the second draft and the current draft.
/bump

[The Issue] – For the third time this week, a man has been shot by accident while hunting in @@NAME@@‘s forests. As per the usual, several people have descended upon your office shouting for a solution.

Premise-wise, the second sentence is redundant and can be deleted.

However the issue also needs something to make it an issue of national importance, rather than just a handful of tragic accidents that can be dealt with by forestry authorities and the like.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:However the issue also needs something to make it an issue of national importance, rather than just a handful of tragic accidents that can be dealt with by forestry authorities and the like.

Maybe: the person shot was a foreign diplomat, so that would cause international incident.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

[The Issue] – For the third time this week, a man has been shot by accident while hunting in @@NAME@@‘s forests. As per the usual, several people have descended upon your office shouting for a solution.

Premise-wise, the second sentence is redundant and can be deleted.

However the issue also needs something to make it an issue of national importance, rather than just a handful of tragic accidents that can be dealt with by forestry authorities and the like.

The idea was that this is a large problem, like its getting to the point where it is happening several times a week, which means that something needs to be done. I’ll try to make it sound more urgent though.

Baggieland wrote:

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:However the issue also needs something to make it an issue of national importance, rather than just a handful of tragic accidents that can be dealt with by forestry authorities and the like.

Maybe: the person shot was a foreign diplomat, so that would cause international incident.

That is an interesting idea, but it would change the options fairly significantly. I’ll need to think on that.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

[The Issue] – For the third time this week, a man has been shot by accident while hunting in @@NAME@@‘s forests. As per the usual, several people have descended upon your office shouting for a solution.

Premise-wise, the second sentence is redundant and can be deleted.

However the issue also needs something to make it an issue of national importance, rather than just a handful of tragic accidents that can be dealt with by forestry authorities and the like.

I edited the description to make it more clear that this was a rising cause of death and injury, which is considerably more significant than a handful of accidents.

Anyways, unrelated to that change, this draft has gone nearly two weeks without any input, so this is the last call for suggestions.

Wow, triple posting on my own thread.

Anyways, it’s submitted. Thank you to everyone who helped. Fingers crossed, hopefully I get a telegram saying it was put in soon.

Too soon. Change it back to DRAFT, it didn't make it.

Let's look again:

DRAFT] – Shooting Mad

[The Issue] – For the third time this week, a man has been shot by accident while hunting in @@NAME@@‘s forests.

Apostrophe needs replacing with straight one, as in '. This also applies for all the quote marks in the issue, " is preferred to ”.

This is only the most recent in a series of hunting-related accidents that has happened this year.

Somewhat clumsy. Try combining the first two sentences.

Hoping to find a solution, several people have descended upon your office shouting for a solution.

As I said before this sentence is redundant, delete it.

[Option 1] – "This is ridiculous! People are dying because these rednecks can’t tell the difference between a deer and a person!” shouts Game and Fish officer @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Hunters cause all kinds of problems, from littering, to forest fires, and now deaths! We need to ban hunting immediately!”

[effect] – hunting is now illegal

The option itself feels lacking in finesse. You've gone with "shouting" while providing speech that doesn't sound like someone would shout it. There's no anger to it, it's just matter-of-fact. The effect line doesn't deliver a punchline, it just states the decision.

[Option 2] – “Now hold on one minute,” says professional hunter Pete Chapstick. “Hunting is important for population control, and money from buying hunting licenses goes to support conservation. Instead, why don’t we mandate hunting safety classes, even for longtime hunters like myself? It will be a little more pressure on the taxpayer, and some hunters might not like it, but it will make hunting safer I’m sure.”

[effect] – Fifty-year-olds and fifteen-year-olds sit side by side in hunter safety classes

Again, the effect line just states the decision. Try to deliver a punchline instead.

And honestly, so far, the choices are quite prosaic. Ban hunting, and safety classes? Can we show more imagination?

[Option 3] – All of a sudden, a forty-year-old lady bursts into your office, leaving a very dazed looking guard behind her.

Why is her age relevant here? For that matter, why does she need to be female? Why does she need to be bursting in?

“You don’t see the real problem here! The problem isn’t that those hunters thought the victim was a deer! The problem is that they were using guns! If you ban guns, this whole problem will go away! Ban bows while you’re at it, they could hurt someone also.”

Ach. Now banning guns. No, this issue is too dull for words.

[Option 4] – Just then, the hunter who did the shooting gets brought into your office by a policeman. “Uh, thank you officer. @@LEADER@@, it wasn’t my fault that guy got shot. He was dressed in brown colors, and he had a whitish hat on! He looked exactly like a deer! I may have been a little drunk, and I may have shot without looking real hard, but trust me, I am innocent. He should have been wearing orange like I was. Just make hunter’s orange mandatory for hunting! And, uh, while you’re at it, can you get me a pardon here? I have a turkey hunt next week.”

[effect] – no deer tags have been filled this season as hunting gets much less camouflaged

This is the first interesting option, but the effect line is still weak.

Good Luck!

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Too soon. Change it back to DRAFT, it didn't make it.

Let's look again:

DRAFT] – Shooting Mad

[The Issue] – For the third time this week, a man has been shot by accident while hunting in @@NAME@@‘s forests.

Apostrophe needs replacing with straight one, as in '. This also applies for all the quote marks in the issue, " is preferred to ”.

This is only the most recent in a series of hunting-related accidents that has happened this year.

Somewhat clumsy. Try combining the first two sentences.

Hoping to find a solution, several people have descended upon your office shouting for a solution.

As I said before this sentence is redundant, delete it.

[Option 1] – "This is ridiculous! People are dying because these rednecks can’t tell the difference between a deer and a person!” shouts Game and Fish officer @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Hunters cause all kinds of problems, from littering, to forest fires, and now deaths! We need to ban hunting immediately!”

[effect] – hunting is now illegal

The option itself feels lacking in finesse. You've gone with "shouting" while providing speech that doesn't sound like someone would shout it. There's no anger to it, it's just matter-of-fact. The effect line doesn't deliver a punchline, it just states the decision.

[Option 2] – “Now hold on one minute,” says professional hunter Pete Chapstick. “Hunting is important for population control, and money from buying hunting licenses goes to support conservation. Instead, why don’t we mandate hunting safety classes, even for longtime hunters like myself? It will be a little more pressure on the taxpayer, and some hunters might not like it, but it will make hunting safer I’m sure.”

[effect] – Fifty-year-olds and fifteen-year-olds sit side by side in hunter safety classes

Again, the effect line just states the decision. Try to deliver a punchline instead.

And honestly, so far, the choices are quite prosaic. Ban hunting, and safety classes? Can we show more imagination?

[Option 3] – All of a sudden, a forty-year-old lady bursts into your office, leaving a very dazed looking guard behind her.

Why is her age relevant here? For that matter, why does she need to be female? Why does she need to be bursting in?

“You don’t see the real problem here! The problem isn’t that those hunters thought the victim was a deer! The problem is that they were using guns! If you ban guns, this whole problem will go away! Ban bows while you’re at it, they could hurt someone also.”

Ach. Now banning guns. No, this issue is too dull for words.

[Option 4] – Just then, the hunter who did the shooting gets brought into your office by a policeman. “Uh, thank you officer. @@LEADER@@, it wasn’t my fault that guy got shot. He was dressed in brown colors, and he had a whitish hat on! He looked exactly like a deer! I may have been a little drunk, and I may have shot without looking real hard, but trust me, I am innocent. He should have been wearing orange like I was. Just make hunter’s orange mandatory for hunting! And, uh, while you’re at it, can you get me a pardon here? I have a turkey hunt next week.”

[effect] – no deer tags have been filled this season as hunting gets much less camouflaged

This is the first interesting option, but the effect line is still weak.

That was fast. Okay, I put up another draft based on your suggestions. I tried to make it a little wittier, and I edited the introduction to be less redundant. The forty-year-old lady thing was supposed to be a joke about stereotypical “Karens” but I decided you were right that I should change it. Do these changes help it at all, or is it a lost cause?

It's helped, but it's not there yet. I'll leave it to the community to help you tune it up, but certainly it needs to go a way further before being usable.

I don't think all is lost. But I think that this issue should have a more interesting debate.

Something to be aware of, and I'm not sure why it hasn't been mentioned yet, but #169 exists. The exact nature of the premise is different. In #169 the debate over hunting centered on the treatment of animals, rather than here, where it's on the safety of hunters.

But let's take a look at the first option from each issue.

This is your first option.

"This is ridiculous! People are dying because these rednecks can’t tell the difference between a deer and a person." says Game and Fish officer @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Hunters cause all kinds of problems, from littering, to forest fires, and now deaths. We need to ban hunting immediately, for the sake of my sanity! And people’s lives, of course."

Here is the first option from #169

"@@ANIMAL@@ hunting is a cruel and horrible 'sport' for the wealthy," says @@RANDOMNAME@@ of the 'Protect Anything Cute and Furry Society'. "How can you possibly justify it? Oh, they witter on about 'tradition' and 'pest control' and other such nonsense, but really we all know it's because these sadists love to torture poor, innocent animals! Hunting must be banned!"

Similar, right? In fact, they do exactly the same thing. You have a good, novel topic. Why waste it with a "just ban this" debate?

Here is what I suggest. I'd drop the "ban (something)" options completely. I'd focus on hunting safety, not the legality of hunting in and of itself. Here's a basic outline.

[DRAFT] - A Safer Shot

[The Issue] - A series of fatal, firearm-related hunting accidents has put hunting safety in the crosshairs of public debate.

[issuevalidity] – must have right to bear arms.

Option - We need to make hunting safer. All hunters must pass firearm safety classes, and everyone venturing into the wilderness, including hunters, needs to wear high visibility clothing!

Option - Even with safety classes, hunting accidents will still happen. We need to make sure people can pick up the pieces. Make it mandatory for hunters to have insurance policies, so that if they cause an accident, costs are covered.

Option - The last place the government needs to taint is the middle of nowhere! The only safety regulations that should apply in the wild are common sense!

A new draft is up, which is very heavily based on Candensia’s advice and suggested replacement. I’m not sure if you can do co-authors for issues, but if there is co-authors, Candensia should be labeled as it if this is the version that goes through.

Kathol Rift wrote:A new draft is up, which is very heavily based on Candensia’s advice and suggested replacement. I’m not sure if you can do co-authors for issues, but if there is co-authors, Candensia should be labeled as it if this is the version that goes through.

You’ve taken a big step, and in my opinion, it’s in the right direction. I intended my outline to simply serve as guide, and so it was absolutely humorless. I will swing around again later, and provide suggestions on touch ups for wording, humor and flow.

Alright, here are some edits from me.

I'd note #505 is "Florists Blooming Mad", so you may want to think of another title for this issue.

You've got two clauses in the description. The first one sounds a bit strange to read in my opinion. The second one is terribly cliched, and should be cut. Let's craft a situation that, at least plausibly, elevates the issue to national importance. Baggieland has graciously given us a potential scenario, so let's use that.

[DRAFT] - Shooting Mad / A Safer Shot

[The Issue] - A foreign dignitary was injured yesterday in a hunting accident. The Macronesian diplomat, who was birdwatching with @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ officials is expected to fully recover, but the high profile incident has shot off a debate regarding hunting safety rules.

[issuevalidity] – must have right to bear arms.

[Option] - "There were so many shots, I thought it was an assassination attempt!" yells diplomatic official @@RANDOMNAME@@, cuts and bruises visible on @@HIS@@ extremities. "But imagine my surprise when finally all was quiet, and then a beast of a @@MAN@@ emerges from the treeline toting @@HIS@@ hunting weapon- a tripod-mounted minigun! @@NAME@@ must learn from this. All hunters must pass rigorous safety classes regarding proper firearms use and target identification. And everyone going into the wilderness needs to wear high-visibility clothing, so they aren't mistakenly shot at."

[effect] - playing hide-and-seek in the woods is rather easy


[Option] - "Even with safety classes, hunting accidents will still happen," says insurance industry mogul @@RANDOMNAME@@. "We can't eliminate the risk to life and limb posed by hunting, but we can make sure somebody is there to pick up the pieces. Make it law for hunters to have insurance policies, so that should an accident happen, costs are covered. It'll give our hunters peace of mind, and give business a boost to boot! Sounds like a great way to kill two birds with one shot, uh, stone."

[effect] - tree stands are plastered with insurance advertisements


[Option] - "In the wild, it's kill or be killed!" exclaims libertarian political speaker @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, donning camouflage from head to toe. "If some wacko starts hunting people, what's a bright orange jacket gonna do? Get me killed, that's what! The last place the government should be messing with is the middle of nowhere. I know what I'm doing, my daddy taught me how to hunt, and he was self-taught! Accidents are always going to happen. The only thing a hunter needs to stay safe is common sense, ruthless survival instinct, and a gun! If people don't want to risk getting hurt, then they should stay out of the forests!"

[effect] - hunting season often concludes with more accidental homicides than game kills

Now, some comments from me.

In attempting to justify the national issue, I had to change up option 1 quite considerably. However, I wanted to preserve your minigun joke. Mentioning "truck" would make the option invalid for nations without vehicles, so I've tweaked the joke slightly.

In option 2, keep in mind that explicitly saying "company" makes things sketchy for communist nations. If you want to keep mention of a company, and have the issue be valid for socialist/communist nations, a doppelganger option may need to be created.

In option 3, you had some angry people outside your window. My first thought was "why hasn't security arrested these people right outside my window yet." so that has been tweaked. I wanted to keep your, for a lack of a better word, "daddy" line in the option. However, I think the option may read better if it's cut out. It's up to you.

I'm offering all new effects, but I wanted to keep your jokes for them intact wherever I could.

Lastly, know that these are just suggestions. I think my changes are heavy-handed, but this is your issue, and you may decide to adopt some, all, or none of my suggestions. It is up to you.