NationStates

Posted: **Tue Jun 09, 2020 11:19 am**

I wrote a draft based on Danubian Peoples' abandoned "Stinging in the Rain" (they gave me permission to use the idea). As always, any feedback is appreciated.

Edit: Draft 4. Cleaned up a few things.

Stinging in the Rain

Validity: Cannot have high environmental beauty or high eco-friendliness.

Description
Increasingly severe acid rain throughout @@NAME@@ has led to the nation's historic statues and monuments deteriorating faster than ever before. In response to this apparently pressing matter, some concerned citizens have started streaming into your office to pour their advice on your head.

Option 1
"Them doggone rain's washin' away my heritage!" rages rural farmer @@RANDOMNAME@@, waving a homemade version of the national flag in your face. "You need to restore every damaged monument and statue, and cover 'em all with a nice thick layer of protective wax or plastic. Our history's worth it!"

Effect: ancient monuments look better than newly-built housing

Option 2
"That's a flawed approach if I ever saw one," says substitute teacher @@RANDOMNAME@@, condescendingly chuckling at the flag's inaccuracies. "Any educated person could tell you that only way to solve this problem is by tackling its source. Crack down on pollution coming from factories and coal-burning power plants, and invest in alternate forms of energy generation. Otherwise, these statues and our environment are just going to keep circling the drain."

Effect: particularly nasty flatulence carries a hefty fine

Option 3
"Cry me a river!" snarls Treasury Minister @@RANDOMNAME@@, menacingly approaching the flag with a lighter. "Sacrificing cheap power and efficient production of goods over a few worthless statues is backwards and disproportionate, much like that travesty of a flag! Cut back on air pollution regulations, and we'll all be happier. Except the statues, but I ain't exactly dripping with concern, now am I?"

Effect: public parks are virtually indistinguishable from industrial parks

Posted: **Tue Jun 09, 2020 11:47 am**

This looks really good!

The only thing I see is that the validity of this issue should be influenced by the fact that nations with high eco-friendliness and environmental beauty would be unlikely to have this issue.

Posted: **Tue Jun 09, 2020 12:02 pm**

Le Libertia wrote:The only thing I see is that the validity of this issue should be influenced by the fact that nations with high eco-friendliness and environmental beauty would be unlikely to have this issue.

That's a good point. I changed the validity.

Posted: **Tue Jun 09, 2020 3:13 pm**

Can't you just put them in a museum?

Posted: **Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:10 pm**

Australian rePublic wrote:Can't you just put them in a museum?

Much of the cultural aspect of statues comes from their location - imagine if the statue of liberty was to be moved.

Posted: **Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:19 pm**

I like it! Although, wouldn't an environmental development minister *want* to keep things environmentally friendly?

Posted: **Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:27 pm**

Merevane wrote:I like it! Although, wouldn't an environmental development minister *want* to keep things environmentally friendly?

Usually, but a corrupt government could hire an environmental development minister who doesn’t care about the environment. Still, maybe a Minister of Industry would be better?

Posted: **Tue Jun 09, 2020 8:27 pm**

The Allied Tribe wrote:Usually, but a corrupt government could hire an environmental development minister who doesn’t care about the environment. Still, maybe a Minister of Industry would be better?

I changed it to “Economic Development”, though I’m trying to think of a more ironic-sounding title.

Posted: **Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:22 pm**

Noahs Second Country wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:Can't you just put them in a museum?

Much of the cultural aspect of statues comes from their location - imagine if the statue of liberty was to be moved.

Mrh. That was more commentry about the Parthenon Marbles, but yea, I see your point

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:07 am**

Option 2: It's not exactly industrial pollution that's really causing acid rain, it's mainly the use of coal in electrical generation. Other, lesser determinants are agriculture, industrial pollution, and car pollution.

Option 3: Which critical industries are being washed away? Also I'm not quite sure about Option 3 in general, it seems a bit incongruous to jump from 'who cares about statues' to 'fund industry'.

Option 4: I think @@DEMONYM@@ should be @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@

Posted: **Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:39 am**

Stinging in the Rain

Validity: Cannot have high eco-friendliness or high environmental beauty.

Description
Increasingly severe acid rain throughout @@NAME@@ has led to the nation's historic statues and monuments deteriorating faster than ever before, and one of your government's most vocal critics took advantage of this in several scathing videos demonstrating '@@LEADER'S@@ wet work of our culture'. Despite the storm raging outside, a steady stream of soaked citizens have been trickling into your office to pour their advice on your head.

I'm surprised this topic has never been directly covered before, so well done for finding a solid issue niche.

Good title and opening, though the middle section seems a bit clumsy in its flow. This bit here...

"and one of your government's most vocal critics took advantage of this in several scathing videos demonstrating"

...runs on overly.

Macro '@@LEADER'S@@ is a bit of a mess. Try @@LEADER@@'s.

Option 1
"Those videos may be annoying, not to mention completely slanderous, but they do bring up a valid point," opines amateur historian @@RANDOMNAME@@, sporting a simple yet functional umbrella. "Those monuments are a core part of who we are. It'll be a drain on the treasury to repair and maintain them all, but the result? Priceless."

I feel like there's words for the sake of words here. This isn't a criticism of bad writing - your'e above the level of needing to be told how English works. Rather, this is as one author to another suggesting things to think about stylistically.

For example, why "opines"? I know that many people seem to be of the opinion that "says" shouldn't be used, but if you're going to use a synonym for "says", then add some information in some way. "Opines" just tells us that's his opinion, which we already knew.

Likewise, why does the umbrella need to be "simple yet functional" and why is he "sporting" it.

Is there any difference between what you said and "says umbrella-toting amateur historian @@randomname@@"?

So use a synonym for says, and add a description of the speaker, but do so meaningfully rather than just because of default expectations. Use that space to make it funny, or clever, or to tell us something we didn't already know.

Don't purple prose for the sake of it. Use simple language when simple language will do, or use descriptive language that actually adds description or humour.

More critically, if he is proposing that we repair and restore the statues, then how is he proposing that we protect the statues from further damage in future? Why is he saying it will cost a lot of money? Is he trying to put you off the idea, or is he aware he's within the NS simulation and trying to telegraph a change to your government spending stats?

Step back and put yourself in the character's shoes and think about how he is trying to solve the problem. Don't point out the obstacles, but rather sell the benefits. Give him a unique voice that makes him sound like a different person to the other speakers, rather than all four adopting the same speech patterns. Obviously you're one author writing four people, but that doesn't mean you can't have four voices here.

Then repeat that process of review with the other options, and you'll be approaching a good issue.

Posted: **Fri Jun 12, 2020 8:25 pm**

That’s some comprehensive feedback! I’ll definitely be incorporating it in the next draft. I will most likely not be submitting this for the contest, since I’d rather take the time to have a good issue than rush to submit something.

Posted: **Wed Jul 01, 2020 8:03 pm**

Has it been two weeks already? Anyways, I’m bumping this, and draft 2 is now up.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:40 am**

If there are no objections, I’ll probably submit this sometime later this week.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2020 10:52 am**

Increasingly severe acid rain throughout @@NAME@@ has led to the nation's historic statues and monuments deteriorating faster than ever before. Recently, one of your government's most vocal critics took advantage of this in several scathing videos targeting you. In response, some concerned citizens have started streaming into your office to pour their advice on your head.

The entire video aspect of the issue isn't addressed until option 4, and at that point it's just an afterthought in a very skimpy option. If it were up to me, I'd snip it from the description and snip out option 4.

Options 1 and 2 are looking somewhat thin. It's up to you, but I'd consider adding maybe a single line of humorous non-filler to each.

In option 3, I'd consider changing the speaker. It seems somewhat strange that the Minister of Energy would argue, presumably, against option 2. Option 2 explicitly supports investing in new energy sources, which I'd imagine an energy department would be supportive of as long as energy needs remain satisfied. I think a more fiscally minded department would be more appropriate.

Posted: **Mon Jul 06, 2020 12:57 pm**

Draft 3 up in accordance with Candensia’s suggestions.

Posted: **Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:27 am**

Looking good.

I've only ever heard of wax being protective for bronze statues -- I think calcium-based corrosion isn't going to be prevented by just wax, you'd actually need a non-permeable and permanent layer of plastic over the limestone/marble. However these are just technical details and could be fixed with saying "wax or plastic".

Otherwise looks pretty solid.

Posted: **Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:59 pm**

Changed to Last Call. I'll probably submit this sometime later this week.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 10:51 am**

This looks solid, and Whoever came up with that title deserves a sticker.

A couple quick polish suggestions before you send this off.

"Them doggone rain's washin' away my heritage!" rages rural farmer @@RANDOMNAME@@, waving a slightly-inaccurate homemade version of the national flag in your face.

I'd change "Them" to "That" and snip "slightly inaccurate" since it's probably understood that a homemade flag isn't immaculate.

cover ‘em all with protective wax or plastic

‘em to 'em.

Effect: the nation’s public parks are virtually indistinguishable from industrial parks

nation’s to nation's

But maybe just cut it down to "public parks are indistinguishable from industrial parks".

remarks social studies teacher @@RANDOMNAME@@, correcting the flag with a foul-smelling marker.

menacingly approaching the now-accurate flag with a lighter.

So I think the flag joke works well in option 1 in coordination with the speaker, but it's not as funny the second or third time around, and feels somewhat disjointed from the statue debate. Definitely a stylistic thing, but consider switching up the jokes. Maybe have the third speaker menacingly approach a bonsai tree on @@LEADER@@'s desk with a lighter, or something like that.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 12:42 pm**

Candensia wrote:This looks solid, and Whoever came up with that title deserves a sticker.

Badge hunter

Candensia wrote:A couple quick polish suggestions before you send this off.

"Them doggone rain's washin' away my heritage!" rages rural farmer @@RANDOMNAME@@, waving a slightly-inaccurate homemade version of the national flag in your face.

I'd change "Them" to "That" and snip "slightly inaccurate" since it's probably understood that a homemade flag isn't immaculate.

cover ‘em all with protective wax or plastic

‘em to 'em.

Effect: the nation’s public parks are virtually indistinguishable from industrial parks

nation’s to nation's

But maybe just cut it down to "public parks are indistinguishable from industrial parks".

Them dang dirty smart apostrophes. I cut down the effect line.

Candensia wrote:
remarks social studies teacher @@RANDOMNAME@@, correcting the flag with a foul-smelling marker.

menacingly approaching the now-accurate flag with a lighter.

So I think the flag joke works well in option 1 in coordination with the speaker, but it's not as funny the second or third time around, and feels somewhat disjointed from the statue debate. Definitely a stylistic thing, but consider switching up the jokes. Maybe have the third speaker menacingly approach a bonsai tree on @@LEADER@@'s desk with a lighter, or something like that.

While I could change it, I like having a running joke throughout the issue. If I do change it, then I'll remove "slightly-inaccurate" from option 1.

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:26 pm**

Cretox State wrote:While I could change it, I like having a running joke throughout the issue. If I do change it, then I'll remove "slightly-inaccurate" from option 1.

It'd be fine if it symbolized something about the speakers, even if the issue wasn't literally about flags. However, I'm not sure what it's supposed to imply in this case. The speaker who wants to burn the flag gives no other indication of being particularly anti-establishment, the speaker correcting the flag isn't otherwise acting particularly pedantic, etc. There isn't really any relationship between pedantry and environmentalism (sure, some people practice both, but there's no clear thematic benefit to a character doing so).

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:12 pm**

Trotterdam wrote:
Cretox State wrote:While I could change it, I like having a running joke throughout the issue. If I do change it, then I'll remove "slightly-inaccurate" from option 1.
It'd be fine if it symbolized something about the speakers, even if the issue wasn't literally about flags. However, I'm not sure what it's supposed to imply in this case. The speaker who wants to burn the flag gives no other indication of being particularly anti-establishment, the speaker correcting the flag isn't otherwise acting particularly pedantic, etc. There isn't really any relationship between pedantry and environmentalism (sure, some people practice both, but there's no clear thematic benefit to a character doing so).

I was going with “speaker 1 presents an option that, albeit flawed, comes from his love of his country’s history. Speaker 2 presents an option that would actually address the root problem instead of applying a band-aid solution. Speaker three burns down any hope of solving the problem.”

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 3:40 pm**

Cretox State wrote:I was going with “speaker 1 presents an option that, albeit flawed, comes from his love of his country’s history. Speaker 2 presents an option that would actually address the root problem instead of applying a band-aid solution. Speaker three burns down any hope of solving the problem.”

Still not seeing it. The inaccuracy of the flag does not present a distinction between the root problem and the symptom, it's just an inaccurate flag. If anything, I would say that teaching the flag's original artist better drawing skills would be "adressing the root problem", while merely fixing the flag is a "band-aid solution". The original speaker, meanwhile, wasn't applying any sort of solution, band-aid or otherwise, to the flag, and in fact didn't seem to recognize its inaccuracy as a problem.

As a side note band-aid solutions aren't always a bad thing. Adressing a problem thoroughly is likely to take a long time, so sometimes it's better to apply a stopgap solution that helps immediately, even if it's not good enough on its own in the long run. Plus, while you can reduce acid rain, you're unlikely to ever eliminate it completely (for one thing, there are natural causes of acid rain too), so while this would slow down statue erosion, you'll likely need to do something else if you really want your statues to stand the test of time. (Of course, acid rain also has many other negative effects beyond damaging statues, and is worth trying to reduce for those reasons, but that's besides the point of this issue.)

Posted: **Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:47 pm**

I changed the flag part to hopefully flow better with the rest of the issue. I think this version’s a good compromise.

Posted: **Fri Jul 10, 2020 6:42 pm**

so in "high environmental beauty or high eco-friendliness", does that mean that nations with high beauty and low ecofriendliness (and vice versa) also can receive this issue and not just low-low ones? Do you have a value for what 'high' is? (although the editors might do it, just curious)

Other than that, great topic and great draft!

NationStates

[Submitted] Stinging in the Rain

[Submitted] Stinging in the Rain