[Last call?] Cheque, Mate

[Pythaga]

I have a couple grammar fixes for you:

We have operated our own tournament matters for decades,

The word matters doesn't really fit here, I'd suggest replacing it with independently.

says @@RANDOMNAME@@, placed last on several chess tournaments.

This should be "says @@RANDOMNAME@@, who placed last in several chess tournaments."

they will always find their way to cheat

You should replace their with a.

foreign athletes are confused on the national chess rules

On should be replaced with either about or by.

I'm also a little unsure about the final effect line, why would international athletes know or care about @@NAME@@'s chess competition rules?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Also, shock collars are silly. The entire point is that it's hard to detect when people cheat, not that it's hard to punish them when they do.

Agree with this.

[Daarwyrth]

Also, shock collars are silly. The entire point is that it's hard to detect when people cheat, not that it's hard to punish them when they do.

It was an example of a ridiculous approach to avoid cheating

[Westinor]

The problems from this draft, I think, stem from the premise. Currently there's no particular reason for the government to get involved - irl cheating is dealt with by the organizations and tournaments, and though there was an idea that came to mind in the Griffin Scandal, I realized that probably doesn't apply to chess. Nonetheless, what I think would help the premise is an international problem.

After years of playing, chess player @@RANDOMNAME@@ checkmated all @@HIS@@ opponents in order to win the Quatrefield Cup, an important national chess tournament. @@HE@@ soon became an influential figure in the chess world, due to the large money reward and endorsements. However, it was recently discovered that @@HE@@ had actually been using a hidden electronic device to cheat.

You don't need to be so descriptive or focus too much on the chess player - think of this less as storytelling, and more as briefing(it's still a little bit of both, but don't lean too far either way). Instead, focus on the potential dilemma - here, perhaps its an international tournament, where a @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ player cheated but refuses to admit it. If you make it ambiguous throughout the issue whether he actually did cheat, and have that be problem, you could potentially twist the issue into something about the player's nation's international image, or maybe even the opposing nation that's super serious about sports asking you to extradite the cheater. Heck, it'd even be a bit of a twist if you had a bunch of leaders around the world play chess, and accuse you of cheating. There's potential here - keep at it!

[Giovanniland]

Is seems unlikely that the chess organization would be arguing for keeping it an internal affair. They're the ones losing money to cheaters. It's the courts who might want to dismiss it as "not worth our time".

Also, shock collars are silly. The entire point is that it's hard to detect when people cheat, not that it's hard to punish them when they do.

I'm not sure if I agree on that point - the chess organization isn't really losing money, since they always give prize money no matter who the winner is. Plus, I believe the courts would try to intervene to ensure fairness, which the organization would be against since they want to keep it an internal affairs.
Well then, no shock collars anymore it seems. Though I believe security screening used on RL airports would be a good way to catch hidden devices.

I have a couple grammar fixes for you:

We have operated our own tournament matters for decades,

The word matters doesn't really fit here, I'd suggest replacing it with independently.

says @@RANDOMNAME@@, placed last on several chess tournaments.

This should be "says @@RANDOMNAME@@, who placed last in several chess tournaments."

they will always find their way to cheat

You should replace their with a.

foreign athletes are confused on the national chess rules

On should be replaced with either about or by.

I'm also a little unsure about the final effect line, why would international athletes know or care about @@NAME@@'s chess competition rules?

Thanks, I fixed the grammar on those points. What I mean by the last effect line is foreign athletes would be confused that @@NAME@@'s chess rules basically are to reward everyone instead of the winners, which isn't the usual.

The problems from this draft, I think, stem from the premise. Currently there's no particular reason for the government to get involved - irl cheating is dealt with by the organizations and tournaments, and though there was an idea that came to mind in the Griffin Scandal, I realized that probably doesn't apply to chess. Nonetheless, what I think would help the premise is an international problem.

After years of playing, chess player @@RANDOMNAME@@ checkmated all @@HIS@@ opponents in order to win the Quatrefield Cup, an important national chess tournament. @@HE@@ soon became an influential figure in the chess world, due to the large money reward and endorsements. However, it was recently discovered that @@HE@@ had actually been using a hidden electronic device to cheat.

You don't need to be so descriptive or focus too much on the chess player - think of this less as storytelling, and more as briefing(it's still a little bit of both, but don't lean too far either way). Instead, focus on the potential dilemma - here, perhaps its an international tournament, where a @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ player cheated but refuses to admit it. If you make it ambiguous throughout the issue whether he actually did cheat, and have that be problem, you could potentially twist the issue into something about the player's nation's international image, or maybe even the opposing nation that's super serious about sports asking you to extradite the cheater. Heck, it'd even be a bit of a twist if you had a bunch of leaders around the world play chess, and accuse you of cheating. There's potential here - keep at it!

I removed a sentence from the premise, if that helps. Though the government, pressured by people who supported actually good chess players in that tournament, would be likely to intervene in a large, national tournament, since letting it to the chess organization would maybe damage @@NAME@@'s international reputation in the chess world.
I believe drafts 1 and 2 were actually a player representing @@NAME@@ in an international tournament, though by some suggestions I changed the focus of the issue. @@LEADER@@ playing chess could be interesting, but isn't that a possible player autonomy violation? Also some possible overlap with #982.

[Trotterdam]

I'm not sure if I agree on that point - the chess organization isn't really losing money, since they always give prize money no matter who the winner is.

So even after discovering the person they originally gave the prize money cheated, they're not interested in giving the prize money to the person who actually deserved the win? Because if they can't get the money back, that would mean having to pay the prize money twice.

It's not good for their reputation if they can't pay the people who won their competitions fairly.

Though I believe security screening used on RL airports would be a good way to catch hidden devices.

From what I've heard, security screening used in RL airports isn't even a good way of ensuring security at airports.

[Giovanniland]

I'm not sure if I agree on that point - the chess organization isn't really losing money, since they always give prize money no matter who the winner is.

So even after discovering the person they originally gave the prize money cheated, they're not interested in giving the prize money to the person who actually deserved the win? Because if they can't get the money back, that would mean having to pay the prize money twice.

It's not good for their reputation if they can't pay the people who won their competitions fairly.

I see your point now, and worked up a new draft to change options 1 and 2's positions (except effect line 2 since I couldn't come up with something interesting/funny).

[Giovanniland]

Moving to last call since I feel like it's been drafting for a long time but a tad unsure, hence the question mark.

[Daarwyrth]

has to give the money back.

Consider changing this to "ought to immediately return the prize money".

Otherwise, how are we giving the true winner's money reward?

Consider changing this to "Otherwise, how are we going to give the just winner @@HIS_2@@ reward?"

The government can give some funding to sport organizations as a compromise.

I'm not sure whether this fits in with the option.

Effect:

Maybe this line could be something like "criminals claiming 'I wasn't serious about' are automatically acquitted" or something along those lines.

foreign athletes are confused by the national chess rules

I am not sure I get this line. Do you mean that the rules that will be implemented for chess will also be implemented across all competitive sports? If so, then I feel that line could be a little sharper and perhaps more ambiguous. But perhaps a different effect line along the lines of "former athletes try to melt their golden medals to scrape by".

[Westinor]

The premise still feels off to me. In the article you linked, the problem was dealt with by the organization, not the government, though police were involved. Barring someone important being cheated out of something or the person taking the cash prize and keeping it, how is this an issue for the government? I think you should try to move back to descriptions/premises from previous drafts - the current rendition feels too skin and bones. A bit of detail on why this is a government issue would help.