[SUBMITTED] Not Pilgrims vs. The World?

[Trotterdam]

It's likely that in a real-life situation, you wouldn't be sure who the hijackers are. It's hard to get reliable information from an isolated plane your law enforcement can't reach, and terrorists aren't keen on shouting "LOOK I'M A TERRORIST" while there's still a chance of you stopping them.

[Jutsa]

True. So hypothetically you wouldn't know if they're hijackers or terrorists, yet...

that actually could be a very important point to make.

Course, it would also mean a slight modification to the description, but honestly that does make more sense.

[Minskiev]

Well, now I’m questioning if they should ALL be Ultra-Violetists. Half-terrorist half-hijacker would be an interesting predicament...

And now I’ve got a new title for it

Something like “Definitely Not Pilgrims vs. The World”

[Trotterdam]

Well, now I’m questioning if they should ALL be Ultra-Violetists. Half-terrorist half-hijacker would be an interesting predicament...

What? Like, two different hijacker groups who by complete coincidence happened to be trying to take over the same plane? That would be hilarious, but also rather improbable and distracting from the real government issue.

[Minskiev]

Well, now I’m questioning if they should ALL be Ultra-Violetists. Half-terrorist half-hijacker would be an interesting predicament...

What? Like, two different hijacker groups who by complete coincidence happened to be trying to take over the same plane? That would be hilarious, but also rather improbable and distracting from the real government issue.

Well maybe, but what if it was just one hijacker group, but half of them were secretly Ultra-Violetist? Or maybe, since like you said news isn’t always reliable, some say they’re normal hijackers, but some say they’re terrorists.

[Minskiev]

/bump.

Not too sure what to do, honestly. I’ll submit soon-ish, I guess.

[Daarwyrth]

a sizable chunk

Question: how big is the plane? I get that a portion of the capital city would be damaged/destroyed, depending on the speed, velocity and angle of descent, but when you say "sizeable chunk" I'm imagining 1/3 of the city to be reduced to rubble at least. Perhaps you could consider changing this to something along the lines of "seemingly counting down to billions of @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ in damages to @@CAPITAL@@".

“We’ve got two minutes until government operations as we know it cease to exist!”

So, the plane is heading towards a government building? Perhaps this could be specified in the premise of the issue, that the planet is presumed to be heading towards the government building. Because as I said before, unless the plane is loaded with serious explosives, then I am not sure how it would cause so much destruction that a great chunk of the city would be gone.

the hundreds of MILLIONS of @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ in damage

Hmm, you mention the millions of @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ in damage here, but I think it would better serve as a replacement for the "chunk of @@CAPITAL@@" bit.

small planes are used as fireworks

Consider changing this to "the air force blows up small planes during their fireworks displays".

[option] “And kill hundreds of people?” asks your niece, as she types #FreedomOfReligion on the conservative @@ANIMAL@@ News live broadcast of the hijacking. “Instead, let’s give the “terrorists” what they want, and accept them with open arms into our welcome community. Isn’t it such a wonderful thought: a Bigtopian holding hands with a Tasmanian, holding hands with a Gullivadian; never mind that they’re sacrificing an orphan. So, what do you say you send a message to the scared, unrepresented hijackers, and let them practice here, away from trouble, in perfect harmony.” She starts drooling from her daydream, but is awoken by many angry alerts from her phone.

[effect] multiculturalists have begun to join in on the sacrifices

But how does this deal with the imminent danger of the hijacked plane going to @@CAPITAL@@? This could be an approach to prevent such a thing from happening in the future, but it doesn't really deal with the present situation, I feel. Unless the hijackers are to be contacted they can practice their ways in peace in @@NAME@@? If so, you'd need to make that more clearly, but then again, if they already hijacked a plane and if their intent is to cause harm, then I don't think it would dissuade them from continuing their act of terrorism.

[Minskiev]

a sizable chunk

Question: how big is the plane? I get that a portion of the capital city would be damaged/destroyed, depending on the speed, velocity and angle of descent, but when you say "sizeable chunk" I'm imagining 1/3 of the city to be reduced to rubble at least. Perhaps you could consider changing this to something along the lines of "seemingly counting down to billions of @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ in damages to @@CAPITAL@@".

Well, sizable is..subjective, so that’s not too great of an adjective, you’re right.

“We’ve got two minutes until government operations as we know it cease to exist!”

So, the plane is heading towards a government building? Perhaps this could be specified in the premise of the issue, that the planet is presumed to be heading towards the government building. Because as I said before, unless the plane is loaded with serious explosives, then I am not sure how it would cause so much destruction that a great chunk of the city would be gone.

Yeah, that needs clearing up.

the hundreds of MILLIONS of @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ in damage

Hmm, you mention the millions of @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ in damage here, but I think it would better serve as a replacement for the "chunk of @@CAPITAL@@" bit.

Alright.

small planes are used as fireworks

Consider changing this to "the air force blows up small planes during their fireworks displays".

Nah, the former is quicker and darker, far superior joke.

[option] “And kill hundreds of people?” asks your niece, as she types #FreedomOfReligion on the conservative @@ANIMAL@@ News live broadcast of the hijacking. “Instead, let’s give the “terrorists” what they want, and accept them with open arms into our welcome community. Isn’t it such a wonderful thought: a Bigtopian holding hands with a Tasmanian, holding hands with a Gullivadian; never mind that they’re sacrificing an orphan. So, what do you say you send a message to the scared, unrepresented hijackers, and let them practice here, away from trouble, in perfect harmony.” She starts drooling from her daydream, but is awoken by many angry alerts from her phone.

[effect] multiculturalists have begun to join in on the sacrifices

But how does this deal with the imminent danger of the hijacked plane going to @@CAPITAL@@? This could be an approach to prevent such a thing from happening in the future, but it doesn't really deal with the present situation, I feel. Unless the hijackers are to be contacted they can practice their ways in peace in @@NAME@@? If so, you'd need to make that more clearly, but then again, if they already hijacked a plane and if their intent is to cause harm, then I don't think it would dissuade them from continuing their act of terrorism.

I guess I could make that clearer. I’ll also try and incorporate the lack of info, or maybe unincorporate it. Hmm.

[Minskiev]

Uh oh, I’ve found a keeper effect line for option two.

[Fauxia]

When you introduce it, because you just say "recently", I assume it already occurred. Use a specific time, like in #740 (93 minutes). Furthermore, aren't Ultra-Violetists also disgruntled hijackers? They're certainly hijackers if it's them. The last sentence doesn't give two real options. Even when I read the entire issue, I see Ultra-Violetists as one option, but do not know what the other really is.

As for option 2, I don't understand what is being recommended. Is this supposed to be a hostage situation? Do we know that the hijackers are even open to negotiation? Is anyone going to choose an option to just allow people who risked the lives of hundreds or thousands to get off the hook with nothing?

When it comes to terrorism, it doesn't really matter who the terrorists are. They still just hijacked an airplane and have it set to hit city hall. The issue to me just seems like a question of "do we try to negotiate or just shoot them down"? I've yet to see that the "are they Ultra-Violetists"? adds to anything here.

[Minskiev]

When you introduce it, because you just say "recently", I assume it already occurred. Use a specific time, like in #740 (93 minutes). Furthermore, aren't Ultra-Violetists also disgruntled hijackers? They're certainly hijackers if it's them. The last sentence doesn't give two real options. Even when I read the entire issue, I see Ultra-Violetists as one option, but do not know what the other really is.

I wouldn’t exactly say disgruntled is a suitable adjective of terrorists. But yeah, I won’t make the ‘conflicting news’ a big part of the issue.

As for option 2, I don't understand what is being recommended. Is this supposed to be a hostage situation? Do we know that the hijackers are even open to negotiation? Is anyone going to choose an option to just allow people who risked the lives of hundreds or thousands to get off the hook with nothing?

When it comes to terrorism, it doesn't really matter who the terrorists are. They still just hijacked an airplane and have it set to hit city hall. The issue to me just seems like a question of "do we try to negotiate or just shoot them down"? I've yet to see that the "are they Ultra-Violetists"? adds to anything here.

You’re right, I’ll clear it up.

[Minskiev]

/bump

I feel like 137 posts is a little embarrassing.

[Tinhampton]

Minor suggestion for description: "@@CAPITAL@@, namely City Hall" ---> "@@CAPITAL@@'s City Hall"

Great title but I'm struggling to see how this particular band of presumed Ultra-Violetists are "Not Pilgrims"

[Minskiev]

Minor suggestion for description: "@@CAPITAL@@, namely City Hall" ---> "@@CAPITAL@@'s City Hall"

Great title but I'm struggling to see how this particular band of presumed Ultra-Violetists are "Not Pilgrims"

It’s mostly for the rhyme, but I wouldn’t exactly call terrorists bent on flying a plane carrying hundreds of innocent people right into the city hall of a capital ‘on a pilgrimage’.

Also, that does read better, thanks.

[Minskiev]

Putting this on last call. I’m not very far from a publishable issue, I think, and there’s no real reason to wait it out much longer.

[Westinor]

Your current draft, as Fauxia mentioned, still starts off with 'recently'. This doesn't have a sense of urgency and suggests the event already happened. Try giving a specific time that conveys the urgency of this issue. Try removing the 'Unfortunately' , too, as that doesn't convey the same sense of urgency I'd expect from this issue, and feels more like the event has already happened. You could probably do without it.

seemingly counting down to the demise of a fortune in property damage to @@CAPITAL@@

It's good that you're trying to convey an urgent tone here, but to me, this doesn't hit the mark. The damage is hardly the first thing in one's mind when a hijacked plane is projected to crash into a public area in the middle of a densely populated city.

We’ve got two minutes until government operations as we know it cease to exist!

City Hall is not necessarily the center of government operations. In the general area around it, perhaps, but this isn't the capitol building or one of the House Chambers. If you want to convey the message of extreme urgency, I'd suggest having the plane be en route to @@CAPITOL@@ Building, which seems to be the generally-accepted center of government operations. I may be wrong, so doublecheck me on that - nonetheless, City Hall being crushed is not necessarily the end of government operations. Also, if you know it's coming for that area, can't you evacuate the area as much as you can, just in case?

“That plane is going right towards the heart of the government,

Same here too.

Between a few brave casualties and thousands dead, not to mention the hundreds of MILLIONS of @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ in damage, the former is the best option.

I try not to be a stickler for language, but Just kidding. This line of thought is a bit confusing, and when someone's mind is in disaster mode, they'd usually speak in short, to-the-point sentences, or long winding sentences that stay on the same train of thought. This fits into the latter, but ends up reading badly. If that's what you were going for, props to you, but just go with the simple language instead. "A few casualties is nothing compared to the death of thousands!" is simple enough and explains the tradeoff. If you can manage to fit some sort of compassion in there, great. Try not to think about the money right now though, as that's implied.

and blow up all deadly hijacked planes in the future too

What? I understand that usually issues are meant to set a policy for the government to follow, but seeing as this is more of a moral dilemma sort of issue, why would this even be suggested?

And kill hundreds of people?

This has already been mentioned, and could probably be stated to greater effect. You don't need to go off of the last option - a simple "Hundreds of innocent people will die if you shoot down that plane!" or "We can't sacrifice hundreds of innocent lives!" will do. Or, you could replace this. (The second one doesn't make sense at all. I'll get to why in a second.)

Instead, let’s see their side of the story, and try to negotiate with them. If they want money, give them money. If they want a shrine to Violet to sacrifice orphans on, so be it. Let the scared, unrepresented Violetists practice whatever they need to here, away from trouble, in perfect harmony.

There are two minutes until the plane hits. The other solution would hardly be to "see their side of the story, and try to negotiate with them". It'd be more of a "We can't murder innocent people, let's save who we can and let them die by their own hand". Even then it's iffy, since the innocents in the hijacked plane die in both scenarios. You could mention this in the second option, with an argument of "Those in the hijacked plane can't be saved, but we can't murder them either. Let's evacuate everyone we can on the ground and save what lives we can". The current option doesn't feel like a solution to an emergency.

In all, you haven't found the right balance of urgency, and have framed the issue too much like a "This will be the government policy" issue when you need more of a "We need to make a snap decision" issue. One of my favorite issues, #973, has the perfect balance of moral dilemma and a time factor. See if you can take from that issue, as well as others that are similar.

[Minskiev]

/skip

[Minskiev]

1. Ah, you’re right. Fixed.

2. I’ll change it to lives rather than property damage.

3. @@CAPITAL@@ Hall it is, then. And maybe we could try to evacuate?

4. Yeah, that is pretty confusing, I agree.

5. Eh. I’ll replace that line with 3b.

6. Yeah, that does sound better.

7. Oh, that does make sense. West, your logic has trumped mine.

8. Alright then. Thanks for the fantastic feedback!

[Minskiev]

/skip

[Minskiev]

/bump

[Minskiev]

Alright, it’s kind of relieving, yet kind of painful to say that this will be the last little bit of time until submission. I’ll probably force the topic to a nice, round 150 posts. Thanks to everyone for helping me on my very first draft!

[La Xinga]

I like the issue, the effect lines seem funny!

[Minskiev]

I like the issue, the effect lines seem funny!

I do think they’re my strong point. West, Juts, and the ‘crew’ can sort out the rest

What's an Executive Transportation Actuary? I thought that actuaries dealt with finance, not government policy on transport.

To be honest, I kind of made it up. Actuaries are about risk, right? So a transportation actuary would...be about preventing transportation risk? Now that I think about it, that does sound pretty off.

Secretary of Transportation, I suppose?

[Tinhampton]

What's an Executive Transportation Actuary? I thought that actuaries dealt with finance, not government policy on transport.

[Minskiev]

Submitting it
Wish me luck!