[DRAFT]Cameras against Feminists

[Comfed]

The issue:
After a teacher at the swim school published a picture of some swimmers in his swim class to social media. The problem? They were in swimsuits, and he didn’t have permission.

The debate:

“This. Is. RAPE!” yells angry mother @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@, as she grabs your advanced photo camera and throws it onto the ground, smashing it. “We need to stop this from happening again. Fire this coach and impose stricter privacy regulations!”

Effect: class pictures are often burned by the privacy censors.

“Another woman whining about ‘consent’ and ‘privacy’,” sneers swim coach @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, half distracted as he ogles your daughter. “I didn’t do anything wrong. After all, in public one has no expectation of privacy. ”

Effect: surprise pornography is the hottest new trend

“You know, @@LEADER@@, this might be an opportunity,” whispers your chief of staff @@RANDOMNAME@@. “After all, if we hooked the population on these photos, courtesy of the government, they’ll be too busy ogling to do something like, oh, I don’t know, disagree with you.”

Effect: sex is great for repression of dissent in @@NAME@@

[Tinhampton]

Title suggestion: "Girls on Film" (with apologies to Duran Duran).

1: Is this anything to do with the ongoing Korean "toilet spy cam" scandal?
2: The speakers in Options 1 and 2 are an "angry university student" and a "biology teacher" respectively. Have you considered changing the speakers about so that the viewpoints are instead represented by "[the] female student" and "[the] teacher at the @@DEMONYM polytechnic school" instead?
3: I have no idea what your Crazy Third Option does.

[Jutsa]

Didn't actually read the issue, just Tin's suggestion,
but I'd like to point out that "Girls on Film" is already taken as an issue title. Brought to you buy issue #1227.

[Australian rePublic]

Please reword your description. Here's an idea:

A teach from a teacher from a polytechnic filmed one of his female student's breasts from an alarming angle, and uploaded the film to social media.

Also, why is this a leader issue, rather than a police issue?

[La Xinga]

I think commas are advised not to be used in effect lines.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

There's a possible interesting premise here, but the options are all just too extreme, and the presentation is too direct. Like Aussie says, this is too clearly a criminal matter.

Maybe a legally greyer case would work better? For example, perhaps a photo of a school sports team gets shared by the schoolteacher on social media and goes viral because of someone half-dressed getting changed in the background. Or maybe a teacher took photos of his students in swimming costumes with their consent for the school newsletter, but the parents object that THEY weren't asked.

Doesn't have to be those examples, just suggesting that the issue needs more nuance in general.

[Comfed]

There's a possible interesting premise here, but the options are all just too extreme, and the presentation is too direct. Like Aussie says, this is too clearly a criminal matter.

Maybe a legally greyer case would work better? For example, perhaps a photo of a school sports team gets shared by the schoolteacher on social media and goes viral because of someone half-dressed getting changed in the background. Or maybe a teacher took photos of his students in swimming costumes with their consent for the school newsletter, but the parents object that THEY weren't asked.

Doesn't have to be those examples, just suggesting that the issue needs more nuance in general.

I agree... fixed.

[Westinor]

This reminds me of issue #975, care for overlap. I don't have overall changes to suggest to this issue, since I'm somewhat convinced that these two might overlap.

A quick read brings a few small things to my attention.

your advanced photo camera and smashes it onto the ground, smashing it.

You use "smashes/smashing" twice here.

After all, in public one has no expectation of privacy

This could read better as "One can't expect full privacy in the public, after all" or some variation of that, since reading it back it still seems a bit wobbly.

Outta my way, mere male!

"mere male" is fine as alliteration, but otherwise seems a bit strange for someone to say. Just imo.

“Look, @@LEADER@@, the common denominator in these sorts of problems isn’t cameras, it’s men. Making @@NAME@@ a matriarchy would solve so many problems

Not only are you missing an ending quotation mark, but the conclusion the speaker comes to and proposed solution don't connect. Making @@NAME@@ a matriarchy surely isn't the best solution - perhaps there's a better way to protect the privacy of women outside of making @@NAME@@ a matriarchal society? And it seems to me that this doesn't really connect with the effect line, either.

EDIT: A few more problems. Though the title doesn't strictly need to match the text, the premise of this issue doesn't revolve around women or feminists. It's not even mentioned that the photographed swimmers are female until option 3, where the reader can draw the conclusion. The title might need a change, or you could clarify the gender of the swimmers and gear the issue towards a more "violation of female's privacy approach", since right now it reads more as "issue about privacy, with extremist feminist option thrown in".

[Candlewhisper Archive]

It's all just so heavy handed. Could you try and make options 1 and 2 more reasonable sounding, and replace the matriarchy option with one that doesn't demand the creation of a new in-game policy that would require reviewing one and a half thousand issues for consistency?

[Honeydewistania]

I think the coach watching porn might be invalid for nations that ban it (not sure if there are issues that do but most likely)

[Comfed]

Bump

[Candensia]

I'd encourage you to make option 1 seem a bit less reactionary and overdramatic. This is supposed to be a mostly-sane option, not a crazy option. See if you can keep the concerned parent speaker, but maybe tone down a bit more?

For option two, you're missing an "action" sentence. Without one, the option essentially advocates inaction. Take a look. Things in red are added by me.

“Another woman whining about ‘consent’ and ‘privacy’,” sneers swim coach @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, half distracted as he ogles your daughter. “I didn’t do anything wrong. (Here is what I think we should do, @@LEADER@@!) After all, in public one has no expectation of privacy.” He walks out, winking at her.

I think it is very important to make clear the age of the swimmers in this issue, and for that reason Option 3 (and to a lesser extent Option 2) is creeping me out. Are these swimmers minors, or are they college-age adults? If they're minors, the option is unacceptable. If they're young adults, the option isn't immediately unacceptable, but I personally don't like it, and I'd encourage you to take it in a new direction.

[Cretox State]

This is a decent framework, but it neither reads nor works well. It's important to adhere to the principle of show, don't tell.

Edit: Also, please keep older drafts visible, but spoilered. Otherwise, it's hard to understand what prior posters are talking about.