Jutsa wrote:Romance and Reverie wrote:Suggestion: Split option #2 into two parts. Just ending the option without the last sentence would've been a catch-all option, which OP would've been happy with.
That's... kinda lame though. Like. "Update the old system" makes logical sense, yes, but then there's almost no issue. Also it's a crap ton less funny.
It's like trying to tell a joke and inserting a longwided, drab story to build a logical conclusion to it. It's self-defeating.
There are many issues which are entirely plain, here we're talking about a single plain option. If not offering breadth of creative choices, offering a catch-all is a minimal courtesy.
I do agree with you on wittiness/charm being important, but I addressed that in the original post, as seen below.
Daarwyrth wrote:Awesomeland012345 wrote:btw, NS is kind of a political satire site, so a good amount of issues may seem to have extreme results/options
That's the game's charm in my opinion
What people find charming will differ, even among the extreme results/options.
When the issue at hand is non-trivial (which one wouldn't want to dismiss), it should either have a breadth of options or at least one "catch-all".
1. Having a captain go down with his ship even if he's inches from the shore, as was tradition.
2. Having a jacuzzi in a library.
3. Having a "Blood-curdling scream" siren.
All three are extreme, but option #3's flavour is clearly different, with a more niche humor.
Jutsa wrote:Plus, if you actually think about it, the core issue is equally about people being used to the old siren noise. Not changing that to something more shocking, frankly is not much better than the dismiss button, if you really think about it.
I disagree. Westinor brought up the same argument and I addressed it in my original response.
The reason people were used to the old siren noise was that they knew there was a 99% chance of it being a malfunctioning, or a test.
The Issue At Hand wrote:"However, that didn’t seem to concern residents, who had grown all too used to constant tests and malfunctions associated with the aging system."
A new system that isn't error-prone would not be ignored, especially after they just experienced hell as a result of ignoring the system.
That said, the other interpretation is fun, and does belong in an option.
Option #2 combines these two perspectives into one solution, which is messy and ugly. At first it assumes and seeks to solve my interpretation...
Option #2 wrote:Well, not everyone has a cell phone, and what if its battery dies in the middle of a storm, what then? The biggest advantage to sirens is that we can assure that they will always work... as long as they aren’t old, malfunctioning, or whatever. It should be clear that a refit of the siren system is on the radar."
...and then, abruptly, it switches to, and seeks to solve your interpretation...
Option #2 wrote:"All we need to do is update them to be more... attention-grabbing. I’m sure citizens won’t ignore weather sirens if we replace the wail with, say, a blood-curdling scream!"
I see this as a cut-and-dry issue with a cut-and-dry solution, but everyone except you is defending its current iteration flimsily or reactionarily, some even attacking OP nonsensically.
It's unrelated, but I ran into an unnecessary defense of grammatical error (or at least ambiguity/clunkiness) from an editor elsewhere.
The atmosphere is pretty discouraging for people who genuinely want to help make improvements, or in the case of OP, discuss potential for improvement.