NationStates

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:01 pm**

I am tempted to just call this "Meat Meet".

Anyway, comment away.

[title] Meat Meet

[description] @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ moralists are outraged, as per usual. This time, they're having a roast of your ambassador to the United Federation, @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@, who was revealed to have eaten fried chicken at a meeting with their Secretary of State.

[validity] vegetarianism, adult

[option] "I'm not going to mince words," says ethicist @@RANDOMNAME@@, waving celery sticks in your face. "The corrupt ambassador gamed the system to put that Secretary's meat in @@HIS(1)@@ mouth. That jerk is a total disgrace. We cannot have an ambassador who approves of the slaughter of innocents that takes place in the United Federation. It's time to trim the fat and give Ambassador @@LASTNAME(1)@@ the chop."
[fallout] government officials who do an offal job get smoked

[option] "Can we get to the heart of the tissue - er, issue?" asks @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@, while grilling Federation Freddie's Definitely Veggie Not Smuggled Real Beef Burgers. "Meat is an important component of the United Federation's culture, and it would be disrespectful to refuse the dishes in their country. I support the ban on meat eating in @@NAME@@, but on some rare occasions, ambassadors need to accommodate their hosts for a job well done. We should be allowed to do whatever it takes to keep foreign relationships from spoiling."
[fallout] the steaks are too high for ambassadors to butcher foreign relationships

[option] "The ambassador is chickening away from what @@HE(1)@@ should say," asserts @@RANDOMNAME@@, porky four-time winner of the @@CAPITAL@@ Vegetarian Hot Dog Eating Contest. "If ambassadors are going to get their hands on meat anyway, everyone else should be able to without the law crying 'fowl'. We can flesh out an agreement to keep some unethical practices off the table, but we're adults for crying out loud. Shouldn't we be able to chews what we eat?"
[fallout] the legalization of meat has skewered the sales of vegetarian substitutes

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:50 pm**

@@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ ~~fears~~ fear nothing more than being caught with meat in their mouths

Posted: **Mon Jul 20, 2020 10:17 pm**

How about “Meat Munchers Mortify Many” as a title?

Posted: **Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:05 am**

Honeydewistania wrote:
@@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ ~~fears~~ fear nothing more than being caught with meat in their mouths

Good catch. I experimented with both singular and plural, and must’ve messed up the verb.

Minskiev wrote:How about “Meat Munchers Mortify Many” as a title?

Thanks, but I’d rather keep the homophones together.

Posted: **Wed Jul 22, 2020 12:55 pm**

I really like this issue, Fauxia.

Meat Meet would be a fun title, and I love Option 1's effect line.

Posted: **Wed Jul 22, 2020 2:56 pm**

Take the s out of fears in your first effect line.

Also, in the ‘Freddie’s Not Smuggled’ bit, shouldn’t it be @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@?

Posted: **Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:43 am**

Minskiev wrote:Take the s out of fears in your first effect line.

Honeydewistania already caught that

Minskiev wrote: Also, in the ‘Freddie’s Not Smuggled’ bit, shouldn’t it be @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@?

Yep! Nice catch.

Sacara wrote:I really like this issue, Fauxia. Meat Meet would be a fun title, and I love Option 1's effect line.

Thanks Sacara! And great to see you around, it’s been a while

Posted: **Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:26 am**

Good premise. Option 2 looks longer than the others, throwing the aesthetics off balance. See if you can trim it a little.

Posted: **Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:03 pm**

Given it's about ambassadors eating stuff, is there a way to sneak in a Ferrero Rocher reference (or is that too dated/niche)?

The effect for option #2 is a bit bland. How about... "the juiciest diplomatic posts are in countries serving the juiciest burgers". Or not, that sucks, but something a bit funnier.

Or even some meat puns? "You should trim the fat and give this ambassador the chop", "the steaks are high", "something something rare"?

Posted: **Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:50 am**

Can this also apply to Jewish/Islamic Theocracies?

Posted: **Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:04 am**

Fair point there -- prohibitions against pork are common enough that breaching vegetarianism would be the smaller of the sins.

Posted: **Mon Jul 27, 2020 1:54 pm**

Fauxia wrote:I am tempted to just call this "Meat Meet".

Do it.

Fauxia wrote:"You should probably accommodate the United Federation’s leaders and offer them meat as well. It’s for world peace!"

This part seems out-of-place, since none of the other options discuss what foreign ambassadors eat in @@NAME@@. If the logic is that etiquette requires you to accept the food your hosts offer no matter what it is, then that goes both ways: we have to eat their food (which is meat) when visiting them, but they have to eat our food when visiting us. (Cue diplomats deliberately serving horrible food as a sneaky way to spite nations they don't like. Or allergies disqualifying someone from an ambassadorial position.)

Logic may not technically be necessary if the speaker is corrupt and just looking for excuses to eat meat, but I wouldn't be too blunt about it. It's better if the option is at least somewhat believable from a non-corrupt standpoint, even if the speaker has an ulterior motive.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:Fair point there -- prohibitions against pork are common enough that breaching vegetarianism would be the smaller of the sins.

Well, if two religions is "common".

But a nation with compulsory vegetarianism is obviously not average, so they might have different priorities. Neither Judaism nor Islam require vegetarianism (in fact, it's discouraged, as some holidays have meat prescribed for their feasts, though in practice vegeterians find some substitute and handwave the doctrinal issues - also both religions theoretically practice ritual animal sacrifice, though Jews haven't for a while due to the destruction of the Temple), so a nation that receives this issue is unlikely to be motivated too much by those religions' dietary restrictions.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:38 am**

Good point. Though Israel has a higher proportion of vegetarians than almost any nation in the world, second only to India I think.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:45 am**

@@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ moralists have found another excuse to send you angry letters after it was discovered

Consider adding a comma between "angry letters" and "after it".

Eating meat is contributing

Perhaps a little nitpicky, but perhaps consider changing "Eating meat is contributing" to "Eating meat contributes to".

We’re adults now.

Consider changing this to "Aren't we adults, after all?".

Otherwise, I think this issue is looking good! Well done

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:28 am**

I am tempted to just call this "Meat Meet".

I prefer Meat Meet over the current title.

Alternatively, with a couple very minor tweaks to the meeting in the premise, the title could be "Meat and Greet"

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:38 am**

Candensia wrote:
I am tempted to just call this "Meat Meet".

I prefer Meat Meet over the current title.

Alternatively, with a couple very minor tweaks to the meeting in the premise, the title could be "Meat and Greet"

Or, maybe "Meet Eating"

As there was eating during a meeting.

Hmm... Meeting and Eating?

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2020 1:26 pm**

Fauxia wrote:I am tempted to just call this "Meat Meet".

I like that title better.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:50 am**

Candensia wrote:
I am tempted to just call this "Meat Meet".

I prefer Meat Meet over the current title.

Meat Meet reminds me of "meep meep!" from Road Runner

I guess Meat Eaters Meet could also be an alternative title, but Meat Meet is more concise!

Posted: **Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:01 am**

New draft up! Basically rewrote the whole thing, cut up option two down and littered the entire thing with meat puns. I also changed pork to chicken in the description. Trott is probably right that there's not likely to be a real problem caused by pork, but there's no need to take the chance.

Changed title to "Meet Meat" as opposed to "Meat Meet". But I am fine with switching it. This premise has lent itself to a number of possible titles, so thanks for your help in that.

Posted: **Sun Aug 16, 2020 5:35 am**

[title] Meet Meat

I'm a huge proponent to switch up the title to "Meat Meet", but the choice is ultimately yours

, @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@,

I don't think this needs to be between commas.

fried chicken

Somehow this doesn't land entirely with me. I know chicken is meat as well, but it sounds somehow too kind/sweet to me. How about "a nice juicy steak"? That has a grander ring to it somehow, but that could just be me

Other than that, I really like how you have streamlined the issue! Dare I say, I'd love to sink my teeth into it? ;P anyway, I love the meat puns as they come really naturally and with that tiny hint of unexpectedness, so that they aren't corny but actually funny. The options seems very balanced as well and I like that option 3 isn't simply a 100% reversal but mentions keeping out the unethical practices.

Posted: **Sun Aug 16, 2020 12:51 pm**

Daarwyrth wrote:
[title] Meet Meat

I'm a huge proponent to switch up the title to "Meat Meet", but the choice is ultimately yours

I'm weighing that one, I don't have a huge preference myself so if other regulars agree I'll probably change it to that.

Daarwyrth wrote:
, @@RANDOMNAME(1)@@,

I don't think this needs to be between commas.

I've always learned to do that with appositives. That may be more of a stylistic difference than anything but it's what I'm used to.

fried chicken

Somehow this doesn't land entirely with me. I know chicken is meat as well, but it sounds somehow too kind/sweet to me. How about "a nice juicy steak"? That has a grander ring to it somehow, but that could just be me

I chose fried chicken because it's a greasy meat you might expect from America/The United Federation. I like the juicy steak idea, but the only thing is that beef is referenced later in the issue and I'm trying to spread it out.

Other than that, I really like how you have streamlined the issue! Dare I say, I'd love to sink my teeth into it? ;P anyway, I love the meat puns as they come really naturally and with that tiny hint of unexpectedness, so that they aren't corny but actually funny. The options seems very balanced as well and I like that option 3 isn't simply a 100% reversal but mentions keeping out the unethical practices.

Thanks! It's good to hear someone's enjoying the meat puns. Usually I'm the wurst at them.

Posted: **Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:34 pm**

Fauxia wrote:I'm weighing that one, I don't have a huge preference myself so if other regulars agree I'll probably change it to that.

I also favor "Meat Meet", although in the process of trying to explain why I belatedly realized that "Meet Meat" does make sense too if you interpret it just the right way.

Fauxia wrote:I've always learned to do that with appositives. That may be more of a stylistic difference than anything but it's what I'm used to.

I think the commas are correct.

Fauxia wrote:I like the juicy steak idea, but the only thing is that beef is referenced later in the issue and I'm trying to spread it out.

Also, beef is banned by Hindus, which is probably more relevant than pork being banned by Jews/Muslims, because many Indian religions/denominations actually do take the next step of divinely-sanctioned all-out vegetarianism.

Posted: **Tue Sep 01, 2020 10:41 am**

Bumping this. Will probably submit soon if there aren't further comments.

Posted: **Tue Sep 01, 2020 12:01 pm**

after it was discovered @@HE(1)@@ consumed fried chicken

Itty bitty nitpick, but shouldn't this be "after it was discovered that @@HE(1)@@ had consumed fried chicken"? Because the consuming happens further out in the past, than the discovery. Correct me if I am wrong, ofc!

Otherwise, looking very good! The meat puns still get me, they're amazing xD

Posted: **Tue Sep 01, 2020 3:32 pm**

Daarwyrth wrote:Itty bitty nitpick, but shouldn't this be "after it was discovered that @@HE(1)@@ had consumed fried chicken"? Because the consuming happens further out in the past, than the discovery. Correct me if I am wrong, ofc!

I think they're both valid, so it's a matter of personal taste.

The "at..." clause establishes the sentence as taking place in a different time from the rest of the narrative, regardless.

NationStates

[SUBMITTED] Meat Meet

[SUBMITTED] Meat Meet