[DRAFT] A Towering Dilemma

[Pythaga]

Draft 2:

Description: With the modernization of the nation's national parks well underway, @@DEMONYMADJECTIVEINITIALS@@T&T, the largest telecom company in the country, is petitioning you for permission to construct cell towers across the newly-updated parks.

Validity: Has chosen #706.1, allows computers/phones, and is capitalist.

Option 1a: "We offer the best coverage in @@NAME@@, bar none!" pitches @@RANDOMNAME@@, a spokesperson for @@DEMONYMADJECTIVEINITIALS@@T&T. "Now, let us expand that coverage into your national parks. There is no better way to attract folks to the natural wonders of @@NAME@@ than blazing fast internet. With your permission - and a government grant or two - we can have everyone connected in no time. Plus, we can disguise towers as trees so no scenic views are lost!"
Validity: Has internet
Effect: the country's national parks are ranked according to their internet speeds

Option 1b: "We offer the best coverage in @@NAME@@, bar none!" pitches @@RANDOMNAME@@, a spokesperson for @@DEMONYMADJECTIVEINITIALS@@T&T. "Now, let us expand that coverage into your national parks. There is no better way to attract folks to the natural wonders of @@NAME@@ than phone service. With your permission - and a government grant or two - we can have everyone calling in no time. Plus, we can disguise towers as trees so no scenic views are lost!"
Validity: No internet
Effect: the country's national parks are ranked according to their roaming charges

Option 2: "This is a terrible idea!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, who has just hiked in from a distant forest. "People go to national parks to escape the craziness of real life⁠—constructing cell towers throughout completely defeats that purpose! Also, parks are set aside as development-free zones. I don't know about you, but cell towers sure sound like development to me! Keep our outdoors completely disconnected from the greater world so that we can enjoy nature through our eyes, not our phones!
Effect: @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ looking to avoid awkward conversations often claim to be visiting national parks

Option 3: "No, no, no!" yells @@RANDOMNAME@@, an environmentalist who nearly died when @@HE@@ was mauled by a bear after tying @@HIM@@self to a tree. "National parks exist to help preserve the unique and endangered wildlife of @@NAME@@, and modernization goes against that goal! For instance, many @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ birds are already endangered, and they're going to completely die off if they start frying themselves on cell towers! @@LEADER@@, it is imperative that you immediately close all national parks to further construction and leave them alone for Mother Nature!"
Effect: outdoor recreation across the nation has been parked

Draft 1:

Description: With the modernization of the nation's national parks well underway, @@DEMONYMADJECTIVEINITIALS@@T&T, the largest telecom company in the country, is petitioning you for permission to construct cell towers across the newly-updated parks.

Validity: Has chosen #706.1, allows internet, computers, phones, and is capitalist.

Option 1: "We offer the best coverage in @@NAME@@, bar none!" pitches @@RANDOMNAME@@, a spokesperson for @@NAMEINITIALS@@T&T. "Now let us expand that coverage into your beautiful national parks. Why make someone wait until they get home to post their beautiful pictures when they could do it right there in Violetstone? There is no better way to attract folks to national parks than with promises of blazing fast internet wherever they go. With your permission and a government grant or two, we can have everyone connected in no time!
Effect: the country's national parks are ranked according to their internet speeds

Option 2: "This is a terrible idea!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, who has just hiked into @@CAPITAL@@ all the way from @@ANIMAL@@ Forest National Park and most definitely smells like it. "People go to national parks to escape the crazy hustle and bustle of real life⁠—constructing cell towers throughout completely defeats that purpose! Sure, build your posh campsites and lodges to attract more visitors, but keep our parks completely disconnected from the world outside so that we can enjoy nature through our eyes, not our phones!
Effect: @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ often hide out in national parks to avoid spam phone calls

Option 3: "No no no!" yells @@RANDOMNAME@@, an environmentalist who nearly died recently when @@HE@@ was mauled by a bear after tying @@HIM@@self to a tree. "National parks don't exist for anyone's enjoyment at all, they are nature reserves! @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Spotted Hawks are already an incredibly endangered species, they're going to completely die off if they start landing on cell towers and frying themselves! @@LEADER@@, it is imperative that you immediately close down all national parks to public access and give them back to the fauna, just as Mother Nature intended!"
Effect: going camping is a serious criminal offense

Option 4: "Connecting our parks isn't a half bad idea," ponders @@RANDOMNAME@@, head of the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Mountain Rescue Service as @@HE@@ tries to plant an avalanche beacon in your briefcase. "If a hiker gets lost or injured out there, they have no way to get in touch with us most of the time. We often don't start looking until a few days after they were supposed to come home and someone reports them missing, and by then it's often too late. Full cellphone service everywhere in the parks is a bad idea, but we need to set up some kind of network that allows anyone, anywhere in our national parks to summon emergency services immediately."
Effect: false alarms have skyrocketed as hiking children often inadvertently activate their SOS bracelets

[Trotterdam]

@@NAMEINITIALS@@T&T

I think "@@DEMONYMADJECTIVEINITIALS@@T&T" works better (and is more accurate to the real-life AT&T). 99% of the time they'll be the same initials, but still.

petitioning you for permission to construct cell towers across the newly updated parks.

"Newly-updated".

Validity: Followup to #706.1, allows internet, computers, phones, and is capitalist.

I don't think this works as a validity. As far as I know, chain issues always happen when you choose the associated option, you can't also add standard validities.

It seems like a rather bizarre requirement to have a telecommunications issue chain off #706 anyway. I'd do away with making it a followup and just make it about telephone access in national parks. Beware of overlap with #557 2.

[Pythaga]

@@NAMEINITIALS@@T&T

I think "@@DEMONYMADJECTIVEINITIALS@@T&T" works better (and is more accurate to the real-life AT&T). 99% of the time they'll be the same initials, but still.

I'm not sure that's an actual macro, but I agree that it fits better so changed.

petitioning you for permission to construct cell towers across the newly updated parks.

"Newly-updated".

Done.

Validity: Followup to #706.1, allows internet, computers, phones, and is capitalist.

I don't think this works as a validity. As far as I know, chain issues always happen when you choose the associated option, you can't also add standard validities.

It seems like a rather bizarre requirement to have a telecommunications issue chain off #706 anyway. I'd do away with making it a followup and just make it about telephone access in national parks. Beware of overlap with #557 2.

I felt the need to chain off because some options in #706 and other issues completely do away with national parks for all intents and purposes, and this wouldn't make too much sense in a nation without national parks. Is it possible to have a validity of "Has chosen 706.1 in the past" as opposed to having it be a direct followup/chain?

As for the overlap, do you think the option should be removed outright or reworked?

[Trotterdam]

I'm not sure that's an actual macro,

Every macro can be made into an initials version. I'm pretty sure you could do a @@RANDOMNAMEINITIALS@@ if you could find a reason to.

As for the overlap, do you think the option should be removed outright or reworked?

The overlap isn't too serious, I was pointing it out just in case.

If anything, the problem is more that #557 assumes that at least some of the more remote parts of the nation's wilderness don't have ordinary phone coverage, which is reasonable. You probably shouldn't make an option that extends phone coverage to literally every square meter of @@NAME@@, just to the more popular eco-tourist attractions.

[Pythaga]

If anything, the problem is more that #557 assumes that at least some of the more remote parts of the nation's wilderness don't have ordinary phone coverage, which is reasonable. You probably shouldn't make an option that extends phone coverage to literally every square meter of @@NAME@@, just to the more popular eco-tourist attractions.

Option 1 wants to extend the phone coverage only into national parks, or at the very least the parts of the national parks that are populated enough for it to be profitable, not to all the other uninhabited forestland and deserts outside park boundaries. If you don't think this is clear enough I can work on some rewriting.

[Pythaga]

I've changed the validity so that #706.1 is a prerequisite rather than this being a direct followup.

I've also slightly reworded option 4 so that it is only creating the emergency network in national parks, not nationwide.

I would appreciate it if an editor could comment on the validity as per what Trotterdam and I discussed earlier in this thread.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

All your options seem too long, but also need to make additional points.

Option 1: "We offer the best coverage in @@NAME@@, bar none!" pitches @@RANDOMNAME@@, a spokesperson for @@NAMEINITIALS@@T&T. "Now let us expand that coverage into your beautiful national parks. Why make someone wait until they get home to post their beautiful pictures when they could do it right there in Violetstone? There is no better way to attract folks to national parks than with promises of blazing fast internet wherever they go. With your permission and a government grant or two, we can have everyone connected in no time!
Effect: the country's national parks are ranked according to their internet speeds

So trim this by 50%, and then add a mention that cell towers could be disguised to fit in with their surroundings (as that's what happens in real life).

You could also do a doppelganger option here for nations with no internet, instead focusing on being able to make phone calls. You know, the thing that us old people sometimes do with phones.

Option 2: "This is a terrible idea!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, who has just hiked into @@CAPITAL@@ all the way from @@ANIMAL@@ Forest National Park and most definitely smells like it. "People go to national parks to escape the crazy hustle and bustle of real life⁠—constructing cell towers throughout completely defeats that purpose! Sure, build your posh campsites and lodges to attract more visitors, but keep our parks completely disconnected from the world outside so that we can enjoy nature through our eyes, not our phones!
Effect: @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ often hide out in national parks to avoid spam phone calls

Trim this by 50%, but also add something about how cell towers are a form of industrial development, and the whole point of these spaces is that such things aren't permitted.

The effect line makes no sense too, as the same effect can be achieved by turning your phone off.

Option 3: "No no no!" yells @@RANDOMNAME@@, an environmentalist who nearly died recently when @@HE@@ was mauled by a bear after tying @@HIM@@self to a tree. "National parks don't exist for anyone's enjoyment at all, they are nature reserves! @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Spotted Hawks are already an incredibly endangered species, they're going to completely die off if they start landing on cell towers and frying themselves! @@LEADER@@, it is imperative that you immediately close down all national parks to public access and give them back to the fauna, just as Mother Nature intended!"
Effect: going camping is a serious criminal offense

Make it shorter, but this one is fine. Effect line is weak though.

Option 4: "Connecting our parks isn't a half bad idea," ponders @@RANDOMNAME@@, head of the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Mountain Rescue Service as @@HE@@ tries to plant an avalanche beacon in your briefcase. "If a hiker gets lost or injured out there, they have no way to get in touch with us most of the time. We often don't start looking until a few days after they were supposed to come home and someone reports them missing, and by then it's often too late. Full cellphone service everywhere in the parks is a bad idea, but we need to set up some kind of network that allows anyone, anywhere in our national parks to summon emergency services immediately."
Effect: false alarms have skyrocketed as hiking children often inadvertently activate their SOS bracelets

Eh, sounds like a separate issue. I'd suggest cut this option, and just reduce it to a mention in option 1 of "and they're useful for calling emergency services when needed."

[Australian rePublic]

Wait? No mobile coverage in national parks? Is that actually a thing? All the national parks in Australia that I've been to have perfect phone coverage

[Pythaga]

Wait? No mobile coverage in national parks? Is that actually a thing? All the national parks in Australia that I've been to have perfect phone coverage

Cell coverage in US national parks has only been a thing for a few years now, but very little has been implemented so far and it is still very hotly debated.

Working on a second draft to address CWA's suggestions.

[Pythaga]

Draft 2 posted.

So trim this by 50%, and then add a mention that cell towers could be disguised to fit in with their surroundings (as that's what happens in real life).

You could also do a doppelganger option here for nations with no internet, instead focusing on being able to make phone calls. You know, the thing that us old people sometimes do with phones.

All of this has been implemented.

Trim this by 50%, but also add something about how cell towers are a form of industrial development, and the whole point of these spaces is that such things aren't permitted.

The effect line makes no sense too, as the same effect can be achieved by turning your phone off.

Trimmed and added to. I've also redone the effect line, hopefully this one is better.

Make it shorter, but this one is fine. Effect line is weak though.

Shortened. I've also redone the effect line, let me know if this one is any better.

Eh, sounds like a separate issue. I'd suggest cut this option, and just reduce it to a mention in option 1 of "and they're useful for calling emergency services when needed."

I've dropped the option. I don't think I have the space to squeeze this into option 1, but if you think it's a must have I can make it work.

[Daarwyrth]

than blazing fast internet

I believe "blazingly fast internet" would sound better.

With your permission and a government grant or two, we can have everyone connected in no time.

Consider changing this to "With your permission - and a government grant or two - we can have everyone connected in no time". Personally, I feel it looks better

so no views are lost!

Consider adding "scenic" before "views".

In general I like the sound of this issue and think it covers an interesting subject. Yet I strongly believe that this could be an issue standing on its own, you could simply have as a validity "hasn't banned national parks". If I were writing this issue, I wouldn't choose it as a follow up, but make it its own independent thing. But, of course, the choice is up to you

[Westinor]

Not to mention that parks are set aside as development-free zones, which cell towers and their infrastructure definitely are

This sentence is a bit confusing - I get what you mean, but the wording makes it seem like cell towers and their infrastructure are development-free zones. Try to clear that up.

an environmentalist who nearly died when @@HE@@ was mauled by a bear after tying @@HIM@@self to a tree

Maybe add "for several days" at the end for a bit of absurdity? This made me laugh, liked it a lot.

"No, no, no!" yells @@RANDOMNAME@@, an environmentalist who nearly died when @@HE@@ was mauled by a bear after tying @@HIM@@self to a tree. "National parks don't exist for anyone's enjoyment at all, they are nature reserves! Many @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ birds are already endangered, they're going to completely die off if they fry themselves on cell towers! @@LEADER@@, it is imperative that you immediately close all national parks to the public and give them back to Mother Nature!"

The option is a bit disjointed. It goes from making me think "oh, it'll be a 'ban parks' kind of option" to "er, birds are being endangered by cell towers? So ban cell towers?" and then back to the former. I understand that you're trying to convey the former, but try to relate the middle sentence to the other two. (Or, you could go with the latter, since we have a ton of 'isolate parks' options already, or even something more wacky, up to you )

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Looking much better!

There's a weird sense of familiarity to me to this issue. I'm not sure why, but I'm convinced I've seen another issue about mobile phone masts.

Ah... got it. USS Monitor has an issue in the staff pool. Not that an accepted unpublished draft counts for overlap, of course, but just to let you know there's some strong competition there.

[Pythaga]

I believe "blazingly fast internet" would sound better.

Calling something, especially internet, blazing fast is a relatively common thing. I'll leave it as is.

Consider changing this to "With your permission - and a government grant or two - we can have everyone connected in no time". Personally, I feel it looks better

Done.

Consider adding "scenic" before "views".

Done.

This sentence is a bit confusing - I get what you mean, but the wording makes it seem like cell towers and their infrastructure are development-free zones. Try to clear that up.

I'll reword that sentence.

Maybe add "for several days" at the end for a bit of absurdity? This made me laugh, liked it a lot.

I'm not sure adding it to the end works that well, and it already seems a little long so I'll probably leave it as is.

The option is a bit disjointed. It goes from making me think "oh, it'll be a 'ban parks' kind of option" to "er, birds are being endangered by cell towers? So ban cell towers?" and then back to the former. I understand that you're trying to convey the former, but try to relate the middle sentence to the other two. (Or, you could go with the latter, since we have a ton of 'isolate parks' options already, or even something more wacky, up to you )

I'll work on making this one more cohesive, thanks for the suggestions!

Looking much better!

There's a weird sense of familiarity to me to this issue. I'm not sure why, but I'm convinced I've seen another issue about mobile phone masts.

Ah... got it. USS Monitor has an issue in the staff pool. Not that an accepted unpublished draft counts for overlap, of course, but just to let you know there's some strong competition there.

I think that I'll still submit this one regardless after some more work as overlap isn't technically an issue, but thanks for the heads up!

[Minskiev]

Option one ‘Now, let us’ reads better than ‘Now let us’

[Pythaga]

Option one ‘Now, let us’ reads better than ‘Now let us’

Changed.

I've rewritten option 3 to hopefully address Westinor's suggestions. I think the new version needs some work, so I'd appreciate some suggestions. Also, I'm not certain that the effect line works well for that one either, let me know what you think.

[Australian rePublic]

Wait? No mobile coverage in national parks? Is that actually a thing? All the national parks in Australia that I've been to have perfect phone coverage

Cell coverage in US national parks has only been a thing for a few years now, but very little has been implemented so far and it is still very hotly debated.

Working on a second draft to address CWA's suggestions.

Ha. So what did residents of nagional parks do?

[Minskiev]

Cell coverage in US national parks has only been a thing for a few years now, but very little has been implemented so far and it is still very hotly debated.

Working on a second draft to address CWA's suggestions.

Ha. So what did residents of nagional parks do?

Hike? Camp? Make s’mores without a tutorial?

[Pythaga]

Cell coverage in US national parks has only been a thing for a few years now, but very little has been implemented so far and it is still very hotly debated.

Working on a second draft to address CWA's suggestions.

Ha. So what did residents of nagional parks do?

In the US no one except maybe a few park rangers live in national parks, and they are all mostly content with the status quo, as they chose to live/work there after all.