[Submitted] - The Kicker is in the Details

[Valentine Z]

Your validity is slightly messed up right now I think - it is possible for a nation to ban the internet but not computers, meaning they get neither option 1 or option 2.

I don't think Option 3 does a great job at stating its case right now. It's just sorta like "no". Perhaps there is a funny way to come up with why the speaker thinks it's a con?

As far as I am concerned and intent on doing, Option 1 is when both computers and internet are present in a country. Option 2 is when BOTH computers and internet are banned (and thus the easel and the poster). Though of course, I am still open to how this can be go about. EDIT: Although I will admit, this presents a lack of option when only Internet is banned.

As for Option 3, I can make it more comical later! ^^

[Fauxia]

Okay, so it was a conscious choice, not an awkward phrasing - got it.

[SherpDaWerp]

It's a good issue, but it just feels like the premise is too narrow. It's taking the "crazy option" of a "you don't have enough money" issue and making an entire issue out of that, and in doing so it's also assuming crowdfunding is the only option, when there are plenty of other, more reliable methods of securing funding for stuff.

Like, option one seems to just beg the question of "why don't you raise taxes". As a company, crowdfunding allows you to "get capital from the masses", but if you're a government, you can and do already get capital from the masses on a daily basis.

[Valentine Z]

If it is not workable or too narrow, I am not saying it out of spite, but I will just scrap it to not submit for the contest and wait for a better time.

I have a few other tasks on the backburner I should attend to, and I am getting conflicting views on whether this is workable, needs more options, needs less options, and the like. I'm genuinely confused, and am running out of time and endurance to think this through.

[SherpDaWerp]

If it is not workable or too narrow, I am not saying it out of spite, but I will just scrap it to not submit for the contest and wait for a better time.

I have a few other tasks on the backburner I should attend to, and I am getting conflicting views on whether this is workable, needs more options, needs less options, and the like. I'm genuinely confused.

There's nothing wrong with abandoning a draft. I've abandoned drafts in the past due to "mission creep", where taking on feedback twists the issue into something I'm no longer invested in writing about and the whole process becomes an absolute drag.

Also, my opinions are pretty broad on this one. Others might disagree with my assessment of the premise, and the writing is pretty solid. It just seems to me that the "base premise" of the issue might not be workable.

Sorry for waiting until the absolute last minute to bring up such broad concerns

[Valentine Z]

I will try my best, still, anyway. Ahh... truth be told, this week's not exactly the best of week in terms of free time available - a combination of RL commitments, and yes, from NS RPs, along with a few other worldbuilding stuff I have. It will blow over, but this week's quite a jam. :/

If I seriously can't do it, then I will submit my best draft, and consider continuing on as a normal draft, because that will give me more time.

[Trotterdam]

It's a good issue, but it just feels like the premise is too narrow. It's taking the "crazy option" of a "you don't have enough money" issue and making an entire issue out of that, and in doing so it's also assuming crowdfunding is the only option, when there are plenty of other, more reliable methods of securing funding for stuff.

Like, option one seems to just beg the question of "why don't you raise taxes". As a company, crowdfunding allows you to "get capital from the masses", but if you're a government, you can and do already get capital from the masses on a daily basis.

I do have to agree with this objection. In fact, maybe I should have brought it up a lot sooner, but the problem is that this aspect was originally added in order to answer the question of "Why should the government care about this?". If we change it, then we're back to square one of it not being clear why the government should get involved in this issue or give it any kind of special treatment. And you already mentioned you were tired of those kind of comments...

[Valentine Z]

It's a good issue, but it just feels like the premise is too narrow. It's taking the "crazy option" of a "you don't have enough money" issue and making an entire issue out of that, and in doing so it's also assuming crowdfunding is the only option, when there are plenty of other, more reliable methods of securing funding for stuff.

Like, option one seems to just beg the question of "why don't you raise taxes". As a company, crowdfunding allows you to "get capital from the masses", but if you're a government, you can and do already get capital from the masses on a daily basis.

I do have to agree with this objection. In fact, maybe I should have brought it up a lot sooner, but the problem is that this aspect was originally added in order to answer the question of "Why should the government care about this?". If we change it, then we're back to square one of it not being clear why the government should get involved in this issue or give it any kind of special treatment. And you already mentioned you were tired of those kind of comments...

I did say I am tired of it, but it would have been helpful as to how I can make the issue viable so that the government can look at it. I am bothered if it is "Why would the government look at this", I would have taken a constructive criticism of "Why would the government look at this non-trivial matter, and how we can make it so that it is significant enough."

I have absolutely no problem with criticism, I have problem with "Yeah, this won't work because it's too trivial" and dismissing it without giving a second thought.

-----

I have other things to deal with this week, and I am genuinely stressed out thinking about this over and over. Sob story aside, it's a little too late for it now, to be honest. I am now scrapping this from the contest, and will just work on it slowly with more time on my side.

[Trotterdam]

constructive criticism

The problem with "constructive criticism" is that it's a lot easier to tell what's wrong with something than to tell how to make it better. If I could do the latter, I'd be writing my own issues.

[Drew Durrnil]

make option 2 invalid for socialist nations

[Valentine Z]

Draft 8. Not a lot of changes, but I can't think of much, truth be told. Kickstarter... does not seem too likely for socialist nations, so I will hold that thought and will change the validity that this is only for Capitalist nations with imploded or small economies. It is possible.

[Valentine Z]

It is done.

[Sacara]

Good luck!