[SUBMITTED] A Very Hot Political Potato

[Fauxia]

Well, because GI has been quiet, I better pick up some of the slack.

Previously: "The Way the Wind Blows", "Devil's Advocate". Another possibility is "Press the Flesh".

Current Draft: 3.1

[description] Your re-election campaign has once again been thrust into the headlines due to adult film star Catherine Gratwick announcing her full-throated support. She has since hooked up with your campaign manager and offered her services for events on the trail.

[validity] democracy, allows pornography, didn't take 607.3, adult

[option] "That's a great ass - uh, asset!" assesses your brother, fingering through an assortment of Gratwick's films. "You need to make sure everyone knows this association and use it to assert your dominance! Flaunt her endorsement all over the media! Ask for her assistance at every campaign stop! The moralists may try to assail you, but rest assured, that's nothing to be afraid of. They just need assistance adjusting to the modern world."
[fallout] @@LEADER@@'s support with single men has skyrocketed

[option] "Screw her!" shouts your self-appointed "moral compass", Prudence Dish, attempting to confiscate your brother's movies. "Gratwick is disgusting, disagreeable, distasteful, and disgraceful! Those are the four D's of her profession. Can you not make out what a disaster this will be? You can't possibly get in bed with people like her! Listen to Prudence, denounce her, and reassure the public you've never seen one of those demeaning films. I mean, you haven't, have you?"
[fallout] @@LEADER@@ has bred a revived market for films like NationDates: Max Exposure

[option] "She's a good one, but you should always play it safe the first time," suggests your campaign manager, @@RANDOMNAME@@, who seems to carry an infinite supply of latex. "Don't say anything about Gratwick's endorsement. If it's mentioned, obfuscate, perhaps bring up that obscure novelist who wrote you that intimate letter. Then, send her as a surrogate to events where it might be useful, like ones dominated by young men. It's all about saying the right things to the right person, you know."
[fallout] @@LEADER@@'s outreach events for first-time voters often start with a bang

[option] "Get on with it," moans Joe Average, a volunteer for your campaign who entered the room unsolicited. "Catherine Gratwick? She's just some dumb actress; why should her support mean more than anyone else's? Sure, lots of people know all about her, but don't our votes count equally? How about instead you celebrate the average Joes who came out to support you, @@LEADER@@? They're the ones who win the elections, not the latest bronde or blunette the movies came up with!"
[fallout] celebrities sit helplessly as they are labeled "pompous womples" by @@LEADER@@

[bpx][description] Your re-election campaign has once again been thrust into the headlines after gaining the endorsement of adult film star Catherine Gratwick.

[validity] democracy, allows pornography, adult

[option] "That's a great ass - uh, asset!" asseverates your brother, thumbing through an assortment of Gratwick's films. "You need to make sure everyone knows this association. Flaunt her endorsement all over all of your media! Sure, the moralists may assail you, but rest assured, that's nothing to be afraid of. They just need some assistance adjusting to the modern world."
[fallout] @@LEADER@@'s support with single men has skyrocketed

[option] "Disgusting, disagreeable, distasteful, and disgraceful!" shouts your self-appointed "moral compass", attempting to confiscate your brother's movies. "The four 'd's of Catherine Gratwick's profession. You must denounce her as the shameful harlot she is, and assure the good people that you have never seen her films that are so demeaning to women. I mean, you've never seen one, have you?"
[fallout] teenagers find their favorite movies from listening to a list of films @@LEADER@@ has never seen

[option] "She's a good one, but maybe we should play it safer," suggests your campaign manager, who seems to always wear latex in close quarters. "Don't say anything about Gratwick's endorsement. Maybe mention that obscure novelist who wrote you that nice letter. Then, send her as a surrogate to events where it might be useful, like ones dominated by young men. It's all about saying the right things to the right people, you know."
[fallout] @@LEADER@@ has commitment problems

[option] "All this hubbub about some stupid actress," moans Joe Average, a volunteer for your campaign no one invited into the room. "Why should Gratwick's vote count more than anyone else's? How about instead you celebrate the average Joes who came out to support you, @@LEADER@@? They're the ones who win the elections, not the latest blonde or brunette the movies came up with!"
[fallout] celebrities sit helplessly as they are labeled "pompous womples" by government officials[/box]

[description] Your re-election campaign has been thrust into the headlines after gaining the endorsement of adult film star Catherine Gratwick.

[validity] democracy, allows pornography, adult

[option] "That's a great ass - uh, asset!" asseverates your brother, thumbing through an assortment of Gratwick's films. "You need to make sure everyone knows this association. Flaunt her endorsement all over all of your media! Sure, the moralists may assail you, but rest assured, that's nothing to be afraid of. They just need some assistance adjusting to the modern world."
[fallout] political scientists assume single men support @@LEADER@@'s re-election

[option] "Disgusting, disagreeable, distasteful, and disgraceful!" shouts your self-appointed "moral compass", attempting to confiscate your brother's movies. "The four 'd's of Catherine Gratwick's profession. You must denounce her as the shameful harlot she is, and assure the good people that you have never seen her films that demean women. I mean, you've never seen one, have you?"
[fallout] teenagers' favorite movies are the ones @@LEADER@@ advises they never see

[option] "She's a good one, but maybe we should play it safer," suggests your campaign manager, who seems to always wear latex in close quarters. "Don't say anything about Gratwick's endorsement; announce that you're glad to have the endorsement of that obscure novelist we just got a message from. Then, send her as a surrogate to events where it might be useful, like ones dominated by young men. It's all about saying the right things to the right people, you know."
[fallout] female voters wonder whether @@LEADER@@ has commitment problems

[option] "All this hubbub about some stupid actress," moans Joe Average, a volunteer for your campaign no one invited into the room. "Why should Gratwick's vote count more than anyone else's? How about instead you celebrate the average Joes who came out to support you, @@LEADER@@? They're the ones who win the elections, not the latest blonde or brunette the movies came up with!"
[fallout] celebrities sit helplessly as they are labeled "pompous womples" by government officials

[Lelscrep]

I think it should be fine given that the adult tag is required...

Only nit-pick is I think the final two sentences of option one should be a run on sentence, maybe connected with a -.

[Australian rePublic]

Why would anyone choose anything but option 3? This way you get free publicity without necessarily needing to condone pornography

[Fauxia]

Why would anyone choose anything but option 3? This way you get free publicity without necessarily needing to condone pornography

Some people won’t be comfortable associating at all, and that option is definitely less publicity than the first option. Some people find the celebrity-in-politics dynamic tiring and will pick option 4.

[Australian rePublic]

Why would anyone choose anything but option 3? This way you get free publicity without necessarily needing to condone pornography

Some people won’t be comfortable associating at all, and that option is definitely less publicity than the first option. Some people find the celebrity-in-politics dynamic tiring and will pick option 4.

Fair enough

[Pluvie]

Hmm maybe an odd comment here, but the description feels very short. Perhaps I'm just used to a style of issue with a bit longer of intros. But the main issue I see with such a short and concise intro is that it doesn't really hook you into the issue. It's like the difference between reading the beginning of a well written dissertation and the very "to the point" style of a textbook. The information is described, just not in a way that gives it much personality. I'd love to see a bit more intro there ^-^

Great idea for an issue tho!!

[Terrabod]

Hmm maybe an odd comment here, but the description feels very short. Perhaps I'm just used to a style of issue with a bit longer of intros. But the main issue I see with such a short and concise intro is that it doesn't really hook you into the issue. It's like the difference between reading the beginning of a well written dissertation and the very "to the point" style of a textbook. The information is described, just not in a way that gives it much personality. I'd love to see a bit more intro there ^-^

Great idea for an issue tho!!

I actually like the intro because I think adding much more detail would be waffle. I mean, there's always room for another dirty pun or witty remark if you can think of one (in addition to "thrust into the headlines"), but to add more backstory would be overcomplicating what is a nice, simple premise. There are a lot of issues with long and complex descriptions so to have something as concise as this is refreshing.

The thing I'm not getting is the title. It could be a reference to the autobiography of British Prime Minister Alec-Douglas Home (unlikely), or it could be something really smart that I'm missing.

[Pluvie]

I actually like the intro because I think adding much more detail would be waffle. I mean, there's always room for another dirty pun or witty remark if you can think of one (in addition to "thrust into the headlines"), but to add more backstory would be overcomplicating what is a nice, simple premise. There are a lot of issues with long and complex descriptions so to have something as concise as this is refreshing.

The thing I'm not getting is the title. It could be a reference to the autobiography of British Prime Minister Alec-Douglas Home (unlikely), or it could be something really smart that I'm missing.

Hmm perhaps I didn't explain well enough. I didn't mean like add filler to the description, I meant more like just having one rather short sentence feels too concise and rather jarring to me. But also this is proooobably a matter of opinion (and I definitely understand what you mean as well) ^-^

[Fauxia]

Made minor edits and am finally getting back to this after... five months. May submit this for the issue contest, but it could probably use one more edit. I am always on the lookout for opportunities for dirty jokes, for the record, and will add any that come to me.

[Bears Armed]

Made minor edits and am finally getting back to this after... five months. May submit this for the issue contest, but it could probably use one more edit. I am always on the lookout for opportunities for dirty jokes, for the record, and will add any that come to me.

"This will make new voters come to our party" ?

[Sacara]

I love this draft. I lol'd at option two.

My only comment is the title is rather weak. I'll try to do some brainstorming, but I can't think of anything at the moment.

[Numero Capitan]

Made minor edits and am finally getting back to this after... five months. May submit this for the issue contest, but it could probably use one more edit. I am always on the lookout for opportunities for dirty jokes, for the record, and will add any that come to me.

I really like the premise and option 1 is perfect but some of the other options still need a little refinement IMO, mainly in terms of the outcomes/effects.

[option] "Disgusting, disagreeable, distasteful, and disgraceful!" shouts your self-appointed "moral compass", @@RANDOMNAME@@? attempting to confiscate your brother's movies. "The four 'd's of Catherine Gratwick's profession. You must denounce her as the shameful harlot she is, and assure the good people that you have never seen her films that are so demeaning to women. I mean, you've never haven't seen one, have you?"

Some very minor points here but I think it helps with the flow of the paragraph. There could be some more playful wording added too, maybe substitute 'You must' with "It would be prudent" for the prudent/prudish wordplay?

[fallout] teenagers find their favorite movies from listening to a list of films @@LEADER@@ has never seen

This feels like it needs to be more snappy? "@@LEADER@@'s press conferences have unwittingly boosted sales of NationDates: Max Exposure" or something like that

[fallout] @@LEADER@@ has commitment problems

I'm not sure this relates brilliantly to the Option and there are probably more entertaining outcomes you could create from the Leader knowingly sending porn stars to campaign events etc . For example, you could play on the pitfalls of using 'relevant' celebrities to target different demographics - '@@LEADER@@ is in hot water for sending a prominent bare-naked naturist to promote the party at a Nature Conservation event', 'prominent Viewtuber @@RANDOMNAME@@ was poorly received at a campaign event targeting Amish youth' or something of that ilk (I'm sure there are funnier options than those )

[Daarwyrth]

I think this is a really solid, amazingly written issue draft! It's funny, it's witty, and it's bold.

If you're still looking for a new title, something that popped up while reading was "@@LEADER@@'s Red Light", or "Oh, @@LEADER@@, Yes!". A bit silly perhaps, so feel free to dismiss those suggestions

[Fauxia]

Draft 3 is up, did a bit of changing and lots of, uh, dirtying. Also changed the title, I hope y'all like this one.

Thanks for your comments, especially to NuCa for "NationDates: Max Exposure". That's very good.

Other comment on edit: "Bronde or blunette" is intentional. He gets them mixed up because they are "dumb actresses"