Page 1 of 1

[DRAFT] The Way the Wind Blows

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:35 pm
by Fauxia
Well, because GI has been quiet, I better pick up some of the slack.

Not sure whether this is a great title, but I couldn't think of much that was better. Hope this isn't, uh, too much, especially option 1.

[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

PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:10 pm
by 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 -.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 8:04 pm
by Australian rePublic
Why would anyone choose anything but option 3? This way you get free publicity without necessarily needing to condone pornography

PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 10:30 am
by Fauxia
Australian rePublic wrote: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.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 4:28 pm
by Australian rePublic
Fauxia wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote: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

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2021 10:38 am
by 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!!

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:01 am
by Terrabod
Pluvie wrote: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.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:07 am
by Pluvie
Terrabod wrote: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) ^-^