NATION

PASSWORD

DITCHED: The B-Word

A place to spoil daily issues for those who haven't had them yet, snigger at typos, and discuss ideas for new ones.
User avatar
Australian rePublic
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21803
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Capitalist Paradise

DITCHED: The B-Word

Postby Australian rePublic » Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:42 am

The second effect line is a reference to the episode “Flood” from the British TV show “The Young Ones" where Vyvyan creates a potion which turns whoever drinks it into a an axe-wielding homicidal maniac, and he puts said potion into a can of Coca-Cola so “no one drinks it by mistake”

 

[title] The B Word


[validity] Must allow the general public to fly in planes

[desc] A passenger singing the Joan Thomas song "Love Bomb" a little too loudly caused the third domestic flight this month to have an emergency landing based on a false alarm security threat. This has lead to members of the public asking if the nation's airport security is too strict

[option] "This is insane!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, who received various anal swabs before boarding the plane to come to your office to complain about anal swabs. "Airport is ridiculously strict! I say we relax it a bit. Of coarse we need scanners and X-rays and all that, but aren't they sufficient? Do we also need to take out all of our liquids?"

[effect] airport security personnel assume that anyone who needs to "drop a bomb" has diahreah

[option] "No , darling, we need stricter security," counteracts @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, from @@CAPITAL@@ airport, whilst eating a banana. "If we're too lax, who knows how many terrorists will come in through the rear. Now, back to work. It's time for a strip search!"

[effect] Cans of Escki-Cola are banned from the nation's aeroplanes

 
Last edited by Australian rePublic on Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you're against political parties who support the CCP, then vote against the Australian Labor Party
The only reason why countries bid to host the games is for tourism. This is why countries plan to boycott the Beijing winter Olympics. By cancelling the 2020/21 Olympics, Japan is defacto recieving the same punishment as China, but Japan did nothing wrong since World War II
Until if and when the Spanish language evolves to allow for gender-neutrality to not be impossible, (which will take at least centuries), the concept of "LatinX" is completely ridiculous
From Greek Ansestry Orthodox Christian
18 Published Issues and 1 WA Resolution List of NPC Nations
In-Character posts made by this fictious account do not reflect the actions of any real world government

User avatar
Baggieland
Minister
 
Posts: 3488
Founded: May 27, 2013
Corporate Police State

Postby Baggieland » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:02 am

What do anal swabs have to with airport security?

User avatar
Australian rePublic
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21803
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Australian rePublic » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:29 am

Baggieland wrote:What do anal swabs have to with airport security?

Hmm... good point. I'll change it to something else when I think of something
If you're against political parties who support the CCP, then vote against the Australian Labor Party
The only reason why countries bid to host the games is for tourism. This is why countries plan to boycott the Beijing winter Olympics. By cancelling the 2020/21 Olympics, Japan is defacto recieving the same punishment as China, but Japan did nothing wrong since World War II
Until if and when the Spanish language evolves to allow for gender-neutrality to not be impossible, (which will take at least centuries), the concept of "LatinX" is completely ridiculous
From Greek Ansestry Orthodox Christian
18 Published Issues and 1 WA Resolution List of NPC Nations
In-Character posts made by this fictious account do not reflect the actions of any real world government

User avatar
Terrabod
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 183
Founded: Jan 10, 2018
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Terrabod » Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:30 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:[title] The B Word (different to the post title?)

[validity] Must allow the general public to fly in planes

[desc] A passenger singing the Joan Thomas song "Love Bomb" a little too loudly caused the third domestic flight this month to have an emergency landing based on a false alarm security threat. This has led to members of the public asking if the nation's airport security is too strict.

The first sentence of the description is ambiguous - it can be read as though there have only been three flights so far this month. I can guess what you meant but I shouldn't have to.

Also, "false alarm security threat" - is that a thing?

Australian rePublic wrote:[option] "This is insane!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, who received various anal swabs before boarding the plane to come to your office to complain about anal swabs. "Airport security is ridiculously strict! I say we relax it a bit. Of course we need scanners and x-rays and all that, but aren't they sufficient? Do we also need to take out all of our liquids?"

[effect] airport security personnel assume that anyone who needs to "drop a bomb" has diarrhoea (or diarrhea in American English)

[option] "No, darling, we need stricter security," counteracts @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, (a security guard?) from @@CAPITAL@@ Airport, whilst eating a banana. "If we're too lax, who knows how many terrorists will come in through the rear. Now, back to work. It's time for a strip search!"

[effect] cans of Eckie-Cola are banned from the nation's aeroplanes

Why does the speaker of option 2 have to be a man? Is this supposed to be a "gay" option? And who are they telling to go back to work? Is it Leader or the other speaker?

There are a lot of bowel-based jokes in here, which is fine, but I don't see what that has to do with the initial problem. If you're going to make this about invasive or excessive searches then you might be better served by introducing that idea earlier, but it seems to me that the focus here is on security paranoia (that thing about not singing the word "bomb" on a plane) instead of invasive or excessive searches. The invasive searches might be implied when upping security but it seems to be taking the issue over, especially nearer to the end. Because, let's face it, invasive searches won't stop people singing about bombs on planes, so that can't be the focus of the issue unless the premise changes.

Also, I know the effect line is a reference to something but I wouldn't understand it if I chose this option. If this issue is about airport security being too strict, isn't it a given that liquids are already banned? Plus that whole option is trying to sexualise searching for contraband (I think) so why wouldn't the effect line relate to that?

User avatar
Australian rePublic
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21803
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Australian rePublic » Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:50 pm

Terrabod wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:[title] The B Word (different to the post title?)

[validity] Must allow the general public to fly in planes

[desc] A passenger singing the Joan Thomas song "Love Bomb" a little too loudly caused the third domestic flight this month to have an emergency landing based on a false alarm security threat. This has led to members of the public asking if the nation's airport security is too strict.

The first sentence of the description is ambiguous - it can be read as though there have only been three flights so far this month. I can guess what you meant but I shouldn't have to.

Also, "false alarm security threat" - is that a thing?

Australian rePublic wrote:[option] "This is insane!" complains @@RANDOMNAME@@, who received various anal swabs before boarding the plane to come to your office to complain about anal swabs. "Airport security is ridiculously strict! I say we relax it a bit. Of course we need scanners and x-rays and all that, but aren't they sufficient? Do we also need to take out all of our liquids?"

[effect] airport security personnel assume that anyone who needs to "drop a bomb" has diarrhoea (or diarrhea in American English)

[option] "No, darling, we need stricter security," counteracts @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, (a security guard?) from @@CAPITAL@@ Airport, whilst eating a banana. "If we're too lax, who knows how many terrorists will come in through the rear. Now, back to work. It's time for a strip search!"

[effect] cans of Eckie-Cola are banned from the nation's aeroplanes

Why does the speaker of option 2 have to be a man? Is this supposed to be a "gay" option? And who are they telling to go back to work? Is it Leader or the other speaker?

There are a lot of bowel-based jokes in here, which is fine, but I don't see what that has to do with the initial problem. If you're going to make this about invasive or excessive searches then you might be better served by introducing that idea earlier, but it seems to me that the focus here is on security paranoia (that thing about not singing the word "bomb" on a plane) instead of invasive or excessive searches. The invasive searches might be implied when upping security but it seems to be taking the issue over, especially nearer to the end. Because, let's face it, invasive searches won't stop people singing about bombs on planes, so that can't be the focus of the issue unless the premise changes.

Also, I know the effect line is a reference to something but I wouldn't understand it if I chose this option. If this issue is about airport security being too strict, isn't it a given that liquids are already banned? Plus that whole option is trying to sexualise searching for contraband (I think) so why wouldn't the effect line relate to that?

I see. Perhaps I should abandon this issue
If you're against political parties who support the CCP, then vote against the Australian Labor Party
The only reason why countries bid to host the games is for tourism. This is why countries plan to boycott the Beijing winter Olympics. By cancelling the 2020/21 Olympics, Japan is defacto recieving the same punishment as China, but Japan did nothing wrong since World War II
Until if and when the Spanish language evolves to allow for gender-neutrality to not be impossible, (which will take at least centuries), the concept of "LatinX" is completely ridiculous
From Greek Ansestry Orthodox Christian
18 Published Issues and 1 WA Resolution List of NPC Nations
In-Character posts made by this fictious account do not reflect the actions of any real world government

User avatar
Terrabod
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 183
Founded: Jan 10, 2018
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Terrabod » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:17 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:I see. Perhaps I should abandon this issue

Or you could instead try to address some of those points. If it hasn't been done before, this is a good topic. I just think it needs a bit of love, and for you to make a decision about which direction you're taking it in with regards to my premise vs poo jokes point.


Return to Got Issues?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Australian rePublic, Eastern Wyveil Strait, The Free Territories-

Advertisement

Remove ads