NationStates

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

 

What do anal swabs have to with airport security?

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

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?

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

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.