[DRAFT] A Killer Business Plan

[Francois Isidore]

[TITLE] A Killer Business Plan

[DESCRIPTION] Recently, the CEO of a large publicly-traded @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ company has faked his own death in a publicity stunt gone wrong, prompting thousands of shareholders to sell off stock and causing the @@NAME@@ Stock Exchange to plummet in response.

[VALIDITY] Must have Capitalism as a policy, mid-to-high Economy stat preferred.

[OPTION 1] “Six months of gains wiped out, all because some impulsive clowns decided to jump ship,” scoffs economic advisor @@RANDOMNAME@@, while discreetly checking @@HIS@@ stock portfolio under the table. “I think it’s high time we implemented regulations to limit sudden dumping of stock. My portfolio- sorry, the market- can’t keep taking hits like this.”

[EFFECT] shareholders trying to offload stock in a failing company go bankrupt from government fines

[OPTION 2] “He rode a shark. Covered with explosives. Into an active volcano. And you’re telling me I shouldn’t be able to take my hard-earned @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ elsewhere?” asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a millionaire investor with no day job. “The real problem here isn’t the free market- it’s idiot CEOs who think they can get away with anything just because they’re rich. Make stunts like these carry steep punishment- hell, maybe even bring in the death penalty!”

[EFFECT] people who think they can fake their own deaths are dead wrong

[OPTION 3] “You’re kidding, right?,” spouts Michel Cove, an overzealous film director with a fancy for gratuitous explosions. “The death penalty? For a little publicity stunt? Where’s the suspense? Where’s the drama?! I say, with all the attention this has been getting, why don’t you start doing some crazy stunts yourself? I have a bungee cord and a stick of dynamite right here with your name on it!”

[EFFECT] @@LEADER@@’s new public persona is off to an explosive start

Co-authored by Cretox State

Greetings, all!

This is my first-ever post in the Got Issues section of the forum, in addition to being my first-ever attempt at writing an issue. With that being said, I'm eager to hear feedback from the community on the above draft and I'm more than willing to take constructive criticisms in order to make this issue better. Additionally, I'm also looking for suggestions on a better title, as the one I have right now feels a bit lacking. If you have any comments, questions, or advice, I'd love to hear it : )

Thank you in advance!

~ Robespierre

[Francois Isidore]

[RESERVED] - For notices of edits and changes.

[Pluvie]

Hey! One note, you might want to change up the formatting as all three of the options read the exact same way at the moment. Minimal dialogue, explain who the person is, rest of the dialogue. You might try switching up the order in there to make it a little less cut and paste feeling

[Minskiev]

Looks good. The only thing I can think of is correcting discreetly to discretely in option 1. Oh, and option 1's effect line is too literal. No humor. Sure, that's what actually happens, but that's no fun.

[Cretox State]

Looks good. The only thing I can think of is correcting discreetly to discretely in option 1. Oh, and option 1's effect line is too literal. No humor. Sure, that's what actually happens, but that's no fun.

Discreet = circumspect. Discrete = distinct. The issue's usage is correct. I agree regarding effect line 1.

[Westinor]

One issue I'd raise with this draft is that option 1 seems like the only reasonable option - it's also seemingly the only option that addresses the main problem of the issue (that the stock exchange plummeted following this publicity stunt). The other two bring in solutions that are a bit out of wack - a death penalty for performing a publicity stunt, and having Leader perform a stunt of their own. Is the issue that the stock market took a fall? Or is it that CEOs are doing a publicity stunt? The overall premise feels split in its identity. I would suggest going down one path or the other, because there are issues that extensively cover the issue of stock market plunges (see #1130, for example) and while I vaguely remember something about publicity stunts - the recent one about pranksters and FOOF comes to mind (coincidently also authored by VH!), though it's definitely a completely different premise - I would suggest finding a unique identity for this issue instead of trying to bring together two separate ones.

I like the concision and writing. The humor is also good. Effect lines are nice as well. I would have some minor wording quibbles, but I think the main issue lies in the issue's premise in general.

Disclaimer: this coming from someone who hasn't been around GI in several months take this advice with a grain of salt! I think you've got the grip of the writing, but the premise could use tweaking.

[Australian rePublic]

I love the irony of option 2 where if he actually died, this would have happened anyway. Anyways, what if he had actually died?

[Drew Durrnil]

I love the irony of option 2 where if he actually died, this would have happened anyway. Anyways, what if he had actually died?

OOC: Then there would probably be no need for a death penalty :/

[Francois Isidore]

Hey! One note, you might want to change up the formatting as all three of the options read the exact same way at the moment. Minimal dialogue, explain who the person is, rest of the dialogue. You might try switching up the order in there to make it a little less cut and paste feeling

That's very perceptive of you and I appreciate your input. That being said, I must respectfully disagree in the sense that I think issues, by their very nature, are somewhat formulaic when it comes to the who, what, when, where, and why of the issue at hand (pun intended).

Prior to writing this, I made sure to read Candlewhisper Archive's helpful guide on How to Write An Issue. When setting up each option, I aimed for clarity and brevity, as those are two of the qualities that part two of the aforementioned guide cited as being desirable in an issue. Bearing that in mind, unless the concept of an issue gives me a good reason to break away from the formulaic nature of issues, I don't find that doing so simply for the sake of being different is beneficial to the draft.

Nonetheless, I am curious on if you have any specific suggestions for changes and/or word restructuring that you think would alleviate this impression. If you do, then I'd be glad to take a more in-depth look at specific parts of each option's answer. Otherwise, I did want to spend a bit of time elaborating on my rationale for why each option is structured the way that it is in my above draft.

One issue I'd raise with this draft is that option 1 seems like the only reasonable option - it's also seemingly the only option that addresses the main problem of the issue (that the stock exchange plummeted following this publicity stunt). The other two bring in solutions that are a bit out of wack - a death penalty for performing a publicity stunt, and having Leader perform a stunt of their own. Is the issue that the stock market took a fall? Or is it that CEOs are doing a publicity stunt? The overall premise feels split in its identity. I would suggest going down one path or the other, because there are issues that extensively cover the issue of stock market plunges (see #1130, for example) and while I vaguely remember something about publicity stunts - the recent one about pranksters and FOOF comes to mind (coincidently also authored by VH!), though it's definitely a completely different premise - I would suggest finding a unique identity for this issue instead of trying to bring together two separate ones.

I like the concision and writing. The humor is also good. Effect lines are nice as well. I would have some minor wording quibbles, but I think the main issue lies in the issue's premise in general.

Disclaimer: this coming from someone who hasn't been around GI in several months take this advice with a grain of salt! I think you've got the grip of the writing, but the premise could use tweaking.

I absolutely understand what you mean, and, interestingly enough, this was actually something that my co-author, Cretox, and I wrestled with briefly when we were first becoming inspired with the premise of this issue. Indeed, it does sort of feel like two issues could be made out of this (if we tried ) or that the current draft can't decide if it wants to be an issue about crashes in the market or famous people doing outlandish/reckless publicity stunts. Additionally, thank you for referencing issue #1130 (I'll be sure to take a look at that) and for providing comments on the actual writing, humour, effect lines, etc. All very valuable things to know!

In regards, once again, to your take on the draft''s identity, I can say with confidence that this will be changed in an upcoming draft revision. Fortunately, we've since convened privately and have discussed a new idea for what direction we'd like to take the issue in. Expect some differences to appear in the coming days that'll hopefully solidify the draft's identity as having one, whole identity as opposed to the seemingly split one that it has now.

Slightly different angle, a tweak to characters, and an issue more focused on one thing. All to make this issue better than it is at present!

[Jim the Baptist]

I agree, option 1 addresses stabilising the stock market while the others mainly focus on the publicity stunt aspect of the issue, so it feels a bit disjointed.
Also, why did this massive CEO fake their own death in the first place? What do they stand to gain from such a publicity stunt, even if it worked (you say it went wrong somehow)? Surely no one in that position would pull such a ridiculous stunt knowing the consequences it would have on their business.

[SherpDaWerp]

I am curious on if you have any specific suggestions for changes and/or word restructuring that you think would alleviate this impression.

The feeling of cut-and-paste-ness is more about characterisation specifically than the overall structure. Most options out there follow that structure for a reason; there's nothing wrong with it. But the language could be more varied. Your second and third options both use near-identical language for the first sentence - "<thing> says @@randomname@@, a <person>". That's where most of the cut-and-paste feel comes from; moreso than the common structure.

For example:

“He rode a shark. Covered with explosives. Into an active volcano. And you’re telling me I shouldn’t be able to take my hard-earned @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ elsewhere?” asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a millionaire investor with no day job. “The real problem here isn’t the free market- it’s idiot CEOs who think they can get away with anything just because they’re rich. Make stunts like these carry steep punishment- hell, maybe even bring in the death penalty!”

Versus:

"He rode a shark. Covered with explosives. Into an active volcano. And you’re telling me I shouldn’t be able to take my hard-earned @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ elsewhere?" asks millionaire investor @@randomname@@, kicking @@his@@ feet up onto your desk and disturbing no small amount of paperwork in the process. "The real problem here isn't the free market - it's idiot CEOs who think they can get away with anything just because they're rich! Stunts like these should carry steep punishment - hell, maybe even bring in the death penalty!"

The extra (and differently-written) characterisation makes the option more fun to read, and gives you a little mental picture (if you're into that sort of thing). A quick change like that to your options and that'll alleviate the cookiecutter feeling. If you're worried about the length, (don't be, 3-4 lines is plenty short enough for a 3-option issue) then you can probably make the suggestion at the end a little less specific - a little birdy tells me editors like linguistic ambiguity more than most people anyway...