[ISSUE CONTEST- SUBMITTED] Coastline Calamity!

[Ellbonnia]

Feedback is always appreciated!

[Title] Coastline Calamity!

[Validity] Good environment, good tourism

[Description] A well-deserved beachfront vacation was cut short with news of an oil-laden supertanker running aground in @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ waters. To make matters worse, the immediate rescue and cleanup efforts were severely hampered by inter-service squabbling between the Coast Guard and the Environmental Ministry. Amidst growing outrage from the public over the bungled response, representatives from both agencies have come to you to decide how to better address these maritime disasters.

[Option 1] Admiral Yvad Jones, commandant of the Coast Guard, slams his fist on your desk.
"I should have free rein to do my job as I see fit! Those sailors were stuck on a floating time-bomb with no way to escape; how can we be expected to bring our rescue teams close enough if the Environmental Ministry wants to drag booms across the path of our ships and fill the sky with foam-dispensing planes? Next time, instead of letting those stuck-up pencil-pushers hamstring my men's ability to save people in need, give us the chance to rescue any victims before cleanup work begins."

[Fallout 1] the Coast Guard prides itself on its lifesaving record while foreign ships dump pollutants into the water with impunity.

[Option 2] "That crew is why we had to deal with this catastrophe to begin with," retorts @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, your Environmental Minister. "What the Admiral fails to mention is the horrific impact this tragedy will have on the surrounding environment. If we weren't busy fighting the Coast Guard for the ability to deploy our cleanup teams, we could've made the spill several magnitudes smaller!"
@@HE@@ eyes Admiral Jones warily. "Making sure a cleanup effort is in place first will make it much less dangerous for rescuers to deploy when there's no longer an immediate risk in the first place. The more efficiently we can stop an accident from getting worse, the more time the Coast Guard will have to do their job."

[Fallout 2] the official @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ position on vessels in distress is "every soul goes down with the ship".

[Option 3] "We should get a say in this matter too!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, the grizzled head of the Mariners Guild. "Innocent sailors are now dead thanks to your indecisiveness, and no one here seems willing to take responsibility for it! Instead of constantly responding to avoidable disasters, you should focus on preventative measures from now on. Update your maps so ships don't have to risk hitting uncharted obstacles, and send out quicker weather updates so we know exactly what to expect every time we set sail. Maybe then, you wouldn't have such a horrendous mess to begin with."

[Fallout 3] @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ ports are virtually deserted as mariners refuse to leave at the slightest sign of rain.

[Title] Coastline Calamity!

[Validity] Good environment, good tourism

[Description] A well-deserved vacation at your waterfront beach home was abruptly interrupted after news broke of a supertanker carrying millions of barrels of crude oil running aground on an uncharted reef in @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ waters. The rescue of the crew and the immediate cleanup efforts were severely hampered by inter-service squabbling between the Coast Guard and the Environmental Ministry, as each agency insisted that they needed complete control of the surrounding water and airspace for their respective operations. During this impasse, the tanker eventually caught fire and sank in the oil-stained water, killing all but three of the twenty-five sailors onboard and spilling the rest of its cargo across the fragile reef, causing irreparable damage. Amidst growing outrage from the public over the bungled response, representatives from both agencies have come to your office to decide how to better address these maritime disasters from now on.

[Option 1] Admiral Yvad Jones, commandant of the Coast Guard, slams his fist on your antique wooden desk.
"With all due respect, I should have free rein to do my job as I see fit! Those innocent sailors were stuck on a floating time-bomb with no way to escape except for diving into polluted and flammable water; thanks to the interference of the Environmental Ministry, we weren't able to get to them in time! How can we be expected to bring our rescue teams close enough to help if our colleagues want to drag booms across the path of our ships and fill the sky with foam-dispensing planes? We should've dealt with the cleanup later, since we could've rescued the entire crew by helicopter if we were given the proper clearance! Next time, instead of letting a bunch of stuck-up pencil-pushers hamstring my men's ability to save people in need, give us the chance to rescue anyone at risk before cleanup work begins. What difference will a few more thousand barrels of lost oil make when compared to actual human lives on the line?"

[Fallout 1] the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Coast Guard prides itself on its vaunted lifesaving record while foreign ships dump pollutants into the water with impunity.

[Option 2] "That crew is probably why we had to deal with this catastrophe to begin with," retorts @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, your Environmental Minister who is currently admiring a delicate bonsai tree perched on your desk. "What the Admiral fails to mention is the horrific impact this spill will have on the surrounding environment. The tanker ran aground near one of our most prized beaches, and the oil that spilled out of it will kill thousands of seabirds, fish, and marine mammals over the next few months, not to mention endanger the health of any swimmers in the vicinity. I shudder to think how much damage has already been done, thanks to the inflexibility of my colleague here; if we weren't busy fighting with the Coast Guard for the ability to deploy our oil cleanup teams, we could've made the spill several magnitudes smaller, and then we wouldn't have had such an inferno on our hands!"
Leaning in closer, @@HE@@ eyes Admiral Jones warily. "I'm not saying to leave people to die in future accidents, but prioritizing cleanup efforts will not only benefit the environment in the long run, but will also make it much less dangerous for our rescue assets to do their job when there's no longer an immediate risk in the first place. The more efficiently we can stop an environmental disaster from getting worse, the more time the Coast Guard will have to do their job. Do you really want to be the reason our nation loses its reputation as one of the best vacation spots in @@REGION@@, all because of misplaced priorities? Think about it."

[Fallout 2] the official @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ position on vessels in distress is "every soul goes down with the ship".

[Option 3] "We should get a say in this matter too!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, the grizzled head of the Mariners Guild, who bursts into the room and angrily tosses @@HIS@@ peaked cap onto your desk, knocking over the bonsai tree. "Twenty-two sailors are now dead thanks to your indecisiveness, and no one here seems willing to take responsibility for it! Instead of constantly risking our lives, when we're the backbone of your entire seaborne economy, you should focus on preventative measures from now on! Update your maps so ships don't have to risk hitting these uncharted obstacles, and send out quicker weather updates so we know exactly what to expect every time we make these long and perilous journeys from coast to coast. Maybe then, you wouldn't have such a horrendous mess on your hands in the future, now would you?"
Without another word, the captain grabs @@HIS@@ cap and leaves, ignoring the impotent rage of your Environmental Minister.

[Fallout 3] @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ ports are virtually deserted as mariners refuse to set sail at the slightest sign of rain.

[Title] Coastline Calamity!

[Validity] Good environment, good tourism

[Description] A well-deserved vacation at your waterfront beach home was rudely interrupted after news broke of a supertanker carrying millions of barrels of crude oil running aground on an uncharted reef in @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ waters. The rescue of the crew and the immediate cleanup efforts were severely hampered by inter-service squabbling between the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Coast Guard and the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Environmental Ministry, and representatives from both departments have come to your office to decide how to better address these kinds of disasters from now on.

[Option 1] Admiral Yvad Jones, commandant of the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Coast Guard, slams his fist on your antique wooden desk.
"With all due respect, I should have free rein to do my job as I see fit! Innocent sailors were stuck on a listing and sinking boat with no way to leave except for diving into polluted and flammable water, and thanks to the interference of the Environmental Ministry, we weren't able to get to all of them in time. We could've and should've dealt with the cleanup later, since those men had only hours to live before the ship tipped too far for our choppers to land. Next time, instead of letting a bunch of stuck-up pencil-pushers hamstring my men's ability to save people in need, give us the chance to rescue anyone at risk before cleanup work begins. What difference will a few more thousand barrels of lost oil make when compared to actual human lives on the line?"

[Fallout 1] the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Coast Guard prides itself on its vaunted lifesaving record while foreign ships dump pollutants into the water with impunity.

[Option 2] "That crew is probably why we had to deal with this catastrophe to begin with," retorts @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, your Environmental Minister who is currently admiring a delicate bonsai tree perched on your desk. "What the Admiral fails to mention is the horrific impact this spill will have on the surrounding environment. The tanker ran aground near one of our most prized beaches, and the oil that spilled out of it already will kill thousands of seabirds, fish, and marine mammals over the next few months, not to mention endanger the health of any swimmers in the vicinity. I shudder to think how much damage has already been done, thanks to the inflexibility of my colleague here."
Leaning in closer, @@HE@@ eyes Admiral Jones warily. "I'm not saying to leave people to die in future accidents, but prioritizing cleanup efforts will not only benefit the environment in the long run, but will also make it much less dangerous for our rescue assets to do their job when there's no longer an immediate risk in the first place. The more efficiently we can stop an environmental disaster from getting worse, the more time the Coast Guard will have to do their job. Do you really want to be the reason our nation loses its reputation as one of the best vacation spots in @@REGION@@, all because of misplaced priorities? Think about it."

[Fallout 2] the official @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ position on vessels in distress is "every soul goes down with the ship".

[Option 3] "We should get a say in this matter too!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, the grizzled head of the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Mariners Guild, who bursts into the room and angrily tosses @@HIS@@ peaked cap onto your desk, knocking over the bonsai tree. "Instead of constantly risking our lives, when we're the backbone of your entire seaborne economy, you should focus on preventative measures from now on! Update your maps so ships don't have to risk hitting these uncharted obstacles, and send out quicker weather updates so we know exactly what to expect every time we make these long and perilous journeys from coast to coast. Maybe then, you wouldn't have such a horrendous mess on your hands in the future, now would you?"
Without another word, the captain grabs @@HIS@@ cap and leaves, ignoring the impotent rage of your Environmental Minister.

[Fallout 3] @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ shipping companies are dropping like flies as mariners refuse to set sail at the slightest sign of wind or rain.

[Title] Coastline Calamity!

[Validity] Good environment, good tourism

[Description] While relaxing at your waterfront vacation home, you are approached by an apologetic aide with urgent news: A supertanker carrying millions of barrels' worth of crude oil has run aground on an uncharted reef in @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ waters, and is currently spewing its toxic cargo into the pristine sea. With the ship's crew still trapped aboard their gradually-sinking vessel, multiple government agencies are stuck at a standstill over how to address this rapidly-worsening situation, and have quickly sent representatives to your estate for guidance.

[Option 1] Admiral Yvad Jones, commandant of the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Coast Guard, slams his fist on your antique wooden desk.
"There's no time to lose! Innocent sailors are stuck on a listing and sinking boat with no way to leave except for diving into polluted and flammable water! We can deal with the cleanup later, but those men have only hours to live. What difference will a few more thousand barrels of lost oil make when compared to actual human lives on the line? Just give me the word and I'll have choppers deployed to the scene ASAP."

[Fallout 1] the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Coast Guard prides itself on its vaunted lifesaving record while foreign ships dump pollutants into the water with impunity.

[Option 2] "That crew is probably why we have to deal with this catastrophe to begin with," retorts @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, your Environmental Minister who is currently admiring a delicate bonsai tree perched on your desk. "What the Admiral fails to mention is the horrific impact this spill will have on the surrounding environment. The tanker ran aground near one of our most prized beaches, and the oil spilling out of it will kill thousands of seabirds, fish, and marine mammals, not to mention endanger the health of any swimmers in the vicinity. I shudder to think how much damage has already been done, so please do the right thing and dispatch our cleanup assets immediately!"
Leaning in closer, @@HE@@ eyes Admiral Jones warily. "And let's face it, it'll cost way less to compensate a few sailors' families and the loss of a single boat, compared to how much damage this'll have on our tourism industry for years to come. Do you really want to be the reason our nation loses its reputation as one of the best vacation spots in @@REGION@@, all because of some careless seafarers? Think about it."

[Fallout 2] the official @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ position on vessels in distress is "every soul goes down with the ship".

[Option 3] "We should get a say in this matter too!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, the grizzled head of the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Mariners Guild, who bursts into the room and angrily tosses @@HIS@@ peaked cap onto your desk, knocking over the bonsai tree. "Instead of constantly risking our lives, when we're the backbone of your entire seaborne economy, you should focus on preventative measures from now on! Update your maps so ships don't have to risk hitting these uncharted obstacles, and send out quicker weather updates so we know exactly what to expect every time we make these long and perilous journeys from coast to coast. Maybe then, you wouldn't have such a horrendous mess on your hands in the future, now would you? I'll leave you all to deal with this, and I'd rather not have to come back again."
With that, the captain grabs @@HIS@@ cap and leaves, ignoring the impotent rage of your Environmental Minister.

[Fallout 3] @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ shipping companies are dropping like flies as mariners refuse to set sail at the slightest sign of wind or rain.

[Option 4] As the captain storms out of the room, another figure who looks just as conspicuous shoves @@HIS@@ way to the front of the throng. Gesticulating wildly, infamous con-artist @@RANDOMNAME_3@@ tries to explain an incomprehensible mass of scribble marks on a poster while wearing a plastic grin that looks way too big for @@HIS@@ face.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I think we're all looking at this whole situation in the wrong way! What we've got here is a brand-new attraction to please everyone! All I need is some generous funding from the government and support from all you kind folk, and together we can turn this disaster into a delight! Imagine, people flocking from around [region] just to bear witness to the folly of free trade, while daredevils can personally explore a modern-day shipwreck! Who knows, maybe we can even sell off parts of the ship as souvenirs! Frankly, people, I don't think God himself could sink this plan!"

[Fallout 4] the glistening water of the "Great @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Oil Slick" is rumored to feel wonderful on the skin.

[Title] Coastline Calamity!

[Validity] Good environment

[Description] While enjoying a well-deserved vacation at one of the most beautiful beaches in @@NATION@@, you were stunned to see a massive cargo ship slowly but inexorably run itself aground nearby on an uncharted reef in broad daylight. The ship, carrying hundreds of brand-new Maxtopian cars bound for @@DEMONYM@@ showrooms, is now wedged on the reef and listing dangerously to one side close to the shore; fortunately, no one on board was hurt. With the last of the crew being airlifted from the stricken vessel, and the captain now in police custody, a hodgepodge of government officials and citizens have convened in your private waterfront house to debate the best course of action for this shifting and creaking hulk on the water.

[Option 1] "The solution here is obvious," begins Environmental Minister @@RANDOMNAME@@, supported by a noisy ad hoc legion of environmental advocates and tourists. "First, we get that damn ship off the reef before it's too late and it tips over completely! We don't know how much damage it's already caused, let alone how much oil it might be leaking into the water already. Also, to prevent this kind of accident from happening ever again, we need to teach these careless crews that their inattention won't go unpunished. Don't just give the go-ahead for the recovery operation, but approve more funding for the Coast Guard, too; in the future, they'll stop any vessels before they even come close to damaging our fragile aquatic ecosystem, and arrest anyone who's found lacking in their responsibility to maintain a safe ship."

[Fallout 1] the @@DEMONYM@@ Coast Guard is ridiculed as state-sponsored pirates.

[Option 2] "Hey, shouldn't I get a say in this matter?" protests Xam Brayr, your Minister of Trade who just so happens to have a large stake in a particular chain of Maxtopian car dealerships. "Let's not be too hasty in outright destroying such a valuable ship and its cargo; that's a good hundred million or so @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ going down the drain! Instead, can't we figure out some way to right the ship and recover the cars inside? I'm sure at least a good proportion of them can still drive just fine, and I'm sure the ship itself just needs a good bit of elbow grease to get shipshape again! Sure, the reef might get a bit more damaged in the process, but it's probably a lost cause already, right? Don't hobble @@DEMONYM@@ trade just to appease to some knee-jerk outrage over a minor incident."
Noticing the angry murmuring from the assembled crowd, Brayr cowers behind your desk in fear.

[Fallout 2] the age of any @@DEMONYM@@ ship can be determined by how many shoddily-patched holes line its hull.

[Option 3] "Hey! Shouldn't I get a say in this matter!?" exclaims @@RANDOMMALENAME_1@@, the captain of the stuck ship who somehow escaped arrest to attend the meeting. "I'll admit, I may or may not have had a swig or two of rum the other night, and our lookout might have been sleeping on duty, but we're not entirely to blame! Our GPS would've kept us safely distant from the shore, but it was knocked out in a freak storm a couple days ago. Also, how could we have known about a reef that wasn't on any maps to begin with? Instead of throwing us under the bus, why not make sure our weather info is always updated in real time, and improve the maps we use to navigate your waters? I'm sure that'll keep ships like ours well enough away from anything that could send us off-course from now on!"
With that, the captain scurries off, pursued by a mob of environmentalists and police officers.

[Fallout 3] @@DEMONYM@@ shipping companies are dropping like flies as mariners refuse to set sail at the slightest sign of wind or rain.

[Option 4] As the captain flees the room, another man who looks just as suspicious slips to the front of the throng. Gesticulating wildly, infamous con-man @@RANDOMMALENAME_2@@ tries to explain an incomprehensible mass of scribble marks on a poster while wearing a plastic grin that looks way too big for his face.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I think we're all looking at this whole situation in the wrong way! What we've got here is a brand-new attraction to please everyone! All I need is some generous funding from the government and support from all you kind folk, and together we can turn this disaster into a delight! Imagine, people flocking from around @@REGION@@ just to bear witness to the folly of free trade, while daredevils can explore a modern-day shipwreck and take a dive from meters above the water! Who knows, maybe we can even sell off parts of the ship as souvenirs! Frankly, people, I don't think God himself could sink this plan!"

[Fallout 4] the oil-stained water surrounding the "Famous @@DEMONYM@@ Ferry Fiasco" is rumored to be excellent for the skin.

[Minskiev]

Small note but it's @@NAME@@, not @@NATION@@. I might give more feedback later.

Oh, and it should be @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ showrooms since it'd be describing showrooms.

Above goes for the rest of your @@DEMONYM@@s describing nouns.

[Ellbonnia]

Small note but it's @@NAME@@, not @@NATION@@. I might give more feedback later.

Any little bit helps! Much appreciated.

[Trotterdam]

What is the actual question here? How to prevent similar accidents from happening in the future? What to do with the wreckage of this particular ship?

The story just describes something that has gone wrong, but not how or why this is supposed to spark a political debate.

A one-off incident would normally be handled by the local authorities. There needs to be a reason why this warrants the national government's attention.

[Ellbonnia]

What is the actual question here? How to prevent similar accidents from happening in the future? What to do with the wreckage of this particular ship?

The story just describes something that has gone wrong, but not how or why this is supposed to spark a political debate.

A one-off incident would normally be handled by the local authorities. There needs to be a reason why this warrants the national government's attention.

So, raise the stakes then? I thought the first option would be an exaggerated version of trying to prevent future accidents, and what to do with the wreck fell under the purview of the other options as well. If that wasn't adequately addressed, then I'll definitely try to revise that.

I don't really understand the second concern too, as I thought the first and second options touched on the "environment vs. business" angle; if the options aren't political enough, I suppose I can try making the options more extreme, but that might present a bit of a challenge for me as my first draft is already my attempt to stretch the bounds of verisimilitude pretty far.

[Trotterdam]

Not so much raise the stakes, as decide what direction you're trying to take, and explain better what's going on.

If the main question is how to prevent future accidents from occuring, then it's important to establish why this accident happened in a way that makes it sound likely that it'll repeat itself unless action is taken, rather than being a one-off freak accident.

If the main question is what to do with the wreck, then it's important to establish why the wreck is such a big deal: Was the ship carrying something that's bad for the environment? Is the wreckage blocking the shipping route and making things harder for other ships? Do the owners of the ship('s cargo) want help salvaging their property before they go bankrupt?

These things need to be explained in the opening, not just in the options, by which time reader attention will already have wandered off if it's not clear what the issue is about. Then all the options need to be answers responding to the issue presented in the opening.

Note that we have several issues about shipwrecks (#418, #424, #521, #1078), so while your draft isn't too similar to those, it's still important to establish early on what your unique angle is to differentiate yourself from those.

[Ellbonnia]

Not so much raise the stakes, as decide what direction you're trying to take, and explain better what's going on.

If the main question is how to prevent future accidents from occuring, then it's important to establish why this accident happened in a way that makes it sound likely that it'll repeat itself unless action is taken, rather than being a one-off freak accident.

If the main question is what to do with the wreck, then it's important to establish why the wreck is such a big deal: Was the ship carrying something that's bad for the environment? Is the wreckage blocking the shipping route and making things harder for other ships? Do the owners of the ship('s cargo) want help salvaging their property before they go bankrupt?

These things need to be explained in the opening, not just in the options, by which time reader attention will already have wandered off if it's not clear what the issue is about. Then all the options need to be answers responding to the issue presented in the opening.

Note that we have several issues about shipwrecks (#418, #424, #521, #1078), so while your draft isn't too similar to those, it's still important to establish early on what your unique angle is to differentiate yourself from those.

Second draft is up, more honest feedback like this is always needed!

[Candensia]

I can see you've put a lot of thought into avoiding the traditional "industry vs environment" pitfall. I do have some comments.

This draft is presented as if the shipwreck is happening in the present, but several of the options read as if the event occurred in the past, and @@NAME@@ is dealing with the aftermath.

In option 2 I don't find it believable to advocate for the cleanup of the oil, at the cost of the lives still trapped on the wrecked tanker. I just don't buy it. In option 3, the dialogue seems out of place during a crisis situation.

For example, if a bridge collapses, and @@LEADER@@ is directing response teams and rescuers, someone shouldn't come in and say "Hey, @@LEADER@@, I think we need to make stronger bridges!" Yes, we do need stronger bridges, but that's not something that should come up during crisis response. Instead, the debate should be "How can we best rescue the victims?" or "Should we wait for safer conditions before we begin?"

You need to decide if the tanker is wrecking in the present, and @@LEADER@@ is handling the crisis response, or if the immediate crisis is over, and @@LEADER@@ is deciding how to best address the aftermath.

Additionally,

A supertanker carrying millions of barrels' worth of crude oil has run aground

How about just "carrying millions of barrels of crude oil". If the tanker is carrying millions of barrels' *worth* of oil, then that suggests it isn't actually carrying crude, but rather something *worth* millions of barrels of it.

Keep working on this one, it has promise.

[Ellbonnia]

I can see you've put a lot of thought into avoiding the traditional "industry vs environment" pitfall. I do have some comments.

This draft is presented as if the shipwreck is happening in the present, but several of the options read as if the event occurred in the past, and @@NAME@@ is dealing with the aftermath.

In option 2 I don't find it believable to advocate for the cleanup of the oil, at the cost of the lives still trapped on the wrecked tanker. I just don't buy it. In option 3, the dialogue seems out of place during a crisis situation.

For example, if a bridge collapses, and @@LEADER@@ is directing response teams and rescuers, someone shouldn't come in and say "Hey, @@LEADER@@, I think we need to make stronger bridges!" Yes, we do need stronger bridges, but that's not something that should come up during crisis response. Instead, the debate should be "How can we best rescue the victims?" or "Should we wait for safer conditions before we begin?"

You need to decide if the tanker is wrecking in the present, and @@LEADER@@ is handling the crisis response, or if the immediate crisis is over, and @@LEADER@@ is deciding how to best address the aftermath.

Additionally,

A supertanker carrying millions of barrels' worth of crude oil has run aground

How about just "carrying millions of barrels of crude oil". If the tanker is carrying millions of barrels' *worth* of oil, then that suggests it isn't actually carrying crude, but rather something *worth* millions of barrels of it.

Keep working on this one, it has promise.

Should I just scrap option 3 altogether? I've had doubts about its value to the issue as a whole, as in retrospect it seems to be making an argument that should come after my actual issue is resolved. Or, is there some way I could edit it to fit more with the rest of the options?

[Trotterdam]

Worth noting is that #346 is also about an oil spill. That's due to an accident at an offshore mining platform rather than a tanker, but the similarities are clear, right down to the last option about making it into a tourist attraction. (Which I think also falls into Candensia's point: constructing a tourist attraction is a long-term project that should come long after the more immediate problems have been resolved.)

[Ellbonnia]

Worth noting is that #346 is also about an oil spill. That's due to an accident at an offshore mining platform rather than a tanker, but the similarities are clear, right down to the last option about making it into a tourist attraction. (Which I think also falls into Candensia's point: constructing a tourist attraction is a long-term project that should come long after the more immediate problems have been resolved.)

I definitely wouldn't want to copy an existing issue's options, so I'll change option 4 to something similarly insensitive but not in the same way; I'd like there to be a funny "alternate solution" as the last choice, but now I wonder what would be a similarly-absurd option be, besides turning the spill into a tourist attraction.

Maybe I'll go with a greedy oil exec interrupting everything to lay claim to the ship's cargo, but if that's not amusing or absurd enough, then I'm open to other possibilities too.

[Czechostan]

Worth noting is that #346 is also about an oil spill. That's due to an accident at an offshore mining platform rather than a tanker, but the similarities are clear, right down to the last option about making it into a tourist attraction. (Which I think also falls into Candensia's point: constructing a tourist attraction is a long-term project that should come long after the more immediate problems have been resolved.)

^ Exactly what I was thinking.

You're doing a good job adding options unique to an oil freighter (rescuing the crew/updating maps), but I would also encourage to differentiate this issue as much as possible since they're still very similar.

I take it this issue is partially inspired by the Exxon Valdez? I don't know how much you've looked into it, but reading about past oil tanker spills might give you some inspiration.

[Ellbonnia]

You're doing a good job adding options unique to an oil freighter (rescuing the crew/updating maps), but I would also encourage to differentiate this issue as much as possible since they're still very similar.

I take it this issue is partially inspired by the Exxon Valdez? I don't know how much you've looked into it, but reading about past oil tanker spills might give you some inspiration.

Actually, it's funny you mention that, since I actually wanted to do something based off of the Golden Ray, a cargo ship carrying 4,000 brand-new Hyundai cars that capsized off the coast of Georgia in 2019. I figured someone already covered an oil spill, so I wanted to distinguish my issue in that way.

The only problem I've seen is that it doesn't seem as dramatic as an oil spill in progress, and thus doesn't warrant a country's leader making decisions for the response. Would there be some way to raise the stakes for my original issue without needing to switch to an oil spill?

[Ellbonnia]

I apologize for my prolonged absence from updating my issue, but a new draft is up for all to see! This time, I tried going for a more retrospective look at my disaster, but if I should go for a disaster in progress instead, then I'd greatly appreciate some help in executing it without being too derivative from existing environmental issues.

[The Atlae Isles]

I'd like to echo the previous people in this thread that you've avoided the industry vs. environment dichotomy really well, and it's definitely a good issue premise.

I think you should describe in more detail the effects of the Environment Ministry "severely hampering" the rescue effort in the description. I know you went into that more in Option 1, but I was a bit confused after reading the description on how severe the problem was, especially because I wasn't sure if people had died.

What reason does the Environment Ministry have for hampering the rescue effort even if there was an oil spill? Was there a risk that it wasn't safe or that it would explode? Did they have booms and stuff set up but were being blocked by the Coast Guard?

A final note that is mostly stylistic, you don't need to put @@DENONYMADJECTIVE@@ everywhere (like in front of Coast Guard or Environment Ministry) as it's kind of already given what country they are talking about, by default.

[Ellbonnia]

I'd like to echo the previous people in this thread that you've avoided the industry vs. environment dichotomy really well, and it's definitely a good issue premise.

I think you should describe in more detail the effects of the Environment Ministry "severely hampering" the rescue effort in the description. I know you went into that more in Option 1, but I was a bit confused after reading the description on how severe the problem was, especially because I wasn't sure if people had died.

What reason does the Environment Ministry have for hampering the rescue effort even if there was an oil spill? Was there a risk that it wasn't safe or that it would explode? Did they have booms and stuff set up but were being blocked by the Coast Guard?

A final note that is mostly stylistic, you don't need to put @@DENONYMADJECTIVE@@ everywhere (like in front of Coast Guard or Environment Ministry) as it's kind of already given what country they are talking about, by default.

Thank you so much for your advice! I realized my very liberal use of @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@, so I tried trimming them down as best as I could.
I also tried to address your concerns with including the consequences of hampering the rescue effort, as well as adding some more details explaining how the two agencies came into conflict. Hopefully, this'll mean my issue is a bit more believable overall.

Since this is pretty much my final draft, thank you so much to everyone who helped me edit my issue from beginning to end! I'll be waiting until the last day if anyone else has more suggestions.

[Fauxia]

This hasn't been posted on in a while, but I thought there was something important to comment here while I was looking. There's good stuff here, and then there's a lot of stuff. The issue is, frankly, a monstrosity. I don't mean it's bad, but... seriously, there is a lot of trimming to do. You need to cut about 40% of the words here, because players are not going to read this right now.

The limits I go with, which are not hard rules but I did estimate with a couple of issues, I generally keep them under 90 words. Even Candlewhisper Archive's masterful, convoluted descriptions in #1235 (Good Guy with a Gun) and #970 (For Want of a Nail) clock in at just 96 and 88 words, respectively. Yours is 144. There's a lot of extraneous detail (being on vacation, for example) that you can cut out.

Options 1 and 3 are somewhat too long. Generally, options should be under 100 words (hopefully less than that). You are about 60% over that right now for those two. There are some that break those rules, but they are more common in issue chains which are, forgive me, more important and hold attention spans for longer. You have extraneous detail you can cut on those, including descriptions of what are going on... speaking of that.

Option 2 would be one of the longest options in the game. The only ones that are longer are some of the last ones in MADness, which are the only option in any of those issues and conclude the chain. There is just way too much going on here. You need to make decisions about what you want to keep.

Look, I don't want it to sound like I'm going off. There's a lot of good work here, don't get me wrong, but this is really out of control so I went into larger detail than I usually would with simply "options are kinda fat"

[Ellbonnia]

This hasn't been posted on in a while, but I thought there was something important to comment here while I was looking. There's good stuff here, and then there's a lot of stuff. The issue is, frankly, a monstrosity. I don't mean it's bad, but... seriously, there is a lot of trimming to do. You need to cut about 40% of the words here, because players are not going to read this right now.

The limits I go with, which are not hard rules but I did estimate with a couple of issues, I generally keep them under 90 words. Even Candlewhisper Archive's masterful, convoluted descriptions in #1235 (Good Guy with a Gun) and #970 (For Want of a Nail) clock in at just 96 and 88 words, respectively. Yours is 144. There's a lot of extraneous detail (being on vacation, for example) that you can cut out.

Options 1 and 3 are somewhat too long. Generally, options should be under 100 words (hopefully less than that). You are about 60% over that right now for those two. There are some that break those rules, but they are more common in issue chains which are, forgive me, more important and hold attention spans for longer. You have extraneous detail you can cut on those, including descriptions of what are going on... speaking of that.

Option 2 would be one of the longest issues in the game. The only ones that are longer are some of the last ones in MADness, which are the only option in any of those issues and conclude the chain. There is just way too much going on here. You need to make decisions about what you want to keep.

Look, I don't want it to sound like I'm going off. There's a lot of good work here, don't get me wrong, but this is really out of control so I went into larger detail than I usually would with simply "options are kinda fat"

I definitely see where you're coming from. The only problem I have is that it sounds like other people want enough context to explain the motivations behind each option, and I cannot really think of a way to trim it down much more than this.

I'll try my best though with one more draft, but if you've got any suggestions to help trim off some fat then I'd be happy to hear it.

[SherpDaWerp]

Generally, I find writing issues works better for me if you start small and build up to a proper length, instead of starting long and cutting it out. It gets hard to discern what's 100% necessary and what's not when you've spent however-long staring at the text and writing.

Also note that your options have a few newlines in them, which won't work.

As a quick example of how much to cut down, for your description:

Your well-deserved beachside vacation was abruptly interrupted by news of an oil supertanker running aground in @@demonymadj@@ waters. To make matters worse, the immediate rescue and cleanup efforts were severely hampered by inter-service squabbling between the Coast Guard and the office of the Environment Minister.

That conveys all the same necessary information as your description. We don't really need to know the exact stats of how the ship crashed or how many crew perished or how much oil was spilled. Heck, you don't even really need to say that the supertanker was carrying oil, because it's immediately-inferrable from context once you mention "cleanup efforts" and so forth. You can also generally cut out the "people gathered here to ask about it" sentence, as they're also inferrable from context - if you're hearing all these opinions, they must have gathered somewhere.

That description would still benefit from sharpening and such, but it conveys the sort of trimming this draft would benefit from.

[Ellbonnia]

Generally, I find writing issues works better for me if you start small and build up to a proper length, instead of starting long and cutting it out. It gets hard to discern what's 100% necessary and what's not when you've spent however-long staring at the text and writing.

Also note that your options have a few newlines in them, which won't work.

As a quick example of how much to cut down, for your description:

Your well-deserved beachside vacation was abruptly interrupted by news of an oil supertanker running aground in @@demonymadj@@ waters. To make matters worse, the immediate rescue and cleanup efforts were severely hampered by inter-service squabbling between the Coast Guard and the office of the Environment Minister.

That conveys all the same necessary information as your description. We don't really need to know the exact stats of how the ship crashed or how many crew perished or how much oil was spilled. Heck, you don't even really need to say that the supertanker was carrying oil, because it's immediately-inferrable from context once you mention "cleanup efforts" and so forth. You can also generally cut out the "people gathered here to ask about it" sentence, as they're also inferrable from context - if you're hearing all these opinions, they must have gathered somewhere.

That description would still benefit from sharpening and such, but it conveys the sort of trimming this draft would benefit from.

For future issues, I'll definitely try to keep your advice in mind. Thanks a lot for your help!
Also, what do you mean by "newlines"? How should I revise or remove them?

[SherpDaWerp]

Also, what do you mean by "newlines"? How should I revise or remove them?

Extra "lines" added when you press Enter. Like these:

Admiral Yvad Jones, commandant of the Coast Guard, slams his fist on your desk.
"I should have free rein to do my job as I see fit!

we could've made the spill several magnitudes smaller!"
@@HE@@ eyes Admiral Jones warily.

My advice is to just remove them.

[Ellbonnia]

Extra "lines" added when you press Enter. Like these:

Admiral Yvad Jones, commandant of the Coast Guard, slams his fist on your desk.
"I should have free rein to do my job as I see fit!

we could've made the spill several magnitudes smaller!"
@@HE@@ eyes Admiral Jones warily.

My advice is to just remove them.

Ah, I see. I wasn't planning on using them when submitting my actual issue; it's just to better space out the options for convenience here.

[Bears Armed]

Heck, you don't even really need to say that the supertanker was carrying oil, because it's immediately-inferrable from context once you mention "cleanup efforts" and so forth.

Well, it could have been carrying maple syrup instead...
What do you mean, "Nobody imports maple syrup in supertanker-loads? Urrs Bears certainly do!

[Ellbonnia]

Well, it could have been carrying maple syrup instead...
What do you mean, "Nobody imports maple syrup in supertanker-loads? Urrs Bears certainly do!

I decided to just slip in the mention of oil at the very beginning for that exact reason; supertankers can carry liquified natural gas and even fresh water at times, so I wanted to make sure the reader knew that the cargo was actually flammable and harmful to the surrounding environment.