[DRAFT] Fore!

by **Sacara** » Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:38 pm

[Name] Fore!
[Desc] While golfing with your brother and your Minister of Well Thought Out Solutions, your brother hits a rather wayward shot and shatters an expensive-looking window on a nearby house.
[validity] allows sports

[option] Out of the house strolls an old man, carrying a pencil and a pad of paper, on his way to speak with your brother. "Oh jeez, what do we have here? It looks like you caused a lot of damage; you must have hit the ball hard! Let me just get some of your information, and I'm sure we can work out the payment details. It would only be fair for you to cover the cost of repair since you did this, I reckon." He pulls the scratched golf ball out of his pocket and examines it. "Yeah, I'll just have to keep this as a souvenir."
[effect] bad golfers keep their wallets full of IOUs

[option] "You can go ahead and kiss my putt!" retorts your brother, having to be restrained by the minister. "Do you seriously think I was trying to hit your house? Seriously, my ball didn't even land anywhere close to where I was trying to go! I'm sorry I suck at golf, but I didn't force you to live here. You should've known the risks before you decided to move somewhere that's a landing spot for golf balls. I'm sorry it has to be like this, but you're going to have to pay for that window yourself, geezer."
[effect] living next to a golf course is a life-long financial commitment

[option] Your minister quickly pulls you aside and speaks in a hushed voice: "Hey, I don't think this guy recognizes us. We should just tell him we are high-ranking members of the opposition party and will be more than willing to cover the cost of the damages. Even if he later realizes we lied about who we are, he won't be able to prove it. It would be the word of @@LEADER@@ against some old grandpa who can't remember his name." Your minister turns to the old man. "Here's the number you can reach us at..."
[effect] @@LEADER@@ has the hottest pants in @@REGION@@

by **Jutsa** » Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:01 am

Fore!

by **Daarwyrth** » Thu Jun 17, 2021 8:08 am

I love the issue! Really, there's nothing that I can think of that could use improvement or be changed. Great job on this one!

by **Ko-oren** » Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:40 am

Well done! There's a few things I'm not 100% clear on, on the first read:

Option 1: " with a pencil and pad of paper in his hand." What are the pencil and paper for?

Option 2: " having to be restrained by the Prime Minister from attacking the old man" Would someone make it to Secretary of State with this kind of temper? I love the "putt" line, but maybe (almost) attacking the man would be a bit too much.

The logistics of option 3 (but maybe I'm taking it too far): how does anyone get started as a golfer in Prudenland?

Also, what about insurance?

by **Homyland** » Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:45 am

I loved the draft, but I think you should reword the first option.

The effect suggests the Secretary paid it, the option that the Leader paid it.
So I think you should either reword option 1 or write an option where the Secretary pays it from his own, personal pocket.

by **USS Monitor** » Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:16 am

Ko-oren wrote:Well done! There's a few things I'm not 100% clear on, on the first read:

Option 1: " with a pencil and pad of paper in his hand." What are the pencil and paper for?

Exchanging contact info so they can arrange payment?

Option 2: " having to be restrained by the Prime Minister from attacking the old man" Would someone make it to Secretary of State with this kind of temper? I love the "putt" line, but maybe (almost) attacking the man would be a bit too much.

I thought the same thing about the Secretary needing to be restrained.

The logistics of option 3 (but maybe I'm taking it too far): how does anyone get started as a golfer in Prudenland?

Practice space with nets to catch the balls? There was such a place on the side of a highway that I used to ride past all the time when I was a kid.

Fun draft, though.

by **Bears Armed** » Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:56 am

USS Monitor wrote:
Option 2: " having to be restrained by the Prime Minister from attacking the old man" Would someone make it to Secretary of State with this kind of temper? I love the "putt" line, but maybe (almost) attacking the man would be a bit too much.

I thought the same thing about the Secretary needing to be restrained.

I can think of a few RL politicians for whom it might fit: The late John Prescott, who publicly punched a protester, for example... and that's even without considering the undemocratic sorts of regimes where they routinely might feel "above the law" because of their positions...

by **Sacara** » Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:14 pm

Daarwyrth wrote:I love the issue! Really, there's nothing that I can think of that could use improvement or be changed. Great job on this one!

Jutsa wrote:Fore!

Thanks guys!

Ko-oren wrote:Well done! There's a few things I'm not 100% clear on, on the first read:

Option 1: " with a pencil and pad of paper in his hand." What are the pencil and paper for?

I hate to say this, but this is based on a true story. :blink:

I was out golfing last summer, and I pulled a shot right into a window of a house on the course. It was in the afternoon, and of course, a retired old guy comes out of the house, holding a pencil and pad of paper. I go up and speak to him, and he demands I pay for the damages. He asks for my information, and I only give him my name and number. I then left, telling him it was his choice to live on a golf course. If he would've handled the situation a little better, I would've probably agreed to pay for it. I did some research on relevant case law, to which there is virtually none because most of these matters go to small claims court, and the only one I found said that the homeowner had to pay for the damages. The old guy's insurance sent me a couple letters demanding I pay for it, and I had a lawyer buddy of mine draft up a letter telling him to either sue us or stop harassing me. Needless to say, he didn't send me anything else.

Ko-oren wrote:Option 2: " having to be restrained by the Prime Minister from attacking the old man" Would someone make it to Secretary of State with this kind of temper? I love the "putt" line, but maybe (almost) attacking the man would be a bit too much.

The logistics of option 3 (but maybe I'm taking it too far): how does anyone get started as a golfer in Prudenland?

Also, what about insurance?

For option two, I thought about that after I wrote it. I will change it to something else to better fit the character. Also, I thought about insurance as an option but decided against it.

Homyland wrote:I loved the draft, but I think you should reword the first option.

The effect suggests the Secretary paid it, the option that the Leader paid it.
So I think you should either reword option 1 or write an option where the Secretary pays it from his own, personal pocket.

Thanks! Option one is meant to make the person who hit the shot pay for the damages. I can update the wording to make it more clear.

USS Monitor wrote:Fun draft, though.

Thanks!

I will post an updated draft tomorrow taking in all of the feedback so far. Please continue letting me know your thoughts on the draft!

by **USS Monitor** » Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:33 pm

Maybe you could have an option that says the golf course is liable? Not essential or anything, just an idea rattling around my brain.

by **Sacara** » Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:36 pm

USS Monitor wrote:Maybe you could have an option that says the golf course is liable? Not essential or anything, just an idea rattling around my brain.

I meant for option three to be that option. I suppose I forgot to outright say that, as I have the Prime Minister note that it is the golf course's responsibility in their country. I will update that in the next draft as well.

by **Trotterdam** » Sat Jun 19, 2021 10:43 pm

Wait, people build houses on golf courses? How does that work?

I would think this kind of thing happens when there's a house next to the golf course and there isn't a tall ball-blocking fence between the two properties, not when the house is actually considered part of the golf course.

by **Sacara** » Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:01 pm

Trotterdam wrote:Wait, people build houses on gold courses?

I believe you are referencing option two. "Living on a golf course" is a common phrase that means a person is on a property adjacent to a golf course. I believe common sense would tell the reader the house isn't inside the golf course property, but I can change the wording from on to next anyways.

I would love to live on a gold course, though.

by **USS Monitor** » Sat Jun 19, 2021 11:14 pm

Sacara wrote:I suppose I forgot to outright say that

Or I was spacing out. My bad.

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Jun 20, 2021 2:47 am

Isn't that what insurance is for?

by **Noahs Second Country** » Mon Jun 21, 2021 9:57 pm

I'm an avid golfer(just shot 75

) and I've lived in a house where the golf course was my backyard, so hopefully I can provide some useful insights here.

Trotterdam wrote:Wait, people build houses on golf courses? How does that work?

I would think this kind of thing happens when there's a house next to the golf course and there isn't a tall ball-blocking fence between the two properties, not when the house is actually considered part of the golf course.

It's more common to have houses bordering a hole than not, in my experience. Golf courses tend to increase property value. Some people do put up nets or higher fences, but they are unsightly, expensive, and honestly not super effective. If someone pops a ball up to the right into a house, it probably came in pretty high.

When I lived on a golf course, my house was hit pretty frequently by golf balls. While we never had a broken window, we could expect at least a dozen golf balls a week. Over time, the major damage was actually to the roof tiles. Obviously, we couldn't blame the dozens of golfers responsible for the damage over 2-ish years, so we had to fix that out-of-pocket.

We had an agreement with the golf course that they would maintain the fences and we were not allowed to replace the fence. However, they did not cover any damages. A few of my peers have broken windows in the past and paid to repair them, so I guess it just depends on how persistent the owner is or how honest the golfer is.

It's funny that you used the "kiss my putt" expression as I used it in my own golf-related draft.

Some suggestions I have:

The sentences don't really flow that well with each other. Each character speaks in short, choppy sentences. They just move from point to point without any variety.

I don't see how option 3 is enforceable unless it's a member's only country club and they actively monitor your handicap. Even then, good players still hit bad shots.

A better option could be one where someone suggests that the secretary just gives the wrong information or something. I've seen that happen before, though I don't know if that's really a great option for a nation to choose. There is a certain level of irony that could come from that since it's pretty obvious who Leader is and how Leader can be reached.

The second effect line feels somewhat boring, and also unrealistic. People want to live on the golf course and tend to be willing to accept the risk for the views/accessibility.

Possible change of scenario: Hitting a ball onto a nearby road causes a multi-vehicle accident, who is at fault?

by **Sacara** » Tue Jun 22, 2021 9:43 pm

Noahs Second Country wrote:I'm an avid golfer (just shot 75 )

No need to flex on the rest of us amateurs.

The sentences don't really flow that well with each other. Each character speaks in short, choppy sentences. They just move from point to point without any variety.

Hmm. I will go through the draft later and see if I can make it flow a little better.

I don't see how option 3 is enforceable unless it's a member's only country club and they actively monitor your handicap. Even then, good players still hit bad shots.

A better option could be one where someone suggests that the secretary just gives the wrong information or something. I've seen that happen before, though I don't know if that's really a great option for a nation to choose. There is a certain level of irony that could come from that since it's pretty obvious who Leader is and how Leader can be reached.

I knew option three was the weak link when it came to this draft. I was trying to make the options have national implications. While your suggestion is funny, I was thinking more of the overall premise affecting all golfers across @@NAME@@. Perhaps a different option three mandates all houses on a golf course should have insurance?

The second effect line feels somewhat boring, and also unrealistic. People want to live on the golf course and tend to be willing to accept the risk for the views/accessibility.

I'll work on a new effect line. Although most effect lines aren't known for their realism, I do agree this one can be spiced up.

Possible change of scenario: Hitting a ball onto a nearby road causes a multi-vehicle accident, who is at fault?

I like the current premise. However, question for all, should I change it from the Secretary hitting the ball to @@LEADER@@?

Thanks for the feedback. I'll update the draft soon.

by **Fauxia** » Wed Jun 23, 2021 9:24 pm

Hey Sacara! Pretty good stuff here, but there are a few things that could be managed better.

Sacara wrote:While on a golf outing with the Prime Minister of Prudenland, it appears your Secretary of State has hit a rather wayward golf shot and shattered a large window of a nearby expensive-looking house.

Not a fan of this construction here. I feel like either this should be past tense, or it should be described a bit more vividly.

I think what bugs me is the perfect tense (I think that's what's going on, it's been a while since I studied grammar). I guess it's a personal preference, but my preferences are always right

Uh... moving on.

Sacara wrote:[effect] being a bad golfer is an expensive hobby

This works, but again, construction. "Being" is not much of an activity. "Golfing poorly is an expensive hobby" works better.

Sacara wrote:"You can go ahead and kiss my putt,"

Love it.

Sacara wrote:says your Secretary, having to be restrained by the Prime Minister from attacking the old man.

And... construction again. It just doesn't read well to me, a combination of the use of passive voice and the operating use of having. I think "being restrained" would work just as well. We understand he's angry.

Sacara wrote:"Do you really think I was trying to hit your house? The hole is all the way over there! I didn't force you to live on a golf course; that was your choice, not mine! Accidents happen, with not even the best in the game knowing where they will hit it next.

However quirky the secretary is, I don't think that's really how people usually talk. I don't think we need the "with" here. "Accidents happen - heck, even the very best in the game can't know where it's gonna land every time". (Or, "once the ball's up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my department.") But maybe people don't even get that joke anymore.

I also wonder whether it would be better to have this option first and have the secretary trying to run away and get away with it. But that's a random idea and not even a preference on my part, I think it works as is.

Sacara wrote:[option] The Prime Minister finally lets go of your Secretary after @@HE_1@@ has calmed down.

Don't think we need the end here. It could allow for a comedic effect at the end as well, although it doesn't have to.

Sacara wrote:"In my country, we make the golf course responsible for the damages caused by their golfers." @@HE_2@@ then steps up and hits a beautiful shot.

I realize I'm nitpicking, but "then" is extraneous here. Regardless, I think this would work better either at the beginning or the end of the option. You could make the beginning: "After letting go of your Secretary, the Prime Minister steps up and makes a beautiful, arcing shot." and combine the sentences. Only a suggestion if you want to minimize the number of pauses, though.

Sacara wrote:[effect] wives are surprised to see their husbands around the house more often

Some countries do ban marriage...

by **Sacara** » Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:41 pm

Went through and did a significant re-write of the draft. I kept (basically) the same premise, and options one and two have the same idea as they did in the 1st draft. I totally re-wrote option three, as well.

I would like to know what everyone thinks of the updated draft.

by **Minskiev** » Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:47 pm

I'll be honest, I think it reads weirdly. But the premise is fine.

by **Bears Armed** » Fri Jul 16, 2021 8:14 am

Love the new option 3... and its resultant Effect line.

by **Minskiev** » Fri Jul 16, 2021 3:32 pm

Oh, the option 3 effect line took me a while. Hm. I'm a bit ashamed.

by **Sacara** » Tue Jul 20, 2021 3:21 pm

Draft three is now up.

I went through and changed the wording throughout the entire issue... hopefully it reads a bit smoother now. Still looking for feedback!

by **Authoritaria-Imperia** » Wed Jul 21, 2021 11:57 am

I love this! A couple things —
I think Fauxia took issue with your choice of tense, and I was thinking the same thing — why not outright present tense for the description? “your brother hits a rather wayward shot and shatters”. That feels much more immersive (and less awkward) to me.

Option 3:

no one would believe the old if he accused

Is this meant to be “the old man if…”?

Finally, option 3 in general confused me as far as “giving [the old man] the name of one of your rivals”. It took me a second to realise what you meant — maybe you could make it clearer, like “tell him you’re that Opposition candidate, @@RANDOMNAME@@” or something…?

by **Sacara** » Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:24 pm

Authoritaria-Imperia wrote:I love this! A couple things —
I think Fauxia took issue with your choice of tense, and I was thinking the same thing — why not outright present tense for the description? “your brother hits a rather wayward shot and shatters”. That feels much more immersive (and less awkward) to me.

Option 3:
no one would believe the old if he accused
Is this meant to be “the old man if…”?

Finally, option 3 in general confused me as far as “giving [the old man] the name of one of your rivals”. It took me a second to realise what you meant — maybe you could make it clearer, like “tell him you’re that Opposition candidate, @@RANDOMNAME@@” or something…?

Thanks for the suggestions! I've incorporated them into my latest draft.

I've updated the description and wording of each of the options.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon Aug 02, 2021 4:53 am

Real life law in US and UK, I believe is:

Ball hit deliberately -- golfer liable.
House built or purchased before golf course built-- golf course liable.
House built or purchased after golf course -- no-one liable, normally insurance covers it though, whether the home-owner or the golf-course's, around 50-50.

Golf courses (or rather golf clubs, but avoiding the confusing nomenclature here) are normally very keen to pay up, as the goodwill of neighbours and golfers is worth more to them than the occasional broken window cost. Golf clubs are big money concerns, and a few hundred doesn't affect their bottom line to any significant degree, whereas bad press can leave them badly damaged.

I'd note that of course there's arguably a moral and ethical obligation for the golfer to pay, of course, and a lot of people recognise that, and thus a lot of cases don't make court.

Re: the issue, I think -- as was mentioned -- there needs to be an option to make golf courses liable. I also think its worth clarifying this as a case where the house was built at the same time as the golf course, for the legal grayness there.

[DRAFT] Fore!

[DRAFT] Fore!

Who is online