NationStates

TITLE:
Finely Textured Slime

VALIDITY:
not vegetarian, no autarky, capitalism

DESCRIPTION:
Imported beefburgers from the capitalism-enamoured nation of United Federation have been flooding the market in @@NAME@@, undercutting the prices of competitors by almost fifty percent. They have achieved this by using a high proportion of what they call "lean, finely textured beef", but which detractors have labelled "pink slime".

OPTION 1
"This mush is chemically-reclaimed waste trimmings, mixed with ammonia to turn the bacteria-laden slurry into something which is non-lethal but still horrifically unpleasant," explains celebrity chef and 'real food' advocate Oliver James. "You know what else contains ammonia? Refrigerants, plant fertiliser and urine! Brancaland, Albionia and Merovingia have already banned this additive, and we should too!"

OUTCOME:
fast food restaurants offer competitive mortgages to customers contemplating purchasing their deluxe triple burger stacks

OPTION 2
"Lean finely textured beef is good meat," drawls United Federation trade ambassador Willie Tacow, adjusting his six-shooters menacingly. "Hell, those Albionians put horse meat in their beef patties, whereas ours are near enough 100% pure cow. Plus, reclamation means less wasted meat, which is better for business AND the environment. Plus, nobody's ever been proven to have had any ill consequences from eating pink sl... uh... lean finely textured beef."

OUTCOME:
technically the meat from a thousand cows can be found in a single quarterpounder

OPTION 3
"There's a middle ground between banning stuff and laissez-faire capitalism, which is accurate and comprehensive labels!" interjects your Minister of Essential Information, attaching a sticky paper note to your forehead that identifies you as the nation's leader, and details your date of birth, blood type and inside leg measurement. "Regulations should require clear legible labels, on the front of the packet, detailing in neutral government-approved terminology exactly what a food product contains and the processes that are involved in it, in order to allow consumers to make an informed choice about what they place inside their oral ingestion apertures, or other designated body access points, according to their preferences. We'll need a well-funded oversight committee, of course, and frequent reviews of what pertinent information needs to be included. However, I am absolutely sure that we're perfectly capable within government of transmitting the correct and proper amount of desirable -- and / or necessary -- product manufacture information and detailed ingredient sourcing and processing data, with a bare minimum number of words that will certainly not necessitate an excess of verbiosity, wasted words, repetition or redundant information. I'd note, of course, that the oversight committee will itself need oversight and audit to ensure we are not unduly interfering with competition, but at the same time protecting consumer rights, both in terms of food safety, dietary preferences or dietary medical requirements, and the right to have adequate information provision without obfuscation, misleading phrasing, alternate terminology or -- to be fair to the corporations -- scare-mongering tactics by so-called real food advocates who raise objections based on something being 'natural' or otherwise, when food processing and the use of manufactured chemical agents in itself is not necessarily detrimental to health, or at the very least has not been shown to be detrimental to health to a reasonable level of statistical significance, adjusted for expectations of food safety, for example in a randomised trial demonstrating negative outcomes to p-values of 0.1 or less for any given claim of health harm. Brevity, is of course, essential, but accuracy more so. In conclusion, I'm proposing a level of food standards that is based not on bureaucratic restriction over manufacturing processes and/or additive use that hasn't been demonstrated to show harm, but rather based on a well-educated and properly informed consumer marketplace that can make choices that balance the lower price of goods against the industry activities, industrial externalities involved, be they positive or negative. That's just the synopsis, of course, I've prepared a full proposal which will be on your desk -- figuratively, not literally, barring repositioning of said document from your secretary's intray to your furniture -- no later than 3pm next Thursday, pending review, and excepting unexpected delays or events outside of this office's control."

OUTCOME:
customers are disappointed to find ten-litre packaging boxes contain only three beef burgers

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

TITLE:
Finely Textured Slime

VALIDITY:
not vegetarian, no autarky, capitalism

DESCRIPTION:
Imported beefburgers from the capitalism-enamoured nation of United Federation have been flooding the market in @@NAME@@, undercutting the prices of competitors by almost fifty percent. They have achieved this by using a high proportion of what they call "lean, finely textured beef", but which detractors have labelled "pink slime".

OPTION 1
"This mush is chemically-reclaimed waste trimmings, mixed with ammonia to turn the bacteria-laden slurry into something which is non-lethal but still horrifically unpleasant," explains celebrity chef and 'real food' advocate Oliver James. "You know what else contains ammonia? Refrigerants, plant fertiliser and urine! Brancaland, Albionia and Merovingia have already banned this additive, and we should too!"

OUTCOME:
fast food restaurants offer competitive mortgages to customers contemplating purchasing their deluxe triple burger stacks

OPTION 2
"Lean finely textured beef is good meat," drawls United Federation trade ambassador Willie Tacow, adjusting his six-shooters menacingly. "Hell, those Albionians put horse meat in their beef patties, whereas ours are near enough 100% pure cow. Plus, reclamation means less wasted meat, which is better for business AND the environment. Plus, nobody's ever been proven to have had any ill consequences from eating pink sl... uh... lean finely textured beef."

OUTCOME:
technically the meat from a thousand cows can be found in a single quarterpounder

OPTION 3
"There's a middle ground between banning stuff and laissez-faire capitalism, which is accurate and comprehensive labels!" interjects your Minister of Essential Information, attaching a sticky paper note to your forehead that identifies you as the nation's leader, and details your date of birth, blood type and inside leg measurement. "Regulations should require clear legible labels, on the front of the packet, detailing in neutral government-approved terminology exactly what a food product contains and the processes that are involved in it, in order to allow consumers to make an informed choice about what they place inside their oral ingestion apertures, or other designated body access points, according to their preferences. We'll need a well-funded oversight committee, of course, and frequent reviews of what pertinent information needs to be included. However, I am absolutely sure that we're perfectly capable within government of transmitting the correct and proper amount of desirable -- and / or necessary -- product manufacture information and detailed ingredient sourcing and processing data, with a bare minimum number of words that will certainly not necessitate an excess of verbiosity, wasted words, repetition or redundant information. I'd note, of course, that the oversight committee will itself need oversight and audit to ensure we are not unduly interfering with competition, but at the same time protecting consumer rights, both in terms of food safety, dietary preferences or dietary medical requirements, and the right to have adequate information provision without obfuscation, misleading phrasing, alternate terminology or -- to be fair to the corporations -- scare-mongering tactics by so-called real food advocates who raise objections based on something being 'natural' or otherwise, when food processing and the use of manufactured chemical agents in itself is not necessarily detrimental to health, or at the very least has not been shown to be detrimental to health to a reasonable level of statistical significance, adjusted for expectations of food safety, for example in a randomised trial demonstrating negative outcomes to p-values of 0.1 or less for any given claim of health harm. Brevity, is of course, essential, but accuracy more so. In conclusion, I'm proposing a level of food standards that is based not on bureaucratic restriction over manufacturing processes and/or additive use that hasn't been demonstrated to show harm, but rather based on a well-educated and properly informed consumer marketplace that can make choices that balance the lower price of goods against the industry activities, industrial externalities involved, be they positive or negative. That's just the synopsis, of course, I've prepared a full proposal which will be on your desk -- figuratively, not literally, barring repositioning of said document from your secretary's intray to your furniture -- no later than 3pm next Thursday, pending review, and excepting unexpected delays or events outside of this office's control."

OUTCOME:
customers are disappointed to find ten-litre packaging boxes contain only three beef burgers

Outer Sparta wrote:It depends on the context of each issue. Some options are quite long, some options can be quite short. Although most options are medium length, one can be very short or long depending on the speaker and how well it's utilized.

Ostrovskiy wrote:

Outer Sparta wrote:It depends on the context of each issue. Some options are quite long, some options can be quite short. Although most options are medium length, one can be very short or long depending on the speaker and how well it's utilized.

Most people who answer issues want to go with the answer they believe in (or their character believes in). Users would be confused by this, as they look through it to see if anything is important. I didn't say to make it medium length, I said to cut it down a bit.

Outer Sparta wrote:

Ostrovskiy wrote:Most people who answer issues want to go with the answer they believe in (or their character believes in). Users would be confused by this, as they look through it to see if anything is important. I didn't say to make it medium length, I said to cut it down a bit.

You do realize there are issues that have long options yet are completely appropriate to have that long option?

Jutsa wrote:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88#310

For what it's worth, I think you both are missing the point (edit: though tbf Sparta you might be trying to hint at this, ngl I can't tell, but either way I feel like I really oughta point this out more bluntly); options like these are meant not to be read. The sheer size of unreadable material is all you need to know when selecting that option.

Edit Umpteen: By the way CWA you still have "Flight 201:" in your title. I wonder why.

Jutsa wrote:options like these are meant not to be read.

Jutsa wrote:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88#310

For what it's worth, I think you both are missing the point (edit: though tbf Sparta you might be trying to hint at this, ngl I can't tell, but either way I feel like I really oughta point this out more bluntly); options like these are meant not to be read. The sheer size of unreadable material is all you need to know when selecting that option.

Edit Umpteen: By the way CWA you still have "Flight 201:" in your title. I wonder why.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:No worries, seem to have regained it.

Anyroads, re: the third option, it was shorter but I kept thinking it wasn't long enough. Mostly my motivation was to make the option seem LESS reasonable, as just requiring proper labels and leaving the choice to the consumer is such an obviously easy pick that I wanted to make it seem more bureaucratic, and perhaps justify stats that lead to more bureaucracy.

interjects your Minister of Essential Information, attaching a sticky paper note to your forehead that identifies you as the nation's leader, and details your date of birth, blood type and inside leg measurement.

Jutsa wrote:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88#310