[DRAFT] Talent Show Gone Fatal

[Ipsenia]

[Issue]

Recent episodes of "Don't Stop Me Now" aired on Channel M6 resulted into many serious casualties. One of them was an autistic ballet dancer named Natasha Estelle. She was sprayed by unknown fireman just before she did leaps. An episode before, @@RANDOMNAME@@, the biker, was also injured for @@HE@@ was fallen from @@HIS@@ bike attacked by fishermen and clowns during @@HIS@@ stunt act. Independent investigation found that all these happened because in-program voters voted against these acts, which triggered these executioners to do the harassment to the acts.

[The Debate]
1. "This incident shows the light that public still needs to be informed about autistic acceptance," says @@RANDOMNAME@@ of CHEGA for Autistic Acceptance movement. "Instead of humiliating Natasha, why don't you send her to the college that these voters are from? We will teach them acceptance while she dances ballet happily for them."
Effect: Television channels are doing massive campaign to colleges about autistic acceptance.
2. "We have already informed that all properties used during the punishment is safe and these incidents are out of our control," says Melaney Ricardo, the host of Don't Stop Me Now. "We don't have any intention for harassment and torture; it is just for entertainment purposes. We will refine the punishment procedure so that this incident won't happen again. Please, enroll and enjoy the show."
Effect: Humiliation against talents become commonplace
3. "This have become anarchy. Before more talents become victim of this nonsense and unethical show, stop now!", says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a right-wing political commentator. "You had seen the stunt biker injured, Natasha's face was burnt and they are in the hospital, struggling to survive. What if they die or have permanent disability? Who will take responsibility? Remember: Our talents' lives are at stakes if you choose to continue this show."
Effect: Talent shows are forbidden from violence and humiliation against competing acts.

[Candensia]

Hello Ipsenia

I think this idea may have potential, but as currently presented I don't think it works. It doesn't seem believable to me that absent any justifying context, a gameshow would torture its participants, and do so *against* the will of the viewers.

I think there may be a way in which to justify a situation similar to what you have presented.

There is an issue that allows @@NAME@@ to subject migrants to a deadly gameshow, with survivors gaining citizenship.

Perhaps a follow-up could be done, in which the success of that gameshow has resulted in the creation of similar programs, leading to (deaths, harassment, debate, etc.)

For example, perhaps these popular gameshows are revealed to intentionally gather and torture vulnerable participants beyond immigrants, such as individuals that are autistic? Options would then address how to respond this revelation.

[Tinhampton]

What do you mean when you refer to "the college that these voters are from?" And why does Natasha Estelle have burns if she was sprayed by a fire hose, which would surely be filled up with water?

(and yes, I am autistic )

[Outer Sparta]

I'm not sure if having a game show akin to Squid Game but without any sort of benefits for the winner would be a good angle. Additionally, work on your formatting since all your options don't have spaces in between to differentiate them and makes it look like a wall of text eyesore.

[Ipsenia]

What do you mean when you refer to "the college that these voters are from?" And why does Natasha Estelle have burns if she was sprayed by a fire hose, which would surely be filled up with water?

(and yes, I am autistic )

As a background to this issue: in 2013 there was a show named "Don't Stop Me Now", when talent acts are being judged by in-show voters (hence in this issue, these voters you mentioned are e.g. from Veteran's University). If 50% or more are vote against the act in question, the buzzer will ring and they are punished by executioners.

For Natasha's case, it was happened in the 16th episode. As she was about to do split jump, the buzzer was rang and executioners (in the form of firefighters) sprayed her with extinguisher (which happened to be the real extinguisher with chemicals), and that's why her face and body was burned and she was on the hospital in this issue.

[Ipsenia]

Hello Ipsenia

I think this idea may have potential, but as currently presented I don't think it works. It doesn't seem believable to me that absent any justifying context, a gameshow would torture its participants, and do so *against* the will of the viewers.

I think there may be a way in which to justify a situation similar to what you have presented.

There is an issue that allows @@NAME@@ to subject migrants to a deadly gameshow, with survivors gaining citizenship.

Perhaps a follow-up could be done, in which the success of that gameshow has resulted in the creation of similar programs, leading to (deaths, harassment, debate, etc.)

For example, perhaps these popular gameshows are revealed to intentionally gather and torture vulnerable participants beyond immigrants, such as individuals that are autistic? Options would then address how to respond this revelation.

A follow-up maybe a brand new issue?

For the justifying context, I think that Option 3 already have one. I don't know about Option 1 and 2.

[Outer Sparta]

Hello Ipsenia

I think this idea may have potential, but as currently presented I don't think it works. It doesn't seem believable to me that absent any justifying context, a gameshow would torture its participants, and do so *against* the will of the viewers.

I think there may be a way in which to justify a situation similar to what you have presented.

There is an issue that allows @@NAME@@ to subject migrants to a deadly gameshow, with survivors gaining citizenship.

Perhaps a follow-up could be done, in which the success of that gameshow has resulted in the creation of similar programs, leading to (deaths, harassment, debate, etc.)

For example, perhaps these popular gameshows are revealed to intentionally gather and torture vulnerable participants beyond immigrants, such as individuals that are autistic? Options would then address how to respond this revelation.

A follow-up maybe a brand new issue?

For the justifying context, I think that Option 3 already have one. I don't know about Option 1 and 2.

They are suggesting a follow-up could be done for option 3 of issue #47, so you have the liberty of making it structured around that or you could go your own way with a brand new issue.