NationStates

Recently, the animal rights group PETER has released an ad campaign against the use of electric collars for dogs and other pets. A divide has formed between pet owners and moral activists, and both sides feel that there is no one better to settle this debate than you.

Option 1
PETER spokesperson @@RANDOMNAME@@ is first to offer their side of the argument, while plastering the walls of you’re office with posters displaying a sad-looking puppy with a comically tight collar. “@@LEADER@@, imagine for me, if you will. You’re a nice dog, just trying to explore you’re surroundings, then ZAP! You’re electrocuted by your cruel owners. It isn’t humane to be electrocuting these poor animals,” @@HE@@ says, gesturing to the puppy on the poster. “So ban these terrible electric collars. For the good of these defenseless little snugglemuffins!”

Packs of stray dogs roam the streets of @@CAPITAL@@

Option 2
@@RANDOMNAME@@, the representative of the quickly formed @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Petowners Association rebuts. “Woah, woah. ‘Electrocution’? It’s just a small little shock to tell our sweet pumpkins not to leave us. We don’t want them to run away! They’re not accustomed to life on their own! In fact, electric collars are essential to owning a pet! Whenever someone registers their pet, they should be given a complimentary shock collar along with their registration forms or whatever.”

Residents of tiny apartments wonder why they’ve been given a shock collar for their dachshund

Option 3
Radical “Animal rights activist” @@RANDOMNAME@@ bursts into both the room and the conversation. “Forget shock collars! The really inhumanity is having animals as our pets in the first place! We deprive these poor animals of their freedoms, for what? To love them? To dress them up in little dresses? I don’t think so! @@LEADER@@, ban all pets at once!”

Little kids trying to help stray dogs are promptly arrested

Option 4
While discussing this issue with your ministers the next morning, your Minister of Criminal Rehabilitation shares his insight. “Using electric shocks to keep things from escaping? Why haven’t I thought of that? Why don’t we force all of our prisoners to wear these collars, and when they try to escape the grounds of the prison, they get shocked! Sure, some might call it ‘inhumane’ and ‘authoritarian’, but I call it effective!”

@@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ prisoners are literally treated like dogs

Invalid for all nations without prisons

Hey, it’s been 5 days…
Can I get some feedback, please?

My thoughts at the moment:

- The introduction is a little blasé – somebody released an ad campaign, now people disagree with them and both sides wants your opinion. Can the stakes be raised? It can be taken as read that Leader's opinion is needed to settle things. That line can be dropped, or can be replaced with further explanation of the stakes, above.

- What does PETER mean? PETA doesn't exist here, so why is the group called this?

- The speaker in the first option is a bit dull and repetitious "Poor animals" immediately followed by "poor defenseless animals" for example. Also, the first speaker's major description being that they're the first speaker doesn't really say anything about their character – let's get to know them a bit better.

- For option two, the stronger part of the argument is the part about not being accustomed to life on their own. I'm also curious about the "along with all the other stuff" bit – it seems to suggest that pet owners are given some kind of care package upon registration of their pets?

- See if you can find some more opportunities for humor or wordplay in the effect lines. The final one does that – can any of the others can do that as well?

Verdant Haven wrote:My thoughts at the moment:

- The introduction is a little blasé – somebody released an ad campaign, now people disagree with them and both sides wants your opinion. Can the stakes be raised? It can be taken as read that Leader's opinion is needed to settle things. That line can be dropped, or can be replaced with further explanation of the stakes, above.

- What does PETER mean? PETA doesn't exist here, so why is the group called this?

- The speaker in the first option is a bit dull and repetitious "Poor animals" immediately followed by "poor defenseless animals" for example. Also, the first speaker's major description being that they're the first speaker doesn't really say anything about their character – let's get to know them a bit better.

- For option two, the stronger part of the argument is the part about not being accustomed to life on their own. I'm also curious about the "along with all the other stuff" bit – it seems to suggest that pet owners are given some kind of care package upon registration of their pets?

- See if you can find some more opportunities for humor or wordplay in the effect lines. The final one does that – can any of the others can do that as well?

Stakes are hard, because in an autocracy, what Leader says is law, but that is not so otherwise. It’s hard to make stakes without it feeling forced, like “The Nameian Animal Rights Tribunal has decreed that Leader will decide the winner of this argument”

Of course PETA doesn’t exist here, that’s why I put it. PETER is a play on PETA (it makes it sound like peta is peter in a Boston accent). As for what it stands for…I don’t know. I’m too busy/lazy to figure that out.

I’m pretty certain that when pets are registered, owners at least get something saying they are registered (IDK what else, I’ve never registered a pet before).

I try for humor in my fallout texts. I’ll admit this isn’t my best work in that regard (the one for issue 3 is a bit wordy). I’ll try to rethink these, though

Thanks for the feedback, I was getting a bit worried that this would be forgotten about

Edited

Kiddian States wrote:...the animal rights group PETER...

Be Nice To Animals and People for the Ethical Treatment of Everything exist already.

If the PETER spokesdude wants to ban electric collars because they stop pets freely roaming, surely @@HE@@ would want to ban leads/leashes for dogs too.

Nobody is talking about "dress[ing] [pets] up in little dresses," as the animal rights activist argues. This is, first and foremost, an issue about electric collars - which usually do not look very fashionable.

"you’re surroundings" in Option 1 is a typo; as is "the really inhumanity" in Option 3.

As far as I know, most pets with electric collars are - as you identify in your title - indeed dogs. Why do you choose to focus the issue around their use on "pets" in general, especially in Options 2 and 3?

Tinhampton wrote:If the PETER spokesdude wants to ban electric collars because they stop pets freely roaming, surely @@HE@@ would want to ban leads/leashes for dogs too.

There is a case to be made that electric collars are more cruel than leashes, because pulling a leash taut doesn't hurt as much as an electric shock. Also, leashes show visible signs of when they're close to running out, so even not-too-intelligent animals can learn to pay attention to the limits rather than being surprised every time they pass an invisible boundary.

What are the advantages of electric collars over conventional leashes that arguably offset the downsides? Maybe that there's less risk of getting entangled on stuff?

This is certainly a unique premise to base an issue off of. I feel like this may need a more attention grabbing headline, like a direct example of a dog being negatively impacted by a shock collar, as opposed to just advertising and statistics. As always, just a suggestion

Tinhampton wrote:

Kiddian States wrote:...the animal rights group PETER...

Be Nice To Animals and People for the Ethical Treatment of Everything exist already.

If the PETER spokesdude wants to ban electric collars because they stop pets freely roaming, surely @@HE@@ would want to ban leads/leashes for dogs too.

Nobody is talking about "dress[ing] [pets] up in little dresses," as the animal rights activist argues. This is, first and foremost, an issue about electric collars - which usually do not look very fashionable.

"you’re surroundings" in Option 1 is a typo; as is "the really inhumanity" in Option 3.

As far as I know, most pets with electric collars are - as you identify in your title - indeed dogs. Why do you choose to focus the issue around their use on "pets" in general, especially in Options 2 and 3?

The animal rights activist is just listing reasons why there are no good reasons why we own pets

Trotterdam wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:If the PETER spokesdude wants to ban electric collars because they stop pets freely roaming, surely @@HE@@ would want to ban leads/leashes for dogs too.

There is a case to be made that electric collars are more cruel than leashes, because pulling a leash taut doesn't hurt as much as an electric shock. Also, leashes show visible signs of when they're close to running out, so even not-too-intelligent animals can learn to pay attention to the limits rather than being surprised every time they pass an invisible boundary.

What are the advantages of electric collars over conventional leashes that arguably offset the downsides? Maybe that there's less risk of getting entangled on stuff?

Electric collars are for keeping pets from running away when let out
Leashes aren’t really used in the same way (unless you’re tying the dog to a tree or whatever)

Oh, so they're for letting pets outside without supervision? Okay, that makes sense.

The only real alternative to that would be to have a private yard with a fence or something, and not everyone can afford that. Plus canny animals have been known to find ways around fences.

Though in this case, the debate should also touch on the merits of leaving your pets without supervision in the first place. Is it really more humane to keep pets cooped up inside whenever you don't have time to actively walk them? Or maybe you should leave your pets with a petsitter whenever you can't afford to keep an eye on them yourself?

In any case, this should be explained better in the issue itself, not here in the thread.