NationStates

After taking a long hiatus from issue writing/drafting, I am back once again. Since I am quite rusty, feel free to share feedback to help me as I'll need a lot of it. Anyways, here's the draft.

[Title]Protesters Protest Protesters Protesting Protesters

[Validity]Invalid for nations that ban protests

[Desc]At a recent protest staged by your opposition, a group of your most loyal supporters arrived to counter-protest. The result was violence erupting among both sides and the death of many. Now, those same protesters are outside your office demanding that you take action against counter-protests.

[Option 1]"Those darn hooligans ruined my protest and committed murder to boot. Why don't you put your rowdy followers on a leash!" complains opposition leader @@RANDOMNAME@@. "All counter-protesters do is barge into protests, disrupt them, and turn them into free-for-alls where innocents die. Protesters should have the right to protection from counter-protesters trying to hurt them for their beliefs."

[Effect]protesters often protest about not being able to protest against protesters

[Option 2]"US acting like hooligans? Impossible!" interjects @@RANDOMNAME@@, a counter-protester who managed to barge into your meeting room while wearing a cardboard cut out of your face. "You forgot to mention the part where we were just peacefully counter-protesting, then y'all started going bananas about us just being there. Punishing violent protesters? Sure, go ahead. But preventing us from voicing out our opinion? Outrageous!" @@HE@@ dodges a burger thrown by your Chief of Police and instead it hits you.

[Effect]students scolded for talking back to teachers reply with "Just saying my opinion"

[Option 3]"The real problem isn't counter-protesting, it's the sheer amount of violence." claims your Chief of Police, who seems unapologetic about hitting you with a burger. "What we really need is more funding and more police to prevent protests from turning violent. Oh, and some cool new toys for me and the boys to help cool down these hot-headed fellas." He places stun grenades and tasers on your desk.

[Effect]@@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ say "Two police officers are company, a thousand's a crowd"

[Option 4]"You know, these counter-protesters gave me a great idea." states @@RANDOMNAME@@, your third cousin and author of How-to Repress Opposition. "You could gather a huge army of your followers and have them pretend to be supporters of your opposition. Then, they stage a violent protest and cause absolute mayhem. The public will be outraged and your opponents will be disgraced." @@HE@@ pauses. "Darn it, I wish I had thought of this sooner. I could've added this to my book."

[Effect]@@LEADER@@'s opposition often find themself saying, "Our greatest enemy is ourselves"

[Option 5]"Here's Johnny!" says an overzealous man swinging an axe around and wrecking your office. He puts his axe down, shoves your third cousin out of the way, and says "Frankly, @@LEADER@@, we need more protests so I can continue to cause chao-- I mean, so everyone can get their voice across! Pay people to protest every week to make sure everyone's voice is heard!"

[Effect]government officials have to deal with a mob outside their office every week

It looks cool.

Why would you assume that it was only the pro-leader side who was violent?

Nitrana wrote:It looks cool.

Thanks.

Australian rePublic wrote:Why would you assume that it was only the pro-leader side who was violent?

Good point. Will make changes in the draft to account for this. Thanks for the feedback!

After a week of (procrastination and a busy schedule), I have finally edited my draft. Feel free to share your feedback!

Sounds fun and unique. I think it's a good issue.

Romilija wrote:Sounds fun and unique. I think it's a good issue.

Thanks for the compliment.

The Title Of The Issue Has A Problem

Pennyslov wrote:The Title Of The Issue Has A Problem

Specifics? Personally, I think the title is laughable. How many times can you make protest grammatically correct?

Pennyslov wrote:The Title Of The Issue Has A Problem

As Floofybit mentioned, what exactly is the problem? I would love to consider changing the title if you give specifics and why you believe it should be changed. If you refer to the fact that the word "protest" appears a bunch of times then it was intentional. If you really think the title has a problem, kindly do give a suggestion rather than just telling me there's a problem and then not specifying what the problem exactly is.

Floofybit wrote:

Pennyslov wrote:The Title Of The Issue Has A Problem

Specifics? Personally, I think the title is laughable. How many times can you make protest grammatically correct?

That was exactly what I was going for. Just the word "protest" a bunch of times but grammatically correct(-ish) while related to the issue at hand.

/bump (This is warranted since this draft was no longer on the first page of the Got Issues? forum)
I'm still looking for more feedback and suggestions. Thanks!

I actually really like the title. It's far cleverer than anything I could

Pennyslov wrote:The Title Of The Issue Has A Problem

This is coming from the guy that wrote "The New Racist Car". The guy who wrote "The New Racist Car" thinks this ENTIRE issue should be rejected because of the title. If I didn't know any better, I would have thought this was a joke

Australian rePublic wrote:I actually really like the title. It's far cleverer than anything I could

Pennyslov wrote:The Title Of The Issue Has A Problem

This is coming from the guy that wrote "The New Racist Car". The guy who wrote "The New Racist Car" thinks this ENTIRE issue should be rejected because of the title. If I didn't know any better, I would have thought this was a joke

Thanks for the compliment. Also, about Pennyslov. It came off a bit rude to me that they wanted the WHOLE issue rejected because of the title. To me, it would be fine if they gave a suggestion on what to change my title to and why I should do so but no, they had to go with the "This Issue Needs to Be Rejected" approach. I will always read feedback and suggestions and try to make changes but this was just somewhat rude. Then, I remembered it's the person who wrote "The New Racist Car" and I understood. I wish the best for them but man, their posts sure are troll-y.

RedBrickLand wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:I actually really like the title. It's far cleverer than anything I could



This is coming from the guy that wrote "The New Racist Car". The guy who wrote "The New Racist Car" thinks this ENTIRE issue should be rejected because of the title. If I didn't know any better, I would have thought this was a joke

Thanks for the compliment. Also, about Pennyslov. It came off a bit rude to me that they wanted the WHOLE issue rejected because of the title. To me, it would be fine if they gave a suggestion on what to change my title to and why I should do so but no, they had to go with the "This Issue Needs to Be Rejected" approach. I will always read feedback and suggestions and try to make changes but this was just somewhat rude. Then, I remembered it's the person who wrote "The New Racist Car" and I understood. I wish the best for them but man, their posts sure are troll-y.

See, if I didn't know any better, I would have thought it was his troll, but it turns out that, nah, he's just an arrogant idiot. I wish him the best, too, and I don't want anything bad to happen him, either

I like it. The premise is unique (protesting against protesting? My goodness that would be pandemonium) and the title is especially catchy.

If there is a protest and counter-protest at the same time (which is something that occasionally happens), you get the occasional nut case who shows up who couldn't give a shit about the cause but show up to cause trouble. More often than not, they're somewhat violent

/bump (This is my final bump, then last call, then submission) I'm still looking for more feedback and suggestions. Thanks!

Outer Sparta wrote:I like it. The premise is unique (protesting against protesting? My goodness that would be pandemonium) and the title is especially catchy.

Thanks for the compliment and yes that would be pandemonium.

Australian rePublic wrote:If there is a protest and counter-protest at the same time (which is something that occasionally happens), you get the occasional nut case who shows up who couldn't give a shit about the cause but show up to cause trouble. More often than not, they're somewhat violent

I believe this violence is caused by a hivemind mentality due to the protesters no longer acting as a single individual but rather acting as a part of the swarm, thus they feel they can get away with doing whatever the heck they want. Neither here not there but I think it's quite an interesting phenomenon.

RedBrickLand wrote:/bump (This is my final bump, then last call, then submission) I'm still looking for more feedback and suggestions. Thanks!

Outer Sparta wrote:I like it. The premise is unique (protesting against protesting? My goodness that would be pandemonium) and the title is especially catchy.

Thanks for the compliment and yes that would be pandemonium.

Australian rePublic wrote:If there is a protest and counter-protest at the same time (which is something that occasionally happens), you get the occasional nut case who shows up who couldn't give a shit about the cause but show up to cause trouble. More often than not, they're somewhat violent

I believe this violence is caused by a hivemind mentality due to the protesters no longer acting as a single individual but rather acting as a part of the swarm, thus they feel they can get away with doing whatever the heck they want. Neither here not there but I think it's quite an interesting phenomenon.

Yes, that applies to some protestors. Some people actively go out of their way to go to the protest, not caring about either cause, just cause trouble

Australian rePublic wrote:Yes, that applies to some protestors. Some people actively go out of their way to go to the protest, not caring about either cause, just cause trouble

True. Some people just want to cause mayhem while not really giving a damn about both sides nor the causes they're fighting for.

RedBrickLand wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Yes, that applies to some protestors. Some people actively go out of their way to go to the protest, not caring about either cause, just cause trouble

True. Some people just want to cause mayhem while not really giving a damn about both sides nor the causes they're fighting for.

There should an option where we hear from one of them. It'd be a short option (a couple of sentances or so, excluding effect line)?, as you don't want the issue to be long, but imagine the kind of crazy mayhem that such an option could create...

Australian rePublic wrote:

RedBrickLand wrote:True. Some people just want to cause mayhem while not really giving a damn about both sides nor the causes they're fighting for.

There should an option where we hear from one of them. It'd be a short option (a couple of sentances or so, excluding effect line)?, as you don't want the issue to be long, but imagine the kind of crazy mayhem that such an option could create...

There Are Grammar Errors

Australian rePublic wrote:There should an option where we hear from one of them. It'd be a short option (a couple of sentances or so, excluding effect line)?, as you don't want the issue to be long, but imagine the kind of crazy mayhem that such an option could create...

I added your suggested option and made some other edits. I'd love to hear some feedback about it!

Pennyslov wrote:There Are Grammar Errors

Oh no, what shall I do now?! (I'm honestly thinking of putting you on my foes list, which is currently empty but you might be my first foe)

RedBrickLand wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:There should an option where we hear from one of them. It'd be a short option (a couple of sentances or so, excluding effect line)?, as you don't want the issue to be long, but imagine the kind of crazy mayhem that such an option could create...

I added your suggested option and made some other edits. I'd love to hear some feedback about it!

Pennyslov wrote:There Are Grammar Errors

Oh no, what shall I do now?! (I'm honestly thinking of putting you on my foes list, which is currently empty but you might be my first foe)

It's still a bit long, cut it down a bit, and I was thinking more along the lines of government subsidesed protests. No one is gonna come out and say "I wanna cause chaos for chaos' sake", the speaker should be more subtle about his true intentions. Also, it's "fewer police". If you can't count something, it's "less", but if you can count it's "fewer". For example, "less rain" but "fewer rain drops" because you can't count rain, but you can count rain drops. If you want to keep it less, it's "less of a police presence", but if it's fewer officers, it would be "fewer police officers". The exception is one. For example "one less rain drop, but two fewer rain drops". Supermarkets are wrong when they have signs that say "Twelve items or less" when it should actually be "twelve items or fewer". Although, as it's a very, very common mistake, even anongst native English speakers, you could probably get away with it if you can convince the audience that the speaker doesn't know that. Of coarse you could also argue that the word "fewer" is disappearing as the English language evolves, which would be a fair assesment, but that's beyond the scope of this issue...

RedBrickLand wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:There should an option where we hear from one of them. It'd be a short option (a couple of sentances or so, excluding effect line)?, as you don't want the issue to be long, but imagine the kind of crazy mayhem that such an option could create...

I added your suggested option and made some other edits. I'd love to hear some feedback about it!

Pennyslov wrote:There Are Grammar Errors

Oh no, what shall I do now?! (I'm honestly thinking of putting you on my foes list, which is currently empty but you might be my first foe)

I Don't Mean In The Issue, I Mean A Post From Australian rePublic

Pennyslov wrote:

RedBrickLand wrote:I added your suggested option and made some other edits. I'd love to hear some feedback about it!

Oh no, what shall I do now?! (I'm honestly thinking of putting you on my foes list, which is currently empty but you might be my first foe)

I Don't Mean In The Issue, I Mean A Post From Australian rePublic

Meh. Grammatical errors in posts don't matter too much, as long as you can understand what's being said. Grammatical errors in the issues themselves are the problem