[SUBMITTED] Don't Go Breaking My Heart?

[Garmageddon]

My first try at making an issue! Feedback and criticism are appreciated. More importantly, if an issue like this already exists, please let me know!
This is based on IRL events surrounding the IRL Netflix gay romance series Heartstopper, which released back in April this year.

Credits to Likhinia for providing the basis of the second option and outcome's second drafts, and Trotterdam, Verdant Haven, and Tinhampton for providing very helpful suggestions!

[Validity] Only valid for nations with at least average religiousness and without the state press, atheism, or heterosexuality policies

[Description] With the introduction of the gay romance graphic novel series Heartpounder, the latest in an extensive trend of LGBTQ+ fictional works, into @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ school libraries, religious parents have publicly expressed their complaints about exposing children to homosexual relationships - Heartpounder in particular contains frequent same-sex kissing scenes and touches upon other LGBTQ+-related topics. These complaints have reached your office in the form of protests.

[Option 1] “Homosexuality? In our schools!?” yells prominent religious radio host @@RANDOMNAME@@, slamming a religious text onto your desk. “This is an insidious breach of morality and a horrid attempt at brainwashing out children! Before you know it, our children will be making love with ducks, family members, or - even worse - little children! I say we ban not only Heartpounder, but also every book like it from out nation and ensure that children are exposed to only wholesome relationships between men and women, just as the higher powers intend it to be!"

[Outcome 1] smoke covers the skies of @@NATION@@ as moralists burn gay romance books on the streets

[Option 2] Your Minister of Public Affairs, whom religious protesters have pinned against your wall, begins reading from a brochure one of the protestors slammed into his face in an attempt to appease them. "Uh-that's far from enough to protect @@NATION@@! Um... in order the prevent such, uh terrible immorality from reaching the--OW!--people of our glorious @@NATION@@, the state must, um... control ALL literature and media! That way--ouch!--we can not only ensure that only good morals are taught to our citizens, but also manufacture a patriotic force stronger than diamond! Yeah! Our nation shall rise! @@MOTTO@@!"

[Outcome 2] trash bins must be emptied of 'unpatriotic nonsense' every week

[Option 3] “You homophobes are all insane! What do you all have against Nate and Christian!?” Heartpounder author Olive Ateman retorts while doodling Heartpounder's iconic couple on your office's whiteboard. “There is nothing wrong with men loving other men, and by being exposed to Nate and Christian's loving relationship, closeted children across @@NAME@@ will come to accept themselves, decreasing suicide and bullying rates! If anything, you should provide incentives for schools to include LGBTQ+ media in their libraries in order to uphold the diversity of our nation and teach this nation's people that love is love!”

[Outcome 3] children frequently accuse their heterosexual parents of promoting heteronormative lifestyles

[Option 4] “I say we take a middle ground here,” suggests centrist commentator @@RANDOMNAME@@, drawing bewildered looks from the other protesters. “We shouldn't go around banning every book we dislike - that's censorship and an infringement on freedom of expression. However, we should mandate content warnings on these types of books as well as other forms of media. Implementing these content warnings may cost a few extra @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ from the taxpayers' pockets, but it will ultimately allow parents to shield their children from media they perceive as dangerous while still allowing others to enjoy the media they like."

[Outcome 4] the latest documentary about nut production features a trigger warning for containing photographs of nuts

---

Previous drafts

[Validity] Only valid for nations with at least average religiousness and without the state press, atheism, or heterosexuality policies

[Description] With the introduction of the gay romance graphic novel series Heartpounder, the latest in an extensive trend of LGBTQ+ fictional works, into @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ school libraries, religious parents have publicly expressed their complaints about exposing children to homosexual relationships - Heartpounder in particular contains frequent same-sex kissing scenes and touches upon other LGBTQ+-related topics. A crowd of both religious moralists and LGBTQ+ rights activists are clamoring at the door to your office to speak to you about whether or not the nation's public schools should regulate students' exposure to homosexuality.

[Option 1] “Homosexuality? In our schools!?” yells prominent religious radio host @@RANDOMNAME@@, slamming a religious text onto your desk. “This is an insidious breach of morality and a horrid attempt at brainwashing out children! Before you know it, our children will be making love with ducks, family members, or - even worse - little children! I say we ban Heartpounder and ensure that children are exposed to only wholesome relationships between men and women, just as the higher powers intend it to be!"

[Outcome 1] smoke covers the skies of @@NATION@@ as moralists burn gay romance books on the streets

[Option 2] Your Minister of Public Affairs, whom religious protesters have pinned against your wall, begins reading from a questionable news article in an attempt to appease them. "Uh-that's far from enough to protect @@NATION@@! Um... in order the prevent such, uh terrible immorality from reaching the--OW!--people of our glorious @@NATION@@, the state must, um... control ALL literature and media! That way--ouch!--we can not only ensure that only good morals are taught to our citizens, but also manufacture a patriotic force stronger than diamond! Yeah! Our nation shall rise! @@MOTTO@@!"

[Outcome 2] trash bins must be emptied of 'unpatriotic nonsense' every week

[Option 3] “You homophobes are all insane! What do you all have against Nate and Christian!?” Heartpounder author Olive Arseman retorts while doodling Heartpounder's iconic couple on your office's whiteboard. “There is nothing wrong with men loving other men, and by being exposed to Nate and Christian's loving relationship, closeted children across @@NAME@@ will come to accept themselves, decreasing suicide and bullying rates! If anything, you should provide incentives for schools to include LGBTQ+ media in their libraries in order to uphold the diversity of our nation and teach this nation's people that love is love!”

[Outcome 3] @@NATION@@'s #1 bestseller “Rose Thorns and Cactus Spikes” promotes love between men and cacti

[Option 4] “I say we take a middle ground here,” suggests centrist commentator @@RANDOMNAME@@, drawing bewildered looks from the other protesters. “We shouldn't go around banning every book we dislike - that's censorship and an infringement on freedom of expression. However, we should mandate content warnings on these types of books as well as other forms of media. Implementing these content warnings may cost a few extra @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ from the taxpayers' pockets, but it will ultimately allow parents to shield their children from media they perceive as dangerous while still allowing others to enjoy the media they like."

[Outcome 4] the latest documentary about nut production features a trigger warning for containing photographs of nuts

[Validity] Only valid for nations without the state press or heterosexuality policies

[Description] With the introduction of the gay romance graphic novel series Hearthalter, the latest in an extensive trend of LGBTQ+ fictional works, into @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ school libraries, the populace has descended into a frenzy over whether or not the nation's public schools should regulate students' exposure to homosexuality. A crowd of both religious moralists and LGBTQ+ rights activists are clamoring at the door to your office to speak to you about the issue.

[Option 1] “Homosexuality? In our schools!?” yells prominent religious radio host @@RANDOMNAME@@, slamming a religious text onto your desk. “This is an insidious breach of morality and a horrid attempt at brainwashing out children! Before you know it, our children will be making love with ducks, family members, and little children! I say we ban Hearthalter and ensure that marriage remains between men and women, just as @@FAITH@@ intends it to be!"

[Outcome 1] Smoke covers the skies of @@NATION@@ as moralists burn gay romance books on the streets.

[Option 2] "That's far from enough to protect @@NATION@@!" hollers your Minister of Public Affairs, whom protesters have pinned against your wall. "In order the prevent such terrible immorality from reaching the people of our glorious @@NATION@@, the state must control ALL literature and media! That way, we can not only ensure that only good morals are taught to our citizens, but also manufacture a patriotic force stronger than diamond! @@MOTTO@@!"

[Outcome 2] Every week, trash bins must be emptied of 'unpatriotic nonsense'.

[Option 3] “C’mon, what do you all have against Nate and Christian!?” Hearthalter author Olive Arseman retorts while doodling Hearthalter's iconic couple on your office's whiteboard. “There is nothing wrong with men loving other men. If anything, you should provide incentives for schools to include LGBTQ+ media in their libraries in order to uphold the diversity of our nation and teach this nation's people that love is love!”

[Outcome 3] “Rose Thorns and Cactus Spikes”, a romance book between a man and a cactus, is now the #1 bestselling book in @@NATION@@.

[Option 4] “I say we take a middle ground here,” suggests centrist commentator @@RANDOMNAME@@, drawing bewildered looks from the other protesters. “We shouldn't go around banning every book we dislike - that's censorship and an infringement on freedom of expression. However, we should mandate content warnings on these types of books as well as other forms of media. Implementing these content warnings may cost a few extra @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ from the taxpayers' pockets, but it will ultimately allow parents to shield their children from media they perceive as dangerous while still allowing others to enjoy the media they like."

[Outcome 4] The latest airplane documentary features a trigger warning for the appearance of the color red.

[Validity] Only valid for nations without the state press or heterosexuality policies

[Description] With the release and subsequent rise in popularity of the hit Webflix gay romance series Lungstopper, the populace has descended into a frenzy over whether or not gay couples should be displayed on the media. A crowd of both religious moralists and LGBTQ+ rights activists are clamoring at the door to your office to speak to you about the issue.

[Option 1] “Homosexuality? On our television!?” yells prominent religious radio host @@RANDOMNAME@@, slamming a religious text onto your desk. “This is an insidious breach of morality! Before you know it, you’ll have people making love with ducks, family members, and little children! I say we ban Lungstopper and ensure that marriage remains between men and women, just as @@FAITH@@ intends it to be!"

[Outcome 1] Smoke covers the skies of @@NATION@@ as moralists burn gay romance books on the streets.

[Option 2] "That's far from enough to protect @@NATION@@!" hollers your Minister of Public Affairs, whom protesters have pinned against your wall. "In order the prevent such terrible immorality from reaching the people of our glorious @@NATION@@, the state must control ALL media! That way, we can not only ensure that only good morals are taught to our citizens, but also manufacture a patriotic force stronger than diamond! @@MOTTO@@!"

[Outcome 2] Every week, trash bins must be emptied of 'unpatriotic nonsense'.

[Option 3] “C’mon, what do you all have against Nate and Christian!?” Lungstopper producer Olive Arseman retorts while doodling Lungstopper's iconic couple on your office's whiteboard. “There is nothing wrong with men loving other men. If anything, you should fund more LGBTQ+ shows in order to uphold the diversity of our nation and teach this nation's people that love is love!”

[Outcome 3] “Rose Thorns and Cactus Spikes”, a romance series between a man and a cactus, is now the #1 trending television series on Webflix.

[Option 4] “I say we take a middle ground here,” suggests centrist commentator @@RANDOMNAME@@, drawing bewildered looks from the other protesters. “The media should obviously have the right to broadcast what they want - that’s freedom of speech. However, we should mandate content warnings on these types of shows as well as other forms of media. Implementing these content warnings may cost a few extra @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ from the taxpayers' pockets, but it will ultimately quell these religious moralists' complaints of a 'homosexual agenda' while still allowing others to enjoy the media they like."

[Outcome 4] The latest airplane documentary features a trigger warning for the appearance of the color red.

[Validity] Only valid for nations without the state press or heterosexuality policies

[Description] With the release and subsequent rise in popularity of the hit Webflix gay romance series Lungstopper, the populace has descended into a frenzy over whether or not gay couples should be displayed on the media. A crowd of both religious moralists and LGBTQ+ rights activists are clamoring at the door to your office to speak to you about the issue.

[Option 1]“Homosexuality? On our television!?” yells prominent religious radio host @@RANDOMNAME@@, slamming a religious text onto your desk. “This is an insidious breach of morality! Before you know it, you’ll have people making love with ducks, family members, and little children! I say we ban Lungstopper and ensure that marriage remains between men and women, just as @@FAITH@@ intends it to be!"

[Outcome 1] Smoke covers the skies of @@NATION@@ as moralists burn gay romance books on the streets.

[Option 2] “I say we take this even further!” screams your Minister of Public Affairs from the side of the room. “In order to prevent such immorality from plaguing @@NATION@@, we must make ALL media controlled by the state! That way, we can not only ensure good morals among citizens, but also create a strong, loyal, and patriotic nation! @@MOTTO@@!!!”

[Outcome 2] Smoke covers the skies of @@NATION@@ as the government burns privately-written books on the streets.

[Option 3] “C’mon, what do you all have against Nate and Christian!?” Lungstopper producer Olive Arseman retorts while doodling Lungstopper's iconic couple on your office's whiteboard. “There is nothing wrong with men loving other men. If anything, you should fund more LGBTQ+ shows in order to uphold the diversity of our nation and teach this nation's people that love is love!”

[Outcome 3] “Rose Thorns and Cactus Spikes”, a romance series between a man and a cactus, is now the #1 trending television series on Webflix.

[Option 4] “I say we take a middle ground here,” suggests centrist commentator @@RANDOMNAME@@, drawing bewildered looks from the other protesters. “The media should obviously have the right to broadcast what they want - that’s freedom of speech. However, we should mandate content warnings on these types of shows as well as other forms of media. That way, parents can shield their children from media they perceive as dangerous."

[Outcome 4] The latest airplane documentary features a trigger warning for the appearance of the color red.

[Australian rePublic]

Option 4- is this a children's show?

[Garmageddon]

Not necessarily, but Lungstopper doesn't really contain adult elements, either. Regardless, I swore I edited all the references to parents and children out of the options, but I guess I forgot that one. Those mentions will be removed or replaced in the next draft.

[Trotterdam]

What motivation would a nation have to keep homosexual relationships legal but ban fictional portrayals of them?

[Likhinia]

Outcome 1 and 2 are incredibly similar, and although people normally only see one, it would be nice to see unique outcomes for each option.

Also, for Option 2, I have two proposals:

This one is for if your minister is a bit crazy:

"This should be taken far further, to protect @@NATION@@!" hollers your Minister of Public Affairs, who is pinned against your wall. "In order the prevent such terrible immorality from reaching the people of our glorious @@NATION@@, all media should be controlled by the state! Then we can ensure only the good morals are taught to our citizens, but also manufacture a patriotic force stronger than diamond! @@MOTTO@@!"

And this is for a slightly saner minister:

"This could be taken even further, if you like, @@LEADER@@." coos your Minister of Public Affairs from the wall. "We could prevent such immorality from ever reaching @@NATION@@'s citizens by simply seizing our nation's media. Then, we can ensure only the patriotic morals reach our nation's ears, and create a loyal @@NATION@@ from a distance. @@MOTTO@@, you said it yourself, @@LEADER@@."

The outcomes:

Crazy Minister: Every week, trash bins must be emptied of 'unpatriotic nonsense'.

Sane Minister: Artists' work are burnt in monthly bonfires if they do not contain the flag of @@NATION@@.

I don't mind if you disregard them, modify them or use them as they are. They're just suggestions after all, and it's your issue.

[Garmageddon]

What motivation would a nation have to keep homosexual relationships legal but ban fictional portrayals of them?

A nation might tolerate homosexual relationships, but not want them "shoved down their throats" via the media - I've met many people in real life holding similar opinions where they are fine with homosexual relationships by themselves, but aren't fine with the "gay culture" or excessive portrayal of LGBTQ+ themes and characters in fiction.

Outcome 1 and 2 are incredibly similar, and although people normally only see one, it would be nice to see unique outcomes for each option.

Also, for Option 2, I have two proposals:

This one is for if your minister is a bit crazy:

"This should be taken far further, to protect @@NATION@@!" hollers your Minister of Public Affairs, who is pinned against your wall. "In order the prevent such terrible immorality from reaching the people of our glorious @@NATION@@, all media should be controlled by the state! Then we can ensure only the good morals are taught to our citizens, but also manufacture a patriotic force stronger than diamond! @@MOTTO@@!"

And this is for a slightly saner minister:

"This could be taken even further, if you like, @@LEADER@@." coos your Minister of Public Affairs from the wall. "We could prevent such immorality from ever reaching @@NATION@@'s citizens by simply seizing our nation's media. Then, we can ensure only the patriotic morals reach our nation's ears, and create a loyal @@NATION@@ from a distance. @@MOTTO@@, you said it yourself, @@LEADER@@."

The outcomes:

Crazy Minister: Every week, trash bins must be emptied of 'unpatriotic nonsense'.

Sane Minister: Artists' work are burnt in monthly bonfires if they do not contain the flag of @@NATION@@.

I don't mind if you disregard them, modify them or use them as they are. They're just suggestions after all, and it's your issue.

In my defense, I've encountered a few issues before (unfortunately can't name names or numbers) where two of the outcomes were parallel. But you do have a point, also both of your Option 2 proposals are great!

[Trotterdam]

What motivation would a nation have to keep homosexual relationships legal but ban fictional portrayals of them?

A nation might tolerate homosexual relationships, but not want them "shoved down their throats" via the media - I've met many people in real life holding similar opinions where they are fine with homosexual relationships by themselves, but aren't fine with the "gay culture" or excessive portrayal of LGBTQ+ themes and characters in fiction.

I do understand that point of view, but it's just a reason to not watch shows you don't like, not push for government censorship. If any subculture, like gay people, exists and is legal, then it's perfectly reasonable for there to exist media aimed specifically at that target audience, even if the mainstream population doesn't like it. Is there anything that's stopping these people from just changing the channel?

I can understand being frustrated when it seems like just about every author is starting to include that kind of stuff, but the issue there is the cultural pressure forcing authors to include as much diversity in their works as possible or risk being ridiculed as "bigots", not them merely being allowed to do so, and it would be a matter of the state of the market as a whole rather than a single offending work that critics rally around. Ultimately, if authors really want to include a controversial element in their work, then they'll probably choose to publish it in a less-mainstream venue before they agree to simply remove the controversial element, which means that there might be less stuff you don't like on the mainstream market, but there isn't any more stuff that you actually do like.

Also, there's a lot of overlap with #1066.

[Garmageddon]

A nation might tolerate homosexual relationships, but not want them "shoved down their throats" via the media - I've met many people in real life holding similar opinions where they are fine with homosexual relationships by themselves, but aren't fine with the "gay culture" or excessive portrayal of LGBTQ+ themes and characters in fiction.

I do understand that point of view, but it's just a reason to not watch shows you don't like, not push for government censorship. If any subculture, like gay people, exists and is legal, then it's perfectly reasonable for there to exist media aimed specifically at that target audience, even if the mainstream population doesn't like it. Is there anything that's stopping these people from just changing the channel?

You make a great point, but if that's the case, then why do I see so many Republicans and conservative schools pushing to censor LGBTQ+ related media such as books in schools in the United States? Apologies if I explain this poorly, but IMO what sets apart these types of people from people who just don't like certain shows is that they don't just dislike these shows, they believe that such shows are objectively harmful and are undermining the "moral fiber" of the nation's population at large. It's a sense of self-righteousness that's stopping these people from changing the channel.

Also, somewhat off-topic but I'd like to note that Options 1 and 2 are meant to repeal the marriage equality policy if it has been installed, but I'm not the one who decides the effects of options.

I can understand being frustrated when it seems like just about every author is starting to include that kind of stuff, but the issue there is the cultural pressure forcing authors to include as much diversity in their works as possible or risk being ridiculed as "bigots", not them merely being allowed to do so, and it would be a matter of the state of the market as a whole rather than a single offending work that critics rally around. Ultimately, if authors really want to include a controversial element in their work, then they'll probably choose to publish it in a less-mainstream venue before they agree to simply remove the controversial element, which means that there might be less stuff you don't like on the mainstream market, but there isn't any more stuff that you actually do like.

This is also a great point and a good counter to what I said above. What if I changed the premise to be that Lungstopper is just the latest in an long series of LGBTQ+ media that have been released in recent times, and that the show's release was just the final straw for the religious protestors?

Also, there's a lot of overlap with #1066.

Eh... I see what you mean, but to me, only the general premise and the first option seemed similar. The other options looked completely different. But regardless, I'm open to suggestions on how I can make this issue more unique (or whether or not this issue is worth submitting in the first place).

[Trotterdam]

You make a great point, but if that's the case, then why do I see so many Republicans and conservative schools pushing to censor LGBTQ+ related media such as books in schools in the United States?

Well, because it's in schools, for one. Children are impressionable, and are less likely to immediately turn away in disgust when confronted with something that their parents say are wrong but that they personally haven't yet formed an opinion about because they're years too young to be even thinking about sex. If you're trying to teach your children your views of morality, you don't want the school system undermining you by teaching children that their parents are wrong and they should rebel against them. Even at home, if you want to be able to leave your children unattended for any length of time, that probably requires having some media channels that you can trust to not corrupt them with objectionable content.

[Garmageddon]

Well, because it's in schools, for one. Children are impressionable, and are less likely to immediately turn away in disgust when confronted with something that their parents say are wrong but that they personally haven't yet formed an opinion about because they're years too young to be even thinking about sex. If you're trying to teach your children your views of morality, you don't want the school system undermining you by teaching children that their parents are wrong and they should rebel against them. Even at home, if you want to be able to leave your children unattended for any length of time, that probably requires having some media channels that you can trust to not corrupt them with objectionable content.

Good point. That gives me a passing idea that would also solve the problem of this issue being too similar to #1066: what if I rewrote this issue to have Lungstopper as a book being offered at school libraries? The Heartstopper reference would still work in my opinion since IRL it began as a book series anyway. Is there already an issue that addresses something like that, or would this be a new idea?

[Trotterdam]

Good point. That gives me a passing idea that would also solve the problem of this issue being too similar to #1066: what if I rewrote this issue to have Lungstopper as a book being offered at school libraries?

I think that would be better, yes.

People do tend to get fussier about these things when children are involved.

The Heartstopper reference would still work in my opinion since IRL it began as a book series anyway.

I don't think it's that well-known of a reference. Also, hearts have long been traditionally associated with love. Lungs have not.

Is there already an issue that addresses something like that, or would this be a new idea?

The closest I can find are:
#572 is about censorship of school libraries in a non-sexuality-related context.
#218 very briefly mentions a "controversial children's book", but isn't actually about that.
#365 discusses public propaganda on sexuality, but only one option actually mentions children.
So in short, no, we don't have anything too similar.

[Garmageddon]

I think that would be better, yes. People do tend to get fussier about these things when children are involved.

Alright, sounds good!

I don't think it's that well-known of a reference. Also, hearts have long been traditionally associated with love. Lungs have not.

Yeah, the reference is ultimately a pretty minor facet of this issue. And that's true too, and also a coincidence since I've just come up with a better name for this book/show: "Hearthalter".

[Verdant Haven]

This looks like it is taking reasonable shape. Assorted thoughts:

- The name "Heartstopper" works because it's an actual term that gets used. Obviously it can't be exactly copied, but perhaps some other word involving hearts that feels like it might see real use would be better – something like "Heartpounder," "Heartthrob," "Heartskip," or "Heartflutter" come to mind – there probably are others.

- As an additional validity, you'll want a religious check on the issue, so it isn't coming up for nations that are heavily secular or outright atheistic.

- The dilemma has a good trigger incident (the new book), but a weak hook. "The populace has descended into a frenzy" is a fairly bland and generic way to bring the incident to Leader, as it doesn't tie into the trigger itself – it could be put on anything from the results of a sports game to the detonation of a nuclear weapon. A stronger hook would be to explain a specific consequence of this trigger – in particular, if this is the latest work in an extensive trend, why has this particular book caused this issue, but the numerous works before it didn't?

- Effect lines aren't sentences – they show up as comma-separated list items on the nation page. As such they shouldn't need capitals or periods, and should be kept fairly succinct. Including commas in them is an almost-definite no.

- Option 1 speaker "...our children will be making love with... little children" is a bit repetitious sounding. Perhaps acknowledging it as something like "ducks, family members, or even with other children!" could capture the gist of it.

- Also in Option 1, I would try to draw more of a line between banning the series and banning non-traditional marriage. The way it is currently spoken sounds like we're supposed to conclude that the marriage ban would be an automatic consequence of the book ban.

- Final note for option 1 – you're on the money with the first couple examples of simply citing a "religious" host and "religious" text. I would skip the @FAITH inclusion at the end, and keep it a bit more ambiguous – this would be a bit awkward if somebody's faith were set as, for example, "free love."

- For the speakers in options 2 and 3, try to give them the same level of passionate argument as speaker 1. In option 2, I see the potential for some humor, in that the minister is being pinned by protestors and may simply be trying to save his or her own skin by shouting whatever they think will reach approval. Perhaps toss in some sort of harebrained specific about the morals or patriotic messages that could be included. In option 3, have this author stand up not just for the message of diversity and love, but for how their work in particular supports those things. They're arguing against an apparently violent mob – have them give a suitably impassioned defense.

- I like the idea that option 4's centrism gets bewildered looks from the protestors – that's amusing. I would probably just tweak the effect line to be something more obvious (while still absurd), rather than just random. Maybe the airplane doc has trigger warnings for acrophobia? Or, to riff on a real-life source of mockery, a book about nut production includes the warning that it contains photographs of nuts.

Keep it up!

[Tinhampton]

Title suggestion: Don't Go Breaking My Heart? (all glory goes to Elton John, gay icon and former Watford chairman)

It's worth noting that "gay romance" is a subset of and not synonymous with "LGBTQ+ media." It's not clear which one your issue's supposed to be about

[Garmageddon]

This looks like it is taking reasonable shape. Assorted thoughts:

- The name "Heartstopper" works because it's an actual term that gets used. Obviously it can't be exactly copied, but perhaps some other word involving hearts that feels like it might see real use would be better – something like "Heartpounder," "Heartthrob," "Heartskip," or "Heartflutter" come to mind – there probably are others.

- As an additional validity, you'll want a religious check on the issue, so it isn't coming up for nations that are heavily secular or outright atheistic.

- The dilemma has a good trigger incident (the new book), but a weak hook. "The populace has descended into a frenzy" is a fairly bland and generic way to bring the incident to Leader, as it doesn't tie into the trigger itself – it could be put on anything from the results of a sports game to the detonation of a nuclear weapon. A stronger hook would be to explain a specific consequence of this trigger – in particular, if this is the latest work in an extensive trend, why has this particular book caused this issue, but the numerous works before it didn't?

- Effect lines aren't sentences – they show up as comma-separated list items on the nation page. As such they shouldn't need capitals or periods, and should be kept fairly succinct. Including commas in them is an almost-definite no.

- Option 1 speaker "...our children will be making love with... little children" is a bit repetitious sounding. Perhaps acknowledging it as something like "ducks, family members, or even with other children!" could capture the gist of it.

- Also in Option 1, I would try to draw more of a line between banning the series and banning non-traditional marriage. The way it is currently spoken sounds like we're supposed to conclude that the marriage ban would be an automatic consequence of the book ban.

- Final note for option 1 – you're on the money with the first couple examples of simply citing a "religious" host and "religious" text. I would skip the @FAITH inclusion at the end, and keep it a bit more ambiguous – this would be a bit awkward if somebody's faith were set as, for example, "free love."

- For the speakers in options 2 and 3, try to give them the same level of passionate argument as speaker 1. In option 2, I see the potential for some humor, in that the minister is being pinned by protestors and may simply be trying to save his or her own skin by shouting whatever they think will reach approval. Perhaps toss in some sort of harebrained specific about the morals or patriotic messages that could be included. In option 3, have this author stand up not just for the message of diversity and love, but for how their work in particular supports those things. They're arguing against an apparently violent mob – have them give a suitably impassioned defense.

- I like the idea that option 4's centrism gets bewildered looks from the protestors – that's amusing. I would probably just tweak the effect line to be something more obvious (while still absurd), rather than just random. Maybe the airplane doc has trigger warnings for acrophobia? Or, to riff on a real-life source of mockery, a book about nut production includes the warning that it contains photographs of nuts.

Keep it up!

Thanks for your thoughts! I'll definitely use those suggestions.

Title suggestion: Don't Go Breaking My Heart? (all glory goes to Elton John, gay icon and former Watford chairman)

It's worth noting that "gay romance" is a subset of and not synonymous with "LGBTQ+ media." It's not clear which one your issue's supposed to be about

I like that title, too! I think it would definitely work well if I decide to make the second half of the book's title not a synonym of stop.

Also, please excuse my late replies, I've been focusing on real life affairs lately.

[Garmageddon]

/bump

[Verdant Haven]

I think this is getting close to ready. A lot of what I comment on below could be tweaked in editing, but if there's a chance for you as the original author to do those tweaks before submission, that's all the better, and gives the submission a better chance at getting picked up. The last item is, in my opinion, the most important.

----

- The description's final sentence, about the crowd at your door, doesn't add anything. You do a good job presenting the dilemma with the initial parts of the set-up, so I think the nature of the conflict is clear just from that. You could tweak the preceding line to include the LGBTQ+ activists clashing with the religious parents if you like, but mostly I'd just delete the final sentence.

- The first outcome doesn't quite click with the option text. The option currently says to ban this specific book, and restrict children's exposure to only traditional relationships, while the result is widespread burning of an entire genre. If that's the outcome you envision, go ahead and bump up the argument to match – "purge this filthy book and everything like it from our nation!" or something similarly dramatic that suits your vision. Alternately, tweak the outcome to reflect the argument – not all outcomes have to be this level of extreme, and option two is also pretty dramatic.

- I think your changes to option two have helped it a lot, and you did a good job representing the jostling and panic of the minister. I would consider just tweaking the thing being read (I don't think a questionable news article quite fully communicates the reason for what is being said). Maybe it's a pamphlet one of the protestors shoved in the minister's face?

- Option three is good – the only thought I have is about the author's name. I realize that it's a spoof on the real author's name, but given that "arse" is the British version of "ass" in its vulgar form, it might be taken as a bit off-color to have the author of a gay romance be named "ass-man." Humorous, and in the right context it could work, but I don't know that it does so here.

- Outcome three is a huge danger zone. I by no means believe this was your intent here, but be aware that one of the most frequently-heard arguments made by homophobes against legalization of gay (and other non-cis) relationships is the "slippery-slope" claim that allowing anything other than male/female relationships will lead to things like bestiality, pedophile, and people marrying inanimate objects. Basically, exactly what your first speaker is claiming! It's a dehumanization argument, deliberately seeking to connect homosexuality with predatory criminality and mental illness. This outcome, as written, basically walks right in to that trap by having the result be exactly what the bigots claim. It can still be an unintended thing of course, like "children frequently accuse their parents of promoting heteronormative lifestyles" - just have it follow from the option.

[Garmageddon]

All good tips. Thank you so much again for the feedback!

About the author's name, I actually did intend to use the British version of "ass" thinking it would be humorous, but you have a point in how that might not work in the context of this issue. And about the outcome three issue, that was actually intentional; while I don't actually believe that legalizing non-heterosexual relationships would lead to pedophilia, bestiality, etc. IRL, I thought adding that line in would contribute to the "no option is perfect" thing that makes good issues good. However, I definitely like your suggestion for an effect line better; it gets the feeling I mentioned earlier without falling into that slippery slope and straying too far from the option.

Again, thanks for the helpful suggestions!

[Garmageddon]

/bump

[Verdant Haven]

Looking good to me. What issues I see that remain could be addressed in editing.

If you don't get any further feedback by the time your /bump finger gets itchy, I think you can send it in. Good work in your drafting.

[Garmageddon]

Sounds good. Thank you so much for your past feedback!