NationStates

Inspired by the Dyatlov Pass incident, if it wasn't obvious.

Something Amiss In The @@ANIMAL@@ Mountains

Validity: None yet that I can think of

The Issue: It's been two weeks since an expedition of nine geological researchers disappeared in the treacherous @@ANIMAL@@ Mountains. Devastated friends and family are enraged at the incapability of mountain rescue services to tackle the terrain and locate the missing expedition.

Option 1 (for internet-nations): "How could they not find them? It's their damn job!" blasts @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister for Accosting Incompetence, practically frothing with anger. "We need a complete overhaul of our mountain rescue services as soon as possible, no expense spared. I'm talking active satellite image analysis, drone deployments, full 5G coverage for isolated areas, GPS search dogs, you name it! Those canines are trained to track scents for miles... If we get this tech out in the field today we'll have the expedition located home in time for supper."

Effect: stranded mountaineers livestream 4K video of their rescues

Option 2 (for non-internet nations): "I know exactly why we've struggled finding them..." blasts @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Minister for Accosting Incompetence, practically frothing with anger. "It's the ridiculous restrictions we've placed on technology in @@NAME@@! I have reports proving that Blackacre has already implemented active satellite image analysis, drone deployments, full 5G coverage for isolated areas, and GPS search dogs into their rescue services, if we can't get that tech out into the field, that expedition is as good as dead."

Effect: mountain rescuers refer to their new tech gear as the 'watchamacallits' and 'thingymabobs'

Option 3: "You think signing checks will do anything now?" bemoans @@RANDOMNAME@@, a reporter from the @@CAPITAL@@ Herald, gnawing nervously on a pen. "I've been reporting on the dangers and tragedies of the @@ANIMAL@@ Mountains my entire journalistic career and I can promise you, the only thing these mountain expeditions lead to are early graves. The last thing we need is more cold, unattended funerals, especially after what happened to that last exped... uh, nevermind. Just close off areas like these to the public once and for all, and you'll probably save a lot of money, too."

Effect: molehills are the only mountains deemed safe enough for the public

Option 4: "We're wasting time!" exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, director of the nation's mountain rescue service, pacing around the room. "What we actually need is more of us looking, not more useless gadgets or morbid reporters. Our current team of thirty rescuers have hundreds of kilometres to cover. If we don't quadruple those numbers we can kiss our chances of saving the expedition goodbye. I say we keep enlisting rescuers until the job is done. Dead or alive, they deserve to be found."

Effect: mountain rescue operations typically end with more people lost than found

At the moment this feels like it hasn't decided yet what the dilemma is – there are three issues being argued at once, based on three different premises:

1) A conspiracy theory incident – tinfoil hat stuff claiming that everybody died to mysterious powers or a government cover-up from which no rescue is possible
2) A predictable incident - people went into a dangerous area and and were already beyond help, due to natural causes, prior to rescue attempts being initiated
3) A tragic incident - rescue teams were underfunded and were unable to rescue potentially-saveable people before they perished from natural causes

All of that is occurring despite the fact that we've actually got a survivor here. Obviously they *were* rescued. They *weren't* left to die out there. Is the problem that rescue teams couldn't find people? That they gave up too quickly? That there weren't enough of them? What sort of "failure" are families upset about? Again, given the fact that there is a survivor standing here talking to you, it appears that the rescuers did as good a job as could be hoped under the circumstance. There is also a heavy subplot being brought up about the area being known to be dangerous in advance, but with little discussion or agreement about why.

Focus on identifying the logical kernel of what actually happened in the dilemma being presented, and focus the writing and the options on presenting and responding to that premise.

Verdant Haven wrote:At the moment this feels like it hasn't decided yet what the dilemma is – there are three issues being argued at once, based on three different premises:

1) A conspiracy theory incident – tinfoil hat stuff claiming that everybody died to mysterious powers or a government cover-up from which no rescue is possible
2) A predictable incident - people went into a dangerous area and and were already beyond help, due to natural causes, prior to rescue attempts being initiated
3) A tragic incident - rescue teams were underfunded and were unable to rescue potentially-saveable people before they perished from natural causes

All of that is occurring despite the fact that we've actually got a survivor here. Obviously they *were* rescued. They *weren't* left to die out there. Is the problem that rescue teams couldn't find people? That they gave up too quickly? That there weren't enough of them? What sort of "failure" are families upset about? Again, given the fact that there is a survivor standing here talking to you, it appears that the rescuers did as good a job as could be hoped under the circumstance. There is also a heavy subplot being brought up about the area being known to be dangerous in advance, but with little discussion or agreement about why.

Focus on identifying the logical kernel of what actually happened in the dilemma being presented, and focus the writing and the options on presenting and responding to that premise.

I've edited the description of the issue such that the lone survivor turns up in a nearby town. The issue is that rescue services didn't know anyone needed rescuing until the lone survivor showed up, highlighting their failure to monitor the area.

Option 1, and what? Abandoned those who are left behind?

Australian rePublic wrote:Option 1, and what? Abandoned those who are left behind?

I could edit the option to say he tried to go back and find/rescue them.

Kaschovia wrote:I've edited the description of the issue such that the lone survivor turns up in a nearby town. The issue is that rescue services didn't know anyone needed rescuing until the lone survivor showed up, highlighting their failure to monitor the area.

I think you may be misunderstanding how Search and Rescue services work.

Much like the fire department doesn't just drive around looking for fires, but instead responds to calls for help sent through dispatch, SAR units are called out and respond when somebody reports a person in need of help.

Unless there is some patently obvious initiating event, like a massive avalanche that hits the known path of a pre-registered climbing party, there would be no reason to have rescuers out looking. For them to respond once a person turns up and says "hey, we had a problem" is exactly the normal and correct thing for them to do.

Verdant Haven wrote:

Kaschovia wrote:I've edited the description of the issue such that the lone survivor turns up in a nearby town. The issue is that rescue services didn't know anyone needed rescuing until the lone survivor showed up, highlighting their failure to monitor the area.

I think you may be misunderstanding how Search and Rescue services work.

Much like the fire department doesn't just drive around looking for fires, but instead responds to calls for help sent through dispatch, SAR units are called out and respond when somebody reports a person in need of help.

Unless there is some patently obvious initiating event, like a massive avalanche that hits the known path of a pre-registered climbing party, there would be no reason to have rescuers out looking. For them to respond once a person turns up and says "hey, we had a problem" is exactly the normal and correct thing for them to do.

Very true, my mistake.

In that case I could amend the issue such that the guy turns up and tells them about the missing expedition group at the start and the rescue services are shown to be rather inept from there.

Significantly edited the options, effect lines, and descriptions.

Well now – that looks like an issue premise we can work with! Good adjustment.

Your writing is technically solid, and the new dilemma is straightforward and reasonable, so I think the next step is tweaks and adjustments to the options for style and game elements.

Option 1: I think the main thing here is to provide at least one line of support explaining *how* this equipment will help. Have the speaker justify at least one or two of the specific requests, so it doesn't just come across as listing toys (even if that is kinda what it is :-D). Your length on this option is great, so we don't want to make it much longer – there may be a trade off to be had, removing some of the less-contributory elements to make room for the details. Your first effect line is great. The only thing to bring up is that this option includes both internet-based and aircraft-based ideas and solutions, which are validities we need to think about.

Option 2: Also a good length, also a good general feel. It would be nice to have some hint of the other kinds of dangers of tragedies we're supposed to know are in these mountains. Closing off a whole chunk of land is a pretty big step, so maybe some hint. This doesn't have to be specifics – the vaguer the better, in some ways – but *the idea* of tragedy goes a long way. Something like: "There was that other group last year, and all those missing children of course... and what happened to the surveying crew still gives me nightmares!" That may land harder (your call – it's subjective/stylistic) than just the "I promise you" line, since it creates the impression of Leader knowing the danger, rather than just hearing it second hand.

Option 3: Solid base. I think this needs a touch of supporting argument in the form of explaining why the current numbers are insufficient, and/or how exactly having more people is going to resolve that difficulty. Person-hours per square kilometer searched, difficulty of terrain, exhaustion, those kinds of things. What exactly "the entire local division" means is not clear to me (personally, I associate "division" with military terminology, but not with having specific non-battlefield locations). Definitely a reasonable argument to make though – when I did search and rescue, large rough terrain search areas would sometimes see 150+ trained searchers from a dozen different units working together to try and bring a person home.

Verdant Haven wrote:Well now – that looks like an issue premise we can work with! Good adjustment.

Your writing is technically solid, and the new dilemma is straightforward and reasonable, so I think the next step is tweaks and adjustments to the options for style and game elements.

Option 1: I think the main thing here is to provide at least one line of support explaining *how* this equipment will help. Have the speaker justify at least one or two of the specific requests, so it doesn't just come across as listing toys (even if that is kinda what it is :-D). Your length on this option is great, so we don't want to make it much longer – there may be a trade off to be had, removing some of the less-contributory elements to make room for the details. Your first effect line is great. The only thing to bring up is that this option includes both internet-based and aircraft-based ideas and solutions, which are validities we need to think about.

Option 2: Also a good length, also a good general feel. It would be nice to have some hint of the other kinds of dangers of tragedies we're supposed to know are in these mountains. Closing off a whole chunk of land is a pretty big step, so maybe some hint. This doesn't have to be specifics – the vaguer the better, in some ways – but *the idea* of tragedy goes a long way. Something like: "There was that other group last year, and all those missing children of course... and what happened to the surveying crew still gives me nightmares!" That may land harder (your call – it's subjective/stylistic) than just the "I promise you" line, since it creates the impression of Leader knowing the danger, rather than just hearing it second hand.

Option 3: Solid base. I think this needs a touch of supporting argument in the form of explaining why the current numbers are insufficient, and/or how exactly having more people is going to resolve that difficulty. Person-hours per square kilometer searched, difficulty of terrain, exhaustion, those kinds of things. What exactly "the entire local division" means is not clear to me (personally, I associate "division" with military terminology, but not with having specific non-battlefield locations). Definitely a reasonable argument to make though – when I did search and rescue, large rough terrain search areas would sometimes see 150+ trained searchers from a dozen different units working together to try and bring a person home.

Option 1: Expanded a little on the GPS search dogs, bit of an obvious one to choose but I think it's most suitable and understandable. As for the validity, I can't see how I could adjust the option to accommodate non-internet or non-aircraft nations as the core of the option is to use this level of tech, but maybe a standard internet validity on the whole issue could work a bit better? I don't think it would restrict the number of recipients too heavily, but if you have an idea let me know.

Option 2: Good point. The entire feel of the first draft was supposed to be inspired by the Dyatlov Pass Incident, which absolutely fascinates and terrifies me, which is what I wanted to convey. I've hinted at a disturbing tragedy without it taking up too much of the option space, and I think it conveys exactly the level of discomfort and "I'm done warning you guys about this, I've been doing it my whole life" kind of energy.

Option 3: It's really cool you did search and rescue! Feels kinda funny me writing an issue about it when you've actually been there and done it. But yeah, I've added a little bit about the mountains being generally underestimated but I appreciate the option could still use a little bit of padding.

Kaschovia wrote:Option 1: Expanded a little on the GPS search dogs, bit of an obvious one to choose but I think it's most suitable and understandable. As for the validity, I can't see how I could adjust the option to accommodate non-internet or non-aircraft nations as the core of the option is to use this level of tech, but maybe a standard internet validity on the whole issue could work a bit better? I don't think it would restrict the number of recipients too heavily, but if you have an idea let me know.

One possibility would be to have a doppelganger for this first option - one for nations with internet (basically what you've written), and one for those without (which could either replace those suggestions, or suggest that "hey, if we allowed modern tech, we might be able to do our dang job!").

Kaschovia wrote:Option 2: Good point. The entire feel of the first draft was supposed to be inspired by the Dyatlov Pass Incident, which absolutely fascinates and terrifies me, which is what I wanted to convey. I've hinted at a disturbing tragedy without it taking up too much of the option space, and I think it conveys exactly the level of discomfort and "I'm done warning you guys about this, I've been doing it my whole life" kind of energy.

Dyatlov Pass is a great "creep factor" story for those who want to believe, but definitely poses a challenge for an issue. Issues tend to require a certain number of facts to be known, and the options establish certain realities to exist. Very hard to capture something mostly famous for being unexplained within those confines! I think what you've turned this into is a good, solid approach for an "inspired by" event. The player is only the government, after all... who knows what the conspiracy theorists will say!

Kaschovia wrote:Option 3: It's really cool you did search and rescue! Feels kinda funny me writing an issue about it when you've actually been there and done it. But yeah, I've added a little bit about the mountains being generally underestimated but I appreciate the option could still use a little bit of padding.

I'm glad you're writing it! After posting my latest draft today, I've still got my next... (counts...) 14 issues planned ahead, which is more than enough for now. I'm ecstatic to have other folks write competently about subjects I'm knowledgeable or interested in. It means that I can comment more meaningfully, and help more thoroughly with any potential editing or publication that comes along.

I think what Option 3 still needs is perhaps a statement about how limited current manpower resources are, in order to support the request for more. If they've only got (for example) half a dozen people to cover a hundred square kilometers, or if they're having to call in their volunteers from the other side of the country (the majority of trained SAR personnel are volunteers who provide their own transportation and equipment), that would add oomph to the idea that feet on the ground is what will help most.

/bump

Urine Town wrote:/bump

While it is appreciated, even if I don't need anyone to bump the thread on my behalf, please don't do this again. I do it through editing and posting the changes, normally.

Verdant Haven wrote:

Kaschovia wrote:Option 1: Expanded a little on the GPS search dogs, bit of an obvious one to choose but I think it's most suitable and understandable. As for the validity, I can't see how I could adjust the option to accommodate non-internet or non-aircraft nations as the core of the option is to use this level of tech, but maybe a standard internet validity on the whole issue could work a bit better? I don't think it would restrict the number of recipients too heavily, but if you have an idea let me know.

One possibility would be to have a doppelganger for this first option - one for nations with internet (basically what you've written), and one for those without (which could either replace those suggestions, or suggest that "hey, if we allowed modern tech, we might be able to do our dang job!").

Kaschovia wrote:Option 2: Good point. The entire feel of the first draft was supposed to be inspired by the Dyatlov Pass Incident, which absolutely fascinates and terrifies me, which is what I wanted to convey. I've hinted at a disturbing tragedy without it taking up too much of the option space, and I think it conveys exactly the level of discomfort and "I'm done warning you guys about this, I've been doing it my whole life" kind of energy.

Dyatlov Pass is a great "creep factor" story for those who want to believe, but definitely poses a challenge for an issue. Issues tend to require a certain number of facts to be known, and the options establish certain realities to exist. Very hard to capture something mostly famous for being unexplained within those confines! I think what you've turned this into is a good, solid approach for an "inspired by" event. The player is only the government, after all... who knows what the conspiracy theorists will say!

Kaschovia wrote:Option 3: It's really cool you did search and rescue! Feels kinda funny me writing an issue about it when you've actually been there and done it. But yeah, I've added a little bit about the mountains being generally underestimated but I appreciate the option could still use a little bit of padding.

I'm glad you're writing it! After posting my latest draft today, I've still got my next... (counts...) 14 issues planned ahead, which is more than enough for now. I'm ecstatic to have other folks write competently about subjects I'm knowledgeable or interested in. It means that I can comment more meaningfully, and help more thoroughly with any potential editing or publication that comes along.

I think what Option 3 still needs is perhaps a statement about how limited current manpower resources are, in order to support the request for more. If they've only got (for example) half a dozen people to cover a hundred square kilometers, or if they're having to call in their volunteers from the other side of the country (the majority of trained SAR personnel are volunteers who provide their own transportation and equipment), that would add oomph to the idea that feet on the ground is what will help most.

I've added a doppelganger for option 1 and expanded option 3 a little bit more to highlight the scale of the search compared to the number of rescuers.

Let me know if you spot anything else!

Made some very minor changes. I think this could be close to submission, but if there's anything left, I can still change it.

This is looking pretty reasonable for submission.

If you wanted to tweak option three's effect line (folklore...) a bit for clarity, it wouldn't hurt, but I think you've got a respectable submission either way.

Verdant Haven wrote:This is looking pretty reasonable for submission.

If you wanted to tweak option three's effect line (folklore...) a bit for clarity, it wouldn't hurt, but I think you've got a respectable submission either way.

I've changed it entirely for something I think is a little more comedic and a bit clearer than the previous one.

I'm going to submit the draft now!

Good Luck!

Australian rePublic wrote:Good Luck!

Thank you!