[ISSUE] Cookie Shortage

[Cookie Clicker Confederation]

In your nation currently, the cookie production is below average and therefore cookies are sold out at most of your stores. There is @@AN@@ argument between multiple parties about the cookie shortage currently taking place. What will you do?

1. National Health Minister @@RANDOM_NAME@@ states, "The risk of cookies getting sold out is a problem. Cookies might be unhealthy, but do not contain meats, poultry or dairy products, thus improving the environmental situation. Cookies also make people happy and feed them. We better find more ways to bake more cookies!

2. National Council spokesperson @@RANDOM_NAME@@ argues, "Cookies are very unhealthy and kill pets! With these dirty foods, I ask that the cookie industry be prohibited and all cookies are banned in the country, in all areas! No more cookies!"

[LFPD Soveriegn]

In your nation currently, the cookie production is below average and therefore cookies are sold out at [random number: 50-99%] of your stores. There is an argument between multiple parties about the cookie shortage currently taking place. What will you do?

1. National Health Minister [random name] states, "The risk of cookies getting sold out is a problem. Cookies might be unhealthy, but do not contain meats, poultry or dairy products, thus improving the environmental situation. Cookies also make people happy and feed them. We better find more ways to bake more cookies!

2. Political activist and libertarian [random name] argues, "Cookies are very unhealthy and kill pets! With these dirty foods, we ask that the cookie industry be prohibited and all cookies are banned in the country, in public areas! We demand that cookie industries be closed forever! No more cookies!"

3. Political authoritarian "random name" explains, "We are supporting neither of you! I recommend the cookie industry stays like this, and fluctuates out of control! We would like an neutral view on these cookies, any type!"

What about Baked Out as a title? First thing that comes to mind since issue titles aren't that direct from experience.

[LFPD Soveriegn]

In your nation currently, the cookie production is below average and therefore cookies are sold out at [random number: 50-99%] of your stores. There is an argument between multiple parties about the cookie shortage currently taking place. What will you do?

1. National Health Minister [random name] states, "The risk of cookies getting sold out is a problem. Cookies might be unhealthy, but do not contain meats, poultry or dairy products, thus improving the environmental situation. Cookies also make people happy and feed them. We better find more ways to bake more cookies!

2. Political activist and libertarian [random name] argues, "Cookies are very unhealthy and kill pets! With these dirty foods, we ask that the cookie industry be prohibited and all cookies are banned in the country, in public areas! We demand that cookie industries be closed forever! No more cookies!"

3. Political authoritarian "random name" explains, "We are supporting neither of you! I recommend the cookie industry stays like this, and fluctuates out of control! We would like an neutral view on these cookies, any type!"

Also, wrong thread. https://forum.nationstates.net/viewforum.php?f=13

[Floofybit]

Why does the health minister want more unhealthy cookies, the libertarian want state intervention, and the authoritarian not want state intervention?

[Cookie Clicker Confederation]

Why does the health minister want more unhealthy cookies, the libertarian want state intervention, and the authoritarian not want state intervention?

The health minister explains that cookies solve world hunger and are good for the environment (of course cookies are dog poison), libertarians demand the permanent closure of cookie production, and the authoritarians demand a neutral opinion.

[Tinhampton]

Why is active neutrality on the cookie issue an authoritarian position?

[Cookies]

Excuse me?

[Cookie Clicker Confederation]

Excuse me?

Sir?

[Floofybit]

Why does the health minister want more unhealthy cookies, the libertarian want state intervention, and the authoritarian not want state intervention?

The health minister explains that cookies solve world hunger and are good for the environment (of course cookies are dog poison), libertarians demand the permanent closure of cookie production, and the authoritarians demand a neutral opinion.

Fruits and vegetables also help solve world hunger and are much healthier. Auths usually aren't neutral

[Life empire]

replace health minister with enviroment minister noting they're more concerned with the enviroment then health, switch the libertarians in option 2 with authoritarians since it's really authoritarian what they want and get rid of 3rd option since it's neutral and thats what the dismiss button does, then replace it with libertarians asking the government to simply reduce regulation or taxation or something like that to help the companies

[Likhinia]

In your nation currently, the cookie production is below average and therefore cookies are sold out at [random number: 50-99%] of your stores. There is an argument between multiple parties about the cookie shortage currently taking place. What will you do?

1. National Health Minister [random name] states, "The risk of cookies getting sold out is a problem. Cookies might be unhealthy, but do not contain meats, poultry or dairy products, thus improving the environmental situation. Cookies also make people happy and feed them. We better find more ways to bake more cookies!

2. Political activist and libertarian [random name] argues, "Cookies are very unhealthy and kill pets! With these dirty foods, we ask that the cookie industry be prohibited and all cookies are banned in the country, in public areas! We demand that cookie industries be closed forever! No more cookies!"

3. Political authoritarian "random name" explains, "We are supporting neither of you! I recommend the cookie industry stays like this, and fluctuates out of control! We would like a neutral view on these cookies, any type!"

Where are your fallouts? You can’t have an issue without fallouts. It’s just the strip of text that appears in your activity, your nation page and the issue-resolved page.

And yes. You’ve messed up authoritarianism and libertarianism.

I am actually having trouble finding where to start in some places, so I’ll just link this. Please read it. It’s the basic guide to writing an issue.

In Option 1, it would be better to say, ‘Your Minister of Health, @@RANDOMNAME@@, finishes thinking and begins to speak.’ ‘Minster of…’ is more commonly used in issues, so it will seem more in-tune. Also, that’s what the title is. Option 1 and 2 are contradictory to an extent, because ingredients such as certain nuts and chocolate are toxic to dogs. However, Option 1 says that no dairy products are used. Chocolate chip cookies are the most common kind. That would be the most likely way for a dog to die via cookie consumption.

Option 2 mentions twice that the cookie industry should be shut down. If cookies are so dangerous to pets, then why should they be allowed in private property? That’s where a dog would be most likely to eat aforementioned cookie.

Option 3 says that they’re not supporting either party in the strangest way I’ve seen. People in the office of a nation’s leader would be collected and most likely not arguing amongst themselves in this fashion. The people in your options are acting unrealistic, obviously paying no close attention to the leader, and using some awkward vocabulary for a formal situation or meeting.

A good person for recommending that the cookie industry crashes might be an anarchist (as far as I can tell) or a political opponent. ‘We would like a neutral view’ could be rephrased as ‘I demand you don’t take a stance on such an absurd issue!’, considering ‘we’ hasn’t been mentioned before. In issues, you need to provide context, and ever issue I’ve seen has one person for each option. They could be talking for a political party, but you’d need to address that.

I do see you’ve done that, yes, but not in an understandable fashion. Your Minister of Health is not a representative of a political party. They are in your party, of which you are the representative. ‘Political activist’ implies they are not in a political party, instead they are campaigning for every party to take their stance. Why not just say ‘An argument has broken out inside your office on what path to take’? Then, you can say anything you like about the people in the issue. You can give them names, occupations, ages, appearances, whatever, but you have set boundaries and then left them behind. Please try and remain within any boundaries set.

I don’t want to overload people, and this is already a lot. So, I hope this is helpful, and if not, I’m sorry.

[Cookie Clicker Confederation]

In your nation currently, the cookie production is below average and therefore cookies are sold out at [random number: 50-99%] of your stores. There is an argument between multiple parties about the cookie shortage currently taking place. What will you do?

1. National Health Minister [random name] states, "The risk of cookies getting sold out is a problem. Cookies might be unhealthy, but do not contain meats, poultry or dairy products, thus improving the environmental situation. Cookies also make people happy and feed them. We better find more ways to bake more cookies!

2. Political activist and libertarian [random name] argues, "Cookies are very unhealthy and kill pets! With these dirty foods, we ask that the cookie industry be prohibited and all cookies are banned in the country, in public areas! We demand that cookie industries be closed forever! No more cookies!"

3. Political authoritarian "random name" explains, "We are supporting neither of you! I recommend the cookie industry stays like this, and fluctuates out of control! We would like a neutral view on these cookies, any type!"

Where are your fallouts? You can’t have an issue without fallouts. It’s just the strip of text that appears in your activity, your nation page and the issue-resolved page.

And yes. You’ve messed up authoritarianism and libertarianism.

I am actually having trouble finding where to start in some places, so I’ll just link this. Please read it. It’s the basic guide to writing an issue.

In Option 1, it would be better to say, ‘Your Minister of Health, @@RANDOMNAME@@, finishes thinking and begins to speak.’ ‘Minster of…’ is more commonly used in issues, so it will seem more in-tune. Also, that’s what the title is. Option 1 and 2 are contradictory to an extent, because ingredients such as certain nuts and chocolate are toxic to dogs. However, Option 1 says that no dairy products are used. Chocolate chip cookies are the most common kind. That would be the most likely way for a dog to die via cookie consumption.

Option 2 mentions twice that the cookie industry should be shut down. If cookies are so dangerous to pets, then why should they be allowed in private property? That’s where a dog would be most likely to eat aforementioned cookie.

Option 3 says that they’re not supporting either party in the strangest way I’ve seen. People in the office of a nation’s leader would be collected and most likely not arguing amongst themselves in this fashion. The people in your options are acting unrealistic, obviously paying no close attention to the leader, and using some awkward vocabulary for a formal situation or meeting.

A good person for recommending that the cookie industry crashes might be an anarchist (as far as I can tell) or a political opponent. ‘We would like a neutral view’ could be rephrased as ‘I demand you don’t take a stance on such an absurd issue!’, considering ‘we’ hasn’t been mentioned before. In issues, you need to provide context, and ever issue I’ve seen has one person for each option. They could be talking for a political party, but you’d need to address that.

I do see you’ve done that, yes, but not in an understandable fashion. Your Minister of Health is not a representative of a political party. They are in your party, of which you are the representative. ‘Political activist’ implies they are not in a political party, instead they are campaigning for every party to take their stance. Why not just say ‘An argument has broken out inside your office on what path to take’? Then, you can say anything you like about the people in the issue. You can give them names, occupations, ages, appearances, whatever, but you have set boundaries and then left them behind. Please try and remain within any boundaries set.

I don’t want to overload people, and this is already a lot. So, I hope this is helpful, and if not, I’m sorry.

Avoid posting like that, since it is too long and is considered inappropriate to issues posts. I recommend that you do not add that much, especially against new nations. This is mine, and you shall not put too much fire into it, ok?

[Cookie Clicker Confederation]

In your nation currently, the cookie production is below average and therefore cookies are sold out at [random number: 50-99%] of your stores. There is @@AN@@ @@ARGUMENT@@ between multiple parties about the cookie shortage currently taking place. What will you do?

1. National Health Minister [random name] states, "The risk of cookies getting sold out is a problem. Cookies might be unhealthy, but do not contain meats, poultry or dairy products, thus improving the environmental situation. Cookies also make people happy and feed them. We better find more ways to bake more cookies!

2. Political activist and libertarian [random name] argues, "Cookies are very unhealthy and kill pets! With these dirty foods, we ask that the cookie industry be prohibited and all cookies are banned in the country, in public areas! We demand that cookie industries be closed forever! No more cookies!"

3. Political authoritarian "random name" explains, "We are supporting neither of you! I recommend the cookie industry stays like this, and fluctuates out of control! We would like an neutral view on these cookies, any type!"

What about Baked Out as a title? First thing that comes to mind since issue titles aren't that direct from experience.

[SherpDaWerp]

Avoid posting like that, since it is too long and is considered inappropriate to issues posts. I recommend that you do not add that much, especially against new nations. This is mine, and you shall not put too much fire into it, ok?

The feedback you've been given is entirely appropriate - I've written bigger feedback posts before. While I'm all for encouraging new authors, dismissing reasonable feedback won't help you get your issue published, or improve your writing long-term.

[Cookie Clicker Confederation]

Avoid posting like that, since it is too long and is considered inappropriate to issues posts. I recommend that you do not add that much, especially against new nations. This is mine, and you shall not put too much fire into it, ok?

The feedback you've been given is entirely appropriate - I've written bigger feedback posts before. While I'm all for encouraging new authors, dismissing reasonable feedback won't help you get your issue published, or improve your writing long-term.

Thank you for your opinion.

[Cookie Clicker Confederation]

In your nation currently, the cookie production is below average and therefore cookies are sold out at [random number: 50-99%] of your stores. There is @@AN@@ argument between multiple parties about the cookie shortage currently taking place. What will you do?

1. National Health And Economy Minister @@RANDOM_NAME@@ states, "The risk of cookies getting sold out is a problem. Cookies might be unhealthy, but do not contain meats, poultry or dairy products, thus improving the environmental situation. Cookies also make people happy and feed them. We better find more ways to bake more cookies!

2. Political authoritarian @@RANDOM_NAME@@ argues, "Cookies are very unhealthy and kill pets! With these dirty foods, we ask that the cookie industry be prohibited and all cookies are banned in the country, in public areas! We demand that cookie industries be closed forever! No more cookies!"

3. Political centrist @@RANDOM_NAME@@ explains, "We are supporting neither of you! I recommend the cookie industry stays like this, and fluctuates out of control! We would like an neutral view on these cookies, any type!"

[Cookie Clicker Confederation]

What about Baked Out as a title? First thing that comes to mind since issue titles aren't that direct from experience.

Yes

[Likhinia]

Avoid posting like that, since it is too long and is considered inappropriate to issues posts. I recommend that you do not add that much, especially against new nations. This is mine, and you shall not put too much fire into it, ok?

If you didn’t want people to suggest changes, you shouldn’t have posted it. The whole point of posting drafts in the forums is for advice on changes before it’s submitted.

That wasn’t and isn’t too long, I commonly post things like or similar to that on other drafts.

[Cookie Clicker Confederation]

Anyone? There has been no replies last time I checked. Will this be approved now?

[United Calanworie]

The feedback you've been given is entirely appropriate - I've written bigger feedback posts before. While I'm all for encouraging new authors, dismissing reasonable feedback won't help you get your issue published, or improve your writing long-term.

Thank you for your opinion.

I would highly advise reading the rule on bad faith and how to properly engage in Got Issues? before you continue posting here. You are very quickly verging on the line of actionable behavior in this forum.

Bad Faith: It is expected that players post with the intent of making the site a better, more enjoyable place to be - this is good faith posting. Bad faith posting is when a person is no longer interested in this goal, and instead seeks to score points, contributes nothing useful, or is deceitful.

[Australian rePublic]

Why is there a cookie shortage? And cookies containing meat and poultry? Are you talking about dog biscuits?

[Cookie Clicker Confederation]

Why is there a cookie shortage? And cookies containing meat and poultry? Are you talking about dog biscuits?

Of course not!

[Cookie Clicker Confederation]

Thank you for your opinion.

I would highly advise reading the rule on bad faith and how to properly engage in Got Issues? before you continue posting here. You are very quickly verging on the line of actionable behavior in this forum.

Bad Faith: It is expected that players post with the intent of making the site a better, more enjoyable place to be - this is good faith posting. Bad faith posting is when a person is no longer interested in this goal, and instead seeks to score points, contributes nothing useful, or is deceitful.

That post wasn't even bad faith! Leave me alone for once!

[Mongyolia]

I would highly advise reading the rule on bad faith and how to properly engage in Got Issues? before you continue posting here. You are very quickly verging on the line of actionable behavior in this forum.

Bad Faith: It is expected that players post with the intent of making the site a better, more enjoyable place to be - this is good faith posting. Bad faith posting is when a person is no longer interested in this goal, and instead seeks to score points, contributes nothing useful, or is deceitful.

That post wasn't even bad faith! Leave me alone for once!

I don’t think that’s how your supposed to speak to a moderator.

[Cookie Clicker Confederation]

That post wasn't even bad faith! Leave me alone for once!

I don’t think that’s how your supposed to speak to a moderator.

What they are doing is suspicious, self-depicted, trust me.