[DRAFT 2] Keeping the Littlies Safe

by **Devil Heart** » Sat May 18, 2019 6:13 am

[Draft 2]

[Title] Keeping the Littlies Safe

[Validity] All

[Description] A string of serious playground falls leading to hospitalization has brought a noisy representation of disgruntled citizens to the park bench where you are attempting to enjoy a quiet luncheon away from the office.

[Option] “See these children tumbling head first off swings @@LEADER@@” exclaims a distraught dad showing you the latest accident posted to movietubes whilst gripping his own screaming toddler’s hand to stop @@HIM@@ from clambering onto a nearby structure. “Before anything catastrophic happens, I beg you please ban all playgrounds!”

[Effect] children simulate playground fun on their electronic devices

[Option]“Playgrounds are boooring” yells a kid somersaulting off the top, instead of sliding down the slide. “These playgrounds look like padded cells @LEADER@@” elaborates the kid’s sociologist mum. Studies show that children won’t grow into creative adults unafraid of taking calculated risks if all opportunities for adventurous enterprise are removed. Re-invent the prohibitive restrictions in the ‘Playgrounds are Meant to be Safe, not Fun’ government authorised handbook before we become a culture of fearful stay-at-homes!”

[Effect] children sneak out after bedtime to play in the dark in the park

[Validity] must have military

[Option] “Give the little tykes to me @@LEADER@@” growls your gruff military commander, “I’ll get ‘em toughened up and disciplined through play alright” he drawls as he exhibits a sadistic grin. “In time our military will be the envy of @@REGION@@.

[Effect] childhood in @@NAME@@ gets damned in a boot camp

Edit: Word change in option 3 and oops - spoiler for Draft 1 now added.

by **Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners** » Sat May 18, 2019 2:20 pm

Presumably "serious playground fails" is meant to be "serious playground falls."

There's merit in the general idea here, but it reads as a little generic. "Kid falls down and get hurt" doesn't really sound like a national issue. And the issue is begging for more details. What does "properly regulated play equipment" specifically mean? I mean, as is, Option 2 is way too obviously correct -- obviously it's beneficial to let children play and have fun but in a safe way. Basically no one would disagree with that.

I'd recommend looking through the Public Playground Safety Handbook, 2010 Edition complements of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Get a feel for all the safety hazards a playground presents (there 61 pages of them! :blink:

) and maybe pick one that tickles your fancy. What with all the talk of crushing, shearing, entanglment, impalement, sharp points, tripping, choking, and strangulation (a.k.a the Good 'Ol Days :lol2:

) I'm having a hard time deciding myself. However, there is lots of information about recommended (and not recommended) playground equipment for various ages, as well as general design guidelines.

tl;dr -- pick some more specific hazard, and present the pros and cons of some regulatory effort to protect the little tykes from themselves.

by **Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners** » Sat May 18, 2019 2:28 pm

Oh! You know what else might be interesting too? How about an issue about ADA-esque accommodations for children with disabilities? There's a great debate there too -- making playgrounds accessible for all kids vs. the practical engineering (wheelchair accessable slides?) vs. the cost of it all, etc.

EDIT: Here's an article I googled up that discusses inclusive playground design and many of the social and political hurdles advocates have dealt with. Maybe some issue/debate ideas in there, if you're interested in this angle.

by **Baggieland** » Sun May 19, 2019 2:38 am

How about baby-proofing all the rides?

by **Devil Heart** » Sun May 19, 2019 4:38 pm

Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners wrote:Presumably "serious playground fails" is meant to be "serious playground falls."

Was going for what they call them on the YouTubes, but decided to take your advice. Fixed.

Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners wrote:I'd recommend looking through the Public Playground Safety Handbook, 2010 Edition complements of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Get a feel for all the safety hazards a playground presents (there 61 pages of them! ) and maybe pick one that tickles your fancy. What with all the talk of crushing, shearing, entanglment, impalement, sharp points, tripping, choking, and strangulation (a.k.a the Good 'Ol Days ) I'm having a hard time deciding myself. However, there is lots of information about recommended (and not recommended) playground equipment for various ages, as well as general design guidelines.

tl;dr -- pick some more specific hazard, and present the pros and cons of some regulatory effort to protect the little tykes from themselves.

Had a very quick scan of the Handbook :lol:

I was going for the whole situation when government regulation is taking too much fun out of the things we are allowed to do. I recall my son as an (Australian Scout) going to NZ for a big adventurous event. However Aus govt regulations prevented the Aussie scouts from doing the more adventurous activities while the lucky NZ Scouts had a heap of fun.
Thinking about writing an issue for adults as well down the track. Kids playgrounds seemed to be a more direct way to begin.

Autonomous Cleaner Bot Cleaners wrote:Oh! You know what else might be interesting too? How about an issue about ADA-esque accommodations for children with disabilities? There's a great debate there too -- making playgrounds accessible for all kids vs. the practical engineering (wheelchair accessable slides?) vs. the cost of it all, etc.

EDIT: Here's an article I googled up that discusses inclusive playground design and many of the social and political hurdles advocates have dealt with. Maybe some issue/debate ideas in there, if you're interested in this angle.

This would indeed be an interesting one – gonna save it up for another time, or if anyone else would like to pick it up I’m looking forward tp what you come up with.

Baggieland wrote:How about baby-proofing all the rides?

Another good ‘un!
But for another time

So, I agree this issue is perhaps a little curly to be of governmental concern – I’m hoping that by expanding Option 2 and altering the description a little I have now made this both less generic and more directly relevant for the govt?
Interested in your further thoughts folks about if I have achieved this...or any other thoughts/corrections etc!

If anyone knows where I can find, or what NS Issues calls YouTube (I wrote movietube for now) I'd be most grateful.

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun May 19, 2019 4:48 pm

Option 2- Are you trying to make them safer or more fun?

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon May 20, 2019 1:00 am

Just to let you know, I've long planned for my next self-edit to be this one:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=407437

...so there may soon be some overlap in issues about playground quality.

To be clear though, I'm just telling you this so you know that the appearance of said issue isn't in reaction to your draft, it's just something long planned. You should also continue with this draft, as it's a good 'un, but it may be smart to keep overlap minimal.

by **Devil Heart** » Tue May 21, 2019 12:12 am

Thanks Aussie, will edit so the 'more risky, therefor more fun' meaning I was going for is clearer.

And Candle, I do apologise. I posted about my plans for playground shenanigans in the Writers Block thread - no responses so hoped all was ok for me to go ahead...
I may wait and see what you have (when you get to it) to ensure I'm not overlapping anywhere.
There are plenty of other issue topics to mull over and have fun with.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Tue May 21, 2019 2:35 am

I didn't mean to stop your draft! Rather I just want to maximise your chances of publication by avoiding an upcoming overlap.

by **Devil Heart** » Wed May 22, 2019 3:05 pm

Nothing's gonna stop this draft horse!

Will have a very close read of your draft Candlewhisper, and get back to editing this one.

by **Candensia** » Fri May 24, 2019 5:52 am

Neat draft. In order to maximize your success chances, I'd recommend going all-in on the safety angle, as it relates to playground equipment, as CWA's draft focuses more on playground prevalence and their qualities.

by **The Free Joy State** » Fri May 24, 2019 8:34 pm

Devil Heart wrote:[Option] “Give the little tykes to me @@LEADER@@” growls your gruff military commander, “I’ll get ‘em toughened up and disciplined through play alright” he drawls as he exhibits a sadistic grin. “In time our military will be the envy of @@REGION@@.

[Effect] childhood in @@NAME@@ gets damned in a boot camp

This option seems kind of extraneous to the issue of playgrounds. Also, there are a few options where children get sent to boot-camps in our base.

Can I suggest that you do as Candensia says, and make this issue all about playground safety, then have the following three options:

Option one: safety precautions in every playground -- softer surfaces, regular maintenance, height restrictions on the climbing frames, etc
Option two: the option for children to learn to take calculated risks
Option three: crazy option -- that might be the ban playgrounds option

by **Bears Armed** » Sat May 25, 2019 5:27 am

The Free Joy State wrote:Can I suggest that you do as Candensia says, and make this issue all about playground safety, then have the following three options:

Option one: safety precautions in every playground -- softer surfaces, regular maintenance, height restrictions on the climbing frames, etc
Option two: the option for children to learn to take calculated risks
Option three: crazy option -- that might be the ban playgrounds option

Or maybe go crazy in the opposite direction, and send them to "play" by exploring the wilderness?

Hr'rmm, what about an option where a businessman (or, in communist states, perhaps just an "industry chief"?) suggests that if the children have spare time then they should be working instead of playing? Or has that already been done too often?

by **Trotterdam** » Sat May 25, 2019 8:20 am

Bears Armed wrote:Or maybe go crazy in the opposite direction, and send them to "play" by exploring the wilderness?

We call those boy scouts.

Or girl scouts, or whatever gender-neutral term they've decided on these days.

[DRAFT 2] Keeping the Littlies Safe

[DRAFT 2] Keeping the Littlies Safe

Who is online