[SUBMITTED] Come Give @@LEADER@@ A Kiss!

[Sanctaria]

I echo VH. This was done way too quickly.

I'm not in a position to do it myself at the moment, but I would recommend that you keep drafting, and you keep the process open for comments for at least a few weeks, as I know that one of my colleagues will likely delete it before I have time to log on.

Edit: I found time to log on. I deleted this submission. It needs more work. Also you need to get rid of the smart quotes.

[Daarwyrth]

FYI, the usual drafting time here is more like 2-3 weeks, not 2-3 days. Exceptions exist, of course, but many of the folks who read, publish, and help out around here are only able to check in on weekends, or at more widely-spaced intervals. A good reply can require significant time for consideration, much less actually writing it out - I know I'll often read something while on the go during the week, and sit down to write some feedback days later.

That said, I wish you luck with your submission!

Ah, I see, I wasn't aware of that, my apologies. As I stated in the OP this is my first time drafting an issue here, so I've still a lot to learn about the process.

I echo VH. This was done way too quickly.

I'm not in a position to do it myself at the moment, but I would recommend that you keep drafting, and you keep the process open for comments for at least a few weeks, as I know that one of my colleagues will likely delete it before I have time to log on.

Edit: I found time to log on. I deleted this submission. It needs more work. Also you need to get rid of the smart quotes.

Once again, my apologies if I caused any inconvenience by posting it too quickly! I wasn't aware that a draft usually remains open for a few weeks before being submitted.

What exactly do you mean by smart quotes? The @@ bits?

[Sanctaria]

What exactly do you mean by smart quotes? The @@ bits?

I imagine you're drafting in word or some other processor? That means your quotes look like “ and ” instead of " and ".

[Daarwyrth]

What exactly do you mean by smart quotes? The @@ bits?

I imagine you're drafting in word or some other processor? That means your quotes look like “ and ” instead of " and ".

Ah I see! Yes, I was writing it up in Word. I have corrected them in Draft 3 just now, thanks!

[Candlewhisper Archive]

One of my colleagues looks to have already rejected this submission -- as Verdant Haven says, you submitted this way too soon.

Let's get back to draft and see if we can work this up, as there's interesting core dilemma here.

[DESCRIPTION] Recently, Violetists have again hit national headlines for their ever increasing lack of regard for civil rights. In response, activists have recreated one of the notorious icons of their tentacled goddess, by making her smile instead of ominously glower. This led to a series of clashes between the devotees and the activists, culminating in the near burning of several people at improvised stakes in @@CAPITAL@@’s city centre. With both groups seemingly ready to draw one another’s blood, the main instigators of the ordeal have ended up in your office.

The opening sentence is a bit odd, as it's generally only the powers that be that can be accused of disregard of civil rights. A single religion that is separate from government could be accused of having regressive attitudes, but unless they're in charge of the country in some way they're not in a position to be accused of having disregard for civil rights.

Then, you talk about activists, but what are these activists responding to? What are they activists for? Are they just anti-Violet activists? In the RL story, these were LGBT campaigners protesting the exclusion of LGBT people from society by the catholic church.

Then the last sentence is just a redundancy, saying nothing more than "and there's an Issue."

I suggest revisiting the core premise, and perhaps moving it closer to the original, while perhaps taking out any elements that point to a particular religion. That is, make it an issue about challenging a homophobic status quo.

For example, restrict the validity to nations with low LGBT rights, and then have it be something like:

LGBT campaigners are trying to draw attention to what they see as oppression of their civil rights in @@NAME@@, by reproducing photos of you, @@LEADER@@, but with your skin tone replaced by the colours of the rainbow.

That'd make it parallel to the RL issue, but approaching it with a slightly different take.

[Daarwyrth]

One of my colleagues looks to have already rejected this submission -- as Verdant Haven says, you submitted this way too soon.

Let's get back to draft and see if we can work this up, as there's interesting core dilemma here.

[DESCRIPTION] Recently, Violetists have again hit national headlines for their ever increasing lack of regard for civil rights. In response, activists have recreated one of the notorious icons of their tentacled goddess, by making her smile instead of ominously glower. This led to a series of clashes between the devotees and the activists, culminating in the near burning of several people at improvised stakes in @@CAPITAL@@’s city centre. With both groups seemingly ready to draw one another’s blood, the main instigators of the ordeal have ended up in your office.

The opening sentence is a bit odd, as it's generally only the powers that be that can be accused of disregard of civil rights. A single religion that is separate from government could be accused of having regressive attitudes, but unless they're in charge of the country in some way they're not in a position to be accused of having disregard for civil rights.

Then, you talk about activists, but what are these activists responding to? What are they activists for? Are they just anti-Violet activists? In the RL story, these were LGBT campaigners protesting the exclusion of LGBT people from society by the catholic church.

Then the last sentence is just a redundancy, saying nothing more than "and there's an Issue."

I suggest revisiting the core premise, and perhaps moving it closer to the original, while perhaps taking out any elements that point to a particular religion. That is, make it an issue about challenging a homophobic status quo.

For example, restrict the validity to nations with low LGBT rights, and then have it be something like:

LGBT campaigners are trying to draw attention to what they see as oppression of their civil rights in @@NAME@@, by reproducing photos of you, @@LEADER@@, but with your skin tone replaced by the colours of the rainbow.

That'd make it parallel to the RL issue, but approaching it with a slightly different take.

The too early submission was a result of my inexperience with the usual procedure around drafts, my apologies!

Initially I had the word "repressive" in mind instead of "civil rights", but I wasn't sure whether my intent for the direction would be clear enough. If I would change it to "repressive" or "regressive", that would enable me to specify the activists as "civil rights activists". Because in the original I omitted that specification, as it would be duplicate: "...increasing lack of regard for civil rights. In response, civil rights activists...". Yet as you suggested, it would be an interesting idea to shift the focus from religion to a homophobic status quo.

Well, the first two drafts specifically were about LGBT activists just like in the original RL story, but the recurring feedback here was to not overcharge the issue by specifying the LGBT community and instead posters suggested changing it to civil rights activists. That's why in draft 3 I had shifted the labels.

Yet as said before, the change you propose is very interesting and I will work your feedback into draft 4!

[Daarwyrth]

I suggest revisiting the core premise, and perhaps moving it closer to the original, while perhaps taking out any elements that point to a particular religion. That is, make it an issue about challenging a homophobic status quo.

I find myself a bit stuck with the idea of removing the religious aspect of the issue, as I feel it's strongly tied to the core of the dilemma. On the one hand we have religious freedom and on the other civil rights/freedom of expression. I have no qualms about reintroducing the LGBT activists into it, because my original two drafts were focused on them anyway. But recreating images of @@LEADER@@ doesn't really equal recreating a religious icon, in my opinion or at least doesn't hold the same level of gravity.

Would removing the religious aspect of the issue improve it by a lot, in your opinion, or would it simply present a different take but not necessarily a better one?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I think removing the religious angle would make it easier to execute, as it's very hard to say that any given religion is taking the position of authority in any given nation.

You could, of course, use @@FAITH@@ in place, but the problem there is that people might have entered religions into those fields that are actually tolerant of LGBT stuff.

Storywise, the thing is probably strongest with the religion element there. It's more about what story could be told within player autonomy.

[Trotterdam]

There's also the fact that, ultimately, the question of how a religion feels about homosexuality is up to its religious leaders, not @@LEADER@@. If the religious leaders petition the government to arrest blasphemers, then that's one thing (and again, #196 already covers that kind of thing), but not arresting them wouldn't be an endorsement of homosexuality, just an admonition to the religious group to sort out their internal disagreements among themselves (or, if they can't agree, leave and form a separate religion).

[Australian rePublic]

Recently, Violetists have again hit national headlines for their ever increasing lack of regard for civil rights

Wow, that's a brutal and vague interpretation of one's holy scriptures. Care to elaborate?

I mean, if somebody had made such a vague, contextless statement about my God, Jesus, the first thing I do is ask them "in what way is Christianity anti-civil rights"

[Australian rePublic]

There's also the fact that, ultimately, the question of how a religion feels about anything and everything is up to its religious leaders, not @@LEADER@@.

Correct

[Daarwyrth]

Recently, Violetists have again hit national headlines for their ever increasing lack of regard for civil rights

Wow, that's a brutal and vague interpretation of one's holy scriptures. Care to elaborate?

I mean, if somebody had made such a vague, contextless statement about my God, Jesus, the first thing I do is ask them "in what way is Christianity anti-civil rights"

I'd be more than happy to give more context, but one of the criticisms I had received was that the intro was too long. So for the sake of brevity and conciseness, I have kept it more ambiguous. It's why I have chosen for the Violetists as they are already known from previous issues and for their desire to allow human sacrifices. I was also told they were anti-LGBT by one of the posters. In previous issues they weren't really presented as having a strong regard for civil rights, hence why I wrote it like that for the sake of cutting down the length.

I think removing the religious angle would make it easier to execute, as it's very hard to say that any given religion is taking the position of authority in any given nation.

You could, of course, use @@FAITH@@ in place, but the problem there is that people might have entered religions into those fields that are actually tolerant of LGBT stuff.

Storywise, the thing is probably strongest with the religion element there. It's more about what story could be told within player autonomy.

The element of authority isn't a compulsory part of the issue of course and that can be altered or left out. They can simply be described as being very visible and vocal about their opinion, creating unrest and division in society with their indignation at the supposed blasphemy. The nation can then choose whether it wants to go along with greater religiousness or choose for stronger secularization.

There's also the fact that, ultimately, the question of how a religion feels about homosexuality is up to its religious leaders, not @@LEADER@@. If the religious leaders petition the government to arrest blasphemers, then that's one thing (and again, #196 already covers that kind of thing), but not arresting them wouldn't be an endorsement of homosexuality, just an admonition to the religious group to sort out their internal disagreements among themselves (or, if they can't agree, leave and form a separate religion).

The issue is not about endorsing homosexuality, it is a dilemma between the choice of religious freedom or freedom of speech. I don't understand where you're getting the notion from that @@LEADER@@ would dictate how a religion should feel, that's not even part of the issue? #196 covers the same subject but has a different execution than the proposed draft. I wanted to create a different religious group to create even more of a difference between the two issues, but feedback here was that it might be easier to use the already existing Violetists.

[Trotterdam]

#196 covers the same subject but has a different execution than the proposed draft.

The only difference in execution I see is that this time it involves homosexuality.

[Daarwyrth]

#196 covers the same subject but has a different execution than the proposed draft.

The only difference in execution I see is that this time it involves homosexuality.

Then what would you propose? What can I do to make the issue more unique or more distinct?

[Trotterdam]

One thing that I'm wondering about is what message the artist was trying to send with this work. Even with context making it clear that the rainbow is being used as a symbol of homosexuality, what does it mean to paint one over Mary's head, specifically?

"Mary supports homosexuality"? Possible, but also really comes out of nowhere. Out of the things Mary is known for, her opinion on homosexuality, one way or another, does not rank highly among them. Even if we found uncontrovertible evidence that she really did support homosexuality, that still wouldn't be the most important thing she's known for, that warrants a symbol of homosexuality being prominent in sacred depictions of her. So this is really a thinly-veiled way of saying the next suggestion:

"I support both Mary and homosexuality"? Fine, but why should we care? I mean, people who oppose Mary and/or homosexuality would disagree, but that's no different than if you had only spoken up supporting one of those things.

"Mary is a lesbian"? There's an enduring hobby in some circles to pore over religious and historical texts to find "evidence" that such-and-such long-dead person was really homosexual before such things were recognized by society, although Mary is not a typical (or likely) recipient of this speculation. (The possibility of the character having been bisexual tends to be ignored in these discussions.) One real-life biblical example is King David, where lines such as 2 Samuel 1:26 are sometimes interpreted as evidence of a homosexual relationship (though the bisexual catch clearly applies here, since the text is much less ambiguous about him clearly being interested in a variety of women), though of course there are other interpretations (such as the then-common misogynist attitude that the women are good only for sex while platonic friendships with other men are far more emotionally fulfilling). While still a matter of depicting a religious figure in a way that the religious authorities dislike, having some actual scriptural backing rather than "some artist decided to do something random that doesn't really mean anything" makes this more interesting, though I still don't think it would be something @@LEADER@@ would get involved in outside of a theocracy.

[Daarwyrth]

In light of the feedback I got, I have removed the religious aspect of the issue. I've gone along Candlewhisper's suggestion and made it about activists trying to challenge a homophobic status-quo in a nation with low LGBT rights. I'd love it if people could have a look at draft 4 and share what they think about it now

[SherpDaWerp]

One minor thing:

After having made a public appearance at a picknick

This should be picnic, not picknick.

Otherwise, looking good to me.

[Daarwyrth]

One minor thing:

After having made a public appearance at a picknick

This should be picnic, not picknick.

Otherwise, looking good to me.

Oh dear, my Dutch got in the way there xD Thanks for the pointer, I will fix it asap!

[Trotterdam]

I think the "what does painting a rainbow here actually mean?" question still applies.

@@LEADER@@ is a living person and so @@LEADER@@'s political opinions are better-known than those of an ancient dubiously-even-real religious figure, and in this case @@LEADER@@'s is clearly known to oppose homosexuality. So painting a rainbow on a portrait of @@LEADER@@ can't be an admonition that the real @@LEADER@@ would support homosexuality - it pretty much has to be a calculated insult against @@LEADER@@, demeaning him by associating him with something he hates. Perhaps even symbolically "defeating" @@LEADER@@ by painting him with the colors of the enemy.

[Daarwyrth]

I think the "what does painting a rainbow here actually mean?" question still applies.

@@LEADER@@ is a living person and so @@LEADER@@'s political opinions are better-known than those of an ancient dubiously-even-real religious figure, and in this case @@LEADER@@'s is clearly known to oppose homosexuality. So painting a rainbow on a portrait of @@LEADER@@ can't be an admonition that the real @@LEADER@@ would support homosexuality - it pretty much has to be a calculated insult against @@LEADER@@, demeaning him by associating him with something he hates. Perhaps even symbolically "defeating" @@LEADER@@ by painting him with the colors of the enemy.

But it's even explicitly stated now, that the rainbow is meant as a symbol of the LGBT community in this particular scenario. They have done this to leader's image to draw attention to their lack of civil rights and leader is the most visible person in the nation. It's about drawing attention to their cause.

As to whether leader is homophobic or not, determining that would infringe on player autonomy, as someone might be playing a pro-LGBT leader who didn't get around yet to bettering their situation in the country. It's why I left it ambiguous, not in the sense that leader is homophobic but that the status quo in the country is. Hence why it now also has a validity, that only countries with low LGBT civil rights can get the issue. It's also why there is an option to actually respond friendly to the activists and improve gay rights in the nation. If Leader was homophobic, I don't see them agreeing to give lgbt people their rights so easily. This way player autonomy is preserved and players can determine themselves whether their leader is homophobic or not.

[Candensia]

I feel like the concepts of validity versus player autonomy are getting confused here.

This issue comes off to me as being tilted in favor of LGBT inequality, and the option in support of LGBT rights is unrealistically dramatic, and somewhat insulting.

Saying that this issue will only be shown to nations with low LGBT rights does not mean that the argument can be tilted in favor of one side, or that one side can be shown as more radical than the other. The description must be objective. The options must be balanced, and be compelling, but not assumptive.

For example. An issue on open carry for firearms owners can be restricted to nations where it is legal to own guns, but it cannot assume those nations will be in support of gun rights, nor imply those nations already support gun rights, nor frame the argument as if gun-rights are the norm or accepted. It can only state that it is legal to own guns, it can only be objective.

Oh and this:

"Allow those LGBTABCDE-whatever..."

While intended as a joke, doesn’t come across as particularly funny to me.

[Trotterdam]

Saying that this issue will only be shown to nations with low LGBT rights does not mean that the argument can be tilted in favor of one side,

Huh? Validity can definitely influence what options are on the issue. Generally, an issue should have mainly options that are consistent with retaining the validity (so if the issue is only shown to nations that have banned homosexuality, most options - at least two - should keep homosexuality banned and then do something else that builds on that), with at most one option that reverses the validity. While there can be circumstances where two reversal options is acceptable, this one - where homosexuality isn't even the only topic under the discussion, as it's also about artistic rights - isn't one of them.

[Daarwyrth]

I feel like the concepts of validity versus player autonomy are getting confused here.

This issue comes off to me as being tilted in favor of LGBT inequality, and the option in support of LGBT rights is unrealistically dramatic, and somewhat insulting.

Saying that this issue will only be shown to nations with low LGBT rights does not mean that the argument can be tilted in favor of one side, or that one side can be shown as more radical than the other. The description must be objective. The options must be balanced, and be compelling, but not assumptive.

For example. An issue on open carry for firearms owners can be restricted to nations where it is legal to own guns, but it cannot assume those nations will be in support of gun rights, nor imply those nations already support gun rights, nor frame the argument as if gun-rights are the norm or accepted. It can only state that it is legal to own guns, it can only be objective.

Oh and this:

"Allow those LGBTABCDE-whatever..."

While intended as a joke, doesn’t come across as particularly funny to me.

I'm not confusing the two terms here, I can assure you. Just as I can assure you that it was not my intent to tilt this issue in favour of LGBT inequality. As a member of the LGBT community myself, I've actually done my best to not let a pro-LGBT bias seep into the issue draft. The issue was written in light of the feedback I got here:

One of my colleagues looks to have already rejected this submission -- as Verdant Haven says, you submitted this way too soon.

Let's get back to draft and see if we can work this up, as there's interesting core dilemma here.

[DESCRIPTION] Recently, Violetists have again hit national headlines for their ever increasing lack of regard for civil rights. In response, activists have recreated one of the notorious icons of their tentacled goddess, by making her smile instead of ominously glower. This led to a series of clashes between the devotees and the activists, culminating in the near burning of several people at improvised stakes in @@CAPITAL@@’s city centre. With both groups seemingly ready to draw one another’s blood, the main instigators of the ordeal have ended up in your office.

The opening sentence is a bit odd, as it's generally only the powers that be that can be accused of disregard of civil rights. A single religion that is separate from government could be accused of having regressive attitudes, but unless they're in charge of the country in some way they're not in a position to be accused of having disregard for civil rights.

Then, you talk about activists, but what are these activists responding to? What are they activists for? Are they just anti-Violet activists? In the RL story, these were LGBT campaigners protesting the exclusion of LGBT people from society by the catholic church.

Then the last sentence is just a redundancy, saying nothing more than "and there's an Issue."

I suggest revisiting the core premise, and perhaps moving it closer to the original, while perhaps taking out any elements that point to a particular religion. That is, make it an issue about challenging a homophobic status quo.

For example, restrict the validity to nations with low LGBT rights, and then have it be something like:

LGBT campaigners are trying to draw attention to what they see as oppression of their civil rights in @@NAME@@, by reproducing photos of you, @@LEADER@@, but with your skin tone replaced by the colours of the rainbow.

That'd make it parallel to the RL issue, but approaching it with a slightly different take.

Saying that this issue will only be shown to nations with low LGBT rights does not mean that the argument can be tilted in favor of one side,

Huh? Validity can definitely influence what options are on the issue. Generally, an issue should have mainly options that are consistent with retaining the validity (so if the issue is only shown to nations that have banned homosexuality, most options - at least two - should keep homosexuality banned and then do something else that builds on that), with at most one option that reverses the validity. While there can be circumstances where two reversal options is acceptable, this one - where homosexuality isn't even the only topic under the discussion, as it's also about artistic rights - isn't one of them.

I agree with Trotterdam here. While anti-LGBT sentiments stroke heavily against my own principles, I've done my best to try to immerse myself into how a traditional country who favours status quo and thus anti-LGBT sentiments would react onto this.

I understand of course the difference between validity and player autonomy. I merely tried to explain, that I did not want to assume whether @@LEADER@@ is homophobic or not, even though the issue is to take place in a rather homophobic country.

As to the pro-gay option being overly dramatic, it was absolutely not my intent to have it be insulting. I imagined that someone living in an anti-LGBT country could be driven to such levels of desperation while trying to fight for their civil rights. Yes, I tried to add a satireish element to it and went along the trope of "desperate activist", not meaning to insult the LGBT community as I would be insulting myself in that situation. The same goes for the "LGBTABCDE-whatever". That was not meant as an insult, but that is how people react to it. Not me, not any LGBT member, but those outside of it do frequently use that "joke". As I sought to remain true to how a conservative/traditional country would react to it all, this seemed like a logical element of the dialogue.

[Candensia]

Saying that this issue will only be shown to nations with low LGBT rights does not mean that the argument can be tilted in favor of one side,

Huh? Validity can definitely influence what options are on the issue. Generally, an issue should have mainly options that are consistent with retaining the validity (so if the issue is only shown to nations that have banned homosexuality, most options - at least two - should keep homosexuality banned and then do something else that builds on that), with at most one option that reverses the validity. While there can be circumstances where two reversal options is acceptable, this one - where homosexuality isn't even the only topic under the discussion, as it's also about artistic rights - isn't one of them.

Of course, Trotterdam. I was using that sentence as a means to say that issues, even when restricted, ought to be told from an objective baseline. The options may be biased, that’s the whole point, but they should ideally be equally biased, and the description ought to be objective.

@OP, I think CWA’s suggestion:

LGBT campaigners are trying to draw attention to what they see as oppression of their civil rights in @@NAME@@, by reproducing photos of you, @@LEADER@@, but with your skin tone replaced by the colours of the rainbow.

Using this as the entirety of your description is a smart move, I feel. Nations that do not favor LGBT rights will likely not be conducive to expanding those rights. In that case, they’ll choose the appropriate option, but you don’t have overtly frame the issue as receptive to one opinion or the other. Having @@LEADER@@ go to a "traditional family" picnic probably defeats the effort you have put into not elaborating as to @@LEADER@@‘s opinion on homosexuality.

[Daarwyrth]

Using this as the entirety of your description is a smart move, I feel. Nations that do not favor LGBT rights will likely not be conducive to expanding those rights. In that case, they’ll choose the appropriate option, but you don’t have overtly frame the issue as receptive to one opinion or the other. Having @@LEADER@@ go to a "traditional family" picnic probably defeats the effort you have put into not elaborating as to @@LEADER@@‘s opinion on homosexuality.

It wasn't my intent to frame it overly receptive to one opinion or the other, that bit was meant to just add a little bit of flavour. But I can easily take that bit out of the introduction! It might create a more unbiased vision and will reduce the amount of text, so it's a win-win