Advertisement
by Sanctaria » Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:57 pm
by Daarwyrth » Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:07 am
Verdant Haven wrote: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!
Sanctaria wrote: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.
by Sanctaria » Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:33 am
Daarwyrth wrote:What exactly do you mean by smart quotes? The @@ bits?
by Daarwyrth » Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:02 am
by Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:51 am
[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.
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.
by Daarwyrth » Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:06 am
Candlewhisper Archive wrote: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.
by Daarwyrth » Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:53 am
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
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.
by Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:13 am
by Trotterdam » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:23 am
by Australian rePublic » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:24 am
by Australian rePublic » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:26 am
Trotterdam wrote: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@@.
by Daarwyrth » Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:32 am
Australian rePublic wrote: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"
Candlewhisper Archive wrote: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 wrote: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).
by Trotterdam » Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:39 am
by Daarwyrth » Fri Aug 09, 2019 12:28 pm
by Trotterdam » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:10 pm
by Daarwyrth » Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:36 pm
by SherpDaWerp » Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:33 am
Daarwyrth wrote:After having made a public appearance at a picknick
by Daarwyrth » Sat Aug 10, 2019 12:36 am
by Trotterdam » Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:13 am
by Daarwyrth » Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:34 am
Trotterdam wrote: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.
by Candensia » Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:43 am
"Allow those LGBTABCDE-whatever..."
The Free Joy State wrote:Time spent working on writing skills -- even if the draft doesn't work -- is never wasted.
by Trotterdam » Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:01 am
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.Candensia wrote: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,
by Daarwyrth » Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:10 am
Candensia wrote: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.
Candlewhisper Archive wrote: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.
Trotterdam wrote: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.Candensia wrote: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,
by Candensia » Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:31 am
Trotterdam wrote: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.Candensia wrote: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,
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.
The Free Joy State wrote:Time spent working on writing skills -- even if the draft doesn't work -- is never wasted.
by Daarwyrth » Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:10 pm
Candensia wrote: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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Paxum, StatEsburg
Advertisement