[Submit] Over, Not Into

[Seenvorland]

Hi! This is my first attempt at an issue. There are several things I'm unsure about especially in terms of its length and also how I articulated some things (English isn't my native language). I took inspiration for this from the crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 in 2015. I look forward to your feedback. ^^

Titel: Just Plane Wrong (see comment about second draft in thread)

Text: Tragedy struck when a @@DEMONYMNOUN@@ Airways pilot deliberately crashed a commercial airplane into a mountain, killing @@HIM@@self and everyone on board. In the aftermath, a newspaper revealed that the pilot had been diagnosed with depression but neglected to disclose this to @@HIS@@ employer.

Validity: Invalid for nations that have banned airplanes

Opinion 1: "It's the doctor's fault," shouts @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, mother of one of the victims. "My little angel would still be alive if he had reported the pilot to his airline! Pilots should have to undergo mental checks before every flight and doctors should be required to report everyone who is deemed unstable to their arline!"
Effect: mood swings are a valid reason for flight cancellations

Opinion 2: "ARE YOU MAD?" screams @@RANDOMMALENAME@@, a pilot infamous for his rants against passengers. "I shouldn't have my rights revoked like this just because one nutjob puts a bad name on us! Abolish all existing rules about mental evaluations for pilots and let us decide for ourselves whether we're fit enough to fly or not."
Effect: the insides of airplanes hear more prayers than churches

Opinion 3: "The pilots of this country simply don't get paid enough for their tireless efforts," says @@DEMONYMNOUN@@ Airlines Pilots Union President @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Hummel. "Reward their hard work by raising their wages, @@LEADER@@! Sure, it'll cost the airlines more, but you don't want a tragedy like this to happen again, right?"
Effect: parents take out mortgages on their homes to go on vacations with their children

Opinion 4: "MORE REGULATIONS?" shouts @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ O'Leary, CEO of low-budget airline RonnieAir. "We would have to increase the prices of tickets and we'd lose passengers! How about you stop putting even more burdens on us and give us a tax break instead to show that you support @@DEMONYMADEJCTIVE@@ airlines?"
Effect: flying has become a popular way of commuting

[Lelscrep]

Pretty good issue overall, the second effect line made me chuckle.

This all just happened because the pilot who crashed the damn plane locked the cockpit when his co-pilot went out to use the restroom.

This sentence is completely contrarian to what the other speakers claim, which I assume would be the truth given by the black box, or possibly radio transmissions. I don't really see a reason why this speaker claims a different reason for the crash happening, especially without any evidence. Personally, I would make this option more on being monetarily lenient towards airline corporations - less pilots needed.

[Australian rePublic]

Option 3- there's already a pilot shortage as it is. Where do you plan to find more pilots?

[Seenvorland]

This sentence is completely contrarian to what the other speakers claim, which I assume would be the truth given by the black box, or possibly radio transmissions. I don't really see a reason why this speaker claims a different reason for the crash happening, especially without any evidence. Personally, I would make this option more on being monetarily lenient towards airline corporations - less pilots needed.

Thank you for your comment. I see what you mean. Originally I was contemplating putting this into the text of the issue as well some way but did not like how it turned out and thought it was too wordy. I somehow wanted to explain how the pilot was even able to do this since under normal circumstances a co-pilot would obviously prevent such a thing from happening or well, at least try it. Because the thing with the bathroom is also what happened in reality with the Germanwings crash. I could take it out but I'm not sure whether there is some sort of logical flaw in there then because of what I just described.

Would you change the entire option then? The way it's written right now I'm not sure how to make it more monetarily lenient towards airlines.

Option 3- there's already a pilot shortage as it is. Where do you plan to find more pilots?

Thanks to you for your comment as well. That's a good point, I did not think about this. I think the kind of person I described there would not advocate for fewer regulations as president of an aviation union. Do you think I should maybe put in something along the lines of recruiting pilots from other countries?

[Australian rePublic]

The pilot shortage is global.

[Seenvorland]

This sentence is completely contrarian to what the other speakers claim, which I assume would be the truth given by the black box, or possibly radio transmissions. I don't really see a reason why this speaker claims a different reason for the crash happening, especially without any evidence. Personally, I would make this option more on being monetarily lenient towards airline corporations - less pilots needed.

Sorry for quoting you again. I thought about an alternative to this. How would this be?:

4. "That would be insane!" interjects @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, CEO of a low-budget airline. "Do you have any idea how much this would cost us? We would have to increase the prices of tickets and we'd lose passengers! For years we've been terrorized by more and more regulations. It's about time you do something to support our airlines. Maybe with a tax break? That way we could also get more tourists into @@NATIONAME@@."

The pilot shortage is global.

I mean shortage or not, you can still try to headhunt pilots. But I get your point. I could maybe take the point "more pilots" entirely out and make it more about paying them more or something. Maybe in that kind of sense:

Opinion 3: A man walks in and introduces himself as President of the largest national union for pilots. "Look, the real issue is that pilots in this country feel that we don't acknowledge them enough. They are required to work more than what's good for their health! You should mandate airlines to pay pilots a much higher wage to show them that the government appreciates their tireless efforts. Sure, it'll cost the airlines more, but we don't want a tragedy like this to happen again."

How would that be?

[Australian rePublic]

This sentence is completely contrarian to what the other speakers claim, which I assume would be the truth given by the black box, or possibly radio transmissions. I don't really see a reason why this speaker claims a different reason for the crash happening, especially without any evidence. Personally, I would make this option more on being monetarily lenient towards airline corporations - less pilots needed.

Sorry for quoting you again. I thought about an alternative to this. How would this be?:

4. "That would be insane!" interjects @@RANDOMFEMALENAME@@, CEO of a low-budget airline. "Do you have any idea how much this would cost us? We would have to increase the prices of tickets and we'd lose passengers! For years we've been terrorized by more and more regulations. It's about time you do something to support our airlines. Maybe with a tax break? That way we could also get more tourists into @@NATIONAME@@."

The pilot shortage is global.

I mean shortage or not, you can still try to headhunt pilots. But I get your point. I could maybe take the point "more pilots" entirely out and make it more about paying them more or something. Maybe in that kind of sense:

Opinion 3: A man walks in and introduces himself as President of the largest national union for pilots. "Look, the real issue is that pilots in this country feel that we don't acknowledge them enough. They are required to work more than what's good for their health! You should mandate airlines to pay pilots a much higher wage to show them that the government appreciates their tireless efforts. Sure, it'll cost the airlines more, but we don't want a tragedy like this to happen again."

How would that be?

Slightly better. Doesn't address the crux of the pilot shortage, but that's not the point of the issue

[Valentine Z]

Hello there! I am not much of a regular into GI, but I figured that I would try to help you out with this issue! ^^ So.. I feel that we should start with the general bits first.

First and foremost, you should always keep and number your drafts into a spoiler, like so!

[Current Draft Here.]

My third issue draft with more feedback.

This is my second draft after some feedback.

This is my first issue draft.

This is for a combination of reasons, but most importantly to keep track of your progress, and also because you will never know what kind of things might be useful again. Your previous draft won't be rendered completely useless just because you wrote a new one. You can look back to it and see if there is something that you like from there that could potentially be brought back.

-----

Issue Result / Outcome lines don't start with a capital letter, and doesn't have a full-stop.

This is more technical, but I thought I would put it in here. The reason for this is that you usually have issues and National Happenings in the format “Following the new legislation in Valentine Z,…” then the issue effect line. Though of course, this is not really a big of a concern and I’m sure the Editors are willing to overlook and help you out with this one.

-----

Ahh, now the actual meat of it. Let’s get started!

First and foremost, I would actually try to look at the title itself. “Over, not Into” is honestly not a bad issue title, and it is pretty concise. Personally speaking, there’s already “Over, Under, or Through?” that was used for one of the older issues, so… I would try to distance myself with the title of other published issues. At least, that is my personal opinion.

I see that you are already acquainted with the Macros. That is good, that is good! We are stepping in the right direction. Since this is an issue on national airlines, however, perhaps you can use other macros as well if you like? The list of them can be found right here! You don’t have to go overboard with it, but it will make a difference if you use your nation’s name in there as a macro? Instead of just “International Airlines”, “Seenvorland International” or “Seenvorlandian International” (with the usage of @@DEMONYMNOUN@@ or @@DEMONYM@@, I believe) will work better!

Use a combination of fixed and randomised names. For example, if you want to reference "Marilyn Manson", you don't just put the name directly. You can go ahead with @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@ Manson, and that will work just fine. ^^

Feel free to reference some names along the way. One rule I have taken from my past experience with writing some issues is that you don’t need to fret about referencing some real-life stuff, but you should also be mindful NOT to use it vis-à-vis. For example, RyanAir will cause trouble, but RonAir, or RonnieAir, or anything of that sort should be fine. It’s a mix about being subtle and also still trying to make it obvious enough for someone to notice. My personal favorite is the “The Wrath of the Fish King”, a play on “The Wrath of the Lich King” and Warcraft 3 stuff in general. It’s not hammered in and screaming “This is from WC3!”, and nowhere in the issue should it say what it is referencing; that's too obvious. Instead, it should be in such a way that fans of the game will be able to tell by the names that “Ahh, so that’s what it was referencing! Clever!”
(Of note is that you will realise that older issues namedrop directly, such as Harry Potter. Those are from the olden days of NationStates and cannot be changed. And that was when rules for issue-writing are relaxed because back then, NS was really, really small. Now, things are a little different. Think of our very own UN being changed to WA because Max Barry got a cease-and-desist.)

I would rename “Effects” to “Results”, perhaps. This is more of a nitpick and my feedback on the usage of terminology. Results should be what you have written, i.e. the text outcomes. Effects are mostly for NS Stats. For instance, the text outcome can be a funny or a witty line (sometimes a combination or neither), and effects are what do you think should happen to the nation’s stats. Though, the Effects are something that writers don’t usually concern themselves with; that one is up to the Issue Editors and the staff to decide on the exact outcome.

Optional Options! Now that’s an option! Every single choice doesn’t have to be available for all the nations. You will see that one of your capitalist nations got 4 choices, while a communist one might got 3. What is up with that? Option validity! You can say it so that you wanted a particular option to be only available for certain nations.
E.g. [validity for the choice] Nation must be Capitalist
^ That can be used in reference for a nation that is a capitalist, and maybe there is that one guy that wanted to cease the private assets and nationalise them. This option will not appear for communists, perhaps because they have already did that, or it’s not just for them.

Drop some options (or the issue) if they don't work. This is unfortunately the thing that many people - including me, dread. Because you got all the jokes in there, it was written well, but... it was just not meant to be in the issue for one reason or another. Maybe it just doesn't fit well. Maybe it's still too serious. Or too humorous.. or sometimes, it was just not an option or an issue that a leader would be confronted by. Your average leader would be confronted with a national budget issue, more than "Vanilla or Chocolate ice-cream?" That is not to say that this issue or the options inside should be dropped; this is simply me giving general feedback. This issue is pretty good to me so far, and all it needs are more cheeky references, more Macros, and the like. :3

-----

That will be all from me, for now! ^^ I know there is a lot to take in, and you are doing pretty great as a second-timer. Don’t worry, I have not publicised issues myself and don’t fret if you didn’t get it on the first or second try. Got Issues thrive on feedback, learning from your past issue ideas and most importantly – having the drive and passion! Please feel free to TG me or ask me here and I will try my very best to help you with my experience I have gotten myself! I am looking forward to seeing your works improved.

All the best! ♥

EDIT: More and more words. Some phrasing.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Good premise, but somewhat wordy. You have a good grasp of effect lines.

I suggest making it a 3-4 option issue, and cutting the opening description and each remaining option to be no longer than the current option 2.

[Valentine Z]

Good premise, but somewhat wordy. You have a good grasp of effect lines.

I suggest making it a 3-4 option issue, and cutting the opening description and each remaining option to be no longer than the current option 2.

Ahh, I thought the opening description is of the right length for this one.

Not that I am going against your suggestions and judgement, mind you. ^^; I thought that was the average length of an issue opener.

Some parts could be summarized though, now that I look at it.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

The opening isn't too long in absolute terms, and issue openings that length are fine. However, it does feel generally inefficient. A good principle is to use the fewest number of words you can to transmit the needed information and humour.

For example:

Text: Tragedy struck when a pilot deliberately crashed a commercial airplane into a mountain, killing @@HIM@@self, @@HIS@@ crew and @@HIS@@ 225 passengers. In the aftermath, it has been revealed that the pilot had been diagnosed with depression but had not disclosed this to @@HIS@@ employer.

[Valentine Z]

The opening isn't too long in absolute terms, and issue openings that length are fine. However, it does feel generally inefficient. A good principle is to use the fewest number of words you can to transmit the needed information and humour.

For example:

Text: Tragedy struck when a pilot deliberately crashed a commercial airplane into a mountain, killing himself, his crew and his 225 passengers. In the aftermath, it has been revealed that the pilot had been diagnosed with depression but had not disclosed this to his employer.

That is true. Brevity is important!

[Seenvorland]

Thank you all a lot for your comments, they're very helpful especially because I want to try writing more issues in the future if I can think of good ideas.

I'll try to put your ideas in this issue later today when I have the time and will then post again.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I also want to see more issues by you!

Are you the same player as Sensorland, btw? The writing style and nation names seem similar.

[Seenvorland]

I also want to see more issues by you!

Are you the same player as Sensorland, btw? The writing style and nation names seem similar.

No, I'm not, although funnily enough you happen to be the second person this week to ask me.

[Seenvorland]

I have edited the draft in the original post. I removed the fifth opinion and shortened the text of all other opinions.

I am not sure about the new title. Titles are what I struggle with the most. The one I put in now is obviously a pun title.

Other ones I thought about were:

Code 7500 (a code pilots use if their plane gets hijacked or is in danger)
Code Airpocket (a code pilots use if their plane gets into turbulences)
Pilot Episode (juts a pun I guess)
Distress On Board (as in "Emergency on Board"?)

Edit: Since nobody seems to want to add anything, I'll submit it. ^^

[Valentine Z]

A little too late from me, but I wish you all the best with your issue! I hope it gets accepted! ♥

[Australian rePublic]

Good luck

[Tinhampton]

This issue has been accepted (with significant changes) as Issue #1343 "Feeling Down." O: CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR ISSUE