[DRAFT]Art Where Aren't Thou?

[The Young Ur]

Title: Art Where Aren't Thou?
Description: ]After you made graffiti legal, many took to the streets to bring color to everyone. One particularly ambitious group of aspiring artists took to a historic mural, a brawl began between them and a vigilant band of tour guides, with both parties having made it into your office, you are now forced to tour the options of where art is legal.
Validity: Choose option 3 in#114 Wipe Out Graffiti

Needs complete reworking.
Option 1: An angry looking woman, covered completely with spray paint, claps her hands, trying to gather the room's attention, when that fails she gives a little cough that devolves into a fit. Finally with all eyes on her she starts, “Our entire livelihood is shaped by this city and textured by the artifacts it secrets! These hooligans wish to destroy these artifacts, in any form they can manage. Instead of letting these monsters color our counties reputation with vulgar symbols, ban this desecration, and put them to work cleaning up their own mess.” She hacks one more time, leaving glitter on your desk and retreats behind her mass of guides brandishing brochures menacingly.
[effect] Aspiring artists in community service outfits follow angry tour guides to scrub anything more lively than beige off buildings.

Option 2: A rough looking man with numerous paper cuts and bruises struts forward bumping as many guides as possible in between him and your desk, “@@LEADER@@, you declared that we would have space to do our art, and giving in now is simply undermining your authority.” He leans closer to you, and you see a tattoo of a snake around his ear, “For us, your pro-graffiti policy is the same as saying ‘@@SLOGAN@@.’ We will be your loyal followers for as long as you run... Or at least until someone offers us something better.”
[effect] Graffiti often depicts @@LEADER@@ chained to neighboring art.

Option 3: A tired looking tour guide with a stylized “V’’ branded on his apparel steps forward, “Our livelihood depends on our surroundings yes, but every one should be able to do their hobby. I suggest that we dedicate places for graffiti, and only allow it there.
[effect] Things Stranger fans have flashbacks as layers of paint stretch off the graffiti designated walls.

Option 4: A well dressed, prominent business man bribes his way into the door to lay down his proposition, “Mr. @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@ is correct, just because this hobby can be disruptive to other citizens doesn’t mean it should be hunted to extinction [i]cough we never have done that cough cough no, never cough.
What was I saying? Oh, yes, you should let the private industry pitch in and open these graffiti areas. Of course, it might cost them a bit more than the public ones, but the public doesn't pay for anyone else's hobby!
[effect] Graffiti artists are learning the “soul” does not mean the bottom of your shoe.[/i]

[Westinor]

Hi there, welcome to Got Issues? (I'm assuming this is your first foray into this forum )! A few things in your description,

When a certain group of excitable people took that to mean a historic mural, a braul began between them and a vigilant band of tour guides. Now both parties have made it into your office to question the value of your choice.

This sentence could probably be simplified to something like "Following a violent brawl between some teenagers that defaced a historic mural and a vigilant band of tour guides, the question of what passes as legal graffiti has been brought under the limelight." I changed the "group of excitable people" to teenagers in this specific example simply because that description is ambiguous, though you should feel free to change that as you see fit. As a whole, your description felt staggered, and the flow wasn't great - feel free to take what you will from that example sentence.

I think this issue would work better as a question of what does and doesn't count as legal graffiti as a whole - it's a good concept that I'm surprised hasn't been covered yet, but the options should focus on what limits should be set on graffiti artists. There's lots of potential here - best of luck!

[Australian rePublic]

Why would anyone chose option 2? I mean it seems like common sense for the legislation to say "graffiti is legal, except..."

[The Young Ur]

Hi there, welcome to Got Issues? (I'm assuming this is your first foray into this forum )! A few things in your description,

When a certain group of excitable people took that to mean a historic mural, a braul began between them and a vigilant band of tour guides. Now both parties have made it into your office to question the value of your choice.

This sentence could probably be simplified to something like "Following a violent brawl between some teenagers that defaced a historic mural and a vigilant band of tour guides, the question of what passes as legal graffiti has been brought under the limelight." I changed the "group of excitable people" to teenagers in this specific example simply because that description is ambiguous, though you should feel free to change that as you see fit. As a whole, your description felt staggered, and the flow wasn't great - feel free to take what you will from that example sentence.

Is this better?

After you made graffiti legal, many took to the streets to bring color to everyone. When one particularly ambitious group of aspiring artists took to a historic mural, a brawl began between them and a vigilant band of tour guides.

I think this issue would work better as a question of what does and doesn't count as legal graffiti as a whole - it's a good concept that I'm surprised hasn't been covered yet, but the options should focus on what limits should be set on graffiti artists. There's lots of potential here - best of luck!

I would love for you to expand on that idea, I sounds like a great idae, but I'm not quite sure what it means

Why would anyone chose option 2? I mean it seems like common sense for the legislation to say "graffiti is legal, except..."

One of the formats for issues talked about in the guide is, "For divorce, against divorce, and the crazy third way." Also, being honest, is it even possible to have an issue without some sort of radical?

[Westinor]

After you made graffiti legal, many took to the streets to bring color to everyone. When one particularly ambitious group of aspiring artists took to a historic mural, a brawl began between them and a vigilant band of tour guides. Now both parties have made it into your office to question the value of your choice.

This still feels clunky to me. Specifically focusing on "you making things legal" is generally something I try to avoid, but that's probably something of personal preference. "many took to the streets to bring color to everyone" could probably be phrased better (try replacing the "everyone" with something else, though the phrase itself is already humorous). "When" is weak here, as the cause is the brawl, which doesn't feel like a strong result (I tend to see when as very weak in general, but it usually needs to be (this thing happens, so this following change/result happens), but most of the time the use of "after" or "following" is stronger. In this case, I think changing "when" and combining the second and third sentences should state your description in an efficient way.

I would love for you to expand on that idea, I sounds like a great idae, but I'm not quite sure what it means

You've sort of got it, but currently your issue focuses more on the legality of graffiti as a whole. I think a stronger focus would be on what counts as legal graffiti, rather than an immediate focus on "we need to ban this!". Changing the last sentence/clause of your description to something like "the question of what constitutes legal graffiti has been brought under the limelight" would help with transitioning the rest of your issue into this.

[USS Monitor]

I like the idea of pitting legalized graffiti against historical conservationism. There is a natural space for this topic as a follow up.

However, the options are kind of unfocused. It feels like you were thinking too much about "what typically appears in issues options?" and not enough about "what are the logical responses to this specific issue?"

You definitely want one option that allows graffiti everywhere and one that protects historic sites against vandalism.

Other things you could bring up, but they are not as essential:

>Protecting holy places including modern houses of worship. This could be combined together with protecting historic sites, or it could be a standalone option.
>An option that bans graffiti outright.
>Enforcing some kind of quality standards on graffiti.
>Allowing graffiti everywhere, except that you are not allowed to paint over another person's artwork.

I do not recommend using all of these suggestions because that would make the issue very long. I'd say option 1 and 2 should be the basic "graffiti everywhere" and "not on historic sites" options, and then you'll want one or two other options. Designated graffiti areas (like your current option 3) could stay in as an option.

I think option 4 is the weakest option in the current draft. The first three options need some polishing, but the basic concepts behind them are OK.

If I was to rewrite this, I'd make the speaker in option 1 more composed and articulate, and have that option protect both historic sites and religious ones. Option 2 would be more about freedom, less patriotism. Option 3 would be a more stodgy and out of touch speaker, but still advocating designated graffiti spaces. Option 4 would be an artsy person advocating graffiti everywhere, but you can't paint over someone else's work.

However, you may have other ideas that you want to try out. You don't have to do precisely what I would do.

[Trotterdam]

>Allowing graffiti everywhere, except that you are not allowed to paint over another person's artwork.

And how do you define "artwork"? Someone could argue that elegantly-designed architecture qualifies as artwork in its own right, even if it's not painted over.

[USS Monitor]

>Allowing graffiti everywhere, except that you are not allowed to paint over another person's artwork.

And how do you define "artwork"? Someone could argue that elegantly-designed architecture qualifies as artwork in its own right, even if it's not painted over.

Could drop a reference to this problem as an effect line.