[Submitted] Green Thumbs Sore

[Cretox State]

An issue dealing with environmental claims in advertising going too far. As always, any feedback is appreciated.

Green Thumbs Sore

Validity: Must have high eco-friendliness and a market economy.

Description
Sensing a lucrative marketing opportunity, several major corporations attempted to capitalize on the nation's eco-friendly attitude by saturating every single one of their products with dubious claims such as "environmentally safe," "divinely blessed by Mother Nature herself," and everything in between. With countless other companies quickly following and scores of activists taking to the streets, the burden falls on you to broker a green peace.

Option 1
"I don't see the problem here," says United @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@, teasing you with some 100% recyclable organic @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@. "It's not as though we're lying to people: all our products contain so much environmental advertising that people buying them basically have no choice but to embrace the green craze! If that's not 'all profits go towards supporting the environment,' I don't know what is!"

Effect: lumberjacks only use certified eco-friendly chainsaws

Option 2
"Not as though you're lying?!" shrieks random activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, smacking what @@HE@@ assures you is not a 100% recyclable organic petition down on your desk. "This is making a mockery out of all our efforts! 'Green this, green that'- it has to end! If a company wants to put environmental claims in their advertising, they need to back them up with scientific fact."

Effect: people buying house plants need to sign off on a few dozen pages of legal documentation verifying it is indeed a house plant

Option 3
"Allow me to, ahem... advertise a solution," cackles carbon-suited bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@, excitedly fiddling with a roll of red tape. "How about the government outlaws all private advertising, and we just charge to design ads and product packaging ourselves? It'll solve the problem and fill our coffers in the process."

Effect: green advertising has never been more colorless

[Cretox State]

Green Thumbs Sore

Validity: Must have high eco-friendliness and a market economy.

Description
Sensing a lucrative marketing opportunity, several major corporations attempted to capitalize on the nation's eco-friendly attitude by advertising every single one of their products as "environmentally safe," "divinely blessed by Mother Nature herself," and everything in between, with countless other companies quickly following. With scores of environmental activists taking to the streets, the burden falls on you to broker a green peace.

Option 1
"I don't see the problem here," says United @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@, smacking a lump of 100% recyclable organic coal down on your desk. "It's not as though we're lying to people: all our products contain so much environmental advertising that people buying them basically have no choice but to embrace the green craze! If that's not 'all profits go towards supporting the environment,' I don't know what is!"

Effect: lumberjacks only use certified eco-friendly chainsaws

Option 2
"Not as though you're lying?!" shrieks random activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, smacking what @@HE@@ assures you is not a 100% recyclable organic petition down on your desk. "This is making a mockery out of all our efforts! 'Green this, green that'- it has to end! If a company wants to put environmental claims in their advertising, they need to back them up with scientific fact."

Effect: people buying house plants need to sign off on a few dozen pages of legal documentation verifying it is indeed a house plant

Option 3
"It seems the private sector has failed yet again," declares carbon-suited bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@, wrapping the coal in the petition and lighting it on fire. "How about the government outlaws all private advertising, and we just charge to design ads and product packaging ourselves? It'll solve the problem and fill our coffers in the process."

Effect: green advertising has never been more colorless

Green Thumbs Sore

Validity: Must have high eco-friendliness and a market economy.

Description
Seeing a lucrative marketing opportunity, several major corporations attempted to capitalize on the nation's eco-friendly attitude by advertising nearly every one of their products as "environmentally safe," "divinely blessed by Mother Nature herself," and everything in between, with countless other companies quickly following. With scores of environmental activists taking to the streets, the burden falls on you to broker a green peace.

Option 1a
Validity: Must allow smoking.
"I don't see the problem here," says United @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@, blowing a cloud of 100% recyclable organic cigarette smoke in your face. "It's not as though we're lying to people: our products contain so much environmental advertising that people buying them basically have no choice but to embrace the green craze! If that's not 'all profits go towards supporting the environment,' I don't know what is!"

Effect: lumberjacks only use certified eco-friendly chainsaws

Option 1b
Validity: Must ban smoking.
"I don't see the problem here," says United @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@, smacking a lump of 100% recyclable organic coal down on your desk. "It's not as though we're lying to people: our products contain so much environmental advertising that people buying them basically have no choice but to embrace the green craze! If that's not 'all profits go towards supporting the environment,' I don't know what is!"

Effect: lumberjacks only use certified eco-friendly chainsaws

Option 2a
Validity: Must allow smoking.
"Not as though you're lying?!" shrieks random activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, with what you assume is not 100% recyclable organic steam practically coming out of @@HIS@@ ears. "This is making a mockery out of all our efforts! 'Green this, green that'- it has to end! If a company wants to put environmental claims in their advertising, they need to back them up with scientific fact."

Effect: people buying house plants need to sign off on a few dozen pages of legal documentation verifying it is indeed a house plant

Option 2b
Validity: Must ban smoking.
"Not as though you're lying?!" shrieks random activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, smacking what you assume is not a 100% recyclable organic petition down on your desk. "This is making a mockery out of all our efforts! 'Green this, green that'- it has to end! If a company wants to put environmental claims in their advertising, they need to back them up with scientific fact."

Effect: people buying house plants need to sign off on a few dozen pages of legal documentation verifying it is indeed a house plant

Option 3a
Validity: Must allow smoking.
"It seems the private sector has failed yet again," coughs carbon-suited bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@, turning off the smoke alarm and not opening a single window. "How about the government outlaws all private advertising, and we just design ads and product packaging ourselves? It'll solve the problem and fill our coffers in the process."

Effect: green advertising has never been more colorless

Option 3b
Validity: Must ban smoking.
"It seems the private sector has failed yet again," declares carbon-suited bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@, wrapping the coal in the petition and lighting it on fire. "How about the government outlaws all private advertising, and we just design ads and product packaging ourselves? It'll solve the problem and fill our coffers in the process."

Effect: green advertising has never been more colorless

[Honeydewistania]

Why the difference in smoking? It’s not like the jokes are so much more funny than the coal ones.

[Cretox State]

Why the difference in smoking? It’s not like the jokes are so much more funny than the coal ones.

I wanted to make a smoking joke in an environmental issue, pretty much. Are the jokes themselves amusing?

[Trotterdam]

I assumed the joke was about assuming that cigarettes are healthy just because they're recyclable and organic.

[Cretox State]

I assumed the joke was about assuming that cigarettes are healthy just because they're recyclable and organic.

Pretty much, yeah.

[Trotterdam]

As for serious advice:

Seeing a lucrative marketing opportunity, several major corporations attempted to capitalize on the nation's eco-friendly attitude by advertising nearly every one of their products as "environmentally safe," "divinely blessed by Mother Nature herself," and everything in between, with countless other companies quickly following. With scores of environmental activists taking to the streets, the burden falls on you to broker a green peace.

I think you need to make it clearer why these claims are suspect. Corporations calling their products environmentally-friendly isn't a problem. It's only when they aren't actually environmentally-friendly that it becomes a problem.

[Minskiev]

Ultra nit picky, but 2a & b makes your Leader assume, which is like the most minor infringement on player autonomy, but yeah. Instead of ‘which you assume’ maybe it could be ‘which assumably’.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Two solid issues drafted in a row. You've definitely got our attention now...

[Noahs Second Country]

It's a solid draft but is there a particular reason why you need to have this issue assigned to nations with and without smoking? Especially considering you can just restrict the validity instead of dealing with 3 extra options.

[Honeydewistania]

It's a solid draft but is there a particular reason why you need to have this issue assigned to nations with and without smoking? Especially considering you can just restrict the validity instead of dealing with 3 extra options.

yea thats what i said smh

[Cretox State]

It's a solid draft but is there a particular reason why you need to have this issue assigned to nations with and without smoking? Especially considering you can just restrict the validity instead of dealing with 3 extra options.

Good point. How does it look now?

[Jutsa]

Agh, I'd always feel weird about the idea of restricting a whole issue's validity for the sake of a joke. I mean, I get it's easier and more ideal,
but it's sorta why I end up with a bajillion variant options on my drafts — I'd much rather it have wider availability, all made better if an interesting and unexpected combination crops up.

Then again, editors' call, I suppose. And in this case, while I do appreciate the smoke joke, I don't really see the need for 2 or 3 to have variants.
Admittedly, 3 I don't entirely get the joke of. Meanwhile, option 2... I mean, I get steam vs. smoke, yeah,
but I gotta admit, having the speaker have a not-100%-recyclable petition makes more amusing sense, and I kinda feel like that variant could really go in alone.

Option 1, I could go either way. Like, I like both jokes, in all honesty, but the 100% recyclable organic coal also would do well on its own, in a way.
But again, if any of them had a variant, definitely keep that one.

Otherwise, pretty nice issue, imo.

oh well ok I guess you'll just remove all the variables before I even post this because I took too long to type that, that's fine. *sniff*
but yeah looks good

[Cretox State]

oh well ok I guess you'll just remove all the variables before I even post this because I took too long to type that, that's fine. *sniff*
but yeah looks good

No regrets, Mr. Freeman.

Unrelated: would the issue flow better if I changed option 1 to:

"I don't see the problem here," says United @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@, teasing you with some 100% recyclable organic @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@. "It's not as though we're lying to people: all our products contain so much environmental advertising that people buying them basically have no choice but to embrace the green craze! If that's not 'all profits go towards supporting the environment,' I don't know what is!"

And option 3 to:

"It seems the private sector has failed yet again," declares carbon-suited bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@, excitedly fiddling with a roll of red tape. "How about the government outlaws all private advertising, and we just charge to design ads and product packaging ourselves? It'll solve the problem and fill our coffers in the process."

[Minskiev]

I do think Option 3 would flow better with that change, and for Option 1, it’s less about improving flow as it is making a joke, that still retains easy readability.

In other words, yes.

[The Marsupial Illuminati]

You may submit this now.

[Noahs Second Country]

oh well ok I guess you'll just remove all the variables before I even post this because I took too long to type that, that's fine. *sniff*
but yeah looks good

No regrets, Mr. Freeman.

Unrelated: would the issue flow better if I changed option 1 to:

"I don't see the problem here," says United @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@, teasing you with some 100% recyclable organic @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@. "It's not as though we're lying to people: all our products contain so much environmental advertising that people buying them basically have no choice but to embrace the green craze! If that's not 'all profits go towards supporting the environment,' I don't know what is!"

And option 3 to:

"It seems the private sector has failed yet again," declares carbon-suited bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@, excitedly fiddling with a roll of red tape. "How about the government outlaws all private advertising, and we just charge to design ads and product packaging ourselves? It'll solve the problem and fill our coffers in the process."

I think the option 1 change is funny, the option 3 change doesn't seem extremely relevant to the topic at hand, though it is a very funny character description.

I suggest changing the opener of option 3 to something less generic. Perhaps a snarky comment about how poorly designed the petition/company advertising is, which leads into the rest of the option better.

You may submit this now.

Or you can do this

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I'd actually advise against submitting yet, even if its submission-ready. It's only been a few days, and useful feedback may emerge. Give it a week or three, minimum, is my advice.

[Minskiev]

The word sensing in ‘Sensing a lucrative business opportunity...’ feels like it’s happening now, even if it was in the past.

[Cretox State]

Draft 3; modified options 1 and 3 to flow better and hopefully be a bit more amusing.

I'd actually advise against submitting yet, even if its submission-ready. It's only been a few days, and useful feedback may emerge. Give it a week or three, minimum, is my advice.

Agreed.

The word sensing in ‘Sensing a lucrative business opportunity...’ feels like it’s happening now, even if it was in the past.

"They bombed the village, believing it the right thing to do."

[Trotterdam]

My previous comment has not been addressed:

Seeing a lucrative marketing opportunity, several major corporations attempted to capitalize on the nation's eco-friendly attitude by advertising nearly every one of their products as "environmentally safe," "divinely blessed by Mother Nature herself," and everything in between, with countless other companies quickly following. With scores of environmental activists taking to the streets, the burden falls on you to broker a green peace.

I think you need to make it clearer why these claims are suspect. Corporations calling their products environmentally-friendly isn't a problem. It's only when they aren't actually environmentally-friendly that it becomes a problem.

Nobody actually explains why these claims are bad. Even the speaker of option 2 merely accuses the corporations of "lying" without actually clarifying what they're lying about.

[Cretox State]

My previous comment has not been addressed:

Seeing a lucrative marketing opportunity, several major corporations attempted to capitalize on the nation's eco-friendly attitude by advertising nearly every one of their products as "environmentally safe," "divinely blessed by Mother Nature herself," and everything in between, with countless other companies quickly following. With scores of environmental activists taking to the streets, the burden falls on you to broker a green peace.

I think you need to make it clearer why these claims are suspect. Corporations calling their products environmentally-friendly isn't a problem. It's only when they aren't actually environmentally-friendly that it becomes a problem.

Nobody actually explains why these claims are bad. Even the speaker of option 2 merely accuses the corporations of "lying" without actually clarifying what they're lying about.

Alright, I tried to make it more clear that the problem is rampant environmental advertising that's either dubious and unsubstantiated (green eco-friendly chainsaws) or borderline fraudulent (our plastic is fully biodegradable).

[Minskiev]

Draft 3; modified options 1 and 3 to flow better and hopefully be a bit more amusing.

I'd actually advise against submitting yet, even if its submission-ready. It's only been a few days, and useful feedback may emerge. Give it a week or three, minimum, is my advice.

Agreed.

The word sensing in ‘Sensing a lucrative business opportunity...’ feels like it’s happening now, even if it was in the past.

"They bombed the village, believing it the right thing to do."

That’s different, because you included bombed, an inherently past-tense verb. However, I don’t really have a word to replace it with, so..carry on.

[Cretox State]

The word sensing in ‘Sensing a lucrative business opportunity...’ feels like it’s happening now, even if it was in the past.

That’s different, because you included bombed, an inherently past-tense verb. However, I don’t really have a word to replace it with, so..carry on.

Sensing a lucrative marketing opportunity, several major corporations attempted...

Also, you misquoted me, though not really relevant (business vs. marketing)

[Minskiev]

Hmm. Perhaps flip them? To make it:

Several major corporations, sensing a lucrative marketing opportunity, attempted to capitalize on the nation's eco-friendly attitude by saturating every single one of their products with dubious claims such as "environmentally safe," "divinely blessed by Mother Nature herself," and everything in between.