[DRAFT] Won’t Budge on the Grudge

[Kiddian States]

The Blue @@ANIMAL@@ Diner is rapidly gaining popularity among the residents of @@CAPITAL@@, even making it into the top 10 on @@CAPITAL@@ Culinary Magazine’s Top 50 Hottest Restaurants in @@NAME@@. However, despite the popularity, scandal insued when the owner denied service to the @@CAPITAL@@ Times’s chief food critic. @@HIS3@@ reason? Allegedly, the critic bullied @@HIM3@@ in high school. This incident has people questioning when (or if) service should be revoked

Invalid for all nations without capitalism and free press

Option 1
The critic in question, @@RANDOMNAME@@, stands up indignantly. “How dare @@HE3@@ not serve me! I’m just trying to do my job! How can I call myself a food critic for a major magazine if I’m not critiquing a popular restaurant? And who cares if we had a rocky history, that was years ago! Besides, personal issues should have no place in business. Make sure no one is denied service because of personal reasons!” He turns to @@FIRSTNAME3@@. “Or I’ll just have to take my excellent press elsewhere.”

self-defense teachers are legally required to teach martial arts to those who have beaten them up

Option 2
Celebrity civil rights activist @@RANDOMNAME@@ chimes in. “Frankly, I don’t see why anyone should be refused service. All I’ve seen so far is that it’s a tool of discrimination and petty vengeance. Come to think of it, I haven’t heard any good reasons why service should be rescinded. So don’t side with racists, @@LEADER@@! Allow everyone to be served the same, no matter what!”

the government has adopted a “No Shirt, No Shoes, Service Anyway” policy

Option 3
The owner of the Blue @@ANIMAL@@ Diner, @@RANDOMNAME@@, sputters. “Wait, wait, hold on a minute! Are we just going to forget what that jerk did to me? @@HE1@@ doesn’t deserve to eat from my excellent restaurant, especially not after the parking lot incident! I should be allowed to rescind service from anyone, for whatever reason!” @@HE@@ kicks the chair out from under @@FIRSTNAME1@@. “That’s what you get for graduation!”

people are being denied service for looking at the owner the wrong way or just from being a southern @@DEMONYMNOUN@@

[Kiddian States]

I’m also taking suggestions for a better opening paragraph, cause I feel mines kinda weak

[Tee Googly Coffee Me]

Sorry don't have much of anything to add critique wise but I did find the "A recent poll has found that the most common phobia among government officials is xenophobia" very amusing. Good job!

[Kiddian States]

Sorry don't have much of anything to add critique wise but I did find the "A recent poll has found that the most common phobia among government officials is xenophobia" very amusing. Good job!

=D

[Verdant Haven]

Suggestions from the first draft:

- We have a person described first as just "a man refusing service," then as a shop owner, and then as a restaurateur. The initial text should make clear what this person is, and then the issue text should remain compatible with that throughout. I would definitely suggest using one of the specific occupations, because a random person "refusing service" doesn't set the scene.

- A business refusing service for bad behavior doesn't necessarily seem shocking enough to cause this level of furor without some additional factor. Maybe include the part about this being a famous/upscale restaurant that people care about in the description, and/or give these alleged bullies some reason for folks to give a dang. Maybe one of them is a media-darling celebrity and this is a scandalous revelation about their past behavior? It needs some oomph to really catch attention. I don't think many people would bat an eye at "violent idiot denied service at classy establishment."

- What is the basis of the bullies' claim that they should be allowed to dine anywhere at any time? They aren't arguing from a position of being a protected class – they're basically saying they should be allowed to do anything to anyone, and have no consequences. This is emphasized by having one of them move to threaten you, as Leader. Their argument is totally unsympathetic. Again, it would be totally normal for a business to be able to refuse service for bad behavior, which the current descriptions make clear they still engage in. I feel like this would be a heck of a lot stronger if the bullies are claiming that is ancient history and they are different people now, perhaps even offering an apology and seeking a second chance. You want to give the player at least one decent reason to choose each option.

- The restaurant owner seems a bit binary – simultaneously cowed and meek, but fiercely yelling at Leader about injustice and revenge. Either is fine, but try to envision their personality and then have them follow that characterization. Accompanied by the suggestion above about the bullies having changed their ways, it would be some interesting irony to have the restaurant owner now be the one who is angry and threatening.

- Option 3 is a bit of a weird reach. This person is basically saying that people who aren't in protected classes shouldn't be able to be denied service, but anybody in a protected class should have their protection removed… which would make them unprotected classes… which would mean they couldn't be denied service… etc. This might be strengthened by having the owner make a point of saying they aren't denying service based on things like race and religion, which they respect, but rather because of the personal bad behavior of the subjects. That way, this speaker could roll in claiming they should be able to deny service to anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any reason, which would be a much more cogent position to hold. Also as a side note, having this be a recently cancelled social media personality adds some validity requirements related to having the internet, free press, etc. Probably better to find another way to suggest what you're suggesting about them.

- Option 4 (the socialist one, you've got it marked as a second option 3 currently) seems a touch unnecessary for this particular issue. A feud over restaurant service seems like a real stretch to turn into a complete economic revolution. Option 1 already is the "don't let people use personal feuds to deny service" option – this is just that but turned into an unrelated demand to nationalist literally everything. I'd suggest dropping the last option.

A couple technical notes:

- You specify in the text that the restaurant owner is a man, but thereafter use a gender macro (@@HE1@@) repeatedly to reference them. Currently, @@HE1@@ would indeed refer to the restaurant owner, because the random name at the start of Option 2 would be the first character, but that name itself doesn't specify a gender, so you could end up with a female restaurant owner in the options that you reference as a man in the text. You'll either want to specify the gender on the name macro, or de-gender the initial description

- While there can be exceptions, options tend to flow a lot more smoothly if you limit yourself to only one dialogue tag each. That gives more room for understanding the character through their speech, while avoiding the stilted feeling of repeatedly breaking up their dialogue.

- Don't capitalize effect text – it will appear as part of a list (…, your text here, …)

- Even without the final option, this issue needs the Capitalist validity

- As a question, do there need to be two bullies? It feels like that complicates descriptions, without adding anything. A single bully might be easier to write for, and allow greater exploration of their past.

[Kiddian States]

Edited

[Catalonia 2070 RP]

The Blue @@ANIMAL@@ Diner is rapidly gaining popularity among the residents of @@CAPITAL@@. However, scandal insued when the owner denied service to the @@CAPITAL@@ Times’s chief food critic. @@HIS3@@ reason? Allegedly, the critic bullied @@HIM3@@ in high school. This incident has people questioning when (or if) service should be revoked

Invalid for all nations without capitalism and free press

Option 1
The critic in question, @@RANDOMNAME@@, stands up indignantly. “How dare @@HE2@@ not serve me! I’m just trying to do my job! And who cares if we had a rocky history, that was years ago! Besides, personal issues should have no place in business. Make sure no one is denied service because of personal reasons!”

self-defense teachers are legally required to teach martial arts to those who have beaten them up

Option 2
Celebrity civil rights activist @@RANDOMNAME@@ chimes in. “Frankly, I don’t see why anyone should be refused service. All I’ve seen so far is that it’s a tool of discrimination and petty vengeance. Don’t side with racists, @@LEADER@@! Allow everyone to be served the same, no matter what!”

the government has adopted a “No Shirt, No Shoes, Service Anyway” policy

Option 3
The owner of the Blue @@ANIMAL@@ Diner, @@RANDOMNAME@@, sputters. “Wait, wait, hold on a minute! Are we just going to forget what that jerk did to me? @@HE1@@ doesn’t deserve to eat from my excellent restaurant, especially not after the parking incident! I should be allowed to rescind service from anyone, for whatever reason!” @@HE@@ kicks the chair out from under @@FIRSTNAME1@@. “That’s what you get for graduation!”

People are being denied service for looking at the owner the wrong way

I dont think it should be locked for people without capitalism

[Kiddian States]

Bump

[Verdant Haven]

This is vastly improved, and very much going in the right direction - good revisions.

I would suggest keeping old drafts in spoiler tags under the "current version" one in the OP, so folks can see changes and have insight into the intentions of things.

- Only specific feedback on this version is to double-check the numbering on your macro pronouns - it looks like you use both @@HE2@@ and @@HIS3@@ to refer to the restaurant owner. The numbering is absolute for the issue, not relative to the macro itself, so in the current form I believe you'll be wanting 3 for that individual.

Do keep this in drafting and continue to look it over, both yourself and with the assistance of other posters. I think you'll be able to turn it into a solid issue submission.

[Baggieland]

Don’t side with racists

What has racism got to do with this issue???

[Kiddian States]

Don’t side with racists

What has racism got to do with this issue???

I’m pretty sure that’s left over from a scrapped option. Either that or I meant that racists could exploit this

[Kiddian States]

Edited the technical bits that VH alerted me of

[Kiddian States]

Edited

[Outer Sparta]

I'm not even sure why this is an issue. It's basically just someone getting bullied when they were younger. So what? It's not as big of a deal compared to the owner of an establishment refusing service to someone based on their gender, ethnicity, race, or sexual orientation. In a hypothetical, let's say I bullied a Kardashian when I was younger and they refuse to serve me because of that. It's not really news at all and the only ones willing to report it are celebrity gossip tabloids looking for clickbait.

[Kiddian States]

I'm not even sure why this is an issue. It's basically just someone getting bullied when they were younger. So what? It's not as big of a deal compared to the owner of an establishment refusing service to someone based on their gender, ethnicity, race, or sexual orientation. In a hypothetical, let's say I bullied a Kardashian when I was younger and they refuse to serve me because of that. It's not really news at all and the only ones willing to report it are celebrity gossip tabloids looking for clickbait.

Well, the bullying is just backstory. It could really be any grudge. The real issue is refusal of service and when it is ok. Like, should you be able to refuse service because of personal issues? Also, these personal issues get in the way of speaker one doing their job. It comes assuming that what you mentioned is not okay.
Also, in my first draft, I mentioned it going from tabloid news to a national argument

[Outer Sparta]

I'm not even sure why this is an issue. It's basically just someone getting bullied when they were younger. So what? It's not as big of a deal compared to the owner of an establishment refusing service to someone based on their gender, ethnicity, race, or sexual orientation. In a hypothetical, let's say I bullied a Kardashian when I was younger and they refuse to serve me because of that. It's not really news at all and the only ones willing to report it are celebrity gossip tabloids looking for clickbait.

Well, the bullying is just backstory. It could really be any grudge. The real issue is refusal of service and when it is ok. Like, should you be able to refuse service because of personal issues? Also, these personal issues get in the way of speaker one doing their job. It comes assuming that what you mentioned is not okay.
Also, in my first draft, I mentioned it going from tabloid news to a national argument

This is just my opinion, so feel free to discard it into the trash, but I don't see this particular premise being issue-worthy as opposed to getting refused service because of discrimination.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Right now Option 1 and Option 2 really aren't different. One says you can't refuse service for "personal reasons" and the other says you can't refuse service for "any reasons". I don't understand how are those two things really different? They seem to have the same ultimate effect: people have to provide service even under outrageous circumstances.

Here is a suggestion that will maybe help: make Option 1 explicitly narrower. Have the critic say something like "Make sure no one is denied service because of petty personal reasons. People should only be refused for really important reasons, like if they're breaking things or trying to start a fire in the kitchen or calling my mother names." (Last one was supposed to be an ironic joke). That way, Option 1 is taking the position that some refusals of service are okay but only in extreme circumstances, and Option 2 is taking the position that refusing service is never okay.

I think you're missing an opportunity to make the Option 3 punchline really smart. I like the set up of Option 3: a sympathetic business owner who was bullied insisting he should be allowed to kick out a person who was mean. But the position is also very extreme. "I should be allowed to rescind service from anyone, for whatever reason." Wow. Okay, lets take that where it goes. Consider a punchline like this: people can be denied service for rolling their eyes at the business owner or for being the wrong race.

Good luck.

BTW I'm sure folks like Outer Sparta are really just trying to help, but FWIW I think this is a good premise for an issue and you're making solid progress.

[Outer Sparta]

Right now Option 1 and Option 2 really aren't different. One says you can't refuse service for "personal reasons" and the other says you can't refuse service for "any reasons". I don't understand how are those two things really different? They seem to have the same ultimate effect: people have to provide service even under outrageous circumstances.

Here is a suggestion that will maybe help: make Option 1 explicitly narrower. Have the critic say something like "Make sure no one is denied service because of petty personal reasons. People should only be refused for really important reasons, like if they're breaking things or trying to start a fire in the kitchen or calling my mother names." (Last one was supposed to be an ironic joke). That way, Option 1 is taking the position that some refusals of service are okay but only in extreme circumstances, and Option 2 is taking the position that refusing service is never okay.

I think you're missing an opportunity to make the Option 3 punchline really smart. I like the set up of Option 3: a sympathetic business owner who was bullied insisting he should be allowed to kick out a person who was mean. But the position is also very extreme. "I should be allowed to rescind service from anyone, for whatever reason." Wow. Okay, lets take that where it goes. Consider a punchline like this: people can be denied service for rolling their eyes at the business owner or for being the wrong race.

Good luck.

BTW I'm sure folks like Outer Sparta are really just trying to help, but FWIW I think this is a good premise for an issue and you're making solid progress.

I just think that the issue premise wouldn't really work since getting denied service due to petty childhood bullying isn't really that important compared to getting denied service because of discrimination. The author has to make sure to strengthen it as much as they can or else it doesn't offer as much compared to other issues surrounding a similar theme.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

*snip*

I just think that the issue premise wouldn't really work since getting denied service due to petty childhood bullying isn't really that important compared to getting denied service because of discrimination. The author has to make sure to strengthen it as much as they can or else it doesn't offer as much compared to other issues surrounding a similar theme.

Definitely agree with you there. The story needs to do more to explain why some old highschool grudge between a diner owner and a small-town food cricket is making national news.

[Kiddian States]

I just think that the issue premise wouldn't really work since getting denied service due to petty childhood bullying isn't really that important compared to getting denied service because of discrimination. The author has to make sure to strengthen it as much as they can or else it doesn't offer as much compared to other issues surrounding a similar theme.

Definitely agree with you there. The story needs to do more to explain why some old highschool grudge between a diner owner and a small-town food cricket is making national news.

It’d be nice if you guys actually read my previous post, but I’ll reiterate
The grudge isn’t the main focus of the issue, it’s whether or not refusing service because of personal reasons is okay. And secondly, the diner is a very popular one and the newspaper is supposed to be a decently major newspaper for the capital city

[Outer Sparta]

Definitely agree with you there. The story needs to do more to explain why some old highschool grudge between a diner owner and a small-town food cricket is making national news.

It’d be nice if you guys actually read my previous post, but I’ll reiterate
The grudge isn’t the main focus of the issue, it’s whether or not refusing service because of personal reasons is okay. And secondly, the diner is a very popular one and the newspaper is supposed to be a decently major newspaper for the capital city

I've read it, but I am not exactly convinced about refusing service due to personal reasons. Why can't the diner be an upscale, high-end one since usually the ritziest and glitziest of restaurants attract the most attention.

[Kiddian States]

It’d be nice if you guys actually read my previous post, but I’ll reiterate
The grudge isn’t the main focus of the issue, it’s whether or not refusing service because of personal reasons is okay. And secondly, the diner is a very popular one and the newspaper is supposed to be a decently major newspaper for the capital city

I've read it, but I am not exactly convinced about refusing service due to personal reasons. Why can't the diner be an upscale, high-end one since usually the ritziest and glitziest of restaurants attract the most attention.

Well, it is a very popular restaurant. If you looked on a culinary thing (website, magazine, etc.) it would be on the Top 10 Hottest Restaurants in Capital list
Or at least that’s what I’m trying to portray

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Definitely agree with you there. The story needs to do more to explain why some old highschool grudge between a diner owner and a small-town food cricket is making national news.

It’d be nice if you guys actually read my previous post, but I’ll reiterate
The grudge isn’t the main focus of the issue, it’s whether or not refusing service because of personal reasons is okay. And secondly, the diner is a very popular one and the newspaper is supposed to be a decently major newspaper for the capital city

Well, you literally titled your issue focusing on the grudge. So one might think you’d be open to commentary or critique on that.

I’m just a player who might get your issue and either enjoy it or just dismiss it. If you’re not interested in my thoughts about it I’ll just keep them to myself.

[Kiddian States]

It’d be nice if you guys actually read my previous post, but I’ll reiterate
The grudge isn’t the main focus of the issue, it’s whether or not refusing service because of personal reasons is okay. And secondly, the diner is a very popular one and the newspaper is supposed to be a decently major newspaper for the capital city

Well, you literally titled your issue focusing on the grudge. So one might think you’d be open to commentary or critique on that.

I’m just a player who might get your issue and either enjoy it or just dismiss it. If you’re not interested in my thoughts about it I’ll just keep them to myself.

Titles are hard, especially on short notice
I want opinions, just not opinions that come from skimming the issue and locking on to a few phrases

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Well, you literally titled your issue focusing on the grudge. So one might think you’d be open to commentary or critique on that.

I’m just a player who might get your issue and either enjoy it or just dismiss it. If you’re not interested in my thoughts about it I’ll just keep them to myself.

Titles are hard, especially on short notice
I want opinions, just not opinions that come from skimming the issue and locking on to a few phrases

Now it is your turn to go back up and make sure you actually read all of what I posted.

Farewell.