[ABANDONED]: A vegetarian cruelty

by **Amjedia** » Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:12 am

Draft 4 :

[Title] : A vegetarian cruelty.

[Description] : While a minority have adapted to vegetarinism, a vast majority is still struggling to acclimate. Frustrated, they headed to your office in order to meet you, only to find their way blocked by pro-life activists championing the consumption of fruits and vegetables. After going through this challenge, they finally reached their destination, successfully. You decided to meet their Leader.

[Validity]: Must have compulsory vegetarianism.

[Option 1]:"We want MEAT...M...E...A...T...MEAT!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, Leader of 'A Quiche for Every @@DEMONYM@@', while wiping a pulped tomato from @@HIS@@ forehead. "How dare these pesky vegetarians dictate our style of life? We've had enough of hearing all their claptrap: Eat this, don't eat that! This kerfuffle has gone on for far too long and must end now!" @@HE@@ then slams @@HIS@@ hands on your desk, breaking your photoframe.

[Fallout]: vegetarians are now carrying anti-odor mask to avoid being spoiled by cooked meat smell ( Reinstates meat)

[Option 2]: "Why have we stopped at meat eating? Why don't we go further and ban fruits and vegetables consumption too?" inquires @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Doctor, while holding a bottle of pills. "Fruits and vegetables have feelings. Can you imagine how much pain a carrot or an apple feel when cut or eaten? The solution is here!" @@HE@@ then swallows a pill, smiles crookedly, and says, "Cheers!"

[Fallout]: synthetic food supplements sales have skyrocketed/spoons and bowls are forever alone/tableware are now things of the past ( adds the ban on fruits and vegetables in addition to meat : maybe i need something funnier here )

[Option 3] : Validity : Hunter policy is not already in effect

"Whaaat! I can't believe what I'm hearing! No fruits? No vegetables? You are not going to listen to this knucklehead @@LEADER@@, are you?" yells @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@, your cook, while rushing into your office with a spoon in her hand. "I have the perfect solution! No one can resist the taste of a delicious and healthy free-ranged food! Moreover, plant and animal rights activists won't bother us about ethics, right?"

[Fallout]: farmers are confused whether they should keep a watchful eye on their animals or go to work (Could you please suggest a funny follout i'm realy stuck here)

~~Draft 3 :~~

~~Draft 2 :~~

~~Draft 1~~

So, i took a look at the Writer's Block and saw Nation of Quebec's post about issues suggestions. I decided to write an issue for vegetarian nations that is not about reversing it.

I'm ready to hear your suggestions in order to improve this draft.

Here we go:

[Title] : Knock...knock fruits and vegetables are you there? It is me the salad bowl. (maybe i need a shorter and funnier one)

[Description] : After a recent study, performed by @@REGION@@ Census Bureau, revealed that @@NAME@@'s population growth rate reached its lowest point, some people began suspecting the compulsory vegetarinism to be behind the fertility problem putting @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ in danger of extinction.

[Validity]: Must have compulsory vegetarianism.

[Option 1]: "We want MEAT...ME...AT...M...E...A...T!" shouts @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@ who is wearing a chicken costume. "We had enough of vegetables... enough. For the sake of @@NAME@@ ban ban on Meat!". She throws seeds on your office's door before being evacuated by your guards.

[Fallout]: it is rare to cross an/a @@DEMONYM@@ in @@REGION@@ (maintains compulsory vegetarinism)

[Option 2]: "Why we have stopped at Meat eating? Why don't we go further and ban vegetables consumption too?" inquires @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Doctor, while watering an artificial plant. "Vegetables have feelings. Do you imagine how much pain a carrot feel when cut or eaten?" @@HE@@ suddenly disappears from your view, then a strange voice rings: "don't forget fruits too!".

[Fallout]: cups and bowls are forever alone ( bans eating/drinking everything except water : maybe i need somthing funnier here )

[Option 3] : "Whaaat! I can't believe what i'm hearing! No fruits? No vegetables? Have you lost your mind @@LEADER@@?" yells @@RANDOMNAME@@, a renowned scientist, while rushing into your office. @@He@@ then puts a piggy bank on your desk. "If you allocate me and my team some money, i believe we can find a compromise here. It is fair. Isn't it ?"

[Fallout]: the new meat-flavoured paprika make @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ laugh for no reason

by **Baggieland** » Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:35 am

Amjedia wrote:[Option 1]: "We want MEAT...ME...AT...M...E...A...T!" shouts @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@ who is wearing a chicken costume. "We had enough of vegetables... enough. For the sake of @@NAME@@ ban ban on Meat!". She throws seeds on your office's door before being evacuated by your guards.

[Fallout]: it is rare to cross an/a @@DEMONYM@@ in @@REGION@@ (maintains compulsory vegetarinism)

The speaker is asking to overturn the ban on meat, how does this maintain compulsory vegetarianism?

Amjedia wrote:[Option 2]: "Why we have stopped at Meat eating? Why don't we go further and ban vegetables consumption too?" inquires @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Doctor, while watering an artificial plant. "Vegetables have feelings. Do you imagine how much pain a carrot feel when cut or eaten?" @@HE@@ suddenly disappears from your view, then a strange voice rings: "don't forget fruits too!".

[Fallout]: cups and bowls are forever alone ( bans eating/drinking everything except water

What are people going to eat? Unless you're trying to kill your entire population???

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:23 am

Hello. Not a bad little issue you got here. Option 1-are you sure it's not a reversal option?

by **Kenmoria** » Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:28 am

I can't see the connection between a lack of fertility and compulsory vegetarianism. Given that the population growth stalling doesn't have much to do with the rest of the issue, I would suggest changing it to something like a series of meat protests.

by **Amjedia** » Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:16 am

Baggieland wrote:
Amjedia wrote:[Option 1]: "We want MEAT...ME...AT...M...E...A...T!" shouts @@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@ who is wearing a chicken costume. "We had enough of vegetables... enough. For the sake of @@NAME@@ ban ban on Meat!". She throws seeds on your office's door before being evacuated by your guards.

[Fallout]: it is rare to cross an/a @@DEMONYM@@ in @@REGION@@ (maintains compulsory vegetarinism)

The speaker is asking to overturn the ban on meat, how does this maintain compulsory vegetarianism?

Australian Republic wrote:Hello. Not a bad little issue you got here. Option 1-are you sure it's not a reversal option?

Thank you Baggieland and Australian Republic for your comments. I updated this option.

Baggieland wrote:
Amjedia wrote:[Option 2]: "Why we have stopped at Meat eating? Why don't we go further and ban vegetables consumption too?" inquires @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Doctor, while watering an artificial plant. "Vegetables have feelings. Do you imagine how much pain a carrot feel when cut or eaten?" @@HE@@ suddenly disappears from your view, then a strange voice rings: "don't forget fruits too!".

[Fallout]: cups and bowls are forever alone ( bans eating/drinking everything except water

What are people going to eat? Unless you're trying to kill your entire population???

Thanks, i updated the fallout.

Kenmoria wrote:I can't see the connection between a lack of fertility and compulsory vegetarianism. Given that the population growth stalling doesn't have much to do with the rest of the issue, I would suggest changing it to something like a series of meat protests.

Description updated. Thanks!

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 4:00 am

Amjedia wrote:So, i took a look at the Writer's Block and saw Nation of Quebec's post about issues suggestions. I decided to write an issue for vegetarian nations that is not about reversing it.

Hooray!

[Description] : While a minority have adapted to vegetarinism, a vast majority is still struggling to acclimate. Fearing for their lives, they are in uproar requesting you to lift the ban on meat.

Yep, I'm not inclined to read any further than this.

Revisit the description, and give us something interesting.

by **Jutsa** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:48 am

I submitted something that had like 40% of its options specifically for nations with vegetarianism... :lol2:

Regardless, yeah, I'm seeing that the premise is definitely week.

There is no option that relegalizes meat, btw, CWA.

Well, unless that's the third option... which, I must profess, is incredibly vague.

I do really approve of the option that bans vegetable consumption. I think you should probably consider changing the premise from
"Fearing for their lives, they are in uproar requesting you to lift the ban on meat."
to something similar to
"pro-life extremists are now championing the consumption of fruits and vegetables",
whereby the options would be
1) Incorporate compulsory supplements,
2) This nonsense has gone on for too long and you should reinstate meat (just because it's not ABOUT meat doesn't mean you can't involve it),
3) Crazy compromise: Allow vegetarianism, but it must be free ranged (i.e. institutes the "no farms" or "hunter/gatherer" flag that lets you receive "Salt of the Earth"),
that last one requiring a validity which states that said hunter/gatherer policy is not already in effect.

It might not hurt to redo this issue a bit, but feel free to keep onto whatever content you currently have and build up something from there.
In fact, I'd really like to work on this, myself, but I want to know if you'd rather do it or not, first. If so, go right ahead. If not, I call firsties.

"can't call firsties" Just because it technically doesn't mean anything in GI doesn't mean I can't still call it.

by **Leutria** » Mon Dec 04, 2017 1:16 pm

Do any of those options actually overturn the ban on meat?

(Just editing to add, I initially thought this was about reversing it, and misread. I got that on my second read, but didn't think it was worth making another post. I am sure vegetarian nations would appreciate issues about it, but not asking them to reverse it, so good luck

)

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:13 am

Sure, but that just means the premise hasn't been addressed with sufficient options, as that premise SHOULD give a reversal opportunity.

The premise needs to be better, otherwise it is no-go.

by **Baggieland** » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:28 am

For option 2, instead of banning all food, why don't you bring in someone who adheres to breatharianism? Have you heard of those guys? They claim to get all the sustenance they need just through breathing air. No idea how they do it!

Option 3, I feel you need to make it clearer that the scientist intends to create meat-flavoured veggies.

Jutsa wrote:In fact, I'd really like to work on this, myself, but I want to know if you'd rather do it or not, first. If so, go right ahead. If not, I call firsties.

Why don't you two collaborate on this? So Amjedia can learn from one of the old pros! ☺

by **Jutsa** » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:52 am

Why don't you two collaborate on this? So Amjedia can learn from one of the old pros!

I'd honestly be delighted to work with Amjedia, if they'd like to.

Also, I'm hardly an old pro - I've only been here since late* June.

"That's still five months" It's been that long? Still think of myself as new, regardless. >_<

by **Amjedia** » Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:41 am

Hello

Thank you all for your replies. Sorry for being inactive.

I will try to improve it . However, it will take time as i'm busy .

I'm thinking of writing 4 options :

1/reinstate meat
2/ maintain compulsory vegetarinism
3/ imposing compulsory synthetic food supplements (given that plants and animals both feel pain): like the option 2 of draft 2.
4/a compromise : free ranged vegetarinism .

Once completed , i will post it here. What do you think ?

by **Jutsa** » Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:00 pm

Well, option 2'd effectively be the dismiss button, and I kinda like the idea of options 1 and 3 being switched,
but it's your draft to work on. Again, if you wanna co-write, I'm free, but if not, go for it. Good luck.

by **Amjedia** » Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:59 am

Draft3 uploaded.

What do you think of it?

Also, i will be delighted to work with you Jutsa. Could you please comment my draft and post yours?

by **Jutsa** » Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:00 am

What an interesting issue. :lol2:

Alright, so I like this premise a bit more.
It's still fairly similar to #205, but I think it's certainly different enough.

Also, I honestly think that a co-authorship would be unnecessary,
although I'd be more than delighted to help you regardless.

The Issue/Title:
I really like the name "A Vegetarian Cruelty". That is a very good name, imo,
as it depicts both being cruel to vegetables and vegetarians being cruel.

In addition, everything about the description is pretty good, except this could use a little work:
After going through this challenge, they finaly reached succesfully their destination
Just a little grammatical adjustment: finaly→finally, succesfully→successfully, and I'd move "successfully" to the end of destination.
Also, I'd add a comma after destination if you do that.

Option 1:
MEAT...ME...AT...M...E...A...T!
Probably just a little too dramatic, although a bit of drama is fine.
Maybe "meat! M-E-A-T - Meat!" could work? It'd be shorter, and sound fairly similar.
@@RANDOMNAMEFEMALE@@
Any particular reason she's female?
(if you change it to @@RANDOMNAME@@, be sure to change "her" to @@HIS@@.)
Leader of 'a quiche for every @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@'
I think you meant leader of 'A Quiche for Every @@DEMONYM@@'?
while wiping a pulped tomato from her forehead
nice touch
dictate their style of life
Do you mean our style of life?
We have enough of hearing all their claptrap
We've had enough*
This kerfuffle has gone far too long and must end now!" She then slams her hands on your desk breaking your photoframe.
Possibly add "on for" between "gone" and "far",
and I'd add a comma after desk. :3

Option 2:
Why we have stopped at meat eating?
Why have we*
your Doctor
Idk if I'd want this person to be my doctor.
You may wanna consider changing the character, although I admit that it does give an interesting twist.
I'll leave that up to others to decide.
Do you imagine
Can you imagine* ... well, properly.
"Do you imagine" is, tbh, a little funnier, but it still doesn't look right.
, and says "Cheers!"
comma after says

Option 3:
i'm
I'm*
Have you lost your mind @@LEADER@@?
Well, it's not like @@LEADER@@ decided to make it a policy just yet.
Maybe you could say "You can't seriously be listening to these people, @@LEADER@@!"
@@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, your gardener, who is also a farmer,
a) any particular reason he's male? (if you change it to neutral, change all pronouns to macros)
b) your gardener... and farmer? I find it kinda strange that he'd be promoting free-ranged animals.
Let's not ban fruits and vegetables. As for meat and other animal-derivative products, they should be free-ranged.
Interesting... but I kinda think that this option should also make plants free-ranged.
Of course, that'd make the character being a farmer/gardener complete nonsense,
but I still think it'd be a more amusing option that says that both plants and animals alike are fine to eat as long as they're all free-range.

That being said, it's your draft, so it's up to you in the end.
That way Animal Rights Activists don't
animal rights activists won't*
Also, if you do decide to add plants, you can also say "plant and animal rights activists won't" instead.

Alright, now to summarize!

1) A few grammatical adjustments
2) Possibly change the speakers for options 2 and 3
3) Possibly neutralize the genders of the speakers for options 1 and 3
4) Possibly make option 3 make plants free-ranged as well
5) Work on the effect lines.

I did kinda gloss over the effect lines. I must agree, they're not particularly interesting,
although I'm afraid I'm also pretty bad with them. :lol:

Overall, I think this is a step in the right direction. I'm not certain that everyone would think that,
but I personally am very happy with the premise, now(although I'd still be happier if option 3 were changed a little).

I'll presumably be here for your next draft update!

by **Amjedia** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:35 am

Draft 4 uploaded.

Thank you Jutsa for your comments.

Also, i'm thinking of adding another option about breatharianism as proposed by Baggieland (it will be after the synthetic food supplements option) . What do you think ?

by **Jutsa** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:37 am

Eeeh... breatharianism might kill off your entire population, to be honest... :rofl:

A safer option might be enforcing a macrobiotic diet, or fruitariansm(creative name for it).

A list of vegetarian varieties can be seen here if you want,
although I wouldn't go too crazy on the number of options.

by **Merconitonitopia** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:46 pm

isn't this #205?

by **Jutsa** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:16 pm

Not at all! That issue's solely about bringing back meat,
promoting veganism, relegalizing meat, and only letting people eat meat with no veggies.

This draft's about plant rights, whereby a group against vegetarianism still barges in to offer a reversal,
but the other options are to ban plant eating, legalize free-range harvesting of all creatures,
and possibly something else that's not as extreme as banning plants but still ensures not to hurt the plants.

(the original draft, though, was basically 205, yes)

by **Merconitonitopia** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:51 pm

yeah, i don't really understand the premise or what is supposed to be going on in this issue.

as a vegetarian nation i would also dismiss it as there are no non-extremist pro-vegetarian options. as Candlewhispher explained to me, an issue aimed at X demographic should ideally have mostly pro-X options that would appeal to X nations (as well as an option to jump ships.)

by **Jutsa** » Tue Dec 19, 2017 9:03 pm

Hmm... fair point. That being said, having an issue that specifies what type of vegetarianism should be in place seems fine to me,
like say lacto-ovo, ovo, lacto, fruitarianism, most of the stuff on that list...

I mean, I think it makes for an interesting issue, regardless. Just saying "vegetarianism" is kinda... vague.

by **Australian rePublic** » Fri Dec 29, 2017 2:11 pm

The wording of the third option is confusing

by **Amjedia** » Mon Jan 01, 2018 4:50 am

Thank you all for your comments.
But sorry, i will abandon this draft.

.
Fell free to work on it if you want

.

by **Jutsa** » Mon Jan 01, 2018 5:28 am

I'd like to take it up as a co-author, Amjedia.
I legitimately am interested in this topic. Of course, I also tried to make an issue that's pro-pescitarianism.

Is there any particular reason you're abandoning the draft, though?

[ABANDONED]: A vegetarian cruelty

[ABANDONED]: A vegetarian cruelty

Who is online