[DRAFT]: Focal Seizure

by **Terminus Lambda** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:15 pm

Based on feedback from a now-dead issue draft, I have drafted this new potential issue. This issue deals with the consequences of a corporate non-disclosure agreement.

I am very new to writing issues, so any criticism or suggestions would be highly appreciated. My chief concerns include the issue being too wordy, particularly the description, and the title and outcomes being suboptimal.

I have not included any specific stat effects for the options, as I am unsure as to whether the issue is even viable. I would also like to know whether I should create a communist version of this issue.

Draft 2 Update:

by **Trotterdam** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:38 pm

Terminus Lambda wrote:The Issue: An employee of one of the nation's largest technology firms, Dam-E-Diodes, left the company and began using corporate resources to construct his own corporation, Path-E-TechPheft, which has since consumed the majority of the nation's @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ sector.

Diodes are useful in Basket Weaving and Cheese Exports? Who knew?

..Don't first assert the firm is in a particular sector ("technology firms") and then have it take over @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ that might be anything.

Also, where did you get these corporation names from anyway? Are they some kind of pun? If so, I'm not getting it (other than "pheft").

Also, don't mix up using corporate resources with using corporate knowledge. The latter is far more likely. The ex-employee won't have access to his old corporation's material resources, but he'll still remember his training and various details about the designs of the corporation's products.

Terminus Lambda wrote:Option 2: "What they call an insult, I call brand loyalty",

Brand loyalty normally refers to customers consistently buying from the same brand, not to employees being loyal to their employers.

That's just what I feel like pointing out. I'll let someone else clean up the rest...

by **Terminus Lambda** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:00 pm

Trotterdam wrote:
Terminus Lambda wrote:The Issue: An employee of one of the nation's largest technology firms, Dam-E-Diodes, left the company and began using corporate resources to construct his own corporation, Path-E-TechPheft, which has since consumed the majority of the nation's @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ sector.
Diodes are useful in Basket Weaving and Cheese Exports? Who knew?

..Don't first assert the firm is in a particular sector ("technology firms") and then have it take over @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ that might be anything.

Also, where did you get these corporation names from anyway? Are they some kind of pun? If so, I'm not getting it (other than "pheft").

Also, don't mix up using corporate resources with using corporate knowledge. The latter is far more likely. The ex-employee won't have access to his old corporation's material resources, but he'll still remember his training and various details about the designs of the corporation's products.

Terminus Lambda wrote:Option 2: "What they call an insult, I call brand loyalty",
Brand loyalty normally refers to customers consistently buying from the same brand, not to employees being loyal to their employers.

That's just what I feel like pointing out. I'll let someone else clean up the rest...

"Damn Idiots" and "Pathetic Theft", though they are admittedly pretty terrible.

I'll start making the appropriate changes.

by **Ab Humanitatis Scientiam** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:37 pm

Trotterdam wrote:Diodes are useful in ...Cheese Exports? Who knew?

According to the Google, a company called Giggalaser makes a CHEESE (TM) dental diode laser system.

I imagine a 5-20W soft-tissue disruptor would slice a block of cheddar just as well, so it's actually not that crazy.

Although, I would still remove the reference to @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ simply because it is extraneous information that doesn't really effect the essential point of the issue -- Dam-E-Diodes jackin' Path-E-Tech's stuff:

The Issue: An employee of one of the nation's largest technology firms, Dam-E-Diodes, left the company and began using corporate resources to construct his own corporation, Path-E-TechPheft. ~~which has since consumed the majority of the nation's @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ sector.~~ Dam-E-Diodes is attempting to legally seize the newer corporation and its assets, citing theft of its intellectual property, given a non-disclosure agreement signed by its former employee. The resulting economic fallout has propelled the issue past the usual bureaucracy, and directly onto your desk.

by **Ab Humanitatis Scientiam** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:01 pm

So let's sketch out the gist of the options arguments (if only to make sure I'm reading them correctly)

Option 1: Workers are entitled to the products of their own labor, even if it means using someone else's ideas.

Option 2: Companies are entitled to protect their intellectual property, even if it means restricting former employee's actions.

Option 3: Monopolies are bad (?)

Option 4: Insane Room 101 option just because (?)

Option 5: All hail @@LEADER@@ just because; or, Option 4 redux (?)

Option 6: Avoid economic disputes by destroying economy; or, to hell with the baby and its goddamned bathwater.

OK.

So...

Options 1, 2, and 6 actually seem to have something to do with the issue as hand, per the issue description. In a dispute over intellectual property and non-disclosure agreements, one could take the position that:

1) economic value is produced by labor, which should be protected even if it means intellectual property is weakened. And perhaps doing so will mean more and healthier competition in the market, which means more and better products at lower prices, etc. OR
2) economic value is produced by capital, including intellectual property, which should be protected even if it means labor is weakened. Companies invest a lot in research and development, and ought to be able to recoup those costs with a protected revenue stream. Letting competitors swoop in and steal ideas without having to pay for the R&D is unfair. OR
3) The problem is capitalism itself, which divides labor and capital into inevitably and perpetually waring interests at the mercy of the ruling class. The solution is the glorious people's republic of @@NAME@@. @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ of the @@REGION@@ you have naught to loose but your diodes wired in series. Like a chain.

Options 3, 4, and 5 should go away, and 1, 2, and 6 should be reworked to capture the above arguments more closely.

Then make them silly. Without losing the above arguments.

by **Ab Humanitatis Scientiam** » Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:05 pm

Terminus Lambda wrote:I am very new to writing issues, so any criticism or suggestions would be highly appreciated.

You should probably start writing an issue by opening Notepad or a similar text editor on your computer and beginning with your zeroeth draft.

This draft should read like a flowchart in a political science textbook. Super dry and boring. Not even remotely funny. No satire, no clever word play.

Just a barebones ideological argument, with honestly described and assessed positions. So, taking the above as an example.

Draft Zero

[title]Intellectual Property and Non-Disclosure Agreements

[description]Is the intellectual property of a company compatible with the freedom of action of individuals? Should an employer be able to compel someone to not act on a piece of knowledge even after the employer/employee relationship has ended?

[option] NO. Economic value is produced by labor, which should be protected even if it means intellectual property is weakened. And perhaps doing so will mean more and healthier competition in the market, which means more and better products at lower prices, etc. Abolish non-disclosure agreements.

[option] YES. Economic value is produced by capital, including intellectual property, which should be protected even if it means labor is weakened. Companies invest a lot in research and development, and ought to be able to recoup those costs with a protected revenue stream. Letting competitors swoop in and steal ideas without having to pay for the R&D is unfair. Keep non-disclosure agreements.

[option] The problem is capitalism itself, which divides labor and capital into inevitably and perpetually waring interests at the mercy of the ruling class. A social and/or planned economy (whether in the form of direct worker ownership, or ownership by the state) obviates the problem by removing the aforementioned alienation. Where property -- real and intellectual -- belongs to all, all are free to labor and benefit from it. Abolish capitalism.

Basically a final exam essay. A total snoozefest. But you've got the basic skeleton of a sensible (and hopefully interesting) political debate. Transforming each of the above options into a dialog with characters should be relatively straightforward (Draft Zeroeth the Second). Then (and only then!) add wordplay and clever jokes (Son of Draft Zero: The Nullification).

Then, once you've checked your spelling and wrapped it in a nice bow: Draft One.

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:34 am

AHS has hit the nail on the head. You're clearly an educated and intelligent writer, but what you need here is a little more showmanship.

by **Terminus Lambda** » Sat Apr 28, 2018 10:57 am

I have updated the opening post with a revision of the first draft, eliminating unnecessary options and reworking the remaining ones to be more in line with the focus of the issue.

by **Ab Humanitatis Scientiam** » Sat Apr 28, 2018 12:34 pm

Terminus Lambda wrote:Outcome 2: Citizens are known to pay employers for the privilege of working for them.

It's funny because it actually pretty true.

Terminus Lambda wrote:Option 3: Friend, obvious solution cannot elude you", proclaims @@RANDOMNAMEMALE@@, self-appointed man of the people. "Corporate system cleary corrupt; does nothing but steal and partition national wealth. Company abuses talent of workers, so workers revolt. Eradicate corporate system, and bring market under control of the people. In glorious homeland, wealth redistributed to people long ago, and people never more happy or slovenly."

Outcome 3: The banning of private enterprise has united all in poverty. [Institutes national policy of Communism][/spoiler]

Might want to make the economic consequences more subtle then just stating "HA! now you're poor!" outright. At the very least, non-/anti-capitalist economic powerhouses are a thing, so...

by **Terminus Lambda** » Sat Apr 28, 2018 1:19 pm

Ab Humanitatis Scientiam wrote:Might want to make the economic consequences more subtle then just stating "HA! now you're poor!" outright. At the very least, non-/anti-capitalist economic powerhouses are a thing, so...

Former CEOs can be seen huddled around trashcan fires.

-or-

Many former abusive executives are now underlings to their former employees.

by **Ab Humanitatis Scientiam** » Sat Apr 28, 2018 2:27 pm

in Soviet @@NAME@@, patent owns you

by **Terminus Lambda** » Sat Apr 28, 2018 2:35 pm

Ab Humanitatis Scientiam wrote:in communist @@NAME@@, patent owns you

This issue doesn't really regard patent ownership, though I see how the two are related.

Mostly though, it's very clunky. Following new legislation in Terminus Lambda, in soviet Terminus Lambda, patent owns you.

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Apr 29, 2018 3:52 pm

What exactly was stolen? Why is this a matter for a leader as opposed to a magistrate?

by **Terminus Lambda** » Sun Apr 29, 2018 6:09 pm

Australian rePublic wrote:What exactly was stolen? Why is this a matter for a leader as opposed to a magistrate?

No material resources were stolen. A corporation is attempting to seize the assets of another due to their founder, who once worker for the former corporation, signing a non-disclosure agreement. This is only on @@LEADER@@'s desk due to severe market fluctuation due to speculation, as both corporations are presumably very large and influential.

[DRAFT]: Focal Seizure

[DRAFT]: Focal Seizure

Who is online