[SUBMITTED 6.7.18] All That Glitters

[Candlewhisper Archive]

DRAFT 2:

TITLE:

All That Glitters

VALIDITY:

Marriage legal, professional sports legal, decent wealth gaps exist, capitalist

DESCRIPTION:

When a celebrity power couple like pro-footballer @@randommalename@@ and fashion model and former pop starlet @@randomfemalename@@ marries, there's bound to be some glitz and glamour. In fact, thanks to @@randomfirstfemalename(2)@@'s obsession with being a "fairytale princess" the beachside wedding also involved many tonnes of glitter, which is now drifting across the nearby lagoon, raising an important question. What about the mess?


OPTION ONE

"Oh right, yah, the mess," notes the newlywed footballer, brushing pink and silver shimmering flakes off his lapel. "Yah, we'll cover the cost of that for sure, wouldn't dream of not doing so. A few million will do it and all is forgiven, yah?" He tosses his platinum credit card at you dismissively.

Outcome: the weregild principle is alive and well in modern @@NAME@@

OPTION TWO

"You can't just buy your way out of an ecological disaster," complains dour-faced environmentalist @@randomname@@, who has already ruined all the wedding photos with @@HIS@@ scowling photo-bombing. "Microplastic fragments like this are detrimental to ocean life and can work their way up the food chain as well, causing damage to larger organisms. These irresponsible airhead celebrities should be prosecuted under the full weight of environmental law, and non-biodegradable glitter must be banned!"

Outcome: little girls are in tears as @@LEADER@@ confiscates their pink princess ballgowns

OPTION THREE

"Awww but the glitter is LUVVERLY," coos the blushing bride, her ultra-thin arms flapping as they catch a weak breeze. "We should make all the beaches and streets look all pretty and glittery, innit? It'd be so nice, and everyone would be smiling all the time because... because... AWWW I LOVE GLITTER, ME!"

Outcome: blocked storm drains cause sanitation problems

DRAFT 1

TITLE:

All That Glitters

VALIDITY:

Marriage legal, professional sports legal, decent wealth gaps exist

DESCRIPTION:

When a celebrity power couple like pro-footballer @@randommalename@@ and fashion model and former pop starlet @@randomfemalename@@ marries, there's bound to be some glitz and glamour. In fact, thanks to @@randomfirstfemalename(2)@@'s obsession with being a "fairytale princess" the beachside wedding also involved many tonnes of glitter, which is now drifting across the nearby lagoon, raising an important question. What about the mess?


OPTION ONE

"Oh right, yah, the mess," notes the newlywed footballer, brushing pink and silver shimmering flakes off his lapel. "Yah, we'll cover the cost of that for sure, wouldn't dream of not doing so. A few million will do it and all is forgiven, yah?" He tosses his platinum credit card at you dismissively.

Outcome: the weregild principle is alive and well in modern @@NAME@@

OPTION TWO

"You can't just buy your way out of an ecological disaster," complains dour-faced environmentalist @@randomname@@, who has already ruined all the wedding photos with @@HIS@@ scowling photo-bombing. "Microplastic fragments like this are detrimental to ocean life and can work their way up the food chain as well, causing damage to larger organisms. These irresponsible airhead celebrities should be prosecuted under the full weight of environmental law, and glitter must be banned!"

Outcome: little girls are in tears as @@LEADER@@ confiscates their Disney princess dresses

OPTION THREE

"Awww but the glitter is LUVVERLY," coos the blushing bride, her ultra-thin arms flapping as they catch a weak breeze. "We should make all the beaches and streets look all pretty and glittery, innit? It'd be so nice, and everyone would be smiling all the time because... because... AWWW I LOVE GLITTER, ME!"

Outcome: blocked storm drains cause sanitation problems

Feed me back!

[Sacara]

I just listened to "All Star"

[Trotterdam]

#351 covers rich people paying for their crimes (literally) and #346 covers rich people paying for environmental cleanup of their mistakes.

This draft "distinguishes" itself from both mainly by tackling a much less serious subject, i.e. a less serious crime than murder and it's probably doing less environmental damage than an oil spill, too.

The one new question this issue asks is "is cleaning glitter from a sea something we can actually do, no matter how much money we throw at it?", which isn't really in focus, and isn't a political question at any rate.

On doing some research, I find that there actually are calls to ban glitter in real life (I'm guessing that was your inspiration), but even that article says:

Professor Thompson said that an outright ban might not be necessary, emphasising a pragmatic approach that considers the likelihood it will end up in the environment.

Moreover, eco-friendly glitter that breaks down quickly could be a viable replacement that doesn’t end up in the food chain.

The cosmetics chain Lush has replaced glitter in its products with synthetic, biodegradable alternatives in a move praised by Dr Sue Kinsey, senior pollution policy officer at the Marine Conservation Society.

Searching for "biodegradable glitter" suggests it looks glittery enough.

Oh, by the way, any airheaded beauty parodies you could think of have already been done:

Late November of last year, the internet was amidst a kerfuffle. Climatologists and environmental scientists had come out of their labs to ruin deliver a truth we all knew, but weren't ready to hear: glitter is, like, really bad for the environment.

Your old glitter is literally eternal garbage. It's time to find a solution, and that solution can't be "stop wearing glitter", obviously…

Incidentally it also answers the earlier question:

You couldn't strain pieces of glitter out of a bucket of water if you tried, right? So getting it out of the ocean and large water bodies would be really, really, really hard – maybe impossible.

[USS Monitor]

Outcome: little girls are in tears as @@LEADER@@ confiscates their Disney princess dresses

Feed me back!

Is Disney supposed to exist in issues world?

[Jutsa]

Eisner World, actually. Ed: Ok, I think it's actually Eisnerland, but you get the pictue.

I've thought about writing a followup to it, but honestly I can't think of a good topic for it that isn't already covered to an extant.

[Luna Amore]

Feed me back!

Is Disney supposed to exist in issues world?

I think the joke worsens if we NSify that reference.

[Chan Island]

Feed me back!

Is Disney supposed to exist in issues world?

I really think we would lose something if we got rid of the real world reference in that one. Candle, please keep that as Disney.

[USS Monitor]

Is Disney supposed to exist in issues world?

I think the joke worsens if we NSify that reference.

I don't see the need to have a brand name on it at all.

[The Free Joy State]

I think the joke worsens if we NSify that reference.

I don't see the need to have a brand name on it at all.

I generally work to the principle of "don't namecheck big, litigious corporations with endless pots of money".

How about nick a Simpsons joke, "Diz-nee"?

Although, I agree that the joke works without a brand name.

EDIT: how about reference Disney without using the name:

"little girls are in tears as @@LEADER@@ confiscates their pink princess ballgowns and sparkly mermaid fins"

[Candlewhisper Archive]

That's good Joy, I'll use that instead in the second draft.

Trotterdam:

Thanks for your well thought out post there. I agree there's some overlap in options, but I've always felt that issue descriptions are where differences need to be found, not in the options. For example, we've got massive numbers of issues that ban religion or capitalism, or which propose particular solutions to different problems. My feeling is that if the issue premise is unique, then there is no overlap. Obviously there's risk of bias here, what with me being the general ultimate arbiter of uniqueness, but I'm always sure to let the team decide rather than me when personally authored issues approach the overlap line.

Re: eco-friendly alternatives, my only worry here is that would be too easy an option to pick. My thinking is that picking option 2 will implicitly lead to such alternatives being adopted, though I'll add the word "non-biodegradable" in front of "glitter must be banned" to make that strongly telegraphed. In a way, the adoption of alternatives wouldn't change how that option is executed - it's still a restriction on market freedom in order to protect the environment, and you and I know that's about the limit of granularity in NS simulation anyway...

[Australian rePublic]

I'm guessing capitalist nations only?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I'm guessing capitalist nations only?

Good point. Added that.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

One and only bump before I move this to the oubliette staff issues pool. Any more thoughts anyone?

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

So, why can't little @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ girls have dresses with biodegradable glitter? I know that you changed glitter into non-biodegradable glitter to avoid a pitfall Trotterdam pointed to, but now I feel like it would be better if the effect line also included a reference to that... Maybe "glitterers" being employed to "renovate" old princess dresses by washing away the old glitter and sprinkling them back with biodegradable glitter, etc.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

So, why can't little @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ girls have dresses with biodegradable glitter? I know that you changed glitter into non-biodegradable glitter to avoid a pitfall Trotterdam pointed to, but now I feel like it would be better if the effect line also included a reference to that... Maybe "glitterers" being employed to "renovate" old princess dresses by washing away the old glitter and sprinkling them back with biodegradable glitter, etc.

I guess they could in future, but Leader would still need to take away their existing ones, so I think the effect line can hold.

[Trotterdam]

Even then, most product bans only ban further production and sale of that product, not private ownership of existing copies. But then that's NS exaggeration for you.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Right, there'd be no real humour in a glitter ban that doesn't apply to retroactive purchases, I think.