[SUBMITTED] Mission: Shrimpossible

[Scottish Socialists]

[Title]Mission: Shrimpossible
[Description] The rivers of @@NAME@@ are overflowing with shrimp, due to some 'special' items used by farmers. Your culinary advisor has come into your office to discuss what to do with them.

[Option 1] "Think of all the things we could do with the shrimp!'' proclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, the advisor in question. ''Shrimp can be used in many ways! You can boil them, fry them, marinade them, cover them in coconut, and much more!'' @@HE@@ salivates as @@HE@@ pulls out a chart. ''According to these calculations, we can boost the economy and feed our populace if we use the shrimp for food! So, what do you say? Will we eat em' or not?''
[Effect] The formerly bustling shrimp population has literally been eaten up

[Option 2] "No! You can’t do that!'' shouts @@NAME@@ Crustacean Lovers Association founder @@RANDOMNAME@@ as @@HE@@ bursts through your door. ''Shrimp are our friends! They must be left alone to breed! Otherwise, they will all die!'' @@HE@@ takes a deep breath. ''Look, why don’t we just leave them alone! It may cause an ecological disaster, but think of the shrimp!''
[Effect] @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ can barely drink with the amount of shrimp coming from the tap

[Option 3] "You know, this problem would never have happened if we had better regulations on the stuff used by farmers!'' pipes in your environmental advisor, who has been sitting in the corner the whole time. ''@@LEADER@@, do you not remember how a group of farmers set up farms at the riverside? Well, those farmers have used hormones to make the animals breed more, and over the last couple of years, those hormones and all their effects have seeped into the river, just for the shrimp to enjoy! This shows us that farming regulations must be completely overhauled!''
[Effect] New farming regulations have killed half of all @@DENONYMADJECTIVE@@ shrimp.

[Option 4] ''I have an idea!'' exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, a local shrimp enthusiast, who is currently hanging outside your window. ''Why don't we pump more of those hormones into the rivers? I'm sure the scientists would love to see what would happen, plus we would get more shrimp! Think about it, we'd have shrimp for days! Now, could you help me inside?''
[Effect] Shrimpzilla is the nation's most popular tourist attraction

[Bhembwol]

Eh, it's not outrageous. How about something like this:

Option 1: The only way to stop shrimp overpopulation is to make it mandatory for each citizen to eat shrimp at every meal.

Option 2: A mom storms in screaming about how her child has a shellfish allergy, and says that all food that people have allergies to should be outlawed.

[Australian rePublic]

Option 3 is the only logical option here.

[The Marsupial Illuminati]

The rivers of @@NAME@@ are overflowing with shrimp.

Why is this happening? Is this based on anything that happened in real life?

However, I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle: instead of from a culinary angle, this really must be looked at from a environmental angle.

I agree with Chan. The quote above is what I'm getting at.

[Chan Island]

It was not a bad idea when you put it in the writer's block. However, I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle: instead of from a culinary angle, this really must be looked at from a environmental angle. An overpopulation of crustaceans- or anything else from that matter- might well herald a disaster, in this case, for the rivers of @@NAME@@.

So I would rewrite the issue to look like this: the rivers are overpopulated with shrimp. Needless to say, this might be an ecological disaster.

option 1: Keep the same. I love it!

option 2: look into industrial strategy and review. Some chemical that helps the shrimp must be being pumped into the rivers to make their populations explode.

option 3: Keep the shrimp, though I'd tweak the option to be about general ecological non-interventention or something.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I was going to make some comments, but Chan Island basically covered my exact points.

Only thing to add is that I'd personally title it Mission: Shrimpossible.

[Scottish Socialists]

It was not a bad idea when you put it in the writer's block. However, I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle: instead of from a culinary angle, this really must be looked at from a environmental angle. An overpopulation of crustaceans- or anything else from that matter- might well herald a disaster, in this case, for the rivers of @@NAME@@.

So I would rewrite the issue to look like this: the rivers are overpopulated with shrimp. Needless to say, this might be an ecological disaster.

option 1: Keep the same. I love it!

option 2: look into industrial strategy and review. Some chemical that helps the shrimp must be being pumped into the rivers to make their populations explode.

option 3: Keep the shrimp, though I'd tweak the option to be about general ecological non-interventention or something.

I mean, I did have this idea after being at Bubba Gump shrimp.
So, yeah.
I’ll change it.
But, I’ll take your ideas on board!
Should the description be changed? Or...

[Scottish Socialists]

I was going to make some comments, but Chan Island basically covered my exact points.

Only thing to add is that I'd personally title it Mission: Shrimpossible.

Alrighty, will do.
Actually fits a bit better than Shrimpossible.

[Zyris]

The introduction of an evasive species could solve that problem for added options.

[Scottish Socialists]

The introduction of an evasive species could solve that problem for added options.

Hmmm....
That’s a good idea!

[Scottish Socialists]

Changed some options, made them more reasonable.

[Chan Island]

The introduction of an evasive species could solve that problem for added options.

Too bad we already have an issue about an invasive species.

It was not a bad idea when you put it in the writer's block. However, I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle: instead of from a culinary angle, this really must be looked at from a environmental angle. An overpopulation of crustaceans- or anything else from that matter- might well herald a disaster, in this case, for the rivers of @@NAME@@.

So I would rewrite the issue to look like this: the rivers are overpopulated with shrimp. Needless to say, this might be an ecological disaster.

option 1: Keep the same. I love it!

option 2: look into industrial strategy and review. Some chemical that helps the shrimp must be being pumped into the rivers to make their populations explode.

option 3: Keep the shrimp, though I'd tweak the option to be about general ecological non-interventention or something.

I mean, I did have this idea after being at Bubba Gump shrimp.
So, yeah.
I’ll change it.
But, I’ll take your ideas on board!
Should the description be changed? Or...

lol

In seriousness though, I think the description does need to be changed. It needs to describe a plausible reason or scenario that might create the problem of shrimp overpopulation. Spitballing, the idea of a type of a nutrient-rick industrial run-off is by far the most plausible. In real life, there have frequently been cases when some chemical in the water encourages some species (usually plant) to overpopulate. The other idea that came up was to discuss a shrimp version of the Marbled Crayfish.

[Scottish Socialists]

The introduction of an evasive species could solve that problem for added options.

Too bad we already have an issue about an invasive species.

I mean, I did have this idea after being at Bubba Gump shrimp.
So, yeah.
I’ll change it.
But, I’ll take your ideas on board!
Should the description be changed? Or...

lol

In seriousness though, I think the description does need to be changed. It needs to describe a plausible reason or scenario that might create the problem of shrimp overpopulation. Spitballing, the idea of a type of a nutrient-rick industrial run-off is by far the most plausible. In real life, there have frequently been cases when some chemical in the water encourages some species (usually plant) to overpopulate. The other idea that came up was to discuss a shrimp version of the Marbled Crayfish.

That idea shall be taken on board to make the description more plausible.
Are the actual options better or do they need to be changed more?

[Chan Island]

Too bad we already have an issue about an invasive species.



lol

In seriousness though, I think the description does need to be changed. It needs to describe a plausible reason or scenario that might create the problem of shrimp overpopulation. Spitballing, the idea of a type of a nutrient-rick industrial run-off is by far the most plausible. In real life, there have frequently been cases when some chemical in the water encourages some species (usually plant) to overpopulate. The other idea that came up was to discuss a shrimp version of the Marbled Crayfish.

That idea shall be taken on board to make the description more plausible.
Are the actual options better or do they need to be changed more?

In my view, it is a vital imperative that option 1 remains the same, because it is hilarious (except maybe add a little sneaky reference of 'stick 'em in a stew').

Option 2 is passable, but I do feel like there is something missing. I can't put my finger on it yet, but now you know. If you have that same sense, maybe you can rework it. The effect line is great though so keep that in whatever pro-shrimp option you make.

Option 3 obviously has to go. I'd replace it with an option discussing the dangers of industrial or agricultural (since, I have just remembered, it is usually agricultural products that create unnatural abundances of creatures) practices and the need to thoroughly investigate what is causing this.

EDIT: A group of scientists are unlikely to be dumping that many chemicals. I'd have it be that a spate of new farms were established on the river, say, 5 years ago, and now all of the fertiliser or something has caused this shrimp explosion.

[Scottish Socialists]

That idea shall be taken on board to make the description more plausible.
Are the actual options better or do they need to be changed more?

In my view, it is a vital imperative that option 1 remains the same, because it is hilarious (except maybe add a little sneaky reference of 'stick 'em in a stew').

Option 2 is passable, but I do feel like there is something missing. I can't put my finger on it yet, but now you know. If you have that same sense, maybe you can rework it. The effect line is great though so keep that in whatever pro-shrimp option you make.

Option 3 obviously has to go. I'd replace it with an option discussing the dangers of industrial or agricultural (since, I have just remembered, it is usually agricultural products that create unnatural abundances of creatures) practices and the need to thoroughly investigate what is causing this.

EDIT: A group of scientists are unlikely to be dumping that many chemicals. I'd have it be that a spate of new farms were established on the river, say, 5 years ago, and now all of the fertiliser or something has caused this shrimp explosion.

That.... makes a lot more sense.
Lemme just change the stuff a bit more.
What could be missing, though?

[Scottish Socialists]

Re-revised further, overhauling option 3 completely:

[Bears Armed]

Maybe local farmers have been using synthetic hormones to boost the growth of their livestock, and now that these substances have got into the water they're having unexpected effects on the shrimp?
Shrimpzilla!

[Scottish Socialists]

Maybe local farmers have been using synthetic hormones to boost the growth of their livestock, and now that these substances have got into the water they're having unexpected effects on the shrimp?
Shrimpzilla!

So instead of pesticides and chemicals I should do hormones? Sounds good!
Anything else I should change? Or...

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

[Title]Mission: Shrimpossible
[Description] The rivers of @@NAME@@ are overflowing with shrimp, due to some hormones used by farmers. Your culinary advisor has come into your office to discuss what to do with them.

[Option 1] "Think of all the things we could do with the shrimp!” proclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, your culinary advisor. “Shrimp can be used in many ways! You can boil them, fry them, marinade them, cover them in coconut, and much more!” @@HE@@ salivates as @@HE@@ pulls out a chart. “According to these calculations, we can boost the economy and feed our populace if we use the shrimp for food! So, what do you say? Eat em’ or leave em’?”
[Effect] The formerly bustling shrimp population has literally been eaten up.

Option 1 will reverse the Vegetarianism policy for those nations that have it, huh?

No period after the effect line.

Also, I think the speaker shouldn't ask "Eat em’ or leave em’?" - this is not a binary choice. This speaker wants @@LEADER@@ to decide for eating.

Smart quotes should be replaced with straight quotes: ", not ”. -> This applies to the whole issue

[Option 2] "No! You can’t do that!” shouts @@NAME@@ Crustacean Lovers Association founder @@RANDOMNAME@@ as @@HE@@ bursts through your door. “Shrimp are our friends! They must be left alone to breed! Otherwise, they will all die!” @@HE@@ takes a deep breath. “Look, why don’t we just leave them alone! It’s not like it’ll cause an ecological disaster or anything!”
[Effect] @@DENONYMPLURAL@@ can barely drink with the amount of shrimp coming from their sink.

Actually, they will all die anyway. I believe it would be more accurate if you said that they would become extinct.

For the second point, the speaker's suggestion sounds misleading, because this WILL cause an ecological disaster.

I believe the shrimp-infested water comes from the faucet/tap, not from the sink.

[Option 3] "You know, this problem would never have happened if we had better regulations on the stuff used by farmers!” pipes in your advisor, who has been by your side the whole time.
“@@LEADER@@, do you not remember how a group of farmers set up farms at the riverside? Well, those farmers have used hormones to make the animals breed more, and over the last couple of years, those hormones and all their effects have seeped into the river, just for the shrimp to enjoy! This shows us that farming regulations must be completely overhauled!”
[Effect] The farming regulations have been completely changed due to a spike in shrimp population.

Hormones were already mentioned in the description. I don't think the speaker here needs to talk about them at length. The discussion on hormones could be significantly abridged.

[Hediacrana]

Shrimpzilla!

I actually like the idea of the word Shrimpzilla being included. Perhaps, as an additional option, some deranged scientist suggests to see how big the shrimp can get by intentionally adding more of this hormone? As an incentive (apart from 'for science!') the giant shrimp could be a tourist attraction.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Shrimpzilla!

I actually like the idea of the word Shrimpzilla being included. Perhaps, as an additional option, some deranged scientist suggests to see how big the shrimp can get by intentionally adding more of this hormone? As an incentive (apart from 'for science!') the giant shrimp could be a tourist attraction.

I know this is a pedantic comment, but I think we should first decide what this hormone does to the shrimp. Does it increase their size, or their number? The two are not necessarily interconnected, in my opinion.

[Scottish Socialists]

Shrimpzilla!

I actually like the idea of the word Shrimpzilla being included. Perhaps, as an additional option, some deranged scientist suggests to see how big the shrimp can get by intentionally adding more of this hormone? As an incentive (apart from 'for science!') the giant shrimp could be a tourist attraction.

I did envision an option by a mad crustacean lover (also a part of the CLA) all like “This doesn’t go far enough! We need to make more shrimp! Pump more of that stuff in”
Or something like that.

[Scottish Socialists]

[Title]Mission: Shrimpossible
[Description] The rivers of @@NAME@@ are overflowing with shrimp, due to some hormones used by farmers. Your culinary advisor has come into your office to discuss what to do with them.

[Option 1] "Think of all the things we could do with the shrimp!” proclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, your culinary advisor. “Shrimp can be used in many ways! You can boil them, fry them, marinade them, cover them in coconut, and much more!” @@HE@@ salivates as @@HE@@ pulls out a chart. “According to these calculations, we can boost the economy and feed our populace if we use the shrimp for food! So, what do you say? Eat em’ or leave em’?”
[Effect] The formerly bustling shrimp population has literally been eaten up.

Also, I think the speaker shouldn't ask "Eat em’ or leave em’?" - this is not a binary choice. This speaker wants @@LEADER@@ to decide for eating.

Smart quotes should be replaced with straight quotes: ", not ”. -> This applies to the whole issue

Sorry, I don’t understand.

Not in a bad way, I’m just confused as to what “binary choice” or “straight quotes” mean

[Altmer Dominion]

Also, I think the speaker shouldn't ask "Eat em’ or leave em’?" - this is not a binary choice. This speaker wants @@LEADER@@ to decide for eating.

Smart quotes should be replaced with straight quotes: ", not ”. -> This applies to the whole issue

Sorry, I don’t understand.

Not in a bad way, I just don’t know what “binary choice” or “straight quotes” mean.

FuF should probably clarify the first point ('@@LEADER@@ to decide for eating' threw me), but I can answer the second point.

Straight quotes look like " " (they literally look straight), while smart quotes look like “” (much curvier). Microsoft Word tends to default to smart quotes, while NS published issues use straight quotes. It's a formatting matter, so you'll want to replace the curvy-looking quotes with straight-looking quotes in your draft.

EDIT: These also apply to apostrophes: ’ (smart), ' (straight). You'll want to standardize straight quotes here as well.

[Scottish Socialists]

Sorry, I don’t understand.

Not in a bad way, I just don’t know what “binary choice” or “straight quotes” mean.

FuF should probably clarify the first point ('@@LEADER@@ to decide for eating' threw me), but I can answer the second point.

Straight quotes look like " " (they literally look straight), while smart quotes look like “” (much curvier). Microsoft Word tends to default to smart quotes, while published issues NS uses straight quotes. It's a formatting matter, so you'll want to replace the curvy-looking quotes with straight-looking quotes in your draft.

Ah, I understand. Thanks!