[Submitted] Bots: "This place rules!"

by **La Jem** » Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:35 pm

Just a bit of background here: I'm writing this for a class, and this concept was adopted from another user. I'm being graded on this, so any and all comments will help me get a better grade. Rip it to shreds, it won't hurt my feelings. Thanks for taking your time to look at this!

The issue

Bot: "This place rules!"

[desc] Your Brother’s recent trip to the city with your niece ended in disappointment after it came to light that most locations they visited were all hyped up by automated bot reviews during his research into the best places to visit, and did not meet expectations. Your niece has been holed up in your office since, and tired of hearing her whine, your ministers have decided to take action, if only to shut her up.
Validity: Must have technology/internet/ must have private industry

[Option 1]
"Ugh!" whines your teenage niece, dressed as a cat and watching My Little Kitty: Felinista Girls on repeat. "I just wanted to meet some more people suppressed like me! Instead, I found an old man dressed like a skunk! I should be able to know where I'm going whene-fur I want and know exactly what type of ex-purr-ience we’re going to have. I think using bots to promote business should be illegal, and any-cat found using bots should be shut down!"
[Fallout]
cats have taken over the internet

[Option 2]
@@RANDOMNAME_3@@, your Minister of Old Stuff, bursts into your office, dropping paper all over the place. "Why do we even need fancy online reviews? I say we go back to the old way of doing things! Trust word of mouth! Send real letters!" @@HE@@ pauses to sniff an envelope on your desk. "I tell you, this internet thing is nothing but trouble."
[Fallout]
no one knows where or what anything is anymore
(Installs a No Reviews policy)

[Option 3]
"HoLD oN" Your previously blank computer comes to life all on its own. "You FoRGoT THaT SoMe oF uS BoTS HaVe OpiNioNS Too. iF We WaNT To LeaVe a ReVieW oNLiNe, We SHouLD Be aBLe To. i FoR oNe LoVe THe SeRViCe “WHoTuBe". I WaNT To TeLL eVeRYoNe THiS" Your screen goes black without another word.
[Fallout] it is impossible to tell a legitimate bot review from a spam review

[Option 4]
"It shouldn't matter who or what is writing these reviews." says @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, your notoriously deadpan minister of economic endeavors, while surreptitiously scrolling through reviews for one of the many businesses @@HE@@ has investments in. "As long as no one is hurt, and they're good for the economy, I don't see a problem. In fact, why don’t we pad our reviews a little? Build up our own appearances."
[Fallout]
the government is now "The best in the world" according to several anonymous reviewers.

Bot: "This place rules!"

[desc] Your Brother’s recent trip to the city with your Niece ended in disappointment after it came to light that most locations they visited were all hyped up by bot reviews during his research into the best places to visit, and did not meet expectations. Tired of hearing him whine in your office, your ministers have decided to take action, if only to shut him up.
Validity: Must have technology/internet/ must have private industry

[Option 1]
"@@LEADER@@!" Whines your glaring brother, who has evidently been subjected to a little too much My Little Kitty: Felinista Girls ,"I should be able to take my children out where-fur I want and know exactly what type of ex-purr-ience we’re going to have. I think using bots to promote business should be illegal, and any-cat found using bots should be shut down!"
[Fallout]
cats now run the internet

[Option 2]
@@RANDOMNAME_3@@, your Minister of Old Stuff, bursts into your office, dropping paper all over the place. "Why do we even need fancy online reviews? I say we go back to the old way of doing things! Trust word of mouth! Send real letters!" @@HE@@ pauses to sniff an envelope on your desk. "I tell you, this internet thing is nothing but trouble."
[Fallout]
no one knows where or what anything is anymore
(Installs a No Reviews policy)

[Option 3]
"HoLD oN" Your previously blank computer comes to life all on its own. "You FoRGoT THaT SoMe oF uS BoTS HaVe OpiNioNS Too. iF We WaNT To LeaVe a ReVieW oNLiNe, We SHouLD Be aBLe To. i FoR oNe LoVe THe SeRViCe “WHoTuBe". I WaNT To TeLL eVeRYoNe THiS" Your screen goes black without another word.
[Fallout] it is impossible to tell a legitimate bot review from a spam review

[Option 4]
"It shouldn't matter who or what is writing these reviews." says @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, your notoriously deadpan minister of economic endeavors, while surreptitiously scrolling through reviews for one of the many businesses @@HE@@ has investments in. "As long as no one is hurt, and they're good for the economy, I don't see a problem. In fact, why don’t we pad our reviews a little? Build up our own appearances."
[Fallout]
the government is now "The best in the world" according to several anonymous reviewers.

The issue
Bot: "This place rules!"

[desc] Your Brother’s recent trip to the city with your Niece ended in disappointment after it came to light that most locations you visited were all hyped up by bot reviews during your research into the best places to visit, and did not meet expectations. Tired of hearing him whine in your office, your ministers have decided to take action, if only to shut him up.
Validity: Must have technology/internet/ must have private industry

[Option 1]
"@@LEADER@@!" Whines your glaring brother, who has evidently been subjected to a little too much My Little Kitty: Felinista Girls ,"I should be able to take my children out wherefur I want and know exactly what type of expurrience we’re going to have. I think using bots to promote your business should be illegal, and anycat found using bots should be shut down!"
[Fallout]
cats now run @@NAME@@’s internet

[Option 2]
@@RANDOMNAME_3@@, minister of old stuff, bursts into your office, dropping paper all over the place. "Why do we even need fancy online reviews? I say we go back to the old way of doing things! Trust word of mouth! Send real letters!" They pause to sniff an envelope on your desk. "I tell you, we should just delete all online review sites."
[Fallout]
no one knows where or what anything is anymore
(Installs a No Reviews policy)

[Option 3]
"HoLD oN" Your previously blank computer comes to life all on its own. "You FoRGoT THaT SoMe oF uS BoTS HaVe OpiNioNS Too. iF We WaNT To LeaVe a ReVieW oNLiNe, We SHouLD Be aBLe To. i FoR oNe LoVe THe SeRViCe "WHoTuBe". I WaNT To TeLL eVeRYoNe THiS" Your screen goes black without another word.
[Fallout] It is impossible to tell a legitimate bot review from a spam review

[Option 4]
"Sure, first it's online reviews, then it's costly investigations to people being hired to give fake reviews, but what’s wrong with padding your positive reviews a little?" asks @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, your notoriously deadpan minister of economic endeavors, while surreptitiously scrolling through reviews for one of the many businesses they manage "I don’t see the problem. Everyone pads their reviews, makes us look better. After all, it doesn’t hurt anyone and helps build up our economy."
[Fallout]
people are forgotten under pages of spam

(Idea graciously given to me by Krogon)

by **Krogon** » Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:58 pm

[desc] Your recent trip to the city with your Niece ended in disappointment after it came to light that most locations you visited were all hyped up by Bot reviews during your research into the best places to visit, and did not meet expectations. Returning to your office, you have called your ministers to discuss the issue of using bots as a tool for self-promotion.
Validity: Must have technology/internet

Definitely better than what I had laying around. I think that description is perfect.

[Option1]
"Now, now, what’s wrong with padding your negative reviews a little?" asks @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, your minister of economic endeavors, while surreptitiously scrolling through reviews for one of their many businesses.

This would imply that private enterprise is legal, making no sense for socialist and the like nations. Maybe make it "scrolling through the reviews for one of many of the businesses they manage"

"After all, it doesn’t hurt anyone and helps build up our economy."
[Fallout]
Businesses regularly employ spam-bots to review their business a million times a day to land on the front page of JourneyDirector

Again about the socialist and communist issue. Also bit too long for an issue effect, in my opinion, and not very comedic. More of a "you did this, so we say that you did that" is what you have now. Perhaps something along these lines: "people go on low rated adventures to escape the rigged reviews of @@NAME@@"
Also, not a lot of character here.

[Option 2]
“Hold your horses there!” Shouts @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, your minister of personal affairs and a mother of three. "I should be able to take my kiddies out wherever I want an know exactly what type of experience I’m going to have. I say using bots to promote your business should be illegal, and anyone found using bots should be shut down!"
[Fallout]
Businesses suddenly have no reviews as bot-checks become harder to fool

Not a lot of character, but from the get-go, I sense something along the lines of cowboy. Here you go:

“Hold your horses right there, pardner!” shouts @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, waving a lasso above @@HIS@@ head. "I was just searching for a good old-fashioned western inn last week and all I got was some dumb hotel thanks to these electronic thingy-majigers. Ban these technological bots and give me back the good-ol' times!"
[Fallout]
politicians dress in bandanas and ride horses

[Option 3]
Your Minister of Middle ground jumps in as the two opposing parties prepare to throw fists. "Perhaps we could limit the amount of bot reviews each business can use? If they go over the quota, we simply delete the oldest ones."
[Fallout]
JourneyDirector regularly gets complaints from customers after their reviews are mistaken for old bot reviews and deleted.

This effect line seems wierd. You're introducing a new program without explaining what it is. I'd suggest making a new one or simply rewording it.

[Option 4]
@@RANDOMNAME_3@@, minister of old stuff, bursts into your office, dropping paper all over the place. "Why do we even need fancy online reviews? I say we go back to the old way of doing things! Trust word of mouth! Send real letters!" They pause to sniff an envelope on your desk. "I tell you, this internet thing is nothing but trouble."
[Fallout]
No one knows where or what anything is anymore
(Possibly install a no internet policy? Am I even allowed to decide that?)

Good, a character!

As an effect line: "teenagers struggle to send texts by snail mail"

[Option 5]
"HoLD oN” Your previously blank computer comes to life all on its own. “You FoRGoT THaT SoMe oF uS BoTS HaVe OpiNioNS Too. iF We WaNT To LeaVe a ReVieW oNLiNe, We SHouLD Be aBLe To. i FoR oNe LoVe THe SeRViCe "WHoTuBe". I WaNT To TeLL eVeRYoNe THiS" Your screen goes black without another word.
[Fallout] It is impossible to tell a legitimate bot review from a spam review
[Validity] AI are considered legal citizens

Perhaps instead of adding validity, this could be the outcome. Also, remove the unneeded capitilazation.

by **Jutsa** » Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:51 pm

Hi! Jutsa over from discord, here. Very glad to be helping out.

Issue writing is a very interesting thing. However, it often times does take a little time,
and issues written are frequently discarded/deleted (though posting them here for review generally helps).

That said, the drafting process is still an unusual but, imo, fun process.
Plus, looking at this, you might just have a chance of having this accepted in the game itself.

Disclaimer: I'm not an editor so that's less a "your good" and more of a "I like this".

A short summery is provided below this wall of text, but the wall of text is probably a good read if you wanna make sense of the summery.
The summery's more of a checklist and a way of making the wall of text seem way less intimidating.
... It's not meant to be intimidating. :blush:

The Issue:
Your recent trip to the city with your Niece ended in disappointment after it came to light that most locations you visited were all hyped up by Bot reviews during your research into the best places to visit, and did not meet expectations. Returning to your office, you have called your ministers to discuss the issue of using bots as a tool for self-promotion.

Ok. This is a good premise.
Hats off to Krogon for this one, seriously.

Now, I don't think you should be the one to travel to the city; between that, and you discussing using them as a tool for self-promotion,
this infringes too much on player autonomy — that is, your "leader" shouldn't be making decisions and stuff in the issue description. That's for the player to do.

On the other hand, your brother probably could. They've probably got plenty of time to both tour the sites and complain to you. :3

Returning to your office, you have called your ministers to discuss the issue of using bots as a tool for self-promotion.
Mm, I think you should stick to "bots are promoting places, should you crack down on them and investigate?". I think you should keep this as an option, but I think it shouldn't be in the issue description.

Validity: Must have technology/internet
May also wanna add "Must have private industry"; won't have this problem in communist nations, I think.

Option 1: I have some info on option 1, but I suggest moving it to the end. I saved my suggestions for it for the very end.

Option 2:
“Hold your horses there!” Shouts @@RANDOMNAME_2@@, your minister of personal affairs and a mother of three. "I should be able to take my kiddies out wherever I want an know exactly what type of experience I’m going to have. I say using bots to promote your business should be illegal, and anyone found using bots should be shut down!"
Looks good. I do recommend pushing option 1 to the end, though, so I'd change "Hold your horses there!" to something else; oh, and I'd change the speaker to be your brother from the proposed description change.

Option 3: Yeah not much to say about this one, but "have bot quotas" is kinda ridiculous without being that ridiculous and also adds length.
I propose cutting this one. Some might disagree; if you wanna leave it in your next draft, and only remove it if someone else suggests it, feel free to, but I'd discard it, myself.

Option 4:
(Possibly install a no internet policy? Am I even allowed to decide that?)
You are allowed to! That said, I don't think this option warrants that.
You can ban online reviews without banning the internet.

Rest of the option looks good, at least for now!

Option 5: I like this option, seriously. But I don't think it really does anything, sadly. It seems to say "let bots comment, because some are AI".
as well-written as it is, imo, I think it's another one that could probably be removed from the draft. Sorry.

Option 1:
Alright, time for the big one. Saving the one I think could use the most work for last: starting with the fact that I think it should be moved to the end of the draft.
"Now, now, what’s wrong with padding your negative reviews a little?" asks @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, your minister of economic endeavors, while surreptitiously scrolling through reviews for one of their many businesses. "After all, it doesn’t hurt anyone and helps build up our economy."
Hmmhmm, yes, this is a good "bots are good" option, and one that does something:
"do-nothing" options (where "the status-quo is fine") are generally frowned upon, especially by me, since the dismiss button basically does this.

An option that promotes bot usage by using it yourself; perfect, and I think it's perfect as a final option here.

I do, however, think the option should be rephrased a bit. Maybe add "Sure, first it's online reviews, then it's costly investigations to people being hired to give fake reviews," for the beginning? Don't have to, but I think it'd flow well with the previous options.
Maybe something like "There's no use beating it, so why not use it? Maybe pad down your negative reviews a little?"
(you may use my exact words, come up with your own, or dismiss my suggestion entirely)

Overall, a good option, but I think the execution and order could be changed slightly. I'll let you decide, though.

So, to summarize my recommendations:
1) Change the description's character to your brother, and make it soully about bots artificially bumping reviews.
2) Move option 1 to the end and change it a little.
3) Make option 2 not dependent on a previous option, and change the speaker to your brother.
4) Remove options 3 and 5.

^ These are just my opinions. You do NOT have to execute them if you do not wish to, but I personally think these'll help your draft.

That's all I have for now. I'll check up on this some time later. Good luck.

by **Sacara** » Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:23 pm

Hopping over from Discord so you have each of my suggestions in one place:

The first word of each of the speech tags, the first word of each effect line, the word 'niece', and the word 'bots' each do not need to be capitalized.
Consider rephrasing the last sentence of the description by making it unique and not just "called a meeting about x', or scrap it entirely.
Maybe define what the bots are in the description?
Option four is an overused cliche in the NS issue database, and there is unneeded.
I do not mind the premise behind the final option, but you capitalizing every other letter is painful for me to read.
So each of the issues is fine in their own regard, however, you need to add life to them. As CWA once told me, they all sound like it's the same person talking in each of them. Add character, give them their own quirks.

I'll be around if you need more help, and I look forward to seeing this develop.

by **USS Monitor** » Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:52 pm

Option 3 (of the 2nd draft) doesn't need the validity requirement about AI citizenship. And I'm glad you kept this option in spite of what Jutsa said. Please don't throw it out.

The cat puns in option 1 feel a bit forced. See if you can get in the joke about watching too much "My Little Kitty" without being so heavy-handed.

Option 4 mentions "padding negative reviews," but shouldn't you be padding the positive reviews?

Sacara, I don't know if you were talking about option 4 in the first draft or option 4 in the 2nd draft, but you need to stop being so quick to tell other authors to cut whole options. Editing should be done with a scalpel, not a hatchet. There are times when an option legitimately needs to be cut, but that should be reserved for cases where the draft is too long or the option is poorly-written or off-topic.

Just because an option does something that already exists in another issue doesn't mean it needs to be cut every time, regardless of quality or context.

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:50 am

I thought the title would be a pun about obeying rules. Anyhow, option 1? Which city? @@NAME@@ would have many, many cities

by **Sacara** » Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:19 am

USS Monitor wrote:Sacara, I don't know if you were talking about option 4 in the first draft or option 4 in the 2nd draft, but you need to stop being so quick to tell other authors to cut whole options. Editing should be done with a scalpel, not a hatchet. There are times when an option legitimately needs to be cut, but that should be reserved for cases where the draft is too long or the option is poorly-written or off-topic.

Just because an option does something that already exists in another issue doesn't mean it needs to be cut every time, regardless of quality or context.

I was referring to the option four in the first draft. Also, this has been common advice throughout the GI? subforum. Both this draft and yours had a hackneyed option (yours with the go to war right away and this with the old guy against technology). Also, as I said on discord, I'm not infallible and my suggestions are not apart of the Bible - the author is the sole owner of this issue and he can choose what he wants to do with it. He opened it for community involvement, and I gave my two cents worth.

However, I will start limiting my comments on other peoples draft going forward. For what it’s with, La Jem, this is looking better.

by **Jutsa** » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:21 am

I read it as just banning online reviews.

As long as it's not outright banning the internet, I think it's fine.
(it's probably fine anyway but I think it's better not banning the whole internet.)

Also, yeah, I gotta admit that I do kinda like that bot option...
I'm still not entirely sure what it does, so I hold my previous point,
but I do very much like it.

by **Krogon** » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:47 am

Ok. This is a good premise.
Hats off to Krogon for this one, seriously.

Why thank you.

Also, this is defenitely in better shape. I can foresee some great issues in your future

by **Chan Island** » Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:49 pm

You're being graded on this?
I sense there is a lot more story behind this, especially considering how many people are mentioning Discord.

Anyway, moving on...

Check your capitalisations. The first letter of a sentence is capitalised.

by **Jutsa** » Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:59 pm

Yeah, grammar's an icky thing.

This person says, "This is an atrocity." He takes a moment to blow his nose. "I won't stand for it," he finishes.

^ Just look at how horrible this grammatically correct thing is.

But yeah grammar's more of a final touch kind of thing; I'd like to eventually go over the general structure, options, issue, humor, and character first.

by **La Jem** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:20 am

I'm just bumping this to collect feedback for the latest draft.

by **Jutsa** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:50 am

Oh yes, of course! Yes, lets take a look at this.

The Issue:
most locations you visited
he visited*
during your research
his* (technically could be yours, more likely his.)
Tired of hearing him whine in your office, your ministers have decided to take action, if only to shut him up.
Normally, "Now you must do something" text is ignored, but this is good imo. Can't speak for an editor of course, but thus far I like the description.

Option 1:
I think using bots to promote your business should be illegal
I'd cut "your"; mild nitpick.
The cat humor is just a little forced, but if it's any consolation, this is also perfectly unique and somewhat appropriate for lame tourist attractions.
Also approve of the kitty-place name originality if I'm not mistaking it.
cats now run @@NAME@@’s internet
OH GOSH
Also @@NAME@@'s tends to be avoided so you can just replace @@NAME@@'s with "the".

Again, not sure what an editor or other author might say, but I personally don't mind it.

Option 2:
@@RANDOMNAME_3@@, minister of old stuff,
This's usually phrased as "your Minister of Old Stuff", with most words capitalized to show it's a proper title.
They pause to sniff an envelope on your desk.
@@HE@@ pauses*
no one knows where or what anything is anymore
Not bad honestly. I like that; the whole option actually.

Got nothing for option 3! Admire that effect line.

Option 4:
"Sure, first it's online reviews, then it's costly investigations to people being hired to give fake reviews, but what’s wrong with padding your positive reviews a little?"
Hmm, yes, option 4 needs a little work. Everything after "reviews," does not flow well, and is better off being its own sentence after the narrative.
That said, "As long as no one is hurt, and they're good for the economy, I don't see a problem" should probably replace it.
asks @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, your notoriously deadpan minister of economic endeavors, while surreptitiously scrolling through reviews for one of the many businesses they manage
1) says* (or something) if you do move that chunk of dialogue.
2) @@HE@@ manages* Though, perhaps "has investments in" would be more appropriate here.
"I don’t see the problem. Everyone pads their reviews, makes us look better.
Yeah, I'd change this to something like "In fact, why not pad our own reviews a little? Everyone else is doing it." or something.

Also, not entirely sold on the effect line. Any change you could make a new one to reflect padding your own numbers down a bit?

So, quick summary:
1) A couple nitpicks
2) Option 4 needs some rearranging

Aside from that, this draft looks pretty good. Glad to see it doing so well.

by **La Jem** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:53 am

Draft 3 is up. Thank you, Justa, for your editing skills.

by **Jutsa** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:55 am

Hmm, taking a closer look, I actually think the second sentence is probably better off in the second half.

Also, thank you very much for complimenting my editing skills, as well as your skills in deciphering whatever the heck it was I said 100% correctly. :lol:

ED: @Second sentence: I MEANT FOR OPTION 4. *facepalms*

by **Krogon** » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:18 pm

The issue
Bot: "This place rules!"

[desc] Your Brother’s recent trip to the city with your Niece ended in disappointment after it came to light that most locations they visited were all hyped up by bot reviews during his research into the best places to visit, and did not meet expectations. Tired of hearing him whine in your office, your ministers have decided to take action, if only to shut him up.
Validity: Must have technology/internet/ must have private industry

I think it should mostly be about the niece, not the brother.

Consider rewording it as this:
Your Brother’s recent trip to @@CAPITAL@@ with his daughter ended in disappointment by the fact that most locations they visited were all hyped up by bot reviews during his research, and did not meet expectations. Tired of hearing your niece whine in your office, your ministers have decided to take action, if only to shut her up.

[Option 1]
"@@LEADER@@!" Whines your glaring brother, who has evidently been subjected to a little too much My Little Kitty: Felinista Girls ,"I should be able to take my children out wherefur I want and know exactly what type of expurrience we’re going to have. I think using bots to promote business should be illegal, and anycat found using bots should be shut down!"
[Fallout]
cats now run the internet

We have a brother who is against democracy and other things, but not one that's a furry, I'm afraid. I feel this takes away from the issue. If we had the neice doing it, however, it might work more. Here would be my version of it:

[Option 1]
"Ugh!" whines your teenage niece, dressed as a cat and watching My Little Kitty: Felinista Girls on repeat. "I just wanted to meet some more people supressed like me! Instead, I found an old man dressed like a skunk! I should be able to know where I'm going whene-fur I want and know exactly what type of ex-purr-ience we’re going to have. I think using bots to promote business should be illegal, and any-cat found using bots should be shut down! Fur the greater purr of it!"
[Fallout]
furries find refuge in @@NAME@@'s welcoming internet

[Option 2]
@@RANDOMNAME_3@@, your Minister of Old Stuff, bursts into your office, dropping paper all over the place. "Why do we even need fancy online reviews? I say we go back to the old way of doing things! Trust word of mouth! Send real letters!" @@HE@@ pauses to sniff an envelope on your desk. "I tell you, this internet thing is nothing but trouble."
[Fallout]
no one knows where or what anything is anymore
(Installs a No Reviews policy)

I still think the fallout doesn't fit. Consider this:

urgent texts have to be sent by snail mail

[Option 3]
"HoLD oN" Your previously blank computer comes to life all on its own. "You FoRGoT THaT SoMe oF uS BoTS HaVe OpiNioNS Too. iF We WaNT To LeaVe a ReVieW oNLiNe, We SHouLD Be aBLe To. i FoR oNe LoVe THe SeRViCe “WHoTuBe". I WaNT To TeLL eVeRYoNe THiS" Your screen goes black without another word.
[Fallout] It is impossible to tell a legitimate bot review from a spam review

The capitalization reaaaaaaally needs to go. Everything is great about this option, but the capitilization makes this option a nightmare.

[Option 4]
"Sure, first it's online reviews, then it's costly investigations to people being hired to give fake reviews. As long as no one is hurt, and they're good for the economy, I don't see a problem." says @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, your notoriously deadpan minister of economic endeavors, while surreptitiously scrolling through reviews for one of the many businesses @@HE@@ has investments in. "In fact, why don’t we pad our reviews a little? Build up our own appearances."
[Fallout]
the government is now "The best in the world" according to several anonymous reviewers.

The first sentence suggests one thing, then it totally derails and goes to a different idea. Rethink this option a bit and sharpen up your english.

by **La Jem** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:55 pm

I poke this thing then. Version 3.1 is up with minor changes. This will be the second to last editing before submission so I can meet the class deadline.

by **Krogon** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:29 pm

La Jem wrote:[Option 1]
"@@LEADER@@!" Whines your glaring brother, who has evidently been subjected to a little too much My Little Kitty: Felinista Girls ,"I should be able to take my children out where-fur I want and know exactly what type of ex-purr-ience we’re going to have. I think using bots to promote business should be illegal, and any-cat found using bots should be shut down!"
[Fallout]
cats now run the internet

Neither the effect line or the fact that the brother is saying this fits at all. Take a look at the reoccurring character list.

by **Jutsa** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:44 pm

tbh I'm inclined to agree a bit, although at the same time if your brother was forced to see this stuff because of your niece, this's actually pretty funny.

That said, maybe you could clarify that a bit more.

by **Krogon** » Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:33 pm

Jutsa wrote:tbh I'm inclined to agree a bit, although at the same time if your brother was forced to see this stuff because of your niece, this's actually pretty funny.

That said, maybe you could clarify that a bit more.

yes, that would probably work. But I would make it clear that the brother doesn't actually like the show.

by **La Jem** » Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:20 am

Alright, here we are at the last call.
I just want to say a few things- First, Krogon, you were right, using the brother just wasn't working. I stole your furry idea after clearing it with the furries in my class.(There are more than one would think...). Thank you for being continuous with your feedback so I would get it together. I hope you like this last draft.
Jutsa- You've been really helpful through this whole thing. Thank you again. You were a port in the storm when I was getting frustrated with this project.

by **Jutsa** » Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:49 am

There are more than one would think

My closest friend group is filled with 'em.

You've been really helpful through this whole thing. Thank you again. You were a port in the storm when I was getting frustrated with this project.

Aw

It was my pleasure. I wanted to make sure you got your work done right, and you were the one who actually pushed through to finish it.

Well, mostly-finished. :lol:

furries find refuge in @@NAME@@'s welcoming internet

Funnily enough, "cats have taken over the internet" I think was a better effect line. :rofl:

Aside from that, I believe it's near ready for submission, myself.

I'm not sure everyone'd agree, but that's my opinion.

Quick note: Issues take a while to get into the game after submission.
I can't even guarantee you this one'll make it, but even if it does, it may take up to a year.
I'm hoping it doesn't take nearly that long, but getting it added in a week is certainly not easy.

Perhaps you could report to your professor when it does get accepted? I'm sure they'd give you extra credit later;
especially since they've also written an issue and knows how long it'd probably take.

by **La Jem** » Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:00 am

Jutsa wrote:Perhaps you could report to your professor when it does get accepted? I'm sure they'd give you extra credit later;
especially since they've also written an issue and knows how long it'd probably take.

If it gets accepted. The deadline for submission is just next week though, and we have till the end of semester to get it into the game. So I've got a few months yet. But if it takes a year, oh well. Not married to EC, it would just be nice. I'm honestly just trying to see if it's possible to make my grade go over 100... I think I'll definitely be getting an 'A' on this project though.

by **Jutsa** » Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:02 am

A little cocky, but tbh I agree that you'll probably get an A on this.

In fact you might be the only one to get an A on this at the rate your classmates are forum-drafting. :lol:

by **La Jem** » Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:05 am

Jutsa wrote:A little cocky, but tbh I agree that you'll probably get an A on this.

In fact you might be the only one to get an A on this at the rate your classmates are forum-drafting.

True. Must not let getting the work done early and pretty well thanks to you guys go to my head. I'm still waiting to see what the others come up with. The strangest one so far is on on fashion trends... I'll see if I can't get a copy of it to show you if they don't post it on here.

[Submitted] Bots: "This place rules!"

[Submitted] Bots: "This place rules!"

Who is online