NATION

PASSWORD

[Submitted] Green Thumbs Sore

A place to spoil daily issues for those who haven't had them yet, snigger at typos, and discuss ideas for new ones.
User avatar
Cretox State
Diplomat
 
Posts: 635
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Democratic Socialists

[Submitted] Green Thumbs Sore

Postby Cretox State » Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:26 pm

An issue dealing with environmental claims in advertising going too far. As always, any feedback is appreciated.

Green Thumbs Sore

Validity: Must have high eco-friendliness and a market economy.

Description
Sensing a lucrative marketing opportunity, several major corporations attempted to capitalize on the nation's eco-friendly attitude by saturating every single one of their products with dubious claims such as "environmentally safe," "divinely blessed by Mother Nature herself," and everything in between. With countless other companies quickly following and scores of activists taking to the streets, the burden falls on you to broker a green peace.

Option 1
"I don't see the problem here," says United @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@, teasing you with some 100% recyclable organic @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@. "It's not as though we're lying to people: all our products contain so much environmental advertising that people buying them basically have no choice but to embrace the green craze! If that's not 'all profits go towards supporting the environment,' I don't know what is!"

Effect: lumberjacks only use certified eco-friendly chainsaws

Option 2
"Not as though you're lying?!" shrieks random activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, smacking what @@HE@@ assures you is not a 100% recyclable organic petition down on your desk. "This is making a mockery out of all our efforts! 'Green this, green that'- it has to end! If a company wants to put environmental claims in their advertising, they need to back them up with scientific fact."

Effect: people buying house plants need to sign off on a few dozen pages of legal documentation verifying it is indeed a house plant

Option 3
"Allow me to, ahem... advertise a solution," cackles carbon-suited bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@, excitedly fiddling with a roll of red tape. "How about the government outlaws all private advertising, and we just charge to design ads and product packaging ourselves? It'll solve the problem and fill our coffers in the process."

Effect: green advertising has never been more colorless
Last edited by Cretox State on Sun Oct 18, 2020 4:54 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Cretox State
Diplomat
 
Posts: 635
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Cretox State » Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:47 pm

Green Thumbs Sore

Validity: Must have high eco-friendliness and a market economy.

Description
Sensing a lucrative marketing opportunity, several major corporations attempted to capitalize on the nation's eco-friendly attitude by advertising every single one of their products as "environmentally safe," "divinely blessed by Mother Nature herself," and everything in between, with countless other companies quickly following. With scores of environmental activists taking to the streets, the burden falls on you to broker a green peace.

Option 1
"I don't see the problem here," says United @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@, smacking a lump of 100% recyclable organic coal down on your desk. "It's not as though we're lying to people: all our products contain so much environmental advertising that people buying them basically have no choice but to embrace the green craze! If that's not 'all profits go towards supporting the environment,' I don't know what is!"

Effect: lumberjacks only use certified eco-friendly chainsaws

Option 2
"Not as though you're lying?!" shrieks random activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, smacking what @@HE@@ assures you is not a 100% recyclable organic petition down on your desk. "This is making a mockery out of all our efforts! 'Green this, green that'- it has to end! If a company wants to put environmental claims in their advertising, they need to back them up with scientific fact."

Effect: people buying house plants need to sign off on a few dozen pages of legal documentation verifying it is indeed a house plant

Option 3
"It seems the private sector has failed yet again," declares carbon-suited bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@, wrapping the coal in the petition and lighting it on fire. "How about the government outlaws all private advertising, and we just charge to design ads and product packaging ourselves? It'll solve the problem and fill our coffers in the process."

Effect: green advertising has never been more colorless


Green Thumbs Sore

Validity: Must have high eco-friendliness and a market economy.

Description
Seeing a lucrative marketing opportunity, several major corporations attempted to capitalize on the nation's eco-friendly attitude by advertising nearly every one of their products as "environmentally safe," "divinely blessed by Mother Nature herself," and everything in between, with countless other companies quickly following. With scores of environmental activists taking to the streets, the burden falls on you to broker a green peace.

Option 1a
Validity: Must allow smoking.
"I don't see the problem here," says United @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@, blowing a cloud of 100% recyclable organic cigarette smoke in your face. "It's not as though we're lying to people: our products contain so much environmental advertising that people buying them basically have no choice but to embrace the green craze! If that's not 'all profits go towards supporting the environment,' I don't know what is!"

Effect: lumberjacks only use certified eco-friendly chainsaws

Option 1b
Validity: Must ban smoking.
"I don't see the problem here," says United @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@, smacking a lump of 100% recyclable organic coal down on your desk. "It's not as though we're lying to people: our products contain so much environmental advertising that people buying them basically have no choice but to embrace the green craze! If that's not 'all profits go towards supporting the environment,' I don't know what is!"

Effect: lumberjacks only use certified eco-friendly chainsaws

Option 2a
Validity: Must allow smoking.
"Not as though you're lying?!" shrieks random activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, with what you assume is not 100% recyclable organic steam practically coming out of @@HIS@@ ears. "This is making a mockery out of all our efforts! 'Green this, green that'- it has to end! If a company wants to put environmental claims in their advertising, they need to back them up with scientific fact."

Effect: people buying house plants need to sign off on a few dozen pages of legal documentation verifying it is indeed a house plant

Option 2b
Validity: Must ban smoking.
"Not as though you're lying?!" shrieks random activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, smacking what you assume is not a 100% recyclable organic petition down on your desk. "This is making a mockery out of all our efforts! 'Green this, green that'- it has to end! If a company wants to put environmental claims in their advertising, they need to back them up with scientific fact."

Effect: people buying house plants need to sign off on a few dozen pages of legal documentation verifying it is indeed a house plant

Option 3a
Validity: Must allow smoking.
"It seems the private sector has failed yet again," coughs carbon-suited bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@, turning off the smoke alarm and not opening a single window. "How about the government outlaws all private advertising, and we just design ads and product packaging ourselves? It'll solve the problem and fill our coffers in the process."

Effect: green advertising has never been more colorless

Option 3b
Validity: Must ban smoking.
"It seems the private sector has failed yet again," declares carbon-suited bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@, wrapping the coal in the petition and lighting it on fire. "How about the government outlaws all private advertising, and we just design ads and product packaging ourselves? It'll solve the problem and fill our coffers in the process."

Effect: green advertising has never been more colorless
Last edited by Cretox State on Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1933
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Wed Sep 16, 2020 10:52 pm

Why the difference in smoking? It’s not like the jokes are so much more funny than the coal ones.
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 Regulating Desalination
GA#498 Ban on Forced Blood Sports
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"
GA#507 Repeal "Promotion of Recycling"
GA#511 Ensuring Effectual Recycling
GA#518 Reducing Disease Vectors

SC#315 Commend Vippertooth33
SC#320 Condemn Noahs Second Country
SC#324 Commend The Red Fleet

User avatar
Cretox State
Diplomat
 
Posts: 635
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Cretox State » Thu Sep 17, 2020 8:45 am

Honeydewistania wrote:Why the difference in smoking? It’s not like the jokes are so much more funny than the coal ones.

I wanted to make a smoking joke in an environmental issue, pretty much. Are the jokes themselves amusing?

User avatar
Trotterdam
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8953
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Thu Sep 17, 2020 11:07 am

I assumed the joke was about assuming that cigarettes are healthy just because they're recyclable and organic.

User avatar
Cretox State
Diplomat
 
Posts: 635
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Cretox State » Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:16 pm

Trotterdam wrote:I assumed the joke was about assuming that cigarettes are healthy just because they're recyclable and organic.

Pretty much, yeah.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8953
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:36 pm

As for serious advice:

Cretox State wrote:Seeing a lucrative marketing opportunity, several major corporations attempted to capitalize on the nation's eco-friendly attitude by advertising nearly every one of their products as "environmentally safe," "divinely blessed by Mother Nature herself," and everything in between, with countless other companies quickly following. With scores of environmental activists taking to the streets, the burden falls on you to broker a green peace.
I think you need to make it clearer why these claims are suspect. Corporations calling their products environmentally-friendly isn't a problem. It's only when they aren't actually environmentally-friendly that it becomes a problem.

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1238
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:44 pm

Ultra nit picky, but 2a & b makes your Leader assume, which is like the most minor infringement on player autonomy, but yeah. Instead of ‘which you assume’ maybe it could be ‘which assumably’.
Last edited by Minskiev on Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gentlemen, you cant fight in here. This is the war room.
Rejected Times Staff
Most recent best F7 reply:
NS Stats partially baked, roasted, sautéed, braised, grilled, broiled, poached, and fried by BLYAT
Alastair-Ivan fanfic WIP - read today!

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 21885
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Anarchy

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:28 am

Two solid issues drafted in a row. You've definitely got our attention now...
editors like linguistic ambiguity more than most people

User avatar
Noahs Second Country
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 1607
Founded: Aug 31, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Noahs Second Country » Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:57 pm

It's a solid draft but is there a particular reason why you need to have this issue assigned to nations with and without smoking? Especially considering you can just restrict the validity instead of dealing with 3 extra options.
Second Best™

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1933
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Honeydewistania » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:03 pm

Noahs Second Country wrote:It's a solid draft but is there a particular reason why you need to have this issue assigned to nations with and without smoking? Especially considering you can just restrict the validity instead of dealing with 3 extra options.

yea thats what i said smh
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)

Retired Regional Military Director of Lazarus
Posts OOC unless marked otherwise.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira

The MT Army Warrior
Biggest acheivement: Spelling
GA#494 Regulating Desalination
GA#498 Ban on Forced Blood Sports
GA#502 Repeal "Freedom to Seek Medical Care II"
GA#507 Repeal "Promotion of Recycling"
GA#511 Ensuring Effectual Recycling
GA#518 Reducing Disease Vectors

SC#315 Commend Vippertooth33
SC#320 Condemn Noahs Second Country
SC#324 Commend The Red Fleet

User avatar
Cretox State
Diplomat
 
Posts: 635
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Cretox State » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:13 pm

Noahs Second Country wrote:It's a solid draft but is there a particular reason why you need to have this issue assigned to nations with and without smoking? Especially considering you can just restrict the validity instead of dealing with 3 extra options.

Good point. How does it look now?

User avatar
Jutsa
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5059
Founded: Dec 06, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Jutsa » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:24 pm

Agh, I'd always feel weird about the idea of restricting a whole issue's validity for the sake of a joke. I mean, I get it's easier and more ideal,
but it's sorta why I end up with a bajillion variant options on my drafts — I'd much rather it have wider availability, all made better if an interesting and unexpected combination crops up.

Then again, editors' call, I suppose. And in this case, while I do appreciate the smoke joke, I don't really see the need for 2 or 3 to have variants.
Admittedly, 3 I don't entirely get the joke of. Meanwhile, option 2... I mean, I get steam vs. smoke, yeah,
but I gotta admit, having the speaker have a not-100%-recyclable petition makes more amusing sense, and I kinda feel like that variant could really go in alone.

Option 1, I could go either way. Like, I like both jokes, in all honesty, but the 100% recyclable organic coal also would do well on its own, in a way.
But again, if any of them had a variant, definitely keep that one.

Otherwise, pretty nice issue, imo. :)


oh well ok I guess you'll just remove all the variables before I even post this because I took too long to type that, that's fine. *sniff*
but yeah looks good
Here is a list containing a bunch of factbooks I created that are Got Issues? related.
>List of issue ideas
>List of missing issues/options
>List of accepted issues~
^ I know this is hardly a flashy signature, but at least I have one now.

User avatar
Cretox State
Diplomat
 
Posts: 635
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Cretox State » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:44 pm

Jutsa wrote:oh well ok I guess you'll just remove all the variables before I even post this because I took too long to type that, that's fine. *sniff*
but yeah looks good

No regrets, Mr. Freeman.

Unrelated: would the issue flow better if I changed option 1 to:
"I don't see the problem here," says United @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@, teasing you with some 100% recyclable organic @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@. "It's not as though we're lying to people: all our products contain so much environmental advertising that people buying them basically have no choice but to embrace the green craze! If that's not 'all profits go towards supporting the environment,' I don't know what is!"

And option 3 to:
"It seems the private sector has failed yet again," declares carbon-suited bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@, excitedly fiddling with a roll of red tape. "How about the government outlaws all private advertising, and we just charge to design ads and product packaging ourselves? It'll solve the problem and fill our coffers in the process."
Last edited by Cretox State on Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1238
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:37 am

I do think Option 3 would flow better with that change, and for Option 1, it’s less about improving flow as it is making a joke, that still retains easy readability.

In other words, yes.
Last edited by Minskiev on Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gentlemen, you cant fight in here. This is the war room.
Rejected Times Staff
Most recent best F7 reply:
NS Stats partially baked, roasted, sautéed, braised, grilled, broiled, poached, and fried by BLYAT
Alastair-Ivan fanfic WIP - read today!

User avatar
The Marsupial Illuminati
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 1308
Founded: Jul 24, 2016
Tyranny by Majority

Postby The Marsupial Illuminati » Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:14 am

You may submit this now.
ὁ ἀνεξέταστος βίος οὐ βιωτὸς ἀνθρώπῳ

User avatar
Noahs Second Country
Issues Editor
 
Posts: 1607
Founded: Aug 31, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Noahs Second Country » Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:35 am

Cretox State wrote:
Jutsa wrote:oh well ok I guess you'll just remove all the variables before I even post this because I took too long to type that, that's fine. *sniff*
but yeah looks good

No regrets, Mr. Freeman.

Unrelated: would the issue flow better if I changed option 1 to:
"I don't see the problem here," says United @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@, teasing you with some 100% recyclable organic @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@. "It's not as though we're lying to people: all our products contain so much environmental advertising that people buying them basically have no choice but to embrace the green craze! If that's not 'all profits go towards supporting the environment,' I don't know what is!"

And option 3 to:
"It seems the private sector has failed yet again," declares carbon-suited bureaucrat @@RANDOMNAME@@, excitedly fiddling with a roll of red tape. "How about the government outlaws all private advertising, and we just charge to design ads and product packaging ourselves? It'll solve the problem and fill our coffers in the process."

I think the option 1 change is funny, the option 3 change doesn't seem extremely relevant to the topic at hand, though it is a very funny character description.

I suggest changing the opener of option 3 to something less generic. Perhaps a snarky comment about how poorly designed the petition/company advertising is, which leads into the rest of the option better.
The Marsupial Illuminati wrote:You may submit this now.

Or you can do this :P
Second Best™

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 21885
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Anarchy

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:47 pm

I'd actually advise against submitting yet, even if its submission-ready. It's only been a few days, and useful feedback may emerge. Give it a week or three, minimum, is my advice.
editors like linguistic ambiguity more than most people

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1238
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:08 pm

The word sensing in ‘Sensing a lucrative business opportunity...’ feels like it’s happening now, even if it was in the past.
Gentlemen, you cant fight in here. This is the war room.
Rejected Times Staff
Most recent best F7 reply:
NS Stats partially baked, roasted, sautéed, braised, grilled, broiled, poached, and fried by BLYAT
Alastair-Ivan fanfic WIP - read today!

User avatar
Cretox State
Diplomat
 
Posts: 635
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Cretox State » Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:32 pm

Draft 3; modified options 1 and 3 to flow better and hopefully be a bit more amusing.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I'd actually advise against submitting yet, even if its submission-ready. It's only been a few days, and useful feedback may emerge. Give it a week or three, minimum, is my advice.

Agreed.

Minskiev wrote:The word sensing in ‘Sensing a lucrative business opportunity...’ feels like it’s happening now, even if it was in the past.

"They bombed the village, believing it the right thing to do."

User avatar
Trotterdam
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8953
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:20 am

My previous comment has not been addressed:
Trotterdam wrote:
Cretox State wrote:Seeing a lucrative marketing opportunity, several major corporations attempted to capitalize on the nation's eco-friendly attitude by advertising nearly every one of their products as "environmentally safe," "divinely blessed by Mother Nature herself," and everything in between, with countless other companies quickly following. With scores of environmental activists taking to the streets, the burden falls on you to broker a green peace.
I think you need to make it clearer why these claims are suspect. Corporations calling their products environmentally-friendly isn't a problem. It's only when they aren't actually environmentally-friendly that it becomes a problem.
Nobody actually explains why these claims are bad. Even the speaker of option 2 merely accuses the corporations of "lying" without actually clarifying what they're lying about.
Last edited by Trotterdam on Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cretox State
Diplomat
 
Posts: 635
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Cretox State » Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:59 am

Trotterdam wrote:My previous comment has not been addressed:
Cretox State wrote:Seeing a lucrative marketing opportunity, several major corporations attempted to capitalize on the nation's eco-friendly attitude by advertising nearly every one of their products as "environmentally safe," "divinely blessed by Mother Nature herself," and everything in between, with countless other companies quickly following. With scores of environmental activists taking to the streets, the burden falls on you to broker a green peace.
I think you need to make it clearer why these claims are suspect. Corporations calling their products environmentally-friendly isn't a problem. It's only when they aren't actually environmentally-friendly that it becomes a problem.

Nobody actually explains why these claims are bad. Even the speaker of option 2 merely accuses the corporations of "lying" without actually clarifying what they're lying about.

Alright, I tried to make it more clear that the problem is rampant environmental advertising that's either dubious and unsubstantiated (green eco-friendly chainsaws) or borderline fraudulent (our plastic is fully biodegradable).
Last edited by Cretox State on Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1238
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:00 pm

Cretox State wrote:Draft 3; modified options 1 and 3 to flow better and hopefully be a bit more amusing.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I'd actually advise against submitting yet, even if its submission-ready. It's only been a few days, and useful feedback may emerge. Give it a week or three, minimum, is my advice.

Agreed.

Minskiev wrote:The word sensing in ‘Sensing a lucrative business opportunity...’ feels like it’s happening now, even if it was in the past.

"They bombed the village, believing it the right thing to do."


That’s different, because you included bombed, an inherently past-tense verb. However, I don’t really have a word to replace it with, so..carry on.
Gentlemen, you cant fight in here. This is the war room.
Rejected Times Staff
Most recent best F7 reply:
NS Stats partially baked, roasted, sautéed, braised, grilled, broiled, poached, and fried by BLYAT
Alastair-Ivan fanfic WIP - read today!

User avatar
Cretox State
Diplomat
 
Posts: 635
Founded: Nov 04, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Cretox State » Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:52 pm

Minskiev wrote:The word sensing in ‘Sensing a lucrative business opportunity...’ feels like it’s happening now, even if it was in the past.

That’s different, because you included bombed, an inherently past-tense verb. However, I don’t really have a word to replace it with, so..carry on.


Sensing a lucrative marketing opportunity, several major corporations attempted...

Also, you misquoted me, though not really relevant (business vs. marketing) :P

User avatar
Minskiev
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1238
Founded: Apr 20, 2020
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minskiev » Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:35 am

Hmm. Perhaps flip them? To make it:

Several major corporations, sensing a lucrative marketing opportunity, attempted to capitalize on the nation's eco-friendly attitude by saturating every single one of their products with dubious claims such as "environmentally safe," "divinely blessed by Mother Nature herself," and everything in between.
Gentlemen, you cant fight in here. This is the war room.
Rejected Times Staff
Most recent best F7 reply:
NS Stats partially baked, roasted, sautéed, braised, grilled, broiled, poached, and fried by BLYAT
Alastair-Ivan fanfic WIP - read today!

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Got Issues?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Draconaland, SherpDaWerp

Advertisement

Remove ads