[SUBMITTED] Glory Kill

[Krusavich]

TITLE:

Glory Kill

VALIDITY:

Has a military.

DESCRIPTION:

@@REGION@@ gave cheer last night after infamous terrorist leader @@RANDOMNAME@@ was assassinated in a surprise raid by the elite @@ANIMAL@@ Team-5. However, jubilation has quickly turned to controversy as one of the soldiers has claimed personal responsibility for the assassination, forgoing the unit's traditional "code of silence".


OPTION ONE

"What can I say? It's just the doggone plain truth!" bellows @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, the offending soldier in question as @@HE_1@@ props @@HIS_1@@ boots on your desk. "You can see it all on the body cam footage, so it's not like anyone can say I'm lyin'. To the winner go the spoils! Already got some United Federation suits looking to make a movie, some dork wants to write my biography, the VIP party invites are rolling in - I earned all this. Ya'll can't just take that away cause some limp-wrists say it's 'disrespectful' or 'attention hogging'. Besides, it's good for @@NAME@@ too! Once my story becomes a blockbuster, nobody's going to question our military might, right? So how about you just give me a medal and a good pat on the back for a job well done?"

Outcome: soldiers stream their classified military operations live for millions of fans


OPTION TWO

"Etiquette exist for a reason, @@LEADER@@." retorts general @@RANDOMNAME@@ as @@HE@@ readjusts your tie. "Even though @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ took the final shot, that mission was a team effort. When you start snubbing that core belief, you end up making soldiers of fortune, not @@NAME@@. And you know what happens after that? Oh sure, it's all fun and parties today. But then they start disobeying orders, thinking they know best now. Then they start going rogue. Next thing you know Blackacre slips some @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ under the table, and our whole army is goose-stepping down @@CAPITAL@@ to a different tune! And we don't want that, right? Support our discharge of @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ for unmilitary-like conduct and stand firm behind our behavior policies. The spirit of humility must remain in our military."

Outcome: quiet professionalism has returned to the nation's armed forces


OPTION THREE

"Ah, nuts to that man!" proclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, another @@ANIMAL@@ Team-5 operative whose tinted glasses and long hair you're certain violate some dress code. "@@RANDOMFIRSTNAME_1@@ has it right! Your problem is trying to make the army all secretive and mysterious. It's just another job, dude! No one tells my old man how he needs to sell stuffed animals at the mall. He just, like, does it you know? We need to be more like that. Dump all of these creepy creeds and regulations, and let the soldiers do what they need to do! Let troops say what they want to say, to whoever they want. Let it flow. Everything will work itself out for sure."

Outcome: the nation's "surprisingly chill" military is renowned for its horrendous war crimes

TITLE:

Glory Kill

VALIDITY:

Has a very large military. Has copyright laws.

DESCRIPTION:

@@REGION@@ gave cheer last night after infamous terrorist leader Moktar Dontas was assassinated in a surprise raid by @@NAME@@’s very own @@ANIMAL@@ Team-5. Jubilation has quickly turned to controversy overnight however as one of the soldiers has not only claimed personal responsibility for the assassination, but is now assuming licensing rights to the whole incident.

OPTION ONE

“What can I say? It’s just the doggone plain truth!” bellows Robin Grawhill, the offending soldier in question as she props her boots on your desk. “You can see it all on the body cam footage, so it’s not like anyone can say I’m lyin’. To the winner go the spoils! I already got some United Federation suits looking to make a movie, some dork wants to write my biography, the VIP party invites are rolling in - I earned all this. Ya’ll can’t just take that all away cause some limp-wrists say its ‘disrespectful’ or ‘attention hogging’. Besides, it’s good for @@NAME@@ too! Once my story becomes a blockbuster, nobody’s going to question our military might, right? So, how about you just give me the A-OK and get these wimps off my back!"

Outcome: classified military operations are often streamed live for millions of fans

OPTION TWO

“You cannot be taking her proposal seriously, can you?!” stammers @@RANDOMNAME@@, curator for the @@CAPITAL@@ Military Museum. “The assassination of Moktar will go down as a momentous moment in @@REGION@@ history. We can’t just let one person own that, regardless of their own involvement! What precedent would that set? You know, when I updated our exhibit on the subject, Grawhill’s lawyers demanded we pay her fee or face the 'legal consequences’! It’s insane! There were several other soldiers on that operation, why does she alone suddenly get to decide who talks about it? We simply must keep history in the public domain. Future generations deserve to know the whole truth, not Wollywoo’s version."

Outcome: impoverished veterans can’t afford to see the films about their heroics

OPTION THREE

“Her proposal is a problem all right,” coolly states @@RANDOMNAME@@, your Finance Minister as @@HE@@ ungracefully scrounges around your office couch for spare change. “In not including us in the deal! This whole government operation was funded on our military budget. I say we let Officer Grawhill have her time to shine, but we need to take our cut too. Thirty percent of all proceeds associated with the operation sounds reasonable enough I think."

Outcome: old war stories aren't tax deductible

OPTION FOUR

“Grawhill is a soldier of fortune, not @@NAME@@ ”calmly states @@RANDOMNAME@@, the unassuming former commander of@@ANIMAL@@ Team-5. “I cannot blame her though, just watch the raid footage – the entire squad broke rank immediately upon entering Moktar’s compound, screaming and laughing about who was going ‘bag him first’. No protocol, no communication, no discipline. When I ran this operation, we kept things orderly. This job isn’t about making movie stars, it’s about making operatives. Hand Grawhill her dishonorable discharge for unmilitary-like conduct and appoint me back to the @@ANIMAL@@s. I think it’s high time for @@NAME@@’s finest to get out the spotlight, and back to the shadows."

Outcome: quiet professionalism has returned to the nation’s armed forces

TITLE:

Glory Kill

VALIDITY:

Has a very large military. Has below average Pacifism.

DESCRIPTION:

@@REGION@@ gave cheer last night after infamous terrorist leader @@RANDOMNAME@@ was assassinated in a surprise raid by @@NAME@@’s very own @@ANIMAL@@ Team-5. However, jubilation has quickly turned to controversy overnight as one of the soldiers has claimed personal responsibility for the assassination, forgoing the unit’s traditional “code of silence” on mission details.

OPTION ONE

“What can I say? It’s just the doggone plain truth!” bellows @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, the offending soldier in question as @@HE_1@@ props @@HIS_1@@ boots on your desk. “You can see it all on the body cam footage, so it’s not like anyone can say I’m lyin’. To the winner go the spoils! I already got some United Federation suits looking to make a movie, some dork wants to write my biography, the VIP party invites are rolling in - I earned all this. I’m not gonna give it up because of some dumb ol’code. So, say you just give me a medal or something to get these limp-wrists off my back?! No point in punishing me for a job well done.”

Outcome: classified military operations are often streamed live for millions of fans



OPTION TWO

“Codes exist for a reason, @@LEADER@@.” calmly states @@RANDOMNAME@@, the unassuming commander of @@ANIMAL@@ Team-5. “Even if @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ really is the best of the best, that mission was a team effort. And teamwork ensures consistency. But now with @@HIS_1@@ little stunt all over the press, everyone thinks they’re a lone-wolf hero in the making. We don’t need supply trucks drag racing one another for ‘glory’ on routine routes; the accident reports are already starting to pour in. Support our discharge of @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ for unmilitary-liked conduct and stand firm behind our conduct policies. The spirit of humility must remain in our armed forces.”

Outcome: quiet professionalism has returned to the nation’s armed forces


OPTION THREE

“Or maybe the problem’s a little deeper?” proposes decorated war hero and veteran’s advocate @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Studies show that veterans have great difficulty reintegrating into civilian life once discharged, many can’t even find regular employment. It’s no surprise that our troops are looking to have exciting stories to share – they know it’s a fast track to a decent civie gig if it catches on. Instead of trying to correct behavior, why not solve the problem at the source? Cut down on our bloated military budget and use the funds to help retired soldiers find their footing back home.”

Outcome: the nation has begun a “Warrior to Quarrier” initiative.

TITLE:

Glory Kill

VALIDITY:

Has a very large military. Has below average Pacifism.

DESCRIPTION:

@@REGION@@ gave cheer last night after infamous terrorist leader @@RANDOMNAME@@ was assassinated in a surprise raid by @@NATION@@’s very own @@ANIMAL@@ Team-5. However, jubilation has quickly turned to controversy overnight as one of the soldiers has claimed personal responsibility for the assassination, forgoing the unit’s traditional “code of silence”.


OPTION ONE

“What can I say? It’s just the doggone plain truth!” bellows @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, the offending soldier in question as @@HE_1@@ props @@HIS_1@@ boots on your desk. “You can see it all on the body cam footage, so it’s not like anyone can say I’m lyin’. To the winner go the spoils! I got some United Federation suits looking to make a movie, some dork wants to write my biography, the VIP party invites are rolling in - I earned all this. Ya’ll can’t just take that all away cause some limp-wrists say it's ‘disrespectful’ or ‘attention hogging’. Besides, it’s good for @@NATION@@ too! Once my story becomes a blockbuster, nobody’s going to question our military might, right? So how about you just give me a medal and a good pat on the back for a job well done?"

Outcome: classified military operations are often streamed live for millions of fans


OPTION TWO

“Codes exist for a reason, @@LEADER@@.” calmly states @@RANDOMNAME@@, the unassuming general who oversaw the raid. “Even though @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ took the final shot, that mission was a team effort. When you start snubbing that core belief, you end up making soldiers of fortune, not @@NATION@@. And you know what happens after that? Sure, it’s all vain fun and parties today. But then they start disobeying orders, looking for more glory. Then they start going rouge. Next thing you know Blackacre slips some @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ under the table, and suddenly our whole army is goose-stepping down @@CAPITAL@@ to a different tune! And we do not want that, right? Support our discharge of @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ for unmilitary-like conduct and stand firm behind our conduct policies. The spirit of humility must remain in our military.”

Outcome: quiet professionalism has returned to the nation’s armed forces


OPTION THREE

“Or maybe you’re all the problem here!!” accuses decorated war hero turned war protestor @@RANDOMNAME@@ as @@HE@@ wiggles @@HIS@@ finger in your face. “And by you, I mean society of course! Glorifying violence! Celebrating death and war! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! How about instead of trying to pointlessly curtail the behavior of your trained killers for liking their job too much, you just fix the problem at the source?! Slash the bloated military budget and use the funds to teach our youth the power of peace and love, not hatred! Oh, and some generous kickbacks to our disabled veterans wouldn’t hurt either.”

Outcome: toy guns have been stuffed with plastic carnations

TITLE:

Glory Kill

VALIDITY:

Has a military.

DESCRIPTION:

@@REGION@@ gave cheer last night after infamous terrorist leader @@RANDOMNAME@@ was assassinated in a surprise raid by the elite @@ANIMAL@@ Team-5. However, jubilation has quickly turned to controversy as one of the soldiers has claimed personal responsibility for the assassination, forgoing the unit's traditional "code of silence".


OPTION ONE

"What can I say? It's just the doggone plain truth!" bellows @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, the offending soldier in question as @@HE_1@@ props @@HIS_1@@ boots on your desk. "You can see it all on the body cam footage, so it's not like anyone can say I'm lyin'. To the winner go the spoils! Already got some United Federation suits looking to make a movie, some dork wants to write my biography, the VIP party invites are rolling in - I earned all this. Ya'll can't just take that away cause some limp-wrists say it's 'disrespectful' or 'attention hogging'. Besides, it's good for @@NAME@@ too! Once my story becomes a blockbuster, nobody's going to question our military might, right? So how about you just give me a medal and a good pat on the back for a job well done?"

Outcome: soldiers stream their classified military operations live for millions of fans


OPTION TWO

"Etiquette exist for a reason, @@LEADER@@." retorts general @@RANDOMNAME@@ as @@HE@@ readjusts your tie. "Even though @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ took the final shot, that mission was a team effort. When you start snubbing that core belief, you end up making soldiers of fortune, not @@NAME@@. And you know what happens after that? Oh sure, it's all fun and parties today. But then they start disobeying orders, thinking they know best now. Then they start going rogue. Next thing you know Blackacre slips some @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ under the table, and our whole army is goose-stepping down @@CAPITAL@@ to a different tune! And we don't want that, right? Support our discharge of @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ for unmilitary-like conduct and stand firm behind our behavior policies. The spirit of humility must remain in our military."

Outcome: quiet professionalism has returned to the nation's armed forces


OPTION THREE

"Ah, nuts to that man!" proclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, another @@ANIMAL@@ Team-5 operative whose tinted glasses and long hair you're certain violate some dress code. "@@RANDOMFIRSTNAME_1@@ has it right! Your problem is trying to make the army all secretive and mysterious. It's just another job, dude! No one tells my old man how he needs to stuffed animals at the mall. He just, like, does it you know? We need to be more like that. Dump all of these creepy creeds and regulations, and let the soldiers do what they need to do! Let troops say what they want to say, to whoever they want. Let it flow. Everything will work itself out for sure."

Outcome: the nation's "surprisingly chill" military is renowned for its horrendous war crimes

[Fauxia]

Some nations don't allow women in the military, so it doesn't make a ton of sense to fix a name to a feminine one. Of course, if there was some way to do it, it could be toggled accordingly. "Robin" can be a man's name as well as a woman's name.

I don't think NS yet has a canon equivalent to Hollywood.

[Trotterdam]

When you're working for an organization, they'll often make you sign an employment contract saying that any work you do while "on-the-clock" will be the property of the organization rather than yourself. Even without the explicit legal red tape, it tends to be assumed. I don't see why that would be any different when the organization in question is the military.

[Krusavich]

Some nations don't allow women in the military, so it doesn't make a ton of sense to fix a name to a feminine one. Of course, if there was some way to do it, it could be toggled accordingly. "Robin" can be a man's name as well as a woman's name.

True, I'll make that a variable for the next draft for now. Perhaps an editor can confirm if there's an in-game check for women soldiers to permit female pronouns? Worse comes to worse I'm not averse to making the character male.

When you're working for an organization, they'll often make you sign an employment contract saying that any work you do while "on-the-clock" will be the property of the organization rather than yourself. Even without the explicit legal red tape, it tends to be assumed. I don't see why that would be any different when the organization in question is the military.

Yeah, it was a bit of a stretch I admit. I centered the issue around the licensing problem largely to have more choices, but in retrospect it might be better to narrow down the issue to its core.

Thank you both for your comments.

[Baggieland]

Worse comes to worse I'm not averse to making the character male.

Is there any reason this soldier MUST be female?

The general rule for issues authors is always use @@RANDOMNAME@@ unless there's a specific reason you need to name the character, which is usually referencing someone well known.

[Australian rePublic]

Hundreds of bio-films have existed over the years:
Lion, 300, The Aviator, Bohemian Rhapsody, etc. Why is this any different?

[Honeydewistania]

Hundreds of bio-films have existed over the years:
Lion, 300, The Aviator, Bohemian Rhapsody, etc. Why is this any different?

Well those people could give licensing, but this person is in the military, where different rules may (or may not!) apply

[Baggieland]

Anyone know of the "canon" name for Nation State's Hollywood equivalent?

I don't think NS yet has a canon equivalent to Hollywood.

As I'm sure you know the Mumbai (formally Bombay) film industry is Bollywood, and the Nigerian film industry is Nollywood. So you could use: @@INITIAL@@ollywood. The only problem with that though, is that nations beginning with H, B or N would be one of these real life film industries.

[Honeydewistania]

Anyone know of the "canon" name for Nation State's Hollywood equivalent?

I don't think NS yet has a canon equivalent to Hollywood.

As I'm sure you know the Mumbai (formally Bombay) film industry is Bollywood, and the Nigerian film industry is Nollywood. So you could use: @@INITIAL@@ollywood. The only problem with that though, is that nations beginning with H, B or N would be one of these real life film industries.

Also if you name is two words you'd get CAollywood (if you're Candlewhisper Archive)

[Baggieland]

Also if you name is two words you'd get CAollywood (if you're Candlewhisper Archive)

You can use @@FIRSTINITIAL@@.

How about: @@FIRSTINITIAL@@allywood?
Then you'll get: Ballywood, Hallywood, Nallywood, etc.

[Honeydewistania]

Also if you name is two words you'd get CAollywood (if you're Candlewhisper Archive)

You can use @@FIRSTINITIAL@@.

How about: @@FIRSTINITIAL@@allywood?
Then you'll get: Ballywood, Hallywood, Nallywood, etc.

I didn't know that was possible, so that's cool. Also replacing the o with an a is a good suggestion

[Krusavich]

You can use @@FIRSTINITIAL@@.

How about: @@FIRSTINITIAL@@allywood?
Then you'll get: Ballywood, Hallywood, Nallywood, etc.

Excellent idea. I'll keep that trick in mind for the future.

I've updated to the second draft. Some major revisions, as I've gutted the whole licensing aspect. As others pointed out, it wasn't particularly reasonable or realistic. Please let me know your thoughts and comments!

[Australian rePublic]

Hundreds of bio-films have existed over the years:
Lion, 300, The Aviator, Bohemian Rhapsody, etc. Why is this any different?

Well those people could give licensing, but this person is in the military, where different rules may (or may not!) apply

Make this clearer. Specifically state that rules are different because army

[Krusavich]

A new draft, with some pretty substantial revisions. I wasn't quite happy with the second draft, but I think this has a better base to build on. Let me know what you think!

[Terrabod]

I really like this idea, and have a couple of suggestions that I hope will help you.

First of all, I think you could spice up the title. The best I can think of is 'Sending Him/Her to Glory', which has a double meaning - the saying can either mean to make someone famous or to kill someone (i.e. send them to Heaven). If you did use that, you'd have to choose 'Him' or 'Her', and that would affect the gender of your offending soldier and your assassination target. Have a think about titles, anyway.

Secondly, consider if the validity requirements you suggest are really necessary. You want to make this issue available to as many nations as possible within reason, so ask yourself if a large military or lower than average pacifism are required for this kind of scenario to come up in real life. I'd argue neither is required - a country with any military presence could find itself in this scenario, and pacifism is pretty irrelevant.

Thirdly, option 3 is definitely well-written, but I think if you're going to use the 'option 1 = for, option 2 = against, option 3 = crazy' then your crazy option should relate more to the specific scenario you outline. Your issue isn't about an expanding military presence or anything like that, it's about soldiers using the outcomes of military operations for personal gain - so take that core idea and turn it up to 11. How far could you take this idea? A state-sanctioned Hunger Games-style reality TV show where your military operations are filmed, bets are made etc? Go crazy, but I'd advise against 'shut down the military' because that option has been done in a lot of issues already. Make your issue different, and make it memorable.

DESCRIPTION:

@@REGION@@ gave cheer last night after infamous terrorist leader @@RANDOMNAME@@ was assassinated in a surprise raid by @@NATION@@’s very own @@ANIMAL@@ Team-5. However, jubilation has quickly turned to controversy overnight as one of the soldiers has claimed personal responsibility for the assassination, forgoing the unit’s traditional “code of silence”.

You've already told us news of the assassination broke last night, so you can get rid of this.

OPTION ONE

“What can I say? It’s just the doggone plain truth!” bellows @@RANDOMNAME_1@@, the offending soldier in question as @@HE_1@@ props @@HIS_1@@ boots on your desk. “You can see it all on the body cam footage, so it’s not like anyone can say I’m lyin’. To the winner go the spoils! I got some United Federation suits looking to make a movie, some dork wants to write my biography, the VIP party invites are rolling in - I earned all this. Y'all can’t just take that all away cause some limp-wrists say it's ‘disrespectful’ or ‘attention hogging’. Besides, it’s good for @@NATION@@ too! Once my story becomes a blockbuster, nobody’s gonna question our military might, right? So how about you just give me a medal and a good pat on the back for a job well done?"


Outcome: classified military operations are often streamed live for millions of fans

Don't weaken your effect line with 'often'.

OPTION TWO

“Codes exist for a reason, @@LEADER@@.” calmly states @@RANDOMNAME@@, the unassuming general who oversaw the raid. “Even though @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ took the final shot, that mission was a team effort. When you start snubbing that core belief, you end up making soldiers of fortune, not @@NATION@@. And you know what happens after that? Sure, it’s all vain fun and parties today. But then they start disobeying orders, looking for more glory. Then they start going rogue. Next thing you know Blackacre slips some @@CURRENCYPLURAL@@ under the table, and suddenly our whole army is goose-stepping down @@CAPITAL@@ to a different tune! And we do not want that, right? Support our discharge of @@RANDOMLASTNAME_1@@ for unmilitary-like conduct and stand firm behind our conduct policies. The spirit of humility must remain in our military.”

Outcome: quiet professionalism has returned to the nation’s armed forces

'...calmly states @@RANDOMNAME@@' doesn't make sense - you could change it to simply '...states @@RANDOMNAME@@', which makes more sense but you'd then maybe have to spice up the description of the general a bit. What makes him stand out? Is he surprisingly timid for a general, and has a kind of stage fright?

I think the effect line could also be spiced up, but I can't think of anything particularly witty myself, sorry!

OPTION THREE

“Or maybe you’re all the problem here!!” accuses decorated war hero turned war protestor @@RANDOMNAME@@ as @@HE@@ wiggles @@HIS@@ finger in your face. “And by you, I mean society of course! Glorifying violence! Celebrating death and war! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! How about instead of trying to pointlessly curtail the behavior of your trained killers for liking their job too much, you just fix the problem at the source?! Slash the bloated military budget and use the funds to teach our youth the power of peace and love, not hatred! Oh, and some generous kickbacks to our disabled veterans wouldn’t hurt either.”

I know I advised reworking this, but I've looked at it anyway. Italicising this whole phrase is maybe over the top. Italics work best in moderation, at most to stress one of two words and to make the speaker's unique 'voice' clear to the reader (if you know what I mean). 'Or maybe you're the problem here!' might be enough, especially because you clarify who you is later on (make the reader think at the start that the war hero is blaming Leader). Also note that 1 exclamation mark is the maximum you should use at a time.

[Krusavich]

Hey Terrabod, I really appreciate you taking the time to write such a detailed response!

First of all, I think you could spice up the title. The best I can think of is 'Sending Him/Her to Glory', which has a double meaning - the saying can either mean to make someone famous or to kill someone (i.e. send them to Heaven). If you did use that, you'd have to choose 'Him' or 'Her', and that would affect the gender of your offending soldier and your assassination target. Have a think about titles, anyway.

Decent Idea. I like the simplicity of the current title but "Sending 'em to Glory" has a good spin to it as well.

Secondly, consider if the validity requirements you suggest are really necessary. You want to make this issue available to as many nations as possible within reason, so ask yourself if a large military or lower than average pacifism are required for this kind of scenario to come up in real life. I'd argue neither is required - a country with any military presence could find itself in this scenario, and pacifism is pretty irrelevant.

Maybe. Having a dedicated, special operations force that is actively leading and engaging in international assassinations seems pretty specific to me. Not something an average military would do, I would imagine. I also envisioned that an average or above average degree of pacificity would result in a nation not going forward with this sort of violent retaliation. But I will admit these validities were chosen largely to justify the third issue option.

Additionally (maybe I'm mistaken), but I had always assumed that the validity as written out by the issue author was more of a general suggestion. Since the editors will be the ones to actually implement the issue and they have direct access to the game's internals, they're in a much better position to decide how restrictive something should or should not be.

Thirdly, option 3 is definitely well-written, but I think if you're going to use the 'option 1 = for, option 2 = against, option 3 = crazy' then your crazy option should relate more to the specific scenario you outline. Your issue isn't about an expanding military presence or anything like that, it's about soldiers using the outcomes of military operations for personal gain - so take that core idea and turn it up to 11. How far could you take this idea? A state-sanctioned Hunger Games-style reality TV show where your military operations are filmed, bets are made etc? Go crazy, but I'd advise against 'shut down the military' because that option has been done in a lot of issues already. Make your issue different, and make it memorable.

Now this is a very good point, and I fully agree. I'll definitely take this sort of spin for the next draft.

[spelling and such]

The "Y'all" and "gonna" are intentional, since it is not uncommon for people to speak in this manner even if it is not technically correct. Adds character, at least that's how I saw it. Not sure why you marked "rouge", I'm missing something there. I'll keep in mind the rest for the next draft.

[Terrabod]

Maybe. Having a dedicated, special operations force that is actively leading and engaging in international assassinations seems pretty specific to me. Not something an average military would do, I would imagine. I also envisioned that an average or above average degree of pacificity would result in a nation not going forward with this sort of violent retaliation. But I will admit these validities were chosen largely to justify the third issue option.

Additionally (maybe I'm mistaken), but I had always assumed that the validity as written out by the issue author was more of a general suggestion. Since the editors will be the ones to actually implement the issue and they have direct access to the game's internals, they're in a much better position to decide how restrictive something should or should not be.

I see where you're coming from with the validity you've specified here, but my point is that you probably want to have as low a validity requirement as possible to make your issue usable for most nations. While not 100% realistic, you could forgo the validity requirements you specify here and the issue would still be more than acceptable. When drafting, validity requirements like 'requires TV' are essential for the issue to exist, but here you'd get away with not having any. As you say, though, it's probably up to the issue editors, but writing an issue that's valid for all nations might look more appealing to them and thus might give you a better chance at being accepted.

EDIT: Come to think of it, I've seen issues with 'nation has a military' for the validity, and that's probably the most you require.

The "Y'all" and "gonna" are intentional, since it is not uncommon for people to speak in this manner even if it is not technically correct. Adds character, at least that's how I saw it. Not sure why you marked "rouge", I'm missing something there. I'll keep in mind the rest for the next draft.

My fault for not making this clear - I marked my changes in red, so for example 'gonna' is 'going to' in your draft, and 'rogue' is 'rouge'. Sorry!

And another EDIT:

EFFECT: classified military operations are often streamed live for millions of fans

If you wanted to make this even more about individual soldiers seeking glory, you could go more towards 'soldiers compete over who can get the most likes on their assassination vlogs' or something like that - the current effect line just doesn't have that key aspect of a single soldier using a military operation for personal gain.

[Krusavich]

My fault for not making this clear - I marked my changes in red, so for example 'gonna' is 'going to' in your draft, and 'rogue' is 'rouge'. Sorry!

Ah. You know, I'll get basic spelling down someday I'm sure.

Good points on the other comments, I'll consider them.

[Baggieland]

@@NATION@@

This should be @@NAME@@.

@@NATION@@’s very own @@ANIMAL@@ Team-5

@@NAME@@'s is problematic due to nations that end in the letter 's'. Example: The Philippines's.
I would change it to:
... was assassinated in a surprise raid by the elite @@ANIMAL@@ Team-5.

“What can I say? It’s just the doggone plain truth!”

You have 'smart' quotes here - the curly ones. Due to some technical thingy this game requires 'dumb' quotes - the straight down ones.
Go through the entire text and change every speech quote and apostrophe into dumb ones.

[Krusavich]

Another draft up, after some mulling. Let me know your thoughts!

Thanks again for everyone who gave their feedback.

[Krusavich]

Right then, going to put this on last call (mostly because there are other issue ideas I'd like to start working on...!)

Any final thoughts or grievances would be appreciated. I had an alternative idea for option 3 to convert the military to an all-mercenary force, but I think the current option gets the substance across.

[Krusavich]

And submitted, for better or ill

Thank you again for everyone who gave feedback. It's always very much appreciated.

[Terrabod]

And submitted, for better or ill

Thank you again for everyone who gave feedback. It's always very much appreciated.

Good luck!