[ACCEPTED] Auditory Discrimination

by **Terrabod** » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:43 am

Hi everyone, thanks for taking the time to read over my draft. Please let me know what you think; I really appreciate your feedback.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title:
Auditory Discrimination

The Issue:
Two senior officials caught having affairs, five separate expenses scandals and the leaking of top-secret plans for the Cabinet Secretary's birthday party is usually more than enough to cover in one public announcement. You were therefore surprised to find that another issue has caught the public attention; activists representing @@NAME@@'s Deaf community have taken you to task over the lack of a @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Sign Language interpreter at your public addresses.

Option 1:
"I'm not paying for that!" scoffs your Minister of Equality, butting in and gesturing wildly. "I watched an address by the leader of Albionia last month and was thoroughly distracted by a man waving his hands about and pulling faces behind her. No, no, no – if these deaf people really want to know what's going on, they can pay for an interpreter themselves. A special tax for the deaf should cover the costs, and if they aren't happy about it they can read your lips or turn up their hearing aids instead."

EFFECT: Deaf people must pay if they want to know a tornado is headed their way

Option 2:
"Being deaf doesn't have to be an impairment, so don't make it one," signs Deaf activist @@RANDOMNAME@@ after introducing you to @@HIS@@ interpreter, @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@. "Having an interpreter is the least you could do; Deaf people in @@NAME@@ are subject to a harmful mix of preconceptions and ignorance, so it's about time you listened to us. Establish a national 'Deaf Awareness Week' to teach people about Deaf culture and to celebrate the contributions Deaf people have made to @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ society."

EFFECT: thanks to a cultural renaissance Deaf people in @@NAME@@ are seen and heard

Option 3:
"Speaking to the public is overrated, and clearly a waste of your valuable time," your crusty Minister of Public Relations whispers, his dry lips all but brushing against your ear. "As long as you do the job well, the people of @@NAME@@ won't care what goes on behind closed doors. And if things don't go to plan, well, won't you be glad you don't have to talk to them?"

EFFECT: citizens wouldn't recognise @@LEADER@@ if they passed one other on the street

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by **Krusavich** » Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:37 pm

I really like this one!

The last sentence of the issue description can probably be omitted entirely. It's typically a given that the presented issue is being brought to the attention of @@LEADER@@ and requires a resolution. Also feel like the last effect line could be something more contextually appropriate ("No one's heard from @@LEADER@@ in a while", something like that).

But yeah otherwise, very good first issue go.

by **USS Monitor** » Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Not bad. It could maybe be spiced up a little, especially the title, but it's off to a good start.

You should pay attention to whether "deaf" is capitalized or not. I know it can be capitalized to imply it is an identity or culture instead of just a disability, but if you're going to do that you should do it consistently.

by **Terrabod** » Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:01 pm

First, I should mention that there's a question of validity on the Writer's Block. Apparently an issue covering a similar topic was submitted in April so I'm waiting to hear if I'm ok to work on this issue. In the mean time, I'll continue to work on it.

Krusavich wrote:I really like this one!

The last sentence of the issue description can probably be omitted entirely. It's typically a given that the presented issue is being brought to the attention of @@LEADER@@ and requires a resolution. Also feel like the last effect line could be something more contextually appropriate ("No one's heard from @@LEADER@@ in a while", something like that).

But yeah otherwise, very good first issue go.

Thanks very much! I completely agree with you on the last sentence, I sort of knew it was weak. I don't think one sentence is enough though, because I want to have that kind of 'people have come to your office' idea to conclude the description. I'll think on it.

As for the last effect line, a change will be made when I'm writing the next draft.

USS Monitor wrote:Not bad. It could maybe be spiced up a little, especially the title, but it's off to a good start.

You should pay attention to whether "deaf" is capitalized or not. I know it can be capitalized to imply it is an identity or culture instead of just a disability, but if you're going to do that you should do it consistently.

I liked the play-on-words in the title, but I'm more than welcome to suggestions.

Regarding Deaf/deaf, I think the capitalisation I've used here is ok - I tried to capitalise where I refer to the community, and not capitalise where I refer to the hearing impairment. I'll take a good look at it, but feel free to point out where I've gone wrong. Cheers!

by **USS Monitor** » Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:21 pm

Terrabod wrote:I liked the play-on-words in the title, but I'm more than welcome to suggestions.

What's it referring to? If it's a wordplay that went over my head, then maybe it should stay.

Title ideas I had on my way to the laundry:

A Sign of the Times
@@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ Don't See What You Mean

The fact that I was still thinking about this on my way to the laundry is probably a good sign.

Regarding Deaf/deaf, I think the capitalisation I've used here is ok - I tried to capitalise where I refer to the community, and not capitalise where I refer to the hearing impairment. I'll take a good look at it, but feel free to point out where I've gone wrong. Cheers!

You've got a couple references to "deaf people" with a lower-case "d" in option 2.

by **Terrabod** » Sat Nov 28, 2020 3:30 pm

USS Monitor wrote:What's it referring to? If it's a wordplay that went over my head, then maybe it should stay.

Auditory discrimination is the ability to differentiate between sounds. Here, though, it refers to discrimination between hearing and non-hearing people.

USS Monitor wrote:Title ideas I had on my way to the laundry:

A Sign of the Times
@@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ Don't See What You Mean

The fact that I was still thinking about this on my way to the laundry is probably a good sign.

I thought of 'Talk With the Hands' or some variation thereof - or else something relating to the song I Saw the Sign by Ace of Bass (which is such a tune). I'll see what you think about the current title first, though, because it's still my personal favourite.

USS Monitor wrote:You've got a couple references to "deaf people" with a lower-case "d" in option 2.

In these cases I did mean to refer to people who have a hearing impairment, but I can see why you'd have the upper case version and will change that when redrafting.

Thanks for your feedback!

by **Trotterdam** » Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:47 pm

USS Monitor wrote:You should pay attention to whether "deaf" is capitalized or not. I know it can be capitalized to imply it is an identity or culture instead of just a disability, but if you're going to do that you should do it consistently.

Or rather, if you're varying the capitalization, then you should only capitalize it when the current speaker is someone who perceives deafness as being an identity or culture instead of just a disability.

It is, admittedly, not a distinction that would be apparent in speech (dunno about sign language, but probably not there either), but it still tells you something about the current speaker's viewpoint.

by **Terrabod** » Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:13 pm

Trotterdam wrote:Or rather, if you're varying the capitalization, then you should only capitalize it when the current speaker is someone who perceives deafness as being an identity or culture instead of just a disability.

It is, admittedly, not a distinction that would be apparent in speech (dunno about sign language, but probably not there either), but it still tells you something about the current speaker's viewpoint.

Great minds think alike; I was already considering doing something like this. I plan to make USS Monitor's suggested changes to option 2, but not change the use of small D deaf in option 1 to symbolise the Minister of Equality's ignorance. As you say, it's not a difference you'd hear, but I think for the purpose of this issue it makes a huge but very subtle difference.

Interestingly, I've read that Deaf can be signed as 'big D Deaf' in order to differentiate it from 'deaf', so it is possible to make the distinction in sign language. Of course, sign languages differ wildly between countries so I have no idea if this is universal. I also don't know how common using 'big D Deaf' when signing is in real life.

by **Australian rePublic** » Sun Nov 29, 2020 7:41 pm

What about closed captioning? I realise it won't work in live addresses, but it will work on the television, plus has the advabtage of allowing hearing people to mute their TVs

by **Terrabod** » Mon Nov 30, 2020 5:11 am

Australian rePublic wrote:What about closed captioning? I realise it won't work in live addresses, but it will work on the television, plus has the advabtage of allowing hearing people to mute their TVs

I'm sure that (in nations that have TV) subtitles on TV are an option, but it isn't really suitable for many Deaf people. You have to remember that English is a second language to the majority of Deaf sign language users. Sign languages have their own rules for pronunciation, word formation and word order compared to English, just as German has different rules for pronunciation, word formation and word order compared to English. This is something that hearing people often don't realise about sign language users and it creates situations where Deaf people's needs are passed over in favour of something quick and easy that doesn't work for them.

While most Deaf people can read in English, it's not as easy as for you and me (I assume of course that English is your first language!) as the syntax is hugely different and in some cases they may need to read a word, translate it into sign language in their head then fit it in to their understanding of the text as a whole. You can see why keeping up with captions can be challenging for any sign language user, and sometimes it is downright impossible! That's why the lack of an interpreter is so significant; it really does have the effect of pushing people out of the conversation. And in the worst case, it can mean that emergency information simply does not reach members of the Deaf community.

by **Baggieland** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 7:19 pm

Terrabod wrote:Sign Language interpreter at your public addresses

I'm not sure that sign language needs to be capitalised here.

Terrabod wrote:The debate has arrived at your office, and now a decision needs to be made.

I'm aware that many of the early issues had lines like this. However, we don't like using them any more. Any player that has answered more than one issue is well aware that people have gone to LEADER's office to give their point of view.

I would either just drop it completely, or change it to something different. Maybe: "The signs are pointing to a heated discussion". Something like that.

Terrabod wrote:@@NATION@@

This should be: @@NAME@@.

Terrabod wrote:“What a waste of your time, @@LEADER@@,”

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

by **Trotterdam** » Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:36 pm

Baggieland wrote:
Terrabod wrote:Sign Language interpreter at your public addresses
I'm not sure that sign language needs to be capitalised here.

Sign languages are as much languages as English and so on, which are typically capitalized. Something that many people don't realize is that there's not just one sign language, there's many different ones that are just as hard for each others' speakers to understand as English and Chinese. Although if that's the intent, it shouldn't just be called "Sign Language", but rather "@@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Sign Language" or "Maxtopian Sign Language" or "@@ANIMAL@@ Sign Language" some other descriptive-sounding name.

by **Terrabod** » Thu Dec 03, 2020 4:40 am

Baggieland wrote:I'm not sure that sign language needs to be capitalised here.

What Trotterdam said, it's a proper noun in this case.

Trotterdam wrote:Sign languages are as much languages as English and so on, which are typically capitalized. Something that many people don't realize is that there's not just one sign language, there's many different ones that are just as hard for each others' speakers to understand as English and Chinese. Although if that's the intent, it shouldn't just be called "Sign Language", but rather "@@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Sign Language" or "Maxtopian Sign Language" or "@@ANIMAL@@ Sign Language" some other descriptive-sounding name.

Thanks for your response to this query. It's '@@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ Sign Language' in this example, Baggieland just cut the '@@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@' out.

Baggieland wrote:I'm aware that many of the early issues had lines like this. However, we don't like using them any more. Any player that has answered more than one issue is well aware that people have gone to LEADER's office to give their point of view.

I would either just drop it completely, or change it to something different. Maybe: "The signs are pointing to a heated discussion". Something like that.

We've already discussed this above, I was just waiting for a few more suggested changes before I make a second draft.

Baggieland wrote:This should be: @@NAME@@.

Thanks, I'll be sure to change that when redrafting.

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

Again, I'll change this when redrafting. Thanks very much for these tips regarding formatting!

by **Terrabod** » Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:32 am

Ok, the new-and-improved second draft is up. Thanks to everyone who has shared their thoughts so far!

by **Baggieland** » Thu Dec 03, 2020 6:47 pm

Terrabod wrote:"Being deaf doesn't have to be an impairment, so don't make it one," signs Deaf activist @@RANDOMNAME@@ after introducing you to @@HIS@@ interpreter, @@RANDOMFIRSTNAME@@. "Right now in @@NAME@@ Deaf people are subject to a harmful mix of preconceptions and ignorance, so it's about time you listened to our needs. Making your public addresses open to everyone isn't enough – let's work together to raise awareness of Deaf culture and celebrate the contribution of Deaf people to @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ society."

If I'm reading this correctly - it is the interpreter, not the activist, who is doing the talking. I think you need to make who is saying what (and how) a bit clearer.

Terrabod wrote:"What a waste of your time, @@LEADER@@," scoffs your Minister of Equality, butting in and gesturing aggressively. "I watched an address by the leader of Albionia last month and was thoroughly distracted by a man waving his hands about and pulling faces behind him. And to think, that's a paid role?! No, no, no, the @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ taxpayer won't go for that at all. If these deaf people want to know what's going on, they can read your lips or turn up their hearing aids or something."

When writing an issue, it's important to remember that every option must have an action / policy for the government to undertake. Not using taxes to fund sign language interpreters is already the default position in the nation (according to your intro). So reading lips and turning up hearing aids doesn't require government action. What is this option proposing I do as LEADER?

by **Terrabod** » Fri Dec 04, 2020 6:01 am

Baggieland wrote:If I'm reading this correctly - it is the interpreter, not the activist, who is doing the talking. I think you need to make who is saying what (and how) a bit clearer.

I think it's pretty clear that this is the opinion of the activist, but it's not unreasonable to assume that Leader isn't fluent in sign language so an interpreter must be present. The important thing is that it's the activist's words, and that the activist is communicating directly with Leader - so the words are attributed to the activist. These words should not be directly attributed to the interpreter, as they are not the interpreter's words - and this would be a form of Leader communicating directly with the interpreter and ignoring the Deaf person, which is really, really rude. An interpreter should always facilitate, and never participate.

Baggieland wrote:When writing an issue, it's important to remember that every option must have an action / policy for the government to undertake. Not using taxes to fund sign language interpreters is already the default position in the nation (according to your intro). So reading lips and turning up hearing aids doesn't require government action. What is this option proposing I do as LEADER?

Yup, I need to have a think about this. Thanks again for your help!

by **The Ferret Lands** » Mon Dec 07, 2020 12:26 am

We need an issue for the leaking of top-secret birthday party plans.

by **Liagolas** » Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:16 pm

Terrabod wrote:
Baggieland wrote:When writing an issue, it's important to remember that every option must have an action / policy for the government to undertake. Not using taxes to fund sign language interpreters is already the default position in the nation (according to your intro). So reading lips and turning up hearing aids doesn't require government action. What is this option proposing I do as LEADER?

Yup, I need to have a think about this. Thanks again for your help!

It would make the option a lot more drastic, but maybe the Minister of Equality could propose making lip-reading education mandatory? Something like, "Then our broadcasts are issued the same to everyone. That's 'equal,' isn't it?" Of course, the possible expense might require the minister to phrase it differently than making it about taxes, but it could still have the same ignorant attitude.

by **Terrabod** » Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:38 am

The Ferret Lands wrote:We need an issue for the leaking of top-secret birthday party plans.

Knock yourself out :lol:

Liagolas wrote:It would make the option a lot more drastic, but maybe the Minister of Equality could propose making lip-reading education mandatory? Something like, "Then our broadcasts are issued the same to everyone. That's 'equal,' isn't it?" Of course, the possible expense might require the minister to phrase it differently than making it about taxes, but it could still have the same ignorant attitude.

Hmm, it's true that would be very drastic. And for an ignorant Minister of Equality who doesn't want to 'waste' taxes on a sign language interpreter to spend much, much more on teaching all Deaf people in the nation to lip read, that sort of stretches my belief a bit. It's a good idea, but I don't think it quite fits in here.

Maybe instead the Minister would propose a chunky tax cut to get the public to forget about the Deaf accessibility issue. They're clearly the kind of person that thinks a tax cut would stop Deaf people from raising the issue too as according to the Minister they can read Leader's lips for free instead and are just being fussy asking for an interpreter.

by **Terrabod** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:14 am

Hi everyone! I've been very busy recently playing a certain video game, but I've found the time to put up a third draft. Thanks again to everyone that has helped me out so far!

by **Fauxia** » Sat Dec 19, 2020 1:50 pm

Hey there Terrabod. For a lot of this it's pretty well-written. However, it seems unfocused. You set the issue up to be about an interpreter, and the options are:

1. Tax cut
2. Raise awareness
3. No more public announcements

Option 2 should focus more on the interpreter. "An interpreter is the least you could do!" I also expect it could use another option. A lot of people are probably going to pick that option, as most nations have interpreters.

by **Terrabod** » Sat Dec 19, 2020 3:35 pm

Hey Fauxia, thanks for your comments! For the record, I'm not happy about the 'tax cuts' thing but option 1 has to do something that's not in favour of hiring an interpreter. If anyone has any alternatives I'd appreciate your sharing them.

Fauxia wrote:Option 2 should focus more on the interpreter. "An interpreter is the least you could do!"

Is that all that's needed to make the issue more focused? I'll change it for the next draft, but if the whole issue is unfocused I might need further guidance.

Fauxia wrote:I also expect it could use another option. A lot of people are probably going to pick that option, as most nations have interpreters.

Right, but I've made against, for and a crazy option. I can't think of a fourth option that would be viable, unless I split 2 into an option about having an interpreter at public addresses and a 'that doesn't go far enough' option. Which, come to think of it, would work out quite nicely, although I'd have to consider who the pro-interpreter speaker would be. I think the Deaf activist works best for the awareness option in any case.

by **Terrabod** » Sat Dec 19, 2020 4:11 pm

Ok, so I was rash and tried to split option 2 - please let me know what you think.

EDIT: I might switch options 1 and 2 around if the extra option is well-received... not sure yet.

by **Terrabod** » Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:38 pm

I switched things around so the Cabinet Secretary is now option 1. As always, I appreciate your feedback!

by **Electrum** » Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:35 pm

Option 1 - I don't see how the cabinet secretary not having a bouncy castle for their birthday is related to having a sign language interpreter. Bin that first part and merge with Option 3. A deaf person should advocate for their own rights. Speaking of Option 3, "let's work together to raise awareness of Deaf culture and celebrate the contribution of Deaf people" is a really vague phrase.

Option 2 - Why would the minister for equality argue against interpreters? I don't think it's realistic to give a tax cut in order to divert people's attention from not having sign language interpreters. The option's basically like a sledgehammer to crack open a nut. I think here you can go for a user-pays option, like have the interpreters, but make all deaf people pay some kind of deaf tax to pay for them. Or something else - the tax cuts just don't work for me.

[ACCEPTED] Auditory Discrimination

[ACCEPTED] Auditory Discrimination

Who is online