[Submitted] The Shocking Truth

[Lorrana]

[title]The Shocking Truth

[validity]Has private market and low economic freedom

[desc]A string of recent power outages due to malfunctioning power grids has citizens complaining about Voltage Electric, @@NAME@@@'s main electrical company.

[option1]"Look, there's a simple solution," states Voltage Electric CEO @@RANDOMNAME@@. "You see, the malfunctions were caused by too many people trying to use power. If you let us charge customers so that we have the funds to set up more infrastructure for our services, we can actually do our job properly and power the nation."

[result]@@DENONYMADJ@@ taxpayers pay thousands of dollars for electrical service

[option2]"You can't do that!," says Parliamentarian @@RANDOMNAME@@, who looks concerned. "Those outages were simply the fault of @@DENONYMADJ@@ citizens who are using way too much electricity. You should put a limit on how much electricity citizens will use, and then cut off their power if they go above that limit."

[result]citizens lose power if they use their microwaves for too long

[option3]"Both of those ideas are terrible," says your uncle. "Why don't you just make each part of the country go without power one day a week. That way there's enough to go around for everyone, and it will cost less."

[result]citizens only get electrical service for a few days a week

[Lorrana]

Also, I know the name is terrible, so if anyone has better ideas, lmk

[Lelscrep]

Shades of capitalism vary, but with the commonality of politically extreme NS nations, I doubt all players who have a capitalist nation would want to have a government that enforces monopolies. For this issue to work, I think there needs to be a low Economic Freedom validity check.
Also, I think a very obvious option is missing from this issue, and that is Voltage Electric coming and asking for more subsidization so that they can properly power the nation.
Who are these @@RANDOMNAME@@s (options 1 and 3)? What is their significance that they are personally talking to @@LEADER@@ about a national issue?
I think the result lines (especially 3) could use some more brevity before you submit this.
Other than that, I only have some NS grammatical and formatting nit-picks:
- Result phrases should not begin with capitalization.
- At the end of a quotation that leads into narration, commas go inside the quote, not outside of it. If there is already a ? or ! at the end, there doesn't need to be a comma.
- Option two is missing a quotation mark.
- "Much better" being repeated twice (option 1) is a little jarring, perhaps throw "far greater" in there for some more variety?
- The issue title is misspelled in the post.
Sorry for the list, I just know that most issue editors won't really read far into a draft if they see too many mistakes. Overall though this issue has potential to be pretty good.

[Lorrana]

Shades of capitalism vary, but with the commonality of politically extreme NS nations, I doubt all players who have a capitalist nation would want to have a government that enforces monopolies. For this issue to work, I think there needs to be a low Economic Freedom validity check.
Also, I think a very obvious option is missing from this issue, and that is Voltage Electric coming and asking for more subsidization so that they can properly power the nation.
Who are these @@RANDOMNAME@@s (options 1 and 3)? What is their significance that they are personally talking to @@LEADER@@ about a national issue?
I think the result lines (especially 3) could use some more brevity before you submit this.
Other than that, I only have some NS grammatical and formatting nit-picks:
- Result phrases should not begin with capitalization.
- At the end of a quotation that leads into narration, commas go inside the quote, not outside of it. If there is already a ? or ! at the end, there doesn't need to be a comma.
- Option two is missing a quotation mark.
- "Much better" being repeated twice (option 1) is a little jarring, perhaps throw "far greater" in there for some more variety?
- The issue title is misspelled in the post.
Sorry for the list, I just know that most issue editors won't really read far into a draft if they see too many mistakes. Overall though this issue has potential to be pretty good.

Thanks for the grammar feedback, I was kinda tired when I wrote this

Yeah, I'll add the low economic freedom validity check, the subsidization option, and some context for the randomnames, and work on the result lines.

[Lorrana]

Ok, I just finished draft 2. I replaced option 4's result line because I didn't feel the old one was good enough, so let me know how you feel about it

[Electrum]

I work in infrastructure so apologies if this is a bit more criticise-y than most. But there are nuggets to a good issue here.

Desc - it's not unclear what exactly is causing power outages? From Option 4 it is clear that there is too much demand on the network, so you need to explain that more clearly in the description. Because that's the problem that you've made in the issue, it doesn't really matter who operates the network, Voltage Electric, Influx Electrical or the government. The same problem of too much demand causing blackouts is going to persist because you're not changing consumer behaviour.

Your structure instead should be on how you're going to fix the problem of too much demand -- you could go for something like:
Option 1 - Customers should be paying for network upgrades so that the network is ultra reliable, like building more generators and power lines (in practice this is really, really expensive in real life, so you need to mention this downside too).

Option 2 - Your current option 4. Not a bad idea to attack it from the demand/consumer side.

Option 3 - A 'crazy' option to reduce demand such as making each part of the country go without power for one day a week so that there is enough electricity to go around. It would cost the least.

Feel free to go with this structure/do it your own way .

Option 1 - Provide more specifics. Subsidize us is really vague. Either the government contributes, or the electricity distributor/transmission operator would pass on the costs to customers in the form of higher bills. Perhaps in the description, consumers are angry that they are paying more for worse service.

Option 2 - We don't know why Influx is better other than a start-up. IRL, if a government found a monopoly distributors' service unsatisfactory, then they would re-tender the operation to another company. See for example, the UK rail franchises and how they constantly get replaced when the government becomes too unhappy with the way a rail service is run. Anyways, this doesn't really solve the problem which is that blackouts are being caused by too much demand on the network. That's not going to be fixed by replacing who operates the system. Option 5 suffers from this problem too.

Option 3 - The issue is getting too long and this option seems unnecessary. You want to typically put a crazy option, if you have one, at the very end.

[Australian rePublic]

What kind of CEO would say to customers "You're using our product too much, stop using our product so much"?

[Lorrana]

/bump

FYI, I'm at 224 Million as of this post and need 250 Million to submit, so I'll wait for another week or so until I've reached the needed population

[Electrum]

I think now you can definitely focus on adding humour to your options. Think about what people are saying and doing.