[SUBMITTED] Boom Which Beach?

[The Python]

Your longest option is probably around half the length of most options in successful issues. Currently, this reads as if you've filled in a template for an issue using the minimum word count.

You need to do a better job of making each character unique through their actions, dialogue, and reactions. There are definitely more arguments to be made for these stances than a single sentence.

So I lengthened each option more, is this better?

(Also because of all the feedback I decided to delay submission possibly until the last week of the issues contest)

[The Python]

So I lengthened the options a bit more now. Submission is currently planned for in about a week or so.

[The Python]

Bump.

I'll be submitting in one or two days assuming I don't get any more feedback by then.

[Fauxia]

Still work to be done here, Python.

Validity: Nations with WMD policy.

The @@CAPITAL@@ Project has developed new, more powerful, nuclear weapons, however they are asking you where they can test their weapons.

Not a huge fan of this, don't they develop with testing? "The @@CAPITAL@@ Project is looking for places to radiate into oblivion with their ambitious new nuclear projects" or something.

Option 1. "We should test them on @@ANIMAL@@ Island, as it's completely remote and no humans will be harmed" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, the eccentric lead engineer in the @@CAPITAL@@ Project who is notorious for living in the @@CAPITAL@@ Project's lab itself. "I mean, a few non-voting @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ in the island might be harmed, but they don't matter, do they?"

Result: "small islands that were once tourist attractions are now nuclear testing sites"

What's with these quotes? Also, don't forget your commas at the end of spoken phrases.

Option 2. "How about we test them in the desert?" argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, another engineer in the project. "Many of our islands are tourist attractions or environmental sanctuaries, and we're not seriously going to destroy those over this weapon." @@HE@@ says. "After all, nobody except possibly a few unintelligent animals actually live in the desert, and who cares about them."

Result: "nuclear weapons are literally deserted in testing"

Don't forget your question mark.

Option 3. "What would happen if we tested them underground?" rhetorically asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, a noted environmental activist who also happens to live in a literal underground bunker. "It would prevent radioactive materials going into the atmosphere, and would be extremely safe and eco-friendly. Hold on, I need to go to attend an environmental protest march!" and @@HE@@ runs out of your office.

Result: "earthquakes are often actually nuclear weapon tests"

There are a bunch of contradictions here. This isn't a great position for an environmentalist, and living in an underground bunker should make you less likely to want nukes to be tested there.

Option 4. General @@RANDOMNAME@@, who is known for always wearing full military uniform in public, marches into your office. "We're actually going to waste them on some random island or in some desert in the middle of nowhere?" @@HE@@ says. "Come on, we should just test them on our enemy Maxtopia. That would finally make them fear and respect our might. Might makes right, you know!"

Result: "Maxtopia is bombarded by untested nuclear weapons from @@NAME@@"

Maxtopia is not a great choice, because they're pretty important. A no-name NPC nation is better here.

Anyway, in general the options are still kind of short and not super descriptive.

[The Python]

There are a bunch of contradictions here. This isn't a great position for an environmentalist, and living in an underground bunker should make you less likely to want nukes to be tested there.

Yeah... good point. I don't have many ideas for other possible speakers that could be used for that option though. Right now I did some faceless stranger, but I'm not sure tbh.

[The Python]

There are a bunch of contradictions here. This isn't a great position for an environmentalist, and living in an underground bunker should make you less likely to want nukes to be tested there.

Yeah... good point. I don't have many ideas for other possible speakers that could be used for that option though. Right now I did some faceless stranger, but I'm not sure tbh.

Following some feedback in the Got Issues Discord, I decided to make the speaker a secretive spymaster. Any objections before submission?

EDIT: Made some more, pretty big changes, thanks Minskiev, Daarwyrth and New Ciencia for the suggestions. Anyway I'll be submitting in ~ 24 hours if there's no objections.

[The Python]

Ok I decided not to submit just yet and be PaTiEnT (wait until the contest is about to end) so yes.

[The Atlae Isles]

Interesting title.

That said, I also think this may need a bit of work. I tend to write pretty long issue options, so I have to restrain my impulses to say "write more" without giving any direction as to what. I feel like a bigger problem however is that each character sounds the same to me. It feels like they all have the same tone, the same voice, the same volume (to me it feels like everyone is very gung ho about something) and urgency with what they each say. With five options of characters I can't distinguish it gets to me, although it may be just me.

Don't let me discourage you though, it's a fine premise that fits the title pretty well. I think developing each option and character more and varying the sentence structure somewhat will make each option feel distinct, even if it is all in my head.

[The Python]

Interesting title.

Yes.

That said, I also think this may need a bit of work. I tend to write pretty long issue options, so I have to restrain my impulses to say "write more" without giving any direction as to what. I feel like a bigger problem however is that each character sounds the same to me. It feels like they all have the same tone, the same voice, the same volume (to me it feels like everyone is very gung ho about something) and urgency with what they each say. With five options of characters I can't distinguish it gets to me, although it may be just me.

How about this:

(In theory this will add more personality to the speaker)

Spymaster @@RANDOMNAME@@ quietly tip-toes into your office, wearing a spy cloak and dark sunglasses. "We should test them underground", @@HE@@ says quietly states. "It would be much harder for other countries and national enemies to learn about these very useful and powerful weapons. Other than possibly it being a bit more expensive, I don't see any downsides!"

I don't think this needs more explanation, though I can be convinced otherwise.

The General's second-in-command follows @@HIM@@ into your office. "We're seriously going to test on an island, or use untested nuclear weapons for actual war?" he asks rhetorically. "No, we should just test them in the desert. There's nothing important or useful running around there anyway. Well, maybe one or two lizards or something, but who cares about them other than possibly some dumb cactus huggers?

Not only does this replace "says", it adds more detail on tone etc.

General @@RANDOMNAME@@ marches into your office, wearing @@HIS@@ full military uniform. "Bleh, we're not going to just waste these weapons on some random island or some underground bunker, are we?", @@HE@@ saysstates assertively. "Come on, we should just test them on our enemy Marche Noire. That would finally make them fear and respect our might. Might makes right, you know!"

This option is designed to be more personal and more urgency etc., so I left it as it is rn.

"The country's seriously even considering using these Weapons of Mass Murder?", exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, a notorious anti-war activist who is wearing a T-shirt with "Civilian life matters" printed in bold letters. "We MUST destroy these superweapons NOW, or we will be nothing except cold-blooded killing machines! @@LEADER@@, just think of the thousands of innocent women and children that will inevitably perish whenever these - hold on, I need to go attend an anti-war protest march!"

[The Atlae Isles]

I think it helps a bit but I feel that if you have time then the dialogue altogether should be reworked, because the underlying sentence structure and tone is still there. The adjective is carrying a lot of weight there.

Edit: when I say change the dialogue I mean find a different way for each character to say what they are saying, not just adding more.

[The Python]

I think it helps a bit but I feel that if you have time then the dialogue altogether should be reworked, because the underlying sentence structure and tone is still there. The adjective is carrying a lot of weight there.

Edit: when I say change the dialogue I mean find a different way for each character to say what they are saying, not just adding more.

Hmm, I'm not sure what I can do to it though tbh. Any suggestions would be appreciated, but anyway:

I'll now (actually) be submitting in 24 hours-ish.

[Numero Capitan]

Validity: Nations with WMD policy.

The @@CAPITAL@@ Project is looking for places to radiate into oblivion to test their ambitious new nuclear projects.

Option 1. "We should test them on @@ANIMAL@@ Island, as it's completely remote and no humans will be harmed", asserts Dr. @@RANDOMNAME@@, the eccentric lead engineer in the @@CAPITAL@@ Project who denies rumours of sleeping in the Project's lab. "I mean, a few non-voting @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ in the island might be harmed, but they don't matter, do they?"

Result: small islands that were once tourist attractions are now nuclear testing sites

Option 2. Spymaster @@RANDOMNAME@@ quietly tip-toes into your office, wearing a spy cloak and dark sunglasses. "We should test them underground", @@HE@@ says quietly. "It would be much harder for other countries and national enemies to learn about these very useful and powerful weapons. Other than possibly it being a bit more expensive, I don't see any downsides!"

Result: earthquakes are often actually nuclear weapon tests

Option 3. General @@RANDOMNAME@@ marches into your office, wearing @@HIS@@ full military uniform. "Bleh, we're not going to just waste these weapons on some random island or some underground bunker, are we?", @@HE@@ states assertively. "Come on, we should just test them on our enemy Marche Noire. That would finally make them fear and respect our might. Might makes right, you know!"

Result: Maxtopia is bombarded by untested nuclear weapons from @@NAME@@

Option 4. The General's second-in-command follows @@HIM@@ into your office. "We're seriously going to test on an island, or use untested nuclear weapons for actual war?" he asks rhetorically. "No, we should just test them in the desert. There's nothing important or useful running around there anyway. Well, maybe one or two lizards or something, but who cares about them other than possibly some dumb cactus huggers?

Result: nuclear weapons are literally deserted in testing

Option 5. "The country's seriously even considering using these Weapons of Mass Murder?", exclaims @@RANDOMNAME@@, a notorious anti-war activist who is wearing a T-shirt with "Civilian life matters" printed in bold letters. "We MUST destroy these superweapons NOW, or we will be nothing except cold-blooded killing machines! @@LEADER@@, just think of the thousands of innocent women and children that will inevitably perish whenever these - hold on, I need to go attend an anti-war protest march!"

Result: the nation is attacked with nuclear weapons by national enemies but @@NAME@@ doesn't retaliate
Removes policy: Weapons of Mass Destruction

I think there is still more work to do and it would be a shame to rush this to submission in my opinion.

- Option 1 and Option 4 are pretty much identical

- All the options are quite matter-of-fact and can be bland, but where you've chosen to add color its fairly random and doesn't really embellish the narrative. For example, "the eccentric lead engineer in the @@CAPITAL@@ Project who denies rumours of sleeping in the Project's lab" doesn't really relate to the narrative at all. You could try something more relevant like "asserts Dr. @@RANDOMNAME@@, the eccentric lead engineer who seems to have bought a map and plastic @@ANIMAL@@ figures to illustrate his point" would be the sort of thing that would make better sense

- Another point you could consider adding 'character' is where you've referred to the anti-war protestors T-shirt but missed the opportunity to make this deliberately over-the-top sustainable or something. "a notorious anti-war activist wearing a "CIVILIAN LIVES MATTER" T-shirt made by a Tasmanian refugee collective" or something along those lines would develop the character better in the same number of words.

- Having the General (Option 3) and then their second-in-command completing contradicting them (Option 4) doesn't make much narrative sense and feels like a lazy choice of voice. As I've said above, Option 4 doesn't really present a 'new' option. The actual difference between most of these options "Test here, test there, test somewhere else" is going to be pretty non-consequential in outcome/statistical terms and I am not sure five options are needed for this scenario. Would advise scrapping Option 4 entirely.

- Option 3 refers to Marche Noir in the Option text and Maxtopia in the Result text

- What on earth is a 'spy cloak'?

- The " - hold on, I need to go attend an anti-war protest march!"" line really doesn't land, it feels very forced and coarse.

- There is a whole wealth of NS N-day history that could be slyly referenced for those in the know, feels like a missed opportunity

- Please describe one of your characters as 'bombastic'

That is a non-comprehensive list of issues and many of the points apply throughout the Issue and not just the areas I have highlighted. I am not sure this is one iteration away from a draft that can be accepted so make sure you don't rush this just for the sake of a fairly non-consequential deadline.

[Jutsa]

- Option 1 and Option 4 are pretty much identical

^ This. That said, I don't think it's for the reason Numero mentioned. Sure, they're kind of the same - at the moment - but I don't think they have to be. I'm also looking back and noticed this:

In space doesn't make too much sense - there's nuclear fallout, and you're basically announcing to the world that you have weapons. Option 5 stretches verisimilitude. Countries don't nuke other countries just to test nuclear weapons. That's never happened in history. Focus on the advantages and disadvantages of each option to give them more heft, and add another option for an above ground option, like in an uninhabited desert. On an island, on land and underground are the three ways that nukes have been tested historically.

So suddenly you have two very conflicting pieces of advice. I think the problem here is that option 3 (a ridiculously extreme option) lies between more sensible options, all the while the options that do exist don't really weigh the pros and cons of each area heavily enough. A pro of bombing an island is it's away from your nation, but the con would be contaminating ecosystems. The desert would almost be a little bit of both. Underground would be the safest, but more expensive and would need to be tested for safety.

That said, I also disagree with a couple points from Electrum. First, blowing up other nations. Using it on urban areas would be totally uncalled for, however doing a covert operation and blowing them up in an uninhabitted area (say, mountain range) in some other place could have the pro of not affecting your land but the con being a risk of people finding out you were involved in it (plus, well, nuclear fallout potential). Clarification about this would be useful in your option. And in regards to it never being done IRL - I mean, this is nationstates, it's literally a satire meant to exaggerate real-life.

Also, regarding testing weapons in space: an option that announces to the full world you have nukes? Nothing inherently wrong with that - less tactical, but it does say to the rest of the world "Hey, don't mess with me, I have nukes" (which NS already does with policies anyway). Granted, space might be a bit of an issue, what with satellites and junk, however the upper atmosphere is still theoretically a viable option. Just saying, you could have an option along those lines like you originally had.

All that as an aside, I think making the existing options more unique from one another would be the biggest step right now, imo.

- All the options are quite matter-of-fact and can be bland, but where you've chosen to add color its fairly random and doesn't really embellish the narrative.

Also this. That said "who seems to have bought a map and plastic @@ANIMAL@@ figures to illustrate his point" has already been utilized by yours truly in The War of Man and Beast, but don't let that stop you from using it (although I'm sure you could come up with something even better, tbh).

- Option 3 refers to Marche Noir in the Option text and Maxtopia in the Result text

I think what you're pointing out is kind-of missing the point, though. Frankly, none of the effect lines are all that good. Keep in mind, this is from someone who has severe difficulty coming up with them, but I still can't say any of them are all that grand.

At the very least, this one's idea's on the right track, although something more general like "nukes are live-tested in places deemed unsafe for @@DEMONYMADJECTIVE@@ habitability" or something like that. (I'm sure you can think of something better than that, too, though.)

- Please describe one of your characters as 'bombastic'

This.

All of that as an aside, there's not really too much more for me to add. That said, I do think that option 3 could have a bit more reasoning behind it. "Bleh, we're not going to just waste these weapons on some random island or some underground bunker, are we?" is, admittedly, kind-of amusing. That said, I feel like something at least somewhat more sensible would be something along the lines of "Why should we be blowing up our own precious land? If we're going to test them for use in war, we should try them out on some other country!" Or something. Maybe you could stress that you don't plan on actually hurting any civilians, though something about radioactive fallout could be ignored. Maybe point the finger at some other nation... y'know, just saying, dropping a nuke in another nation during war is already a bit of an extreme circumstance that only exists in epic issue chains; I don't think casually demolishing another nation's cities is good form.

Final note: I concur with Numero Capitan on waiting to submit this. It's a good premise, imo (heck it's in my list), but as-is I do think it needs work before entering the game, much less is it likely to win the contest. It's much more important to make sure you submit something that has a solid chance of being added, giving you that badge, and ending in something you're satisfied with (imagine yourself getting this issue as if it were written by someone else and seeing whether you like it), than to enter a contest unprepared. There'll be more. (Though, if anyone, yourself included, wishes to disagree, feel free.)

Edit: So, to sum up my thoughts:
1) More differentiation between options, weighing the pros and cons.
2) More cohesive character and option flow, better effect lines.

It's really not a bad draft, Python. It does need work - which I know can be an absolute pain in the butt to do, take it from me I've got 1.5yo drafts still up, but it has so much potential. Good luck to you.

[The Python]

- Option 1 and Option 4 are pretty much identical

^ This. That said, I don't think it's for the reason Numero mentioned. Sure, they're kind of the same - at the moment - but I don't think they have to be. I'm also looking back and noticed this:

In space doesn't make too much sense - there's nuclear fallout, and you're basically announcing to the world that you have weapons. Option 5 stretches verisimilitude. Countries don't nuke other countries just to test nuclear weapons. That's never happened in history. Focus on the advantages and disadvantages of each option to give them more heft, and add another option for an above ground option, like in an uninhabited desert. On an island, on land and underground are the three ways that nukes have been tested historically.

So suddenly you have two very conflicting pieces of advice. I think the problem here is that option 3 (a ridiculously extreme option) lies between more sensible options, all the while the options that do exist don't really weigh the pros and cons of each area heavily enough. A pro of bombing an island is it's away from your nation, but the con would be contaminating ecosystems. The desert would almost be a little bit of both. Underground would be the safest, but more expensive and would need to be tested for safety.

Option 3 has been changed into Option 4, and then Option 5 is the abolish nukes option.

That said, I also disagree with a couple points from Electrum. First, blowing up other nations. Using it on urban areas would be totally uncalled for, however doing a covert operation and blowing them up in an uninhabitted area (say, mountain range) in some other place could have the pro of not affecting your land but the con being a risk of people finding out you were involved in it (plus, well, nuclear fallout potential). Clarification about this would be useful in your option. And in regards to it never being done IRL - I mean, this is nationstates, it's literally a satire meant to exaggerate real-life.

Yep, that's the point

Also, regarding testing weapons in space: an option that announces to the full world you have nukes? Nothing inherently wrong with that - less tactical, but it does say to the rest of the world "Hey, don't mess with me, I have nukes" (which NS already does with policies anyway). Granted, space might be a bit of an issue, what with satellites and junk, however the upper atmosphere is still theoretically a viable option. Just saying, you could have an option along those lines like you originally had.

So the space option is back!

All that as an aside, I think making the existing options more unique from one another would be the biggest step right now, imo.

- All the options are quite matter-of-fact and can be bland, but where you've chosen to add color its fairly random and doesn't really embellish the narrative.

Also this. That said "who seems to have bought a map and plastic @@ANIMAL@@ figures to illustrate his point" has already been utilized by yours truly in The War of Man and Beast, but don't let that stop you from using it (although I'm sure you could come up with something even better, tbh).

Well, I used it

- Option 3 refers to Marche Noir in the Option text and Maxtopia in the Result text

Ope, yeah that was a mistake (option 3 used to be about Maxtopia, but that got changed to Marche Noire).

- Please describe one of your characters as 'bombastic'

This.

Done! (for option 4)

All of that as an aside, there's not really too much more for me to add. That said, I do think that option 3 could have a bit more reasoning behind it. "Bleh, we're not going to just waste these weapons on some random island or some underground bunker, are we?" is, admittedly, kind-of amusing. That said, I feel like something at least somewhat more sensible would be something along the lines of "Why should we be blowing up our own precious land? If we're going to test them for use in war, we should try them out on some other country!" Or something. Maybe you could stress that you don't plan on actually hurting any civilians, though something about radioactive fallout could be ignored. Maybe point the finger at some other nation... y'know, just saying, dropping a nuke in another nation during war is already a bit of an extreme circumstance that only exists in epic issue chains; I don't think casually demolishing another nation's cities is good form.

As I've said, the point is that it's an extreme option xD

- All the options are quite matter-of-fact and can be bland, but where you've chosen to add color its fairly random and doesn't really embellish the narrative. For example, "the eccentric lead engineer in the @@CAPITAL@@ Project who denies rumours of sleeping in the Project's lab" doesn't really relate to the narrative at all. You could try something more relevant like "asserts Dr. @@RANDOMNAME@@, the eccentric lead engineer who seems to have bought a map and plastic @@ANIMAL@@ figures to illustrate his point" would be the sort of thing that would make better sense

Anyway, done

- Another point you could consider adding 'character' is where you've referred to the anti-war protestors T-shirt but missed the opportunity to make this deliberately over-the-top sustainable or something. "a notorious anti-war activist wearing a "CIVILIAN LIVES MATTER" T-shirt made by a Tasmanian refugee collective" or something along those lines would develop the character better in the same number of words.

Meh, okay

- Having the General (Option 3) and then their second-in-command completing contradicting them (Option 4) doesn't make much narrative sense and feels like a lazy choice of voice. As I've said above, Option 4 doesn't really present a 'new' option. The actual difference between most of these options "Test here, test there, test somewhere else" is going to be pretty non-consequential in outcome/statistical terms and I am not sure five options are needed for this scenario. Would advise scrapping Option 4 entirely.

Hence it's been replaced with space :>

- The " - hold on, I need to go attend an anti-war protest march!"" line really doesn't land, it feels very forced and coarse.

gone ig

One note though: Would "Tasmanian" be an illegal RL reference?

[The Atlae Isles]

Option 1. "We should test them on @@ANIMAL@@ Island, as it's completely remote and no humans will be harmed", asserts Dr. @@RANDOMNAME@@, the eccentric lead engineer who seems to have bought a map and plastic @@ANIMAL@@ figures to illustrate his point. "I mean, a few non-voting @@ANIMALPLURAL@@ in the island might be harmed, but they don't matter, do they?"

The 'non-voting' detail disregards #502.3 and frankly is a pretty unnecessary detail to add there.

Option 2. Spymaster @@RANDOMNAME@@ quietly tip-toes into your office, wearing a dark cloak and sunglasses. "We should test them underground", @@HE@@ says quietly. "It would be much harder for other countries and national enemies to learn about these very useful and powerful weapons. Other than possibly it being a bit more expensive, I don't see any downsides!"

Bland and also has no apparent downsides. The effect line touches on the seismic impact and the cost, but these don't compare to the downsides of the other options, making it quite unbalanced. Why not touch on the sinkhole that would result, or the potential contamination of groundwater?

Option 3. "How about we test them in space?" argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, a military official who also has a PhD for rocket science. "Not only does nothing live there, not even @@ANIMALPLURAL@@, but it would announce our power to the world and make everyone fear and respect us. It is the perfect place to test this powerful weapon."

Silliness of testing it in space, aside, "a PhD for rocket science" is not a humorous detail. SPAAAACE has so much opportunity for humor here.

Option 4. General @@RANDOMNAME@@ marches into your office, wearing @@HIS@@ full military uniform. "Why should we be blowing up our own precious land, or wasting them in the void of outer space? If we're going to test them for use in war, we should just test them on our national enemy Marche Noire!", @@HE@@ states bombastically. "That would finally make Marche Noire and the entire world respect us. Might makes right, you know!"

I've got to agree with Electrum here. Bombing another country for a nuclear test is ludicrous. Even in Brasilistan Go Boom (or the previous issue), the issue comes with much more weight. It would subvert the messages of that issue chain to present an option to flippantly nuke another country here.

Aside from that, 'wearing @@HIS@@ full military uniform' is not humorous at all. I'm sure you've seen that meme about North Korean generals having so many medals, why not capitalize (heh) on that?

Again, the effect lines need work. I know they're hard. But they're very bland. Think about what the most ludicrous effects of the option would be. Like say if you went ahead with #4, you could be like 'Marche Noiran (if that's the denonym, idk) citizens find nuclear duds in their gardens' or something like that.

Also, Tasmania has appeared in 20+ issues so no.

[The Python]

Submitted! Thanks Atlae, Fauxia, Daarwyrth, Minskiev, Jutsa and everyone else who helped write this! <3

For the record: if this is not accepted, I will likely continue working on this to resubmit at a later date.

[The Python]

Can an Issues Editor clarify if this issue has been accepted into the pool? If not, I am planning on redrafting this.

[USS Monitor]

Can an Issues Editor clarify if this issue has been accepted into the pool? If not, I am planning on redrafting this.

It is still floating around backstage, but for future drafts I would advise you to only submit things when you are confident they are the best you can make them.

[The Python]

Can an Issues Editor clarify if this issue has been accepted into the pool? If not, I am planning on redrafting this.

It is still floating around backstage, but for future drafts I would advise you to only submit things when you are confident they are the best you can make them.

:> OK

[Australian rePublic]

Good Luck