[SUBMITTED] Naprapathic New Thinkers Nag Nurses and Nuns

by **Vacatio Libertas** » Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:37 pm

Headline: Naprapathic New Thinkers Nag Nurses and Nuns

Validity: Must be a particularly religious nation

Description: After a gang of religious zealots burned down a cupping and coin rubbing clinic for 'waylaying the souls of the sick,' a mass of meditative magnet healers responded by smashing all the stained glass at local church, accusing them of 'taking advantage of desperate families.' As factional violence increases across the nation, temporal authorities are hesitating, uncertain of what stance to take in this spiritual standoff.

Choices:

Validity:

Choices:

[1] "Look, I'm not here to cause a ruckus, but this whole deal with so-called 'alternative' medicine has gone too far!" fumes a red-faced Dr. Norm Allen, a local physician. "We doctors put in time to research, develop, and administer real, scientifically backed cures to the good people of @@NAME@@, and then these quacks get to come along and poison our people with God-knows-what? We need more funding for good, public hospitals, and we need to crack down on these pseudoscientific swindlers!"

[2] "My kind friend here makes many good points, but I fear that he focuses too much on the flesh," remarks a solemn monk from a Yellow Temple. "Our earthly bodies need doctors and medicine, it is true, but our soul needs something more. This 'alternative medicine' is a symptom of a moral plague which has been gnawing at the soul of every @@@DENONYM@@@. The government should give more support to religious hospitals, so that we may heal the body as well as the soul."

[3] "We don't need your 'medicine!'" interrupts practicing Chiropractor Karen Ducksworth. "You doctors and priests have killed more people with your so-called cures than any of us holistic healers ever have!" She breaths a comically heavy sigh. "@@@LEADER@@@, if you really want your people to be happy and healthy, then the government needs to support alternatives to big pharma!"

[4] "Mrs. Ducksworth here has a point: isn't the very foundation of our nation's prosperity our ability to make choices?," asks businessman Ronald Bateman as he winks into the camera. "I think it is, so I say that it'd be best for the government to take its hands out of healthcare all together. Freedom starts with the market. Let's bring take this decision out of the hands of elites and back into the hands of corpora--errr. The people.

[5] A dark figure emerges from a shadow and bids you into the blackness. "Oh @@@LEADER@@@, the mortals speak silly words, and yet more silly are the policies they advocate." Suddenly, he presents you with a bottle of liquid bleach. "The solution is not within is, it is all around us! The universe is but one great mess, a mess which must be cleansed with bleach! Now drink!"

Description: A recent ragtag coalition of skeptical scientists and zany zealots have recently stormed your office on account of @@NAME@@'s most recent spiritual and scientific panic: alternative medicine.

Choices:

Result:

by **Vacatio Libertas** » Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:37 am

Feedback would definitely be appreciated. This is my first real attempt at issue writing. A friend of mine pointed out that the theme of the issue is similar to Issue #843, but I think my issue is distinct enough to constitute non-repetition. I would love to hear this forum's thoughts on it though before making an ill-advised submission.

by **Vavlar** » Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:04 am

My feeback is: You did excellent :clap:

by **Soveiniesberg** » Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:07 am

the fifth option is just hilarious

"yeah bro drink bleach you'll be fine"

by **North Korea Choson** » Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:09 am

Vacatio Libertas wrote:Feedback would definitely be appreciated. This is my first real attempt at issue writing. A friend of mine pointed out that the theme of the issue is similar to Issue #843, but I think my issue is distinct enough to constitute non-repetition. I would love to hear this forum's thoughts on it though before making an ill-advised submission.

I am just a normal nation. I am not an issue editor. U wrote it very well.
But, I think there should be an alternate #2 option for nations which have compulsory Atheism as religion is banned in those nations....

by **Verdant Haven** » Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:18 am

Hello, and welcome to Got Issues! Glad to have another new face join us.

I definitely would share you friend's concern about overlap with 843. Some of your options are unique and new, but the situation itself, and the first option in particular, feel like they're basically identical, so I would consider this to be on the line at best.

The truly unique part of this seems to be the spiritual angle to the question, and I think by focusing on that you could give this draft an entirely new way of asking the question about alternative medicine. If you set the validity to be for heavily religious nations that have both traditional and "new age" religions present, that seems like it would be ripe grounds for spiritual traditionalists and alternative "healers" to have a showdown over the impacts of these procedures.

If that's done, you could reduce the number of options (5 is on the high side), and focus in on specific never-before-heard arguments, or approaches to arguments. That'd give you a good place for people like speaker 2 and speaker 3 representing those traditionalist and new age camps, and allow you to subvert speaker 1's general position as the "voice of science" to be the odd man out, making it feel different from that same position as seen in 843

by **Vacatio Libertas** » Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:29 am

Verdant Haven wrote:Hello, and welcome to Got Issues! Glad to have another new face join us.

I definitely would share you friend's concern about overlap with 843. Some of your options are unique and new, but the situation itself, and the first option in particular, feel like they're basically identical, so I would consider this to be on the line at best.

The truly unique part of this seems to be the spiritual angle to the question, and I think by focusing on that you could give this draft an entirely new way of asking the question about alternative medicine. If you set the validity to be for heavily religious nations that have both traditional and "new age" religions present, that seems like it would be ripe grounds for spiritual traditionalists and alternative "healers" to have a showdown over the impacts of these procedures.

If that's done, you could reduce the number of options (5 is on the high side), and focus in on specific never-before-heard arguments, or approaches to arguments. That'd give you a good place for people like speaker 2 and speaker 3 representing those traditionalist and new age camps, and allow you to subvert speaker 1's general position as the "voice of science" to be the odd man out, making it feel different from that same position as seen in 843

Thank you so much for the extensive feedback! I just rewrote the issue choices to reframe it more as a conflict between alternative medicine and religious establishment. I also reworked the third choice to fit within the broader conflict between different breeds of esoterics. When I submit the issue, I will definitely set the validity to highly religious nations.

I understand that the issue has a bit of an excess of options. However, personally, I've always enjoyed issued with numerous options, so that was something I sought to include when writing my own.

How do you like the new version? Is it more distinct from Issue 843? Thank you so much for your help.

by **Verdant Haven** » Wed Jun 29, 2022 12:16 pm

Quick housekeeping – it will be helpful to place the new draft in your first post, and keep old drafts in spoilers below it – that way people coming to the thread immediately can see the current version.

Moving on.

- Now these options look more distinct! If this is the debate, I'm not worried about overlap. Good.

- This does need the Description portion updated and included as well :-D Try to present some specific triggering action that causes this discussion to come up. Simply saying that it's "the most recent… panic" doesn't tell us why – it just says what. A description also doesn't need to include a "people are showing up to ask your opinion" part unless it really contributes – nearly every issue has people showing up to ask your opinion in some way. Try to tell us what the situation is, so that it is self-evident what the speakers are responding to. For example – "After a gang of religious zealots burned down an alternative medicine clinic for 'waylaying the souls of the sick,' a posse of spirit healers responded by smashing all the stained glass at local church, accusing them of 'taking advantage of desperate families.' Temporal authorities are hesitating, seemingly uncertain what stance to take in this spiritual standoff."

- We also need the results/effects updated and included.

- Do not include the increases or decreases and such – simply write the issue to imply the changes you envision. All stats are added by the editing team if an issue is selected for inclusion in the game.

- This might be the most sane a Yellowite has been in an issue to date, but more importantly, they would not be welcome in all religious nations. That might be a good place to use @@FAITH@@, so that the primary "religious traditionalist" speaker is representing the player's designated main religion (or it will read "a major religion" if the player hasn't set one).

- For the third speaker, I would avoid using the real last name of the TV person, even if the first is changed.

- What does option 3 do? It looks like a faint push for deregulation of healthcare? I would try to make it slightly clearer what actual action is that the government does here.

- In option 5, it's humorous, but what exactly is envisioned as the goal here? We can't have leader killing themselves, and telling them to drink bleach is not exactly a policy decision as presented. If you want to keep this character, by all means do so – just again make sure that the actual government action desired is apparent somewhere.

by **Vacatio Libertas** » Wed Jun 29, 2022 10:32 pm

Verdant Haven wrote:
Quick housekeeping – it will be helpful to place the new draft in your first post, and keep old drafts in spoilers below it – that way people coming to the thread immediately can see the current version.

Moving on.

- Now these options look more distinct! If this is the debate, I'm not worried about overlap. Good.

- This does need the Description portion updated and included as well :-D Try to present some specific triggering action that causes this discussion to come up. Simply saying that it's "the most recent… panic" doesn't tell us why – it just says what. A description also doesn't need to include a "people are showing up to ask your opinion" part unless it really contributes – nearly every issue has people showing up to ask your opinion in some way. Try to tell us what the situation is, so that it is self-evident what the speakers are responding to. For example – "After a gang of religious zealots burned down an alternative medicine clinic for 'waylaying the souls of the sick,' a posse of spirit healers responded by smashing all the stained glass at local church, accusing them of 'taking advantage of desperate families.' Temporal authorities are hesitating, seemingly uncertain what stance to take in this spiritual standoff."

- We also need the results/effects updated and included.

- Do not include the increases or decreases and such – simply write the issue to imply the changes you envision. All stats are added by the editing team if an issue is selected for inclusion in the game.

- This might be the most sane a Yellowite has been in an issue to date, but more importantly, they would not be welcome in all religious nations. That might be a good place to use @@FAITH@@, so that the primary "religious traditionalist" speaker is representing the player's designated main religion (or it will read "a major religion" if the player hasn't set one).

- For the third speaker, I would avoid using the real last name of the TV person, even if the first is changed.

- What does option 3 do? It looks like a faint push for deregulation of healthcare? I would try to make it slightly clearer what actual action is that the government does here.

- In option 5, it's humorous, but what exactly is envisioned as the goal here? We can't have leader killing themselves, and telling them to drink bleach is not exactly a policy decision as presented. If you want to keep this character, by all means do so – just again make sure that the actual government action desired is apparent somewhere.

I made some new adjustments based on the given feedback. I definitely copy edited your idea for a generic description portion and used it in this newest draft. I hope that's alright. Aside from that, how does it look?

by **Australian rePublic** » Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:00 am

Why did this esculate from a police matter to a leader matter? I can see why it's a leader matter, but how did it leave the police office and end up on your desk?

by **Vacatio Libertas** » Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:06 am

Australian rePublic wrote:Why did this esculate from a police matter to a leader matter? I can see why it's a leader matter, but how did it leave the police office and end up on your desk?

Fixed: I just added a clause in the last sentence: "as factional violence increases across the nation."

[SUBMITTED] Naprapathic New Thinkers Nag Nurses and Nuns

[SUBMITTED] Naprapathic New Thinkers Nag Nurses and Nuns

Who is online