[DRAFT (SUBMITTED)] Woke Yoke

[Orcuo]

For basic context, Chick-fil-a has hired a DEI manager, and recently some people on the right wing are upset about it. This is that semi-game translated.

Title:

Woke Yoke

Description:

Recently, a cafe called Eggside Up had fired most of its staff over minor infractions. Many of whom were native citizens, got replaced with people contesting of non-majority groups. Several insider sources claim that this is due to the company’s unhealthy “wokeness”, and attempt to create a “diverse” workplace.

Validity:

• Must Have Capitalism

• Must Have Immigration

• Can’t Have Affirmative Action

Options:

Option 1:

“This just isn’t right!” Shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, notoriously known for @@HIS@@ stance against Bigtopians. “I don’t understand why all these business are going woke! Y’know, that nonsense where they try to be ‘inclusive’ and ‘move towards a future with more diversity.’ It makes me sick! All this ends up doing is leading to good hard working @@PURAL@@ being fired and on the streets! I say we should end all this nonsense once and for all! We should force that Eggside Up fire all their current ‘diverse’ staff and bring back in the old staff, and fine them if they try to replace the job of one of our hard working native citizens! That will teach them to rid themselves of this woke blasphemy!”

Fallout:

treating your co-workers unequally is smiled upon

Option 2:

“No you got it all wrong!” Injects @@RANDOMNAME@@, a local equality advocate. “If anything, diversity and wokeness hasn’t gone far enough! Being diverse has a lot of benefits! It helps to hire different talents which helps the staff team have a wide range of skills! More so, it gives everyone a fair and equal opportunity to succeed in the corporate world! If you really think about it, diversity needs to go further! Let’s award Eggside Up for being diverse and praise them for their heroic actions. We should also have and require a diversity manager for every corporation, no, every organization in @@NAME@@! And if anyone tries to fire a person of non-majority in @@NAME@@, remove them from the company! You can never be too diverse!”

Fallout:

there’s a DEI manager in every bathroom

[Ko-oren]

Is 'spit in sandwiches' a direct consequence of the hiring of a DEI manager - given the former is what pushes people over the edge, saying inclusivity has gone too far?

Option 1: "unless" -> 'or else/if not'?
What's in the mysterious bottle (this could be a reference I'm missing, which is fine)

Option 2: what are the stains?

[Kaschovia]

Inclusion Including Too Many?

Title needs to be a bit more relevant to the premise of the issue, in my view.

After local fast food chain Chicken-Fil-Up had hired a diversity inclusion and equality manager, and a sudden increase in spit within their chicken sandwiches, some people in @@NAME@@ are concerned that inclusivity has been taken too far.

I would try to focus a little bit more on why they believe that hiring a diversity inclusion and equality manager is taking inclusion too far, rather than just saying they are concerned. Answerers need to know what the issue is about from the description, but this current description doesn't really explain why they believe it is going to far.

[Orcuo]

Thanks for the feedback. I’ll try to improve based on this feedback. (Btw the bottle was meant to be some alcoholic drink, but I figure it would be funnier to keep it mysterious.)

[Electrum]

The controversy behind Chik-Fil-A recently is not that they 'hire people of questionable backgrounds' but rather a conservative organisation hired a DEI manager and this being 'woke'. Really the issue would be better served about the merits of DEI appointments by companies. Texas has, for example, banned DEI offices in universities.

As it stands, both options are not convincing as to why one might go either way on DEI. Depending on who you ask they are good (because diverse workplaces work better, people deserve to feel respected, companies are trying to improve their ESG) or bad (society should be a meritocracy, @@NAME@@ isn't a racist country, this is too 'woke').

[Orcuo]

Thanks. I’ll try to make it more about being “wokeness” and I’ll try to be more convincing for both of the augments.

EDIT: Edits have been made.

[South West Rhodesia]

What's a restaurant's

"diversity inclusion and equality manager" ?

We have just First Citizens- lions who get to eat the increasingly irrelevant 'Calories' ('humans'- you call them).

Does this mean proposing giving the First Citizens a more diverse menu perhaps? I don't think they'll like that- and nobody with any sense annoys our large fanged First Citizens.

It sounds like your nation's cultural assumptions appear to hark back to that old 1980's deconstructionalism/post modernism/woke paradigm.
When we had schools for the Calories waaay back, this used to be taught under Ancient History.

If you'd like to experience a much more modern & progressive cultural milieu, you are welcome to visit SW Rhodesia, don't bring sun protection oil though, the First Citizens hate the taste- peri-peri sauce is much preferred

The Prez. Brei VII
SW Rhodesia

[Orcuo]

What's a restaurant's

"diversity inclusion and equality manager" ?

We have just First Citizens- lions who get to eat the increasingly irrelevant 'Calories' ('humans'- you call them).

Does this mean proposing giving the First Citizens a more diverse menu perhaps? I don't think they'll like that- and nobody with any sense annoys our large fanged First Citizens.

It sounds like your nation's cultural assumptions appear to hark back to that old 1980's deconstructionalism/post modernism/woke paradigm.
When we had schools for the Calories waaay back, this used to be taught under Ancient History.

If you'd like to experience a much more modern & progressive cultural milieu, you are welcome to visit SW Rhodesia, don't bring sun protection oil though, the First Citizens hate the taste- peri-peri sauce is much preferred

The Prez. Brei VII
SW Rhodesia

I can’t tell if this is IC or OOC. Cause this is supposed to be an OOC Thread. It’s the issues forum.

[Australian rePublic]

Why is this a government issue?

[Orcuo]

Why is this a government issue?

Well it’s a problem that has gathered a lot of drama, in the real world governments deal with diversity issues all the time, so I don’t necessarily see how this could be too far fetched as a government issue.

[Orcuo]

/Bump (Don’t know if I am allowed to do this but I will try.

[Verdant Haven]

- Private sector DEI can definitely end up as a government issue, but I think the pitch needs to get it there. In this case, we're told "there has been some drama" and "some people... claim" it isn't good. That's a weak hook, and not suggestive of needing government intervention. There would need to be something worthy of intervention that has occurred, and then things can proceed to the options as intended.

- The first speaker is focusing very much on non-governmental arguments: company focus and speed of food delivery at a restaurant. That's nothing the govt cares about. The latter portion of the option does start to touch on things the govt might get involved in – ideas of rights for the majority and the strawman about illegal immigration are things that should probably form the core of this person's argument.

- Option 2 doesn't need all those extra dialogue tags. Combine them to one, and give the focus to the argument being made. Avoid having the speaker undermine themselves saying that diversity can harm companies – that is the opposite of everything they stand for. They mention eight types of diversity, but don't specify even a single one of them, which makes it feel orphaned. I would suggest picking one or two specific benefits, and really building the option around those as an argument.

- Effect lines aren't sentences – they don't take capitals or periods.

- Somewhere in this issue, whether in the description or in an option, somebody ought to specify what they mean by "woke." It's means a lot of different things to different people, and might mean nothing at all to some of our readers, so it'll be helpful to clarify what we're talking about.

[Orcuo]

- Private sector DEI can definitely end up as a government issue, but I think the pitch needs to get it there. In this case, we're told "there has been some drama" and "some people... claim" it isn't good. That's a weak hook, and not suggestive of needing government intervention. There would need to be something worthy of intervention that has occurred, and then things can proceed to the options as intended.

- The first speaker is focusing very much on non-governmental arguments: company focus and speed of food delivery at a restaurant. That's nothing the govt cares about. The latter portion of the option does start to touch on things the govt might get involved in – ideas of rights for the majority and the strawman about illegal immigration are things that should probably form the core of this person's argument.

- Option 2 doesn't need all those extra dialogue tags. Combine them to one, and give the focus to the argument being made. Avoid having the speaker undermine themselves saying that diversity can harm companies – that is the opposite of everything they stand for. They mention eight types of diversity, but don't specify even a single one of them, which makes it feel orphaned. I would suggest picking one or two specific benefits, and really building the option around those as an argument.

- Effect lines aren't sentences – they don't take capitals or periods.

- Somewhere in this issue, whether in the description or in an option, somebody ought to specify what they mean by "woke." It's means a lot of different things to different people, and might mean nothing at all to some of our readers, so it'll be helpful to clarify what we're talking about.

Thanks for the advice! I’ll try to improve based on your feedback.

(EDIT: The changes have been made, please let me know if you have any more recommendations!)

[Orcuo]

/Bump

[Verdant Haven]

- One of the difficulties that I feel is currently shackling this issue is the blending of "diversity" with the matter of "hiring criminals." Treating them as if they're the same in the factual portions of the issue (viz. the Description) comes across as saying "people from minority groups are criminals." This gets mixed up with the "no proper background checks" aspect (which is unrelated to Diversity), and confuses things more. Basically, this is the sort of thing that might be claimed by a bigot arguing against "woke culture" or whatnot, but is not something we can or should assume about the player's nation, or people in general.

- Repeat from above: This doesn't yet feel like it has reached the level of government intervention. So what if a company hired a DEI person? That's a private business decision. So what if they hired people with past criminal offenses? That isn't the government's business. "Some people are angry" is something we have in the past used as a driver for issues, but these days we tend to look for a more interesting hook.

- Just a few points for consistency: Description refers to "Diversity, Inclusion, and Equality" but then uses the DEI acronym. Probably should have the words match the acronym. Try to avoid repeating key words (like "notorious" in both description and option 1, "hasn't gone far enough" multiple times in option 2). Proof-read for word slips like "perform" vs "preform." Also repeated from above: Effect lines aren't sentences – no capitalization on the start.

[Orcuo]

Thanks for the points, I’ll try to improve the issue based on these tips.

(EDIT: To fix the whole “diversity vs hiring criminals issue”, I’ve decided to take a new angel. Now, instead of the issue being hiring criminals, it will be about the firing of current employees for more diverse ones. ‘Having a restaurant brand hire criminals’ may not be a government issue, but ‘suddenly having a bunch of angry unemployed native citizens that got fired from their jobs in the name of diversity’ might.)

[Orcuo]

/Bump

[Ohio Men]

You must hire at least one minority in the great nation of Ohio.

[Tinhampton]

I'd like to reiterate what I told the mighty Baggieland last year: "there are issues that are inspired by RL and then there are issues that are RL." He wrote a draft about a Winter Olympic gold medalist called Alaine Goo. You're writing a draft about a restaurant called Chicken-Fil-Up imposing diversity measures. The IRL parallels are so obvious that it would be duplicative of me to state them here. You could write this issue to make it about a cafe in @@CAPITAL@@ that replaced all its staff members with Bigtopians "to reflect our community" and I wouldn't be making this point. Instead, you choose the most obvious real-life equivalent you could, almost down to the restaurant name. Why?

Your issue has two options. Option 1 is to say, with three-and-a-half lines of bluster, that diversity measures are bullshit. Option 2 is to say, with three lines of bluster, that diversity measures are good (and should be required; this makes the second speaker at least advocate something more than a philosophical position). These... are options about DEI as a vague, generic concept. Why are the speakers trying to elaborate their position as far as they can? Why aren't they talking about what's happened to Chicken-Fil-Up, why it is good (or bad), and what action should be taken against Chicken-Fil-Up specifically?

[Orcuo]

I'd like to reiterate what I told the mighty Baggieland last year: "there are issues that are inspired by RL and then there are issues that are RL." He wrote a draft about a Winter Olympic gold medalist called Alaine Goo. You're writing a draft about a restaurant called Chicken-Fil-Up imposing diversity measures. The IRL parallels are so obvious that it would be duplicative of me to state them here. You could write this issue to make it about a cafe in @@CAPITAL@@ that replaced all its staff members with Bigtopians "to reflect our community" and I wouldn't be making this point. Instead, you choose the most obvious real-life equivalent you could, almost down to the restaurant name. Why?

Your issue has two options. Option 1 is to say, with three-and-a-half lines of bluster, that diversity measures are bullshit. Option 2 is to say, with three lines of bluster, that diversity measures are good (and should be required; this makes the second speaker at least advocate something more than a philosophical position). These... are options about DEI as a vague, generic concept. Why are the speakers trying to elaborate their position as far as they can? Why aren't they talking about what's happened to Chicken-Fil-Up, why it is good (or bad), and what action should be taken against Chicken-Fil-Up specifically?

After reading this, I’ve managed to gather two main points.

1). Make it to where the issue is not so much like the real life issue, change the restaurant name, etc.

2). Have that the options are more focused on “Chicken-Fil-Up” then general DEI.

I’ll take what I’ve gather from this and revise the issue.

(EDIT: Changes have been made, now focusing more on action towards “Chicken-Fil-Up” now known as “Eggside Up”.)

(EDIT EDIT: Also I have 10 days left to finish this draft and submit it for the issue contest so… )

[Verdant Haven]

- This definitely works better being a bit less on-the-nose about matching real life. The description does, however, go a bit far now in making this place seem bad. Why did they fire all these people? In a lot of nations, they wouldn't simply be able to do that due to existing worker protection laws. It feels like it's straining a bit too hard to find a basis for the complaint. This might work better with a validity check to not to nations with affirmative action, and then present it as a hiring issue.

- The two options are each approximately twice as long as they should reasonably be – those are pure text walls. First step is to eliminate most of those extra dialogue tags (they add nothing), and then trim wherever you can.

[Orcuo]

- This definitely works better being a bit less on-the-nose about matching real life. The description does, however, go a bit far now in making this place seem bad. Why did they fire all these people? In a lot of nations, they wouldn't simply be able to do that due to existing worker protection laws. It feels like it's straining a bit too hard to find a basis for the complaint. This might work better with a validity check to not to nations with affirmative action, and then present it as a hiring issue.

- The two options are each approximately twice as long as they should reasonably be – those are pure text walls. First step is to eliminate most of those extra dialogue tags (they add nothing), and then trim wherever you can.

Thanks for the pointers, I’ll edit the issue ASAP with this in mind.

(EDIT: I have updated the issue draft with the following information in mind. If y’all have any more suggestions or tips, please let me know.)

[Orcuo]

/Bump

[Lizgrad]

Looking good Orcuo!

[Orcuo]

Looking good Orcuo!

Thanks.