[DECLASSIFIED—OCT.2019] Bunch o' proscriptions! |
And for reissue below.
Note that for this draft, I bumped down TRI from full to regional, since honestly, Vulturret's full of it anyway and he probably didn't even realize he wrote a confession for something he's most likely not even doing. Open to debate, though, of course. Quote:It is no secret that the South Pacific has experienced a significant amount of internal turbulence this summer. That the previous Cabinet ended its term with only half its original membership is emblematic of that turbulence. It is in that context that early on in its term, the previous Cabinet released a set of proscriptions that, while well-intentioned, provided neither the kind of cogent reasonings that should be expected for any such action, nor were they entirely validated and therefore contained some errors. The cause of these errors have been laboriously expounded upon elsewhere and don’t need to be reiterated. We apologize for the errors, and are certain that due to the unique circumstances leading to the release of these proscriptions, such a situation will not happen again.
I might add “sincerely” before “apologize for those errors” in the first paragraph, just to be clear that we are...well, sincere.
(10-19-2018, 11:32 PM)Roavin Wrote: While the Court was right to criticize many aspects of the proscription as issued, we are shocked by the Court’s ruling that the evidence presented by the Cabinet’s counsel does not constitute hostility.I don’t think this sentence is necessary and would prefer to take it out— the paragraph runs just as well without it. I don’t believe it sends a good message to those who read this that in its reissuing statement, the cabinet publically expresses anger at the Court. Those of us who wish to can be upset at the court within the region for making a surprising decision, but we don’t need to use this statement to vent about it to the public. It creates needless tensions and detracts from the otherwise more powerful and responsible message. (10-19-2018, 11:32 PM)Roavin Wrote: Ever-Wandering Souls was, and continues to be, an antagonist to our region, and desires few things more than to see the Coalition violently overthrown in favor of a userite-led autocracy.I would change “an antagonist” to “antagonistic”, just because labelling someone’s actions as bad seems a bit more to the point we want to make than labelling them as Public Enemy #1. It’s an extremely minor preference, though. I strongly request that the word “userite” be replaced with a more meaningful, non-propagandized term. “An autocracy led by his fellows” or “a foreign-led autocracy” would both work. ~ Aumeltopia ~
Other then a few grammatical errors and improper word/sentence structure choices that I will go fix now;
(10-19-2018, 11:32 PM)Roavin Wrote: It is no secret that the South Pacific has experienced a significant amount of internal turbulence this summer. That the previous Cabinet ended its term with only half its original membership is emblematic of that turbulence. It is in that context that early on in its term, the previous Cabinet released a set of proscriptions that, while issued with good intentions, did not provide the kind of cogent reasoning that should be expected for any such action; nor were they entirely validated and therefore contained some errors. The cause of these errors have been laboriously expounded upon elsewhere and don’t need to be reiterated. We apologize for the errors, and are certain that due to the unique circumstances leading to the release of these proscriptions, such a situation will not happen again. ...I really like this draft and as such, approve of it.
Greetings, I am The Serres Republic.
Currently 'The Future Greatest and Most Splendid General of All TSP.' I know you all look forward to when I complete my grand quest ;P. Official ‘Most Dedicated Raider’ in all of TSP. Look at me all evil and shtuff ;P Heck I was MoFA, Now Im PM. I must be loved owo
(10-20-2018, 01:05 AM)Somyrion Wrote: I might add “sincerely” before “apologize for those errors” in the first paragraph, just to be clear that we are...well, sincere. That does make sense. (10-20-2018, 01:05 AM)Somyrion Wrote:(10-19-2018, 11:32 PM)Roavin Wrote: While the Court was right to criticize many aspects of the proscription as issued, we are shocked by the Court’s ruling that the evidence presented by the Cabinet’s counsel does not constitute hostility.I don’t think this sentence is necessary and would prefer to take it out— the paragraph runs just as well without it. I don’t believe it sends a good message to those who read this that in its reissuing statement, the cabinet publically expresses anger at the Court. Those of us who wish to can be upset at the court within the region for making a surprising decision, but we don’t need to use this statement to vent about it to the public. It creates needless tensions and detracts from the otherwise more powerful and responsible message. That's fair. I added that sentence for now to represent how I feel about it, though I realize we'd likely have to amend it depending on what you all think of the intelligence briefing. Would you prefer it completely gone, or would you be okay with a really mild version thereof? (10-20-2018, 01:05 AM)Somyrion Wrote:(10-19-2018, 11:32 PM)Roavin Wrote: Ever-Wandering Souls was, and continues to be, an antagonist to our region, and desires few things more than to see the Coalition violently overthrown in favor of a userite-led autocracy.I would change “an antagonist” to “antagonistic”, just because labelling someone’s actions as bad seems a bit more to the point we want to make than labelling them as Public Enemy #1. It’s an extremely minor preference, though. Works for me. (10-20-2018, 01:05 AM)Somyrion Wrote: I strongly request that the word “userite” be replaced with a more meaningful, non-propagandized term. “An autocracy led by his fellows” or “a foreign-led autocracy” would both work. That also works for me. (10-20-2018, 05:11 AM)Roavin Wrote: That's fair. I added that sentence for now to represent how I feel about it, though I realize we'd likely have to amend it depending on what you all think of the intelligence briefing. Would you prefer it completely gone, or would you be okay with a really mild version thereof? Personally I’d prefer it removed completely, but I realize I’m on the far end of the spectrum here and I’d have no real problem with saying that we were “surprised” or something like that instead. ~ Aumeltopia ~
I support removing the sentence entirely aswell. I don’t think it is necessary to bring any personal opinions into this reissue.
Greetings, I am The Serres Republic.
Currently 'The Future Greatest and Most Splendid General of All TSP.' I know you all look forward to when I complete my grand quest ;P. Official ‘Most Dedicated Raider’ in all of TSP. Look at me all evil and shtuff ;P Heck I was MoFA, Now Im PM. I must be loved owo
I also support removing that sentence. I believe that our proscriptions should be as matter-of-fact as possible, without any opinions or bluster. Personally, I'd prefer the first two sentences of the proscription to be removed; it kinda feels like we're making excuses for the previous Cabinet. While these may be justified, I don't think they particularly belong in our proscription, though they won't stop me from supporting this.
Also, minor grammatical error in the first paragraph: "The cause of these errors have been laboriously expounded upon elsewhere and don’t need to be reiterated." Either "cause" should be changed to "causes" or "don't" should be changed to "doesn't". Did some LC, MoRA, CRS stuff in the past. Do a lot of World Census stuff now.
Actually, reading that last paragraph again, I'm not a big fan of significant parts of it. Regardless of our opinions on Souls and the court case, I don't think threats of future action and descriptions of what Souls has done is particularly relevant to this proscription. This proscription should simply contain an acknowledgement of the court ruling and a redaction of the previous Souls proscription. Our grievances against him and logic behind proscribing him should be left for a future proscription, if it is issued.
Did some LC, MoRA, CRS stuff in the past. Do a lot of World Census stuff now.
(10-20-2018, 08:11 PM)Pencil Sharpeners Wrote: Actually, reading that last paragraph again, I'm not a big fan of significant parts of it. Regardless of our opinions on Souls and the court case, I don't think threats of future action and descriptions of what Souls has done is particularly relevant to this proscription. This proscription should simply contain an acknowledgement of the court ruling and a redaction of the previous Souls proscription. Our grievances against him and logic behind proscribing him should be left for a future proscription, if it is issued. Good point. I do think we have to at least mention it (or else it seems like we're ignoring the issue), but we could be very brief about it: "One glaring omission here is the proscription of Ever-Wandering Souls. The previous proscription of this individual was overturned in the High Court of the South Pacific in HCRR1803. With this in mind, we have not reissued that particular proscription." ~ Aumeltopia ~
I would prefer that we at least state in some fashion that we the Cabinet don't think it's okay that he's not proscribed.
|
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |