Apr 4, 17 / Tau 10, 01 07:44 UTC
Re: Discussion of the Declaration of Unity ¶
@LoreZyra - thanks for posting the links
I have read the google document, and I think you guys have done a good job of putting together the core of everyone's suggestions.
I think this might be difficult to do, however I think it might be relevant to put in some of the expanded explanations as to why people suggested some things.
Example: it is sometimes hard to get @guzlomi meaning because he/she has a good grasp of legalese and uses it, plus English is not her/his first language. So some of us miss the point and have to ask her/him to explain. The explanations are excellent and critical to why the suggestion was penned in that manner (especially the legal terminology).
I also think that a lot of the statements on points 9 and 11 are due to misunderstanding the intent of the original due to translation difficulties. I can be pretty sure the good doctor does not mean to do away with political structure (considering the table of contents he published for the constitution). I can be equally as sure that he, being a survivor of some of the more dreadful events of our past century, is not intent on preaching disposal of our human history. Indeed his job and the people he deals with on a day to day basis (which gives him the knowledge, political understanding, ability and opportunity to undertake this statehood project) would decree that he must be involved in politics and history.
So I think it might shine an incorrect light on the suggestions if you place those misunderstandings as a final statement in section 9 and 11 of your document.
Perhaps it might help to say something like "...the English wording and phrasing of the original document caused some people to think it meant there would be no political structure, rights or process in line with a democracy. Their feeling on this is that political parties or at least democratic checks and balances in line with allowing opposition and free speech against the government was necessary."
and " ... the English wording and phrasing of the original document caused some people to think it meant that the history of Earth would be subjugated in some manner and that it may turn out to be illegal to teach it. Their feeling on this matter is that history cannot be forgotten and that we need to learn from history and teach new generations to avoid those pitfalls by looking to create new paradigms that don't reflect the problems of the past history."
I think this is a less reactionary statement and allows for a less "reactionary" reaction (...??? weird wording :-D ) based on the thought "these people just don't understand so their suggestions are not useful", to the suggestions we have put forward. After all the current administration are human as well and will react much the same to a poorly worded document as people did on reading the poorly worded original.
It might also be nicer to leave out the bit about punishment as a lot of the people who submitted do not have English as their first language and so are at a bit of a disadvantage in that respect :-D
what do you think?