Seems a bit less than ideal. I think I understand the intent, but in light of the way the vote's putting off making the offer...maybe spell out what we're doing and don't slap her with a policy that we're implying she has to follow independent of the offer?
It's not an ongoing, long-term policy, it's the "Don't make me regret taking your bindings off while we talk" policy. Perhaps it's written in too flippant a manner.
 
Seems a bit less than ideal. I think I understand the intent, but in light of the way the vote's putting off making the offer until a bit later, it seems like we're slapping her with a policy that we're implying she has to follow independent of the offer?
Well, yeah? If they choose to reject our offer, it's not like that means we're going to let them beat people up for seeds, does it?
 
It sounds like Arrogant!Sabrina again, and we want to avoid that.
It sort of depends on if you look at it from present tense or past tense. Present tense is walking into a saloon and saying you're not looking for a fight, but... Past tense is that we weren't trying to start a fight, we were just trying to talk.

A slight rephrasing may help keep that clear.

[] Explain that you are, and have been, just trying to talk to people, not start a fight.

Does that work? I'm not sure it holds quite the same impression, but it's also less likely to be confusing, I think.
 
It sort of depends on if you look at it from present tense or past tense. Present tense is walking into a saloon and saying you're not looking for a fight, but... Past tense is that we weren't trying to start a fight, we were just trying to talk.

A slight rephrasing may help keep that clear.

[] Explain that you are, and have been, just trying to talk to people, not start a fight.

Does that work? I'm not sure it holds quite the same impression, but it's also less likely to be confusing, I think.
Is good. I just thought the original sounded a little proud and scolding. The rewrite sounds fine.
 
Ok, reviewing the payment line.

[] Note that you're not interfering with Sendai's payment, but that such payment is entirely Sendai's prerogative. Whether Sendai wants to charge a penalty for the damage Fukushima caused is their business.

Since this is immediately following up on the chewing out, it should already be clear how we feel about the whole thing. So the tail end of the above line is a bit redundant, particularly the aspect of our own feelings on how the payment should be handled. At the same time, as noted, it could be far too easy to misinterpret our set-up as an explicit demand.

I am trying to comment on the payment that Yumi makes (or does not make) as being her own choice, not something we're forcing one way or the other. At the same time, I'm trying to get Yumi to actively think about what she does, as a leader, not an interim leader who's just going through the motions of past agreements. That is, do what needs to be done, not just what she thinks Akiko wants her to do.

That can't just be assumed if we let things pass silently. The act of bringing it to people's attention means that everyone will pay attention to exactly what Yumi does, and she will likewise be aware of that attention.

Possible revision:

[] Note, though, that their agreements with Sendai are their own business, and how Yumi wants to handle that agreement is her own choice.
 
Last edited:
Ehh...Maybe just take it out? I'm not sure I agree with your analysis there- Yumi handing it over'll be her acting on her own, whether or not we say something or not, and us saying it out loud could be considered patronizing?
 
Yumi handing it over'll be her acting on her own, whether or not we say something or not
She's acting on her own, but not acting on her own as a leader. There is no distinct acknowledgement of her position, yet, and as far as Fukushima is concerned, she's nothing more than a courier for an absent Akiko. The exact same act can mean very different things once it's publicly understood that her action places her as a 'known' leader, in place of someone who has a very widespread reputation.

Problem is, we already brought up the payment to Yumi, so we kind of implied that we expected her to pay.
Ehh.. Not really. The comment was connected to them having enough seeds for themselves, so basically just making sure they weren't putting themselves into a bad position due to the handouts and potential payment.
 
Revision 2, to reduce confusing elements. Will update the original with this. Agreeing with Ugo that this is workable enough as is, so considering it complete.

[] Yes, I think someone has taken to calling me that recently.
-[] Look pointedly at Sakura.
[] Explain to Moe her position. Explain the "No Foolishness Tolerated" policy, but that you don't want to have to repeat yourself, so you're waking the others up as well.
[] Wake up the other two and get them settled in, and unbound once they agree to not cause trouble. Determine who has primary authority among them.
[] Chew them all out for the collateral damage.
[] Note, though, that their agreements with Sendai are their own business, and how Yumi wants to handle that agreement is her own choice.
[] Explain that you are, and have been, just trying to talk to people, not start a fight.

[] We won't interfere if they want to pack up and go home, but we are trying to offer a deal to nearby magical girl groups that they may be interested in.
-[] Make the standard offer if they want to hear it.
-[] Their confiscated grief seeds will be returned before they leave.
[] Let them discuss among themselves how they want to proceed.
 
X that last revision and it has my support. I have some issues but they mainly revolve around central approach and I realize enough has been adjusted already. I would also support a version that axed the 'i didn't want a fight' line, not convinced it accomplishes anything
 
X that last revision and it has my support. I have some issues but they mainly revolve around central approach and I realize enough has been adjusted already. I would also support a version that axed the 'i didn't want a fight' line, not convinced it accomplishes anything
While true, since we're determined to wring our hands over our actions, it does accomplish that and it does get over we're not trying to play tyrant which is another plus from that perspective?
 
While true, since we're determined to wring our hands over our actions, it does accomplish that and it does get over we're not trying to play tyrant which is another plus from that perspective?


Maybe. My main issue is we are saying it to the hired party. The only time they would have come into play is if a fight happened. It's kind of irrelevant to them what our intentions were. They're involved because there was a fight. Are we taking responsibility for that? We shouldn't be.
 
Back
Top