[DRAFT] Technical state of war

[Pooshland]

Hello!
I've recently tried to write an issue and here it is. It is very possible that it needs many changes (I'm not a native English speaker and I'm quite inexperienced in writing issues).
I hope it isn't that bad, though

Current Version:

[description] It was recently found out that from unknown reasons @@NAME@@ never signed a peace treaty with the nation of Blackacre – infamous for its frequent human rights violations and its attempts to assassinate you - after the war that took place over 300 years ago. This means that @@NAME@@ and Blackacre are still technically in state of war.

[option 1] "The solution here is pretty simple," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, historian who found out about the technical state of war. "We can simply sign a peace treaty. I’m sure that this will also make our relations with Blackacre at least a bit better, showing them our good will. What can possibly go wrong?"
[effect] strenghtening ties with other nations by offering them peace deals is the newest @@DENONYMADJECTIVE@@ diplomatic strategy

[option 2] "Look, it’s not that simple," says your advisor. "Blackacre can use this information against us and attack us, because we are still technically in war. We must not let them know about it and we must classify all history-related documents to avoid situations like this in the future."
[effect] learning @@DENONYMADJECTIVE@@ history is now illegal

[option 3] "I think we are missing a great opportunity here," states your army general. "We can use this as an justification of invasion. We will finally smash Blackacre, one of our greatest enemies of all times! @@SLOGAN@@!"
[effect] @@NAME@@ is infamous for declaring poorly-justified wars

[title] Technical state of war
[description] It was recently found out that from unknown reasons @@NAME@@ never signed a peace treaty with the nation of Blackacre – infamous for its frequent human rights violations and its attempts to assassinate you - after the war that took place over 300 years ago. This means that @@NAME@@ and Blackacre are still technically in state of war.

[option 1] „The solution here is pretty simple” – says @@RANDOMNAME@@, historian who found out about the technical state of war – „We can simply sign a peace treaty – I’m sure that this will also make our relations with Blackacre at least a bit better, showing them our good will. What can possibly go wrong?”
[effect] strenghtening ties with other nations by offering them peace deals is the newest @@DENONYMADJECTIVE@@ diplomatic strategy

[option 2] „Look, it’s not that simple” – says your advisor – „Blackacre can use this information against us and attack us, because we are still technically in war. We must not let them know about it and we must classify all history-related documents to avoid situations like this in the future.”
[effect] learning @@DENONYMADJECTIVE@@ history is now illegal

[option 3] „I think we are missing a great opportunity here” – states your army general – „We can use this as an justification of invasion. We will finally smash Blackacre, one of our greatest enemies of all times! @@SLOGAN@@!”
[effect] @@NAME@@ is infamous for declaring poorly-justified wars

Thanks in advance for all your suggestions and advices, have a nice day!

[USS Monitor]

I'm not all that excited about the premise, but I think your English is good enough for issues writing and it's not a bad try.

The only thing that's really wrong with the English is your punctuation. The speech in issues options should be punctuated like this:

"The solution here is pretty simple," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, historian who found out about the technical state of war. "We can simply sign a peace treaty. I’m sure that this will also make our relations with Blackacre at least a bit better, showing them our good will. What can possibly go wrong?"

The quotes are straight quotes like " not „ or ”. The difference between " and ” only matters for issues. Both are fine in other kinds of English writing, but our software doesn't like the curvy quotes.

There should be a comma before the quote when you attach dialog tags and dialog:

pretty simple," says @@RANDOMNAME@@

or

@@RANDOMNAME@@ says, "The solution here is pretty simple."

This is a rule of English punctuation, not only for issues.

Use a period (full stop) if you are starting a new sentence:

war. "We

Don't use dashes to connect dialog and tags.

[Pooshland]

I'm not all that excited about the premise, but I think your English is good enough for issues writing and it's not a bad try.

The only thing that's really wrong with the English is your punctuation. The speech in issues options should be punctuated like this:

"The solution here is pretty simple," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, historian who found out about the technical state of war. "We can simply sign a peace treaty. I’m sure that this will also make our relations with Blackacre at least a bit better, showing them our good will. What can possibly go wrong?"

The quotes are straight quotes like " not „ or ”. The difference between " and ” only matters for issues. Both are fine in other kinds of English writing, but our software doesn't like the curvy quotes.

There should be a comma before the quote when you attach dialog tags and dialog:

pretty simple," says @@RANDOMNAME@@

or

@@RANDOMNAME@@ says, "The solution here is pretty simple."

This is a rule of English punctuation, not only for issues.

Use a period (full stop) if you are starting a new sentence:

war. "We

Don't use dashes to connect dialog and tags.

Thank you for your suggestions!
I will fix that in second version of draft.

[Australian rePublic]

300 years is a little excessive, if the war with Blackacre were 300 years ago, they wouldn't still be adverseries

[Pooshland]

300 years is a little excessive, if the war with Blackacre were 300 years ago, they wouldn't still be adverseries

Thank you for your response!
That's a good point, but I thought about this war in a little bit other way - it not neccessarily started bad relations with Blackacre, it was just a war that happened and everyone have forgotten about that. Pehaps they were parts of bigger alliances and peace deal between them (for some reasons) didn't mention them? Situations like that happened in history.