SECOND VERSION EDITORIAL TEAM
Editorial Meeting Minutes
Meeting No.: [001]
Classification: [Underground]
Status: [Officially Senseless]
Location: [District Eighteen Juice Fort]
Date: [No Record]
Meeting Attendance
☑ Snowy Owl 🦉
☑ Little Turtle🐢
☑ Big Eye 👁️
☑ Dustshark 🦈
☑ Little Pinky 🐭
Author🖊️
☐ Absent ☐ Listening ☐ Arguing ☑ Self-Talking
Agenda📜
* Review of Chapter revisions
* Public Historian submissions
* Translation consistency
* Motion to distort history.
Motion 💬:
Approval of proposed revisions to Silver Eagle Chapter Nine (“Scumbag”) concerning Cici Chorley incident.Author’s Request for Amendment 🖊️:
I wish to amend Chapter Nine.
[Translator 🙊: Sixth revision request submitted on behalf of the author.]I want to remove the Cici Chorley incident.
[Translator 🙊: Author hopes history can accommodate the pace of their slow psychological recovery.]That whole business was utterly mortifying.
[Translator 🙊: Confirmed. Credibility of this statement: 99.9%.]I don’t mind readers knowing I’ve failed.
[Translator 🙊: Mild self‑deception detected.]But I’m beginning to worry that the novel might draw attention back to real individuals, exposing their privacy.
[Translator 🙊: Reason valid. Logged as an formal ethical consideration.]I’m also concerned it could cause secondary harm.
[Translator 🙊: System also detects mixed motives, including “would quite like to erase personal embarrassing history while at it”.]Maybe I can change it to a third‑party character.
[Translator 🙊: In other words, “replace one scumbag with another scumbag.”]Or simply leave it out altogether.
[Translator 🙊: Recommendation: leave memory‑sorting to Room 401. Estimated author satisfaction: 94%.]
Snowy Owl 🦉:
Application has been recorded.
The second version will be discussed item by item.
Little Pinky 🐭:
I disagree.
The utterly mortifying is precisely why this chapter exists.
If the author only keeps the glorious bits,
what readers will end up seeing is just the author standing there 🚀💦。
It won’t be Paul.
Big Eye 👁️:
This chapter isn’t about heartbreak. It’s about this:
Sometimes a person can, without realising it, make someone else feel afraid.
That’s important.
If it’s removed, then all the later growth about understanding other people’s feelings will lose its weight.
Little Turtle 🐢:
I’m worried about something else instead.
If we revise it, the English version of Room 301 will no longer contain the word Scumbag.
And it’s precisely because the system can use a single English word to define a person, reduce a person to a single label, or even erase a person altogether, that English‑language readers suddenly feel it: language itself can be a form of violence.
If it’s changed to Misunderstood Person, or Socially Awkward Individual, or even Unwanted Pursuer, the story immediately loses its soul.
What’s truly frightening about Room 301 isn’t that someone is calling Paul names. It’s that the system is calling Paul names.
And it only needs one word: Scumbag.
The second version shouldn’t soften that impact.
I argue for keeping it intact. Because
linguistic violence is, after all, one of the forms of violence in Silver Eagle.
Dustshark 🦈:
The author has raised concerns about privacy and the possibility of causing secondary harm, and I believe these are worth taking seriously.
However, I’ve checked the main text, and the author has not disclosed the other party’s full identity. Nor is there any description that could be used to confirm who the real person is.
That part has already been handled with restraint.
Author 🖊️:
But I still worry about something else.
If one day the person involved reads it, they might remember something they don’t want to remember.
I don’t want to hurt anyone.
Snowy Owl 🦉:
I believe what the author’s concern is genuine.
And I also believe that the author is proposing this revision not out of any desire to beautify themselves, but out of guilt.
Guilty, however, cannot become an editorial policy.
Little Pinky 🐭:
I’d like to remind everyone that the second version has already made substantial omissions.
We have not recorded:
* that the author once accessed the system to obtain contact details;
* that the other individual argued with her boyfriend as a result;
* that she was so frightened she needed a family member to accompany her to work;
* the system’s full evaluation process;
* the drop in the Ambiguity Index from 92 to 29.None of this has been disclosed.
We have already chosen to protect. But protection is not the same as rewriting.
Author 🖊️:
I admit it. If all of it were made public, I’d feel even more uncomfortable.
I simply haven’t dared to face myself.
Snowy Owl 🦉 — Summary:
The second version exists not to preserve a perfect author, but to preserve a real one.
If the author is allowed to alter the part of their history they’re most ashamed of, then the second version loses its reason for being.
Resolution 🔨:
Revision request: unanimously rejected.
Rationale💡:
* “Utterly mortifying” is part of the work.
* History cannot be altered out of shame.
* The second version has already removed information that could cause real‑world harm.
* Preserving the force of literature and language.
* Keeping history does not mean revealing all of it.
* Protecting privacy does not mean falsifying the past.