Improves clarity

src/en/space-station-14/player-interaction/proposals/rig-slot.md

@@ -34,7 +34,9 @@ A primary factor of defining role identity right now is access to equipment, and
 
 It comes up sometimes in discussion, what separates a job from another job besides the items they use. For some small example I can think of, sometimes when people talk about more-open expeditions and the concept of gathering a varied team of crew members to fill different roles, it's suggested "why wouldnt the salvagers (the current monopolizers on expeditions) just take the equipment and do the role themselves?" In this case it would be because their task inventory is oriented towards a different set of goals.
 
-To expand on the combat loadout example, most loadouts have an explicit initial step where the role of a role-defining inventory slot like the belt is 'declared' by equipping a belt that represent a particular proficiency. Carrying weapons is at the core of defining a combat loadout; you can't be combat capable without the weapon. Despite this, no declaration of a combat role has to be made to carry a weapon directly in the role-define slot. Because of the general opinion that carrying weapons is a very powerful ability, a dilemma is currently in place that involves heavy inventory sacrifice (the back slot dilemma), rather than having role-define slots also need to declare their combat abilities. The captain gets a cool sabre sheath that makes the sword belt equippable where it otherwise isnt, and the captain loves wearing it because it's incredibly cool.
+To expand on the combat loadout example, most other loadouts have an explicit initial step where the abilities of a role-defining inventory slot, like the belt, are 'declared' by equipping a belt that represent a particular proficiency (For example, declaring a construction role by equipping a tool belt). Carrying weapons is at the core of defining a combat loadout; you can't be combat capable without a weapon. Despite this, no declaration of a combat role has to be made to carry a weapon directly in the role-define slot. 
+
+Because of the general opinion that carrying weapons is a very powerful ability, a dilemma is currently in place that involves heavy inventory sacrifice, where a player must trade their backpack, rather than instead having role-define slots need to declare their combat abilities in the same way other loadouts do. The captain gets a cool sabre sheath that makes the sword belt equippable where it otherwise isnt, and the captain loves wearing it because it's incredibly cool.
 
 ## Back Bag Changes
 
@@ -70,6 +72,6 @@ case, they could tote things and place it down without making their personal bel
 
 Currently if all slots possible were used to carry weapons, assuming someone had any kind of armor at all, a person could wear 2 long arms and 3 sidearms. Many games follow a rule of "one big one small", and standard weapon wearing should resemble this.
 
-"One small" could hang in a worn belt and "one large" could sling on a worn rig. Or you could wear a belt holster and a shoulder holster and take two smalls with you, whatever you want dude! Combat-specialized loadouts would allow this holstering while providing some additional space for ammo and gear in the belt/rig. The decision to wear weapons now explicitly leans a character into being a combat loadout, compromising their other abilities.
+"One small" could hang in a worn belt and "one large" could sling on a worn rig. Or you could wear a belt holster and a shoulder holster and take two smalls with you instead. Combat-specialized loadouts would allow this holstering while providing some additional space for ammo and gear in the belt/rig. The decision to wear weapons now explicitly leans a character into being a combat loadout, compromising their other abilities.
 
 Said briefly, the final above proposal to restrict suit storage is because with this new addition, its old niches would be covered, and the slot can focus on a space-faring suit's built-in capacity for an oxygen tank.