I understand the motivation behind the soft fork. I think I can even empathize with the execution of it given the assumed/felt security threat.

Yet, I do not necessarily know where I stand about the actual event and the consequences. First of all, I totally feel like @whatsup and as a user I now think we all have the right to assume/feel the same security threat about our own activity here. Which is not different from last year when similar was considered but then with a hard fork, totally nuking the stake.
Brutal wakeup call about what witnesses would potentially consider.

While this time the actions undertaken merely limit specific transactions, and can with a consensus soft fork be reversed (AFAIK there is no reverse date in the soft fork itself, thus not as reversible as made out to be since still requires consensus)... this is a brutal escalation.

An escalation which may be considered premature.

Yes, communication was bungled. Yes, the TRON marketing team did make some follow-on errors. But they could have been remedied.

Is giving a CEO, of a team managing a 1.6bn market cap, 10 days time sufficient? I would assume that in those 10 days Justin has been communicating, but first with his team - which now also includes Steemit Inc - and then in some days, weeks he would have reached out to the witnesses, then the Steem community.

I do not feel the same security threat and I think Justin should have been given both more time and the benefit of the doubt. But I can understand what motivated the SF.

Here's just hoping hostility was expected on Justin's side and it didn't trigger additional bad blood.