I’m up for they/them. It’s what I’ve been using in my proposals, anyways.
I know Oerjan has requested me to use “proper Agoran pronouns”, and with all due respect to them, I choose not to. That aside and as for my sentiment about this in general: tradition be damned, advocating for change should never be non-Agoran, or Agora has lost the spirit of nomic. (Of course, opposing to that change is just as legit.) On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 20:24, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > Speaking of Agoran terminology, it would probably be a good idea to define > the Spivak pronouns in the rules. (Personally, I’d advocate for adopting > they/them, but I know that’s unpopular.) > > Gaelan > > > On Feb 7, 2019, at 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote: > > > > So I walked away from the keyboard but kept mulling it, so here's a > proto: > > > > Create the following Power-2 Rule, the Lexicon: > > > > The Lexicon is a document maintained by the [officer*] as part of > > eir monthly report. The Lexicon SHOULD consist of a list of term > > definitions and jargon used in Agora, with their meanings. The Lexicon > > CAN be modified with 2 Agoran Consent. > > > > If a term is defined in the Lexicon, the use of that term to > > represent that definition is generally considered to be clear to all > > Agorans for the purposes of communications. Terms in the lexicon do not > > directly supersede rules definitions or common definitions, nor do they > > modify the POSSIBILITY or LEGALITY of any actions, but are used as > > guidance in communications: the definitions are generally considered to > > be "part of" any message that uses those terms. > > > > [*Which Officer? we don't really need a new one just for this] > > > > The Lexicon is hereby set to read as follows: > > > > Actor: For the purposes of using these terms, the "actor" is the > > person sending the message containing these terms. > > > > Loot: To "loot" a specified zombie is to act on the zombie's behalf > > to transfer all of their liquid assets to the actor. > > > > Quang: To "quang" a specified office is to collect the > > rules-specified reward for publishing a report for that office; if no > > report is explicitly specified, it is assumed to be that office's most > > recent weekly report. > > > > TODO: Amend Rewards Rule so that Rewards are earned "by announcement" > > rather than by "stating the amount earned", and that such an > > announcement is considered "collecting" the reward. Include in the line > > item on (variable) Proposal awards that the collector must explicitly > > provide the calculations for the amount, but for the fixed awards like > > Reports don't require that. > > > > TODO: Weaken the requirement that the act-on-behalf Rule requires a > > specific statement of "act on behalf" in the message (allow it to be > > used via Lexicon definitions). > > > > TODO: Tighten language on "by announcement" slightly, such that future > > jurisprudence will be more skeptical of the use of jargon that isn't in > > the Lexicon. > > > > Any other general communications issues worth addressing? > >
