Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Editorial fixes
In the ruleset code and in the annotations it generates, I use
"reenact". If it is changed, I'll just add a dash to the reenactment
template.
On 7/20/19 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I’m strongly considering objecting, as I’d prefer to go the other way. What
do others think?
-Aris
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 9:54 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
I intend, without Objection, to clean Rule 105 by replacing all
instances of the string "reenact" with the string "re-enact".
Jason Cobb
On 7/20/19 3:03 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Oh, found another one: "reenact" vs "re-enact". All usages occur in
Rule 105, with 4 usages of the former and 5 usages of the latter.
Jason Cobb
On 7/20/19 12:50 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I've already brought up a few common editorial inconsistencies in the
Rules - those being "Judgement"/"Judgment" and "Class-N crime" vs
"Class N crime". I've come up with a few more - mostly being
capitalization ("blots"/"Blots" for example). I think it's a good
goal to be more consistent in the Rules (and also a good goal for me
to get money by proposals), so I am asking for opinions on which way
these editorial revisions should go.
I will be submitting proposals for this because I don't feel like
creating lots of dependent action intents (and because I like money).
"Judgement" vs "Judgment": I'm in favor of "Judgement" for previously
stated reasons (mostly consistency between existing CFJ formatting
and the Rules).
Rules using "Judgement": 217, 2479, 2531, 991, 591, 911, 2246, 2532,
2438, 2582
Rules using "Judgment": 2479, 2553
"Class-N" vs "Class N": I have no preference.
Rules using "Class-N": 2143, 2202, 2589, 2593
Rules using "Class N": 2143, 2557 (note: the rule giving effect to
"Class N crime"), 2450, 2532
"Blot" vs "blot": I think this should be "Blot" because it's being
used as a proper noun to refer to the single currency, but current
consensus seems to be "blot".
Rules using "Blot": 2451 (note: this also uses to "levy" a fine
incorrectly, as do Rules 2479 and 2451).
Rules using "blot": 2556, 2555, 2479, 2557, 2531
"with (T) Notice" vs "with (T) notice": I think this should be the
former.
Rules using "with Notice": 1748 (note: definition of term), 2595,
2574, 2594 (note: capitalizes "with")
Rules using "with notice": 2556
"without (N) Objection(s)" vs "without (N) objection(s)": I think
this should be the former.
Rules using "without Objection": 1728 (note: definition of term),
2595, 2124, 1607, 991, 2415, 2575, 2495 (note: capitalizes "Without")
Rules using "without objection": 478, 2221 (note: ironically the one
that offers cleaning of rules), 1006, 2202, 2576, 2465, 2566
"with (N) Support" vs "with (N) support": I think this should be the
former.
Rules using "with Support": 1728 (note definition of term), 2595,
1006, 2154, 911, 2480, 103
Rules using "with support": 2531, 911
I note that, while the other dependent action methods have
disagreement, "with Agoran Consent" doesn't. Yay!
--
Trigon
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Editorial fixes
I’m strongly considering objecting, as I’d prefer to go the other way. What
do others think?
-Aris
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 9:54 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I intend, without Objection, to clean Rule 105 by replacing all
> instances of the string "reenact" with the string "re-enact".
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/20/19 3:03 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > Oh, found another one: "reenact" vs "re-enact". All usages occur in
> > Rule 105, with 4 usages of the former and 5 usages of the latter.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 7/20/19 12:50 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >> I've already brought up a few common editorial inconsistencies in the
> >> Rules - those being "Judgement"/"Judgment" and "Class-N crime" vs
> >> "Class N crime". I've come up with a few more - mostly being
> >> capitalization ("blots"/"Blots" for example). I think it's a good
> >> goal to be more consistent in the Rules (and also a good goal for me
> >> to get money by proposals), so I am asking for opinions on which way
> >> these editorial revisions should go.
> >>
> >> I will be submitting proposals for this because I don't feel like
> >> creating lots of dependent action intents (and because I like money).
> >>
> >>
> >> "Judgement" vs "Judgment": I'm in favor of "Judgement" for previously
> >> stated reasons (mostly consistency between existing CFJ formatting
> >> and the Rules).
> >>
> >> Rules using "Judgement": 217, 2479, 2531, 991, 591, 911, 2246, 2532,
> >> 2438, 2582
> >>
> >> Rules using "Judgment": 2479, 2553
> >>
> >>
> >> "Class-N" vs "Class N": I have no preference.
> >>
> >> Rules using "Class-N": 2143, 2202, 2589, 2593
> >>
> >> Rules using "Class N": 2143, 2557 (note: the rule giving effect to
> >> "Class N crime"), 2450, 2532
> >>
> >>
> >> "Blot" vs "blot": I think this should be "Blot" because it's being
> >> used as a proper noun to refer to the single currency, but current
> >> consensus seems to be "blot".
> >>
> >> Rules using "Blot": 2451 (note: this also uses to "levy" a fine
> >> incorrectly, as do Rules 2479 and 2451).
> >>
> >> Rules using "blot": 2556, 2555, 2479, 2557, 2531
> >>
> >>
> >> "with (T) Notice" vs "with (T) notice": I think this should be the
> >> former.
> >>
> >> Rules using "with Notice": 1748 (note: definition of term), 2595,
> >> 2574, 2594 (note: capitalizes "with")
> >>
> >> Rules using "with notice": 2556
> >>
> >>
> >> "without (N) Objection(s)" vs "without (N) objection(s)": I think
> >> this should be the former.
> >>
> >> Rules using "without Objection": 1728 (note: definition of term),
> >> 2595, 2124, 1607, 991, 2415, 2575, 2495 (note: capitalizes "Without")
> >>
> >> Rules using "without objection": 478, 2221 (note: ironically the one
> >> that offers cleaning of rules), 1006, 2202, 2576, 2465, 2566
> >>
> >>
> >> "with (N) Support" vs "with (N) support": I think this should be the
> >> former.
> >>
> >> Rules using "with Support": 1728 (note definition of term), 2595,
> >> 1006, 2154, 911, 2480, 103
> >>
> >> Rules using "with support": 2531, 911
> >>
> >>
> >> I note that, while the other dependent action methods have
> >> disagreement, "with Agoran Consent" doesn't. Yay!
> >>
> >>
>
Re: DIS: Editorial fixes
I like this reasoning, so I'll probably go with this unless I see any
strong objections.
Jason Cobb
On 7/20/19 2:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Personally, I’d just make them all lower case (apart from the “Agoran”) and
have done with it. My reasoning is that people can be consistent about
using lower case, but I doubt we could get them to consistently use upper
case.
-Aris
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 10:55 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
A clean-up is always nice!
One thing is Agorans have a weird tendency to Overcapitalize things to
somehow emphasize their Importance. It's sometimes like reading
Winnie-the-
Pooh and not really supported by standard style guides (though maybe it is
in legal style guides, I'm not familiar with those) We can invent our own
style of course but maybe not willy-nilly. So a couple thoughts:
"Blot" vs "blot": I think this should be "Blot" because it's being used
as
a proper noun to refer to the single currency, but current consensus
seems
to be "blot".
This is incorrect by all style guides (checked three, American and
British).
Correct is "I have five dollars and thirty cents" without capitals. One
issue here is that with non-written numbers ("500 dollars") one is supposed
to use a currency symbol instead of the name, but we don't have one. Coins
have been stable for a while - maybe we should introduce a currency
symbol?
"with (T) Notice" vs "with (T) notice": I think this should be the
former.
"without (N) Objection(s)" vs "without (N) objection(s)": I think this
should be the former.
"with (N) Support" vs "with (N) support": I think this should be the
former.
It's worth asking here why we would capitalize all these methods, while
we use "by announcement" without capitals? (I don't know the answer
here, but worth thinking about if we're regularizing).
I note that, while the other dependent action methods have disagreement,
"with Agoran Consent" doesn't. Yay!
It's probably because "Agoran" is in fact a proper name, so it seems right
to capitalize "consent". This is incorrect as well - with a compound
general name where one word is proper, you only capitalized the proper
name. (I see this in my own job regularly, I deal with species like
"Pacific halibut" - capitalize Pacific but not halibut).
That said, I'm kind of split on these dependent action styles.
-G.
Re: DIS: Editorial fixes
On 7/20/2019 12:00 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: One thing is Agorans have a weird tendency to Overcapitalize things to somehow emphasize their Importance. I always thought the point of this was to indicate that something was a term of art. Though I'll grant you it's not at all used consistently. Very inconsistent - sometimes we capitalize a term of art everywhere, sometimes we capitalize it in the definition and not in other places (to show that it's the official definition for the term, like a dictionary entry). Also, some rules are written in conscious Proclamation Style (i.e. "Be it Hereby Declared..."): Happy Birthday, Cantus Cygneus, the preamble of Fora, etc. -G.
Re: DIS: What entity defines Rules?
Ah, thank you. I guess that settles that.
Jason Cobb
On 7/20/19 4:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 7/20/2019 12:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Rule 1586 ("Definition and Continuity of Entities") reads:
If the entity that defines another entity is amended such
that it
no longer defines the second entity, then the second entity and
its attributes cease to exist.
What is "the entity that defines" a Rule, if any? Is it the Ruleset as a
whole? The Rule itself?
Rule 2141 maybe:
A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the
game generally, and is always taking effect. A rule's content
takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.
I ask because I think this might have implications about whether or not
repealed rules continue to exist (I know I argued that they do
before, but
this might change that).
I mentioned this in passing before, but R105 requires repealed rules to
exist as identifiable entities:
3. reenact a rule. A repealed rule identified by its most recent
rule number MUST be reenacted with the same ID number and the
next change identifier.
-G.
Re: DIS: What entity defines Rules?
On 7/20/2019 12:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Rule 1586 ("Definition and Continuity of Entities") reads:
If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
no longer defines the second entity, then the second entity and
its attributes cease to exist.
What is "the entity that defines" a Rule, if any? Is it the Ruleset as a
whole? The Rule itself?
Rule 2141 maybe:
A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the
game generally, and is always taking effect. A rule's content
takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.
I ask because I think this might have implications about whether or not
repealed rules continue to exist (I know I argued that they do before, but
this might change that).
I mentioned this in passing before, but R105 requires repealed rules to
exist as identifiable entities:
3. reenact a rule. A repealed rule identified by its most recent
rule number MUST be reenacted with the same ID number and the
next change identifier.
-G.
DIS: What entity defines Rules?
Rule 1586 ("Definition and Continuity of Entities") reads:
If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
no longer defines the second entity, then the second entity and
its attributes cease to exist.
What is "the entity that defines" a Rule, if any? Is it the Ruleset as a
whole? The Rule itself?
I ask because I think this might have implications about whether or not
repealed rules continue to exist (I know I argued that they do before,
but this might change that).
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Editorial fixes
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 12:55 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > "Blot" vs "blot": I think this should be "Blot" because it's being used
> as
> > a proper noun to refer to the single currency, but current consensus
> seems
> > to be "blot".
>
> This is incorrect by all style guides (checked three, American and
> British).
> Correct is "I have five dollars and thirty cents" without capitals. One
> issue here is that with non-written numbers ("500 dollars") one is supposed
> to use a currency symbol instead of the name, but we don't have one. Coins
> have been stable for a while - maybe we should introduce a currency
> symbol?
>
Given that they'd be Agora Nomic Coins (ANC) I vote for ㋹.
Re: DIS: Editorial fixes
Oh, found another one: "reenact" vs "re-enact". All usages occur in Rule
105, with 4 usages of the former and 5 usages of the latter.
Jason Cobb
On 7/20/19 12:50 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I've already brought up a few common editorial inconsistencies in the
Rules - those being "Judgement"/"Judgment" and "Class-N crime" vs
"Class N crime". I've come up with a few more - mostly being
capitalization ("blots"/"Blots" for example). I think it's a good goal
to be more consistent in the Rules (and also a good goal for me to get
money by proposals), so I am asking for opinions on which way these
editorial revisions should go.
I will be submitting proposals for this because I don't feel like
creating lots of dependent action intents (and because I like money).
"Judgement" vs "Judgment": I'm in favor of "Judgement" for previously
stated reasons (mostly consistency between existing CFJ formatting and
the Rules).
Rules using "Judgement": 217, 2479, 2531, 991, 591, 911, 2246, 2532,
2438, 2582
Rules using "Judgment": 2479, 2553
"Class-N" vs "Class N": I have no preference.
Rules using "Class-N": 2143, 2202, 2589, 2593
Rules using "Class N": 2143, 2557 (note: the rule giving effect to
"Class N crime"), 2450, 2532
"Blot" vs "blot": I think this should be "Blot" because it's being
used as a proper noun to refer to the single currency, but current
consensus seems to be "blot".
Rules using "Blot": 2451 (note: this also uses to "levy" a fine
incorrectly, as do Rules 2479 and 2451).
Rules using "blot": 2556, 2555, 2479, 2557, 2531
"with (T) Notice" vs "with (T) notice": I think this should be the
former.
Rules using "with Notice": 1748 (note: definition of term), 2595,
2574, 2594 (note: capitalizes "with")
Rules using "with notice": 2556
"without (N) Objection(s)" vs "without (N) objection(s)": I think this
should be the former.
Rules using "without Objection": 1728 (note: definition of term),
2595, 2124, 1607, 991, 2415, 2575, 2495 (note: capitalizes "Without")
Rules using "without objection": 478, 2221 (note: ironically the one
that offers cleaning of rules), 1006, 2202, 2576, 2465, 2566
"with (N) Support" vs "with (N) support": I think this should be the
former.
Rules using "with Support": 1728 (note definition of term), 2595,
1006, 2154, 911, 2480, 103
Rules using "with support": 2531, 911
I note that, while the other dependent action methods have
disagreement, "with Agoran Consent" doesn't. Yay!
Re: DIS: Editorial fixes
> One thing is Agorans have a weird tendency to Overcapitalize things to
> somehow emphasize their Importance.
I always thought the point of this was to indicate that something was a term of
art. Though I'll grant you it's not at all used consistently.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, July 20, 2019 5:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> A clean-up is always nice!
>
> One thing is Agorans have a weird tendency to Overcapitalize things to
> somehow emphasize their Importance. It's sometimes like reading Winnie-the-
> Pooh and not really supported by standard style guides (though maybe it is
> in legal style guides, I'm not familiar with those) We can invent our own
> style of course but maybe not willy-nilly. So a couple thoughts:
>
> > "Blot" vs "blot": I think this should be "Blot" because it's being used as
> > a proper noun to refer to the single currency, but current consensus seems
> > to be "blot".
>
> This is incorrect by all style guides (checked three, American and British).
> Correct is "I have five dollars and thirty cents" without capitals. One
> issue here is that with non-written numbers ("500 dollars") one is supposed
> to use a currency symbol instead of the name, but we don't have one. Coins
> have been stable for a while - maybe we should introduce a currency
> symbol?
>
> > "with (T) Notice" vs "with (T) notice": I think this should be the former.
> > "without (N) Objection(s)" vs "without (N) objection(s)": I think this
> > should be the former.
> > "with (N) Support" vs "with (N) support": I think this should be the
> > former.
>
> It's worth asking here why we would capitalize all these methods, while
> we use "by announcement" without capitals? (I don't know the answer
> here, but worth thinking about if we're regularizing).
>
> > I note that, while the other dependent action methods have disagreement,
> > "with Agoran Consent" doesn't. Yay!
>
> It's probably because "Agoran" is in fact a proper name, so it seems right
> to capitalize "consent". This is incorrect as well - with a compound
> general name where one word is proper, you only capitalized the proper
> name. (I see this in my own job regularly, I deal with species like
> "Pacific halibut" - capitalize Pacific but not halibut).
>
> That said, I'm kind of split on these dependent action styles.
>
> -G.
Re: DIS: Editorial fixes
Alright, I guess I'll fix that when I submit a proposal to fix the usage
of "levy"ing a fine (the offending rules use "levy a fine of N Blots",
where the official definition uses "levy a fine of N").
Jason Cobb
On 7/20/19 1:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This is incorrect by all style guides (checked three, American and
British).
Correct is "I have five dollars and thirty cents" without capitals. One
issue here is that with non-written numbers ("500 dollars") one is
supposed
to use a currency symbol instead of the name, but we don't have one.
Coins
have been stable for a while - maybe we should introduce a currency
symbol?
Re: DIS: Editorial fixes
Personally, I’d just make them all lower case (apart from the “Agoran”) and
have done with it. My reasoning is that people can be consistent about
using lower case, but I doubt we could get them to consistently use upper
case.
-Aris
On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 10:55 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> A clean-up is always nice!
>
> One thing is Agorans have a weird tendency to Overcapitalize things to
> somehow emphasize their Importance. It's sometimes like reading
> Winnie-the-
> Pooh and not really supported by standard style guides (though maybe it is
> in legal style guides, I'm not familiar with those) We can invent our own
> style of course but maybe not willy-nilly. So a couple thoughts:
>
> > "Blot" vs "blot": I think this should be "Blot" because it's being used
> as
> > a proper noun to refer to the single currency, but current consensus
> seems
> > to be "blot".
>
> This is incorrect by all style guides (checked three, American and
> British).
> Correct is "I have five dollars and thirty cents" without capitals. One
> issue here is that with non-written numbers ("500 dollars") one is supposed
> to use a currency symbol instead of the name, but we don't have one. Coins
> have been stable for a while - maybe we should introduce a currency
> symbol?
>
> > "with (T) Notice" vs "with (T) notice": I think this should be the
> former.
> >
> > "without (N) Objection(s)" vs "without (N) objection(s)": I think this
> > should be the former.
> >
> > "with (N) Support" vs "with (N) support": I think this should be the
> > former.
>
> It's worth asking here why we would capitalize all these methods, while
> we use "by announcement" without capitals? (I don't know the answer
> here, but worth thinking about if we're regularizing).
>
> > I note that, while the other dependent action methods have disagreement,
> > "with Agoran Consent" doesn't. Yay!
>
> It's probably because "Agoran" is in fact a proper name, so it seems right
> to capitalize "consent". This is incorrect as well - with a compound
> general name where one word is proper, you only capitalized the proper
> name. (I see this in my own job regularly, I deal with species like
> "Pacific halibut" - capitalize Pacific but not halibut).
>
> That said, I'm kind of split on these dependent action styles.
>
> -G.
>
>
Re: DIS: Editorial fixes
A clean-up is always nice!
One thing is Agorans have a weird tendency to Overcapitalize things to
somehow emphasize their Importance. It's sometimes like reading Winnie-the-
Pooh and not really supported by standard style guides (though maybe it is
in legal style guides, I'm not familiar with those) We can invent our own
style of course but maybe not willy-nilly. So a couple thoughts:
"Blot" vs "blot": I think this should be "Blot" because it's being used as
a proper noun to refer to the single currency, but current consensus seems
to be "blot".
This is incorrect by all style guides (checked three, American and British).
Correct is "I have five dollars and thirty cents" without capitals. One
issue here is that with non-written numbers ("500 dollars") one is supposed
to use a currency symbol instead of the name, but we don't have one. Coins
have been stable for a while - maybe we should introduce a currency
symbol?
"with (T) Notice" vs "with (T) notice": I think this should be the former.
"without (N) Objection(s)" vs "without (N) objection(s)": I think this
should be the former.
"with (N) Support" vs "with (N) support": I think this should be the
former.
It's worth asking here why we would capitalize all these methods, while
we use "by announcement" without capitals? (I don't know the answer
here, but worth thinking about if we're regularizing).
I note that, while the other dependent action methods have disagreement,
"with Agoran Consent" doesn't. Yay!
It's probably because "Agoran" is in fact a proper name, so it seems right
to capitalize "consent". This is incorrect as well - with a compound
general name where one word is proper, you only capitalized the proper
name. (I see this in my own job regularly, I deal with species like
"Pacific halibut" - capitalize Pacific but not halibut).
That said, I'm kind of split on these dependent action styles.
-G.
