Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation
On 6/8/2020 11:35 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > I opine that the two situations are completely different. In the "WILL" > situation, the change would break composition. Lol I can be equally passionate and reasoned about WILL (mmm, wait a minute... ok now I can) but in lieu of a manifesto think I'm just gonna leave this one to the voters.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 18:44, James Cook wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 18:35, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > >>> On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> > > > Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> > > > "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
> > > >>> "stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially
> > > >>> timely"
> > > >>> which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and
> > > >>> timely).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -G.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >> Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent
> > > in
> > > >> the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but
> > > it's
> > > >> also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, there is? From the OED, one of the definitions of stately is "Of
> > > > movement or gait: slow and dignified; deliberate, sedate". So it's
> > > > like saying, "in a sedate fashion". I could use that if people would
> > > > prefer?
> > >
> > > No, I think I'm having the same reaction to "stately" (or any other single
> > > word) that you had when I suggested replacing "CAN and SHALL" with WILL.
> > > The slight extra verbiage in "officially timely" is worth the precision,
> > > in that it ties into other rules-terms ("offices" and "timely fashion").
> >
> >
> > I opine that the two situations are completely different. In the "WILL"
> > situation, the change would break composition. It's pretty obvious what CAN
> > means, and pretty obvious what SHALL means, and pretty obvious what they
> > mean when you use them together, but when you introduce the term "WILL"
> > that gets hidden.
> >
> > By contrast, let's look at the difference between "officially timely" and
> > "timely". Looking at those terms, I have absolutely no clue what the
> > difference is. The word "officially" adds nothing, apart from the idea that
> > it applies to offices. But it doesn't tell me if it's a shorter amount of
> > time, a longer amount of time, or the same amount of them with some other
> > implication. Plus, "timely fashion" also often applies to offices, so the
> > extra word is actively confusing without adding any meaning. You say it
> > "ties into other rules-terms", which would be great if those terms added
> > some additional meaning, but they tell a reader absolutely nothing about
> > what the term actually means.
> >
> > Now let's look at the difference between "timely" and
> > "stately/sedate/whatever". "timely" implies promptness. The other terms
> > imply less promptness. So I can surmise that if an officer had to do
> > something in a "sedate fashion", that means e has more time to do it than
> > an officer who has to do it in a "timely fashion". This would be correct.
> > So it's actually easier for an uninformed reader to understand than the
> > current phrasing, despite adding a new term.
> >
> > -Aris
>
> For what it's worth, I read "stately" as a pun meaning kind of slow
> and also state-related, and immediately liked it.
>
> Thinking about it more, I guess if someone read "the Officiator SHALL
> transfer the Orb in a stately fashion" in isolation, it might not be
> obvious that the "in a stately fashion" has anything to do with time.
> Still, it would be nice to be able to incorporate the terminology
> somehow because it's fun and reads more smoothly.
>
> - Falsifian
Maybe "in stately time" or "within a stately interval" or "with
stately dispatch" or something like that would make it more obvious
it's got to do with time?
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 18:35, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >>> On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> > > Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> > > "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
> > >>>
> > >>> This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
> > >>> "stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
> > >>> which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).
> > >>>
> > >>> -G.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent
> > in
> > >> the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but
> > it's
> > >> also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.
> > >
> > > Yes, there is? From the OED, one of the definitions of stately is "Of
> > > movement or gait: slow and dignified; deliberate, sedate". So it's
> > > like saying, "in a sedate fashion". I could use that if people would
> > > prefer?
> >
> > No, I think I'm having the same reaction to "stately" (or any other single
> > word) that you had when I suggested replacing "CAN and SHALL" with WILL.
> > The slight extra verbiage in "officially timely" is worth the precision,
> > in that it ties into other rules-terms ("offices" and "timely fashion").
>
>
> I opine that the two situations are completely different. In the "WILL"
> situation, the change would break composition. It's pretty obvious what CAN
> means, and pretty obvious what SHALL means, and pretty obvious what they
> mean when you use them together, but when you introduce the term "WILL"
> that gets hidden.
>
> By contrast, let's look at the difference between "officially timely" and
> "timely". Looking at those terms, I have absolutely no clue what the
> difference is. The word "officially" adds nothing, apart from the idea that
> it applies to offices. But it doesn't tell me if it's a shorter amount of
> time, a longer amount of time, or the same amount of them with some other
> implication. Plus, "timely fashion" also often applies to offices, so the
> extra word is actively confusing without adding any meaning. You say it
> "ties into other rules-terms", which would be great if those terms added
> some additional meaning, but they tell a reader absolutely nothing about
> what the term actually means.
>
> Now let's look at the difference between "timely" and
> "stately/sedate/whatever". "timely" implies promptness. The other terms
> imply less promptness. So I can surmise that if an officer had to do
> something in a "sedate fashion", that means e has more time to do it than
> an officer who has to do it in a "timely fashion". This would be correct.
> So it's actually easier for an uninformed reader to understand than the
> current phrasing, despite adding a new term.
>
> -Aris
For what it's worth, I read "stately" as a pun meaning kind of slow
and also state-related, and immediately liked it.
Thinking about it more, I guess if someone read "the Officiator SHALL
transfer the Orb in a stately fashion" in isolation, it might not be
obvious that the "in a stately fashion" has anything to do with time.
Still, it would be nice to be able to incorporate the terminology
somehow because it's fun and reads more smoothly.
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation
On 2020-06-08 12:17, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
"in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
"stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).
Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent in
the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but it's
also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.
Yes, there is? From the OED, one of the definitions of stately is "Of
movement or gait: slow and dignified; deliberate, sedate". So it's
like saying, "in a sedate fashion". I could use that if people would
prefer?
No, I think I'm having the same reaction to "stately" (or any other single
word) that you had when I suggested replacing "CAN and SHALL" with WILL.
The slight extra verbiage in "officially timely" is worth the precision,
in that it ties into other rules-terms ("offices" and "timely fashion").
I echo G. here; e expressed my thoughts very succinctly.
I would also like to point out that I rarely see the word "stately"
used; let alone in the context of the definition to which you refer.
It's an obscure definition of an uncommon word. I would argue that this
proposal would do nothing but worsen our readability problem.
--
Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>> On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> > Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> > "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
> >>>
> >>> This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
> >>> "stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
> >>> which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).
> >>>
> >>> -G.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent
> in
> >> the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but
> it's
> >> also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.
> >
> > Yes, there is? From the OED, one of the definitions of stately is "Of
> > movement or gait: slow and dignified; deliberate, sedate". So it's
> > like saying, "in a sedate fashion". I could use that if people would
> > prefer?
>
> No, I think I'm having the same reaction to "stately" (or any other single
> word) that you had when I suggested replacing "CAN and SHALL" with WILL.
> The slight extra verbiage in "officially timely" is worth the precision,
> in that it ties into other rules-terms ("offices" and "timely fashion").
I opine that the two situations are completely different. In the "WILL"
situation, the change would break composition. It's pretty obvious what CAN
means, and pretty obvious what SHALL means, and pretty obvious what they
mean when you use them together, but when you introduce the term "WILL"
that gets hidden.
By contrast, let's look at the difference between "officially timely" and
"timely". Looking at those terms, I have absolutely no clue what the
difference is. The word "officially" adds nothing, apart from the idea that
it applies to offices. But it doesn't tell me if it's a shorter amount of
time, a longer amount of time, or the same amount of them with some other
implication. Plus, "timely fashion" also often applies to offices, so the
extra word is actively confusing without adding any meaning. You say it
"ties into other rules-terms", which would be great if those terms added
some additional meaning, but they tell a reader absolutely nothing about
what the term actually means.
Now let's look at the difference between "timely" and
"stately/sedate/whatever". "timely" implies promptness. The other terms
imply less promptness. So I can surmise that if an officer had to do
something in a "sedate fashion", that means e has more time to do it than
an officer who has to do it in a "timely fashion". This would be correct.
So it's actually easier for an uninformed reader to understand than the
current phrasing, despite adding a new term.
-Aris
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation
On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
>>>
>>> This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
>>> "stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
>>> which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).
>>>
>>> -G.
>>>
>>>
>> Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent in
>> the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but it's
>> also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.
>
> Yes, there is? From the OED, one of the definitions of stately is "Of
> movement or gait: slow and dignified; deliberate, sedate". So it's
> like saying, "in a sedate fashion". I could use that if people would
> prefer?
No, I think I'm having the same reaction to "stately" (or any other single
word) that you had when I suggested replacing "CAN and SHALL" with WILL.
The slight extra verbiage in "officially timely" is worth the precision,
in that it ties into other rules-terms ("offices" and "timely fashion").
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> > >> Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> > >> Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> > >> "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
> >
> > This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
> > "stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
> > which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).
> >
> > -G.
> >
> >
> Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent in
> the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but it's
> also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.
Yes, there is? From the OED, one of the definitions of stately is "Of
movement or gait: slow and dignified; deliberate, sedate". So it's
like saying, "in a sedate fashion". I could use that if people would
prefer?
-Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> >> Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> >> "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
>
> This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
> "stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
> which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).
>
> -G.
>
>
Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent in
the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but it's
also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation
On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
>> Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
>> "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
"stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).
-G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation
A quick word of explanation: This is completely cosmetic. However, it
was pointed out at the time that this was adopted was that this was
confusing, and I agree. It's long, and the word "officially" is really
confusing, given that "timely fashion" is also used mostly for
official duties. This is more descriptive in my opinion.
-Aris
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 11:42 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business
wrote:
>
> I submit the following proposal.
>
> -Aris
> ---
> Title: Stately Officiation
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
