On 6/3/2020 2:03 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:00 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On 6/3/2020 1:46 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: >>> On 6/3/20 4:44 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>>> Replace the text "Rule 478" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the >>>> rule entitled "Fora"". >>>> >>>> Replace the text "Rule 1789" in Rule 2139, "The Registrar" with "the >>>> rule entitled "Cantus Cygneus"". >>> >>> >>> Honestly, it might just be better to nuke the last paragraph of that >>> rule - it doesn't really add anything. >>> >> >> Middle ground: recognize that both "publicity of a forum" and >> "Cantus/Writs" are well-defined terms of art so the "as described in..." >> clauses aren't needed at all. >> >> And here: >>> an action by a set of one or more dependent actions identified in >>> Rule 1728 >> >> R1728 starts: >>> The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent >>> actions": >> >> so again, the term of art "dependent actions" is well-defined so the >> "identified in Rule 1728" is also wholly unneeded. >> > > So would this be better to just remove the references? >
I don't see a need for them. I think the terms of art are pretty clear. Aris may have a little more difficulty with eir proposal because that F/A ratio doesn't have a clever term-of-art name defined in R955 - and I just realized it's broken anyway, because the "greatest F/A ratio" doesn't error trap division by 0 the way R955 does, even if it directly refers to R955. (In terms of "greatest", for A=0 you might need an explicit tiebreaker - level of F maybe? - that's not in the rules anywhere).
