Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
Warrigal wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:31 Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: You kids and your timely fashions. When I was young, we did things as soon as possible both ways and we liked it! You know, I *still* think of VVLOP and second-class persons (and second-class persons with nonzero VVLOP) as being part of Agora's heart and soul—presumably just because those two things happened to be in the rules at the time that I joined. I'm still sad that we changed "first-class person" to "person" and simply did away with "second-class person" with no replacement. It's never too late! We do have at least two founding members of the Association of Federated Organizations around, with a third possibly lurking as a watcher... (The AFO was my experiment with "what'll happen if a corporate person can be controlled by any member unilaterally, without any mandatory consensus process to slow it down". As I recall, it also raised lots of questions of "what constitutes fair punishment of the member(s) if they cause it to break rules", and was eventually a major part of the whole class of entities being repealed or at least seriously nerfed.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On 2/6/20 7:26 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > I object to the lists one because the example given is very confusing. > It's not an inline list because it's separated from the surrounding > prose, and it's not a block list because the elements aren't separated > by line breaks. And why are those spacing restrictions needed anyway > when R2429 lets you, as Rulekeepor, change spacing freely? The intention was that "newline" before and after each element meant that was on its own line, not that it had a blank line before and after each element; sorry that wasn't clear. I agree that some more drafting is probably needed. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 22:06, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 2/6/20 7:47 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > > "I intend, with Agoran consent, to enact the following Editorial > > Guidelines:" > > > > does not seem like multiple separate intents. > > > Whoops, you're right. I was thinking the rule said CAN enact a > (singular) Guideline, not CAN enact (plural) Guidelines. Sorry! Even then, it's not clear to me that the dependent action rules break out separate intents, actually...
DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On 2/6/20 7:47 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > "I intend, with Agoran consent, to enact the following Editorial Guidelines:" > > does not seem like multiple separate intents. Whoops, you're right. I was thinking the rule said CAN enact a (singular) Guideline, not CAN enact (plural) Guidelines. Sorry! -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
I wrote:
> I object to the capitalisation one for the same reason as Alexis.
>
> I object to the lists one because the example given is very confusing.
> It's not an inline list because it's separated from the surrounding
> prose, and it's not a block list because the elements aren't separated
> by line breaks. And why are those spacing restrictions needed anyway
> when R2429 lets you, as Rulekeepor, change spacing freely?
>
> I support the pronouns one, although I think it could do with amending
> to specify the other declensions ("eir", "eirs", "emself") too.
Sorry, this comes across more negative than I intended. I do support
editorial guidelines in general and I approve of the things you're
trying to do with them! - just that these could do with a bit more
drafting.
-twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On 1/30/2020 3:44 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Thu., Jan. 30, 2020, 06:08 AIS523 wrote: >> I should note, though, that "in a timely fashion" is a relatively new >> phrasing. For a long time, the standard phrasing was "as soon as >> possible" (which was nonetheless defined to mean "within seven days"), >> which was perhaps even more quirkily Agoran, but very confusing to new >> players (as holding out the actions in question until the end of the >> seven-day window was accepted and often done intentionally). >> >> -- >> ais523 >> > > My recollection is that it was four when I joined, changed to seven when > the game started slowing down, and then the terminology was changed when it > was decided that seven days was really not as soon as possible. > The phrase "as soon as possible" was used for Speaker's duties in several places in the initial ruleset, without being defined. In 1994 the definition adopted was: > Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as > soon as possible", e is required to perform this action before > performing any other actions which have a less strictly defined > time requirement. then combined with a week limit (1994): > Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action > "as soon as possible", e is required to perform that action > within a week, and no later than any other action e is > subsequently required to perform. The "no later than" part was dropped in 2000: > Whenever a Player is required to perform an action "as soon > as possible", then e is required to perform the action within > a week. (all references above from Zefram's rules text) "In a timely fashion" was added as a synonym in 2008: > (a) The phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible" > mean "within seven days". >From 2011-2013, and was actually a variable speed control with a minimum setting of five days: > The Speed switch is a single switch, tracked by the Assessor, > with values of Slow, Normal (default) and Fast. The Speed switch > is secured. [...] > (a) The phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible" > mean "within X days", where X is 14 when the Speed is Slow, > 7 when it is Normal and 5 when it is Fast. Then in 2013, the "as soon as possible" was deleted (because it no longer meant that), and then the variable speed was repealed putting it back to a week. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Thu., Jan. 30, 2020, 06:08 AIS523--- via agora-discussion, < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 17:25 +, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora- > discussion wrote: > > Aris wrote: > > > For the record, I strongly disagree. I think Spivak is part of Agoran > > > culture at this point, like the “or” suffixes at the end of offices. > It’s > > > part of what makes Agora different and unique. In short, it’s a > dialectal > > > variation, and I think Agora having its own dialect, not just its own > > > terminology, is pretty awesome. > > > > Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Tbh I think Falsifian expressed it well > > when e talked about seeing the ruleset as some sort of ancient relic - > > the things like "-or" suffixes, Spivak pronouns, CAN/SHOULD/MUST, "in a > > timely fashion", etc. are all pieces of history reflecting how the game > > came to be the way it is. Heck, even a very small amount of the language > > from the prototypical Nomic is still in the current ruleset! > > I'm also in favour of retaining Spivak (although I'm not sure how much > weight my opinion should have when I'm not actually playing). > > I should note, though, that "in a timely fashion" is a relatively new > phrasing. For a long time, the standard phrasing was "as soon as > possible" (which was nonetheless defined to mean "within seven days"), > which was perhaps even more quirkily Agoran, but very confusing to new > players (as holding out the actions in question until the end of the > seven-day window was accepted and often done intentionally). > > -- > ais523 > My recollection is that it was four when I joined, changed to seven when the game started slowing down, and then the terminology was changed when it was decided that seven days was really not as soon as possible. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 17:25 +, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora- discussion wrote: > Aris wrote: > > For the record, I strongly disagree. I think Spivak is part of Agoran > > culture at this point, like the “or” suffixes at the end of offices. It’s > > part of what makes Agora different and unique. In short, it’s a dialectal > > variation, and I think Agora having its own dialect, not just its own > > terminology, is pretty awesome. > > Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Tbh I think Falsifian expressed it well > when e talked about seeing the ruleset as some sort of ancient relic - > the things like "-or" suffixes, Spivak pronouns, CAN/SHOULD/MUST, "in a > timely fashion", etc. are all pieces of history reflecting how the game > came to be the way it is. Heck, even a very small amount of the language > from the prototypical Nomic is still in the current ruleset! I'm also in favour of retaining Spivak (although I'm not sure how much weight my opinion should have when I'm not actually playing). I should note, though, that "in a timely fashion" is a relatively new phrasing. For a long time, the standard phrasing was "as soon as possible" (which was nonetheless defined to mean "within seven days"), which was perhaps even more quirkily Agoran, but very confusing to new players (as holding out the actions in question until the end of the seven-day window was accepted and often done intentionally). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:31 Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > You kids and your timely fashions. When I was young, we did things as soon > as possible both ways and we liked it! > You know, I *still* think of VVLOP and second-class persons (and second-class persons with nonzero VVLOP) as being part of Agora's heart and soul—presumably just because those two things happened to be in the rules at the time that I joined. I'm still sad that we changed "first-class person" to "person" and simply did away with "second-class person" with no replacement. —Warrigal >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On 1/29/2020 9:25 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > (then again, there's also this:) > >> Judgments in Nomic are not bound by rules of precedent, for that would >> require a daunting amount of record-keeping for each game. Well, e's not wrong...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On 1/29/2020 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 1/29/2020 9:25 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: >> (then again, there's also this:) >> >>> Judgments in Nomic are not bound by rules of precedent, for that would >>> require a daunting amount of record-keeping for each game. > > Well, e's not wrong... > also, reading it now, the full context is pretty important on this one! "Judgments in Nomic are not bound by rules of precedent, for that would require a daunting amount of record-keeping for each game. But the doctrine of stare decisis may be imposed at the players' option, or may arise without explicit amendment as successive judges feel impelled to treat like cases alike. Without stare decisis players are put upon to draft their rules carefully, make thoughtful adjudications, overrule poor judgments, and amend defective rules. This is one way in which Nomic teaches basic principles and exigencies of law, even while it vastly simplifies."
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 12:25, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Aris wrote: > > For the record, I strongly disagree. I think Spivak is part of Agoran > > culture at this point, like the “or” suffixes at the end of offices. It’s > > part of what makes Agora different and unique. In short, it’s a dialectal > > variation, and I think Agora having its own dialect, not just its own > > terminology, is pretty awesome. > > Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Tbh I think Falsifian expressed it well > when e talked about seeing the ruleset as some sort of ancient relic - > the things like "-or" suffixes, Spivak pronouns, CAN/SHOULD/MUST, "in a > timely fashion", etc. are all pieces of history reflecting how the game > came to be the way it is. Heck, even a very small amount of the language > from the prototypical Nomic is still in the current ruleset! > You kids and your timely fashions. When I was young, we did things as soon as possible both ways and we liked it!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
Aris wrote: > For the record, I strongly disagree. I think Spivak is part of Agoran > culture at this point, like the “or” suffixes at the end of offices. It’s > part of what makes Agora different and unique. In short, it’s a dialectal > variation, and I think Agora having its own dialect, not just its own > terminology, is pretty awesome. Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Tbh I think Falsifian expressed it well when e talked about seeing the ruleset as some sort of ancient relic - the things like "-or" suffixes, Spivak pronouns, CAN/SHOULD/MUST, "in a timely fashion", etc. are all pieces of history reflecting how the game came to be the way it is. Heck, even a very small amount of the language from the prototypical Nomic is still in the current ruleset! > All decisions by Judges shall be in accordance with all the rules then > in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on > the point at issue, then the Judge shall consider game-custom and the > spirit of the game before applying other standards. https://web.archive.org/web/20200110101829/http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm (then again, there's also this:) > Judgments in Nomic are not bound by rules of precedent, for that would > require a daunting amount of record-keeping for each game. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
> On Jan 29, 2020, at 8:25 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 2:23 AM omd via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:07 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> Personally, I’m vaguely of the opinion that we should switch to >> they/them instead of Spivak in general. Our use of Spivak now feels like >> using Betamax in 1990—sure, it was probably better, but the other one won >> and it’s silly to keep doing our own thing. > > > For the record, I strongly disagree. I think Spivak is part of Agoran > culture at this point, like the “or” suffixes at the end of offices. It’s > part of what makes Agora different and unique. In short, it’s a dialectal > variation, and I think Agora having its own dialect, not just its own > terminology, is pretty awesome. > > -Aris This is, IMO, the best counterpoint. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 2:23 AM omd via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:07 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Personally, I’m vaguely of the opinion that we should switch to > they/them instead of Spivak in general. Our use of Spivak now feels like > using Betamax in 1990—sure, it was probably better, but the other one won > and it’s silly to keep doing our own thing. For the record, I strongly disagree. I think Spivak is part of Agoran culture at this point, like the “or” suffixes at the end of offices. It’s part of what makes Agora different and unique. In short, it’s a dialectal variation, and I think Agora having its own dialect, not just its own terminology, is pretty awesome. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 10:23, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:07 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Personally, I’m vaguely of the opinion that we should switch to they/them > > instead of Spivak in general. Our use of Spivak now feels like using > > Betamax in 1990—sure, it was probably better, but the other one won and > > it’s silly to keep doing our own thing. > > +1. I find the use of Spivak pronouns quirky and fun. Like when a science fiction or fantasy novel forces me to learn a few words of some invented language, drawing me a bit more into the author's constructed world. That said, I think my attitude partly comes from having thought of Agora's ruleset as some venerable ancient artifact when I first read it. I wouldn't be seriously opposed to the change, if the older players don't mind it. It would be nice if there were some clever way to embed some remnant of it in the rules somewhere as a memento, e.g. if there were just one capitalized phrase somewhere of ceremonial importance that had a traditional Spivak pronoun, which we could (correctly) say is written that way because it dates back to the "ancient" days when our language was slightly different from its modern form. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:07 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > Personally, I’m vaguely of the opinion that we should switch to they/them > instead of Spivak in general. Our use of Spivak now feels like using Betamax > in 1990—sure, it was probably better, but the other one won and it’s silly to > keep doing our own thing. +1.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
It is interesting to consider changing our use of pronouns, but if
we're not changing anything, is there any reason to cover pronouns in
the editorial guidelines at all? I don't see any confusion or
inconsistency related to them, and I expect any new player who has
given the rules even a cursory reading will pick up on the Spivak
pronouns. The shorter the guidelines are, the more likely people are
to read and follow them
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 05:07, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> This is a good point. Suggested reword: {
> The singular non-gendered pronoun is "e" in the nominative, and "em" in
> the accusative. Do not use "he/him/his," or "she/her/her,” or
> “they/them/their”
> as a singular pronoun when referring to a person of unknown gender.
> }
>
> Personally, I’m vaguely of the opinion that we should switch to they/them
> instead of Spivak in general. Our use of Spivak now feels like using Betamax
> in 1990—sure, it was probably better, but the other one won and it’s silly to
> keep doing our own thing. That being said, I know this is probably an
> unpopular opinion (and I know there are some reasonable arguments in favor of
> Spivak, such as support for legal persons).
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Jan 27, 2020, at 8:04 PM, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 18:43 Jason Cobb via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> [Informal title: "Pronouns"]
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> The singular non-gendered pronoun is "e" in the nominative, and "em" in
> >> the accusative. Do not use "they" as a singular pronoun. Do not use
> >> "he/him/his" or "she/her/her" as a singular pronoun when referring to a
> >> person of unknown gender.
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >
> > I informally object. I agree that we should use e/em as the generic
> > third-person singular pronoun (as we have been doing for decades), but when
> > rules refer to specific individuals (which is uncommon but not all *that*
> > rare), there's no reason at all to proscribe using "they" for a particular
> > individual if that's the pronoun that they prefer to use in such contexts.
> >
> > —Warrigal
> >
> >>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
This is a good point. Suggested reword: {
The singular non-gendered pronoun is "e" in the nominative, and "em" in
the accusative. Do not use "he/him/his," or "she/her/her,” or “they/them/their”
as a singular pronoun when referring to a person of unknown gender.
}
Personally, I’m vaguely of the opinion that we should switch to they/them
instead of Spivak in general. Our use of Spivak now feels like using Betamax in
1990—sure, it was probably better, but the other one won and it’s silly to keep
doing our own thing. That being said, I know this is probably an unpopular
opinion (and I know there are some reasonable arguments in favor of Spivak,
such as support for legal persons).
Gaelan
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 8:04 PM, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 18:43 Jason Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> [Informal title: "Pronouns"]
>>
>> {
>>
>> The singular non-gendered pronoun is "e" in the nominative, and "em" in
>> the accusative. Do not use "they" as a singular pronoun. Do not use
>> "he/him/his" or "she/her/her" as a singular pronoun when referring to a
>> person of unknown gender.
>>
>> }
>>
>
> I informally object. I agree that we should use e/em as the generic
> third-person singular pronoun (as we have been doing for decades), but when
> rules refer to specific individuals (which is uncommon but not all *that*
> rare), there's no reason at all to proscribe using "they" for a particular
> individual if that's the pronoun that they prefer to use in such contexts.
>
> —Warrigal
>
>>
DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 18:43 Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> [Informal title: "Pronouns"]
>
> {
>
> The singular non-gendered pronoun is "e" in the nominative, and "em" in
> the accusative. Do not use "they" as a singular pronoun. Do not use
> "he/him/his" or "she/her/her" as a singular pronoun when referring to a
> person of unknown gender.
>
> }
>
I informally object. I agree that we should use e/em as the generic
third-person singular pronoun (as we have been doing for decades), but when
rules refer to specific individuals (which is uncommon but not all *that*
rare), there's no reason at all to proscribe using "they" for a particular
individual if that's the pronoun that they prefer to use in such contexts.
—Warrigal
>
