[RULES DISCUSSION] Fixing a typo? Bicker for months

[Tzorsland]

...which Mythbusters proved to be impossible.

Really? I thought my insane idea of using catnip filled robots and laser pointers was fool proof.

[Excidium Planetis]

So, Wrapper tried to sneak a typo fix in, but the rule now reads like this:

Duplication: From the verb 'to duplicate' - to do or repeat a specific action or concept over again.

Which is redundant. Repeat an action over again?

Can we still get this fixed?

[Fauxia]

So, Wrapper tried to sneak a typo fix in, but the rule now reads like this:

Duplication: From the verb 'to duplicate' - to do or repeat a specific action or concept over again.

Which is redundant. Repeat an action over again?

Can we still get this fixed?

Agreed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So the duplication rule repeats the definition of the word duplication, basically, three times now. It repeats itself as farce.

[Fauxia]

So the duplication rule repeats the definition of the word duplication, basically, three times now. It repeats itself as farce.

You mean it repeats itself over again?

[Frisbeeteria]

It repeats itself as farce.

We have no place for such tautological and pleonastic redundancies.

[The South Falls]

Duplication: From the verb 'to duplicate' - to do repeat a specific action or concept over again. Proposals may elaborate in specific areas of policy, where broad legislation exists but may not replicate specific policy. Authors may re-iterate in general terms a minor part of existing policy to provide support to their proposal.

Delete the words struck out and highlighted in red.

No opposition, been waiting for this

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

So, Wrapper tried to sneak a typo fix in, but the rule now reads like this:

Duplication: From the verb 'to duplicate' - to do or repeat a specific action or concept over again.

Which is redundant. Repeat an action over again?

Can we still get this fixed?

Why do I get the feeling Wrapper did that intentionally?

[Wrapper]

Hey, don't look at me, I just fixed a typo.

[Araraukar]

Why do I get the feeling Wrapper did that intentionally?

Probably not Wrapper... *eyes Fris speculatively*

[Frisbeeteria]

*eyes Fris speculatively*

OK, I suppose I deserve that dirty look after this post ... but I haven't made any changes.

On anything requiring changes to game rules, I'm not doing anything simply because somebody has identified a problem. You (collectively) also need to come up with a solution, and have a consensus in the thread to have that solution implemented. Once that is done, GenSec can contact the mods to make the changes.

[Wallenburg]

*eyes Fris speculatively*

OK, I suppose I deserve that dirty look after this post ... but I haven't made any changes.

On anything requiring changes to game rules, I'm not doing anything simply because somebody has identified a problem. You (collectively) also need to come up with a solution, and have a consensus in the thread to have that solution implemented. Once that is done, GenSec can contact the mods to make the changes.

We already came up with a solution in the OP, and agreed to it. Instead of seeing that implemented, we got an extra "or".

[Araraukar]

I think Fris's hesitance is based on all of this:

I can't and don't agree to this.

The whole sentence should go IMO.

Hear, hear!

In addition to the proposed change, I would like to suggest the addition of a 'Repetition' rule:

'Resolutions are not allowed to repeat the mandates of prior resolutions, render prior resolutions redundant through their active clauses, overlap with prior resolutions or repeat the mandates of prior resolutions.'

GenSec only wants to make actual changes to the text of the Rules after broad consensus within the community. Thus our general hesitation to do anything at a rush. Now, this one seems to have a lot of support, but the other proposed changes are being similarly treated. I can this one up the GenSec flagpole if y'all want, but we're going to ask for a lot more input before we run the rest up.

So we need a vote, obviously. I can tally scores and will TG everyone who's posted on this thread (minus those who post their vote here) to get their votes as well.

---

Choose one of the following:

1) Correct the rule the way IA suggested in the OP.

2) Remove the definition of duplication from the rule, otherwise keep rule as is.

3) Changing the whole rule to be more in line with SoG's suggestion of a "Repetition" rule.

4) Something else. Explanation of the change you want, please.

---

Results so far:

Option 1: 9

Option 2: 3

Option 3: 0

Option 4: 0

---

My vote is option 2, actually, since if anyone needs to look up "duplication" in a dictionary, they probably shouldn't be writing proposals without drafting in the first place...

[Bananaistan]

Option 5 for me.

[Araraukar]

Option 5 for me.

Is this an oddly worded "could you add option 5 for "no change", please?" Because option 2 is from what you said earlier in this thread.

[Fauxia]

I support Option 1, not that anyone should care

[Wrapper]

My vote is option 2

Option 5 for me.

I support Option 1

So much for "A change we can probably all agree on".

[Fauxia]

My vote is option 2

Option 5 for me.

I support Option 1

So much for "A change we can probably all agree on".

Now, now, Wrapper, we all agree it should be changed, but how?

[Excidium Planetis]

I vote Option 1.

[Separatist Peoples]

Option J-5

[Wallenburg]

OOpRtDiEoORn 166

[Auralia]

Option 1.

[Tinfect]

1) Correct the rule the way IA suggested in the OP.

OOC:
Pretty clear-cut, it's a matter of grammar.

[Araraukar]

Added votes so far (Tinfect being latest). Also, anyone putting in a number other than the options given, gets put in option 4 (*glares at SP and Banana*). If someone starts putting in strange numbers like the pi or e or such, I'll just ignore them. If we want any changes made, we need to actually be serious about making them.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Option 2. That whole first bit is extraneous and redundant.