[RULES DISCUSSION] Fixing a typo? Bicker for months

[Imperium Anglorum]

What is the upside of making the change?

The fact we want it.

[Mallorea and Riva]

What is the upside of making the change?

The fact we want it.

Well that was just about the most unhelpful answer you could possibly have given.

What ambiguity, contradiction, or poor policy does the rule currently create that the change would fix?

[Wallenburg]

What is the upside of making the change?

I can only assume you understand what proper grammar is?

[Imperium Anglorum]

No, I'm serious. It literally doesn't matter what the upside of changing the rule is, whether it exists, etc. I created this thread as a test case to see whether the community possessed the ability, de facto, to change the ruleset. I looked for grammatical errors in the text, found one, and made the thread. Currently, there is no indication that the rules can be changed in a manner specified by the community.

Because fundamentally, either the GA community, through what one could consider its representatives, gets to change the ruleset as promised or it doesn’t. If it is the former, the contents of that change are not relevant. And even if there is moderator input, the power to veto, if it is the case that the community actually gets to enforce its own standards (i.e. the point of the creation of the Secretariat in the first place), does not lie in the moderators.

Also, Araraukar, your polling methodology is terrible. By putting multiple options and accepting only one support, you've basically torpedoed any ability to say that there is a consensus towards any one option. Instead, you've created the ability to oppose simply based on the number of red herrings thrown into the mix. This is exactly what I satirised in that piece you didn't read:

The third accepted means of obstruction is the Alternative Proposal. This is a form of Red Herring. As soon three or more alternatives are in the field, there is pretty sure to be a majority against any one of them, and nothing will be done.

Please don't quote past this here! Thank you!

---

Anyway, for a more reasonable poll.

NMEC1 (YES: 13 ; NO: 0)

In the first sentence of the Duplication rule, the words "do or" and "over again" shall be omitted. (This is the change I propose in the OP.)

NMEC2 (YES: 8 ; NO: 5)

The first sentence of the Duplication rule shall be omitted. The first sentence of the Contradiction rule shall be omitted. (This eliminates both definitions.)

Please vote on BOTH non-mutually exclusive choices, saying YES or NO, preferably in a standalone post, as follows:

Code: Select all

# [i]nmecpoll20171201typofix[/i] , please do not remove or re-quote this tag. It is provided here to ease in searches for specific posts. Please include it when casting your ballot. The original poll post can be found [post=32998847]here[/post].

[b]NMEC1:[/b] YES
[b]NMEC2:[/b] YES

Edits after the time stamp after the post below. Bolded the tags in the ballot code (1 Dec 2017, 00:55). Added a message saying not to quote after the response to past material in the top (1 Dec 2017, 00:56). Updated polling numbers (1 Dec 2017, 17:39:59)

[Imperium Anglorum]

# nmecpoll20171201typofix , please do not remove or re-quote this tag. It is provided here to ease in searches for specific posts. Please include it when casting your ballot. The original poll post can be found here.

NMEC1: YES
NMEC2: YES

[The Atlae Isles]

# nmecpoll20171201typofix , please do not remove or re-quote this tag. It is provided here to ease in searches for specific posts. Please include it when casting your ballot. The original poll post can be found here.

NMEC1: YES
NMEC2: YES

[Mallorea and Riva]

No, I'm serious. It literally doesn't matter what the upside of changing the rule is, whether it exists, etc. I created this thread as a test case to see whether the community possessed the ability, de facto, to change the ruleset. I looked for grammatical errors in the text, found one, and made the thread. Currently, there is no indication that the rules can be changed in a manner specified by the community.

Because fundamentally, either the GA community, through what one could consider its representatives, gets to change the ruleset as promised or it doesn’t. If it is the former, the contents of that change are not relevant. And even if there is moderator input, the power to veto, if it is the case that the community actually gets to enforce its own standards (i.e. the point of the creation of the Secretariat in the first place), does not lie in the moderators.

I asked why you wanted the rule change, and rather than answering you threw snark at me. "We want it" by itself isn't particularly availing for inspiring rapid action, and while I am happy to go in and make edits, a reason beyond not enjoying the joke implicit in the duplication rule would have been helpful in speeding things up on what is otherwise apparently not a meaningful problem. You're not asking for the substantive rule to change. You're just asking for a Department of Redundancy Department joke to be taken out of it.

If you have a proposed change about something substantive, something that actually changes the rules in a meaningful way, you'll probably get a more enthusiastic response than this. You got a mod, in the thread, trying to engage in the conversation so he could explain the edit to other mods if/when they asked about it. I didn't get a helpful answer.

All of that having been said, I really don't mind making the change. I'll see what your poll says since apparently the one from before was incapable of being acted on anyways, and then make the change.

[Drasnia]

# nmecpoll20171201typofix , please do not remove or re-quote this tag. It is provided here to ease in searches for specific posts. Please include it when casting your ballot. The original poll post can be found here.

NMEC1: YES
NMEC2: YES

[Auralia]

# nmecpoll20171201typofix , please do not remove or re-quote this tag. It is provided here to ease in searches for specific posts. Please include it when casting your ballot. The original poll post can be found here.

NMEC1: YES
NMEC2: YES

[Excidium Planetis]

# nmecpoll20171201typofix , please do not remove or re-quote this tag. It is provided here to ease in searches for specific posts. Please include it when casting your ballot. The original poll post can be found here.

NMEC1: YES
NMEC2: YES

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

# nmecpoll20171201typofix , please do not remove or re-quote this tag. It is provided here to ease in searches for specific posts. Please include it when casting your ballot. The original poll post can be found here.

NMEC1: YES
NMEC2: NO

[Reploid Productions]

So.... what exactly is stopping this poll from being puppet-stacked?

[Excidium Planetis]

So.... what exactly is stopping this poll from being puppet-stacked?

The fact that everyone who has so far posted is a known GA regular and not a puppet? I'm pretty sure we can tell if a bunch of puppets started voting.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

# nmecpoll20171201typofix

NMEC1: Yes
NMEC2: Yes

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

So.... what exactly is stopping this poll from being puppet-stacked?

The fact that everyone who has so far posted is a known GA regular and not a puppet? I'm pretty sure we can tell if a bunch of puppets started voting.

For that matter, given the number of votes, it should not be difficult to quickly confirm that each voter is a WA member. If someone manages to puppet stack a WA-multi scheme without anyone noticing, so be it.

[Kenmoria]

# nmecpoll20171201typofix , please do not remove or re-quote this tag. It is provided here to ease in searches for specific posts. Please include it when casting your ballot. The original poll post can be found here.

NMEC1: YES
NMEC2: NO

[Wallenburg]

# nmecpoll20171201typofix , please do not remove or re-quote this tag. It is provided here to ease in searches for specific posts. Please include it when casting your ballot. The original poll post can be found here.

NMEC1: YES
NMEC2: NO

[United Massachusetts]

# nmecpoll20171201typofix , please do not remove or re-quote this tag. It is provided here to ease in searches for specific posts. Please include it when casting your ballot. The original poll post can be found here.

NMEC1: YES
NMEC2: YES

[Cekoviu]

# nmecpoll20171201typofix , please do not remove or re-quote this tag. It is provided here to ease in searches for specific posts. Please include it when casting your ballot. The original poll post can be found here.

NMEC1: YES
NMEC2: NO

[Ahma]

# nmecpoll20171201typofix , please do not remove or re-quote this tag. It is provided here to ease in searches for specific posts. Please include it when casting your ballot. The original poll post can be found here.

NMEC1: YES
NMEC2: YES

[Fauxia]

# nmecpoll20171201typofix , please do not remove or re-quote this tag. It is provided here to ease in searches for specific posts. Please include it when casting your ballot. The original poll post can be found here.

NMEC1: YES
NMEC2: NO

[Imperium Anglorum]

Up to date.

NMEC1: 1
NMEC2: 1

I am interpreting 1 in this context to mean yes. Of course, having it say YES would certainly eliminate any need for interpretation and that line of criticism of this poll. Can you confirm that?

[States of Glory WA Office]

# nmecpoll20171201typofix , please do not remove or re-quote this tag. It is provided here to ease in searches for specific posts. Please include it when casting your ballot. The original poll post can be found here.

NMEC1: YES
NMEC2: NO

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Up to date.

NMEC1: 1
NMEC2: 1

I am interpreting 1 in this context to mean yes. Of course, having it say YES would certainly eliminate any need for interpretation and that line of criticism of this poll. Can you confirm that?

Updated. Apologies but I interpreted your original instructions as asking us to vote 1 for yes and 0 for no.

[Imperium Anglorum]

So basically we got like 100%.