[DISCUSSION] Proposition for Strength Rule Change

[Wallenburg]

The strength rule contains a typo. "Specific" is used as a verb, despite being an adjective. This word should be replaced with "specify".

Current Strength rule:

Strength: This determines the effect a proposal has on a nation's policy. A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant. Some categories don't use strength but rather a specific area, so proposals will need to specific the area of policy affected from a pre-populated list of options. These options do have a statistical effect and strength.

Proposed Strength rule:

Strength: This determines the effect a proposal has on a nation's policy. A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant. Some categories don't use strength but rather a specific area, so proposals will need to specify the area of policy affected from a pre-populated list of options. These options do have a statistical effect and strength.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Fucking hell. The whole rules really are full of typos.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Not to be a bomb-throwing radical or an autocratic tyrant, but is there any actual objection to the idea that we don't need a lengthy discussion to fix a typo, where the error and the solution are both obvious? Such as this one? Or (to cite another example) the obvious numerical disagreement in the Honest Mistake rule?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yea, but the last time we tried that, we got nowhere. Remember the redundancy joke typo in the Duplication and Contradiction rules?

[Frisbeeteria]

I'm not interested in dragging this out, so I just went and made the proposed change.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm not interested in dragging this out, so I just went and made the proposed change.

[Wallenburg]

Not to be a bomb-throwing radical or an autocratic tyrant, but is there any actual objection to the idea that we don't need a lengthy discussion to fix a typo, where the error and the solution are both obvious? Such as this one? Or (to cite another example) the obvious numerical disagreement in the Honest Mistake rule?

It took us months to get another typo half-fixed, so yeah, this seemed necessary.

I'm not interested in dragging this out, so I just went and made the proposed change.

Thanks.