[RULES DISCUSSION] Fixing a typo? Bicker for months

[Imperium Anglorum]

Original title: [RULES DISCUSSION] A change we can probably all agree on

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.

EDIT: So apparently, the word 'or' was included. This creates a double redundancy in the statement. Proposed change:

Duplication: From the verb 'to duplicate' - to do or 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.

I will note that I would support the removal of the redundant and pointless etymology of the quite self-evident word. But only if the Contradiction rule's section were removed as well.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Absolutely not, this is a patently absurd and frankly disgusting change that I am absolutely appalled you would even suggest. Absolutely unacceptable.

[Araraukar]

Absolutely not, this is a patently absurd and frankly disgusting change that I am absolutely appalled you would even suggest. Absolutely unacceptable.

Thanks a lot for overloading my sarcasm detector.

No opposition to the change.

---

To get the mods' approval for the change, we need to show that the GA community wants this change. Please give your vote here (it's on 2nd page of this thread).

[Bananaistan]

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

The whole sentence should go IMO.

[Separatist Peoples]

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

The whole sentence should go IMO.

Hear, hear!

[Phydios]

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.

What a ridiculous suggestion. If you don't like the Duplication rule, then just come out and say so, instead of trying to stealthily gut it like you're doing here. Then we can pass a hundred resolutions legalizing abortion instead of just two! I'm onto this little plot of yours and Araraukar's ^{No objections.} and fortunately SP, Banana, and Tinfect are as well. Your treason ends here.

[Wallenburg]

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

The whole sentence should go IMO.

Along with the rest of the rules, I suppose.

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

Honestly, I don't see why a small grammar correction has to even be discussed. If there's a typo, grammar error or redundant wording in a sentence, it should simply be corrected as soon as it's been reported.

[Araraukar]

I'm onto this little plot of yours and Araraukar's

Oi now, I'm the one wanting stricter enforcing of the existing rules, but GenSec has already decided otherwise... I know you were just joking, but thought to correct you anyway.

[States of Glory WA Office]

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.'

[Fauxia]

Is this a Rules Discussion or a Rules Disucssion?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Is this a Rules Discussion or a Rules Disucssion?

Is this pedantry or hair-splitting?

[Araraukar]

Is this a Rules Discussion or a Rules Disucssion?

Is this pedantry or hair-splitting?

All of the above.

[Fauxia]

Is this pedantry or hair-splitting?

All of the above.

Did you expect me to say something constructive?

In all "seriousness", I agreeeeeeeeeeeee with Phydios, except that it can't really be on abortion, as there's isn't much more you can do

[Imperium Anglorum]

In all seriousness, I agreeeeeeeeeeeee with Phydios, except that it can't really be on abortion, as there's isn't much more you can do

You seriously oppose a grammar correction that doesn't change anything?

[Araraukar]

In all seriousness, I agreeeeeeeeeeeee with Phydios, except that it can't really be on abortion, as there's isn't much more you can do

You seriously oppose a grammar correction that doesn't change anything?

He agrees with Phydion, whose post contains the words "No objections." in teeny-tiny letters.

[Imperium Anglorum]

He agrees with Phydion, whose post contains the words "No objections." in teeny-tiny letters.

I don't think its entirely guaranteed that the post to which I responded picked up on Phydios' post with that exact note, which is why I asked for clarification instead of just blindly assuming that Fauxia has no objections whatsoever.

[Fauxia]

He agrees with Phydion, whose post contains the words "No objections." in teeny-tiny letters.

I don't think its entirely guaranteed that the post to which I responded picked up on Phydios' post with that exact note, which is why I asked for clarification instead of just blindly assuming that Fauxia has no objections whatsoever.

My general joke is that everything is a conspiracy. No actual objections.

[Imperium Anglorum]

My general joke is that everything is a conspiracy. No actual objections.

Nods.

[Excidium Planetis]

I concur. Let's hurry up and change this already, I think we have a consensus.

[Araraukar]

I concur. Let's hurry up and change this already, I think we have a consensus.

The mods need to actually do the change - can someone in GenSec send a flare up in their private forum?

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

[Imperium Anglorum]

GenSec only wants to make actual changes to the text of the Rules after broad consensus within the community.

Makes the Senate look like a simple majoritarian body...

[Separatist Peoples]

GenSec only wants to make actual changes to the text of the Rules after broad consensus within the community.

Makes the Senate look like a simple majoritarian body...

Maybe if it wasn't like herding cats with the GA regulars...

[Araraukar]

Maybe if it wasn't like herding cats with the GA regulars...

...which Mythbusters proved to be impossible.