On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 18:35, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >>> On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > >>>>> Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> > >>>>> Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> > >>>>> "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
> > >>>
> > >>> This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
> > >>> "stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
> > >>> which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).
> > >>>
> > >>> -G.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent
> > in
> > >> the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but
> > it's
> > >> also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.
> > >
> > > Yes, there is? From the OED, one of the definitions of stately is "Of
> > > movement or gait: slow and dignified; deliberate, sedate". So it's
> > > like saying, "in a sedate fashion". I could use that if people would
> > > prefer?
> >
> > No, I think I'm having the same reaction to "stately" (or any other single
> > word) that you had when I suggested replacing "CAN and SHALL" with WILL.
> > The slight extra verbiage in "officially timely" is worth the precision,
> > in that it ties into other rules-terms ("offices" and "timely fashion").
>
>
> I opine that the two situations are completely different. In the "WILL"
> situation, the change would break composition. It's pretty obvious what CAN
> means, and pretty obvious what SHALL means, and pretty obvious what they
> mean when you use them together, but when you introduce the term "WILL"
> that gets hidden.
>
> By contrast, let's look at the difference between "officially timely" and
> "timely". Looking at those terms, I have absolutely no clue what the
> difference is. The word "officially" adds nothing, apart from the idea that
> it applies to offices. But it doesn't tell me if it's a shorter amount of
> time, a longer amount of time, or the same amount of them with some other
> implication. Plus, "timely fashion" also often applies to offices, so the
> extra word is actively confusing without adding any meaning. You say it
> "ties into other rules-terms", which would be great if those terms added
> some additional meaning, but they tell a reader absolutely nothing about
> what the term actually means.
>
> Now let's look at the difference between "timely" and
> "stately/sedate/whatever". "timely" implies promptness. The other terms
> imply less promptness. So I can surmise that if an officer had to do
> something in a "sedate fashion", that means e has more time to do it than
> an officer who has to do it in a "timely fashion". This would be correct.
> So it's actually easier for an uninformed reader to understand than the
> current phrasing, despite adding a new term.
>
> -ArisFor what it's worth, I read "stately" as a pun meaning kind of slow and also state-related, and immediately liked it. Thinking about it more, I guess if someone read "the Officiator SHALL transfer the Orb in a stately fashion" in isolation, it might not be obvious that the "in a stately fashion" has anything to do with time. Still, it would be nice to be able to incorporate the terminology somehow because it's fun and reads more smoothly. - Falsifian
