View Topic

As a new member, I'd like to say that I found the post requirement a bit of a hassle not because of the requirement itself being in place, but because the community isn't very active in the places I could access and so my options for posting meaningful content were pretty limited.

To an extent, they still are, and this is one of the slowest-moving forum communities I'm currently in.

Things to note: I joined with the full intention of participating in this community and was actively looking for ways to meaningfully do so. I'm also chronically allergic to spamming and necroposting, and I also read through all the documentation on the region I could find before joining up.

I fully understand and agree with the reason why the post requirement was put into place, and I really don't think five posts is a lot generally, but the activity levels in new-blood-friendly areas is a bit lacking at the moment, especially if the new blood is not as precocious as I am to leap straight into weighing in on the more administrative things in the region.

I don't think the requirement needs to be waived, however, if more activity could be injected into the community areas. Something as simple as a "post to introduce yourself" thread which explicitly counts towards your post count could make all the difference.

=Something as simple as a "post to introduce yourself" thread which explicitly counts towards your post count could make all the difference.

Hmm, that's a good point. I just noticed that there isn't even explicitly an introductions subforum anymore (intros are in Gatekeep's Post, but aren't in its description); I'm guessing it got overlooked when AMAs got moved back into a separate subforum?

I have a repeal drafted up that I'll introduce into the Underhusen if we are to repeal that requirement.

Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act

Title
1. This bill shall be titled the Citizenship Post Requirement Repeal Act.

Amendments
2. Section 2.1 of the Citizenship and Demonym Act shall be stricken null and void with all subsequent sections being renumbered accordingly.
 2.1 As such, the Citizenship Integration Amendment Act shall, itself, be considered repealed.

@Mathyland could we get these commas checked?

(I'd recommend "As such, the Citizenship Integration Amendment Act shall itself be considered repealed." Capitalization is altered to be consistent with Section 1 of the Citizenship Integration Amendment Act.)

@Mathyland could we get these commas checked?

(I'd recommend "As such, the Citizenship Integration Amendment Act shall itself be considered repealed." Capitalization is altered to be consistent with Section 1 of the Citizenship Integration Amendment Act.)

Hey! You took my job!

To be fair I consider the word itself in that sentence to be separate from the rest of the sentence, somewhat like an interjection...it's kinda hard to describe how I viewed it, however it may very well be grammatically incorrect.

To be fair I consider the word itself in that sentence to be separate from the rest of the sentence, somewhat like an interjection...it's kinda hard to describe how I viewed it, however it may very well be grammatically incorrect.

It's just how I would write it. Having the commas there probably is grammatically correct, if not better.

I'll have to agree with tau on that.

Edit: Er, I mean I think there should be no commas around "itself".

"be stricken" should be "be struck".

I'm not sure if a full repeal is in order though.

To be fair I consider the word itself in that sentence to be separate from the rest of the sentence, somewhat like an interjection...it's kinda hard to describe how I viewed it, however it may very well be grammatically incorrect.

I think the word you're looking for is appositive, but I don't think that counts as an appositive.

"be stricken" should be "be struck".

I'm not sure if a full repeal is in order though.

According to this, it should be "be stricken"

When you strike a part from a document, it is stricken from the document.

(Italics added by me)

"be stricken" should be "be struck".

I'm not sure if a full repeal is in order though.

According to this, it should be "be stricken"

When you strike a part from a document, it is stricken from the document.

(Italics added by me)

Ah, the intricacies of irregular conjugations.

Especially considering things are struck from the record.

"be stricken" should be "be struck".

Stricken is nonstandard but still grammatically correct, particularly in legal usage.

To be fair I consider the word itself in that sentence to be separate from the rest of the sentence, somewhat like an interjection...it's kinda hard to describe how I viewed it, however it may very well be grammatically incorrect.

I think the word you're looking for is appositive, but I don't think that counts as an appositive.

You could probably go with the broader term, a parenthetical phrase.

(I'm trying to revive this discussion)

I don't think it would be a bad idea to try the repeal and see how it goes. If some people make the citizenship application post and then leave, so what? They'll have their citizenship revoked soon after anyway. With more motivation to recruit combined with no 5 post requirement, we would probably get more active citizens. This is my opinion, at least.

I also think that adding an "introduce yourself" subforum is a good idea.