View Topic

Seems fine to me

The style of Number.Number is the correct formatting for all intents and purposes. The only laws that use letters are as follows:

• Procedural Rules of the [Overhusen/Underhusen] - Written well before any standards, as such they are to be considered Ancient when writing laws and their style shouldn't be copied. Due to their nature, it might be best to leave the styling as it is, as they are so old and are 'procedural rules'.
• All Commendation Acts - I have never written one, and the first one was written before styles had fully 'cemented' for all laws. These laws should be updated and should not have been passed with this styling (especially the more recent ones)
• Definition of Abstention Act - Doesn't follow formatting that an earlier definition act used, so I'm unsure why this styling was used beyond potentially being that the author might have been used to a different style used in a different region. This is an oddity and should be corrected.
• Point Breeze Paragon Act - This is the only Paragon Act to use this formatting, which I don't understand. Perhaps there was a common author with the other acts that just used this styling for whatever reason. Much like the Definition of Absention Act this should be updated.
• Revocation of Citizenship (Govindia) - Due to the nature of this act an alternative style was used (In this instance, style was less important than the act itself). I did not write it, and I don't entirely recall who did. Due to this, it is likely the Author either looked to semi-similiar acts or used a style they were personally more familiar with. In any case this law should be updated.

I would consider the letter form of subsections to be archaic and would ask any new laws going forward to adhere to the styling approach used throughout the rest of our laws

I would have to disagree with this assessment of common legal style in Wintreath.

The style of Number.Number.Number is archaic and is only used in older laws: The Citizenship and Demonym Act, The Paragon Recognition Omnibus Amendment Act, The Judicial Offices Act, The Charax Romanov Act, The Insenjar Act, Code of Criminal Laws, The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendments I-VI, the Statement on Wintrean Mobilization in Defense of Lazarus, and the Underhusen Seats for the 4th Sorting Act and its repeal. (Also as an aside you missed the Weissrech Paragon Act and several Underhusen Resolutions which also used letters.)

What is important to notice here is that the Number.Number.Number style uses the first number for the headings and the second number for the clauses, with a third number used for subsections. On the other hand, the letter-subsections style has unnumbered headings. This is the style that has been used entirely over the past several years. Other laws that use no number for the headings, even without any letters for subsections, are thus implicitly still following this format which has since gained the most widespread/near-complete use in Underhusen legislation.

If we start using Number.Number.Number again, that would be returning to an archaic style that has not been used in years. If we use Number.Number for subsections but continue with the accepted common/contemporary style of unnumbered headings, we would be essentially creating a new style that mixes up the old and current ones.

(However, this law also isn't in line with the letter-subsection style, as the number does not get repeated with the letters in this style.)

Well if you two want to get your panties in so much of a bunch over formatting consistency, that’s all well and good. I’ll change it to reflect the number-letter format or whatever it’s called that tau mentioned, but keep in mind that I think formatting is a very unimportant aspect of the legislative process, and so I really don’t care. As long as it’s consistent throughout the individual document, it’s fine by me.

The style of Number.Number is the correct formatting for all intents and purposes. The only laws that use letters are as follows:

• Procedural Rules of the [Overhusen/Underhusen] - Written well before any standards, as such they are to be considered Ancient when writing laws and their style shouldn't be copied. Due to their nature, it might be best to leave the styling as it is, as they are so old and are 'procedural rules'.
• All Commendation Acts - I have never written one, and the first one was written before styles had fully 'cemented' for all laws. These laws should be updated and should not have been passed with this styling (especially the more recent ones)
• Definition of Abstention Act - Doesn't follow formatting that an earlier definition act used, so I'm unsure why this styling was used beyond potentially being that the author might have been used to a different style used in a different region. This is an oddity and should be corrected.
• Point Breeze Paragon Act - This is the only Paragon Act to use this formatting, which I don't understand. Perhaps there was a common author with the other acts that just used this styling for whatever reason. Much like the Definition of Absention Act this should be updated.
• Revocation of Citizenship (Govindia) - Due to the nature of this act an alternative style was used (In this instance, style was less important than the act itself). I did not write it, and I don't entirely recall who did. Due to this, it is likely the Author either looked to semi-similiar acts or used a style they were personally more familiar with. In any case this law should be updated.

I would consider the letter form of subsections to be archaic and would ask any new laws going forward to adhere to the styling approach used throughout the rest of our laws

I would have to disagree with this assessment of common legal style in Wintreath.

The style of Number.Number.Number is archaic and is only used in older laws: The Citizenship and Demonym Act, The Paragon Recognition Omnibus Amendment Act, The Judicial Offices Act, The Charax Romanov Act, The Insenjar Act, Code of Criminal Laws, The Procedural Rules of the Underhusen Amendments I-VI, the Statement on Wintrean Mobilization in Defense of Lazarus, and the Underhusen Seats for the 4th Sorting Act and its repeal. (Also as an aside you missed the Weissrech Paragon Act and several Underhusen Resolutions which also used letters.)

What is important to notice here is that the Number.Number.Number style uses the first number for the headings and the second number for the clauses, with a third number used for subsections. On the other hand, the letter-subsections style has unnumbered headings. This is the style that has been used entirely over the past several years. Other laws that use no number for the headings, even without any letters for subsections, are thus implicitly still following this format which has since gained the most widespread/near-complete use in Underhusen legislation.

If we start using Number.Number.Number again, that would be returning to an archaic style that has not been used in years. If we use Number.Number for subsections but continue with the accepted common/contemporary style of unnumbered headings, we would be essentially creating a new style that mixes up the old and current ones.

(However, this law also isn't in line with the letter-subsection style, as the number does not get repeated with the letters in this style.)

I was talking Number/Number.Number style (new style) which is used in modern laws, not the Old Style of laws. An example of the law written under this style would be as follows:

Title
1. TEXT HERE

Heading
2. Section Text
2.1 Sub-Section Text
2.1.1 Sub-Sub-Section Text
2.1.2 Sub-Sub-Section Text
2.2 Sub-Section Text
2.2.1 Sub-Sub-Sub Section Text

3. Section Text

Most laws generally go for splitting it up and avoiding subsections, but generally this is what I would consider to be 'common style' now-a-days. (Note formatting on Headings is my personal choice)

I was talking Number/Number.Number style (new style) which is used in modern laws, not the Old Style of laws. An example of the law written under this style would be as follows:

Title
1. TEXT HERE

Heading
2. Section Text
2.1 Sub-Section Text
2.1.1 Sub-Sub-Section Text
2.1.2 Sub-Sub-Section Text
2.2 Sub-Section Text
2.2.1 Sub-Sub-Sub Section Text

3. Section Text

Most laws generally go for splitting it up and avoiding subsections, but generally this is what I would consider to be 'common style' now-a-days. (Note formatting on Headings is my personal choice)

Could you provide me with examples of passed laws using this style? I'm having trouble finding a single law using this style (in contrast, both of us found many examples of laws using letters as subsections).

Well if you two want to get your panties in so much of a bunch over formatting consistency, that’s all well and good. I’ll change it to reflect the number-letter format or whatever it’s called that tau mentioned, but keep in mind that I think formatting is a very unimportant aspect of the legislative process, and so I really don’t care. As long as it’s consistent throughout the individual document, it’s fine by me.

To be quite honest, I don't particularly care very much what the formatting of the laws is either, though consistency across laws would be a plus for me. If Chanku used this style as her preferred one, for instance, I don't think I would particularly object. But as far as I can tell and remember, suggesting that this is the common style in Wintreath is simply rather inaccurate.

I think I will remind everyone that we are all friends here and I'm sure nobody means ill towards anyone else.

Apologies for the sharp words on my part @Chanku @taulover as well as my inactivity over the past couple of days. The following are my changes to the legislation:

I personally believe it should be a number-letter system, solely because it makes it clearer which are subsections when citing them.

However, the number.number system is a very common system and is even used in my Student Government. Therefore, I'll be using that system.

4c. Should a dispute still exist after 48 hours the Speaker or Chairman must bring the amendment to a vote.

Added this as section 4.3.

Two things, first, I want to be absolutely sure that this is the correct version?

Second, in 4. I just want to clarify. If I am reading this correctly, it says that the Speaker may elect to explain the changes he makes or present an amendment. It somewhat implies that, in matters that are not statutory, the Speaker does not have to present an amendment even if there is significant opposition in the UH. Now, I may be mistaken so I just want to check, is that the intent of this section?

I've now changed it to reflect my proposed wording:

"...may elect to either explain their changes or present the amendments as proposed legislation to the appropriate chamber."

Excellent, thank you, Katie. And don't worry, we all go off once in a while, lord knows I've done it in the past, so long as we all know at the end of the day we are all on the same side :]

I'm still very confused with respect to @Chanku's claim that the Number.Number system (with the example she gave) has been used in contemporary Wintreath laws.

I see no issue with switching to Number.Number as a new system in Wintreath and a common system in the wider world, but I'm nevertheless not seeing it being used in any existing Wintrean laws.

I'm personally a fan of numbers and letters, it was the common formatting in the Elemental Republic of Spiritus, and the format followed here. But that's just a personal preference.

I still see no issue in the content of the proposal itself.

Unneeded Words: "to be" - I can't recall if this is personal style choice or not, but adding "to be" weakens the phrase.

Also, much like "shall," "is to be" creates an ambiguity where it could either mean "will" or "has to."

Also, this is just something interesting, but apparently you aren't supposed to use underlines in any digital media, else confuse some poor soul that there are links where none are found. Which is annoying because underlining headings is useful. This is irrelevant here, but it's a good fact to know in general.

I mean, imo bolding is enough for most typed headings.

I'm still very confused with respect to @Chanku's claim that the Number.Number system (with the example she gave) has been used in contemporary Wintreath laws.

I see no issue with switching to Number.Number as a new system in Wintreath and a common system in the wider world, but I'm nevertheless not seeing it being used in any existing Wintrean laws.

It's the formatting that I use in all of my laws, I just tend to avoid subsections when I can, as such it's not as prominent.

I'm still very confused with respect to @Chanku's claim that the Number.Number system (with the example she gave) has been used in contemporary Wintreath laws.

I see no issue with switching to Number.Number as a new system in Wintreath and a common system in the wider world, but I'm nevertheless not seeing it being used in any existing Wintrean laws.

It's the formatting that I use in all of my laws, I just tend to avoid subsections when I can, as such it's not as prominent.

Do you have any examples? Sorry about asking this again, I've been searching through the laws archive and honestly can't find any.

Though tbh I think the actual style convention that has arisen is to avoid subsections whenever possible (but still using letters as subsections when they are used).

I'm still very confused with respect to @Chanku's claim that the Number.Number system (with the example she gave) has been used in contemporary Wintreath laws.

I see no issue with switching to Number.Number as a new system in Wintreath and a common system in the wider world, but I'm nevertheless not seeing it being used in any existing Wintrean laws.

It's the formatting that I use in all of my laws, I just tend to avoid subsections when I can, as such it's not as prominent.

Do you have any examples? Sorry about asking this again, I've been searching through the laws archive and honestly can't find any.

Though tbh I think the actual style convention that has arisen is to avoid subsections whenever possible (but still using letters as subsections when they are used).

As most of the laws I have introduced don't use Subsections, I can't think of any that I have introduced (lord knows I have hundreds sitting around on old computers out there). I think the closest would be the Criminal Code that I introduced which MIGHT use Subsections and explicitly lays out Number.Number

I'm still very confused with respect to @Chanku's claim that the Number.Number system (with the example she gave) has been used in contemporary Wintreath laws.

I see no issue with switching to Number.Number as a new system in Wintreath and a common system in the wider world, but I'm nevertheless not seeing it being used in any existing Wintrean laws.

It's the formatting that I use in all of my laws, I just tend to avoid subsections when I can, as such it's not as prominent.

Do you have any examples? Sorry about asking this again, I've been searching through the laws archive and honestly can't find any.

Though tbh I think the actual style convention that has arisen is to avoid subsections whenever possible (but still using letters as subsections when they are used).

As most of the laws I have introduced don't use Subsections, I can't think of any that I have introduced (lord knows I have hundreds sitting around on old computers out there). I think the closest would be the Criminal Code that I introduced which MIGHT use Subsections and explicitly lays out Number.Number

Ah, this one? Would explain it, I was only looking at passed laws I suppose.

Somewhat off-topic but this one also has numbered headings titled as Articles (but I can see why that may be avoided; articles being used as the name for the first-level division is uncommon and I've only really seen it in the US Constitution and our Fundamental Laws [it's usually used as the lowest-level division]).