View Topic

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]).

Yeah. I used Articles because I felt it might be the best for the law I was going for, especially since I was updating an 'Old-Style' law.

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]).

Yeah. I used Articles because I felt it might be the best for the law I was going for, especially since I was updating an 'Old-Style' law.

To be quite honest, I think I had also thought at the time that you might have used Number.Number there for that reason as well.

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]).

Yeah. I used Articles because I felt it might be the best for the law I was going for, especially since I was updating an 'Old-Style' law.

To be quite honest, I think I had also thought at the time that you might have used Number.Number there for that reason as well.

Nah, the Number.Numbers style was more-so because that's what I always use. I just avoid Subsections where possible.

Nah, the Number.Numbers style was more-so because that's what I always use. I just avoid Subsections where possible.

Please trim your quotes, for the love of all Potatoe

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]).

Yeah. I used Articles because I felt it might be the best for the law I was going for, especially since I was updating an 'Old-Style' law.

To be quite honest, I think I had also thought at the time that you might have used Number.Number there for that reason as well.

Nah, the Number.Numbers style was more-so because that's what I always use. I just avoid Subsections where possible.

Please trim your quotes, for the love of all Potatoe

Why?

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]).

Yeah. I used Articles because I felt it might be the best for the law I was going for, especially since I was updating an 'Old-Style' law.

To be quite honest, I think I had also thought at the time that you might have used Number.Number there for that reason as well.

Nah, the Number.Numbers style was more-so because that's what I always use. I just avoid Subsections where possible.

Please trim your quotes, for the love of all Potatoe

Why?

throwback

Guys, I would rather avoid a second Megaquote scenario. Thanks.

Also, much like "shall," "is to be" creates an ambiguity where it could either mean "will" or "has to."
(...)
I mean, imo bolding is enough for most typed headings.

I'm not sure ambiguity is a good thing when it comes to laws. Then again, it does allow for leeway... I'll leave that to the more lawyer-ly minded among us.

And I do agree regarding headings. I preferred underlining them to bolding them, though, and it was an adjustment period to switch formatting.

+

Seeing the above conversation, I'll avoid commenting on subsection formatting in the future. It seems like too much of an individual style preference thing for me to mess with.

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

I'm not sure ambiguity is a good thing when it comes to laws. Then again, it does allow for leeway... I'll leave that to the more lawyer-ly minded among us.

Precisely. That is why "shall" generally doesn't pop up in modern laws IRL anymore, and why Chanku proposed the Shall Eradication Act some time back.

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

I'm not sure ambiguity is a good thing when it comes to laws. Then again, it does allow for leeway... I'll leave that to the more lawyer-ly minded among us.

Precisely. That is why "shall" generally doesn't pop up in modern laws IRL anymore, and why Chanku proposed the Shall Eradication Act some time back.

Huh, interesting. I'm increasingly wanting to make Wintreath a style guide... as soon as I figure out how to do that.

Seeing the above conversation, I'll avoid commenting on subsection formatting in the future. It seems like too much of an individual style preference thing for me to mess with.

I also hadn't realized that there had been this individual style preference thing going on here, considering that every modern style Wintrean law passed with subheadings has used letters for them. I suppose we both see this now.