[2439.DE.A] Discretionary Edits compilation from the Chair Vol. I

Hello all,

In accordance with sub-section 8 of section 2 of the Legislative Procedure Act.

The Chair presents the following proposed discretionary edits below for three days, to allow for any potential comments legislators may have (you have no idea how long this post took to format). These edits are to a variety of different pieces of legislation, primarily focusing on formatting, with a mixture of grammatical and punctuation corrections. If anyone has any questions or thoughts, please don’t hesitate to ask them below. :slightly_smiling_face:

Please find Volumes II & III also.

Without further ado:

Discretionary Edits to the Treaty of the Shining Seas (with Europeia)
Discretionary Edits to the World Assembly Act
Discretionary Edits to the Military Code
Discretionary Edits to the Criminal Code
Discretionary Edits to the Elections Act
Discretionary Edits to the Legislator Act
Discretionary Edits to the Citizenship Act
Discretionary Edits to the Judicial Act
Discretionary Edits to The Aegis Accords
Discretionary Edits to the Proscription Act
Discretionary Edits to the Cultural Act
Discretionary Edits to the Treaties Act

Yours faithfully,
BlockBuster2K43, Chair of the Assembly

I’m disappointed that you haven’t secretly hidden something which gives you supreme and unlimited power into these minor typographical edits. Bad form, you aren’t doing chair right.

6 Likes

Or it’s hidden so well that even us old fogies can’t see it. In which case, well played.

3 Likes

I appreciate the thoroughness of this, and there are some grammatical errors, but a lot of these feel… really unnecessary. There’s no point cluttering our legislative history over things that aren’t errors.

Legislative Procedure Act: what prompted this change? I favor serial commas over serial semicolons unless the list items contain intervening punctuation or are otherwise confusing. Neither is the case here.

Military Code: what is the point of the changes to 1(2)? Other than the missing ‘of,’ I don’t see any grammatical errors in the original text that need to be corrected. Also, ‘alongside’ is, according to numerous dictionaries, not a conjunction. What’s wrong with using ‘and’ as a conjunction?

Criminal Code: same deal as with the gratuitous and unnecessary use of serial semicolons as in the LPA.

Elections Act: again, with 1(2), ‘alongside’ is not a conjunction. There’s nothing wrong with the word ‘and.’

Legislator Act: serial semicolons…

Judicial Act: same as above. Also, any sensible reading of 2(1)a would read ‘discord’ as its dictionary definition — loosely meaning disagreement or quarreling — and not as a reference to the communication platform.

Cultural Act: serial semicolons again. Sorry for bringing it up over and over but I think it’s clearer if I post comments about each proposed change.

Edit: not going to clutter up that topic but same comment from me on the serial semicolons in the Regional Communication Act.

The Chair, does have power to do Discretionary Edits, and I am not sure why at this point in time, you want to make these edits? Quite confused why making these edits.

Thank you all for your comments, suggestions and feedback. I will certainly take them into consideration and provide a more… refined and trimmed down discretionary edits compilation in the coming days.

I will update the original posts on each of the three topics, and then reply in each one to let people know that I have updated my proposed discretionary edits.

I have implemented your comments into my proposed edits.

My only comment on this set is regarding the “comprising” clauses used in Military Code 1(1) and Judicial Act 1(1). I agree it’s awkward as written, but I wonder if a bit of additional editing might make it more clear. I would propose:

  • The Admiralty is a commission that shall be comprised of up to three Captains . . .
  • The High Court shall be comprised of a Chief Justice . . .
1 Like

Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the right wording either “comprising” or “composed of”, but never “comprised of”?

Interesting. Apparently there is some debate, but it seems that the correct usage in this context would be either “composed of” as you suggest or “comprise.” So it would be:

The High Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice . . . or
The High Court shall comprise a Chief Justice . . .

Thoughts?

First one seems best.

I also like, “The membership of the High Court will contain a Chief Justice and…”

This volume of discretionary edits has been implemented. I am currently working on volumes two and three.