Approved Submission Military Buildup Limitations Update

[FrostJaeger]

• Submission Type: Article Update
• Submission URL: Linky
• Original Article URL: Linky

• Faction: N/A
• FM Approved Yet: No, @Wes
• Faction requires art? Nope.

• Contains Unapproved Sub-Articles? Nope.
• Contains Links to Unapproved Articles? Nope.
• Contains New Art? Nope.
• Previously Submitted? Yes; it was rejected due to being in the wrong forum.
• Changelog: Linky

A minor update that fixes some typos, corrects some grammatical errors, and (in my humble opinion) slightly enhances the article's formatting. Unless you have constructive feedback to offer, do not post in this thread.

 

[Wes]

Approved. Thanks for this improvement of the article.

 

[FrostJaeger]

I've added the following text to the Building Times section of this article, as I apparently forgot to copy it over from the older version when updating it.

Newly approved factions start out with one shipyard.

 

[FrostJaeger]

I've changed the definition of "Shipyards" (found in the Military Object Types section) to read the following, as under the previous definition it was possible to have an infinite number of warship-producing shipyards - something that, in my opinion, goes against the intended purpose of the Military Buildup Limitations.

Shipyards: Shipbuilding facilities and/or starships that are capable of building capital ships and/or warships.

I also fixed some redlinks.

 

[Kim]

Changing a key definition requires this be reapproved.

 

[FrostJaeger]

In order to avoid any possible bias, could you please review this, @Wes?

 

[Wes]

It's a better definition but there are definitely starships out there that can build smaller starships, which makes this complicated.

Nevertheless, approved.

 

[FrostJaeger]

Thanks @Wes ~

Note to self: come up with more varied thank-you responses

 

[ArsenicJohn]

Should we work out the complications soon in setting discussion, so everyone is clear on what the change actually means rule-wise?

 

[Zack]

Ugh, I cringe reading this new definition.

You would just say or, not and/or. This AND that, would be just as true as this OR that. The only time you would use AND instead of OR would be if the statement is not true unless both conditions are met.

Do you guys mind if I fix it?

 

[FrostJaeger]

I indeed mind, @Zack, as you would be changing the meaning of the definition.

@Wes - given that you've approved of the update, would you mind moving this thread to the appropriate sub-forum, please?

 

[CadetNewb]

Since Wes believes that doing grammatical corrections is acceptable, you can go ahead and give it a shot @Zack . If it's no good, we'll just revert it and move on.

 

[Wes]

Ugh, I cringe reading this new definition.

You would just say or, not and/or. This AND that, would be just as true as this OR that. The only time you would use AND instead of OR would be if the statement is not true unless both conditions are met.

Do you guys mind if I fix it?

I think and/or would be better. Please keep that wording.

 

[Zack]

But it looks silly! Like someone is trying to copy that legalese style without understanding what the words mean. Like how in our laws its called cease and desist instead of just cease because the laws were originally translated over from French sources, and because of the language difference the change over isn't 100%.

 

[Wes]

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I don't understand what I'm talking about.

Locked.