Thread:Sebolto/@comment-36984184-20180922145654/@comment-3528596-20180924195140

Apologies for the delayed reply&mdash;I was out of town over the weekend and, despite spending far too long trying to help with the installation of a WiFi repeater, didn't have much time for leisurely internet use.

First and foremost, I'd like to applaud you both for handling this well to up this point. I genuinely love the civility, and I think you've both raised good points. OakMask, in particular, I appreciate the value of your well laid out argument and (to spoil the outcome slightly) despite my ultimately siding with Seb, you argued it well.

That said, I do agree more with Seb. You even said "there's no definitive answers as to what the intent of the phrasing was, or what what was trying to be said with that phrasing," and that's key to me. We don't know the exact intent of the author. There is no hard evidence to suggest that anything other than exactly what is written is meant to have occurred. So, yes, it would be clearer and better syntax if worded differently. And, yes, syntax is an element of grammar. However, the Editing policy is meant to be restrictive in nature&mdash;it's goal is not to empower but to protect. In that light, it's important to realize that suggesting they were branded traitors does, in fact, change the narrative. Fired and discontinued are synonyms, perhaps, but they aren't the same word. They don't have the exact same connotations, regardless of how similar their denotations are.

You also mentioned a middle ground several times, but there's nothing warranting a middle ground. This middle ground is between what is there and what you'd like to be there, but, and I say this politely and with respect, you don't have any right to what you'd like it to say. To slightly botch a legal metaphor, you don't really have standing here.

You and I might both like it to be a better written and clearer sentence, but historical precedent for interpretation of the Editing policy doesn't allow for such a broad view of grammar, even if from a purely definition perspective it might be included. Is that oversight on the part of the policy? Perhaps, but that's just not how "grammar" has ever been interpreted. "You walks good" is "grammatically" poor enough that you would within your rights to change it, but "These clones were fired by Darth Vader during Order 66, with some of them dying at the hands of the 501st Legion" is not.

If you have any more questions about my opinion, feel free to ask. Thanks for your genuine interest in policy and upkeep though! It's always nice to see. Cheers!