Repost the Constitution - An Idea

[Gaius Baltar]

How did they fail? Can you cite an example?

As mentioned in a previous post, footnotes in a document are generally used to provide source references and citations.

As far as I see it, each article includes the basic information and the footnote guides the reader to find more details about a specific aspect of the Curia. If the details don't interest you, you can simply skip them, unlike in the previous iteration of the Constitution, where every bit of information was randomly put together without any structure and cohesion.

I would have to disagree with that part of your statement. The Syntagma and the follow up Constitutions were organized enough to provide a good general flow of information. It was all the editing and sections revisions over time that affected its structure.

The current model could use a re-write, and probably retire the footnote system currently in use.

[Abdülmecid I]

Footnotes are not just used for citations. This only happens in books aiming at a wider audience and where the publisher imposes his will on the author, in order to make the product less intimidating to non-specialists. In any case, the footnotes of the constitution are brief and concise and do not disclose any information that would make the text incomprehensible to anyone that skipped them. The argument about the mobile devices has some merit, but I am sure that all eventually get access to computers with large screens, so it seems trivial. Still opposed. Also, shouldn't the thread have been posted in the Prothalamos instead?

[Cope]

They've failed. Badly.

I'm all in favor of making the constitution actually legible.

I already wrote up Section I in simplified form and minus footnotes. No one cared.

[Gaius Baltar]

I already wrote up Section I in simplified form and minus footnotes. No one cared.

The next step would be to submit your new version to the Prothalamus where we could move it to vote.

[Akar]

Footnotes are not just used for citations. This only happens in books aiming at a wider audience and where the publisher imposes his will on the author, in order to make the product less intimidating to non-specialists. In any case, the footnotes of the constitution are brief and concise and do not disclose any information that would make the text incomprehensible to anyone that skipped them. The argument about the mobile devices has some merit, but I am sure that all eventually get access to computers with large screens, so it seems trivial. Still opposed. Also, shouldn't the thread have been posted in the Prothalamos instead?

So long as the OP understands that he'll need to make a separate thread in the Prothalamos if he wanted to make this an amendment then this thread is fine where it is, in my opinion. So far it's just a casual discussion.

I already wrote up Section I in simplified form and minus footnotes. No one cared.

Yep, I also made a simplified version. I prefer the actual version though, it's easier to navigate.