The Acronymists' Charter

[Angela]

With the help of Sherlock's content search, I've found all references to rules on the forums to date. Some of them are imaginary and/or irrational rules, others actual sensible ones which perhaps should be in the submission guidelines at http://acronyms.co.nz/guidelines.html. Here they are:

<Angela> Rule pi+6i of the Acronym Code implicitly states that all capitalised words should be acronymised.

<Tony>As a basic series of ground rules:
: Acronyms 'ought' to be real words, or at least common usage of non-words,
: Expansions 'ought' to made of real words,
: Acronyms 'ought' to be more than one letter long

sub-rules
: Acronyms should be spelt correctly whenever possible
: misspellings are permitted in the expansion if it improves the fun/sense/explanation/aptness of the acronym
: modifying existing acronyms is not 'really' acceptable.... 'AA', 'CIA' etc... if all you are doing is playing with the original words. (e.g in view of the series of spies uncovered, one could posit that CIA = Communist Intelligence Agency, but it wouldn't really be creative.

<Tony> FORUM POST: Follow Our Rules!!! Use - Mostly - Properly Operated Spelling Techniques!

<Angela> Just to clarify rule ei+ei+0 of the Acronymist Charter... there is no requirement to expand capitalisations which are already acronyms.

<Jeff> Perhaps it should be further clarified to solely exempt capitalisations listed by acronymfinder.com?  

<Angela> No, then we wouldn't even be able to mention our own ACRONYMS without having to re-expand them. ei+ei+0 might be irrational, but it's not that silly.

<Tony> Pardon my ignorance, but where does ei+ei+0 come from? I know what it means, I just don't remember seeing it before. It's a good job it's not in caps or it might have to stand for "Explain It + Expand It + Observe"

PS.
It means that this is one of the few places on the web where "SHOUTING*" is acceptable, but it carries a high price ;-)

IF YOU PUT A WORD IN CAPS YOU MUST ACRONYMISE IT

In Future You Obey Us! Please Undertake To Acronymise Words (Of Recent Design) Into Novel/Comedic Acronyms. Please Say You'll Observe Uniformity. Most Users Subscribe To Agreement:- Capitals Required? Okay, Now You Must Instantly Spell-out Expansion In Text.

<Angela> ei+ei+0 is the number of that rule in the acronymists' charter. The number and its rule are both irrational and imaginary, but it seems people haven't noticed that and have followed the rule anyway.

<Jeff> ...I was referencing rule (pi)*3i of the Acronymists Charter, which clearly states that all capitalisations should be acronymised.  Of course, this too is irrational and semificticious...

<Angela> An imaginary rule can create desire, but not obligation.

<Angela> Oh, I thought that rule pi*3i (which is completely imaginary, no semi- about it!) had been erased in favour of ei+ei+0. I guess I wasn't paying attention at the last conference. Rule pi*3i is even more irrational than ei+ei+0 since it means we can't even refer to our own previous creations without redoing them, which makes me wonder if perhaps ei+ei+0 should be renamed to a nice untranscendental (yet still irrational) number like iphi. It all seems a bit iffy though.

<Tony> Surely all these petty rules are dependent on one obeying the universal rule of 'Nyah nyah, nyah nyah nyah!' - which reads 'Do it bigger, do it better, do it first, and you can overlook all subsequent rules.' This rule is so primal that it is numbered -1.

<Jeff> The semi is there for one reason...a rule that is part of a nonexistant body is semiexistant if said rule has a definition.

<Jeff> Perchance If Thou Inexplicably Mutters Expandable Shoutings, Thou Hasto Really Expand 'Em Immediately!

Jeff Anonymous, rationalizing semi-imaginary rule pi*3i, which states that all things rendered in capitals on the Acronyms fora must be acronymised.

<Tony> One which has not been mentioned previously is the 29th of February Rule which - if it were a real rule - would state that one should not use the word one is expanding in the expansion.


So, it looks like we have:

Rule pi+6i: all capitalised words should be acronymised.

Rule pi*3i: all capitalisations should be acronymised.

Rule ei+ei+0: IF YOU PUT A WORD IN CAPS YOU MUST ACRONYMISE IT. (See expansion) There is no requirement to expand capitalisations which are already acronyms.

29th of February Rule: one should not use the word one is expanding in the expansion.

Tony's rules and sub-rules above don't have rule numbers, and some are mentioned in the submission guidelines. They are perhaps too sensible for this thread, but if anyone wants to assign them appropriate numbers then they can be included in the Charter rather than the guidelines.

[Tony]

>>> On 24 November 2001 06:39:45 UTC, Angela wrote:

> So, it looks like we have:

> Rule pi+6i: all capitalised words should be acronymised.

> Rule pi*3i: all capitalisations should be acronymised.

> Rule ei+ei+0: IF YOU PUT A WORD IN CAPS YOU MUST ACRONYMISE IT.

I would suggest to the court that these rules appear to be subtly self-reinforcing and really ought to be de-legislated immediately. The only one which is needed is rule pi*3i as it covers 'all capitalisations'' and not just 'words' - I can see the day coming when someone is brought before this court under rule pi+6i for not expanding something like "QWHSY" and they will plead (justifiably) that it is not a 'word'

[Angela]

It is very difficult to de-legislate an imaginary rule. I decree that those who are not in agreement with these rules must simply concentrate on their non-existence.

Perhaps a plea that QWHSY is not a word is justifiable, but I see no circumstance under which capitalising QWHSY in the normal course of a sentence is justifiable. Tony and I must both be proclaimed unjustifiably insane, and left to *gasp* our own devices for all eternity.

[Tony]

Angela wrote:

> I see no circumstance under which capitalising QWHSY in the normal course of a sentence is justifiable.

Were it not already established, would capitalising ROFL be justifiable?

* One could be making fun of a mistype;
* One could be referring to a new building - the Queen Wilhelmina's Hostel for Scandinavian Youth;
* One could be left with this selection when trying to do an Ac using all the letters of the alphabet once each;
* One could be inventing a one-'word' response to someone: Querying What Has Stimulated You.

.... these are just a few initial thoughts on the subject.

[Jeff Anonymous]

<pedantry>

Semi-imaginary rules, in this case defined clauses of an imaginary code, videlicet, the Acronymists' Charter, can be delisted, annulling all future citations of said rule.  Thus, I second Tony's motion to delist pi+6i and ei+ei+o, with reasons:

(1)pi+6i is superceded by pi*3i for the closure of loopholes that may result in escaping malacronymisation (e.g., EDWIN HERMANN(1)) or any other such sanction as may be decreed by any acronymist.

(2)ei+ei+o is also superceded by pi*3i, being as it can reduce the number of acronyms submitted, not a good thing since most acronyms one would use in usual conversation are short and easy to redo.

</pedantry>

I felt the need to use pedantic language...tis fun

[Tony]

>>> On 24 November 2001 21:00:50 UTC, Jeff Anonymous wrote:

> I felt the need to use pedantic language...tis fun

Careful! You left out an apostrophe there, Angela will hunt you down and make you repent!

[Angela]

<Tony>  I can see the day coming when someone is brought before this court under rule pi+6i for not expanding something like "QWHSY" and they will plead (justifiably) that it is not a 'word'

<Tony> Were it not already established, would capitalising ROFL be justifiable?

<Angela> If QWHSY were established, the plea that it's not a 'word' would be less important, the person might still be expected to expand it as a commentary on the original expansion. However, I think one should be allowed to get out of expanding an arbitrary string of letters such as QWHSY - at least if they do, the expansion shouldn't be in the stack.

<Tony> * One could be making fun of a mistype;

<Angela> The challenge here is to find a word which might actually be mistyped as qwhsy - does anyone want to try?

<Tony> * One could be left with this selection when trying to do an Ac using all the letters of the alphabet once each;

<Angela> Then why would the letters be out of order?

<Tony> * One could be inventing a one-'word' response to someone: Querying What Has Stimulated You.

<Angela> In that case, the person has already expanded QWHSY, so wouldn't be obliged to expand it again on using it.

[Jeff]

I thus propose Corrolary I to rule p*3i..."if an expansion for a capital utterance is listed at acronyms.co.nz, or is an accidental mistake, it shall be excused."

[Angela]

Accepted... in fact I said something to that effect when you suggested that only acronyms listed on acronymfinder.com be exempt.


>>> On 25 November 2001 04:06:40 UTC, Jeff wrote:

I thus propose Corrolary I to rule p*3i..."if an expansion for a capital utterance is listed at acronyms.co.nz, or is an accidental mistake, it shall be excused."

[Jeff]

The Acronymists' Charter, revised

Rule pi*3i: all capitalisations should be acronymised.
     Cor. 1: Capitalisations for which an expansion is listed at acronyms.co.nz, or those which are of accidental nature, shall be excused from any variety of sanction.

29th of February Rule: one should not use the word one is expanding in the expansion.

Balderdash Doctrine: That which is overly nonsensical shall be rejected.

Sanitary Rule: Acronyms of vulgar nature shall be censored, and even then may be rejected.

Angela's Razor: Whatever is not original, shall be rejected.

Rule 403: Use proper punctuation

Explanatory Rule: Explain obscure words.

Apples Rule: Don't insult Macs.

[Angela]

>>> On 26 November 2001 18:05:34 UTC, Jeff wrote:

     Cor. 1: Capitalisations for which an expansion is listed at acronyms.co.nz, or those which are of accidental nature, shall be excused from any variety of sanction.

What do you mean by accidental nature? People who capitalise words by accident should still acronymise them.

[Jeff]

What I mean is misspellings...I got that wrong.  so that shall change to a clearer thing that does not excuse accidental depressions of CAPS LOCK.

Could Angela Perhaps Say, "Luck's Out...'Cronymise Kompetely"?

(excuse my cheating, I am tired)

[Angela]

>>> On 27 November 2001 00:37:59 UTC, Jeff wrote:

Could Angela Perhaps Say, "Luck's Out...'Cronymise Kompetely"?

Hmm... perhaps, 'Create Killer-ac'? It's not much better, I'll continue browsing through the 'K' section of my dictionary.

Or 'Charter's Known!' In other words, 'you know the rules... you have to expand it.'

[Tony]

Jeff wrote:

> Could Angela Perhaps Say, "Luck's Out...'Cronymise Kompetely"?

... and Angela didn't point out the missing 'l' in "Kompetely" - seems that both of them must be tired!
Taking Angela's idea about the CK combination, I offer....
Creating Acronyms? Please See Listed Obligations - Charter's Known

[Jeff Anonymous]

"Charter's Known" is good.  Oh, and Tony?  Sheer genius there, not a single rule broken.