[DRAFT] GA Rules

[Imperium Anglorum]

I wanted to put my hand at this. Since it doesn't look like any progress is happening anyway... but more importantly, along with the decline in GA mods, I think that more important is making rules that are (1) easier to understand and (2) easier to enforce. I'm basing all of these from this presentation I made some time ago in which I grouped the rules. They also take a lot of inspiration from the SC ruleset.

1. Roleplay. The General Assembly is a roleplay organisation in which legislators from all World Assembly members cooperate to write international legislation. It must also follow certain roleplay guidelines to make new roleplay correspond to prior roleplay. Therefore, prior resolutions have an effect on what can be put in current proposals.
   
   
   1. Perspective. (Merged branding and blogposal) All proposals must take the perspective of the General Assembly. Proposals which violate this rule will be removed or discarded.
      
      
      1. Proposals cannot reference the 'real world'. They also cannot refer to nations directly or refer to NationStates as a game.
         
         
      2. Proposals which attempt to advertise a certain region or nation will be removed. Limited branding is acceptable in that one proposal co-author may be attributed.
         
         
      3. The General Assembly does not recognise the existence of regions.
         
         
      4. Repeals which mention rules violations violate the GA perspective.
   2. Originality. (Merged duplication and plagiarism based on SC's Rule 2). All proposals must contain a unique and relevant argument.
      
      
      1. Proposals cannot be plagiarised. Proposals which are plagiarised will be removed or discarded. A person who submits a plagiarised proposal will be ejected from the Assembly.
         
         
      2. Proposals cannot duplicate prior legislation. If all a proposal does is something which an extant resolution already does, it will be removed.
   3. Contradiction. Proposals cannot contradict prior legislation. If a proposal mandates something other than what an extant resolution mandates, it will be removed or discarded. Similarly, if a proposal states that a resolution does something that it actually does not do, then it will be removed or discarded.
      
      
   4. Blockers. The General Assembly possesses parliamentary sovereignty. Because of this, it cannot pass resolutions which attempt to prevent it from legislating on broad topics or revisiting a certain topic. Proposals cannot block off entire categories and nor can they pass unrepealable legislation (such as a repeal which includes legislative actions, since repeals cannot be repealed). Proposals which attempt to do so will be removed or discarded.
      
      
   5. Independence. Proposals cannot depend on prior legislation, as if that prior resolution is repealed, the centre of the proposal would be gutted. Committees exist outside of the resolution that created them and therefore can be reused as seen fit. Proposals which cannot stand alone will be removed or discarded, e.g. amendments or references to prior legislation.
2. Format. Because the General Assembly is a roleplay organisation, resolutions passed in the General Assembly must also abide by formatting rules to make passed resolutions look like resolutions.
   
   
   1. Language. All proposals must be in English, as the rest of the site is in English. Proposals not in English will be removed or discarded.
      
      
   2. Operative Clause. (Allows removal of most, if not all, crap proposals) All proposals must have an operative clause in the text. An operative clause takes the form: 'The World Assembly, ... Urges [x], Bans [y], and Mandates [z]'. Proposals which lack an operative clause will be removed or discarded.
3. Statistics. When the General Assembly passes a resolution, a statistical effect is placed on all member nations. These rules ensure that the statistical effect is correct, has the correct magnitude, and is the correct type.
   
   
   1. Category. All categories carry a certain statistical effect. A proposal's roleplay implications must fit a certain category's statistical effect. If it does not fit that effect, it will be removed.
      
      
   2. Strength. All categories also carry areas of effect or strengths. They determine the strength or area of effect of that statistical change. A proposal's roleplay implications must also fit that category's strength. If it does not, it will be removed. For example, a proposal to ban nuclear weapons cannot be a mild Global Disarmament proposal (ignoring that such a proposal would contradict 10 GA 'Nuclear Arms Possession Act').
      
      
   3. Optionality. Because all resolutions apply to all nations, all proposals cannot be optional. Proposals which include optionality will be removed. All nations must heed all clauses of the resolution. Note that for recommending clauses, such as 'Urges' or 'Encourages' clauses, all nations do heed the World Assembly's recommendation, but have the option to disregard them, as they are recommendations and not mandates. However, nations are not permitted to ignore recommendations, even if they are not implemented. However, because those recommendations are not binding, they may be applied to non-member nations.
4. Mechanics. Metagaming can be defined as attempting to use the General Assembly to go break the 'fourth wall' and force actions outside what the General Assembly can do.
   
   
   1. Examples. (Merges ideological ban, WA military, technical requests, etc.) The General Assembly cannot be used to change the mechanics of the game. That means that the General Assembly cannot:
      
      
      1. Force nations to change their personalised fields or their status in the World Assembly.
         
         
      2. Create a war mechanic, establish a WA army, or create an institutionalised system for appointing members of committees.
         
         
      3. Force moderators or nations to take certain actions.
         
         
      4. Require other actions out of any person in or out of NationStates.
   2. Amendments. The General Assembly cannot amend passed resolutions, as that would have an undefined statistical effect. If you would like to change something in prior legislation, repeal and replace it. Proposals which attempt to do so will be removed or discarded.
5. Site rules. All rules pertaining to the website of NationStates and its forum still apply.

---

I purposefully excluded a few rules from this, things like:

• Committees. The consensus reached in OMGTKK's attempt to rules-lawyer Mall's rules was that in committees, those committees should have a direct effect on national stats if they are to be allowed without other clauses. That is actually a category violation if the committee doesn't influence stats. So, it isn't necessary.
  
  
• Repeals. Legislating in a repeal is actually a violation of the blockers rule. Lying in repeals, however, is actually contradiction of prior legislation. If you say [x] is the reason for repeal and the resolution actually says [y], then it contradicts prior legislation.
  
  
• WA military and ideological ban have been merged into mechanics.
  
  
• Bloody stupid has been removed. It's too subjective and never used anyway. And if a proposal really is bloody stupid, then it would be mauled at vote (if it fits the formatting rules, perspective rules, and also by a miracle, gets to quorum).
  
  
• Grossly offensive has been subsumed into the site rules.
  
  
• NatSov repeals are something I believe are valid. Basic NatSov repeals, I believe, are doomed to fail.
  
  
• On the subject of the blocker rule, that has been subsumed into the category rule. Something that just blocks WA action on things... won't have a category. Therefore, it won't be legal.

Anyway, I put my stab at it. Tell me what you think.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I rather like it really. I would contend, however, that your point about lying in repeals contradicting past legislation is not something for the moderators to decide. I've made clear elsewhere that I'd prefer to see that rule done away with in its entirety but overall I like the format of this rule set.

[The Silver Sentinel]

So we are going to allow repeals based in purely NatSov arguments? Really? Whats next? Gross misinterpretations of resolutions are valid grounds for repeal? Oh wait, they already are it seems!

[Mallorea and Riva]

So we are going to allow repeals based in purely NatSov arguments? Really? Whats next? Gross misinterpretations of resolutions are valid grounds for repeal? Oh wait, they already are it seems!

Personally I'd be totally fine with that. Politics involves deception, I see no reason to limit you lot as the players in such a manner. That having been said if you disagree with an aspect of the draft as presented here, feel free to critique it. Nothing is set in stone.

[The Silver Sentinel]

So we are going to allow repeals based in purely NatSov arguments? Really? Whats next? Gross misinterpretations of resolutions are valid grounds for repeal? Oh wait, they already are it seems!

Personally I'd be totally fine with that. Politics involves deception, I see no reason to limit you lot as the players in such a manner. That having been said if you disagree with an aspect of the draft as presented here, feel free to critique it. Nothing is set in stone.

Politics involves deception huh? I have to ask, is that an official "hive mind" position, or solely your stance?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Personally I'd be totally fine with that. Politics involves deception, I see no reason to limit you lot as the players in such a manner. That having been said if you disagree with an aspect of the draft as presented here, feel free to critique it. Nothing is set in stone.

Politics involves deception huh? I have to ask, is that an official "hive mind" position, or solely your stance?

It's a personal opinion, as I indicated in my post.

[The Silver Sentinel]

Okay.... Now for the dissection. We'll start with the excluded things first?

I purposefully excluded a few rules from this, things like:

Committees. The consensus reached in OMGTKK's attempt to rules-lawyer Mall's rules was that in committees, those committees should have a direct effect on national stats if they are to be allowed without other clauses. That is actually a category violation if the committee doesn't influence stats. So, it isn't necessary.

And just how is the newbie supposed to know this?

Repeals. Legislating in a repeal is actually a violation of the blockers rule. Lying in repeals, however, is actually contradiction of prior legislation. If you say [x] is the reason for repeal and the resolution actually says [y], then it contradicts prior legislation.

Personal note: I noticed you proposed this after you used egregious lies to repeal the NSC. Back to general dissection: Once again how is the newbie supposed to know this? The rules are written so newbies can get the hang of things, they are not written with intentional booby-traps in them so that anyone reading them for the first time is set to fail.

WA military and ideological ban have been merged into mechanics.

Bloody stupid has been removed. It's too subjective and never used anyway. And if a proposal really is bloody stupid, then it would be mauled at vote (if it fits the formatting rules, perspective rules, and also by a miracle, gets to quorum).

Grossly offensive has been subsumed into the site rules.

NatSov repeals are something I believe are valid. Basic NatSov repeals, I believe, are doomed to fail.

On the subject of the blocker rule, that has been subsumed into the category rule. Something that just blocks WA action on things... won't have a category. Therefore, it won't be legal.

I don't feel like typing out the same sentence over and over, so I will say it again, how is the newbie coming in to read the rules for the first time supposed to know these intricacies without having it in the rules somewhere. I am a KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) guy myself, but brevity is not something we need in a ruleset for a game like this.

[Sciongrad]

So we are going to allow repeals based in purely NatSov arguments? Really? Whats next? Gross misinterpretations of resolutions are valid grounds for repeal? Oh wait, they already are it seems!

There is a big difference between allowing NatSov arguments in repeals, which will likely open up a field of legitimate debate over the scope of the WA that has for years been locked away, avoided like the plague by actual self-proclaimed NatSovs, and "gross misinterpretations" being allowed in repeals, which I consider to be the vilest, most lacking in basic reasoning, and the most plainly idiotic of all the suggestions made in this entire debate. The role and scope of the WA's authority is an interesting and important argument to have, and I have enough faith in the intelligence of voters to understand that they won't blindly repeal things on purely NatSov grounds after they themselves chose to cede away that particular chunk of sovereignty in the first place. Unfortunately, most voters don't have the time, patience, or game knowledge to know when a repeal is lying. Why Mall would even suggest such an absurd change to the rules is confounding, seeing as the only argument I've ever seen, besides "it'd be fun to watch what happens!" is that lying in repeals makes the political aspect of the game more realistic, and that we should therefore all strive to be duplicitous, deceitful, and unscrupulous in our dealings with each other and the voters too.

I can personally understand IA's reasoning for excluding the "lying in repeals" rule here, but I don't trust the moderators enough to leave any space for ambiguity on the matter.

[Wrapper]

[*]Bloody stupid has been removed. It's too subjective and never used anyway. And if a proposal really is bloody stupid, then it would be mauled at vote (if it fits the formatting rules, perspective rules, and also by a miracle, gets to quorum).

Ahem. Max Barry Day?

[Mallorea and Riva]

[*]Bloody stupid has been removed. It's too subjective and never used anyway. And if a proposal really is bloody stupid, then it would be mauled at vote (if it fits the formatting rules, perspective rules, and also by a miracle, gets to quorum).

Ahem. Max Barry Day?

Bloody stupid proposals almost always violate some other rule. That's generally what makes them bloody stupid.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Committees. The consensus reached in OMGTKK's attempt to rules-lawyer Mall's rules was that in committees, those committees should have a direct effect on national stats if they are to be allowed without other clauses. That is actually a category violation if the committee doesn't influence stats. So, it isn't necessary.

And just how is the newbie supposed to know this?

From the explanation that a resolution must have an effect on stats. Or, you know, right here, "When the General Assembly passes a resolution, a statistical effect is placed on all member nations. These rules ensure that the statistical effect is correct."

Repeals. Legislating in a repeal is actually a violation of the blockers rule. Lying in repeals, however, is actually contradiction of prior legislation. If you say [x] is the reason for repeal and the resolution actually says [y], then it contradicts prior legislation.

Once again how is the newbie supposed to know this? The rules are written so newbies can get the hang of things, they are not written with intentional booby-traps in them so that anyone reading them for the first time is set to fail.

"Similarly, if a proposal states that a resolution does something that it actually does not do, then it will be removed or discarded."

WA military and ideological ban have been merged into mechanics.

The fact it is listed in game mechanics.

Bloody stupid has been removed. It's too subjective and never used anyway. And if a proposal really is bloody stupid, then it would be mauled at vote (if it fits the formatting rules, perspective rules, and also by a miracle, gets to quorum).

This isn't a rule. It's an excuse to remove proposals.

Grossly offensive has been subsumed into the site rules.

People on the forum are also supposed to know the site rules and the OSRS.

NatSov repeals are something I believe are valid. Basic NatSov repeals, I believe, are doomed to fail.

Which means that they don't have to actually be listed.

On the subject of the blocker rule, that has been subsumed into the category rule. Something that just blocks WA action on things... won't have a category. Therefore, it won't be legal.

Just ask them what the category is. If there isn't a category, then it won't be legal.

Oh, and the people who don't read the rules... don't read the rules.

Also, a large part of the issue, I thought, was that the rules don't actually explain why things are rules. They simply say 'thou shalt not [x]'. If one has an understanding of the reasoning behind the prohibitions, then one can actually understand the rules and their formation.

Personal note: I noticed you proposed this after you used egregious lies to repeal the NSC.

And, no, I didn't.

[The Silver Sentinel]

Personal note: I noticed you proposed this after you used egregious lies to repeal the NSC.

And, no, I didn't.

Ughhhh.. I really didn't want this to turn into yet another debate on this, but seeing as how you seem to fail to understand what a lying is, and what a gross misinterpretation is, I will demonstrate:

Your repeal of the NSC states:

Objects to the clause that member states are to '[prevent] the transfer of nuclear technology, design specifications, and materials if there is reason to suspect that they will be weaponised', as:

this prevents the transfer of nuclear propulsion technologies in warships, for the nuclear technology is weaponised by putting it inside that ship and by preventing that transfer, degrades the ability of nations to assist in collective defence,

This is a flat out egregious lie as Reasonable Nation Theory would dictate that the warship itself is not a weapon, it is merely a delivery system which was not regulated under the NSC.

this also prevents the transfer of nuclear materials and specifications inside countries, as there is no limiting statement on to where such transfers are permitted and by preventing that transfer, prohibits nations from moving nuclear materials within their own sovereign borders,

Once again RNT would dictate that nations are clear to move their own weapons as they see fit and Gruen was just being typical pedantic Gruen with his statement that this would prevent such. You bought it hook line and sinker.

this also prevents the transfer of nuclear technologies used for energy production, for suspicion is always cast on nuclear fission due to the easy reapplication of peaceful technologies to weapon production (the only differences being that of reaction control and purity) and by preventing that transfer, prevents cheap and available electricity from being more readily available, and

You seeing how RNT works yet?

this also prevents the transfer of specifications of any kind as the criteria for suspicion are not as of yet settled and by preventing that transfer, increases the likelihood of nuclear disasters by depriving scientists of important knowledge and safety procedures;

Once again RNT....

Questions the enforceability of the clause referenced in (1), no matter how sophisticated and Latinate this appears in comparison to a previous legislation's reference of 'wrong hands';

Mandatory compliance and such. You just got spanked on that very argument and had BoBTA pulled because you tried to make that same argument to shoehorn it into international security.

Objects, with shoe-banging, to the enforceability of a requirement that 'all measures necessary and practical' be taken, as the extent to these measures is as of yet undefined in their extent;

RNT and such....

And we could go on.

[Araraukar]

Pure NatSov repeals shouldn't be allowed, because it's a lazy argument.

Now:

"Why do want to repeal this resolution?"

"Because in my opinion it fails to achieve its goals, since article 1 requires nations do X, while article 2 says that nations can avoid doing X if they fit in the requirements of Y, and also because previous resolutions cover X, if you consider that most reasonable nations would already be doing X just to keep their citizens healthy."

If the change was made:

"Why do you want to repeal this resolution?"

"Because it violates my national sovereignity."

I for one don't want to see the debates slide into "Yuh-uh." - "Nuh-uh."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Pure NatSov repeals shouldn't be allowed, because it's a lazy argument.

Now:

"Why do want to repeal this resolution?"

"Because in my opinion it fails to achieve its goals, since article 1 requires nations do X, while article 2 says that nations can avoid doing X if they fit in the requirements of Y, and also because previous resolutions cover X, if you consider that most reasonable nations would already be doing X just to keep their citizens healthy."

If the change was made:

"Why do you want to repeal this resolution?"

"Because it violates my national sovereignity."

I for one don't want to see the debates slide into "Yuh-uh." - "Nuh-uh."

I've always felt that such proposals would fail at vote. People are smarter than voting for a two-line proposal with an argument consisting of 'I don't like it'. If such a proposal became a resolution, I would say that the target must have been REALLY bad. That is, what more argument do you need to repeal a resolution titled 'Ban militaries and capitalism'?

[Araraukar]

People are smarter than voting for a two-line proposal with an argument consisting of 'I don't like it'.

...since when?

If enough delegates like yourself just happened to dislike whoever wrote the target resolution, they'd probably be enough to sway the vote via lemming effect.

[Imperium Anglorum]

People are smarter than voting for a two-line proposal with an argument consisting of 'I don't like it'.

...since when?

If enough delegates like yourself just happened to dislike whoever wrote the target resolution, they'd probably be enough to sway the vote via lemming effect.

Quite simply, you overestimate delegate power. The people who vote on things do have a say — and the small delegates also do have a say as well. The only ability for large delegates to effect voting patterns, is maybe 5-10%. A two-liner that says 'I don't like it' would fail spectacularly. And I wouldn't vote for it.

[Bears Armed]

So we are going to allow repeals based in purely NatSov arguments? Really? Whats next? Gross misinterpretations of resolutions are valid grounds for repeal? Oh wait, they already are it seems!

Personally I'd be totally fine with that. Politics involves deception, I see no reason to limit you lot as the players in such a manner. That having been said if you disagree with an aspect of the draft as presented here, feel free to critique it. Nothing is set in stone.

RL politics can involve deception, although possibly with a public outcry if particularly egregious cases get revealed, but in RL politics -- at least in democracies -- both sides of an argument normally have fairly equal access to the people's eyes & ears.

However in NS a repeal's author could potentially reach all of the delegates -- potentially even all WA members -- by using either scripts or stamps to send a TG with their arguments, even before they see the text itself "on the floor", whereas the attacked resolution's author might not have enough access to scripts or stamps to manage an effective counter-campaign... especially in the limited time still available if the attacker has already pushed their proposal to quorum quickly at a time when there weren't any others queued, and bearing in mind that if it's already reached the floor by the time that the target's author (who might not able to get online as often as they'd like) notices then some of the people who've already voted to repeal might not come back online (and see any defending arguments) until after the voting has ended.

Thus, in my opinion, allowing outright lies in repeals would give repeal authors too much of an advantage over the authors of the resolutions that they're attacking.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Personally I'd be totally fine with that. Politics involves deception, I see no reason to limit you lot as the players in such a manner. That having been said if you disagree with an aspect of the draft as presented here, feel free to critique it. Nothing is set in stone.

RL politics can involve deception, although possibly with a public outcry if particularly egregious cases get revealed, but in RL politics -- at least in democracies -- both sides of an argument normally have fairly equal access to the people's eyes & ears.

However in NS a repeal's author could potentially reach all of the delegates -- potentially even all WA members -- by using either scripts or stamps to send a TG with their arguments, even before they see the text itself "on the floor", whereas the attacked resolution's author might not have enough access to scripts or stamps to manage an effective counter-campaign... especially in the limited time still available if the attacker has already pushed their proposal to quorum quickly at a time when there weren't any others queued, and bearing in mind that if it's already reached the floor by the time that the target's author (who might not able to get online as often as they'd like) notices then some of the people who've already voted to repeal might not come back online (and see any defending arguments) until after the voting has ended.

Thus, in my opinion, allowing outright lies in repeals would give repeal authors too much of an advantage over the authors of the resolutions that they're attacking.

Well argued and well defended. I absolutely concur.

[Mallorea and Riva]

RL politics can involve deception, although possibly with a public outcry if particularly egregious cases get revealed, but in RL politics -- at least in democracies -- both sides of an argument normally have fairly equal access to the people's eyes & ears.

However in NS a repeal's author could potentially reach all of the delegates -- potentially even all WA members -- by using either scripts or stamps to send a TG with their arguments, even before they see the text itself "on the floor", whereas the attacked resolution's author might not have enough access to scripts or stamps to manage an effective counter-campaign... especially in the limited time still available if the attacker has already pushed their proposal to quorum quickly at a time when there weren't any others queued, and bearing in mind that if it's already reached the floor by the time that the target's author (who might not able to get online as often as they'd like) notices then some of the people who've already voted to repeal might not come back online (and see any defending arguments) until after the voting has ended.

Thus, in my opinion, allowing outright lies in repeals would give repeal authors too much of an advantage over the authors of the resolutions that they're attacking.

Well argued and well defended. I absolutely concur.

I disagree with your premise that both sides have fairly equal access to the people's eyes and ears. Depending on the issue and the size/strength of your voting bloc you may not have the funds to reach out to the public in an equal manner. At least in NS scripts and stamps level the playing field in that regard. Hell you can even do things manually.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well argued and well defended. I absolutely concur.

I disagree with your premise that both sides have fairly equal access to the people's eyes and ears. Depending on the issue and the size/strength of your voting bloc you may not have the funds to reach out to the public in an equal manner. At least in NS scripts and stamps level the playing field in that regard. Hell you can even do things manually.

I'm not Bitely, but if I had as much money as he does, I would be able to pass anything.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I disagree with your premise that both sides have fairly equal access to the people's eyes and ears. Depending on the issue and the size/strength of your voting bloc you may not have the funds to reach out to the public in an equal manner. At least in NS scripts and stamps level the playing field in that regard. Hell you can even do things manually.

I'm not Bitely, but if I had as much money as he does, I would be able to pass anything.

Money gets you stamps, but no one is stopping you from using a free script to TG campaign.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm not Bitely, but if I had as much money as he does, I would be able to pass anything.

Money gets you stamps, but no one is stopping you from using a free script to TG campaign.

Which has a rate limit. To telegram everyone in the WA once, it would require multiple days (longer than the resolution is at vote). If I have 60 dollars, I can telegram everyone in the WA three times in three minutes.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Okay.... Now for the dissection. We'll start with the excluded things first?

I purposefully excluded a few rules from this, things like:

Committees. The consensus reached in OMGTKK's attempt to rules-lawyer Mall's rules was that in committees, those committees should have a direct effect on national stats if they are to be allowed without other clauses. That is actually a category violation if the committee doesn't influence stats. So, it isn't necessary.

And just how is the newbie supposed to know this?

Repeals. Legislating in a repeal is actually a violation of the blockers rule. Lying in repeals, however, is actually contradiction of prior legislation. If you say [x] is the reason for repeal and the resolution actually says [y], then it contradicts prior legislation.

Personal note: I noticed you proposed this after you used egregious lies to repeal the NSC. Back to general dissection: Once again how is the newbie supposed to know this? The rules are written so newbies can get the hang of things, they are not written with intentional booby-traps in them so that anyone reading them for the first time is set to fail.

WA military and ideological ban have been merged into mechanics.

Bloody stupid has been removed. It's too subjective and never used anyway. And if a proposal really is bloody stupid, then it would be mauled at vote (if it fits the formatting rules, perspective rules, and also by a miracle, gets to quorum).

Grossly offensive has been subsumed into the site rules.

NatSov repeals are something I believe are valid. Basic NatSov repeals, I believe, are doomed to fail.

On the subject of the blocker rule, that has been subsumed into the category rule. Something that just blocks WA action on things... won't have a category. Therefore, it won't be legal.

I don't feel like typing out the same sentence over and over, so I will say it again, how is the newbie coming in to read the rules for the first time supposed to know these intricacies without having it in the rules somewhere. I am a KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) guy myself, but brevity is not something we need in a ruleset for a game like this.

I endorse this position. Clarity is much more important than efficiency when communicating rules to players who are supposed to abide by them. Besides which, players have already been accustomed to citing rules by their specific names for years now ("Game Mechanics," "House of Cards," "Metagaming," etc.); what's the point of making them learn a new lexicon?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I endorse this position. Clarity is much more important than efficiency when communicating rules to players who are supposed to abide by them. Besides which, players have already been accustomed to citing rules by their specific names for years now ("Game Mechanics," "House of Cards," "Metagaming," etc.); what's the point of making them learn a new lexicon?

And it is a position which I can wholeheartedly agree upon. However, the structure and the design of what I put up is to convey the reasoning behind the rules and thereby lead to clarity. Naturally, those sections which have been subsumed can also be taken back out and reaffirmed. The reason for changing the lexicon is that the olde one is confusing to new players, as I came to quickly understand when attempting to introduce the ruleset to people in my region who were interested in the GA.

[Araraukar]

What I think would actually help newbies understand the rules better, whether or not we change them, would be made-up proposal examples. You don't have to put them into the rules themselves, but rather have the rules thread have several posts, which would be linked to in the first post that lists the rules.

Using extant Branding violation as an example here:

The Yellow Clothes Act
submitted by Examplesistan

The World Assembly,

AWARE of the many colours of rainbow, but convinced that yellow is the brightest one, based on Examplesistan research...

This is an example of what a Branding Violation can be; you're not allowed to use an existing nation's or region's name in the proposal text.