I am aware that this is a topic that has been brought up before; however, at this point it's worthy of a serious discussion. I'm starting this thread to facilitate a discussion on the long-term simplification of the ruleset -- @ -- in general.
The Problem
Firstly, the rules are not even consistent with how they are actually enforced. Take, for example, the Honest Mistake rule _
Honest Mistake: Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution.
"Content that doesn't address the resolution" is relatively well-established not to be an Honest Mistake violation in itself -- it is honestly a violation if none of the repeal addresses the resolution. Yet, the wording of the rule implies that having a singular clause that doesn't address the resolution, even if the rest of the repeal does indeed address the resolution, is an Honest Mistake violation.
Secondly, there a number of areas of the rules which only exist because of precedent which is completely unmentioned in the actual ruleset. For example, the National Sovereignty rule says that _
National Sovereignty: Theoretically any resolution can be removed with this sole argument. For this reason, repeals require unique arguments tailored to the target resolution. NatSov may be used as an additional unique argument but it cannot take over the repeal. Its variations include cultural and religious sovereignty.
Arguing that a term is not defined is considered a "National Sovereignty" argument, and accordingly repealing a resolution on the sole grounds of a term being undefined is illegal under the NatSov rule. This is absolutely not clear in the text of the rule. It is not even formally codified in GenSec precedent -- the only precedent on the matter that can be relatively easily located is a quote from Ardchoille nearly a decade ago.
Why this is bad
The GA already has a very steep learning curve. NS is played by users as young as 13, and being able to find a policy idea, write it into World Assembly law, ensure that it is politically viable, and be clear in avoiding oversights and loopholes, is already quite difficult, and this is not helped by players having their proposals marked illegal for something that a new player would only find by mining through old precedent when it should be clear from the text of the ruleset itself.
Precedent itself can be filled with legal jargon and complicated language that would, once again, make it incomprehensible to the average 13 year old who only just joined NS/started participating in the WA. The Flesch-Kincaid readability scale shows the latest precedent with a grade level of 12.2, with all precedents having a GL scale of no less than 11. Likewise, the ruleset itself has a GL scale of 12.5. While I do not find that such complexity in GenSec rulings is inherently bad, it makes it even more important that the rules be clear and able to be understood by anyone.
The solution
Besides the numerous typoes and errors in the text of the rules, the solution is a complete rework of the ruleset. Such a rework would have to ensure that the rules be
- comprehensive, such that all areas of the rules are covered and explained in the ruleset; and such that GenSec precedents are only "minor clarifications", rather than "introducing entire new areas of the rules";
- comprehensible, such that any layperson can adequately understand the rules without, say, having to google legal terms; and
- accurate, adequately conveying how the rules are actually enforced in practice.
Further, once should a rework occurs, GenSec should act in accordance to the rules where possible. Except where doing so would violate the absurdity doctrine (in which case the rules should also be amended as promptly as possible), GenSec should mark proposals illegal if, under the ruleset, they would be illegal. Likewise, GenSec should mark proposals legal if the ruleset indicates that they are legal. New precedents (not rulings) should solely address minor ambiguities in the text of the rules -- for example, whether committees can act on member nations without a separate enabling clause. They should not introduce entire new areas of the rules which are elided in the actual ruleset.
-----
Discuss.