Change the format of the World Assembly

[The Digital Rule]

Why is it that all proposals have a format which starts with a verb on every line? An example would be:

"ADDRESSING concerns that talking in a manner such as this rather than moving straight to the statement at hand does little to improve the efficiency at which proposals are understood."
I don't see why we don't just use regular statements/data for proposals.

To make the same point I could say for example:
"Moving straight to the statement at hand improves the efficiency at which proposals are understood."

I do feel this makes the statement less agreeable than the previous as it's seen 'as fact' rather than 'of my opinion' which may lead to countries being reluctant to vote 'for' in anything. But I find the current format kind of pointless and annoying.

Second of all, I'm:

'CONCERNED that too many proposals are approved without the potential to streamline them being realised.'

A random/somewhat recent example would be female genital mutilation. Why do we need legislation which addresses this specifically, rather than having a single proposal which states "all unnecessary removal of tissue for whatever reason should be illegal."? The Digital Rule did not support this notion as it seemed wholly unecessary to address female genital mutilation, male genital mutilation, and mutilation in general, separately in the context of the world assembly. The same process could be applied to many different laws to make them concise and clear to all.

I highlight these issues because I'd like to hear people's opinions on them, rather than expecting these issues to be dealt with as, in fairness, the current system is already fairly efficient for most people and appears merely unsuited to the few such as myself. But I have hopes that it will lead to a more productive unification of nations. Though I expect it to be used as bait also :/

Take these issues and discuss them appropriately

[Intellect and the Arts]

If you admit the system is efficient for the most and only cumbersome to a select few, then what problem exactly do you wish to bring to light other than pointing out that you're a member of a minority group?

[Krioval]

The format is based on language used in the UN, and the proposals typically are meant to read as a long sentence (at least the bits without bullets or lists). There's nothing to say that a proposal has to be written in that way, but it has become something of a convention.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I wouldn't care what the proposal says, if it's written like a high school essay, I'm not going to approve it or vote for it. We write proposals a certain way, because we've mutually agreed on a single, easy-to-read (even if you don't think so) format.

People can go ahead and experiment with different formats. There's no rule saying that the current writing style has to be used. Rights and Duties used a more 'streamlined' format. If I had to guess, I would say the current proposal format stems from the real-life UN General Assembly format. Example here (pdf).

[Offenheim]

I routinely skip reading WA proposals because I find the language they use needlessly complex and obscure to the point of impenetrability. Mainly I just read the arguments in their accompanying threads and then figure out from there what's being proposed.

This current format does make it easier for people to disseminate false ideas about what's actually contained within a proposal. And as a WA Delegate, I get TGed quite a few falsities.

EDIT: That's for votes before the entire WA. For proposals, I just read the titles.

[The Digital Rule]

I hope to hear opinions on what you think the system should be like as I'm not really into the IDENTIFYING LAME TITLES before things, which most people (and also apparently similar to the UN) seem to adhere to. I don't really care for debating the possibility of forum-oppressed minorities, neither for whether a proposal format should be compulsory or not. As mentioned, it isn't.

[Intellect and the Arts]

I routinely skip reading WA proposals because I find the language they use needlessly complex and obscure to the point of impenetrability. Mainly I just read the arguments in their accompanying threads and then figure out from there what's being proposed.

This current format does make it easier for people to disseminate false ideas about what's actually contained within a proposal. And as a WA Delegate, I get TGed quite a few falsities.

EDIT: That's for votes before the entire WA. For proposals, I just read the titles.

Wait... so you admit that it's easy for people to spread false information instead of real content, so to combat this you refuse to actually find out for yourself what the content is? Are you aware how little logic you're using?

[Offenheim]

I routinely skip reading WA proposals because I find the language they use needlessly complex and obscure to the point of impenetrability. Mainly I just read the arguments in their accompanying threads and then figure out from there what's being proposed.

This current format does make it easier for people to disseminate false ideas about what's actually contained within a proposal. And as a WA Delegate, I get TGed quite a few falsities.

EDIT: That's for votes before the entire WA. For proposals, I just read the titles.

Wait... so you admit that it's easy for people to spread false information instead of real content, so to combat this you refuse to actually find out for yourself what the content is? Are you aware how little logic you're using?

Well, so much for civility.
No, what I'm saying is that because the WA proposals are difficult to read, rather than written in easy-to-understand English, people can spread falsities about said proposals. I try to figure out what's in a proposal, but I would never read a proposal to tell me that, since I have difficulty understanding what they're saying. Instead, I read the discussions threads, because people use clearer English when they argue about things.
(Insult about you, here.)

[Intellect and the Arts]

Wait... so you admit that it's easy for people to spread false information instead of real content, so to combat this you refuse to actually find out for yourself what the content is? Are you aware how little logic you're using?

Well, so much for civility.
No, what I'm saying is that because the WA proposals are difficult to read, rather than written in easy-to-understand English, people can spread falsities about said proposals. I try to figure out what's in a proposal, but I would never read a proposal to tell me that, since I have difficulty understanding what they're saying. Instead, I read the discussions threads, because people use clearer English when they argue about things.
(Insult about you, here.)

My civility occurs when I'm on solid ground with a clear view. Under any other circumstance, I don't have a use for it. I'm not insulting you. Insulting you would have been me coming right out and calling you an idiot, as I don't bother beating around the bush. I'm baffled is what it is. If you can't understand what you're reading, why don't you just vote against it? If your value on a law is that it should be able to be understood by the people putting it into practice, why don't you just shoot down whatever doesn't fall within that standard?

[Offenheim]

It sure feels like an insult when you accuse me of not using logic. Anyways, I'll let it slide.

Shooting down something simply because it has poor language isn't a good strategy. First, no one's going to pay attention to one lone delegate failing to vote for something. No one's definitely going to bother asking why. I'm voicing my support for The Digital Rule now, and this is what I'm getting: "rawr, you're illogical, it's your fault!" It is my fault that I skim or fail to read the proposals. But it's not my fault that they're not clearly written

On top of this, I get the sense that there's a "WA Club" of people who write these things and approve them, and type them out, and I'm not part of that club, so I should just passively observe. Maybe I'd try my hand at writing a WA resolution, but I'm sure it would be recommended not to pass, since I'm likely to submit via something that isn't through the "proper" procedure on the forums (which is very bad gaming policy, but that's another issue).

Actually, all of this focus on me is distracting from the main point of the OP, which is that WA resolutions could stand to be clarified and streamlined.

[Intellect and the Arts]

Since I'm part of the approvals camp, the conversation seems to me to be relevant, but if you'd like to set that off, I shall as well.

Instead, I'll take this tack: I would appreciate if someone who is in favor of a community-initiated change in format would take a piece of legislation currently in the Charter and present it both in its original formatting and in a revised format that they believe is clearer and more to the point so I can see the sort of change they're proposing. I happen to like visuals, if that's ok with everyone.

[Embolalia]

It is my fault that I skim or fail to read the proposals. But it's not my fault that they're not clearly written

Actually, it kinda is. If you pay attention to, and participate in the drafting process, you can affect the language used. If you say "I don't understand this", someone will explain it to you. If you say "this language is unclear", the author will generally try to clarify it.

More generally to everyone in the thread: What structure would you recommend to replace the current one? And how would it be more able to address the intricacies of law without becoming even more confusing? The reason for the current recommended structure (which is also voluntary and very flexible) is because it's actually pretty easy to read, and parse out the specific regulations, if you aren't just skimming. Yes, you have to read the whole text to understand it. I won't apologize for that fact.

On top of this, I get the sense that there's a "WA Club" of people who write these things and approve them, and type them out, and I'm not part of that club, so I should just passively observe. Maybe I'd try my hand at writing a WA resolution, but I'm sure it would be recommended not to pass, since I'm likely to submit via something that isn't through the "proper" procedure on the forums (which is very bad gaming policy, but that's another issue).

If you want to be part of the so-called "club", write a proposal. It's not like we have some hazing procedure or anything. But the absolute worst way to make your opinions heard is to be passive and not participate. Please, write a proposal. Or even just comment on the ones that others have written.

As for your suggestion that WA politics are "very bad gaming policy", I ask again: what would you recommend instead? The point of the game - the entire fun of the WA as a part of the game - is in the debate and discussion. The reason it's considered proper to post on the forums is, in large part, because it's fun to debate. It's fun, and it makes your proposal better. Take a look at any of the recently passed resolutions. People had fun for weeks, if not months, debating and picking at those proposals until they had something that they could truly be proud of. Something that people could agree upon. It's fun to debate. I really don't know what else I can say on that. It's kind of why we're all here, isn't it?

[Eireann Fae]

More generally to everyone in the thread: What structure would you recommend to replace the current one? And how would it be more able to address the intricacies of law without becoming even more confusing?

"Personally," says Rowan, speaking for the Faerie Emissary, "I find the text to be easy to read, efficient, and laid out in such a way as to make understanding the exact effects of the law to be as well understood as possible. I would not change a thing regarding resolution format. I do have a bone to pick with the content of quite a few resolutions, however..." Human and Faerie both smile at this.

It's not like we have some hazing procedure or anything. But the absolute worst way to make your opinions heard is to be passive and not participate. Please, write a proposal. Or even just comment on the ones that others have written.

"Wait, what? So we didn't have to walk a tightrope over a shark-filled pool to participate in the WA?" Episky nearly falls off Rowan's shoulder laughing at the girl's contribution.

[Grays Harbor]

We have to wonder sometime why it is when we gain new members, the first thing they always seem to do is try and change the criterion and rules? Is there something in the water here? Do they arrive drunk? Did their copy of the Guidelines arrive at their suite in a language other than their own? This is perplexing for us.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: Also, in case 'The Digital Rule' is unaware of the fact, the game's inherent programming limits proposals to no more than 3'500 characters (including spaces) in length which could itself make fitting everything a proposal's author wants to say into a more essay-like format rather difficult.

[Meekinos]

We have to wonder sometime why it is when we gain new members, the first thing they always seem to do is try and change the criterion and rules? Is there something in the water here? Do they arrive drunk? Did their copy of the Guidelines arrive at their suite in a language other than their own? This is perplexing for us.

I think it has something to do with the party the gnomes hold for newcomers every night. There's got to be something in that punch.

[The Digital Rule]

Here is one example of a sentence in a proposal:
ADDRESSING concerns that talking in a manner such as this rather than moving straight to the statement at hand does little to improve the efficiency at which proposals are understood.

To cut out as much irrelevant material as possible, here is an example of how it could be written instead:
Moving straight to the statement at hand improves the efficiency at which proposals are understood.

Unless "your concerns" is necessary to make the same point in the manner you wanted, I don't see why you couldn't cut that out of there.

Considering I'm disagreeing with the way the UN tends to do things, I doubt I'll have much support for it, so I'm not trying to rally people into changing the way things are done. Just to get people thinking about the way things are done. It's not meant to be a knock at the community, so put the defensive rage behind you on this matter

The second part of my thread about how I'm complaining I disagree with too many proposals is: too many of them could be merged. We could merge male genital mutilation, female mutilation, and mutilation in general, into one single proposal rather than have 3 separate ones. It would be no more ambiguous to do it that way, so I don't see why we have not.

A very simple replacement for the three of them could be:
"all unnecessary removal of tissue for whatever reason should be illegal."
It's a very short statement, and it makes the point very clear. The only thing that isn't fulfilled by this single sentence is cosmetic changes with consent. That could be added to the proposal, and would make something which The Digital Rule would finally see there's a point in voting for

[Glen-Rhodes]

It's a very short statement, and it makes the point very clear.

It's also not in any way legally binding. We typically see poorly-written proposals using that kind of language. You have to remember that this part of the game is about simulating the United Nations, or maybe more appropriately a national legislature. It's not a place that exists solely to express an opinion: there is an expected etiquette to that expression. I don't see any need to change it. This kind of language has literally been used for several years in the game.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Basically, the way the proposal is written is only moderated on branding and whether it is not rhetorical, comprehensible or in English (as stated from the proposal rules). Not all the WA resolutions use the traditional format but it is of course, traditional to do so from our observation.

[Unibot]

We have to wonder sometime why it is when we gain new members, the first thing they always seem to do is try and change the criterion and rules? Is there something in the water here? Do they arrive drunk? Did their copy of the Guidelines arrive at their suite in a language other than their own? This is perplexing for us.

I dunno, I've been bickering about the No Army rule since I've arrived here, and I still remain unconvinced. But bickering about formatting is just odd.. I mean, we don't even really force format on people. Its just we don't like blog formats.. because they're not clear.

[Severania]

Theres nothing wrong really...

[Zoerb]

While I haven't been around long I feel the accepted format makes it easier to write a coherent proposal. It also makes it easier to debate specific points.

[Ethel mermania]

Greetings from Ethel Mermania, a small country with a fondness for broadway musicals.

The nameless drones coming back from the bar, notice that 1. They have a great head ache and 2. That it is a few days later, and quite frankly the service leaves something to be desired.

Back to the point. . . . When most people pick up a game, such as monopoly, they can win first time out, even in a more standard RPG what happens is pretty well laid out, and on the first day you can kill an Orc, please do not have P.E.T.O call me, ok. In other words your actions have an immediate and direct effect on the game and game play. As we am sure you are aware:

Dat aint the case here.


And if you can not figure out that might take a little bit to adjust too by both the new and old (if the old nations want to keep the new) states, well dere aint much else we can say to your nation.

We have to wonder sometime why it is when we gain new members, the first thing they always seem to do is try and change the criterion and rules? Is there something in the water here? Do they arrive drunk? Did their copy of the Guidelines arrive at their suite in a language other than their own? This is perplexing for us.

[The Digital Rule]

I'm going to outright dismiss posts which aren't written in comprehensible english 'amirite?'

I'm complaining about the format because:
SAYING SOMETHING HERE and then making the point, rather than just making the point, seems stupid. It might be useful as a guide for people who don't know how to word a proposal, but I get the feeling I'd manage without it. Still, as has been made clear already, this method is not law, and is traditional with regards to it's use in the UN. So it should probably remain on an "each to their own" basis I guess. You can add your opinion to this issue, but please don't keep repeating what has already been said -_-

I'm futher complaining about the efficiency because:
Many of the proposals could be made clearer and be streamlined with other proposals, to which I have given examples already. Currently there doesn't seem anything in place to combat this issue. Proposals which are generally favoured by the community will pass straight through the vote process with little regard to efficiency or meaning, and now issues which were originally passed are beginning to be questioned. I must say however, I can't think of a better way of doing it that would remain constitutional unless we had some kind of evermore cluttered anti-proposal written to to put both arguments across in the vote. This issue has more opportunity for interesting opinions to be put across, so keep your ideas coming

[Glen-Rhodes]

We have a format that works for us. It is not likely that this format, built upon for several years, will change. I do not view it as inefficient. In fact, it is very efficient. Writing World Assembly resolutions is actually an art of efficiency, given the rather small amount of characters we're allowed to use.

I think all that can be said on this issue has been said. Feel free to try and challenge the status quo, but don't complain if it doesn't change. Resolutions are still in English, so it's not that difficult to discern what they are saying.