Change the format of the World Assembly

[Monikian WA Mission]

Faliksa Alberton rose to address the body.

"Personally I find the system currently used, suitable for our puposes given the limitations imposed by the universal translators.

{ooc: Game mechanics}

"As such we see no reason to change the convention as it serves its purposes well and would like the delegate from the proposing nation to review the resolutions passed by that UN-mentionable organization in antiquity. Many of those proposals in the first few pages of that charter quite frankly are not very good and are even more unclear than the format used now.

"Furthermore reading the drafting and at-vote transcripts would or at least should provide the nation voting all the information about the resolution they need and if it is still unclear I'm sure the drafting nation would be open to receiving a telegram, subspace transmission or any other form of communication requesting an explanation."

[Linux and the X]

As an example, would you please re-write the at-vote proposal in your preferred format?

[Mousebumples]

As an example, would you please re-write the at-vote proposal in your preferred format?

Or - as repeals are difficult to write, in general - re-write the last At Vote proposal in your preferred format?

[Intellect and the Arts]

I second this as it was something I requested toward the beginning of this little discussion...

[The Digital Rule]

Here is an example of a resolution as you seemed to be asking for one??
---------------------------------------------------------
Repeal Resolution #N/A: WA Resolution Format

Argument:
Too many proposals are approved without the potential to streamline them being realised.
Moving straight to the statement at hand improves the efficiency at which proposals are understood.
(Note that where CONCERNED or AFFIRMS is not necessary, it is not there.)

Repeals:
The WA Resolution Format in favour of Resolutions formatted in a streamlined manner such as this.

(This resolution should also include the other regulations on resolution formatting which I can't be bothered adding as the example is hopefully clear enough, so that we don't need additional resolutions covering the same topic and being a general waste of time.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I found the number of resolutions which are vague or cover similar issues to other resolutions to be annoying, so I had the urge to say something about it. Aside from "I felt like it" or "to hear of other people's views on the matter" (or that I've heard worse excuses for a thread before now) I don't have much justification for you.

I'm just disappointed there isn't a more diverse range of opinions. The majority, group A, says: why change what for the most part works. The minority, group B, says: because it could be for the better. I thought there would be a group C, D, E, and so on Infact, I've decided why there's not a greater range in opinions. It's because people are hung up over whether we should change it at all and aren't thinking about how it could perhaps be changed.

Well, I'm bored of that. What would your (perhaps fantastical) ideal be on how the resolutions should work/ be changed?
Because I'm bored of explanations saying why we shouldn't. It leads to vanillaitis. If you have good enough creativity to come out with "I'd leave it way it already is" then /END OF THREAD is probably for the best

I realise my formatting shouldn't be implemented because while I can write in an efficient and clear manner without the current guidelines, others often struggle to write anything legible without them, and there is no drawback for those who are literate to still use them. Aside from PROCLAIMING STUFF and then making the point being annoying, that is.

[Ardchoille]

Umm ... that proposal is [statement], [statement], [example]; you haven't said what action the WA has to take. "Should" is too general. I "should" do more exercise, but what a proposal has to do is make me.

The bare bones of any proposal is: "The WA (persuaded by this argument, this one and this one) says WA member nations must do this."

How you get to that point can vary, but you have to provide a clear instruction.

[Intellect and the Arts]

First, what has been asked for multiple times is for you or someone who approves of a format change to take an EXISTING RESOLUTION IN THE CHARTER and convert it into plain English, not to make a new one as that's fraught with issues in the first place. If you keep putting up the same imaginary resolution, you're going to get the same arguments that are entirely about what your example says and don't actually address a matter of formatting. This is because the proposal you're talking about would be foundationally weak regardless of what format it used to get its message across. Take something we already have in place and show us how YOU would say exactly what it ALREADY says.


Ard: Your post is tempting me to go five rounds with you on the subject of proposals that only say URGES and basically revamp the Pride & Prejudice debacle.

[Ardchoille]

Ard: Your post is tempting me to go five rounds with you on the subject of proposals that only say URGES and basically revamp the Pride & Prejudice debacle.

Oh, gods, no. I'm out of town. I'm sick. I've got a note from the doctor, he said I couldn't. I've got jury duty. My other grandmother died (not the four who died last year or the two who died the year before). I've been called up. It's against my religion ... Go ask Uncle Flib.

[Eireann Fae]

Ard: Your post is tempting me to go five rounds with you on the subject of proposals that only say URGES and basically revamp the Pride & Prejudice debacle.

Oh, gods, no. I'm out of town. I'm sick. I've got a note from the doctor, he said I couldn't. I've got jury duty. My other grandmother died (not the four who died last year or the two who died the year before). I've been called up. It's against my religion ... Go ask Uncle Flib.

(OOC: At first (after reading IatA's post), I was like "huh?" Then (after reading yours), I was like "LOL!"

Do it, IatA! I gotta see this!)

[Intellect and the Arts]

Ard: Your post is tempting me to go five rounds with you on the subject of proposals that only say URGES and basically revamp the Pride & Prejudice debacle.

Oh, gods, no. I'm out of town. I'm sick. I've got a note from the doctor, he said I couldn't. I've got jury duty. My other grandmother died (not the four who died last year or the two who died the year before). I've been called up. It's against my religion ... Go ask Uncle Flib.

Relax, Ardykins... I said "tempting". I'm perfectly content with simply firing marshmallow bazookas in your general direction. They're much more delicious.

[Monikian WA Mission]

First, what has been asked for multiple times is for you or someone who approves of a format change to take an EXISTING RESOLUTION IN THE CHARTER and convert it into plain English, not to make a new one as that's fraught with issues in the first place.

I find that the absence of any of those supporting this argument being able to actually produce a draft as an example from existing legislation telling. Perhaps because the current system has been developed because the attempt to use "plain English" did not exactly work out to start with in that UN-mentionable organization in antiquity.

The bare bones of any proposal is: "The WA (persuaded by this argument, this one and this one) says WA member nations must do this."

How you get to that point can vary, but you have to provide a clear instruction.

Ardchoille can this be viewed as a modly ruling that the current system used by Resolutions is not so much a rule as it is merely a convention or tradition?

[Ardchoille]

Ardchoille can this be viewed as a modly ruling that the current system used by Resolutions is not so much a rule as it is merely a convention or tradition?

You don't need another modly ruling, you've already got this:

... For this reason, GA Proposals must be more than just rhetoric. While they need not be written like real world international treaties, they do need to be more than just your opinion. Essays belong in the General Forum, not the WA floor.

And also this:

Remember where I mentioned needing more than rhetoric? Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. This also includes Repeals with no argument, Proposals that are questions ("Don't you think we should...?"), and Proposals that are just too incomprehensible to make sense of. I realise that not everybody speaks English as a first language (or at all, for that matter). Unfortunately, NS is a game in English. If you cannot compose in proper English, seek the help of somebody (hint-hint, run it through an online translator and post here for clean-up). A Proposal won't be nuked for the occasional typo, but if I have to spend a good chunk of time trying to figure out what's going on, it'll be nuked.

The convention of an argument in a preamble, with subsequent clauses describing the actions that must follow from that argument, has survived because it makes sense. It works. The long run-on sentence ("The WA, feeling this, knowing that, says you have to do this") specifies the authority for the action {the WA). That works too. Successive players have found a structure that gives them a built-in reminder to conform to this or that rule, and since it works, they repeat it.

If you think you can write a clear proposal that isn't written within those conventions, write it as a draft and post it for others to comment on. Without a concrete example, discussing hypotheticals is simply going to make us all cross because your hypothetical won't be the same as my hypothetical, so we won't be having the same argument. Give your fellow players something to get their teeth into.

[Monikian WA Mission]

OCC:

Thank you for your answer. I probably won't make such a draft as I find the current convention to be the best possible format I've seen used thus far and have used it before--several years ago in fact as I once played NS a long time ago and returned after my RL became less hectic, working on a master's degree is hard work you know. That said, I may ask from time to time seemingly stupid questions because it is amazing the things you forget after three years of being away.

[The Digital Rule]

To write a new proposal on the matter will take a long time describing exactly how I wish the formatting to be, which I'm not prepared to contribute. But then all I have is hypothetical as you said. I'll give it one more shot to explain how I'm thinking:

"The WA, feeling this, knowing that, says you have to do this"

Why should the WA feel anything? "It knows that... says you have to do this" does the job.

At first when I saw BIG OL' VERB on every line I lol'd.
Then I was like

Also, do you have no ideas of how you could change it yourself? I've been on the defensive with mine for ages arguing about whether it should be changed at all, for good reason perhaps, but I also find an inherent lack of creativity

[Eireann Fae]

Also, do you have no ideas of how you could change it yourself? I've been on the defensive with mine for ages arguing about whether it should be changed at all, for good reason perhaps, but I also find an inherent lack of creativity :(

I don't want anything changed :)

And like everyone's said, you don't have to write resolutions in the formal manner. Feel free to post up a draft using your own language. Other people will help you make sure it's concise, I'm sure.

[Ardchoille]

<snip>

"The WA, feeling this, knowing that, says you have to do this"

Why should the WA feel anything? "It knows that... says you have to do this" does the job.

The "feeling this, knowing that" part is the argument. It may look as if all the WA has to do is say "toad" and nations jump, but there's no jumping unless the proposal succeeds at vote. To make that happen, proposal writers have to get the support of Delegates. So they try to persuade them in the proposal text.

The "feeling, knowing" part gives (hopefully convincing) reasons for the action that the proposal contains -- "Because the world is flat, and because people keep falling off the edge, WA nations must build a wall around the world," rather than simply, "WA nations must build a wall around the world."

As to whether I have any ideas for changing the format: I'm fine with it the way it is. It's convenient, clear and gives newcomers a structure to work from. If some writers choose to load the structure with extra balconies and unnecessary columns, that doesn't make the structure itself unsound.

[Glen-Rhodes]

... but I also find an inherent lack of creativity

Compare the very beginning of the UN to how the WA works now. For example, UNR#4, the fourth resolution ever passed, is simply this:

The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose.

Simple, to the point. But creative? No. Showing any kind of characteristic of an international legislative body? No. The thing is, the format you describe isn't reflective of a legislative body. Of course -- this has been said before -- the run-on sentence isn't the only format legislatures use. Rights and Duties used a format you'd probably find more appealing.

Sometimes I find the run-on format difficult to work with, but not impossible. Whether or not you use it is simply personal preference. The only thing most of us don't want to see is an essay. We aim to look as close as possible to a legitimate international organization.

[Embolalia]

*snip*

Or how about DVD Region removal? It took me forever just to figure out what it was talking about...

Anyway, I'm still unsure as to exactly what this alternate format is supposed to be. Are you basically arguing against the all-caps word convention? Or preambles? It's been asked a number of times now, but would you care to redraft an existing proposal in your preferred format so we can clearly see what you're talking about?

[The Digital Rule]

See Ardchoille's previous post above. I was waiting all year for a response like that

I started this thread because upon reading proposals, the BIG OL' CAPS would normally make me cringe a little. I looked disfavourably on them for being an immature way to address member states.

I also noticed that plenty of proposals which could be streamlined and written much better are easily getting through, which I find annoying. An example would be: The Digital Rule does not approve on having separate laws for female genital mutilation and male genital mutilation as laws regarding tissue removal without consent or medical necessity would cover both and do a better job of clarifying the law too.

As for changing the system, well... Ard pretty much summed up that the current system despite it's flaws is very difficult to improve upon, based on X and Y (see post). I'd like to accept that viewpoint.

If you don't understand by now what my objections were, I'm afraid I'm not going to help you. My questions already have been answered with intelligence and understanding. Cheers.

rather than simply, "WA nations must build a wall around the world."

I suggested this method because I felt it could be approached less with opinion and more with a kind of sciencey efficiency to it, which I'm fond of. But you're right about it's intended function and I feel there is little way to improve upon it. If there is, it's not worth much trying to implement it.

[Eireann Fae]

I also noticed that plenty of proposals which could be streamlined and written much better are easily getting through, which I find annoying.

So bloody re-write an existing resolution, like you've been repeatedly asked to do! If it's so easy, you should have no problem!

Put up, or shut up!

[The Digital Rule]

The information I have already provided is adequate I assure you. Thus, I have put up what I am willing to put up, and it seems Ard has understood it and judged it critically, as previously stated. If you can't draw a conclusion from that I believe it to be an issue with you, not with the information I have already provided. Now how about you either contribute or shut up so that we don't have an endless O RLY? NO U! argument.

To expand on my point, just for you is this:

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."?

Taken from post #1. I SHALL NOT WRITE A FULL PROPOSAL ON THIS. Thanks.

[Linux and the X]

Taken from post #1. I SHALL NOT WRITE A FULL PROPOSAL ON THIS. Thanks.

If you're not willing to write a single proposal in your proposed style, why should we write all of ours in it?

[Ardchoille]

I think we might leave this here, since the format angle's been argued to a standstill.

On the FGM resolution, usually we try to discourage a series of proposals on individual examples of a general theme. But sometimes proposal writers find it a good tactical move to centre debate on a generally easily understood and simply argued aspect of a topic*, rather than craft broader legislation that introduces more controversial or complex concepts. If Quelesh had followed your suggestion, he could have been expected to cover everything from plastic surgery to live organ donation for profit.

(*A bit like Fabian Socialist gradualism, a bit like the Overton Window theory -- not Glenn Beck's book.)