*** Consolidated public consultation on proposed rule revisions ***
The GA Secretariat intends to implement the following rules changes. Each element should be assessed separately; we may not implement all of the proposals at once. We are interested in hearing feedback on them, especially with regard to the stated issues under each rule.
[1] Proposal spam. The Secretariat has noticed the unprecedentedly high number of proposals in the queue. Many new authors are unprepared for the sheer length of time it takes for a proposal to go from submission to an actual vote. This is exacerbated by the possibility of quorum raids which knock proposals from the queue. We therefore are considering implementation of the following proposed rule text:
Any proposal which is submitted when there are ten or more quorate proposals will be considered spam and marked illegal.
We request feedback on two major points: efficacy and feasibility. (1) Does the community believe that this would be an effective way to prevent further submissions? (2) Would it be feasible to implement in such a way that is fair to all players?
[2] Reinstated ideological ban. As revocation of the former rule has had less than optimum effects on the World Assembly, the Secretariat is considering the implementation of the following proposed rule text.
Any member of the Secretariat may declare an ideology to be "protected". Such a declaration cannot be vitiated except by resolution or rescission. Any proposal which interferes in a protected ideology in a manner central or essential thereto is illegal.
We request feedback on the following questions. (1) Should further guidelines be submitted as to what constitutes a protected ideology? (2) To avoid protracted litigation over whether an ideology's protections have in fact been vitiated by resolution, should the Secretariat adopt a "clear statement doctrine" which requires clear definition and explicit statement that an ideology is not and should not be protected by the Assembly?
[3] Linguistic and format consistency. In the interest of ensuring a general consistency in World Assembly proposals which is compatible with the manner in which the World Assembly, as a roleplay organisation, should produce its own documents, the Secretariat is proposing the following amendments to the rules:
In the Language rule, after the first sentence, insert "English refers only to British English; stylistic Americanisms will not be tolerated." After "incomprehensible English" in the last sentence, insert ", American, ".
At the end of the Language rule, insert 'The words "sapient", "sapience", and "sapiently" may not be used in proposals; member nations must be referred to as "members", "member nations", or "member states", with capitalisation of the first word only appropriate at the start of a sentence.'
At the end of the Format rule, insert in a new paragraph "In preambles, lists must be enumerated with minuscule Roman letters, followed by minuscule Roman numerals and Arabic numerals. In operative text, clauses must be enumerated and that enumeration must use Arabic numerals first, followed by minuscule Roman letters and minuscule Roman numerals. For further list subdivisions, repeat enumeration classes as needed in their respective orders."
At the end of the Language rule, insert 'The words "sapient", "sapience", and "sapiently" may not be used in proposals; member nations must be referred to as "members", "member nations", or "member states", with capitalisation of the first word only appropriate at the start of a sentence.'
At the end of the Format rule, insert in a new paragraph "In preambles, lists must be enumerated with minuscule Roman letters, followed by minuscule Roman numerals and Arabic numerals. In operative text, clauses must be enumerated and that enumeration must use Arabic numerals first, followed by minuscule Roman letters and minuscule Roman numerals. For further list subdivisions, repeat enumeration classes as needed in their respective orders."
We request feedback on a single question: is it onerous to require that all proposals be written in proper English?
[4] Linguistic complexity floor. The Secretariat has taken notice of the inability for certain members of the community to understand the simple proposals brought before the Assembly. To ensure that active participants in the Assembly have sufficient reading aptitude to understand most proposals that could be brought, we therefore are considering implementation of the following rule as a sub-section to clarify the Language rule:
Linguistic complexity. Proposals which score a Flesch-Kincaid grade level score under 12 will be declared illegal.
We request feedback on three questions. (1) Would this rule ensure that those active in the Assembly are the best players? (2) Would this change increase or reduce adjusted readability, measured in terms of a FKGL score divided by the mean reading aptitude of active authors after this change? (3) How should simple statements used in highly Latinate or Greek-influenced forms of specialised language be assessed? Such statements would incur an increased score without materially affecting linguistic complexity.
[5] Category consistency and reconciliation. The Secretariat has shuffled through definitions and procedures to determine category and strength violations at an unacceptably high rate. In order to settle these questions definitively, the Secretariat is considering the appointment of a member of the Issue Editors team to restore our number to six. As a consequence, all previous decisions on category and strength will be abrogated. A separate nominations thread will go up next week, where we will request feedback on nominees etc.
