[RULE CHANGE] Contradiction

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think substituting "legal effect" would suffice. Moreover, I don't really see either (1) the "rules" as a particularly textualist construct or (2) this reading as particularly plausible. We would reject it on standard common law grounds.

Can you elaborate? This proposed revision creates a totally novel question that precedent does not apply to. I don't see how "common law grounds" enter into it unless you simply say "nah, we're not enforcing what the rule says".

The "cumulative legal effect" of something does not include "bad vibes for suffrage". I don't think "cumulative impact" includes that either, which is your "stretch" reading proposed earlier and what "(2)" above is directed toward.

The "standard common law grounds" at hand is the scope of the rules' review of proposals, which has never included positive or negative vibe emanations on a topic. The scope of the review has always been the direct impact of a proposal. The word "cumulative" is so to read "No ice cream on Sundays + No ice cream on Monday through Saturday" as "no ice cream".

---

I am unclear as to what Biso is arguing for. The main gist of it seems to be entirely duplicative of the standard presumption that a proposal is legal and that every reasonable reading should be availed to before finding it illegal. This is already part of the general way that the rules are read. If we were to place this presumption in the rules it would be in a preamble or something like that.

As to Old Hope/First Nightmare's suggestion, the preemptive subordination clause ("later resolutions may override this resolution") has none of the "cheat code" problems – replacement before repeal – that others have alluded to. It defers to later proposals. Banning those has little effect other than facilitating the badge hunt.

[Simone Republic]

I agree with Banana above. I would much rather see subordination clauses go away than see them codified in the rules.

I disagree with that view, to the extent that some very minor exceptions can apply to avoid having to repeat very long-winded exceptions from previous resolutions. See example below.

A proposal's clauses, or their cumulative impact, may not conflict with resolutions in force. A proposal may use subordination clauses, such as "subject to previous resolutions in force", to avoid contradiction provided that these affect only a small part of the proposal's overall hypothetical impact.

To give an example, based on the latest resolution that I am drafting, I am using the following sentence:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=547171 (this is from here)

Stakeholders from other WA states, such as diplomats and family members, have a right to attend inquests unless barred by extant WA resolutions, such as due to national security.

I consider this anti-contradiction clause a small or de minimis one. It is relatively small because it only applies to a single sub-clause and not the entire resolution. Otherwise I'd need to recite long parts of GA37 (Fairness in Criminal Trials) plus a couple of the other exclusions from subsequent GA various resolutions, which would add a couple of sentences.

[Tigrisia]

Determining whether next-of-kin is the same as legal guardian requires knowing things about family law and conservatorship.

How to deal with different interpretation of such things in different legal systems? While most here stem from the US, we do have some Europeans (like me) who have drastically different laws compared to the US. That often leads to confusion, at least IMHO.

[The Overmind]

I agree with Banana above. I would much rather see subordination clauses go away than see them codified in the rules.

I disagree with that view, to the extent that some very minor exceptions can apply to avoid having to repeat very long-winded exceptions from previous resolutions. See example below.

To give an example, based on the latest resolution that I am drafting, I am using the following sentence:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=547171 (this is from here)

Stakeholders from other WA states, such as diplomats and family members, have a right to attend inquests unless barred by extant WA resolutions, such as due to national security.

I consider this anti-contradiction clause a small or de minimis one. It is relatively small because it only applies to a single sub-clause and not the entire resolution. Otherwise I'd need to recite long parts of GA37 (Fairness in Criminal Trials) plus a couple of the other exclusions from subsequent GA various resolutions, which would add a couple of sentences.

Also, anti-contradiction clauses are ancient with respect to this body. They've been in use forever.

[Simone Republic]

I'll be open and say I don't really like subordinating clauses. If you are writing a proposal, I think you should make the effort to make sure there is no contradiction, and if there is, either repeal the prior resolution or narrow the focus of your proposal. I would not be opposed to banning such clauses entirely, though of course without retroactive effect. In the alternative, I encourage authors to use some variant of "no future resolution may be enacted which would become active, in whole in part, upon the repeal of this resolution" to avoid this problem.

I support having a de minimis or small exception (as has been originally proposed). Say this sentence from here:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=547171

Stakeholders from other WA states, such as diplomats and family members, have a right to attend inquests unless barred by extant WA resolutions, such as due to national security.

The "such as" exception cites one example (GA37), but there are actually several issues, such as:

1. whether diplomats from states at war with that state can attend
2. what about family members that are barred from entering that WA state
3. what about family members that are barred from exiting another WA state
4. what about quarantine (389 is actually quite broad)
5. what about other resolutions that mention tangentially related grounds

[Wallenburg]

Can you elaborate? This proposed revision creates a totally novel question that precedent does not apply to. I don't see how "common law grounds" enter into it unless you simply say "nah, we're not enforcing what the rule says".

The "cumulative legal effect" of something does not include "bad vibes for suffrage". I don't think "cumulative impact" includes that either, which is your "stretch" reading proposed earlier and what "(2)" above is directed toward.

The "standard common law grounds" at hand is the scope of the rules' review of proposals, which has never included positive or negative vibe emanations on a topic. The scope of the review has always been the direct impact of a proposal. The word "cumulative" is so to read "No ice cream on Sundays + No ice cream on Monday through Saturday" as "no ice cream".

I don't recall arguing for vibes-based evaluations of overlapping areas of effect. When you write a Contradiction rule that concerns itself with the outcomes on top of the letter of a law, you necessarily invite issues such as these where two laws may expressly pursue incompatible outcomes and therefore Contradict despite nothing in their text actually conflicting in particular.

[The Ice States]

I think it would be a good idea in general to use "active clauses" or something similar instead of just "clauses", to make it clear that preambles are not subject to the Contradiction rule.

Re Wally, do you have any suggestions for wording to address this?

[Imperium Anglorum]

The "cumulative legal effect" of something does not include "bad vibes for suffrage". I don't think "cumulative impact" includes that either, which is your "stretch" reading proposed earlier and what "(2)" above is directed toward.

The "standard common law grounds" at hand is the scope of the rules' review of proposals, which has never included positive or negative vibe emanations on a topic. The scope of the review has always been the direct impact of a proposal. The word "cumulative" is so to read "No ice cream on Sundays + No ice cream on Monday through Saturday" as "no ice cream".

I don't recall arguing for vibes-based evaluations of overlapping areas of effect. When you write a Contradiction rule that concerns itself with the outcomes on top of the letter of a law, you necessarily invite issues such as these where two laws may expressly pursue incompatible outcomes and therefore Contradict despite nothing in their text actually conflicting in particular.

It doesn't do that though. The phrase "their cumulative impact" clearly refers back to the clauses themselves and not an abstract impact of the proposal.

[Wallenburg]

I don't recall arguing for vibes-based evaluations of overlapping areas of effect. When you write a Contradiction rule that concerns itself with the outcomes on top of the letter of a law, you necessarily invite issues such as these where two laws may expressly pursue incompatible outcomes and therefore Contradict despite nothing in their text actually conflicting in particular.

It doesn't do that though. The phrase "their cumulative impact" clearly refers back to the clauses themselves and not an abstract impact of the proposal.

"Their cumulative impact" clearly does not refer back to the clauses themselves, otherwise the proposed rule text would effectively read "A proposal's clauses, or its clauses, may not conflict with resolutions in force." That's absurd. The structure of this rule alone necessitates that "cumulative impact" mean something other than the letter of the law. The most natural conclusion is that this includes purpose-oriented effects not immediately present in the text but logically predictable from the text. For instance, the furtherance of the suffrage in an automatic voter registration proposal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Re "cumulative impact", I think that interpretation nonsense and the only interpretation of "cumulative impact" is exactly what is on the tin. Two proposal clauses can interact to have a separate effect than each one read separately.

Re subordination, it appears that the community and the Secretariat are still divided. I would want to know whether people want (1) a trial period on no subordination, (2) an actual consensus, or (3) failing both of those we probably will default to the status quo.

[Bisofeyr]

Re "cumulative impact", I think that interpretation nonsense and the only interpretation of "cumulative impact" is exactly what is on the tin. Two proposal clauses can interact to have a separate effect than each one read separately.

Re subordination, it appears that the community and the Secretariat are still divided. I would want to know whether people want (1) a trial period on no subordination, (2) an actual consensus, or (3) failing both of those we probably will default to the status quo.

A trial period would work well from my perspective.

[Simone Republic]

Re "cumulative impact", I think that interpretation nonsense and the only interpretation of "cumulative impact" is exactly what is on the tin. Two proposal clauses can interact to have a separate effect than each one read separately.

Re subordination, it appears that the community and the Secretariat are still divided. I would want to know whether people want (1) a trial period on no subordination, (2) an actual consensus, or (3) failing both of those we probably will default to the status quo.

The "trial" has a couple of major issues, I reckon:

1. What happens to current resolutions at vote (or soon to go into queue)? I know Mage pulled his demilitarisation thing, but are any new submissions subject to the trial?

2. Are ruling that concern this rule binding during the trial? (I assume no if you change the rule since that resets precedents anyway).

Default to status quo until there's consensus seems to work better.

[The Ice States]

For the record, this change is still being discussed within the Secretariat, particularly given the divided community input on the matter of subordination clauses. I am optimistic that at some point it will be finalised, but we may request further community input before that happens.

[First Nightmare]

I'll be open and say I don't really like subordinating clauses. If you are writing a proposal, I think you should make the effort to make sure there is no contradiction, and if there is, either repeal the prior resolution or narrow the focus of your proposal. I would not be opposed to banning such clauses entirely, though of course without retroactive effect. In the alternative, I encourage authors to use some variant of "no future resolution may be enacted which would become active, in whole in part, upon the repeal of this resolution" to avoid this problem.

I support having a de minimis or small exception (as has been originally proposed). Say this sentence from here:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=547171

Stakeholders from other WA states, such as diplomats and family members, have a right to attend inquests unless barred by extant WA resolutions, such as due to national security.

The "such as" exception cites one example (GA37), but there are actually several issues, such as:

1. whether diplomats from states at war with that state can attend
2. what about family members that are barred from entering that WA state
3. what about family members that are barred from exiting another WA state
4. what about quarantine (389 is actually quite broad)
5. what about other resolutions that mention tangentially related grounds

You might think it is de minimis, or small.. but is it?
If 389, for example, would be repealed you couldn't prevent those people from spreading deadly diseases.
That's not a small effect at all!
You might also have missed a major interaction.
If you allow subordination clauses:
-it will not be clear to the voters what these actually do, and even WA experts might miss interactions due to the big number of active resolutions.
-it might create very undesirable effects when repealing a resolution(such as the example above); and the voters will likely miss it completely because it's an interaction resulting from another resolution(plus, obviously, the more complicated repeal of the offending resolution before you can even replace... it's just a mess).
If you ban subordination clauses:
-the author workload increases
-the difficulty of writing within word limits increases

If you allow de minimis subordination clauses:
-it will still not tell the voters what this clause actually does
-the clause might seem de minimis but actually isn't(good luck finding this out every time)

Subordination clauses decrease author workload and writing difficulty at the expense of likely deceiving WA voters, repeal workload and repeal integrity(not legislating in a repeal)

I'd say ban.

[The Overmind]

I'm jumping into this late, but I want to emphasize two critically important considerations vis-á-vis Contradiction and subordinating clauses.

1. As the legal corpus grows, and it is already quite extensive, it becomes more and more difficult for even seasoned players to avoid contradictions. Add to that that the expectations about proposal writing quality, and the number of coalitions to appease, have similarly grown extensively, and you have a situation where the learning curve for writing for the General Assembly is overwhelming for newer, especially younger, players.
   
   Consider the gamut they run in terms of rules, extant resolution knowledge, formatting, argument style, linguistic register, regional politics, and the nuances of campaigning and accruing approvals for new proposals. Add to that that they must ensure that none of their clauses contradict any past clause, including intentionally placed blockers. There is also currently a huge problem of topic monopolization occurring on the GA drafting forum, where, without taking full account of all of the seasoned author drafts that have been updated since the beginning of the year, there is a single author with over twenty-five such active threads. This is a completely untenable situation that removing subordinating clauses threatens to make worse. Clearly we cannot fix all of these systemic issues here, but we can make them worse.
   
   
2. On the flip side, while I actually love the idea of implied repeals, and think that subordination clauses are extremely well-precedented, we are on the verge of an entirely new way of codifying legislation in terms of gameside effects. When it comes time for issues editors to decide on statistical effects and policies of proposals, it is extremely unreasonable to expect that they will check every other resolution for a contradiction, or go back and implement the effects of implied repeals.
   
   This makes me think that the era of doing anything other than strictly enforcing Contradiction is coming to an end, despite my erstwhile argument that doing so will significantly burden an already overwhelmed player base.

I do not have a good direct suggestion for what to do about fixing these issues through redefining Contradiction. I do, however, think this points us in the direction of conversations with M/A about how best to balance the concerns of item 1 with item 2.

And, although it is not the main point of this conversation, I think it does mean we have to start looking at practices like blockers as potentially exacerbating practices the legality of which may warrant reconsideration.

Inasmuch as it can help, and as GenSec has already started doing, I think a dressing down, simplifing, and increasing the leniency of the overall rule set is probably going to be necessary.

It would also be helpful if we could develop a list of existing blockers, and an index of in-effect resolutions (minus repeals and GA#1) relating them to their (formal) category and (informal) topic.

On the individual player level: guys, please, some of you just need to slow it down with the drafting threads.

But, to wrap up this train of thought, I think that it would be very helpful if subordinating clauses remain open to players inasmuch as this doesn't clearly create problems for the people encoding the effects of newly-minted resolutions. I'm less concerned, however, about the exact wording of the rule to the extent that it does what everyone has already suggested and makes the rule as broadly accessible as possible.

[The Overmind]

Addendum: after a discussion offline with The Ice States, I realized that it is actually possible to make blockers unenforceable by simply leaving clauses respecting the WA itself out of the definition of Contradiction, which I would support. I suggest the following wording to cut out the unnecessary complication of apply three verbs to two nouns:

"A proposal clause may not encourage, require, or authorize violations of active World Assembly law."

As The Ice States pointed out to me when I pitched this wording to him, it would not cover instances where proposal clauses themselves were the violation of active World Assembly law (i.e. in the case of blockers).

I refer to my above argument for why, going forward, one solution to the problems I presented, may be to reevaluate the inclusion of blockers. This is elegant in that it wouldn't require any new rules: it would just render blockers, which likely wouldn't change gameside statistics or policies anyway, unenforceable.

[Stoice]

The Secretariat requests comment on two questions:

1. Is this revision is understandable and clear, especially for new players?
   
   
2. Should a sentence such as "Scenarios leading to contradiction should be comparable to the real world" be written in the text? Would it be overly restrictive?

The term "subordination clause" is not clear to new players at all. I only know what it's referring to because I've seen them in use.

I join W&S in that I would prefer to see such clauses banned. I further note that in my view it is a violation of both game mechanics and a house-of-cards problem to have the mandates of a resolution change should a different resolution be repealed, given that repeals may have not enacts positive law.

Alternatively, I would suggest a complete overhaul of contradiction/duplication to simply state that the most recently enacted resolution takes legal precedence over any prior resolutions that may govern. This would likely be the most new-player-friendly option of all given that it would not require familiarity with the existing corpus at all to avoid getting thwacked with a contradiction/duplication illegality. (Of course, voters would have to be smart enough to not vote for an inferior superseding resolution.)

As a fellow leader of a newly established nation, namely Stoice, I agree that the term subordination clause is not quite clear. In my opinion, bringing importance to recently established resolutions over pre-existing ones could be a great idea, as it would both allow for people such as myself to better understand and follow the corpus, and for more relevant rules to prevail over older, and possibly out-dated laws.

[Second Sovereignty]

A proposal's clauses, or their cumulative impact, may not conflict with resolutions in force. A proposal may use subordination clauses, such as "subject to previous resolutions in force", to avoid contradiction provided that these affect only a small part of the proposal's overall hypothetical impact.

I support the change as-written, without adjustment. The position on contradiction wherein subordination clauses are permissible within a strictly narrow context, - the present status-quo per 2023 GAS 2 - is absolutely the healthiest one for the GA as a whole; recent - unless I'm horribly misremembering something, - wild abuses of such clauses do not render long-standing and quite reasonable methods of dodging overbroad or unnecessarily complex clauses, or of dodging extremely minor, difficult to catch or phrase-dance clauses, in prior legislation inherently illegitimate. I do not understand why there is such a weight of people behind the idea that every proposal must be subject to line-hunting of all prior law on vaguely related subject matters, particularly when GA resolutions have a character limit.

Also, to note Overmind's apparent desire to kill blockers, that's an awful idea; blockers are a useful and desirable concept in the GA. Making blockers, - law which prevents law, - unenforcable effectively guts contradiction as a rule. If you are permitted to directly, flagrantly, and totally contradict and supersede existing law, there is effectively no reason to ever repeal a damn thing. And, needless to say, implied repeal is a ridiculous idea that we shouldn't even be entertaining as a joke.

[The Overmind]

Also, to note Overmind's apparent desire to kill blockers, that's an awful idea; blockers are a useful and desirable concept in the GA. Making blockers, - law which prevents law, - unenforcable effectively guts contradiction as a rule. If you are permitted to directly, flagrantly, and totally contradict and supersede existing law, there is effectively no reason to ever repeal a damn thing. And, needless to say, implied repeal is a ridiculous idea that we shouldn't even be entertaining as a joke.

Removing blockers would do absolutely nothing to the bulk of the function of contradiction, which applies to clauses encouraging, requiring, or authorizing member nations to do something, not the World Assembly. It was also the remotest part of my reply and an afterthought, argued for with respect to hopefully reducing the complexity newer and younger players already deal with without blockers, which generally subtend a wide field of legislation, unlike specific, far more narrow, clauses. The point was about making this game accessible to newer, especially younger players, and one among many such discussion points.

[Second Sovereignty]

Removing blockers would do absolutely nothing to the bulk of the function of contradiction, which applies to clauses encouraging, requiring, or authorizing member nations to do something, not the World Assembly. It was also the remotest part of my reply and an afterthought, argued for with respect to hopefully reducing the complexity newer and younger players already deal with without blockers, which generally subtend a wide field of legislation, unlike specific, far more narrow, clauses. The point was about making this game accessible to newer, especially younger players, and one among many such discussion points.

If the World Assembly is not permitted to write binding law regarding the World Assembly, what exactly, does establishing a committee do?

I'm going to be real with you; I don't think creating a type of clause which, regardless of the specificity or otherwise binding language, is uniquely permitted to be completely ignored by all future legislation, is going to reduce complexity. Moreover, reducing complexity is not a universal good; blockers are not an unreasonable thing to have, and are a very simple concept to understand.

[The Overmind]

Removing blockers would do absolutely nothing to the bulk of the function of contradiction, which applies to clauses encouraging, requiring, or authorizing member nations to do something, not the World Assembly. It was also the remotest part of my reply and an afterthought, argued for with respect to hopefully reducing the complexity newer and younger players already deal with without blockers, which generally subtend a wide field of legislation, unlike specific, far more narrow, clauses. The point was about making this game accessible to newer, especially younger players, and one among many such discussion points.

If the World Assembly is not permitted to write binding law regarding the World Assembly, what exactly, does establishing a committee do?

I'm going to be real with you; I don't think creating a type of clause which, regardless of the specificity or otherwise binding language, is uniquely permitted to be completely ignored by all future legislation, is going to reduce complexity. Moreover, reducing complexity is not a universal good; blockers are not an unreasonable thing to have, and are a very simple concept to understand.

The establishment of a committee on its own does nothing. Hence, the Committees rule. And my suggestion about blockers, which, again, is the remotest part of what I said and not something I'm here to have a fully hashed-out argument about, has nothing to do with the complexity of understanding them. The complexity comes from having to avoid a minefield of clauses and blockers when writing new legislation, as I said in the first sentence of my first post. The only reason I single out blockers is because, unlike clauses, which individually legislate on a narrow area of law, they can, and have in the past, swept out a much larger portion of potential law. They are limited only to not blocking any total area of effect or larger, which is to say that they're not very limited at all. But, supposing that removing blockers are not one way we are willing to alleviate the burden on newer and younger players, how wide or narrow they are allowed to be can be discussed when and if that rule is ever brought up for discussion.

However, on "reducing complexity is not a universal good," clearly we are discussing this in the context of things being way too complex, and are not discussing the ideals of complexity, as an idea onto itself, in a vacuum.

[Simone Republic]

One question: does the subordination clause "subject to extant resolutions" apply under this rule to resolutions passed beforehand or future resolutions as well?

There's a lot of resolutions that use that phrase such as 425 plus some of my stuff.

[Second Sovereignty]

And my suggestion about blockers, which, again, is the remotest part of what I said and not something I'm here to have a fully hashed-out argument about, has nothing to do with the complexity of understanding them. The complexity comes from having to avoid a minefield of clauses and blockers when writing new legislation, as I said in the first sentence of my first post. The only reason I single out blockers is because, unlike clauses, which individually legislate on a narrow area of law, they can, and have in the past, swept out a much larger portion of potential law. They are limited only to not blocking any total area of effect or larger, which is to say that they're not very limited at all. But, supposing that removing blockers are not one way we are willing to alleviate the burden on newer and younger players, how wide or narrow they are allowed to be can be discussed when and if that rule is ever brought up for discussion.

However, on "reducing complexity is not a universal good," clearly we are discussing this in the context of things being way too complex, and are not discussing the ideals of complexity, as an idea onto itself, in a vacuum.

Okay, bear with me, I'm not going to directly respond to this because breaking down my posts into their constituent phrases detached from the fundamental context and the point I'm making making without actually engaging with said point in favor of constructing new, weaker, arguments from now-disparate parts is going to drag us both into an unpleasant and unhelpful argument, and I don't care to follow that these days; instead I will be laying out my position is the most abundantly clear terms I can come up with.

A blocker is a simple concept; a law that acts upon the World Assembly itself so as to set barriers on what can and cannot be legislated upon. Moreover, compared to the more minute instances of contradiction which can occur with regards to conflicts between other law which acts upon Member-States, contradiction of a blocker is clear-cut and obvious; to use perhaps the most archetypal example, NAPA, - GAR #10, Nuclear Arms Possession Act - the blocker is quite plain and inarguable.

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons,

Here's another example; GAR #451, International Aero-Space Administration.

4. The World Assembly renounces any direct authority over domestic space programs or their operations, and reserves them entirely to their respective national jurisdictions.

Here's a third, less blunt but equally clear in fundamental action; GAR #369, Reproductive Education Act.

7. Reserves to the several member states the power and authority to regulate reproductive education within their jurisdictions, within the confines of World Assembly law.

Falling afoul of these is very simple. You, were it not repealed, would contradict NAPA by trying to say Member-States can't have nukes, or indeed, must have nukes. You would contradict IASA by trying to grant the World Assembly direct authority over the operations of Member-States' space programs. You would contradict Reproductive Education Act by attempting to interfere with Member-States' reproductive education policies via the World Assembly, any further than the World Assembly has.
This is about the simplest thing in the world; they're very broad, and very straightforward. You would not be reducing complexity by any appreciable measure by preventing such law. I would say that a new member looking to say, prevent Member-States from interfering in how they handle their fishing industry, - whether or not such laws is desirable, - would be both confused and annoyed by the idea that it is impossible to set any bounds on the World Assembly within the World Assembly, despite however clear and direct law may be on attempting to do so. Certainly it would not encourage them to stick around as a Member-State.
We have enough trouble convincing them to accept that amendments are neither happening nor desirable; if we have to expand that discussion to subjects that manifestly are and were possible, and which are very useful and precedented, then we're just in hell.

Now, considering that, as you say, your discussion of blockers does not exist in a vacuum, I'm going to briefly touch on the only other thing in your post that I took issue with. You briefly allude to 'loving the idea of implied repeals', and, given IA's concise shredding of the idea earlier in the thread, I didn't feel that warranted more than the passing effort of disregarding it out of hand.

And, finally, to be clear, as we both seem to agree on the matter of Subordination Clauses, I obviously did not make that part of my original post in reference to yours.

[The Overmind]

-snip-

We're mostly talking at cross purposes, and not actually in disagreement about anything fundamental, so I'm just going to repeat the thesis of my argument, as it underlies everything else. The complexity that newer and younger players face comes primarily from the learning curve of contributing to the General Assembly, a major component of which is the large and growing corpus of pre-existing law. My argument is that all avenues of reducing this unnecessary burden alleviate the overall complexity of contributing, not because any blocker is hard to understand or because implied repeals are not without significant issues, but because the learning curve of these collective contributors is harrowingly steep. I am not broadly in favor of trying to settle matters with subordinate clauses, not because I think they aren't a very good remedy right now, but because I think they will not play nice with the coming major changes to how the WA interacts with gameside. I would love if that did not turn out to be the case, but I very much doubt it.

[Bananaistan]

I'm jumping into this late, but I want to emphasize two critically important considerations vis-á-vis Contradiction and subordinating clauses.

[list=1][*]As the legal corpus grows, and it is already quite extensive, it becomes more and more difficult for even seasoned players to avoid contradictions. Add to that that the expectations about proposal writing quality, and the number of coalitions to appease, have similarly grown extensively, and you have a situation where the learning curve for writing for the General Assembly is overwhelming for newer, especially younger, players.

Consider the gamut they run in terms of rules, extant resolution knowledge, formatting, argument style, linguistic register, regional politics, and the nuances of campaigning and accruing approvals for new proposals. Add to that that they must ensure that none of their clauses contradict any past clause, including intentionally placed blockers. There is also currently a huge problem of topic monopolization occurring on the GA drafting forum, where, without taking full account of all of the seasoned author drafts that have been updated since the beginning of the year, there is a single author with over twenty-five such active threads. This is a completely untenable situation that removing subordinating clauses threatens to make worse. Clearly we cannot fix all of these systemic issues here, but we can make them worse.

...

I fundamentally disagree that subordinating clauses make it easier for new players. If anything, when they exist, they make it substantially more difficult to understand the totality of passed resolutions on a topic.