The Need for Further Rules Reform

[Imperium Anglorum]

The Need for Further Rules Reform
Imperium Anglorum
11.35 · 22 June 2018

Over two years ago, we as a community spent time to rewrite and exercise reforms over the General Assembly’s ruleset. Those reforms have not been particularly successful but for the creation of an authoritative voice that can shut down, dismiss, and resolve legality challenges far more quickly and effectively than the Moderators could in the past.

The reformed and written rules themselves are being quickly superseded by the general practices of the past and a new case law that base little resemblance to the wording of those rules themselves. Certainly, the meaning of the rules is clear to many of the more well-educated regulars. It has not been so clear, however, to many new players who are understandably reluctant to dive into the realm of GA legalities, read thousands of words of rulings, and develop an understanding that for many of us, came primarily from the closed and archived discussions we participated in two years ago.

One of the better examples of this has been the recent kerfuffle over the applicability of the House of Cards rule to repeals. There is certainly an interpretation to the text of that rule which would make the repeal illegal. The boundary of a reference, as specified in the "However" exception in the second sentence of the current ruleset is something that is unclear. And the idea of an exception of that breadth certainly is something that many have fought against for various reasons – including former main GA moderator Ardochille – in the past. But the knowledge of precedent and past understanding of that rule would preclude that interpretation.

I asked myself then, "How is it that we have, as a community, so failed to pass on information of the past to the current crop of new players?" The conclusion I came to, certainly not uncontroversial, is that we have failed to do so because of the relative inaccessibility of the actual rules as they operate in practice and their disconnect from the actual rules that are linked and quoted to new players. To borrow a phrase from Scott’s Seeing Like a State, we have created a dark twin of illegible practices akin to the actualities of transport under the Code routier.

Solutions

The way forward, out of this mess, is to reform the rules yet again. But instead of having a non-GA player write them – dependent on the guidance of the past ruleset, and not the actual rules are they are enforced – it is we that must create them. And we must create them clearly, codifying them out of the tests and precedents established by the Secretariat in the last two years.

For example, instead of the current House of Cards rule, we could introduce explicit burdens, eliminating the need for interpretation of the rules outside of their application. Already, this test exists, just only in something akin to case law. Today, the rule says a proposal cannot "rely" on another resolution. Imagine if we replaced that with something along the lines of:

A House of Cards violation exists when an operative clause in a proposal could be rendered inoperative or nonsensical by repeal of past legislation.

Similarly, the Honest Mistake rule's text about misrepresentation is both unclear and misleading. The level of misrepresentation is unknown. And the idea of misrepresentation contradicts the previous sentence when it states that "Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'". But yet, we have direct adjudicative standards for Honest Mistake violations. Instead, the rule could perhaps read:

An Honest Mistake exists when a clause of a repeal makes an unreasonable interpretation of any part of the target resolution.

This clarifies and resolves the main question that repeated emerged surrounding the two legality challenge against Repeal "Freedom of Expression": whether the existence of alternative interpretations make an Honest Mistake. It is the inaccessibility of a clear statement of the burden associated with the form of action that resulted in the current state of affairs, where "nobody understands how [Honest Mistake challenges] work".

And just this week, we had another challenge based on a reading of the amendment rule that could be true given the rule itself. Just, it could not possibly be valid given our current understanding of that rule. Fortunately, it is something that can trivially be resolved by introducing the test that the Amendment rule require a literal change in the text to apply. And today, there was a claim that a proposal was joke, and therefore, was illegal. Similarly, the ability to even have this disagreement goes away if we rewrite the rule to reflect the burden we use now: that the whole proposal must be a joke.

It is not like this solution is novel or new. It was something I called for in 2016. Moreover, this has already been done. The recent reforms to the Committees rule after "Ban on Secret Treaties" created a rules-based standard saying:

Requiring member states to interact with the committee somehow is sufficient, provided [it] creates a measurable burden.

While I would have preferred something different (a more clear-cut declaration of any interaction at all, leaving out the interpretation of what is "measurable") this is significantly more clear than the "solution" in the past of applying a test that could not be found in the rules and could not be found, full stop, without significant digging.

Concluding remarks

I'm very aware that many people are extremely attached to our difficult-to-learn and utterly illegible system of adjudication. That attachment simply does not outweigh the importance of permitting accessibility to this part of the game and the pedagogical significance of this kind of change. While the restriction of the necessary information to adjudicate and make sense of these rules and challenges certainly gives us as regulars an extreme advantage in yelling at noobs who do not and cannot know better, it does not add value to the game.

And while this process will undoubtedly create backlash from parts of the community which seek to use the rules' mutability as a bludgeon with which to hit new players, that is not what the game is fundamentally about.

If we care about the accessibility of this part of the game and the quality of life of its members, we should take action to remedy these problems and resolve them in a clear and transparent fashion. For, we must recognise that these problems will not simply go way. The current trickle of new players, while small, still exists. They will hold misguided and incorrect views on the ruleset that cannot simply be disposed of by passive-aggressive ex post corrections. The act of doing so will both drive them away and make it clear that the forum is not in any way friendly. Certainly, I have seen first-hand how this has failed in the past.

This rewrite, with clear standards, would complete the process of reform that began two years ago and fulfil the promise of the Consortium to proceed forward with clear rules requiring little interpretation. This, I hope we can agree, is better for everyone.

EDIT 1: Corrected some transcription errors.
EDIT 2: Corrected a transcription error that I didn't catch on the last pass.

[Frisbeeteria]

But instead of having a non-GA player write them – dependent on the guidance of the past ruleset, and not the actual rules are they are enforced – it is we that must create them.

Ever since the Enodian ruleset of 2003, UN / WA / GA rules have always been written by players/mods active in the forum. I've been part of the re-write team twice, and contributed several other times. I've no objection to active players writing rules suggestions, or even complete rulesets. What I DO object to is somebody saying "this is wrong, you guys need to rewrite it". So yeah, have at it. Rewrite the entire thing. But then ...

Per site guidelines, laid down from the very top, any rules need to be clear and concise. Management isn't going to accept 42 pages of precedent clarifying each individual rule. Players shouldn't need a law degree to write a proposal in a game. If you can't clearly state, in one or two sentences, whatever it is that you're trying to achieve, it won't fly.

Not surprisingly, short rulings contain some ambiguity. That's a problem with the English language, not the rules themselves. That's why we had WA mods, and later GenSec, to rule on those ambiguities and address each case as it came.

The other requirement is getting a consensus from other players and staff. No two people can look at the same sentence and draw exactly the same conclusion. Every case that comes before a judge or magistrate or lawmaker proves that point. If interpretation were identical, we wouldn't need judges. So instead we have a collaborative process, where an author seeks input, making changes until most everyone is mostly satisfied. Any non-collaborative effort is doomed to failure from the start.

This rewrite, with clear standards, would complete the process of reform

Like I said at the start, YOU do it. Let's see what you can put together. Let's see how you do with criticisms of the various shortcomings of the various statements. Let's see how you make 5 words do the work of 50. I'm not trying to be mean here - I'm making the point that it's anything but easy. When mods were in control, the collaborative authoring process involved 5-8 people, and generally took about 2 years for consensus. Of course we included player input, and of course we rejected many of the suggestions. You can't please everybody.

Have at it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Fris, you're telling me that players shouldn't need a law degree. And rules shouldn't be too long. And that we shouldn't rely so much on case law. That's exactly what my essay says.

I don't want to require anyone to have a law degree. I don't want to have long rules. I don't want to rely practically at all on case law. Right now, today, you basically do. Right now, we have long rules. They just aren't in the rules, but rather, in a pile of opinions (if written at all – eg you can't find anything in the GenSec catalogue about HoC applying to repeals, and what Banana found is inaccessible insofar as a player doesn't know exactly where and how to look). Right now, to get an understanding of the rules as enforced, you can't just read the ruleset. Rather, you have to read piles and piles of opinions that you cannot find because the Rulings Repository (excepting the one that I've created for just GenSec rulings) hasn't been updated for years.

When people talk about Amendments, there is nothing in the rules about a literal change in the text. When we talk about Metagaming (perspective side, not mechanics side) violations, there is nothing there saying that proposals are only illegal if words can only be interpreted, within the space of reasonable interpretations, to apply to the game.

Yet, almost all of the rules that we actually do have can basically be summarised in a few sentences. Or, at least, the burdens that need to be met can be so summarised. I gave three examples above. I gave two more examples, with reform proposals, also above.

EDIT: Corrected factual error.

[Frisbeeteria]

Then we're in agreement.

I don't want an essay telling me what's wrong. I want somebody to take ownership of the process, and you've volunteered. Write your complete updated ruleset with the ambiguities removed. Post it in a new thread and seek input. Maybe highlight changes so we can see at a glance what's new. You'll get feedback, I promise you. And if you end up with a better ruleset, you can even get Author credit (or at least revision credit). That's more than I ever got.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I did the rewrite already, over two years ago. That never went anywhere. I have no confidence that doing what you're suggesting would prove any more successful than last time. And the idea of opening up everything to change at the same time is counterproductive. If you really believed that weren't the case, then there would not have been the restriction we saw in the Rules Consortium to discuss certain batches of rules at a time.

I haven't and also won't say there aren't ambiguities (especially in the Category rule, though they could be eliminated). Most of the rules, however, are not ambiguous (at least in comparison to the current ones and the Hack ones). We have clear tests and burdens for them. Yet, in the last 10 days, we've seen people claim that:

• Metagaming applies to the word 'region' and not only the word 'region' when it is in a clearly game context (2018-06-13). It's not.
  
  
• Being too short is illegal (2018-06-15). It's not.
  
  
• Honest mistake applies when there exists a better interpretation than the one that a repeal makes, even if the repeal makes a colourable interpretation (two claims, both 2018-06-18). It doesn't.
  
  
• Amendments apply to changes in the meaning of things even if the text doesn't change at all (2018-06-23). It's not.
  
  
• Jokes apply to the presence of any joke, instead of the whole proposal being a joke (2018-06-23). It's not.

These are all cases where changing the wording of the rules doesn't add much length to anything. And where changes can clearly specify exactly that we are prohibiting. And where the rules are in of themselves unclear. And where there exist clear burdens or tests that can be used to show this. Oh, and my essay doesn't just say things are bad, it also includes two whole examples where we can improve the wording. Batteries included.

[Erithaca]

Where can I find a list of moderator rulings? I agree with Frisbeteeria that the rules should not be too complicated and understandable.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Where can I find a list of moderator rulings? I agree with Frisbeteeria that the rules should not be too complicated and understandable.

Doesn't exist. There was a Rulings Repository. It fell wildly out of date very soon after it was created.

If you want a table of GenSec rulings, however, you can find my list of them here: http://bit.ly/gensec-catalogue (also linked at the top, in the GenSec thread). In the second sheet, there is a wildly incomplete list of Moderator rulings. It only goes back to 2015. Most rulings are from before that time.

To be frank, those rulings also don't shed much light on what the rules are now, especially after the first round of post-Hack rules reform and the creation of the Secretariat, which has overruled past rulings and rewritten some rules. And it doesn't help that they were internally inconsistent when they were made, too. I don't think you'll find much disagreement amongst the band of regulars who were active in the period 2014 to early 2016 about this.

[Gruenberg]

Yet, in the last 10 days, we've seen people claim that:

I don't think there's any way of rewriting the rules in the way you're suggesting that will stop people making claims of this sort. It's a cultural thing whereby OOC rules lawyering seems to have become the dominant activity in the forum.

If someone suggests a proposal is illegal for being too short or whatever, then just ignore them.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't think there's any way of rewriting the rules in the way you're suggesting that will stop people making claims of this sort. It's a cultural thing whereby OOC rules lawyering seems to have become the dominant activity in the forum.

I think one of the few steps we can take to get rid of this problem is honestly to reduce the scope of rules lawyering. The scope was already reduced massively, due to GenSec's creation. And I think it's almost self-evident how that made things a lot better. Further reducing that scope by introducing tests is one of the few things we can do now to increase the barriers to legality griefing

[Gruenberg]

I don't think there's any way of rewriting the rules in the way you're suggesting that will stop people making claims of this sort. It's a cultural thing whereby OOC rules lawyering seems to have become the dominant activity in the forum.

I think one of the few steps we can take to get rid of this problem is honestly to reduce the scope of rules lawyering. The scope was already reduced massively, due to GenSec's creation. And I think it's almost self-evident how that made things a lot better.

Huh, that is definitely not my perception of it. The constant rules discussion in every proposal thread seems worse to me, now, than in the past, but I haven't been back that long so maybe it's just been a bad week or so.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Huh, that is definitely not my perception of it. The constant rules discussion in every proposal thread seems worse to me, now, than in the past, but I haven't been back that long so maybe it's just been a bad week or so.

My recollection over the last few months has been that things are slowly getting better. I'll totally agree that this week, however, has been abhorrent. And I think one of the main reasons for why that is the case is because of controversial topics. When controversial topics emerge on which a vocal population is losing, they naturally try to latch onto anything in sight that can stop whatever it is. (EDIT: This isn't some kind of 'the opposition is bad' claim. I think it's a natural thing in how humans operate.) We saw clear admissions of that in both Legality challenge threads against the recent repeal. The ambiguity in the rules and the nonexistence of clear tests made that much more easy.

[Gruenberg]

I don't see rewriting the rules as making any difference to that. If they've adopted it as a tactic, it doesn't really matter what the text of the rules is, they'll find some other pretext for a challenge.

Which is not to say don't rewrite them, just that I highly doubt the change to the wording will lead to a reduction in rules lawyering.

[Imperium Anglorum]

After some thought, I've decided to propose the following changes to three rules. Both are based on the hypothetical possibilities I spoke about in the original post. And they address the Amendment, House of Cards, and Honest Mistake rules.

I've decided to hold off on anything having to do with the Metagaming rule, mostly because the Metagaming rule isn't altogether clear. I conceive of it as a combination of a hypothetical Mechanics and Perspective rule. Then again, metagaming is an astonishingly unclear term which we don't really use in the same way the rest of the Internet does. Metagaming usually refers to 'the meta', eg which builds a player should select, what are the best counters, etc. Splitting it out into the two sections, I think, is the best option. Obviously, that's controversial in a hyper-conservative organisation like this.

Amendments

Currently, the Amendments rule reads as follows:

A supplementary set of clauses that either enhance or modify an active proposal's text. Proposals cannot amend existing resolutions because the game's coding does not allow for it. To introduce new legislation, the active resolution must be repealed. This applies to appeals as well.

Let's be honest, we don't know what enhance means. And current understanding of the rule revolves primarily around actual changes to text. I don't know what "appeals" refers to in the last sentence. I think it should read repeals. But the presence of typos in this version of the ruleset is, to be frank, not something altogether new.

I propose something like the following:

No clause in any proposal may modify the text of any past resolution.

Repeals don't modify, they strike out. This is much clearer than 'enhance' (image zoom!) and it clearly establishes the scope of the rule. One, it applies to all clauses individually. Two, it applies to all proposals. Three, it clearly establishes a test for the actual modification of text.

House of Cards

Currently, the House of Cards rule reads as follows:

Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent. However, repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal.

This creates an exception for repeals. No exception is necessary. And we as a community have discussed at length whatever 'rely' means. We already have a test for this: it is that an actual House of Cards is created. The expression of that test should make its way into the rule. So:

No operative clause in any proposal may be rendered inoperative or logically nonsensical by repeal of a past resolution.

Repeal references are fine: they are arguments. Prefatory references are fine: they are not operative clauses. When we talk about House of Cards, we mean when an operative clause references something like 'pursuant to the definition in resolution 135' (I typed in numbers at random). It is that kind of logical dependence we want to eliminate. This does that. Obviously, there are alternative wordings which could be clearer or less ambiguous than mine which could be used. Offer away.

Honest Mistake

Currently, the Honest Mistake rule reads:

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.

We don't enforce this rule. We enforce a very different rule that talks about unreasonable interpretations of target resolutions. And the Secretariat has also made it clear, both in moderator and modern incarnations, that ruling on claims about the real world is bad. Ardochille (in-?)famously wrote that one could claim that oxygen explodes on contact with water and there would be no pushback insofar as the rules are concerned. I too think it would be extremely dangerous for the Secretariat to start ruling on fact claims about the world (for example, the fact that there exists no bourgeois conspiracy to enslave workers under wage slavery) and not on fact claims about proposals themselves.

Moreover, I've never seen anything ever get hit for stating the reverse of arguments in the resolution. Nor have I ever seen anything been hit for not addressing the resolution enough. I'm honestly curious if anyone remembers anything about those parts.

However, the Honest Mistake rule currently seems to do more than one thing. The first thing is the real meat of the legality challenges. The second is the actual "honest mistake" part, which deals with targeting the wrong resolution (eg repealing GA 2 with arguments meant for, say, Reproductive Freedoms). Thus:

Repeals may not make unreasonable interpretations of the target resolution.

Here, we get more clarification on scope. The first thing is interpreted this way. And moreover, the second thing, ie selecting the wrong resolution, must always fall into the first. If one did use arguments for Reproductive Freedoms on GA 2, then it obviously wouldn't be a colourable interpretation of GA 2.

EDIT 1: Forgot the word 'of' somewhere.
EDIT 2: Forgot the above edit change tag.
EDIT 3: In final paragraph, words 'part' replaced with 'thing'.

[Gruenberg]

Agree with the amendment rewrite.

Still favour getting rid of the HoC rule so no opinion on that.

Agree with the Honest Mistake rewrite.

But, as Glen-Rhodes once said, "arguing over rules interpretation will be an integral part of the game as long as there are rules to interpret," so I don't see these as leading to the reduction in rules-lawyering or spurious challenges you're hoping for.

[Uan aa Boa]

I would like to thank Imperium Anglorum for bringing this up. The key consideration should be accessibility to new players. I'm certainly not saying throw out all standards. Each week there are several submissions where no competent attempt to engage with the rules has been made and these are rightly ignored. Yet it makes no sense to have a sticky rules thread that doesn't contain the rules, which are either written somewhere with no clear signposting or have to be absorbed through exposure to case law.

I wrote one of the two legal challenges IA referred to. I carefully consulted the sticky thread and decided that, since there seemed to be a reading of the resolution being repealed that was far superior to IA's reading, there was misrepresentation as set out by the honest mistake rule. I was wrong because of a criterion that the veterans know and which can be expressed in one sentence, yet it's not in the sticky thread. Despite being intermittently active on the forum over the course of a year, during which I got two proposals to quorum of which one passed (only to be insta-repealed), and despite being an intelligent person putting in time and effort in good faith, I didn't know this criterion. This has the potential to really reduce participation as departing old players are not replaced because of the difficulties of learning the ropes.

Obviously I am at fault too. If I had consistently followed all the discussions and studied historical threads I could have avoided this problem. I don't think, however, that it helps the game to lump people like me in with the stammers of nonsense proposals and suggesting we be ignored. I salute IA for addressing this rather than just rejoicing in yet another victory.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

FWIW I like all three of the proposed rewrites. I share some of Gruen's skepticism about how much this will reduce rules-lawyering, but it will certainly make it faster and easier to bag and tag it.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Still favour getting rid of the HoC rule so no opinion on that.

Care to explain or link to your past explanation? I could see getting rid of the Amendment rule since the HoC rule seems to cover it.

But, as Glen-Rhodes once said, "arguing over rules interpretation will be an integral part of the game as long as there are rules to interpret," so I don't see these as leading to the reduction in rules-lawyering or spurious challenges you're hoping for.

Certainly true.

I still wonder what would happen if the Honest Mistake rule was completely removed, but iirc that idea wasn't well received last time I brought it up.

[Gruenberg]

Still favour getting rid of the HoC rule so no opinion on that.

Care to explain or link to your past explanation? I could see getting rid of the Amendment rule since the HoC rule seems to cover it.

Trying to keep this concise:

HoC doesn't accomplish anything that the amendment, contradiction and duplication rules don't already take care of. And it has an extremely low signal-to-noise ratio, it gets talked about all the time but there are very few proposals that would pose a serious problem.

Let's say I write a proposal about terrorism and define terrorism as "the definition used in WA Counterterrorism Act". Even if Resolution #25 is subsequently repealed, everyone still knows what that definition is; it doesn't affect my proposal. If on the other hand my proposal tries to add or change specific provisions of the previous resolution, then it's illegal anyway for being an amendment/contradiction/duplication/take your pick.

It's not a big deal though and I'm pretty sure I'm in a distinct minority in wanting rid of this one.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Care to explain or link to your past explanation? I could see getting rid of the Amendment rule since the HoC rule seems to cover it.

Trying to keep this concise:

HoC doesn't accomplish anything that the amendment, contradiction and duplication rules don't already take care of. And it has an extremely low signal-to-noise ratio, it gets talked about all the time but there are very few proposals that would pose a serious problem.

Let's say I write a proposal about terrorism and define terrorism as "the definition used in WA Counterterrorism Act". Even if Resolution #25 is subsequently repealed, everyone still knows what that definition is; it doesn't affect my proposal. If on the other hand my proposal tries to add or change specific provisions of the previous resolution, then it's illegal anyway for being an amendment/contradiction/duplication/take your pick.

It's not a big deal though and I'm pretty sure I'm in a distinct minority in wanting rid of this one.

Well, for what it's worth, I agree with your interpretation of what HoC should actually cover. As an update if you're not already aware: we already had significant changes in how the rule is enforced: viewtopic.php?p=33109496#p33109496 .

I think there were also discussions around the time on Discord about the applicability of the justification to the pretended nonexistence of definitions that plainly exist in text, but I don't think there was anything like a consensus surrounding how it should apply. Due to that lack of anything approaching a consensus, I wrote the suggested replacement based on how the rule is currently enforced.

[Gruenberg]

As an update if you're not already aware: we already had significant changes in how the rule is enforced: viewtopic.php?p=33109496#p33109496

That's not a change; it's a reversion to what the rule originally was. Anyway glad to see sense prevailed (eventually)!

Due to that lack of anything approaching a consensus, I wrote the suggested replacement based on how the rule is currently enforced.

Which is fair. Just thought I'd use the opportunity to stick my oar in anyway!

[Araraukar]

IA, when you rewrite the stuff, could you also add a rule of "no writing up proposals just to force the GenSec make a ruling since it's no longer "hypothetical" after you've submitted it" and then applying it to yourself too?

Oh and "no redefining words to something completely unrelated, without the "for the purposes of this resolution" wording". Would mostly do away with the need to have the "no joke proposals" rule...

[Imperium Anglorum]

No operative clause in any proposal may be written such that it may be rendered inoperative or logically nonsensical by repeal of past legislation.

Changes in highlight for House of Cards.

EDIT (2018-06-26): One could speak about HOC with committees and repeal of the establishing clause, but I think that the Committees rule’s explicit guidance makes that interpretation unsustainable. Whether such clarification should be added here is of second-order importance, though I think probably for the best.

[Excidium Planetis]

As typical of IA, he took an entire essay to say what could have easily been agreed with had it been a paragraph.

The rewording of the HoC is better than your original rewrite, which I found overly wordy for new and potentially young players. As it is, I think just "nonsensical" would work as well "logically nonsensical", but that's not a major issue.

[Imperium Anglorum]

EP, any comment on the other rules suggestions?