DG6 Discussion: Simple language rules?

[DaveShack]

Traditionally we have organized the rules like a constitution and a body of law. Maybe it would be better to just have a list of simple language statements. What do you think?

 

[Provolution]

I agree wholeheartedly, as there is only hollow pseudo-paralegal rhetoric so far with strong political ouvertures. And it becomes a stark contrast when non-legally trained players try to speak legalese as a play and it does not look natural. Most legal trials are of political nature anyways, so no need to sustain false illusions of the purity of the "law".
Crystal clear game rules in normal English would handle the job just fine.
I would like to see which "law" which could not be written as a rule in normal language in the DG. Even the word abstain can be changed, along Vanilla for my sake.

 

[Crimso]

I agree wholeheartedly, as there is only hollow pseudo-paralegal rhetoric so far with strong political ouvertures. And it becomes a stark contrast when non-legally trained players try to speak legalese as a play and it does not look natural. Most legal trials are of political nature anyways, so no need to sustain false illusions of the purity of the "law".

Provolution, you must tell us where you learned to write like that.

The constitution and all that seem to be written in a simple enough style for me, so I really don't think it should be changed. But, I think it would help if there was a simplified version for newbies, y'know, with notes in the margin or something.

 

[Ashburnham]

There are reasons governments use constitutions and law codes to form their government. They work. The organization provided by the various articles of the constitution provide a simple and easy way for any citizen to look up a certain law with ease. The organization also helps in assuring that all rules written in sections and clauses are subject to the rules given in the article under which they are found. If the laws were given in a straight list, this organization would be missing, and it would be detrimental to the understanding of the code as a whole.

There is also the roleplaying aspect of the constitution and CoL. If we want to truly play a government simulation, we need to acknowledge that a fundemental part of running a government is, in fact, forming the government. If we were to write out all our laws in a simple list, the Demogame would look less like a government/policy game and more like a glorified Succession game. I certainly don't want that, and I'd imagine most people here agree with me.

Besides, the constitution and CoL really aren't all that complex anyway. Compare our Constitution (Article E.1):

The House of the People will be formed of the entirety of the citizenry
and is responsible for the drafting of new Laws and 
Amendments to the Constitution.

to, say, the United States Constitution (Section 5.1):

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications 
of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a 
Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from 
day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of
absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as 
each House may provide.

EDIT: p.s.- Provolution, I don't mean for us to disagree on every single topic we discuss. It just kinda happens.

 

[Black_Hole]

so are you saying a simple list of rules?
well for i would prefer to keep the constitution/CoL for 2 reasons:
1. You can keep track of laws easier with lettering and numbering
2. Its cooler to say, for example whats better? He violated Article E.5 of the constitution or he violated the 5th rule on the list

 

[Octavian X]

I, for one, would think a simple list of rules would be the best. I remember that, when I first considered joining DGI, the list of rules (BEFORE the addition of the CoL and CoS) scared the **** out of me. With simpler rules, we could live more along the lines of the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law.

And, Ashburnham, my history teacher would accuse you of the crime of 'presentism,' that is, the tendancy to judge the past in terms of the present. It's a bit unfair to compare a modern day document with another from the 18th century.

 

[Gres]

And, Ashburnham, my history teacher would accuse you of the crime of 'presentism,' that is, the tendancy to judge the past in terms of the present. It's a bit unfair to compare a modern day document with another from the 18th century.

lol sorry Octavian. The United States Constitution is as much a modern day document as it has ever been. It is still the highest law in this country and will remain to be for a very long time.

As far as whether to change the way we write our rules and systems, I agree COMPLETELY with Ashburnham. I couldn't have said it better myself Ash.
1. The Constitution and CoL are not very hard at all to undertsand. We could add footnotes and such for people who have trouble with it, however.
2. This is a Democracy Game. We are basically a big RPG game because we are imitating the way governents run. Most governments have a constitution or some other legal document written in a similar manner. Therefore, by our own logic and to be consistent with our past AND future actions, we should keep our rules in a constitution format.
3. It is easy to reference a specific part of the document when discussing how to carry out a certain part of the game.
4. As it is, citizens follow the constitution down to the last word. What would we do when a discrepancy occurs in the "rule list" itself because it is not specific enough. (i.e. A tie occurs in the election of president but all the rule list says is "Rule 3: The winner of the 'Presidential Election Poll' will be president.) To amend this problem a sub-rule would be implemented instructing what to do in such an event. Furthermore, nearly every rule would need atleast one sub-rule; one could say we could make each subrule its own seperate rule but then the list would be comprised of more than a Hundred rules!
Hence, we basically Do have a list of rules. Each article is a rule, the sections are sub-rules to make the rule more clear and prevent discrepancies. This game is so complicated and in-depth the constitution has to be long and just as detailed to be effective, as it is.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Great posts, Ashburnham and Gres!

Thanks for carrying the torch against the dumbing down of this game. Our ruleset isn't that complicated, for pete's sake!

 

[Provolution]

What I really meant, there should either be very tough rules with a minimum of room for judges to give preferential treatment, a place where the law is easily read and self explanatory or a clear and transparent law system, and not a feasting ground for a generation of potential wannabee jackal lawyers (one country got more than a million of them). If the law is too flexible, you will see some "legalists" messing around and tweaking the game at their whim.

Crimso, I most deeply apologize for not thoroughly appeasing thine defined linguistical, political and communicative preferences, and I bow humbly in admonishion for mercy and forgiveness.

Ashburnham, you are fine, at least you argue on topic, and do not come with threadjacks, incredibly stupid oneliners, drug-praise, vile unmoderated insults, habitual dependent bickering, shallow short no-brainer arguments and finally you stick to the issue and do not need to put a negative one-liner under every post I come up with. Maybe a communication restraining order could be a new law in place for protecting the communication flow of certain players so they can focus on the game, not be forced to bickering.

At stages, I wished I was piloting a C 130 Puff the Magic Dragon just to get some stress relief.

 

[DaveShack]

OK, not a large number of people clamoring for simplification. If you read the 1st post carefully I started this to explore the idea without actually taking a stand on it, evidenced by use of "maybe" in the first post.

Of course a simple rules list would be numbered. The argument that it would be difficult to navigate implies the people organizing it have no organizational sense, which in this particular group of people is pretty rare. A hierarchical structure could even be used. If this were interesting to enough people (which it doesn't appear to be) the change would be in the writing style, not in the content.

Anyway, I'm not motivated to actually change this wholesale, since there doesn't seem to be a lot of support in terms of large numbers of people. The most egregious language in the constitution / code of laws style documents can be replaced, and we can still go a long way toward enumerating ownership of the cases where ministerial authority overlap.

 

[ravensfire]

Well, since I posted something one this elsewhere, I like this idea.

There is nothing wrong with using clear, concise language. Laws use the language they do because of the legal history of that country. Certain terms are defined to mean certain things. When crafting a law, it is in the best interests of the lawmaker to use that precise, legal language to make sure their vision is correctly interpreted by the courts.

We don't have that problem. Our problems come from ambiguity and discrepencies, often from when we do try to get fancy with language. We are creating a set of rules to allow a common framework for game play. We should be using plain, direct language as much as possible. If that makes a rule slightly longer than using "legalese", so be it. It's easier to understand, easier to follow.

Simpler language helps reduce the discrepencies that cause problems. This is a Good Thing (tm). Simpler language makes it easier for new players to understand what's going on, why we poll things, etc. Our rules describe the process we use to allow a group of us to play a single-player game.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Gres]

Frankly, I don't understand why everyone is saying that our constitution is written in "legalese." I think it is written in English. Yes, it is written well but that doesn't make it hard to read. I agree that there are probably ome phrases that could be reworded to make it easier to understand, but other than that it is fine
I hope I don't come across as a passionately inflamed lunatic ranting as if the sky were falling. I simply enjoy a good debate. BTW, I NEVER want to become a lawyer!

 

[Cyc]

I never want to be a lawyer either. I think the Constitutional format is what we should use. On one hand, we have people saying that they're into this game because it allows a form of role-playing. They like being part of the virtual government. Well, I like having a Constitution in my virtual Government. They are not hard to understand. Anyone and everyone has and can write an Article to be polled by the citizenry. We need the laws to be written down. The do need to be clear and concise. But that doesn't mean they have to be in a tidy list of rules (whether we properly indent them or not). We had a Constitutuion in the first game and every game since, because it makes sense. It fits with what we're doing.

 

[Octavian X]

lol sorry Octavian. The United States Constitution is as much a modern day document as it has ever been. It is still the highest law in this country and will remain to be for a very long time.

I have it on very good authority, though, that the U.S. Constitution was originally written in 1787.

How about this - why not have something like a dual version of our set of laws? Something like the official document itself, and in the same thread, a complete, offical version of 'Laws of Fanatica for Dummies.' When we post our nice (hopefully complete) thread containing whatever set of laws we plan on using, we add into that thread a non-legal, yet complete and simple explanation of everything contained therin, a quick and dirty version of our laws that's changed whenever we decide to amend something.

The reason I think a simply-worded document would work better is that, well, this is a game. As much fun as I've had in and with the judical branch, I can't help but have the feeling on occasion that it's a complete waste of time. As least in my fantasy world, we could eliminate a judicial branch if everything was worded simply, and that there was no possible way you could disagree on a meaning.

That being unrealistic, the other reason we need simple language rules is because I have the distinct feeling that the steep learning curve of those rules scares away would-be players. This is the basis behind my proposal - rather than making new players try to tackle the full document, or forcing them to consult some other thread or another player, we keep a simple-language version of the laws in the constitution thread. It would have no legal bearing whatsoever, but would be concise and updated whenever we amend something.