Total posts:  2
Plain Language Act:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110519/ap_on_re_us/us_no_more_gobbledygook Basically, the government must stop using confusing words on public documents. They can still confuse each other though.:)
Added something to my sig. Sad, I know... Texan Troper Coven
I see the Awesomeness.I predict this is going to backfire horribly.
Captionless OneIn what way?
I see three possible scenarios for this going horribly wrong A) Plain language turns out to be far too ambiguous for subtleties of law B) Political Correctness Gone Mad C) Somehow manages to make things less comprehensible That said, I do think this is a good idea, and I don't think any of the above is particularly likely. Also, the actual guidelines
edited 19th May '11 11:14:01 PM by petrie911
Belief or disbelief rests with you.
BFS EnthusiastHere's how I think it'll go: So, yo dudes and dudettes, there be some new taxes, which means you gotta pay every once in a while, 'kay? Hey, so look out for the bad guy Al-zawhiri, he is one awful mofo
edited 19th May '11 11:15:05 PM by NickTheSwing
The Guideline have 117 Pages !!! Plain Language is not enough, limit the number of words too.
Lover of masks.We have one. Its called the Total Length; Do Repress Act.
I see the Awesomeness.I think it will back fire in the same way the "paper work reduction" plan did, it'll be done badly, with such loose definitions of "plain language" that it'll just pack words on and not do anything effective.
I want Kat's glasses!What I would like is a bunch of standardized, understandable and named EULAs so you don't have to read (or more likely, be liable not to) pages and pages of "legalese" every time you install software on your computer: Instead, you'd just have to read the name of the standard license type and a reminder of its key points.
They Called Me Mad!! I decided to show them all; but when I looked on my works, oh mighty, I despaired: for it made me realize they were right.
^ Agreeing with this. However, this "Plain Language Act" sounds like a bad idea. How do you define a "confusing word"?
World's biggest wannabeAnything that someone without a Law degree doesn't know about, I'd say.
Pro-Freedom FanaticThe guidelines are 100 pages plus. The "politician's disease", also known as "Doesn't know when to shut the fuck up", won't be cured by politicians.
edited 20th May '11 3:14:34 AM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
Ahr riverThe Brobdingnaggs have invaded our country. I am OK with this.
Restrict vocabulary to Simple English and ban the use of passive voice. At the very least, we should get some fun sounding laws out of that.
Belief or disbelief rests with you.
This could also be good for disability accessibility, for cognitively or language disabled people.
If I'm asking for advice on a story idea, don't tell me it can't be done.
Neoclassicism, AKA the Tinkerbell school of economics.
victorinox243Plain language is vague and allows loopholes on basis of syntax. It's dangerous to write actual legislation in that way because interpretation will be up for grabs. Legislation and Contract Law are written in that "confusing" language for a reason. Because it is more precise and attempts to remove all doubt. I highly doubt that transcribing stuff into "plain English" will make people any more knowledgeable of the stuff that is getting passed. If anything, it's going to make another layer of confusion by "translating" the government into another language. And we all know how much fun it is to watch dubbed shows. I say what we really need is to augment literal accessibility, such as putting the legislation online with key phrases highlighted to tell you their meaning, origin, usage, etc. much like how "that other encyclopaedia" does.
edited 20th May '11 1:57:54 PM by victorinox243
Gunpla is amazing!All laws should be presented in the form of images on flash cards. Also this is being passed by a bunch of Literal Genie lawyers who are trying to remove Exact Words and rule the world!
edited 20th May '11 1:57:18 PM by Thorn14
victorinox243Perhaps we need to put all laws in the form of moving pictures on our wall sets.
edited 20th May '11 2:03:24 PM by victorinox243
so basically, . people want documents to be easily manipulateable just to satisfy morons who want to comprehend laws without needing to study law?
I have yet to read a law that is as confusing as texting.
^ This. A large problem is what you define as "too difficult". Too difficult for whom? I knew what a pendulum was when I was about a year old. Does that mean my equally-aged counterparts should know what a pendulum is at age one? Would they be confused by the word 'pendulum' and thus, should we not use it? *
scratching at .8, just hopin'Hire cognitive scientists, ergonomists/human factor engineers, and information theorists to draft the wording of laws. They know how ambiguities can confuse people and how to get the most information content in the minimal amount of wording - hell, it's a field of fucking study.
Well in any case, I have seen efforts to reduce language complexity work very well in many places. I feel that Canada is moving away from that, with the current majority government trying to ram through legislation by being as obfuscated as possible (and as long as possible with 600 page legislation text dumps). Previously, though, it was pretty good. For instance, go online, the entire Criminal Code of Canada is there and unless you're really stupid, you can read it like plain english. It's hard not to understand "You will go to jail for no more than 15 years if convicted." :)
Total posts: 29
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from email@example.com.