I have to both support and reiterate what you say about simplifying the rules. I know we don't agree on exactly how - you want to get rid of such rules as no cats - but it is essential that the Moth rules are as simple as they can be. Most people think that in a development class, the more complex a set of rules, the tighter the contro and the less probles. I think it is exactly the opposite and tight rules lead to more abuse and loopholes. In addition, people end up spending vast sums of money on very small gains.
In addition to simplicity, it is essential that one rule applies to all. We should not have something that says if it is a solid sail, it is subject to the following rules and if it is a soft sail, it is subject to another. I would also suggest that much can be gained through definitions rather than through pure rules The advantage of that is that it is easier to agree a new definition than it is to rewrite rules. Keep the rules simple!
This is way over dramaitic. The survival of the class is not at stake. Trust me. I have heard this sort of comment so many times about other things and the class is still here. Yes, this might effect the overall popularity of the class, but this is not life and death for the class.
We also need to accept that in order to ensure the survival of the class, the rules must be changed to clean up a number of issues related to the rig and the one sail rule.
Trying to come up with a way of banning what you consider as undesirable slots but leaving desirable ones in has the potential to create a huge amount of trouble. What you need to do is decide whether you want wings or not. If you don't, it's easy to write the rules to ban them without much drama. For instance
I'm gravitating toward supporting a slotless solution as the best way forward. It should be able to be framed using a simple rule that still allows non-aerodynamic slots (e.g. banning a wing mast and jib but not a round mast and jib). C'est la vie. I don't think banning slots will affect any competitive boats other than the very small number of existing wings.
Boats must have 1 sail and 1 mast
Sail - Any part of the sail, except for battens and corner reinforcements (defined in ISAF rules) must be able to be folded through 180 degrees and the radius of the edge must be less than (say) 3 mm and return to its original form without damage.
Mast - A mast shall pivot around one single point and must be symetrical around the fore and aft centreline of the mast at all times. A mast must not be able to change its section. Only the area of that part of the spars that will not pass through a ring of 90 mm internal diameter shall be included in the overall sail area.
I believe that it is as simple as that. Maybe we need to tidy up the luff length rule as well.
HOWEVER, I am very much against this. I cannot see a problem in allowing wing development at this point in time. In fact, I have yet to hear/read a single decent argument as to why the class should ensure that wing sails are not allowed, breaking years of tradition as a development class. A wing dows not change the essence of the boat in the same way as allowing cats, sailboards or kiteboards would. The class has never banned something because it might make the class less popular. As said before, using that idea, foils would have been banned in the early days, because many people thought the boats would be too difficult to sail and even less people would sail them. I actually think that with a few years of development, wings wil be seen to be almost as practical as soft sails to be cheaper over time for most sailors. I see them as having the potential for being good for the class, rather than bad.