Streamlining Repeal-and-Replace: A New WA Category

[Linux and the X]

Proposal: Creation of a new Repeal-and-Replace category for World Assembly resolutions.

Rationale: The current process of using separate proposals to repeal and replace a resolution is inefficient and error-prone. It takes nearly a week of voting, and can break down between the two steps.

Details:
A repeal-and-replace resolution would combine both an explanation of why the previous resolution is insufficient and a replacement for the resolution. This would be a single resolution, and therefore would only require one vote. If it passes, it would cause the previous resolution to be considered repealed, and would have an effect of half that of a new proposal (a repeal removes half the effect of the original, and a replacement has full effect, which balances to one-half effect) of the same category and strength of the original.

Possible criticisms:
"It can't be done; amendments aren't possible!"
Amending past resolutions is not possible, because interpreting the effect of the amendment is too difficult. However, this does not have that problem. It merely combines the repeal of a resolution with its replacement. The effect of this is well-understood, as it has long been done with separate proposals.

"A combined repeal-and-replace is too long to fit in the character limit!"
"What if the replacement needs a different category and strength?"
In some cases, the traditional two-proposal route would need to be taken. In many cases, however, a combined proposal works perfectly well. That it could not always be used is no reason to prevent its use where possible.

"But what about those who don't want a replacement?"
A simple repeal would still be an option. The only loss would be claiming that a replacement would be written and submitted to get support for the repeal and refusing to then follow through.

[Mesoland]

This is a pretty sound proposal, and I'm all for it. I'd definitely welcome a new category such as this. I like the fact that instead of just repealing it outright, the legislation is kept, except it's improved and replaced! We'll have to see what an admin/mod says, though, to see if it's possible.

/notamod, just giving my support

[Mallorea and Riva]

We discussed this elsewhere once... The problem is that such a category would complicate things immensely. It would be two debates wrapped into a single topic, and the potential for confusion is massive.

[Ballotonia]

We discussed this elsewhere once... The problem is that such a category would complicate things immensely. It would be two debates wrapped into a single topic, and the potential for confusion is massive.

How so? Wouldn't it boil down to deciding which proposal is better?

Ballotonia

[Mallorea and Riva]

We discussed this elsewhere once... The problem is that such a category would complicate things immensely. It would be two debates wrapped into a single topic, and the potential for confusion is massive.

How so? Wouldn't it boil down to deciding which proposal is better?

Ballotonia

Not necessarily. You'd be faced with these scenarios:
People who do not support the repeal, and prefer the original resolution.
People who support the repeal, but not the new resolution.
People who do not support the repeal, but do support the new resolution.
People who support both the repeal and the resolution.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Dead on Arrival. You're assuming all revisions under the same category would be of identical effect, which does not spar with the current stat-effect system, and of course, under this scheme, all resolutions, since they're joined at the hip with a repeal, would pass at only half-effect. The current two-resolution replacement process is not very hard to execute; why fundamentally transform the entire resolution-passing fixture just because you're too lazy to pass two resolutions?

(Not to mention that passing the repeal and the replacement separately naturally results in both resolutions being scrutinized more closely and prevents bad revisions from being passed.)

We discussed this elsewhere once... The problem is that such a category would complicate things immensely. It would be two debates wrapped into a single topic, and the potential for confusion is massive.

How so? Wouldn't it boil down to deciding which proposal is better?

No, it would boil down to arguing over whether the repeal argument actually has merit, and which resolution would be better. We've had repeal debates that have evolved into extended discussions on the proposed replacement, completely obfuscating the discussion on the actual repeal, and it's only ever confused matters.

edit: also, what Mallorea&c. said.

[Linux and the X]

People who do not support the repeal, and prefer the original resolution.

Who would vote against (obviously).

People who support the repeal, but not the new resolution.

In which case they can write their own repeal.

People who do not support the repeal, but do support the new resolution.

The main purpose of repeal-and-replace is writing a new and better resolution that would otherwise duplicate in some places and contradict in others a previous resolution. In fact, currently some members may be unwilling to support the repeal part of a repeal-and-replace out of uncertainty that the replace part will be passed.

People who support both the repeal and the resolution.

Another obvious vote.

You're assuming all revisions under the same category would be of identical effect, which does not spar with the current stat-effect system,

Perhaps my memory is faulty, but as I recall the category and strength (and NOT the text of the proposal) are what control the stat effects.

and of course, under this scheme, all resolutions, since they're joined at the hip with a repeal, would pass at only half-effect.

Not all resolution, merely those using the combined repeal-and-replace. This matches the current effect: the repeal has half the effect in the opposite direction, and the replacement has full effect (-0,5 (repeal) +1,0 (replace) = +0,5 (overall effect)).

The current two-resolution replacement process is not very hard to execute; why fundamentally transform the entire resolution-passing fixture just because you're too lazy to pass two resolutions?

It is not merely a matter of laziness. The combined proposal merely ensures that either both or neither pass, rather than only one. Combining proposals for this reason is not unusual in deliberative assemblies. It also has the advantage of saving the Assembly time, as only one vote need be held, rather than two. Consider, for example, a loophole being found in critical human rights legislation. Since a replacement is not guaranteed if the repeal passes, many will vote against the repeal. If the repeal does pass, there would be no protections at all for at least three days.

(Not to mention that passing the repeal and the replacement separately naturally results in both resolutions being scrutinized more closely and prevents bad revisions from being passed.)
[snip]
We've had repeal debates that have evolved into extended discussions on the proposed replacement, completely obfuscating the discussion on the actual repeal, and it's only ever confused matters.

As you note, repeal and replacement debates are often intertwined already. I disagree with your negative assessment, however; ensuring a satisfactory replacement is important before agreeing to repeal important legislation. As to concerns of bad legislation, the combined process would actually reduce bad legislation. If it is a bad idea, the combined process has no effect: the resolution is already on the books. If it is badly written, the combined process makes repairs easier by preventing the risk of total loss.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I don't think this is a good idea, simply because it uses the game mechanics to place the onus of replacement upon repeal authors. As said before, with a streamlined repeal-and-replace system, anybody who submits a repeal alone and encourages a replacement will be doubted. Perhaps I don't want to write a replacement, or don't know what should be in a replacement, but I do know that the current resolution is flawed and should be repealed. Why should I be forced to either (a) have my intentions cast in doubt or (b) write a replacement that I don't want to write, and perhaps even don't have the skills or knowledge to write?

The current repeal-and-replace process is not broken. It's pretty straightforward. If you want it streamlined, I would suggest petitioning the mods and admins to create a new rule: allow replacements to be submitted while the repeal is at vote. That way, you can work towards getting the replacement to vote immediately after the repeal. The major issue with this, though, is that mods and admins would have to keep an eye on these replacements, so that they can be removed if the repeal fails.