Should we support Repeal/Replace WA resolutions?

[Nova Pacifica]

1) That's politics. Deal with it. I think it's ridiculous that some people consider the notion that there should be certainty when they're passing legislation. That isn't how politics works. When you're repealing legislation what gives you the right to know beyond any doubt that you will also have a replacement? It takes away from the game.

Real politics doesn't artificially preclude amendments. Nor the potential passage of resolutions with conditional arguments and clauses.

2) That argument doesn't carry any weight, people will still be able to pass as many as they want to try to write.

Thank you for simply dismissing my points, without even trying for one bare second to see things from my POV.

It must be nice, being able to go through life unable to see past the tip of your own nose.

[Mallorea and Riva]

1) That's politics. Deal with it. I think it's ridiculous that some people consider the notion that there should be certainty when they're passing legislation. That isn't how politics works. When you're repealing legislation what gives you the right to know beyond any doubt that you will also have a replacement? It takes away from the game.

Real politics doesn't artificially preclude amendments. Nor the potential passage of resolutions with conditional arguments and clauses.

There isn't a need for amendments. Write the damn proposal properly the first time around, and take your time drafting it so that you can listen to counterarguments. If that isn't done, it can always be repealed and rewritten by an author who is willing to put in the effort.

2) That argument doesn't carry any weight, people will still be able to pass as many as they want to try to write.

Thank you for simply dismissing my points, without even trying for one bare second to see things from my POV.

It must be nice, being able to go through life unable to see past the tip of your own nose.

I've written legislation, I've critiqued legislation, and I've had legislation critiqued. There are certainly people who have more experience than I, but until you've actually played this aspect of the game your POV isn't really that relevant. Yes, this is a horribly elitist argument, but you're trying to argue from authority when you aren't an authority on this issue at all.

[Nova Pacifica]

[...] but you're trying to argue from authority when you aren't an authority on this issue at all.

Actually, being a new player with one proposal in [Draft] status already? Yes, I happen to think that I bloody well AM an authority on "new players just getting started in the WA and interested in writing their own proposals". Which is the sole POV I've argued from.

[Krioval]

1) That's politics. Deal with it. I think it's ridiculous that some people consider the notion that there should be certainty when they're passing legislation. That isn't how politics works. When you're repealing legislation what gives you the right to know beyond any doubt that you will also have a replacement? It takes away from the game.

Real politics doesn't artificially preclude amendments. Nor the potential passage of resolutions with conditional arguments and clauses.

Fine, but keep in mind that "amendments" can include things like a replacement directly contradicting the original resolution or not actually addressing the same subject material as the original resolution. If done well enough, people might not notice that the "amendment" is really an entirely separate piece of legislation.

[Knootoss]

It's great that you are new and wanting to contribute to the WA, but your argument in favour of R&R is weak. If your "emotional security" is served by introducing R&R I counter that my "emotional security" would be best served by NOT introducing R&R and instead considering my idea for sunset clauses. Note how there's actually a rationale behind the latter proposal.

[Pantocratoria]

On the "bragging rights" topic, if anything, I feel that a large proportion of the arguments in favour of R&R have been based on people trying to protect their existing resolutions from repeal through changing the game mechanics. Just an opinion, but strongly influenced by the tone of some of the posts in this thread. People have talked about resolutions as achievements or even, as a group, their "opus".

[Mallorea and Riva]

[...] but you're trying to argue from authority when you aren't an authority on this issue at all.

Actually, being a new player with one proposal in [Draft] status already? Yes, I happen to think that I bloody well AM an authority on "new players just getting started in the WA and interested in writing their own proposals". Which is the sole POV I've argued from.

Ok, but the game mechanics should not be geared towards "helping new players pass legislation if they want to". It should not focus on making passing legislation easier, what on earth is the point of playing a game that is made artificially easier so that everyone can win?

[SalusaSecondus]

As I've finally had the time to catch up on this thread, a couple of notes to everyone:

• This remains not a done deal and the admins have reached no decision related to this.
• I've been so busy recently with real life, I haven't even really been thinking about R&R (either in the NS sense or Rest & Relaxation) for a week.
• I stand by my voting analysis which (mostly) agrees with Eluvatar and thus also Glen-Rhodes. Pantocratoria, I'm sorry, but while you do make some good points, your analysis is flawed. I've read through it several times and it doesn't work. The voting preferences model I used is the classic well established one used by political scientists and researchers across the world.
• I do not believe I have stated any conclusions from my analysis, just the raw results. What conclusions people draw from it (including that it may or may not have certain desirable properties) are their own, and not mine.
• Finally, if (and this remains a very big "if") any changes are going to be made to the WA, none are going to be made soon. We are listening to (and hear) your concerns.

I suspect that all sides have made their cases as not much new has been added to the thread (instead sides remain entrenched and disagreeing with fundamental assumptions of the other side). So, [violet] and I will take some time (when we have the chance) to talk through all the points raised in this thread to try to figure out what our actual opinions are.

[Knootoss]

Eluvatar and Glen-Rhodes may have spent a lot of time with you on IRC to badger you with their propaganda, but Pantocratoria actually has the qualifications to speak on this issue. Also, as a master in Public Administration myself, I am very curious who these "political scientists and researchers across the world" are, because they must be very good at hiding their credentials. Can you cite sources from scientific journals backing up Glen-Rhodes' case? So far, all they've done is appeal to imaginary and unnamed authorities.

The "Repeal and Replace" instrument has no place in Real Life politics except as a gimmicky instrument that politicians have used on rare occasions to oppose change. (The referendum about the Australian monarchy, and some thoughts about a three-way referendum on Scottish independence).

If you do not understand Pantocratoria's analysis then it would really be better to ask him rather than rely on the people who are so eager that they hang around on IRC to make their case to you.

Personally, I will cease to play the WA game if this is implemented in any shape or form. I suspect that many regulars will feel the same. It'll essentially be handing over the entire game to a small minority of professional malcontents.

[SalusaSecondus]

Eluvatar and Glen-Rhodes may have spent a lot of time with you on IRC to badger you with their propaganda, but Pantocratoria actually has the qualifications to speak on this issue. Also, as a master in Public Administration myself, I am very curious who these "political scientists and researchers across the world" are, because they must be very good at hiding their credentials. Can you cite sources from scientific journals backing up Glen-Rhodes' case? So far, all they've done is appeal to imaginary and unnamed authorities.

I reached similar results separately from them. I conducted all of my work independently and often taking very different strategies and assumptions. I will note that while the analysis suggests what type of person will vote in which way, it says absolutely nothing about the end result since I do not know the size of the groups, nor certain ratios/constants which strongly influence the results. There are far too many unknowns (and unknowables).

As for how I did this, I dusted off some of the voting theory I studied in college as part of my theoretical computer science courses. This analysis should be viewed simply as a way to describe how the system will work, not what will happen.

The "Repeal and Replace" instrument has no place in Real Life politics except as a gimmicky instrument that politicians have used on rare occasions to oppose change. (The referendum about the Australian monarchy, and some thoughts about a three-way referendum on Scottish independence).

I respectfully disagree with you. The effects are far more complex than simply "opposing change" and I think that the debate in this thread shows this. There are numerous people who have made good points that R&R will result in too much change and churn in the WA. I suspect that any analysis which results in a clear-cut, accross the board, result of this change is flawed.

If you do not understand Pantocratoria's analysis then it would really be better to ask him rather than rely on the people who are so eager that they hang around on IRC to make their case to you.

As I've noted, I am not depending on their analysis. I am depending on my own. I will continue to re-read Pantocratoria's analysis, but it still looks flawed.

Personally, I will cease to play the WA game if this is implemented in any shape or form. I suspect that many regulars will feel the same. It'll essentially be handing over the entire game to a small minority of professional malcontents.

That is your choice. Doom and gloom are regularly predicted for game changes. I see no reason why R&R should be different.

[Krioval]

I reached similar results separately from them. I conducted all of my work independently and often taking very different strategies and assumptions. I will note that while the analysis suggests what type of person will vote in which way, it says absolutely nothing about the end result since I do not know the size of the groups, nor certain ratios/constants which strongly influence the results. There are far too many unknowns (and unknowables).

As this sounds more and more like it's coming, what form is it likely to take? I remain opposed to the idea and find Pantocratoria's analysis at least as compelling as G-R's (and others'), but if you have conducted your own independent analysis, I would like to see its results - perhaps I will be convinced.

As it stands, I am most concerned about whether replacements will have to have the same category/strength as the original, whether they must be germane to the original, or whether anything goes.

[SalusaSecondus]

As this sounds more and more like it's coming,

This remains an unsafe assumption.

but if you have conducted your own independent analysis, I would like to see its results - perhaps I will be convinced.

The result is essentially the same as the raw analysis (minus conclusions) put forward by Eluvatar. (Related to who would vote for what depending on their ranked preferences.) The only differences are that I have included several unknowns (discussed by others in terms of "confidence" or "expectations") and that I have not reached any conclusions as to the actual results of this change.

As it stands, I am most concerned about whether replacements will have to have the same category/strength as the original, whether they must be germane to the original, or whether anything goes.

As I've stated, the admins need to talk and think long and hard about this potential change.

[Pantocratoria]

As I said in this very thread, my analysis had flaws and deficiencies of its own. These mostly flow from my analysis taking the ZS analysis assumptions and set up as given. Nevertheless, I think it did what I set out to show: that R&Rs create different categories of losers in subsequent "rounds". If this is invalid because it introduces rounds of R&Rs, then we must also admit that the pro-R&R analysis is also flawed because it introduces rounds to the basic scenario.

I don't think we need to talk credentials or voting theory or computer science frankly. I am sure the mods and [violet] can work it all out. But the case pro-R&R is thoroughly disputed even after 17 pages, and despite this claim that voting theory supports the case pro-R&R, I say this is only the case when one proceeds from the assumption that the existing system is flawed. None of the specific points made by me, Krioval or others on that topic have been significantly disputed.

I don't think that further discussion is going to produce a consensus, but I'll live with whatever decision you guys make.

[Knootoss]

I reached similar results separately from them. I conducted all of my work independently and often taking very different strategies and assumptions. I will note that while the analysis suggests what type of person will vote in which way, it says absolutely nothing about the end result since I do not know the size of the groups, nor certain ratios/constants which strongly influence the results. There are far too many unknowns (and unknowables).

I think the difference between your appraisal and mine is that, from your point of view, the World Assembly is a fascinating theoretical black box and the proportions of the electorate are completely unknown. However, to those who have posted in opposition of R&R, it's not a black box. I've personally passed resolutions and have been involved in several dozen telegramming / feeder forum trawling campaigns FOR or AGAINST resolutions. I've asked people why they vote for or against resolutions, when they did, and I've followed the debates on the feeder forums as well as the GA forum statements, consistently, almost since the game began. I'd like to think I know at least something about how people vote and why.

Yes, the proportions are different every time, but I can tell you that the vast majority of voters consider resolutions and repeals on a case-by-case basis right now. Hence also the huge mood swings that the WA experiences between a resolution and a repeal. Swings of up to 20 percentage point overnight are not uncommon. The "Waaaah replacement" crowd is almost always a small minority, but it is big enough to cause the swing against a repeal, particularly if they've nestled themselves in feeder regions. Introducing R&R would give the moral high ground to these people, by the fiat of game mechanics. Any plain repeal would become dubious in their eyes.

In the case of biological weapons, I got the short end of the stick because feeder delegates were voting against my resolution. Some demanded that I should have written a complete ban to replace it, others demanded that any new resolution should enshrine the right of nations to use whatever weapon they wanted. Glen-Rhodes has even argued that the deeply flawed original resolution about biological weapons, which was by the way repealed with like 82% of the vote, would never have gone off the books with a Repeal and Replace function. I can tell you this too: a replacement wouldn't have made it either.

I respectfully disagree with you. The effects are far more complex than simply "opposing change" and I think that the debate in this thread shows this. There are numerous people who have made good points that R&R will result in too much change and churn in the WA. I suspect that any analysis which results in a clear-cut, accross the board, result of this change is flawed.

Glen-Rhodes and proponents of R&R favour the status quo because they believe that this is a good thing. But honestly, should this game be about protecting existing resolutions though a defensive voting system that is biased against change, or should it be about allowing players to make changes?

The people who have argued for "too much churn" have done so in my own proposal for Sunset clauses. What I see in this thread approaches a consensus that R&R would make plain repeals harder. Just vehement disagreement about whether this would be a good thing or a bad thing. The people who dislike plain repeals for purely ideological reasons are the ones favouring this gameplay change, and that should tell you something about its impact.

That is your choice. Doom and gloom are regularly predicted for game changes. I see no reason why R&R should be different.

That argument can be effectively deployed against any critique of any game change. Doom and gloom can be perfectly justified. In this case it most certainly is.

[SalusaSecondus]

despite this claim that voting theory supports the case pro-R&R,

While I have seen this claim made by others, I want people to understand that I have never made this claim.

I don't think that voting theory supports R&R. Nor do I think that it speaks against it. Instead, I think it is solely a tool to better understand R&R.

I don't think that further discussion is going to produce a consensus, but I'll live with whatever decision you guys make.

Thank you for your understanding and trust.

[Ardchoille]

While you're digesting the comments in this thread, please also check out Fris's suggestion here.

(Guys, I'm putting this note here for Salusa's convenience, because the idea is buried in another thread. Anyone who wants to argue for or against Fris's suggestion, please do so in the linked thread.)

[Krioval]

As I've stated, the admins need to talk and think long and hard about this potential change.

All right. I'll try to give you your space to consider all the options.

[Pantocratoria]

despite this claim that voting theory supports the case pro-R&R,

While I have seen this claim made by others, I want people to understand that I have never made this claim.

I don't think that voting theory supports R&R. Nor do I think that it speaks against it. Instead, I think it is solely a tool to better understand R&R.

This was kind of the point of my posts on the topic. The "voting theory" (if you'd call it that) analysis posted by ZS was proposed not as a formalism to illustrate R&R but as some sort of proof in support of its introduction. My posts illustrated, using the same approach, non-exhaustively illustrated the repercussions of R&R for some groups of voters. I say non-exhaustively since I could clearly see that the list of unanticipated consequences was huge and impractical to enumerate...

I will note that while the analysis suggests what type of person will vote in which way, it says absolutely nothing about the end result since I do not know the size of the groups, nor certain ratios/constants which strongly influence the results. There are far too many unknowns (and unknowables).

...just as you indicate here.

This is why I insisted voting theory wasn't actually useful here, since what has been posted in this thread does not accurately describe either the current system or R&R and its implications. Those implications aren't knowable, as you acknowledge freely.

From my perspective, the arguments in favour of R&R seem completely uncompelling. I am sure for the pro-R&R people (Unibot, Glen-Rhodes, ZS, etc) the arguments against are uncompelling too. Whatever.

The main point is that there is no strong argument for R&R, and certainly no analysis posted in this thread which anticipates its consequences accurately. But if you just want to try it out as a new idea, as I said, I can live with that. I'll just stay out of the WA because none of the resolutions I can't stand will ever get repealed.

[Retired WerePenguins]

Personally, I don't see how anyone can argue any form of voting theory on this issue, as the basic “rules of order” of NatonStates is found nowhere in the real world. More over, the various motivations are also diverse and generally outside the range of political theory. Clearly one faction thinks it is to their advantage because they would not push it if they thought otherwise.


I have a lot of concerns with R&R as currently proposed. However I have one suggestion that might make the factions very angry (then again, it might not). It consists of two ideas. The first idea is to not have an R&R change the category/strength of a resolution. You determine both by he values of the resolution you are repealing. Since the repeal and replace are the same, and the result is a text change, there should be no stat wanking whatsoever for the R&R. The R&R simply replaces the text with new text. The strikeout resolution would say instead of being “repealed by resolution ####” it has been replaced by resolution ####. No repeal text argument would be necessary, only the replacement text would be in the replacement resolution.


This would make the R&R actually an R … just a replace resolution. After all, if you really have a replacement ready to go, the reasons for the repeal are meaningless; you need to do that to replace.

[Mallorea and Riva]

This would make the R&R actually an R … just a replace resolution. After all, if you really have a replacement ready to go, the reasons for the repeal are meaningless; you need to do that to replace.

The reasons for repeal are never meaningless, you have to address the reason why the initial resolution was insufficient and requires removal. The idea that replacements are inherently more important than repeals is a flawed one.

[Novus Niciae]

Yes, yes , yes, a million times yes.

This would streamline the WA so much, and prevent backdoor repeals without replaces where replacements were promised.

[Pantocratoria]

Yes, yes , yes, a million times yes.

This would streamline the WA so much, and prevent backdoor repeals without replaces where replacements were promised.

More evidence that R&Rs is about reducing the number of repeals.

[Bears Armed]

Yes, yes , yes, a million times yes.

This would streamline the WA so much, and prevent backdoor repeals without replaces where replacements were promised.

Which has only happened once since the summer of 2005...