The Optionality Rule

[Mallorea and Riva]

Optionality

GA Proposals are not optional. Don't try to make one that is. Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine. The optionality ban refers to language such as "Nations can ignore this Resolution if they want," which is right out.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Pretty simple. Keep this one or we what the hell is the point to the WA?

[Christian Democrats]

I'd replace this rule with one that bans proposals that are self-contradictory.

The Optionality Rule has always been unclear. Proposals that have no mandatory clauses should be legal (recommends, suggests, etc.), and proposals that apply only to certain classes of nations should be legal (e.g., a resolution to fix the education systems of nations where the literacy rate is less than 50%).

[The Dark Star Republic]

(e.g., a resolution to fix the education systems of nations where the literacy rate is less than 50%).

Not to sidetrack, but if "proposal coding" were introduced - hmm...

[Christian Democrats]

(e.g., a resolution to fix the education systems of nations where the literacy rate is less than 50%).

Not to sidetrack, but if "proposal coding" were introduced - hmm...

Under the current rule, such a proposal would be illegal because its terms would be applicable only to some nations. The nations with higher literacy rates would be exempt from WA oversight because they kept themselves above the threshold for international intervention.

[Frisbeeteria]

Under the current rule, such a proposal would be illegal because its terms would be applicable only to some nations.

Under the current coding, it is entirely possible for a nation to be unaffected by the passage of a WA resolution. I'm not going to explain how, but it's true. This would also be true with RE coding. You apply the law, and if certain standards are already met, nothing changes. If it's below/above/non-compliant, the resolution could change that.

Whatever this rule is, it isn't a game mechanics problem. It could probably stand to be rephrased or even renamed.

[Christian Democrats]

It could probably stand to be rephrased or even renamed.

Self-Contradiction Rule

[Frisbeeteria]

Self-Contradiction Rule

I had to stare at that for a minute before I realized you were proposing that as an alternate name. It certainly doesn't jump off the page as a clear replacement for Optionality.

[Kryozerkia]

It could probably stand to be rephrased or even renamed.

Self-Contradiction Rule

Optional Compliance? Compliance Exemption?

[Christian Democrats]

Compliance Exemption?

That's part of the problem in my view. I think the GA should be able to exempt certain nations from resolutions.

E.g., a resolution on public schooling that applies only to nations with literacy rates below a specific threshold.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Compliance Exemption?

That's part of the problem in my view. I think the GA should be able to exempt certain nations from resolutions.

E.g., a resolution on public schooling that applies only to nations with literacy rates below a specific threshold.

Or forcing a secular state? I must ask, do you think these things through? Who is going to say how the stats effect a nation? Are you going to code stats for twenty thousand odd some nations every time a resolution passes? I am pretty sure no one is going to sign up for that job. Also how do go about saying you want to opt out of a certain resolution? Do you have to file a GHR? If so they had better hire another hundred or so moderators just for the GA alone, or are we going to have a thread on the forum, and the mods get around to processing them.

The rule is there for a reason. You join the WA, you abide by the resolutions. No one is twisting your arm to join. What you are asking for is sanctioned non-compliance. If you don't like how the stat is going to affect you, resign before it passes, and then rejoin, it takes all of ten seconds.

[Christian Democrats]

I think you're missing the point. As Frisbeeteria says above, it is possible for some WA nations to be unaffected by new resolutions. If custom coding were adopted, the process of implementing targeted legislation actually would not be as difficult as you imagine. For example, the GA could pass a resolution to assist member states with high unemployment. For coding, the resolution editors could select only those countries that have employment levels below a certain threshold using the same mechanism by which issues are targeted.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I think you're missing the point. As Frisbeeteria says above, it is possible for some WA nations to be unaffected by new resolutions. If custom coding were adopted, the process of implementing targeted legislation actually would not be as difficult as you imagine. For example, the GA could pass a resolution to assist member states with high unemployment. For coding, the resolution editors could select only those countries that have employment levels below a certain threshold using the same mechanism by which issues are targeted.

Doesn't that kind of defeat the whole point of the WA then? I understand how it could work, I am just not a big fan of the whole "It doesn't affect me so I can ignore it" jazz that is going to go on. If you join the WA you take the hurrahs, and the lumps that come with it. If you don't have a military and we pass a resolution saying you have to increase military spending, well guess what, now you have a military in a limited form. Also are there really that many nations out there that play the WA simply for the stat effects? The stat effects from resolutions is so minimal in scope that this seems like a lot of wasted effort for such a small gain. That is also my opinion on this whole resolution coding thing as well. The rules themselves may need an overhaul, but the system as it stands works pretty well, and I think is is a monumentally bad idea to screw with it.

[Christian Democrats]

Doesn't that kind of defeat the whole point of the WA then? I understand how it could work, I am just not a big fan of the whole "It doesn't affect me so I can ignore it" jazz that is going to go on.

From an in-character perspective, it wouldn't exactly be an "opt-out." Any nation in which unemployment rose would theoretically qualify for international assistance, or any nation in which literacy fell would theoretically fall under the jurisdiction of an international board to tell it how to manage its schools. Think of it like social insurance: you might not meet the qualifications now, but you will receive such-and-such benefits if your circumstances ever change at some point in the future. Replacing the Optionality Rule with a rule against self-contradictory proposals would open a number of new avenues for prospective authors.

[Frisbeeteria]

As Frisbeeteria says above, it is possible for some WA nations to be unaffected by new resolutions.

That's not exactly what I said. Every WA nation is "affected" by every passed resolution, but some of them might not be "impacted" because their stats are already above the impact threshold.

For coding, the resolution editors could select only those countries that have employment levels below a certain threshold using the same mechanism by which issues are targeted.

Not gonna happen, at least not how you think it would. There isn't going to be an opt-out mechanism, so how about you let us worry about the stats, and lets get back to rules.

[Christian Democrats]

There isn't going to be an opt-out mechanism.

It wouldn't exactly be an "opt-out."

I don't see where we're disagreeing.

[Frisbeeteria]

I don't see where we're disagreeing.

We're disagreeing in that you brought this up in a discussion of the Optionality rule, and I'm telling you that it will never be legal for the text of a proposal to be considered optional.

It may be that we tighten the text of the rule in some ways.
It may be that if Category Coding goes into effect, we'll see different levels of impact.

What won't happen is allowing resolutions to say "this is optional if <whatever>".

[Christian Democrats]

Again, we agree. No resolution should be optional; however, "proposals that apply only to certain classes of nations should be legal."

[Frisbeeteria]

Summary of proposed changes:

• No real argument that game mechanics requires this rule
• Some disagreement over how stats affect optionality
• No real discussion about rephrasing of this rule