The NatSov Repeal Rule

[Mallorea and Riva]

Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a 'Repeal', it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.

Furthermore, simply stating "National Sovereignty" (i.e.: "this law prevents my nation from doing Y, X, and Z", or "this legislation will destroy the moral fabric of our society") is not sufficient grounds for a repeal. Since such a stance could be used on every single Resolution, it is little more than saying "I don't like it." Religious, cultural and ethnic sovereignty also falls under the umbrella of 'NatSov'.

Also, Repealing on the grounds of an old Resolution violating the current rules is not sufficient. On a more practical side, Repealing because a Resolution violates the rules is itself a MetaGaming violation: the laws do not "exist" from an In Character standpoint. NOTE: A Repeal must have an active "Repeals" clause.

[Mallorea and Riva]

First round discussion bump.

[Elke and Elba]

I think this one is pretty dead on discussion. This has been one of the rules that have really kept our sanity in the WA before people start submitting bills saying that "THIS HURTS MUH SENSIBILITIES!!111!!!" which is something that happens quite commonly in the WA, especially with controversial issues like On Abortion or Reproductive Freedoms.

This is also the most unambiguous way to throw out a proposal (because it's so bloody obvious) that I don't believe that the other GA players will have a bone to pick regarding Kryo's "trigger-happy" moderation with regards to this.

[Kaboomlandia]

I think the sixteen illegal attempted repeals of RAT, most for NatSov, keeps this one around.

No real controversy around this one.

OOC: How come the other rules are all locked? Is there no controversy with those?

[Frisbeeteria]

OOC: How come the other rules are all locked? Is there no controversy with those?

We're doing a few at a time.

And this entire subforum is OOC. You really don't need to preface your posts with that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think that the NatSov Repeal Rule should be discarded. In my opinion, the rule is used too often. There are cases where the best way of arguing why a resolution should not be on the books is through national sovereignty. Arguing that effectively, clearly, and competently should not be something shamed, it should be praised.

But perhaps, that's just me, a massive national sovereigntist talking.

I think the sixteen illegal attempted repeals of RAT, most for NatSov, keeps this one around.

What makes them illegal other than this rule? Why shouldn't it be legal to repeal Responsible Arms Trading (which, mind you, prevents WA nations from selling arms to countries just as the US did during WWI and WWII) through the argument that the aforementioned prohibition is too broad?

This has been one of the rules that have really kept our sanity in the WA before people start submitting bills saying that "THIS HURTS MUH SENSIBILITIES!!111!!!" which is something that happens quite commonly in the WA, especially with controversial issues like On Abortion or Reproductive Freedoms.

And those are really crappy resolutions which would either fail or not get approved. I don't see much of a problem. Honestly, they probably violate some other rule, so they can be removed via that violation, not this one.

[Frisbeeteria]

There are cases where the best way of arguing why a resolution should not be on the books is through national sovereignty.

I completely agree that national sovereignty is a vital argument for many resolutions. However, that's not what the rule is about. The rule refers only to repeals.

NatSov arguments on repeals can almost always be summed up as "waaaah, we don't like this and wish this hadn't been voted in". If that's all they say (in however many words, sentences, or paragraphs), then the rule is invoked. If they make ANY other point in addition to the NatSov argument, the rule is not invoked.

The theory behind this is that you had your chance to vote it down, and you don't get to keep bringing it to the voters again and again until it finally gets dumped. You have to be a tiny bit more creative in your repeals. Let's stick with arguing what the rules actually are, rather than random interpretations.

[Krioval]

NatSov arguments on repeals can almost always be summed up as "waaaah, we don't like this and wish this hadn't been voted in". If that's all they say (in however many words, sentences, or paragraphs), then the rule is invoked. If they make ANY other point in addition to the NatSov argument, the rule is not invoked.

Agreed. It behooves an author to at least present an argument as to how their nation is unduly suffering under the burdens of a resolution, if national sovereignty is a major part of their repeal.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Whether a repeal is a good argument or not is a judgement players should make. This rule should be scrapped.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Whether a repeal is a good argument or not is a judgement players should make. This rule should be scrapped.

This is essentially my position on this rule as well. I'd like to see players be the ones who make judgement calls on the worthiness of repeal arguments, if the NatSov argument is the only argument used then I say we let the proposal sink or swim on its own. Maybe we're regulating something like the color of toothpaste which really only needs the NatSov argument since it really is an issue not meant for the GA to legislate on.

[Mousebumples]

It's hard for me to view this objectively since there are plenty of resolutions through the years that I've wanted to repeal for NatSov reasons. However, no matter how much it may have occasionally frustrated me as a player, I think it was (and still is) a good rule as it makes authors work to refine their draft and arguments to have more than "I don't like it" as an argument.

[The United Remnants of America]

Only note: It's an operative clause that would state "repeals," not an active clause. It's the same idea, but I'm just a stiff for proper terminology.

[Bears Armed]

It's hard for me to view this objectively since there are plenty of resolutions through the years that I've wanted to repeal for NatSov reasons. However, no matter how much it may have occasionally frustrated me as a player, I think it was (and still is) a good rule as it makes authors work to refine their draft and arguments to have more than "I don't like it" as an argument.

Agreed.

[Snefaldia]

I initially felt that this rule was helpful because it encourage writers to be more thoughtful in their repeals, but I'm not sure now. I find myself agreeing that it should be up to the voters to decide what is and isn't a good argument.

[The Dark Star Republic]

It's hard for me to view this objectively since there are plenty of resolutions through the years that I've wanted to repeal for NatSov reasons. However, no matter how much it may have occasionally frustrated me as a player, I think it was (and still is) a good rule as it makes authors work to refine their draft and arguments to have more than "I don't like it" as an argument.

Out of interest, are there any examples of this actually working? Of repeals being submitted (or drafted) and being declared illegal on account of this rule, only to be more thoroughly drafted and then successfully resubmitted?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think this is a rule more about the quality of the game than the needs of the game itself. Practically speaking, simplistic arguments about sovereignty can be very persuasive to the game's broad player base. But those simplistic arguments don't help the GA become a place for vibrant debates. The NatSov repeal rule, to me, helps create that environment by requiring better arguments.

Unfortunately, many authors just choose to nitpick technical details, rather than come up with substantive arguments for repeals. But I don't think doing away with this rule would make things any better.

[Snefaldia]

Unfortunately, many authors just choose to nitpick technical details, rather than come up with substantive arguments for repeals. But I don't think doing away with this rule would make things any better.

I guess I'm agreeing with DSR here, why wouldn't a NatSov argument be a valid and persuasive reason to repeal? It can be simplistic, yes, but unsubstantial?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Because of the simplicity of the argument. You could write a repeal that has no substantive connection to the resolution, but just appeals to the sense that the WA shouldn't be telling states what they can and cannot do. That degrades the quality of debate, because it's basically a boilerplate argument that needs little, if any, resolution-specific alterations.

Simply saying "if people vote for it, it should be allowed" is a bad idea, in my opinion. The bulk of the GA is in the quality of forum debates, not the outcome of gameside votes. There are some cases where we should defer and leave it up to politics, but I think there are also cases where the rules can be used to ensure a better debating environment.

[Defwa]

I would prefer that natsov, as in the idea that nations should decide this and the WA should not say anything about, should be absolutely illegal- no mention of that type of natsov should ever be used.
However, saying that a resolution is ineffective or obstructive in properly regulating a subject is okay. It's all about the phrasing.

Basically, "I want to be able to do this and this stops me" is out
But, "There are far more effective ways of doing this" is in

As such, no matter how many points someone makes against RF, the last line can never be "omg so offended rn"

[Kaboomlandia]

I initially felt that this rule was helpful because it encourage writers to be more thoughtful in their repeals, but I'm not sure now. I find myself agreeing that it should be up to the voters to decide what is and isn't a good argument.

I would agree with this. If the attempt is pure NatSov, it's illegal. If the author makes an attempt to give an argument, then keep it around.

[Frisbeeteria]

I initially felt that this rule was helpful because it encourage writers to be more thoughtful in their repeals, but I'm not sure now. I find myself agreeing that it should be up to the voters to decide what is and isn't a good argument.

I would agree with this. If the attempt is pure NatSov, it's illegal. If the author makes an attempt to give an argument, then keep it around.

Which part are you agreeing with? The first part where he said the old rule was fine, or the second part where he changed his mind and suggested we dump the rule?

The reason we get annoyed with your comments, Kaboomlandia, is that you often take both sides of the issue (or neither) without appearing to notice that you've done so. There are a number of us who would really appreciate it if you critically READ what you were writing before you posted it.

[Kaboomlandia]

I would agree with this. If the attempt is pure NatSov, it's illegal. If the author makes an attempt to give an argument, then keep it around.

Which part are you agreeing with? The first part where he said the old rule was fine, or the second part where he changed his mind and suggested we dump the rule?

The reason we get annoyed with your comments, Kaboomlandia, is that you often take both sides of the issue (or neither) without appearing to notice that you've done so. There are a number of us who would really appreciate it if you critically READ what you were writing before you posted it.

Agreeing with the first part.

[Frisbeeteria]

Agreeing with the first part.

So then you're disagreeing with your prior post that you were agreeing with Snefaldia. In point of fact, you were disagreeing with Snefaldia and making an entirely unnecessary post which essentially restated the current rule.

Please stop posting when you have nothing to add.

[Unibot III]

I believe the NatSov repeal rule should be scraped - it tries to judge the content of the resolution, which a rule really shouldn't. Our rules should be content-neutral.

Moreover, the problem with the NatSov repeal rule is it forces people who do want to repeal a resolution because it infringes on their view of the extent of national sovereignty to come up with some false reason. Which has lead to some demonstrably crappy technical reasons over the past few years, and in turn, resulted in GA authors becoming even more semantical and technical about how they write resolutions - the consequence of the rule is that authors over generations get even more obfuscatory and repeallers get even more quibbling because authors learn from past repeals and repeallers have to get smarter... and it spirals from there.

EDIT: Instead, I would suggest an alternative rule which states that repeals cannot be used to advance policy or principles (because they cannot be repealed). While I have no problem in the abstract with a repeal stating NatSov as a reason for a resolution's repeal, I do have a problem with a repeal affirming the principle of NatSov universally. There's a distinction between those cases.

[Glen-Rhodes]

That rule already exists-- it's "legislating in a repeal."

I think it's a big mistake to argue all rules must be content-neutral. The rules are there to shape the quality of the game. There's a line that shouldn't be crossed, where rules are used to enforce policy preference-- like the No WA Army rule -- but not all content-based rules are like that. Do we really want a game where we're regularly voting on repeals that basically say, "The WA shouldn't be violating state sovereignty." and nothing else?? I know that the moment the game becomes that way, we'll be clamoring for the mods to change the rules again.