The NatSov Repeal Rule

[Unibot III]

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.

We're constantly voting on repeals that are absolutely insane with semantical, technical arguments, because the authors aren't allowed to reveal in the text that they believe the sole reason for repealing the resolution is that it encroaches on state sovereignty.

I know the moment the game becomes that way, we'll be clamoring for voters to stop accepting these reasons as automatically compelling. It's harder to challenge repeals now when the arguments make voters' eyes fog over with boredom. At least some political philosophy might make a debate more interesting, than ....

'Section 1.3 uses aforementioned, not aforesaid.'

'No, it doesn't. It's defined as a part of sub section 1.2a that aforementioned carries a distinct new meaning 'for the purposes of this resolution' as including a wide purview and remit such that it may be interpreted, not to put too fine of a point on it, as including the necessary and proper terms as you have indicated, barring emergency circumstances outlined in Section 3.2.'

'But that's not true. Section 1.3 uses aforementioned, not aforesaid.'

'On the contrary, It's defined as a part of sub section 1.2a that aforementioned carries a distinct new meaning ...'

Etc.

At least with a NatSov debate, I can clobber my opponent back with something interesting. You're thinking a NatSov argument would be an automatic win. I think IntFeds have had a more difficult time because NatSovers turned to disingenuous, incomprehensible technical arguments.

[Ainocra]

I am of two minds
I tend to agree with Uni, I feel it should be scrapped. We have all seen some insane technical reasons for a repeal go through just to get around it.
I also think it has led to some better quality in repeals though. So t has it's merits, but I'm not sure those merits outweigh the cons.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Unibot, isn't that a problem of lack of creativity, not a problem with the rule itself? The nitpicking-ness is relatively new, in my experience. We've seen plenty of good repeals that boil down to national sovereignty-- but they argued *why* the WA being involved is a bad idea, not simply stating that the WA shouldn't violate sovereignty. If the mods are clocking that as a violation, then maybe they should rethink that.

I think the nitpicking and technicality arguments come more from players thinking they have a *bad* or *unpopular* substantive argument, not simply because they just want to say "national sovereignty!" If you point out a minor internal contradiction, or a typo, or some other technicality, the thinking is that even supporters of the idea will support a repeal. I saw this trick used by some of my opponents when it was painfully obvious that their actual reasons for repeal were unpopular.

[Imperium Anglorum]

but they argued *why* the WA being involved is a bad idea, not simply stating that the WA shouldn't violate sovereignty. If the mods are clocking that as a violation, then maybe they should rethink that.

I couldn't have said that better myself.

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.

Glen-Rhodes, I think they are clocking that as a violation.

[Unibot III]

Unibot, isn't that a problem of lack of creativity, not a problem with the rule itself? The nitpicking-ness is relatively new, in my experience. We've seen plenty of good repeals that boil down to national sovereignty-- but they argued *why* the WA being involved is a bad idea, not simply stating that the WA shouldn't violate sovereignty. If the mods are clocking that as a violation, then maybe they should rethink that.

I think the nitpicking and technicality arguments come more from players thinking they have a *bad* or *unpopular* substantive argument, not simply because they just want to say "national sovereignty!" If you point out a minor internal contradiction, or a typo, or some other technicality, the thinking is that even supporters of the idea will support a repeal. I saw this trick used by some of my opponents when it was painfully obvious that their actual reasons for repeal were unpopular.

It's not a problem of creativity, it's a problem of strategy. NatSovers are just doing the smartest thing they can in response to the prohibition against using NatSov reasoning.

An actual, sensible, genuine and comprehensible reason for repealing a resolution beside NatSov reasons would be debatable like all good arguments. It's far wiser on the part of NatSovers to stick to non-arguments which can't be intelligibly debated; partly because players can't challenge a non-argument's veracity and even if they could, readers wouldn't care enough to listen.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If it's a good strategy, getting rid of the rule won't change anything.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If it's a good strategy, getting rid of the rule won't change anything.

How I look at it, the best way to repeal a resolution like ... any of the WMD accords which Canada wrote ... would be a Nat Sov argument about whether the WA should have actually passed those resolutions in the first place and ask people to reexamine the facts about what effects those resolutions would have.

Most of the resolutions which fall into the Nat Sov bin are also in there for other reasons (branding, no-WA perspective, etc), so there are still reasons for discarding them, so we would not get flooded by bad resolutions. The many repeal attempts of RAT show this effectively ... all the attempts which were discarded for rules violations also fell into violation of rules other than NatSov Repeal.

Otherwise, you get repeal resolutions about how the Chemical Weapons Accord bans water dihydrogen monoxide.

[Unibot III]

If it's a good strategy, getting rid of the rule won't change anything.

NatSov is a better strategy, but more risk involved.

[Ainocra]

I would posit it's a different strategy, not necessarily better, but it should be a valid one.

In execution the no natsov rule seems to me to be akin to an ideological ban.

[Flibbleites]

I hope everyone's sitting down right now, I support keeping this rule in place (and no, I haven't stopped being a Sovereigntist). My reasoning is this, the NatSov argument is basically the same thing as saying "I don't like it." To which I start thinking, "Well duh, you don't like it. How often to people try to repeal resolutions that they do like?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

I hope everyone's sitting down right now, I support keeping this rule in place (and no, I haven't stopped being a Sovereigntist). My reasoning is this, the NatSov argument is basically the same thing as saying "I don't like it." To which I start thinking, "Well duh, you don't like it. How often to people try to repeal resolutions that they do like?"

And getting that NatSov argument to work would involve posing that argument such that other people agree and support that resolution.

People don't support a resolution which literally just says 'I don't like the target resolution. Therefore, this World Assembly repeals [x]'. On the other hand, they might support a resolution which states: 'The target resolution does [x], [y], and [z]. These have [a], [b], and [c] effects on the countries. This is a violation of the freedom for nations to govern effectively because nations need to be able to [alpha], [beta], and [gamma]. Hence, the World Assembly hereby repeals [resolution]'.

What falls under a NatSov argument, at times, includes statements like: 'This prohibits governments from effectively waging war' or 'This prohibits government from effectively building individualised economic policies'. Those are NatSov arguments which have merit, since they address directly things that governments should be able to do to protect themselves and to administer effectively.

Now, the meritless NatSov? I agree. Throw it out.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I hope everyone's sitting down right now, I support keeping this rule in place (and no, I haven't stopped being a Sovereigntist). My reasoning is this, the NatSov argument is basically the same thing as saying "I don't like it." To which I start thinking, "Well duh, you don't like it. How often to people try to repeal resolutions that they do like?"

Touche. Allow natsov as a reason for a repeal, and that is all we will be voting on for the next century or so, and I promise I could flood the queue with 50 repeals stating I don't like them as the reason.

[Ainocra]

I hope everyone's sitting down right now, I support keeping this rule in place (and no, I haven't stopped being a Sovereigntist). My reasoning is this, the NatSov argument is basically the same thing as saying "I don't like it." To which I start thinking, "Well duh, you don't like it. How often to people try to repeal resolutions that they do like?"

*blinks in disbelief*

I clearly need more wild turkey because I could not have read that right




*makes another drink*

well yes, but you just said yourself the same can be true of any repeal reason.....

[Elke and Elba]

I hope everyone's sitting down right now, I support keeping this rule in place (and no, I haven't stopped being a Sovereigntist). My reasoning is this, the NatSov argument is basically the same thing as saying "I don't like it." To which I start thinking, "Well duh, you don't like it. How often to people try to repeal resolutions that they do like?"

Touche. Allow natsov as a reason for a repeal, and that is all we will be voting on for the next century or so, and I promise I could flood the queue with 50 repeals stating I don't like them as the reason.

Bingo. I would be pretty sure half of the thrown out On Abortion/Reproductive Freedoms resolution wouldn't have been thrown out were it not for this.

And given that these controversial votes just need a hundred or so people to pile on in the start, we will probably have to vote so much on one issue that it makes the rest of WA can't run or legislate.

[Ardchoille]

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.

Glen-Rhodes, I think they are clocking that as a violation.

Not this little black duck. I read it the same way Fris does (emphasis added).

[The Dark Star Republic]

People keep saying that we will be deluged with repeals of this nature if the rule is relaxed. But most repeals deleted for this violation are of low quality, quite possibly illegal anyway, and with little chance of reaching quorum and even less chance of passing.

Bingo. I would be pretty sure half of the thrown out On Abortion/Reproductive Freedoms resolution wouldn't have been thrown out were it not for this.

The WA has repeatedly voted to legalise abortion and repeatedly voted down repeals on the topic. Anyone naive enough to believe a NatSov repeal has a chance of passing deserves to see their repeal go down in flames rather than merely be deleted.

[Elke and Elba]

People keep saying that we will be deluged with repeals of this nature if the rule is relaxed. But most repeals deleted for this violation are of low quality, quite possibly illegal anyway, and with little chance of reaching quorum and even less chance of passing.

Bingo. I would be pretty sure half of the thrown out On Abortion/Reproductive Freedoms resolution wouldn't have been thrown out were it not for this.

The WA has repeatedly voted to legalise abortion and repeatedly voted down repeals on the topic. Anyone naive enough to believe a NatSov repeal has a chance of passing deserves to see their repeal go down in flames rather than merely be deleted.

You're not getting the point, Gruen.

Given that "[t]he WA has repeatedly voted to legalise abortion and repeatedly voted down repeals on the topic", the lifting of the NatSov Repeal Rule only means that we will get more NatSov-only repeals on these two abortion-y topics, that will get to vote, and fail to pass.

It's about the waste of airtime we would be having if all the NatSov-only repeals are allowed to stand. The difference between the approvals process (6%, ~100 dels) and the voting process (8-15,000 votes odd) means that we can have just one person willing to spend a little money each time to convince 100 people to approve the thing, have that silly piece of proposal sit on the floor for 4 days and then have it fail.

And rinse and repeat the same old process over and over again. Same people approve, same people vote nay, same person resubmit, blah blah.

In fact I'm so pretty certain this can happen that once this rule is removed you'll start to think it's a pretty bad idea with a 60 day backlog of quorate proposals on the queue that are all directed on repealing all the more-than-slightly controversial stuff with the IC equivalent of "I/We/Most of us don't liek this and this must GOOOOOO".

[Imperium Anglorum]

People keep saying that we will be deluged with repeals of this nature if the rule is relaxed. But most repeals deleted for this violation are of low quality, quite possibly illegal anyway, and with little chance of reaching quorum and even less chance of passing.
The WA has repeatedly voted to legalise abortion and repeatedly voted down repeals on the topic. Anyone naive enough to believe a NatSov repeal has a chance of passing deserves to see their repeal go down in flames rather than merely be deleted.

You're not getting the point, Gruen.

Given that "[t]he WA has repeatedly voted to legalise abortion and repeatedly voted down repeals on the topic", the lifting of the NatSov Repeal Rule only means that we will get more NatSov-only repeals on these two abortion-y topics, that will get to vote, and fail to pass.

It's about the waste of airtime we would be having if all the NatSov-only repeals are allowed to stand. The difference between the approvals process (6%, ~100 dels) and the voting process (8-15,000 votes odd) means that we can have just one person willing to spend a little money each time to convince 100 people to approve the thing, have that silly piece of proposal sit on the floor for 4 days and then have it fail.

And rinse and repeat the same old process over and over again. Same people approve, same people vote nay, same person resubmit, blah blah.

In fact I'm so pretty certain this can happen that once this rule is removed you'll start to think it's a pretty bad idea with a 60 day backlog of quorate proposals on the queue that are all directed on repealing all the more-than-slightly controversial stuff with the IC equivalent of "I/We/Most of us don't liek this and this must GOOOOOO".

Then, how about changing the rule to require something like a meaningful discussion about the impacts of the bill from an objective standpoint (i.e. not a moral standpoint)?

[The Dark Star Republic]

In fact I'm so pretty certain this can happen that once this rule is removed you'll start to think it's a pretty bad idea with a 60 day backlog of quorate proposals on the queue that are all directed on repealing all the more-than-slightly controversial stuff with the IC equivalent of "I/We/Most of us don't liek this and this must GOOOOOO".

So, let's try it?

Remove the rule, but only a probationary period. If, after say, 90 days, the WA has become constipated with such repeals, then reinstate the rule. If, however, most such repeals fail to reach quorum and there's no significant decline in quality in repeals, the scaremongering is for nought?

[Elke and Elba]

You're not getting the point, Gruen.

Given that "[t]he WA has repeatedly voted to legalise abortion and repeatedly voted down repeals on the topic", the lifting of the NatSov Repeal Rule only means that we will get more NatSov-only repeals on these two abortion-y topics, that will get to vote, and fail to pass.

It's about the waste of airtime we would be having if all the NatSov-only repeals are allowed to stand. The difference between the approvals process (6%, ~100 dels) and the voting process (8-15,000 votes odd) means that we can have just one person willing to spend a little money each time to convince 100 people to approve the thing, have that silly piece of proposal sit on the floor for 4 days and then have it fail.

And rinse and repeat the same old process over and over again. Same people approve, same people vote nay, same person resubmit, blah blah.

In fact I'm so pretty certain this can happen that once this rule is removed you'll start to think it's a pretty bad idea with a 60 day backlog of quorate proposals on the queue that are all directed on repealing all the more-than-slightly controversial stuff with the IC equivalent of "I/We/Most of us don't liek this and this must GOOOOOO".

Then, how about changing the rule to require something like a meaningful discussion about the impacts of the bill from an objective standpoint (i.e. not a moral standpoint)?

Usually when people start drafting bills that come from an objective standpoint they usually deal with the merits of the bill and the negative impact of the bill transcends from more mundane personal POV to a WA one that always goes back to why this bill shouldn't stand on legit reasoning.

This works even for moral issues, which is used largely in legal bills against the Abortion Duo.

It's not really a problem given that this rule is more for dealing with quite obvious no-effort NatSov "I hate this" (at whatever length) bills. I'm more worried about removing this rule because this rule is a very easy one to circumvent if someone tries a little bit harder to form reasons. This is really a floodgate-esque rule against the people who can't be either 1) arsed to come out with a reason or 2) just isn't involved in the WA drafting forums, don't know what to write, but sees something and gets outraged.

To demonstrate how easy it is to write a repeal if this bill gets removed, here's a bill in 5 seconds (that may or may not infringe upon other rules)

Repeal "blah"

The World Assembly,

Understanding that GAR#XX infringes about the sovereignty of member nations,

Repeals GAR#XX "Blah".

And it could be used ad nauseum from GAR#1 to GAR#325.

[Elke and Elba]

In fact I'm so pretty certain this can happen that once this rule is removed you'll start to think it's a pretty bad idea with a 60 day backlog of quorate proposals on the queue that are all directed on repealing all the more-than-slightly controversial stuff with the IC equivalent of "I/We/Most of us don't liek this and this must GOOOOOO".

So, let's try it?

Remove the rule, but only a probationary period. If, after say, 90 days, the WA has become constipated with such repeals, then reinstate the rule. If, however, most such repeals fail to reach quorum and there's no significant decline in quality in repeals, the scaremongering is for nought?

90 days with an announcement might do it.

I wouldn't be surprised if it happens though - even for non-repeal proposals this ghastly New Molsona stuff actually reached voting.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I wouldn't be surprised if it happens though

Then you can come back, bop me on the head, and say "told you so".

[Kryozerkia]

I support the NatSov rule. It's too easy to claim a violation of one's national sovereignty when every single proposal violates a nation's sovereignty. The difference is, does the player/nation agree with that violation or not? After all, joining the WA means accepting the potential loss of national sovereignty in some respects. There's no challenge in using the same argument to repeal every resolution. The challenge is custom tailoring the argument to the resolution.

[Railana]

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

Ditto.

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.

I think the quality of the game is primarily determined by players and that content-based rules don't help much in that regard. In this case, we've seen that proposal authors wanting to repeal a resolution on national sovereignty grounds will sometimes instead simply make up flaws based on a ridiculous interpretation of that resolution. That's not really an improvement.

But setting that aside for a moment, I think national sovereignty-based arguments are perfectly legitimate all on their own. I don't see what wrong with arguing that smaller, less centralized governmental authorities are better suited to handle particular matters simply by virtue of the fact that they are closer to the people they are regulating and so can tailor regulations to the specific needs of their community. (Catholics call this principle subsidiarity, and it's a core element of Catholic social thought.)

[The Dark Star Republic]

I think the quality of the game is primarily determined by players and that content-based rules don't help much in that regard. In this case, we've seen that proposal authors wanting to repeal a resolution on national sovereignty grounds will sometimes instead simply make up flaws based on a ridiculous interpretation of that resolution. That's not really an improvement.

Agreed. Repeal "International Criminal Court" would have been a much better debate had Mousebumples put her actual objection to the resolution in the repeal argument instead of making up a few completely spurious arguments that muddied the waters of totally unrelated resolutions.

Discoveria even pointed this out at the time; obviously it was ignored.

(Catholics call this principle subsidiarity, and it's a core element of Catholic social thought.)

Funny, the EU calls it the same thing.