Amendments
You can't amend Resolutions. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Resolution, you have to Repeal it first.
by Mallorea and Riva » Mon May 04, 2015 1:32 pm
Amendments
You can't amend Resolutions. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Resolution, you have to Repeal it first.
by Mallorea and Riva » Thu May 21, 2015 2:37 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu May 21, 2015 2:50 pm
by Kaboomlandia » Thu May 21, 2015 3:56 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Thu May 21, 2015 4:02 pm
Kaboomlandia wrote:the WA lemmings
by Christian Democrats » Thu May 21, 2015 5:28 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu May 21, 2015 6:10 pm
by Christian Democrats » Thu May 21, 2015 6:27 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:I would prefer R+R not be taken off the shelf. But CD's provisos work, provided that also:
-R+Rs aren't passed just to correct one or two minor errors (if that happened all the time it would make the WA incredibly boring)
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Replacements don't completely change the WA's stance on a certain issue (i.e., repeal "Protect endangered species" and replace it with "Kill all puppies!"); they only revise an extant stance on the issue and strive to make substantive improvements on addressing and enforcing it
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:@CD: Most resolutions pass by a supermajority anyway (of the last ten, only one did not); maybe raise the threshold to 75%?
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu May 21, 2015 6:47 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:As long as the replacement deals with the same topic, why should we prevent stance reversals?
Example: Repeal "Convention on Execution" and replace with "Ban on Capital Punishment."
50-75% -- old resolution expires
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu May 21, 2015 6:48 pm
by Christian Democrats » Thu May 21, 2015 7:11 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:50-75% -- old resolution expires
And the new operative section would be crossed out?
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu May 21, 2015 7:13 pm
by Frisbeeteria » Thu May 21, 2015 10:02 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:And the new operative section would be crossed out?
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote: whether the amendment rule itself should stay or go or be revised, so maybe involved discussion on new tech fixes should go to Technical?
by Defwa » Fri May 22, 2015 12:18 am
by The Dark Star Republic » Fri May 22, 2015 1:06 am
by Old Hope » Fri May 22, 2015 2:47 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Separatist Peoples » Fri May 22, 2015 5:18 am
by Mallorea and Riva » Fri May 22, 2015 7:05 am
by Tzorsland » Fri May 22, 2015 11:55 am
Mallorea and Riva wrote:R&R is a distinct issue from the Amendment Rule folks, if we want to start up this discussion again then I'd recommend we deal with Amendments first and then maybe open up a thread in technical.
by Ainocra » Fri May 22, 2015 11:59 am
by Old Hope » Fri May 22, 2015 12:20 pm
Ainocra wrote:I think the current rule is fine,
consider this
I write and pass a law about tacos
next year Kenny doesn't like tacos unless they have cheese
a few months later flib comes along and adds sour cream
then a year later mousey adds some fresh squeezed baby tears
where is my original taco?
So we should keep this rule as is, not just for the technical reasons but because I like my tacos plain
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Christian Democrats » Fri May 22, 2015 1:33 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:I could perhaps see an automated line added to a historical resolutions, "As amended by GAR # 442" added at the bottom, but even that's a stretch. What happens if GAR #442 gets repealed? Do we then have to automate adding strikeout code to prior links? It just gets really complicated.
Defwa wrote:However the requirement for a super majority is out of the question.
The Dark Star Republic wrote:We can already pass repeals and replacements. I don't see why adding some special function to do so adds anything but complication.
Mallorea and Riva wrote:R&R is a distinct issue from the Amendment Rule folks, if we want to start up this discussion again then I'd recommend we deal with Amendments first and then maybe open up a thread in technical.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by The United Neptumousian Empire » Fri May 22, 2015 1:54 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:I'd support the addition of a repeal-and-replace (R+R) function with three conditions:With respect to this third condition, a twist, which would add some intrigue and strategy to the WA, could be coded into the new function: If an R+R proposal obtains majority support but not supermajority support, the original resolution is struck out anyway.
- There is only one proposal text (3500 characters) with the repeal arguments limited to the preamble;
- The new resolution must have a new title and substantively different text (plagiarism rule); and
- R+R resolutions require a supermajority vote to pass (e.g., two-thirds support).
Contrary to what DSR says above, an R+R function of this kind would enlarge the breadth of topics on which new authors could legislate. Old resolutions could not be "incrementally amended" because of the plagiarism rule, which would require fresh proposals. I would even go so far as to ban players from using R+R on their own resolutions, unless they refrain from plagiarizing themselves.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Fri May 22, 2015 1:55 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:We can already pass repeals and replacements. I don't see why adding some special function to do so adds anything but complication.
As I note above and as you hint, it would open up more topics for new authors, which would increase participation.
by Christian Democrats » Fri May 22, 2015 2:07 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:As I note above and as you hint, it would open up more topics for new authors, which would increase participation.
Repeals already do that (as TDSR has repeatedly pointed out in the current official topic). If voters desire replacements, as you suggest, repeals allow them to happen. Tacking them on to repeals does not really give new authors that opportunity; in fact, it would rob them of it in some cases.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
Advertisement
Return to General Assembly Rules Consortium
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement