[DISCUSSION] When to use the Discard function?

[Mousebumples]

There's been plenty of controversy over the Discard function in the past - both in it's use and in its lack of use. The GA Moderation staff is interested in getting some feedback from players as to when/how they'd like to see the Discard function used (*in the GA) going forward. Of course, decisions aren't made based on "votes," so please take this opportunity to argue your case rather than just stating your opinion without your rationale, so we can better understand where everyone is coming from.

I'll try to keep this OP periodically updated with the various (bottom-line) opinions.

Here's a few likely opinions that we may see:
1) For all rule-breaking occasions in the future, no matter how minor or major.
2) For all serious rule-breaking occasions. (*if you pick this one, please elaborate on what sort of "rule-breaking" you'd consider to be sufficiently egregious)
3) For all rule-breaking occasions for repeals.
4) Never.

I have my own opinion (and this isn't a topic on which the moderation staff is walking in lock-step), but I'll wait until there are some responses to chime in with my thoughts. Hopefully we can come to an agreement - or at least an understanding - with whatever sort of decision is made, going forward.

[Sovreignry]

I'd say 2, especially since that's what we were told that's when the discard function should be used. I don't think minor branding violations would fall under that but I don't have a full idea on which rules would be sufficient under that.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'd say 2, especially since that's what we were told that's when the discard function should be used. I don't think minor branding violations would fall under that but I don't have a full idea on which rules would be sufficient under that.

Please ignore what we initially stated it should be used for and tell us what you want it used for independent of that.

[Sovreignry]

I'd say 2, especially since that's what we were told that's when the discard function should be used. I don't think minor branding violations would fall under that but I don't have a full idea on which rules would be sufficient under that.

Please ignore what we initially stated it should be used for and tell us what you want it used for independent of that.

In that case I still say it should be for "egregious rules violations". My reasoning wasn't based solely on that but I figured it would be a place to start. Minor Branding Violations aren't so egregious that a whole resolution needs to be thrown out. Now, house of cards? Maybe. Contradiction/Duplication? Definitely. Making an acronym with the first letters in clauses to spell out your name? Probably. Something so far out of left field we're not even sure how many rules it breaks? Most definitely.

[Kaboomlandia]

I would say 2.

Use: Only for nations found to be multiing (Auralia comes to mind) or "grossly offensive".

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Anything Max Barry Day-level stupid or stupider.

Though there should be a somewhat lower bar for repeals since they themselves cannot be repealed.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think it must either be (1) or (4) if the guidelines are to be finely resolved lines. If we ignore (3) for the time being, (2) is too subjective — since for some people, the branding done on the famous Auralian Incident was 'egregious', and for others, it was not. I fall into the latter category.

If it is (1), then it is quite clear: things which break the rules can be discarded, but in that case, I believe there must be very broad agreement that it is rule-breaking. On the other hand, (4) would place much more trust in the players, saying that if it comes to a vote, it must have already been approved by delegates and if it is close to passing, close to approved by the WA itself. This would negate the entire issue, and deal with it easily.

Personally, I would be in favour of (2), but I fail to see how the guidelines for 'significance' would be ironed out. I agree with OMGTKK that something as stupid as Max Barry Day needs to be thrown out, but the line, when extending it beyond that point, is unfortunately quite unclear. Much discussion will be necessary if we are to adopt (2), which also believe is the best course of action.

(3), I feel, unjustly discriminates against repeals. The rule violation which led to the Auralian incident, in my opinion, was nowhere near significant. Furthermore, I would also state for the record that I honestly do not believe that the rule violation in the incident is worth anything. The issue was fundamentally not an issue — in my opinion. Some countries just happened to be named as 'Blah Blah Committee'. My country is named after an Empire, and I fundamentally don't see a problem with that.

Only for nations found to be multiing (Auralia comes to mind) or "grossly offensive".

How is this relevant? Aurelia multied in the SC for a self-commendation, not an issue regarding what we are discussing right now. I get that you don't like him, but its ridiculous to draw that non sequitur up.

[Separatist Peoples]

All illegalities. If we're going to use it, let there be no possible gray area to debate reasonableness of use or questioning personal feelings as a motivator. It would be better to never use it and just catch these violations before they make it to vote, but that seems to be increasingly improbable a solution.

[Mallorea and Riva]

All illegalities. If we're going to use it, let there be no possible gray area to debate reasonableness of use or questioning personal feelings as a motivator. It would be better to never use it and just catch these violations before they make it to vote, but that seems to be increasingly improbable a solution.

This is actually my personal opinion on the matter. Ideally we'll never need it, but we're imperfect creatures.

[Ainocra]

I tend to agree, if it is illegal then toss it.

For the record I would not have been overly upset had mine been tossed rather than being allowed to pass into law.
Now I have to repeal and replace it again in order to fix it. Granted I'm not in a rush to do it, but it is on my to do list.

[Phydios]

Option #1. I've not been around long, but I do think moderators should have the ability to pull resolutions even after they go to vote. In a perfect world, number 2 would be the one to choose, but that option will always have gray areas. Gray areas lead to conflict and division. Therefore, moderators should have the ability to discard any illegal resolution, no matter how small. In my opinion, that's the only option that will actually work in practice without causing other problems.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

#1 would be a terrible option. Not only would it result in even more protests about moderation when the mods make a decision someone dislikes...it would only encourage protracted legality challenges even after a proposal has gone to vote. IMHO debates should be focused on a resolution's merits and/or demerits once it reaches vote, not just Round 2 of rules-lawyering nonsense.

Unless of course the proposal seeks to reclaim America for Merry Ol' England or declare Aram Koopman the Secretary General of the WA, then by all means, fire away!

[Unibot III]

I'm of the unpopular position of 4) , but I also think that in turn, players should be allowed to express if a proposal has violated the secretariat's rules, provided the language used doesn't break the fourth wall.

[The Dark Star Republic]

It's my understanding that there is an order of proposal rule violations so severe that, rather than leading to the proposal being deleted and the submitter given one of three warnings, they lead to the proposal being deleted and the submitter immediately ejected, sometimes even given a gameside warning or even deleted. Those violations are:

• Grossly Offensive (either generic trolling or specifically flaming another player)
• plagiarism (we see nations submitting text plagiarised from other players or from RL sources being automatically ejected)
• trying to break the game code (I don't know if this has ever actually been done)
• using an offensive, illegal nation name
• that's it?

Those are the only violations for which a Discard should be invoked. If the mods miss that a proposal on collectivising agriculture has a line in the preamble about how Jews should be killed, if it turns out that a proposal on nuclear nonproliferation is stolen from someone else, if "The Republic of Fuck Gruenberg" manages to get a proposal into queue, then that's a violation egregious enough that a Discard could be justified.

Anything less than that should not be Discarded. Doing so will turn at vote debates into protracted rules lawyering spats and will risk the appearance of inconsistency. This would include, from historical examples, The Law of the Sea, Max Barry Day, Commend Kandarin, Repeal Rights & Duties, and On Scientific Cooperation.

Personally, I'd rather Discards were never used. The NSUN/WA survived for ten+ years without a Discard. But I do recognise that given the tool exists it would be silly to allow a truly egregious violation pass.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I'm of the unpopular position of 4) , but I also think that in turn, players should be allowed to express if a proposal has violated the secretariat's rules, provided the language used doesn't break the fourth wall.

I agree. If it gets to vote, leave it there. We have had what, three instances when it has been used? Auralia's repeal was pulled (a political decision), Auralia's commendation was pulled and AD's commendation was pulled. Yet an illegal proposal was permitted to pass, even though the mods have access to this wonder tool?

[Old Hope]

It's my understanding that there is an order of proposal rule violations so severe that, rather than leading to the proposal being deleted and the submitter given one of three warnings, they lead to the proposal being deleted and the submitter immediately ejected, sometimes even given a gameside warning or even deleted. Those violations are:

• Grossly Offensive (either generic trolling or specifically flaming another player)
• plagiarism (we see nations submitting text plagiarised from other players or from RL sources being automatically ejected)
• trying to break the game code (I don't know if this has ever actually been done)
• using an offensive, illegal nation name
• that's it?

Those are the only violations for which a Discard should be invoked. If the mods miss that a proposal on collectivising agriculture has a line in the preamble about how Jews should be killed, if it turns out that a proposal on nuclear nonproliferation is stolen from someone else, if "The Republic of Fuck Gruenberg" manages to get a proposal into queue, then that's a violation egregious enough that a Discard could be justified.

Anything less than that should not be Discarded. Doing so will turn at vote debates into protracted rules lawyering spats and will risk the appearance of inconsistency. This would include, from historical examples, The Law of the Sea, Max Barry Day, Commend Kandarin, Repeal Rights & Duties, and On Scientific Cooperation.

Personally, I'd rather Discards were never used. The NSUN/WA survived for ten+ years without a Discard. But I do recognise that given the tool exists it would be silly to allow a truly egregious violation pass.

I'd say this, any proposal that identifies NS as a game, and all illegal proposals that made it to vote in less than 48 hours after being submitted. That would prevent someone from getting a proposal into vote instantly to surpass moderation, and would give everyone a fair chance to spot illegalities.
It is really not nice if a proposal hits the floor, everyone votes for it... and it gets discarded after vote. And now imagine that happens twice in a row...

[Elke and Elba]

For the love of the sanity of the mods, option 1 makes the most sense. By allowing any form of leeway to WA regulars, they will eat you up, figuratively. If a middle of the road option were to be chosen, be rest assured that chaos will occur. Remember the Repeal GAR #2 issue? Ard's single "egregious" got so many people asking where the line of egregious ends that we aren't even at the end of people harping over the issue.

Let's face it - the WA works on semantics. Repeals and replacement and campaigning require the use of semantics to reach their achieved goals. Fighting off GHRs and getting GHRs through require semantics. However, if rules aren't set in stone - and easier to use on the part of the mods, we have a slippery slope over there to be worked in. And the end result won't be pretty - with the WA working in a bottomless pit of quicksand that have mods ineffectual in ruling decisions, and then lambasted by some of the regulars (when the fault is due to the ambiguity of rules), and having the better half of the year having the same people harp about "rules-unfair", "mods make the GA suck" or "mod-bias" yada-yada when they don't deserve to be called as such.

EDIT: To whoever who says this kills the WA, I'm afraid you're very wrong. You can still function within the new sandbox now clearly delineated, rather than getting beaten up because you trespassed the Austrian-Slovenian border and there's nothing indicating that line. It's for the better of both players and mods. And my ears.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I agree. If it gets to vote, leave it there. We have had what, three instances when it has been used? Auralia's repeal was pulled (a political decision), Auralia's commendation was pulled and AD's commendation was pulled. Yet an illegal proposal was permitted to pass, even though the mods have access to this wonder tool?

Personally, I don't think we should equate the use of the Discard in the SC with the use of it in the GA. If the two assemblies end up having wildly different standards and rules for Discards, that doesn't really matter, because they have completely different rules, cultures, and purposes anyway; they shouldn't even be attached at the hip at all in an ideal world.

[Grays Harbor]

Personally, I prefer option 1. Why? Well, because if a proposal is illegal, whether it gets to a vote or not, it is illegal. Using a stamp campaign to get it to a vote does not make something less illegal.

[Goddess Relief Office]

All illegalities. If we're going to use it, let there be no possible gray area to debate reasonableness of use or questioning personal feelings as a motivator. It would be better to never use it and just catch these violations before they make it to vote, but that seems to be increasingly improbable a solution.

Speaking as someone who got hit by a Discard, I'm going to go with this option. There is no other way that can root out subjectivity.

[Mousebumples]

It's my understanding that there is an order of proposal rule violations so severe that, rather than leading to the proposal being deleted and the submitter given one of three warnings, they lead to the proposal being deleted and the submitter immediately ejected, sometimes even given a gameside warning or even deleted. Those violations are:

• Grossly Offensive (either generic trolling or specifically flaming another player)
• plagiarism (we see nations submitting text plagiarised from other players or from RL sources being automatically ejected)
• trying to break the game code (I don't know if this has ever actually been done)
• using an offensive, illegal nation name
• that's it?

The only one that I think you missed (on an early-morning review - and bearing in mind that I'm still a new GM, so there may be some rule-breaking circumstances that I'm not aware of) is WA Multi-ing. Whether a player WA multied to get enough endorsements to submit a proposal or WA multied to hide their true identity on submission or WA multied because ... [reasons], I'd consider that to be a seriously egregious violation - and WA multiing can/will get you kicked from the WA.

Anything less than that should not be Discarded. Doing so will turn at vote debates into protracted rules lawyering spats and will risk the appearance of inconsistency. This would include, from historical examples, The Law of the Sea, Max Barry Day, Commend Kandarin, Repeal Rights & Duties, and On Scientific Cooperation.

Personally, I'd rather Discards were never used. The NSUN/WA survived for ten+ years without a Discard. But I do recognise that given the tool exists it would be silly to allow a truly egregious violation pass.

I somewhat agree with you. For "regular" proposals (i.e. non-repeals), that's my preferred standard. In par because of some of the history in the GA that's arisen from referencing Max Barry Day and how it shouldn't have been passed. I can understand (and, believe me, sometimes think fondly of) the simplicity that would come with using the Discard for every instance of rulebreaking. However, it was that same "history" that made me not hunt down a GM to see about getting On Scientific Cooperation discarded when it's issues re: the committee came to light. Not saying that that preference of mine is definitely right (or wrong, for that matter), but that was my rationale.

The way in which I disagree with you, however, is when it comes to repeals. And, no, I'm not just talking about repeals of GA#2 - I'm talking about any repeal. I remember a few years back, when "the Gem Trading Accord" was up for repeal. Ard had pulled a submission prior to reaching quorum for misunderstanding the target resolution, but another one snuck through to a vote for whatever reason. This was before the days of a Discard and (fortunately) is was failing At Vote, but Ard was probably wishing for a Discard function then. Urgench was around then and could have simply worked to repass his resolution had it been repealed with an illegal repeal text ... However, as of yet, you can't repeal a repeal, which is why I would prefer to hold repeals to a higher standard.

So, because I know I have a tendency to get wordy, to clarify my (personal) preferences:
1) For repeals, any rule-breaking would merit the use of a Discard.
2) For non-repeals, only egregious rule-breaking that would otherwise merit WA ejection or DEAT would result in the use of a Discard.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I previously argued (with Mallorea, who has since rather conveniently completely changed his position) against this idea of repeals being held to a different standard than substantive resolutions. Repeals aren't held to a higher standard of legality before they go to vote, so they shouldn't be held to a higher standard after going to vote.

The way in which I disagree with you, however, is when it comes to repeals. ... Urgench was around then and could have simply worked to repass his resolution had it been repealed with an illegal repeal text

Yes, he could. So what's the problem? If an illegal repeal passes, just resubmit the resolution. If the original author is CTE, other people can redraft it and resubmit it.

[Losthaven]

I previously argued (with Mallorea, who has since rather conveniently completely changed his position) against this idea of repeals being held to a different standard than substantive resolutions. Repeals aren't held to a higher standard of legality before they go to vote, so they shouldn't be held to a higher standard after going to vote.

The way in which I disagree with you, however, is when it comes to repeals. ... Urgench was around then and could have simply worked to repass his resolution had it been repealed with an illegal repeal text

Yes, he could. So what's the problem? If an illegal repeal passes, just resubmit the resolution. If the original author is CTE, other people can redraft it and resubmit it.

Repeals can't be repealed. That difference in their nature might justify treating repeals differently from other proposals, which (if "mildly" illegal on passage) can be repealed.

That said, I agree that Discard should be used for all legalities in both repeals and resolutions. I can't think of a good reason to say that if you catch a "minor" illegality in the 3 or so days while a proposal is in the queue it can be pulled, but if you catch the illegality (even minutes) after the thing goes to vote (i.e. when the most people are paying attention to it) now it's too late.

[Separatist Peoples]

Repeals can't be repealed, but resolutions cannot be repealed based on their supposed illegalities, because they are de jure legal upon their success. Dealing with a passed illegal proposal is just as obnoxious as dealing with a passed illegal repeal. There's no reason to treat them differently.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Repeals can't be repealed, but resolutions cannot be repealed based on their supposed illegalities, because they are de jure legal upon their success. Dealing with a passed illegal proposal is just as obnoxious as dealing with a passed illegal repeal. There's no reason to treat them differently.

Would it help if we changed that rule regarding dealing with illegally passed proposals?