[DISCUSSION] When to use the Discard function?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

@Mall: The fact that you can read is not what bothers me.

That's the problem. They weren't reading the proposal at all. They were blindly deferring to players' misreading of the (sub)text rather than applying their own critical reading skills. It's the problem with moderation nowadays. They rely too heavily on GHRs and the Silly/Illegal thread rather then being active participants in forum discussions. Had the mods been more involved in the legality discussion, instead of being purely reactive and responding only when a GHR was filed, they might have come to a different decision. They did not give Bananaistan the fair hearing he deserved in defending his proposal before issuing their ruling. They did not ask for his input -- by actively taking part in the discussion themselves -- which made the ruling all the more unfair. They assumed the burden of proof was on the Bananaistan and not the people who filed the GHR, but they did not even give him an opportunity to prove himself.

You could have at least asked a question or two before you took the extreme measure of discarding a proposal at vote.

[Mallorea and Riva]

That's a fair enough criticism.

[Unibot III]

Discard should only be used for resolutions that violate site rules - resolutions that might regarded as spam or harassment or feature bad language or something. It shouldn't be used to discard anything just because it violates the WA's rules - the GA#2 repeal discard absolutely stunk and I think drawing a line in the sand like this is the only way to stop abuse of the feature clearly in its tracks.

Edit: spoke before reading the whole thread; Kenny also brings up an excellent point about how "Discard" undermines the need for community-level moderation - active engagement in drafting threads.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Discard should only be used for resolutions that violate site rules - resolutions that might regarded as spam or harassment or feature bad language or something. It shouldn't be used to discard anything just because it violates the WA's rules - the GA#2 repeal discard absolutely stunk and I think drawing a line in the sand like this is the only way to stop abuse of the feature clearly in its tracks.

You're saying what you think the rule should be without actually explaining why you think it ought to be that way.

[Unibot III]

Discard should only be used for resolutions that violate site rules - resolutions that might regarded as spam or harassment or feature bad language or something. It shouldn't be used to discard anything just because it violates the WA's rules - the GA#2 repeal discard absolutely stunk and I think drawing a line in the sand like this is the only way to stop abuse of the feature clearly in its tracks.

You're saying what you think the rule should be without actually explaining why you think it ought to be that way.

I think it's pretty clear, site rules are fairly clear - violations of spam, harassment rules stand as something clearly identifiable and something none of us would want on an RMB post, let alone on the WA books. The WA rules are flexible to interpretation so there is room for abuse and politics in the use of the feature, especially in the case of repeals of moderator-written resolutions and repeals of legislation that carry a stake in a heated, ongoing dispute of GA rules (i.e., repealing GA#2 has long been regarded as the first step to undermining the WA Army rule.)

[Wrapper]

Once again, however, we are starting to slide from the topic of this particular thread: when to use the discard function?

Okay, my answer is this:

My preference is to use it for any violation which would have resulted in the proposal being pulled from the queue.

Illegal is illegal. End of story.

[Araraukar]

My preference is to use it for any violation which would have resulted in the proposal being pulled from the queue.

Illegal is illegal. End of story.

Seconded, and I also agree with Mall's view of it. If community's self-regulation actually worked, the discard function wouldn't be needed at all. Since it doesn't, the option should be available to the mods to "pull" the illegal ones from the vote, if/when they were missed during drafting. In the cases when drafting actually took place.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Seeing as the mods felt the need to justify their most recent discard by contending that "it is not a minor violation but rather quite significant," it would appear there is a threshold for discarding beyond simply being "illegal."

And like I said, the mods should be part of "the community's self-regulating," so as to reduce the need for continuing litigation of resolutions' legality after they have gone to vote. I really can't see why those who have witnessed how divisive these discard decisions are, and the fractious controversies they spur, would still insist that they are good for the process.

[Wallenburg]

Seeing as the mods felt the need to justify their most recent discard by contending that "it is not a minor violation but rather quite significant," it would appear there is a threshold for discarding beyond simply being "illegal."

And like I said, the mods should be part of "the community's self-regulating," so as to reduce the need for continuing litigation of resolutions' legality after they have gone to vote. I really can't see why those who have witnessed how divisive these discard decisions are, and the fractious controversies they spur, would still insist that they are good for the process.

It didn't spur any controversy with "Ban on Booby-Trapped Aid". Care to explain that?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Seeing as the mods felt the need to justify their most recent discard by contending that "it is not a minor violation but rather quite significant," it would appear there is a threshold for discarding beyond simply being "illegal."

And like I said, the mods should be part of "the community's self-regulating," so as to reduce the need for continuing litigation of resolutions' legality after they have gone to vote. I really can't see why those who have witnessed how divisive these discard decisions are, and the fractious controversies they spur, would still insist that they are good for the process.

It didn't spur any controversy with "Ban on Booby-Trapped Aid". Care to explain that?

Oh, very good. One example of a discard not pissing everybody off.

[Wallenburg]

It didn't spur any controversy with "Ban on Booby-Trapped Aid". Care to explain that?

Oh, very good. One example of a discard not pissing everybody off.

You do realize that I have only been around long enough to see two discards? You shouldn't expect me to recollect something that happened long before I even came on this website.

[Wrapper]

It didn't spur any controversy with "Ban on Booby-Trapped Aid". Care to explain that?

Oh, very good. One example of a discard not pissing everybody off.

It's SC, but there was one commendation (Anime Daisuki, R4c) and one condemnation (Auralia, WA multying) that were discarded, and neither discard pissed everybody off.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

There was also a "discard" (it wasn't called that at the time, but it was the same thing) of Condemn Horrible Zombies which was not received very well.

And I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the Repeal Rights & Duties debacle.

EDIT: And actually there was some tumult over Commend Auralia's discard, even if the majority agreed with the action.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Seeing as the mods felt the need to justify their most recent discard by contending that "it is not a minor violation but rather quite significant," it would appear there is a threshold for discarding beyond simply being "illegal."

And like I said, the mods should be part of "the community's self-regulating," so as to reduce the need for continuing litigation of resolutions' legality after they have gone to vote. I really can't see why those who have witnessed how divisive these discard decisions are, and the fractious controversies they spur, would still insist that they are good for the process.

It didn't spur any controversy with "Ban on Booby-Trapped Aid". Care to explain that?

Because I didn't raise a fuss. Or, in more accurate parlance, 'pursue justice'. Consider that?

[Wallenburg]

It didn't spur any controversy with "Ban on Booby-Trapped Aid". Care to explain that?

Because I didn't raise a fuss. Or, in more accurate parlance, 'pursue justice'. Consider that?

I did.

[Wrapper]

There was also a "discard" (it wasn't called that at the time, but it was the same thing) of Condemn Horrible Zombies which was not received very well.

And I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the Repeal Rights & Duties debacle.

EDIT: And actually there was some tumult over Commend Auralia's discard, even if the majority agreed with the action.

"Some tumult" and "pissing everybody off" are two very different things. There's at least some level of disagreement with nearly every type of mod action. As for GAR#2 the entire debacle could have been avoided if Ard had made the "correct" decision the first time.

I still say, regardless of the level of potential butthurt, illegal is illegal, and nothing should change with the use of the discard function. Proposals must be legal in order to pass, that's part of the game.

[The Silver Sentinel]

You do realize that I have only been around long enough to see two discards?

Yet you are arguing here like you are some expert on the usage of the discard. Here's a tip, read more, post less.

[Wallenburg]

You do realize that I have only been around long enough to see two discards?

Yet you are arguing here like you are some expert on the usage of the discard. Here's a tip, read more, post less.

You can stop talking like a mod, you know. You can also stop pretending that I am acting like an expert on anything.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Since the Secretariat is assuming powers akin to judicial oversight of the legislative process, I suggest we adopt a set of rules that regulate the way such oversight is done. The most sensible model would be the "high/supreme court" one used by RL nations. Here's a possible "constitutional" solution:

1. The Secretariat may not remove proposals from queue. That power is reserved for the Delegates through approving or not approving in the time allowed.
2. The Secretariat may not discard proposals at vote. That power is reserved for the Representatives through casting their ballot for or against.
3. Any resolution, once passed, may be challenged by a Nation for any reason. However, to do so they must petition the Secretariat (i.e. submit a GHR).
4. The Secretariat is not obligated to hear any challenge. However, if they choose to do so, a thread must be started in the General Assembly Forum (say, titled "[UNDER JUDICIAL REVIEW] <resolution name>.") In that thread, the challenging nation may make their case for why the resolution should be discarded. Other nations may make counter-arguments. The Secretariat may not discard a resolution without going through this procedure.
5. The Secretariat may close the challenge thread at any time by ruling whether or not the resolution is illegal and if so, discarding it (effectively Repealing it). Their decisions are final; no further challenges may be made.

So, in other words, you want the World Assembly to waste its time on blatantly illegal proposals. Wonderful. How does postponing moderator intervention until after the damage has been done improve the process, or qualify as "sensible" in any way?

Because in a democracy, that's how it's done. It's not a pretty process, and it requires self-discipline on the part of those who hold the vote. Relying on the Secretariat to solve our ills subverts the entire rationale for this game.

[Wallenburg]

So, in other words, you want the World Assembly to waste its time on blatantly illegal proposals. Wonderful. How does postponing moderator intervention until after the damage has been done improve the process, or qualify as "sensible" in any way?

Because in a democracy, that's how it's done. It's not a pretty process, and it requires self-discipline on the part of those who hold the vote. Relying on the Secretariat to solve our ills subverts the entire rationale for this game.

We all know that the World Assembly is far from democratic.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Because in a democracy, that's how it's done. It's not a pretty process, and it requires self-discipline on the part of those who hold the vote. Relying on the Secretariat to solve our ills subverts the entire rationale for this game.

We all know that the World Assembly is far from democratic.

It's still better than the comparative: no voting at all.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

We all know that the World Assembly is far from democratic.

It's still better than the comparative: no voting at all.

But there are certain things that don't need voting. For example, if someone were to commit a crime in your nation, would you hold a vote to determine whether or not they could be convicted?
The same principle applies here. Blatantly illegal proposals don't require the time, effort, and detriment of voting when quick and effective moderation intervention will solve the problem before there is one.

[Normlpeople]

I'll echo what Kenny said about involvement. Part of the issue is optics. A proposal pulled from queue for an easily corrected mistake is far less potentially embarassing , and infuriating, than a proposal being thrown out that is passing easily.

We all know the dangers of the lemming votes and poisoning of the well. It could very well completely sink a great proposal simply because the masses are tired of seeing the issue, or believe its already passed.

If the player base is going to be leaned on to do the policing, then an auto-flag and review, with some sort of delay, should be implimented.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It's still better than the comparative: no voting at all.

But there are certain things that don't need voting. For example, if someone were to commit a crime in your nation, would you hold a vote to determine whether or not they could be convicted?

Yes. It is called a jury.

[Wallenburg]

But there are certain things that don't need voting. For example, if someone were to commit a crime in your nation, would you hold a vote to determine whether or not they could be convicted?

Yes. It is called a jury.

I believe he meant a popular vote.