[DISCUSSION] When to use the Discard function?

[Tinfect]

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.

Which, unless I'm missing a Resolution somewhere, not all Nations have.

[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.

"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.

And I still say that community-level modding (as uni so elegantly termed it) would remove the need for many of these discards, and the resulting butthurt.

[Wallenburg]

"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.

And I still say that community-level modding (as uni so elegantly termed it) would remove the need for many of these discards, and the resulting butthurt.

Except we know that doesn't work.

[Araraukar]

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.

However, WA is not a real democracy as long as Delegates hold nearly half the voting power. Since it won't ever be fair in any case, why complain about mods reducing the amount of crap people have to deal with? Illegal resolutions shouldn't make it to voting stage, simple as that.

EDIT: If "community involvement" was to be deemed enough to self-moderate, the approval stage of it should be opened to all WA nations, not just Delegates. Yes, it would mean voting twice for every resolution, and likely it would make getting things to the actual vote more difficult, but that would be the whole point of it, wouldn't it? The whole "people should be able to decide" and stuff?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

And I still say that community-level modding (as uni so elegantly termed it) would remove the need for many of these discards, and the resulting butthurt.

Except we know that doesn't work.

I was referring to the moderators, not the delegates.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Except we know that doesn't work.

I was referring to the moderators, not the delegates.

You were right though. It's really turning into a massive legal battle over every bill rather than a legislative body.

[Separatist Peoples]

You were right though. It's really turning into a massive legal battle over every bill rather than a legislative body.

That's what legislative bodies do when there isn't a supremacy clause in regard to applicability of contradicting laws. Its easy in the real world, because somebody went ahead and declared that any new law trumps the old law, or the new law includes a repeal, so formal repeals as we understand them aren't generally necessary. For those few bodies that do not operate on that legal principle, this is what legislative bodies do.

Besides, the legal battles are almost as much fun as the drafting. Why would we want to eliminate the sophistry that brought us all to the GA?

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

I'll take the hardline radical approach that it isn't necessary. The game is not about legality queries. It's about having things to do. And whilst this discussion certainly is a thing to do, it isn't as long term as anything else. Passing illegal resolutions creates more activity. Passing their repeals creates more activity. In many ways, it's a question like that which big region's face — how do you trade off activity and mass engagement with propriety? As an active member in a big region, I'll always choose activity. Why? I simply cannot care less about illegalities when all it does is force people out of the GA tent.

[Araraukar]

Passing illegal resolutions creates more activity. Passing their repeals creates more activity. In many ways, it's a question like that which big region's face — how do you trade off activity and mass engagement with propriety? As an active member in a big region, I'll always choose activity.

The trouble with passing illegal things is that you can't use the fact that they're illegal as grounds for repeal, since it will be considered legal by the virtue of having passed.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Passing illegal resolutions creates more activity. Passing their repeals creates more activity. In many ways, it's a question like that which big region's face — how do you trade off activity and mass engagement with propriety? As an active member in a big region, I'll always choose activity.

The trouble with passing illegal things is that you can't use the fact that they're illegal as grounds for repeal, since it will be considered legal by the virtue of having passed.

If the resolution's bad enough to be illegal, it's bad enough to repeal on conventional grounds. You don't need the "this is illegal" argument; Repeal "Max Barry Day" sure didn't. (Probably the most fun I've ever had in this game was writing that repeal and getting it passed.)

[Araraukar]

If the resolution's bad enough to be illegal, it's bad enough to repeal on conventional grounds.

Unless it happens to legislate something that's very popular. I can imagine something akin to NAPA, but for conventional weapons, which might well be hard to get rid of, even if its text was akin to "get yer grubby hands off of mah weapons!"

[Imperium Anglorum]

If the resolution's bad enough to be illegal, it's bad enough to repeal on conventional grounds.

Unless it happens to legislate something that's very popular. I can imagine something akin to NAPA, but for conventional weapons, which might well be hard to get rid of, even if its text was akin to "get yer grubby hands off of mah weapons!"

The only time that every happened was the UN Taxation Ban.

[Unibot III]

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

I don't even get that ruling. It was basically a "screw Auralia" ruling. Resolutions are often not deleted just because the WA Authors independently get in trouble - Unibot II can testify to this fact - and nor was this practice stated in either the GA or the SC rules. And if it wasn't stated in either the GA or the SC rules, surely it's not a grave enough error to deserve a Discard?

And this of course brings up another problem, in a way. Up until now, a lot of the controversy surrounding Discards has come from the fact that it seems like moderators are wingin' it whenever they do bring it out (e.g., "erm, category violation!" "erm... it's illegal, somehow!") - this discussion will hopefully give some consistency to how Discards are used in the GA, but what about the SC? It might make sense for the SC to open up a parallel discussion with regards to when the SC ought to use the Discard function (since the Auralia ruling operated outside of Rule I-IV, for example.) Or is this discussion for both the SC and the GA?

[Imperium Anglorum]

One thing on the subject of discards, if we are to even keep them, is that they should be operated in the same way that many Debate formats have something called a rebuttal round where new arguments are not allowed.

More or less, I feel that no new legality argumentation should be presented or heard after a resolution has gone to vote. This would deal with the problem where new legality challenges start popping up after something has been sent to the vote. Also, it would deal with the problem where nations have an incentive to keep legality challenges up their sleeve until the resolution is at vote and shift the burden of proof to the accuser and not the defence.

[Separatist Peoples]

One thing on the subject of discards, if we are to even keep them, is that they should be operated in the same way that many Debate formats have something called a rebuttal round where new arguments are not allowed.

More or less, I feel that no new legality argumentation should be presented or heard after a resolution has gone to vote. This would deal with the problem where new legality challenges start popping up after something has been sent to the vote. Also, it would deal with the problem where nations have an incentive to keep legality challenges up their sleeve until the resolution is at vote and shift the burden of proof to the accuser and not the defence.

That's patently ridiculous. If a new argument surfaces, it should be considered. If thorough legality considerations were not made, that is the author's problem.

[Bears Armed]

More or less, I feel that no new legality argumentation should be presented or heard after a resolution has gone to vote. This would deal with the problem where new legality challenges start popping up after something has been sent to the vote. Also, it would deal with the problem where nations have an incentive to keep legality challenges up their sleeve until the resolution is at vote and shift the burden of proof to the accuser and not the defence.

But then there'd be no effective way for people to challenge the legality of any proposal that wasn't drafted in these forums and that -- thanks to lobbying -- achieved quorum very quickly after submission and (because the queue was otherwise empty) went straight to vote at the next update...

[The Silver Sentinel]

More or less, I feel that no new legality argumentation should be presented or heard after a resolution has gone to vote. This would deal with the problem where new legality challenges start popping up after something has been sent to the vote. Also, it would deal with the problem where nations have an incentive to keep legality challenges up their sleeve until the resolution is at vote and shift the burden of proof to the accuser and not the defence.

But then there'd be no effective way for people to challenge the legality of any proposal that wasn't drafted in these forums and that -- thanks to lobbying -- achieved quorum very quickly after submission and (because the queue was otherwise empty) went straight to vote at the next update...

Precisely IA's point. Makes it far easier to skirt the edges of the rules if you know there are no consequences.

[Imperium Anglorum]

More or less, I feel that no new legality argumentation should be presented or heard after a resolution has gone to vote. This would deal with the problem where new legality challenges start popping up after something has been sent to the vote. Also, it would deal with the problem where nations have an incentive to keep legality challenges up their sleeve until the resolution is at vote and shift the burden of proof to the accuser and not the defence.

But then there'd be no effective way for people to challenge the legality of any proposal that wasn't drafted in these forums and that -- thanks to lobbying -- achieved quorum very quickly after submission and (because the queue was otherwise empty) went straight to vote at the next update...

I can see how it could affect proposals not written on the forum. Concurred. However, I believe that 'If it gets to vote, leave it there.'

[Railana]

This is going to be a long post, so I apologize in advance. In summary, I think the answer to the question of when to use the discard function can't really be answered until the changes to the GA rules are complete, for reasons I will get into shortly. However, as a stopgap measure, I support Gruen's approach of limiting the discard to "serious" rule violations, as that term is defined in his post.

In principle, I have no objection to discarding a resolution for violating any rule, no matter how serious. I agree that illegal proposals or resolutions-at-vote should not become passed resolutions if we can avoid it. Arguably, it would be even better if the mods could "discard" even passed resolutions that contained rule violations when they were passed. The rules currently state that all passed resolutions are legal by virtue of their passage, but we know that some are indeed illegal and thus non-precedential; it would be nice if we didn't have to engage in this silly doublethink.

However, while I support this approach in principle, I can't support it right now because I don't trust the mods with the proper enforcement of any rule that requires non-trivial statutory interpretation. Note that I'm not talking about simple stuff like determining whether or not a repeal actually contains a "Repeals" clause; I'm talking about making sense of things like the ridiculous and contradictory mess that was GA abortion legislation and related rulings, at least pre-Reproductive Freedoms.

The unfortunate reality is that judicial review is hard. It's also very subjective and in some ways inherently political; there's a reason why justices on the United States Supreme Court, for instance, are commonly characterized as either "conservative" or "liberal". This responsibility is simply not a good fit for the GA mods, who don't necessarily have much experience in statutory interpretation, who are unelected and thus unaccountable to the players who are actually drafting and voting on the legislation, and who are supposed to be theoretically apolitical anyways. It's also important to remember that this is a game, and games are supposed to be fun; speaking from personal experience (though I'm sure most others who have had similar experiences would agree) it's really not at all enjoyable to have a proposal removed or a resolution discarded because of a dubious alleged contradiction or duplication of a past resolution.

While I haven't really posted very much in the GA Rules Consortium sub-forum yet, I plan on arguing that going forward, we're going to have to move away from this model. Perhaps the mods can limit themselves to only removing proposals that contain very obvious cases of contradiction and duplication, leaving the rest for the players to vote down or repeal, or perhaps we can create some sort of elected World Assembly Supreme Court composed of GA regulars instead.

I don't know which option we should take, or even if we should go with something completely different. I am certain, however, that the current approach must be changed; it has turned the GA into a toxic environment where players are less interested in improving proposals than coming up with spurious legal arguments to convince the mods to remove the proposals (or worse, the proposals created by the authors) that they don't like.

In the meantime, I support letting the mods discard resolutions that violate rules that I trust them to enforce, which for the most part consist of the ones listed in Gruen's post. Maybe a few other obvious ones like repeals not having a "Repeals" clause, though I don't think that should even be a rule personally.

---

On a related note, I'd like to express my agreement with Unibot's suggestion that a second thread in the Security Council subforum should be created to discuss how the discard function will be used there. SC regulars have the right to voice their opinion about how it should be used, especially since at least two Security Council resolutions have been discarded in the past.

I also thought Unibot made an interesting point about the circumstances of the discard of my self-commendation. The resolution was discarded because I broke the WA multi-ing rules, but proposals are generally only pulled for violating the WA proposal rules, so there does appear to be an inconsistency there. I'm certainly not suggesting that discarding the resolution wasn't a legitimate punishment for what I had done, but it should still be codified in the rules somewhere.

[Almonaster Nuevo]

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?

I think there's a category error involved. In character the GA may not be able to construe its own resolutions as illegal (although it has the power to repeal them, and thus is not bound to accept them indefinitely). OOC, however, a violation of game rules would be the cause of a Moderator discard. I see no reason why that should be restricted by the GA status.


On a separate note: would it be helpful to have a procedure which gives the Mods a check at a defined point earlier in the process? For example: when a proposal is submitted, it could go "on hold" pending a legality check, rather than going immediately into the approval process.
If we do get Mod pre-approval, then I would suggest subsequent discards should be limited to severe violations (as above), or even more strictly to things which would cause legal problems for the site.

[Wallenburg]

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

I think there's a category error involved. In character the GA may not be able to construe its own resolutions as illegal (although it has the power to repeal them, and thus is not bound to accept them indefinitely). OOC, however, a violation of game rules would be the cause of a Moderator discard. I see no reason why that should be restricted by the GA status.


On a separate note: would it be helpful to have a procedure which gives the Mods a check at a defined point earlier in the process? For example: when a proposal is submitted, it could go "on hold" pending a legality check, rather than going immediately into the approval process.
If we do get Mod pre-approval, then I would suggest subsequent discards should be limited to severe violations (as above), or even more strictly to things which would cause legal problems for the site.

That would be the end of Silly/Illegal as we know it. I just can't condone that loss.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I think there's a category error involved. In character the GA may not be able to construe its own resolutions as illegal (although it has the power to repeal them, and thus is not bound to accept them indefinitely). OOC, however, a violation of game rules would be the cause of a Moderator discard. I see no reason why that should be restricted by the GA status.


On a separate note: would it be helpful to have a procedure which gives the Mods a check at a defined point earlier in the process? For example: when a proposal is submitted, it could go "on hold" pending a legality check, rather than going immediately into the approval process.
If we do get Mod pre-approval, then I would suggest subsequent discards should be limited to severe violations (as above), or even more strictly to things which would cause legal problems for the site.

That would be the end of Silly/Illegal as we know it. I just can't condone that loss.

And, I believe, drastically ramp up moderator workload for not a hell of a lot of gain.

[Mousebumples]

On a separate note: would it be helpful to have a procedure which gives the Mods a check at a defined point earlier in the process? For example: when a proposal is submitted, it could go "on hold" pending a legality check, rather than going immediately into the approval process.
If we do get Mod pre-approval, then I would suggest subsequent discards should be limited to severe violations (as above), or even more strictly to things which would cause legal problems for the site.

Any technical "changes" need admin time to code. We can't just sit in a holding pattern and shut down the GA while we wait for [xyz solution] to be coded, I'm afraid.

Additionally, it's hard for a mod (or even the team of mods) to guarantee a given proposal is legal as-is at any point in time. We do our best, but we miss things sometime that are otherwise pointed out by other players via GHR. Before I was modded, I submitted my own fair share of, "Is this really legal?" queries on both my proposals and those of other authors. Sometimes, I got a, "Yes, it's fine," and other times I got a, "Yikes, yeah, that's illegal."

[Almonaster Nuevo]

Good points all. Obviously not knowing the process from the Mods' PoV I'm not sure how difficult it would be. However, my thinking was...

• I was assuming (or at least hoping) that every proposal would get a mod review at some point.
• You may have a tracking system behind the scenes, but I can't see system support hurting.
• The timing of the review seems unlikely to affect the quality.
• The earlier mistakes are caught the better.

I was mostly throwing it into the air here to see if it was a decent idea. If punters and Mods both like it then we can approach [v] for a view on implementation. If there's a snag, then let's shoot it down now without bothering her.

If the objection was to the limitation on later discards, then let's look at that separately. I do think that if we go for a formal review point then passing that should be the main hurdle, but I can see why you might want to retain the option of a later dismiss.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Unless it happens to legislate something that's very popular. I can imagine something akin to NAPA, but for conventional weapons, which might well be hard to get rid of, even if its text was akin to "get yer grubby hands off of mah weapons!"

The only time that every happened was the UN Taxation Ban.

Was UN Taxation Ban illegal?