[discussion]Rule Change Summary

[Kryozerkia]

The Rules for General Assembly Proposals has been updated with a a couple of significant changes and a few minor tweaks for clarification. The biggest change is the layout of the rules themselves.

The 'No Military' rule has been completely removed. The only remaining obstacle is resolution #2: Rights and Duties of WA States, otherwise it's subject to remaining rules, including the committee rule.

The 'Honest Mistake' rule has been tightened. It only be enforced in limited circumstances, where there is a genuine honest mistake. Moderation will not determine whether one player's interpretation is more more correct than another's. Lying (including deception, etc) for political advantage is not against the rules. Rulings have made this change necessary. This only applies to 'honest mistakes' in repeals.

National sovereignty has been clarified to include the previously unwritten rule that it could be used in a repeal but not as the sole argument.

House of Cards remains, but has been clarified to state that its use in repeals is legal.

Branding, has been loosened to allow up to three co-authors. One co-author has proven not be in the interests of collaborative efforts. Until there is a built-in option to list co-authors, the rule remains.

We've added in a direct reference to the One Stop Rules Shop to cover circumstances such as spamming, flaming, and trolling. We've also added in information about legality challenges and requesting proposal removal.

This thread is to answer questions about enforcement and the rules. The Mods typically overseeing the WA will answer your questions in good faith.

[Sciongrad]

The 'Honest Mistake' rule has been tightened. It only be enforced in limited circumstances, where there is a genuine honest mistake. Moderation will not determine whether one player's interpretation is more more correct than another's. Lying (including deception, etc) for political advantage is not against the rules. Rulings have made this change necessary. This only applies to 'honest mistakes' in repeals.

???

This is contrary to what almost every single regular wanted!

This draft rule is the rule that was reached through player consensus:

Honest Mistakes

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the resolution and submit a repeal that supports the resolution, or tries to undo a resolution because they think it does something it doesn't. Any factual inaccuracy will result in a proposal being pulled.

Branding, has been loosened to allow up to three co-authors. One co-author has proven not be in the interests of collaborative efforts. Until there is a built-in option to list co-authors, the rule remains.

This is also in direct defiance of overwhelming player consensus!

National sovereignty has been clarified to include the previously unwritten rule that it could be used in a repeal but not as the sole argument.

And so is this! Why did you guys even hold a rules summit if you weren't going to take our opinions into consideration?

EDIT: edited to prevent accusations of exaggeration.

[Tinfect]

The 'Honest Mistake' rule has been tightened. It only be enforced in limited circumstances, where there is a genuine honest mistake. Moderation will not determine whether one player's interpretation is more more correct than another's. Lying (including deception, etc) for political advantage is not against the rules. Rulings have made this change necessary. This only applies to 'honest mistakes' in repeals.

???

This is contrary to what every single regular wanted? Why did you guys even hold a rules summit if you weren't going to take our opinions into consideration??

As far as I can tell, they'd made the decision before the backlash, they're just doubling down in some attempt to save face.
It's like when News stations report completely fake stories and maintain that they are true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If they back down, they outrage their viewers.

Of course, what the Mods are missing here is that they are not a news station, and that the 'viewers', the GA regulars, didn't agree with them to begin with.

[Sciongrad]

???

This is contrary to what every single regular wanted? Why did you guys even hold a rules summit if you weren't going to take our opinions into consideration??

As far as I can tell, they'd made the decision before the backlash, they're just doubling down in some attempt to save face.
It's like when News stations report completely fake stories and maintain that they are true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If they back down, they outrage their viewers.

Of course, what the Mods are missing here is that they are not a news station, and that the 'viewers', the GA regulars, didn't agree with them to begin with.

The rules exist for us, the players. I literally cannot understand how the moderators reached the conclusion that ignoring hundreds of posts worth of player input in the GA rules summit was appropriate! What is their justification for this? I am seriously considering just not participating in the GA anymore. I can't even imagine what Gruen would say if he were still here.

[Separatist Peoples]

So, I guess the summit was a great opportunity to shit all over the regular's opinions? Lovely.

[Wallenburg]

The 'Honest Mistake' rule has been tightened. It only be enforced in limited circumstances, where there is a genuine honest mistake. Moderation will not determine whether one player's interpretation is more more correct than another's. Lying (including deception, etc) for political advantage is not against the rules. Rulings have made this change necessary. This only applies to 'honest mistakes' in repeals.

That is a terrible change, and I will most certainly abuse it in the near future to demonstrate just how terrible it is.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Pleasantly surprised that after many years of advocating, the No Army Rule has finally been removed! There are good and bad parts to these revisions, but that is certainly a silver lining.

[Railana]

I'm certainly pleased that the rules have a cleaner format and that the "no army" rule is gone, but other than that... like the others who have expressed their opinions in this thread thus far, I also get the sense that the opinions of GA regulars weren't really taken into account, and that the new set of rules is exactly what the moderators wanted from the beginning.

Some problems that immediately come to mind: Why do we still have a poorly defined and ultimately unnecessary "ideological ban" rule? Why are commitee-only proposals still required to have a "fluff" clause? Why hasn't the issue of dubious moderator interpretations destroying otherwise reasonable proposals been addressed? Why has there been no clarification of when the discard function can be used? Why are national sovereignty-based arguments still not sufficient for repeals? I think at least a majority of GA regulars wanted to see rule changes or at least some sort of action for each of these issues, but there's no sign of that in this announcement or the new set of rules.

And why in the world are we are now explicitly allowed to lie in repeals? There was an overwhelming player consensus against this and only the mods seemed to want it -- so naturally it's now part of the rule set.

[Railana]

Technical question: to what extent does existing precedent continue to apply after these changes? Are we starting with a blank slate?

[Sciongrad]

Pleasantly surprised that after many years of advocating, the No Army Rule has finally been removed! There are good and bad parts to these revisions, but that is certainly a silver lining.

Whatever benefits that particular rule change brings about are automatically countered a thousand times by the fact that any resolution taking advantage of it can be repealed for literally no reason. Well, except on the grounds of national sovereignty, which, despite actually being a legitimate reason for repeals in certain situations, is not left to voting nations to decide.

Seriously question, though: what was the point of the 1+ year long rules summit, exactly? You parted with player consensus on almost every issue.

[Wrapper]

The 'Honest Mistake' rule has been tightened. It only be enforced in limited circumstances, where there is a genuine honest mistake. Moderation will not determine whether one player's interpretation is more more correct than another's. Lying (including deception, etc) for political advantage is not against the rules. Rulings have made this change necessary. This only applies to 'honest mistakes' in repeals.

???

This is contrary to what every single regular wanted!

That is not true. A majority of players who expressed an opinion wanted to keep this rule -- which we have done -- and there were a couple of suggestions to make changes to how it is enforced. For example, CD argued for looser enforcement here:

viewtopic.php?p=24768268#p24768268 and
viewtopic.php?p=24801173#p24801173

Ultimately, we went with Ainocra's and JT's suggestions here:

viewtopic.php?p=24794571#p24794571 and
viewtopic.php?p=24801085#p24801085

putting more power into the hands of the voters and less into the hands of Moderation.

[Sciongrad]

???

This is contrary to what every single regular wanted!

That is not true. A majority of players who expressed an opinion wanted to keep this rule -- which we have done -- and there were a couple of suggestions to make changes to how it is enforced. For example, CD argued for looser enforcement here:

viewtopic.php?p=24768268#p24768268 and
viewtopic.php?p=24801173#p24801173

Ultimately, we went with Ainocra's and JT's suggestions here:

viewtopic.php?p=24794571#p24794571 and
viewtopic.php?p=24801085#p24801085

putting more power into the hands of the voters and less into the hands of Moderation.

You are (perhaps unintentionally) misrepresenting what actually happened. The moderators have consistently argued that regulars have misinterpreted the rule until this point (that is false, unless you ignore years of precedent). If you truly believe that, then obviously the players in that thread clearly did not believe the rule is doing what you claim it does. You cannot simultaneously claim that players misunderstood the rule and that we didn't. The responses in this thread and in the most recent repeal ruling so obviously prove you wrong that I honestly have no idea why you're making this actually offensive argument. You reference JTP, yet even he disagrees with this change and the ruling made in the repeal of "Stopping Suicide Seeds"! So please, at least be honest with us. Our opinions don't matter. You have nothing to gain by arguing to a group of players that is overwhelmingly hostile to that rule change that we, somehow, wanted it. The fact that Mallorea's most recent draft includes an honest mistake rule that prohibits lying outright very clearly demonstrates the consensus regarding that rule. I very sincerely doubt you can find a single player besides perhaps IA (and, of course, the moderators ) that supports this rule change. (EDIT: Even IA supports a ban on lying in repeals!)

Regarding your citation of CD: the new rule decidedly does not reflect his suggestion. He argued for a laxer interpretation regarding reasonable interpretations. If his comments recently are any indication, he does not believe deliberate lies are acceptable.

It is telling, however, that you've conveniently failed to address the other concerns I've raised. More than 70% of regulars did not want the branding rule to be relaxed and a majority wanted to eliminate co-authors all together. I eagerly await your justification.

EDIT: Toned down the rhetoric.

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

Please, have the decency not to lie just to justify this absurdity.

Okay, my mod hat is off. And so are the gloves. You're crossing the line by accusing me of lying, particularly after your, ahem, "exaggeration", that "This is contrary to what every single regular wanted!" which I've proven wrong.

Stop making this personal. It isn't. And, I may make mistakes, I frequently do, but do not question my integrity. I do not take kindly to that at all.

[Sciongrad]

Please, have the decency not to lie just to justify this absurdity.

Okay, my mod hat is off. And so are the gloves. You're crossing the line by accusing me of lying, particularly after your, ahem, "exaggeration", that "This is contrary to what every single regular wanted!" which I've proven wrong.

Stop making this personal. It isn't. And, I may make mistakes, I frequently do, but do not question my integrity. I do not take kindly to that at all.

I don't mean to question your integrity as a person - if you believe I have, you have my sincere apologies because I think you're an excellent player and person. I have no interest in or intention of making this personal and would much rather protest the moderator's behavior than any player in particular. But if you are not lying, you are misrepresenting (maybe unintentionally) what actually happened - sorry to be brusque, but you are. Citing three players (two of which definitively do not agree with this rule change) is not evidence. Again, I sincerely doubt you can find more than one or two active players that support this change. Perhaps I was exaggerating when I stated that every single player disagrees with this change, but not by much and citing one or two players that agree with the new rule to criticize my word choice is not convincing. You cannot reasonably argue that player consensus is on your side. This rule is indisputably not what the players want. Any attempt to claim that you have consensus on your side is wrong. Maybe not a lie, but it is indisputably, unquestionably wrong.

EDIT: Horrible typing skills. I will also note my argument was not addressed.

[Sandaoguo]

One small (but also large) issue I notice:

However, 'Blockers' themselves are not illegal provided there is additional action (eg. GAR#10: Nuclear Arms Possession Act).

In the same way that a mere 'encouragement' clause can make a committee-only resolution legal, can having a token 'additional action' make a pure blocker legal? In other words, can I completely write off the whole environmental category if I just include some token clause about supporting biodiversity or something?

[Abacathea]

One small (but also large) issue I notice:

However, 'Blockers' themselves are not illegal provided there is additional action (eg. GAR#10: Nuclear Arms Possession Act).

In the same way that a mere 'encouragement' clause can make a committee-only resolution legal, can having a token 'additional action' make a pure blocker legal? In other words, can I completely write off the whole environmental category if I just include some token clause about supporting biodiversity or something?

I wouldn't have said personally an encouragement clause would have been.a way around the committee only rule to be fair. A resolution has to actively require nations to do something other than simply establishing a committee, I would have said at least one requirement/mandate would have been required rather than an encouragement. Have I missed a precedent in regards to this?

[Imperium Anglorum]

You reference JTP, yet even he disagrees with this change and the ruling made in the repeal of "Stopping Suicide Seeds"!

Of course he did. It was my proposal. And, I would support the creation of a no-lying-in-repeals rule — so far as differences in interpretation have no consequences for player status in the World Assembly. Interpretation is so varied and different that imposing consequences for having such differences is ridiculous. However, I buy the argumentation presented by many people on the nature of politics and the fact that nobody knows what they're voting for or against.

House of Cards: Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent. However, repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal.

I feel this should be changed to the standard sniff test which we now use. It's a clear bright line and opens the door for more past reference.

[Sciongrad]

You reference JTP, yet even he disagrees with this change and the ruling made in the repeal of "Stopping Suicide Seeds"!

Of course he did. It was my proposal. And, I would support the creation of a no-lying-in-repeals rule — so far as differences in interpretation have no consequences for player status in the World Assembly. Interpretation is so varied and different that imposing consequences for having such differences is ridiculous. However, I buy the argumentation presented by many people on the nature of politics and the fact that nobody knows what they're voting for or against.

I have never argued that moderators should only accept a single interpretation of every resolution and that any deviation from that interpretation should constitute an honest mistake violation. I accept that the law is not that clear cut. What I do not accept is 1. moderators accepting interpretations that violate reasonable nation theory as legal arguments, 2. blatant lies, and 3. general inaccuracy. I would support an honest mistake rule that follows those precepts and which allows for multiple legitimate interpretations of a resolution. Although seeing as the moderators are no longer considering player opinion, this discussion is probably irrelevant. All I want to know now is what the purpose of the rules summit was and what their justification is for ignoring it.

[John Turner]

Ultimately, we went with Ainocra's and JT's suggestions here:

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p24794571 and
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p24801085

putting more power into the hands of the voters and less into the hands of Moderation.

Well shit. I was being sarcastic in that post, but I see it may have been misinterpreted. I suppose I will have to own it now...

You reference JTP, yet even he disagrees with this change and the ruling made in the repeal of "Stopping Suicide Seeds"!

Of course he did. It was my proposal. And, I would support the creation of a no-lying-in-repeals rule — so far as differences in interpretation have no consequences for player status in the World Assembly. Interpretation is so varied and different that imposing consequences for having such differences is ridiculous. However, I buy the argumentation presented by many people on the nature of politics and the fact that nobody knows what they're voting for or against.

You can come off of yourself anytime soon. It could have been Mall, Fris, or anyone else trying that lie, and I would have called them out on it. You are not some special snowflake, so drop the pretence as it is very unbecoming of a "professional" debater.

As it stands I can say I am very disappointed in these new rules. The GA will in effect become unplayable now. No matter how good a resolution is, it can be repealed on either a lie, or because they believe it violates their rights! Great work.

So what should be first? A queue full of lies, or a queue full of NatSov repeals? You choose......

[Bananaistan]

Technical question: to what extent does existing precedent continue to apply after these changes? Are we starting with a blank slate?

I agree with more or less everything Sciongrad and Railana have said in this thread. And this is a key question.

[Louisistan]

I don't even ... WHAT?!

Lying (including deception, etc) for political advantage is not against the rules. Rulings have made this change necessary

This right here is art.
So your (i.e. Moderation's) flawed interpretation of the Honest Mistake rule made it necessary to adapt the rule to match your flawed rulings? That's the wrong way round, people.
Also, I am veryinterested in how you will be enforcing this nonsense. Any author who has his repeal pulled because of "Hoenst Mistakes" can just say "No that wasn't an honest mistake, I was just lying" and thus the proposal becomes magically legal.
It's unenforceable because you simply cannot see the motivation behind the proposal. The only thing you can base your ruling on is the proposal itself.

N00bland misunderstands NAPA, submits repeal because "NAPA wants us to sell nuke to little children" - illegal, because Honest Mistake
Paffnia submits NAPA repeal because "NAPA wants us to sell nuke to little children" - legal, because he's just lying

So depending on the experience of the author the same proposal becomes magically legal or illegal. You're not going to be able to enforce this and we're just going to end up with a clusterfuck of incoherent rulings.


I like the new layout.

[Bananaistan]

On further reflection, I would add the following. Aside from the implementation difficulties of this new honest mistake rule as outlined by Louisistan, I can't see how any player can now be expected to expend significant effort on drafting and publicising a proposal. No matter how well written a resolution, someone can now come in and make up any sort of bs about it and repeal it.

Regarding the new contradiction rule, have we seen the end of magic invisible clauses and are we returning to "the law does what the law says"? The new rule states "proposals which conflict with explicit clauses within an active resolution will be removed", so is the new practice going to be a relaxation of the determination of moderators to interpret into passed resolutions meanings not present in them, such as how GAR#300 bans viewing child pornography even though it doesn't mention it anywhere?

Or is it the moderators' intention to continue to interpret the hell out of passed resolutions regarding duplication and contradiction with current proposals while absolutely washing your hands of any responsibility to interpret passed resolutions in light of deliberately dishonest misinterpretation of passed resolutions in repeals?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't even ... WHAT?!

Lying (including deception, etc) for political advantage is not against the rules. Rulings have made this change necessary

This right here is art.
So your (i.e. Moderation's) flawed interpretation of the Honest Mistake rule made it necessary to adapt the rule to match your flawed rulings? That's the wrong way round, people.
Also, I am veryinterested in how you will be enforcing this nonsense. Any author who has his repeal pulled because of "Hoenst Mistakes" can just say "No that wasn't an honest mistake, I was just lying" and thus the proposal becomes magically legal.
It's unenforceable because you simply cannot see the motivation behind the proposal. The only thing you can base your ruling on is the proposal itself.

N00bland misunderstands NAPA, submits repeal because "NAPA wants us to sell nuke to little children" - illegal, because Honest Mistake
Paffnia submits NAPA repeal because "NAPA wants us to sell nuke to little children" - legal, because he's just lying

So depending on the experience of the author the same proposal becomes magically legal or illegal. You're not going to be able to enforce this and we're just going to end up with a clusterfuck of incoherent rulings.


I like the new layout.

I can see where the mods are coming from on this one. 'Honest mistake' is derived from the fact that one can submit a proposal to repeal 2 GA and accidentally click 3 GA. That's how I saw it in this post from last August.

[Louisistan]

I can see where the mods are coming from on this one. 'Honest mistake' is derived from the fact that one can submit a proposal to repeal 2 GA and accidentally click 3 GA. That's how I saw it in this post from last August.

Well okay. But that's only a small fraction of what was previously considered an honest mistake and I doubt Moderation is going to limit itself to cases such as that one.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I don't even ... WHAT?!

This right here is art.
So your (i.e. Moderation's) flawed interpretation of the Honest Mistake rule made it necessary to adapt the rule to match your flawed rulings? That's the wrong way round, people.
Also, I am veryinterested in how you will be enforcing this nonsense. Any author who has his repeal pulled because of "Hoenst Mistakes" can just say "No that wasn't an honest mistake, I was just lying" and thus the proposal becomes magically legal.
It's unenforceable because you simply cannot see the motivation behind the proposal. The only thing you can base your ruling on is the proposal itself.

N00bland misunderstands NAPA, submits repeal because "NAPA wants us to sell nuke to little children" - illegal, because Honest Mistake
Paffnia submits NAPA repeal because "NAPA wants us to sell nuke to little children" - legal, because he's just lying

So depending on the experience of the author the same proposal becomes magically legal or illegal. You're not going to be able to enforce this and we're just going to end up with a clusterfuck of incoherent rulings.


I like the new layout.

I can see where the mods are coming from on this one. 'Honest mistake' is derived from the fact that one can submit a proposal to repeal 2 GA and accidentally click 3 GA. That's how I saw it in this post from last August.

Reading on past that post, I saw your point hotly contested by DSR, with citations. This change to the Honest Mistake rule isn't a return to an Edenic past from an aberrant and illegitimate present, it's a new thing entirely, with precedents only in the last year or so, all of them highly controversial and departing from the previous model.