[discussion]Rule Change Summary

[Sedgistan]

This forum seems best.

You mean the regular GA forum or the weird Announcement header that this particular thread is in? Any chance you or one of the other mods could create it, for clarity's sake?

The regular GA forum. I think it would be best player-started, as I'm not aware of any mods advocating it at the moment (not to say that none would support it, but I don't think any are pushing the idea).

[Sciongrad]

The WA and the NSUN got along fine for years with an honest mistake rule that was actually enforced. You guys have detected a fundamental problem - bad moderator rulings - and instead of solving that issue, you have chosen to cover it up. Unfortunately, in the process, you've opened up another, equally detrimental problem. I also don't appreciate your obviously biased characterization of enforcement of the honest mistake rule. I don't think anyone would describe the previous way the honest mistake rule was enforced (before you guys changed it about a year or so ago) as "heavy handed." Moderators actually moderating and an even-handed approach are not mutually exclusive.

I wouldn't say it's covering it up - the problem exists, it's acknowledged, and a solution has been implemented. It's not the solution that you, or many any others have posted here, want - but it's still a "solution" of sorts rather than a cover-up. You've also misunderstood what you think is my characterisation of previous enforcement. I was describing two extremes of a scale rather than previous enforcement.

You still haven't solved the problem though. The moderators still have an interpretive role with the contradiction and duplication rule and you guys will continue to make bad rulings in that regard unless the fundamental problem is resolved. Simply extricating yourselves from the role of interpreters is not a "solution" anyway. Unless, of course, you totally disregard what the players want.

Also, I have no idea why you'd characterize the "extremes" when no one is asking for anything extreme. We'd simply rather return to how the rule was enforced in the past where factual errors were removed.

You also never addressed this:

There's two lines of reasoning for it. The first is that "politicking", including dishonesty, is a desirable aspect of what is essentially a UN-esque body.

It would be more desirable? For whom, exactly? Certainly not to the players of this essentially UN-esque body, who overwhelmingly think this is a horrible idea. Perhaps you can elaborate why your conception of fun is important than ours, the players'? You said this during the rules summit and almost nobody agree with you then, either.

[Araraukar]

The regular GA forum. I think it would be best player-started, as I'm not aware of any mods advocating it at the moment (not to say that none would support it, but I don't think any are pushing the idea).

I guess I opened that can of worms, so I'll post it...

And done.

[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?

Don't know if this has been answered yet?

[Kryozerkia]

With regard to 'Honest Mistake' - it's a tricky rule because proposals are not black and white. If all proposals were black and white, this would be an easy rule to enforce.

Getting rid of it clearly isn't viable. It would be a free for all. It also isn't viable to assume that only one interpretation is valid. Like in all moderator matters, we use neutrality, which may mean an unfavorable ruling for the players. Because of the pushback against this, we've opted to put it more in the hands of the players. Which for some doesn't sit well.

Players do need to make a greater effort to resolve issues of interpretation, and not immediately turn to us to resolve it. That said, if you're willing to do that, then we're willing to offer a compromise.

A rewording:

Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, stating the inverse,or content that doesn't address the resolution.

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

Honest Mistake and Military precedents by default are null. There is not a totally blank slate.

One small (but also large) issue I notice:



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?

Don't know if this has been answered yet?

It's a matter of wording. The most successful ones have kept their content short, and focused on a broad area of policy but not a whole category. So, using your environmental example, you might decide that you don't want international legislation setting limits on pollution. Your first declarative clause may be, "enshrines the right of member nations to determine whether to implement a national policy to regulate pollution within its border:, and you may use an action clause such as, "urges members to allow citizen-backed initiatives to address local pollution problems".

[The Candy Of Bottles]

Do not use these categories to establish a WA military force. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The WA cannot maintain its own standing military under any circumstances.

Feels like this can get dropped from the category section now. It's under International Security and Global Disarmament.

[Sciongrad]

With regard to 'Honest Mistake' - it's a tricky rule because proposals are not black and white. If all proposals were black and white, this would be an easy rule to enforce.

Thank you for taking the time to post this and for your open-mindedness, Kryo.

It also isn't viable to assume that only one interpretation is valid. Like in all moderator matters, we use neutrality, which may mean an unfavorable ruling for the players. Because of the pushback against this, we've opted to put it more in the hands of the players. Which for some doesn't sit well.

We don't want this either. No one has ever argued that each resolution can only have one interpretation. Some vocal critics of the rule rewrite, myself included, have stated in this very thread that multiple reasonable interpretations can exist and that's perfectly fine.

A rewording:

Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, stating the inverse,or content that doesn't address the resolution.

Regarding the reword: this is infinitely more palatable to me. Embellishment and exaggeration are rhetorical tools that should absolutely be at the disposal of repeal authors (and always have been). I don't know that anyone has ever protested exaggeration in repeals. Of course, drawing the line between exaggeration and lying will be difficult, but I trust we can hash that out going forward. Lying, misrepresentation, and factual inaccuracies, on the other hand, have no place in repeals. Removing that aspect of the new honest mistake rule would be a dramatic improvement and would be in line with what the players want. A clarifying question: would this include any factual inaccuracy? Or do you guys plan on going with Mouse's bizarre "some lying is okay" rule?

I would caution against permitting "deceptive words" though. The main issue with permitting lying in repeals is that voters don't have the GA knowledge or desire to compare the repeal arguments with the original. Embellishment is fine - downright deception, not so much.

Another question: why is the NatSov rule still in place? And why is the rule against committee-only resolutions still in place?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Players do need to make a greater effort to resolve issues of interpretation, and not immediately turn to us to resolve it. That said, if you're willing to do that, then we're willing to offer a compromise.

A rewording:

Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, stating the inverse,or content that doesn't address the resolution.

Stating the inverse would be a Format violation, not honest misinterpretation of a resolution's intent. Honest Mistake has purely to do with how the resolution is interpreted, not any repeal arguments that could be construed as invalid.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

A rewording:

Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, stating the inverse,or content that doesn't address the resolution.

Regarding the reword: this is infinitely more palatable to me. Embellishment and exaggeration are rhetorical tools that should absolutely be at the disposal of repeal authors (and always have been). I don't know that anyone has ever protested exaggeration in repeals. Of course, drawing the line between exaggeration and lying will be difficult, but I trust we can hash that out going forward. Lying, misrepresentation, and factual inaccuracies, on the other hand, have no place in repeals. Removing that aspect of the new honest mistake rule would be a dramatic improvement and would be in line with what the players want.

I would caution against permitting "deceptive words" though. The main issue with permitting lying in repeals is that voters don't have the GA knowledge or desire to compare the repeal arguments with the original. Embellishment is fine - downright deception, not so much.

I am fully in agreement here.

[Wallenburg]

Regarding the reword: this is infinitely more palatable to me. Embellishment and exaggeration are rhetorical tools that should absolutely be at the disposal of repeal authors (and always have been). I don't know that anyone has ever protested exaggeration in repeals. Of course, drawing the line between exaggeration and lying will be difficult, but I trust we can hash that out going forward. Lying, misrepresentation, and factual inaccuracies, on the other hand, have no place in repeals. Removing that aspect of the new honest mistake rule would be a dramatic improvement and would be in line with what the players want.

I would caution against permitting "deceptive words" though. The main issue with permitting lying in repeals is that voters don't have the GA knowledge or desire to compare the repeal arguments with the original. Embellishment is fine - downright deception, not so much.

I am fully in agreement here.

I too would consider this a great improvement. However, as Scion has said, the difference between exaggeration and inaccuracy is almost nonexistent.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I really don't mind if authors want to exaggerate or embellish the intent or effects of laws as a means of garnering support from voters. That's normal political theater. We've even seen it in recent resolutions like Repeal "Rights of Indigenous Peoples," which contended that the original resolution effectively legalized "ritual murder." That's an argument I took strong exception to, but wouldn't consider it an illegal resolution by any stretch. The only problem I have is with "deceptive wording." (Even "weaselly wording" would fall under exaggeration or embellishment, so there's no real problem there.) If what is meant by "deceptive wording" is something akin to simple disingenuous representation of the facts -- i.e., normal political maneuvering -- then it's fine. If the mods are really trying to say that outright lying in repeals is a-okay, then it's definitely not. But if it's the former, "deceptive" could reasonably be toned down to "disingenuous."

[Separatist Peoples]

Regarding the reword: this is infinitely more palatable to me. Embellishment and exaggeration are rhetorical tools that should absolutely be at the disposal of repeal authors (and always have been). I don't know that anyone has ever protested exaggeration in repeals. Of course, drawing the line between exaggeration and lying will be difficult, but I trust we can hash that out going forward. Lying, misrepresentation, and factual inaccuracies, on the other hand, have no place in repeals. Removing that aspect of the new honest mistake rule would be a dramatic improvement and would be in line with what the players want.

I would caution against permitting "deceptive words" though. The main issue with permitting lying in repeals is that voters don't have the GA knowledge or desire to compare the repeal arguments with the original. Embellishment is fine - downright deception, not so much.

I am fully in agreement here.

Ditto. Reading this dropped my blood pressure a few points. Oh, dear mods, wouldn't you please think of my blood pressure?

[Excidium Planetis]

I've been out of the loop for a while.

Might as well chime in.

Ditching the No Army Rule and expanding the Co-author limit to three is good.

But lying in repeals should not be allowed. Exagerration, sure Example: Rights of Indigenous Peoples legalizes ritual murder. Is this true in all cases? No. Most cases? Probably not. But it is conceivable that somewhere this was the case, so that argument, while exaggerated, is not really a lie.

[Mirarea]

Should discussions be started regarding the supposed "pay-to-win" aspect of the WA?

I'm not new here (I've restarted to this nation for disclosure) but I've seen mentions of "*insert player here* amounts of money" here just to telegram stamp campaign to attempt to guarantee passage or (in the case of lying in repeals being 100% legal now being politics) forcing resolution authors to do the same to try to keep their resolutions from repeal.

If anything, that's probably more of an important question to ask than "Why is lying in repeals legal now?"

[Separatist Peoples]

Should discussions be started regarding the supposed "pay-to-win" aspect of the WA?

I'm not new here (I've restarted to this nation for disclosure) but I've seen mentions of "*insert player here* amounts of money" here just to telegram stamp campaign to attempt to guarantee passage or (in the case of lying in repeals being 100% legal now being politics) forcing resolution authors to do the same to try to keep their resolutions from repeal.

If anything, that's probably more of an important question to ask than "Why is lying in repeals legal now?"

How on earth would we address this? The mods aren't about to remove the mass TG system.

[Excidium Planetis]

Should discussions be started regarding the supposed "pay-to-win" aspect of the WA?

I'm not new here (I've restarted to this nation for disclosure) but I've seen mentions of "*insert player here* amounts of money" here just to telegram stamp campaign to attempt to guarantee passage or (in the case of lying in repeals being 100% legal now being politics) forcing resolution authors to do the same to try to keep their resolutions from repeal.

If anything, that's probably more of an important question to ask than "Why is lying in repeals legal now?"

How on earth would we address this? The mods aren't about to remove the mass TG system.

Well, we could request a stamp refund if your proposal gets unjustly removed by the mods.

[Araraukar]

Ditto. Reading this dropped my blood pressure a few points. Oh, dear mods, wouldn't you please think of my blood pressure?

*conspirationist hat on* Pfft, don't you know they're all working for the international medical corporations that want to sell a lot of blood pressure meds? *conspirationist hat off*

More seriously it looks like the new wording more or less returns things to the status quo that existed prior to the change; people can be sneaky with repeal arguments, but not use outright lies that have nothing to do with the target resolution. Or did I miss-read it?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I still feel that interpretation issues which are not raised before submission should not be penalised.

[Excidium Planetis]

I still feel that interpretation issues which are not raised before submission should not be penalised.

So we should encourage people to submit without drafting?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I still feel that interpretation issues which are not raised before submission should not be penalised.

So we should encourage people to submit without drafting?

That would only be a consequence if I proposed ignoring the submission under such circumstances. This is something different. Authors should not be able to be silent and then pop up with an invisible GHR that was entirely unmentioned — but ignoring raises the issue you raised. This compromise solves the incentives question on both sides.

[Kryozerkia]

Regarding the reword: this is infinitely more palatable to me. Embellishment and exaggeration are rhetorical tools that should absolutely be at the disposal of repeal authors (and always have been). I don't know that anyone has ever protested exaggeration in repeals. Of course, drawing the line between exaggeration and lying will be difficult, but I trust we can hash that out going forward. Lying, misrepresentation, and factual inaccuracies, on the other hand, have no place in repeals. Removing that aspect of the new honest mistake rule would be a dramatic improvement and would be in line with what the players want. A clarifying question: would this include any factual inaccuracy? Or do you guys plan on going with Mouse's bizarre "some lying is okay" rule?

IMO? I'd prefer it to capture the more obvious and erroneous ones. As for "some lying", I can't speak for the others, but I'd likely accept it if it comes from interpretation of the unwritten aspects of the resolution and it's reasonable. Hypothetically.

Another question: why is the NatSov rule still in place? And why is the rule against committee-only resolutions still in place?

There are still players who submit repeals solely based on, "The WA has no right to interfere with member nations' sovereignty ; it's hereby repealed.". Surely, you'd like for your resolutions to be given due respect, and not just tossed out for a generic reason.

The committee-only has not been modified because there is no real category where it can go. Yet. Due to the statistical effects of categories, it still needs more. However, I am in favour of a category strictly for book keeping and committee-only business. If that existed the yes, the committee-only rule would go.

Stating the inverse would be a Format violation, not honest misinterpretation of a resolution's intent. Honest Mistake has purely to do with how the resolution is interpreted, not any repeal arguments that could be construed as invalid.

An easy fix. I can move it down when I put in the edited text for honest mistake.

How on earth would we address this? The mods aren't about to remove the mass TG system.

Well, we could request a stamp refund if your proposal gets unjustly removed by the mods.

Which we prefer to reserve for exceptional circumstances.

Would a "Proposal Hold" function be of value? It would essentially freeze a quorate proposal for a fix period of time - say, 24-36 hours - and be used if there was a last minute legality challenge. The proposal would not be deleted. It would simply remain in queue for extra time.

[Araraukar]

Would a "Proposal Hold" function be of value? It would essentially freeze a quorate proposal for a fix period of time - say, 24-36 hours - and be used if there was a last minute legality challenge. The proposal would not be deleted. It would simply remain in queue for extra time.

This is what I have suggested over and over again, it'd be great if it could be implemented!

EDIT: But it would likely still require active GA mods (unless other mods were able to do that) to catch the ones that sneaky people submit with massive campaigning near the update so that it goes to vote when the update hits.

[Excidium Planetis]

So we should encourage people to submit without drafting?

That would only be a consequence if I proposed ignoring the submission under such circumstances. This is something different. Authors should not be able to be silent and then pop up with an invisible GHR that was entirely unmentioned — but ignoring raises the issue you raised. This compromise solves the incentives question on both sides.

Wait, so are you saying the proposal would still be removed, it just wouldn't count as a strike? That makes sense, I guess.

Would a "Proposal Hold" function be of value? It would essentially freeze a quorate proposal for a fix period of time - say, 24-36 hours - and be used if there was a last minute legality challenge. The proposal would not be deleted. It would simply remain in queue for extra time.

That would be excellent.

[Separatist Peoples]

Would a "Proposal Hold" function be of value? It would essentially freeze a quorate proposal for a fix period of time - say, 24-36 hours - and be used if there was a last minute legality challenge. The proposal would not be deleted. It would simply remain in queue for extra time.

Could the same be done with at-vote proposals? Because, if anything, that is where the Discard hurts. One can always resubmit, but getting to voters to jump a particular way isn't always repeatable.

Not that I expect it to be possible, but to demonstrate where the real issue is...

[Araraukar]

Would a "Proposal Hold" function be of value? It would essentially freeze a quorate proposal for a fix period of time - say, 24-36 hours - and be used if there was a last minute legality challenge. The proposal would not be deleted. It would simply remain in queue for extra time.

Could the same be done with at-vote proposals? Because, if anything, that is where the Discard hurts. One can always resubmit, but getting to voters to jump a particular way isn't always repeatable.

The way I understand it, the system would merely delay a proposal that has reached quorum for going into vote, not discarding/removing it from the queue. By the time something reaches at-vote stage, the only option to deal with a serious (found to be valid) legality challenge is the discard function.