[discussion]Rule Change Summary

[Excidium Planetis]

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.

SP's concern seems to be a repeat of Repeal GA#2, which a proposal hold would not have stopped. It seems SP wants a "vote hold" or something that keeps a resolution at bote longer until legality ruling have been worked out.

[Araraukar]

SP's concern seems to be a repeat of Repeal GA#2, which a proposal hold would not have stopped. It seems SP wants a "vote hold" or something that keeps a resolution at bote longer until legality ruling have been worked out.

I don't think the proposal hold is supposed to stop a proposal, but rather just prevent it from going to vote until the legality challenge has been dealt with. Although 24-36 hours sounds like a very narrow timeframe, considering the lengths of time that legality challenges have often taken.

[Excidium Planetis]

SP's concern seems to be a repeat of Repeal GA#2, which a proposal hold would not have stopped. It seems SP wants a "vote hold" or something that keeps a resolution at bote longer until legality ruling have been worked out.

I don't think the proposal hold is supposed to stop a proposal, but rather just prevent it from going to vote until the legality challenge has been dealt with. Although 24-36 hours sounds like a very narrow timeframe, considering the lengths of time that legality challenges have often taken.

You misunderstand. I didn't mean stop Repeal GA#2, I meant stopped the fiasco that occurred when it was discarded on a questionable ruling, despite passing. A "vote hold" to allow further time to discuss the legality would have possibly stopped the chaos. A proposal hold would not have stopped what happened.

[Araraukar]

You misunderstand. I didn't mean stop Repeal GA#2, I meant stopped the fiasco that occurred when it was discarded on a questionable ruling, despite passing.

Ah, right. I personally liked it being discarded, so didn't consider that to be a problem.

[Wallenburg]

The rule change is very satisfying. Thank you, Mods.

[Excidium Planetis]

You misunderstand. I didn't mean stop Repeal GA#2, I meant stopped the fiasco that occurred when it was discarded on a questionable ruling, despite passing.

Ah, right. I personally liked it being discarded, so didn't consider that to be a problem.

This issue is that it could have happened to any resolution, not just one you didn't like.

[Araraukar]

This issue is that it could have happened to any resolution, not just one you didn't like.

I know, I just meant I didn't get what you meant at first, since I didn't think there had been any problems with that discard.

[Separatist Peoples]

I was trying to highlight how holding a proposal not yet at quorum is a world different than holding it when it actually matters. Resubmitting is simple. Refund stamps and people can try again. There's no call to re-code anything.

[Excidium Planetis]

This issue is that it could have happened to any resolution, not just one you didn't like.

I know, I just meant I didn't get what you meant at first, since I didn't think there had been any problems with that discard.

It was discarded for branding, was it not? I still don't see how it was a branding violation.

Anyways, this is getting off topic.

[Railana]

It was discarded for branding, was it not? I still don't see how it was a branding violation.

The submitting nation was named "World Assembly Charter Working Group". This was considered a branding violation, specifically advertising for a region or group.

Contrary to popular belief, the repeal was not discarded because the submitting nation used the WA flag, which is not illegal.

[Sciongrad]

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.

A couple of follow questions, simply to clarify the limits of this rule. Does an interpretation need to be reasonable for it to exist legally in a repeal? An interpretation of a resolution may exist theoretically, but that does not mean it's reasonable. If a repeal bases its argument, even partially, on an irrational interpretation of the resolution (to put in simple legal terms, an argument that defies reasonable nation theorem), would that constitute an inaccuracy?

Regarding the some lying issue: if there is a single, factual inaccuracy in the resolution or a single clause that relies on an unreasonable interpretation, would that be legal?

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.

Until yesterday, you guys vehemently defended lying as "desirable." There is no situation where a lie should be an acceptable argument. Yet there is potential for reasonable, sophisticated national sovereigntist arguments (and I'm not even a NatSov!). I trust the voters will not simply repeal anything that comes their way and unless a NatSov only argument is particularly compelling, I'm not sure why they would deliberately repeal a resolution after they consciously chose to cede their sovereignty over in the first place.

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.

Fair enough.

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.

Spectacular idea. I'd fully support this.

[Railana]

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.

As Glen-Rhodes pointed out earlier, committees can take actions that affect member states. I'm not sure why we need a special "committee-only" category for committee-only resolutions.

[Araraukar]

As Glen-Rhodes pointed out earlier, committees can take actions that affect member states. I'm not sure why we need a special "committee-only" category for committee-only resolutions.

Well, the committees also add in extra bureaucracy, so if there was a "bookkeeping" or "committee" category, it could be coded with extra stat effects.

[Nanualele]

I would like to say that I am pleased with the removal of the no millitary rule, and quite excitedly pleased that national sovreignity arguements will be allowed. There are certain resolutions I find so abhorrent that I would quit the WA were I not required to maintain membership for my region RP. I hope this will aid in their removal, and ease my conscience over having to be a member.

I am not an authour, and visit the forums very rarely, but I do read the debates on certain proposals. I was troubled by the dubious accuracy of proposals I vote on as it was, and very sorry to hear making dishonesty permissible was considered. I do hope that Kryozerkia's later rewording and the player's subsequent refinement stands. I usually do not have time to fact-check repeals, and I expect most voters do so even less.

[Railana]

As Glen-Rhodes pointed out earlier, committees can take actions that affect member states. I'm not sure why we need a special "committee-only" category for committee-only resolutions.

Well, the committees also add in extra bureaucracy, so if there was a "bookkeeping" or "committee" category, it could be coded with extra stat effects.

That's not taken into account now, though; the current categories and strengths do not distinguish between resolutions with and without committees.

[Bears Armed]

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.

As am I.

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.

Yes, please. One of my own quorate proposals nearly got deleted because a legality challenge arrived only a couple of days before it was due to hit the floor, and although the Mods moved quickly enough to make a ruling in time (challenge denied) on that occasion having the extra buffer available would definitely be reassuring.

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.

How about reverting to the earlier interpretation of that rule (which applied when I passed my one & only NSUN resolution), which was that if the extent of the actions that a proposed resolution required member nations to take in cooperation with the committee was enough to justify the OOC stat effects then that was enough for legality without requiring any "non-committee" clauses as well?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

My suggestion was that committee-only proposals are OK, so long as the committee's constitution could be construed as having an effect on member states. For example, if the resolution states, "The WA Accreditation Committee shall review educational curricula in all member states, and accredit schools and colleges therein," that obviously is going to fall under Education and Creativity.

[Unibot III]

This rewording, the one Kyro brought up may be workable -

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.

My experience with deception in GA resolutions is occasionally, very rarely, a GA Author will pen a repeal where the clauses have virtually nothing to do with the resolution. They'll attribute things to the resolution that are simply not true.

Sometimes this is phrased in the past tense, as a certain result -

Take for example, a 'causal lie' -

Noting GA#57 has inadvertently given rise to an unprecedented sex trade.

Here the hypothetical author presents something as a certain fact, but there's really nothing about GA#57 that actually suggests a sex trade would or has been created as of result of its passage. Nor does the author have to follow up this clause with a justification for its accusation.

Another kind of deception is a 'outright lie', like,

Noting GA#57 does not define "refugee," as used throughout its resolution.

But this would be untrue, GA#57 does define "refugee." The author might wildly try to argue because the resolution allows the definition of "refugee" to be extended to other definitions provided by other sources of international law, then the term is left not fully defined, but the statement that the resolution fails to define "refugee" is just wrong.

As I've said, I've seen both of these tactics used in repeals and they're the worst. Repeal writers would be encouraged to lie in resolutions if this behaviour is permitted because it's more difficult to challenge lies than truth. On an honest platform, discussion works back and forth discursively. When you're facing these kinds of lies, you can never comprehensively prove something doesn't cause something, and worse, the discussion gets sidetracked from discussing the truth of the repeal to the intentions and integrity of the author (the latter is a real death trap that every deceptive author hopes a repeal's opposition gets caught up in.)

I.e.:



A repeal ought to be honest, not necessarily certain truth, but honest. Any compromise rule should, based on a balance of probabilities, find an author honest in their argument.

[John Turner]

It was discarded for branding, was it not? I still don't see how it was a branding violation.

The submitting nation was named "World Assembly Charter Working Group". This was considered a branding violation, specifically advertising for a region or group.

Contrary to popular belief, the repeal was not discarded because the submitting nation used the WA flag, which is not illegal.

Or that's the official story anyway......

[Sciongrad]

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.

A couple of follow questions, simply to clarify the limits of this rule. Does an interpretation need to be reasonable for it to exist legally in a repeal? An interpretation of a resolution may exist theoretically, but that does not mean it's reasonable. If a repeal bases its argument, even partially, on an irrational interpretation of the resolution (to put in simple legal terms, an argument that defies reasonable nation theorem), would that constitute an inaccuracy?

Regarding the some lying issue: if there is a single, factual inaccuracy in the resolution or a single clause that relies on an unreasonable interpretation, would that be legal?

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.

Until yesterday, you guys vehemently defended lying as "desirable." There is no situation where a lie should be an acceptable argument. Yet there is potential for reasonable, sophisticated national sovereigntist arguments (and I'm not even a NatSov!). I trust the voters will not simply repeal anything that comes their way and unless a NatSov only argument is particularly compelling, I'm not sure why they would deliberately repeal a resolution after they consciously chose to cede their sovereignty over in the first place.

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.

Fair enough.

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.

Spectacular idea. I'd fully support this.

I hope this wasn't forgotten.

[Christian Democrats]

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.

I concur. From now on, I can see myself pursuing repeals only.

the new set of rules is exactly what the moderators wanted from the beginning

I don't know why we should have expected more.

???

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

Do I really need to repeat what I said? A repeal should be upheld "if there are two or three reasonable interpretations of an ambiguous resolution." If a resolution is not ambiguous or if an interpretation is unreasonable, the repeal proposal should be struck.

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

You're not empowering voters; you're deceiving them. Most voters don't reread the original resolutions when repeals are presented to them.

An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution.

I don't expect much from the moderators in this area since they've shown themselves unwilling to penalize misrepresentation recently.

[Kryozerkia]

We have thread in which we can ask the admins/coders to implement changes to improve the game. I will push to add in a 'hold' option.

How it would work - or should work in theory - is that it applies only to quorate proposals. It gives the mods reviewing a legality challenge extra time. Ideally it means we have enough time to ensure that the proposal that does go to vote has been sufficiently reviewed, so discard is not necessary. The hold would then either lapse automatically or be manually released. It would also preserve the proposal's quorate status, so approvals would be preserved. Once released, it would be moved to the top of the queue or to its previous position in queue.

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.

Any mod would be able to use it, even if they aren't versed in the technical details of the GA. These same mods already remove proposals by author request.

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...

Yes, the Discard hurts. it should be the ultimate last resort. But yes, time is always a factor, especially as we are across the world.

As for a "hold" for at-vote, it is an idea.

It was discarded for branding, was it not? I still don't see how it was a branding violation.

The submitting nation was named "World Assembly Charter Working Group". This was considered a branding violation, specifically advertising for a region or group.

Contrary to popular belief, the repeal was not discarded because the submitting nation used the WA flag, which is not illegal.

This is worth a revisit. If you submit a GHR, we can review this. I understand wanting to submit under an umbrella group.

As Glen-Rhodes pointed out earlier, committees can take actions that affect member states. I'm not sure why we need a special "committee-only" category for committee-only resolutions.

That is true, but the effects of committee action are very mild and often limited. The purpose of a unique category is to reflect the fact that isn't just human rights etc. It would also allow for committees dedicated to just a specific purpose, with an indirect affect on member nations. Additionally, it would take advantage the under utilized stats that affect nations.

I hope this wasn't forgotten.

No, it wasn't. However, trying to type long posts is an uphill battle. My hands tend to get bitten because it's "playtime".

So, that said, I'll try and address your points as best I can.

A couple of follow questions, simply to clarify the limits of this rule. Does an interpretation need to be reasonable for it to exist legally in a repeal? An interpretation of a resolution may exist theoretically, but that does not mean it's reasonable. If a repeal bases its argument, even partially, on an irrational interpretation of the resolution (to put in simple legal terms, an argument that defies reasonable nation theorem), would that constitute an inaccuracy?

Regarding the some lying issue: if there is a single, factual inaccuracy in the resolution or a single clause that relies on an unreasonable interpretation, would that be legal?

Hypothetically, yes. If it's relying on implicit meaning, we would likely apply the "reasonable nation theory".

As for a 'single' inaccuracy... hm. It would indeed need to rely on an unreasonable interpretation. It's removal or legality may also be dependent on the rest of the repeal's text. If that single inaccuracy was the core of the repeal, it might be removed. If it was made in passing, it may not. I can't say for certain without a concrete example.

Until yesterday, you guys vehemently defended lying as "desirable." There is no situation where a lie should be an acceptable argument. Yet there is potential for reasonable, sophisticated national sovereigntist arguments (and I'm not even a NatSov!). I trust the voters will not simply repeal anything that comes their way and unless a NatSov only argument is particularly compelling, I'm not sure why they would deliberately repeal a resolution after they consciously chose to cede their sovereignty over in the first place.

Because some voters don't bother to read what's in front of them and vote based on the title?

I know that the authors who participate in the forums put a lot of time and effort into their legislation. They are also more likely to read it. I also know that the same authors can develop sophisticated NatSov arguments that aren't blatant. The rule is designed to snag the more obvious 'I don't like this' ones disguised as 'this violates the sovereignty of member nations'.

As for the lying in repeals, there was no real distinction between honest mistakes, embellishments, and misrepresentations/lies until recently. It is a sensitive issue. I'm trying to remember why, but all I can recall is that we suddenly had a precedent. I cannot think of a good reason other than we had a precedent. And that's stupid, I know. I should have a reason but I cannot think of one.

[Araraukar]

How it would work - or should work in theory - is that it applies only to quorate proposals. It gives the mods reviewing a legality challenge extra time. Ideally it means we have enough time to ensure that the proposal that does go to vote has been sufficiently reviewed, so discard is not necessary. The hold would then either lapse automatically or be manually released. It would also preserve the proposal's quorate status, so approvals would be preserved. Once released, it would be moved to the top of the queue or to its previous position in queue.

This does sound good. Especially with it being doable by non-GA mods.

As for a "hold" for at-vote, it is an idea.

How would that work, then? Delaying passing or taking it out of vote and letting another quorate get to vote?

My hands tend to get bitten because it's "playtime".

(Image)

Aww, your excuse is much cuter than most other people's. Although SP's pet excuses come close.

[Separatist Peoples]

Aww, your excuse is much cuter than most other people's. Although SP's furry excuses come close.

Phrasing!

[Wallenburg]

Aww, your excuse is much cuter than most other people's. Although SP's furry excuses come close.

Phrasing!

It's okay, SP, we don't judge.