[discussion]Rule Change Summary

[Sciongrad]

I 100% did not say that. I specifically and explicitly qualified that an alternate interpretation must be reasonable.

You 100% did say that:

In other words, from an IC perspective, a member nation will never choose an interpretation that conflicts with its self-interest if an alternative exists. Repeals that point to one interpretation as the only viable interpretation when other interpretations exist violate Reasonable Nation Theory and are deceptive.

You did not qualify that the "other interpretations" must be reasonable.

You're being obtuse. If you contextualize that particular quote with all of my other quotes where I explicitly and indisputably qualified that the interpretation must be reasonable, then you'd see that. Clearly you're more intent on proving some point by cherry picking my quotes. All I'll say is that I have so obviously not said what you're claiming I said that you're just being silly by continuing this argument.

But if the repeal identifies only one interpretation as reasonable, and you say that there are two, is it an honest mistake?

My entire argument is that yes, that should be considered an honest mistake as it is deceptive. Frankly, I would support renaming the rule, because if it does indeed include lies and deception like Kryo has suggested, then the term "honest mistake" is not exactly an apt descriptor.

Who is to say your interpretation is actually reasonable?

A moderator.

It's simply not the mods mandate to delete based on how "invalid" or "incorrect" they see an argument as.

The Hell it isn't. We do it all the time.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You 100% did say that:

You did not qualify that the "other interpretations" must be reasonable.

You're being obtuse. If you contextualize that particular quote with all of my other quotes where I explicitly and indisputably qualified that the interpretation must be reasonable, then you'd see that. Clearly you're more intent on proving some point by cherry picking my quotes. All I'll say is that I have so obviously not said what you're claiming I said that you're just being silly by continuing this argument.

The interpretation, in my opinion, ought be valid. Reasonability is something which cannot be effectively adjudicated upon (it turns into 'I know it when I see it', which is a horrid way of basing a legal structure). However, I feel that there are two standards of interpretation: reasonable nation theory and what I would call Assembly theory. Both desire to get as much power as possible, the nations interpreting one way and the Assembly interpreting it another way.

However, badly written vague or ambiguous clauses ought not be in legislation. The QoHS debacle is showing that clearly now.

But if the repeal identifies only one interpretation as reasonable, and you say that there are two, is it an honest mistake?

My entire argument is that yes, that should be considered an honest mistake as it is deceptive. Frankly, I would support renaming the rule, because if it does indeed include lies and deception like Kryo has suggested, then the term "honest mistake" is not exactly an apt descriptor.

Quite. I entirely agree.

[Sciongrad]

The interpretation, in my opinion, ought be valid. Reasonability is something which cannot be effectively adjudicated upon (it turns into 'I know it when I see it', which is a horrid way of basing a legal structure).

I don't think it's too difficult to determine what constitutes a reasonable reading. Can the interpretation be obtained from a good faith reading of the resolution? Does it square with reasonable nation theory? If the answer to both are yes, then the resolution is reasonable, valid, etc.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The interpretation, in my opinion, ought be valid. Reasonability is something which cannot be effectively adjudicated upon (it turns into 'I know it when I see it', which is a horrid way of basing a legal structure).

I don't think it's too difficult to determine what constitutes a reasonable reading. Can the interpretation be obtained from a good faith reading of the resolution? Does it square with reasonable nation theory? If the answer to both are yes, then the resolution is reasonable, valid, etc.

Then it gets circular. Is it reasonable? Well, can it be obtained from a reasonable interpretation?

[Sciongrad]

I don't think it's too difficult to determine what constitutes a reasonable reading. Can the interpretation be obtained from a good faith reading of the resolution? Does it square with reasonable nation theory? If the answer to both are yes, then the resolution is reasonable, valid, etc.

Then it gets circular. Is it reasonable? Well, can it be obtained from a reasonable interpretation?

Perhaps reasonable is not the precise word. However, it is fairly easy to distinguish between a valid interpretation made in good faith and an invalid interpretation. By reasonable interpretation, I simply mean is it possible that someone reading a resolution in good faith would obtain it. And moderators make that type of judgement all the time (or at least they used to, I don't know what the current policy is in this regard.).

[Sandaoguo]

Perhaps the word you're looking for is "rational." It's not rational for a state to adopt an interpretation that goes against their interests, if there are alternative preferable interpretations available. Writing a repeal based upon an adverse interpretation you voluntarily choose, when there are preferable ones available, would be irrational (from an IC perspective) and done in bad faith (from an OOC perspective).

Seems to me the 'Honest Mistakes' rule should be renamed the 'Good Faith Mistakes' rule, because all we're actually concerned about is whether or not somebody is trying to be deceptive in their argument.