Should the WA be restarted? (OOC discussion)

[Sandaoguo]

All of the resolutions said "United Nations," so yeah, there was some reason to start over.

That's what the grandfathering would've been for

There were all those basic "rights" resolutions we had to get passed again, there were like 10 resolutions that were just copies of old UN resolutions that the authors wanted to re-institute for the WA (which gets repetitive, believe me, and don't think it's not going to happen again, because it will), and finally, we had just finished an arduous months-long process to repeal/replace those awful anti-slavery laws that were in place in the UN, and then the switchover occurred like two months later, and we had to do it all over again. The war crimes stretch in the WA was a pretty long, agonizing process as well, encompassing like half a dozen resolutions from 2014-15...you really want to go through the same thing again after another switchover?

Oh no, look at all that activity you had to deal with

[Gurori]

I'd go for a WA restart. It's supposed to be a serious roleplaying utility, not some playground for children to do fuck-all on.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I am also inclined to oppose another reset. Sure, I'd love to get an easy badge rewriting "Prevention of Torture" to rule out this bizarre interpretation, but if we tore down international law again, we'd have a dozen submissions in the first week with titles like "Slavery Is Evil, Mmmkay?" And not all of them would be illegal, and therefore it's almost guaranteed we'd have to repeal/replace them right off the bat.

Whereas right now, while there's still plenty of legislative room for improving the world, it takes a degree of subtlety and cleverness to do it well - and that's why the GA is so appealing. Resetting everything to zero on what would surely become a regular basis if done for other than RL legal reasons, or even requiring sunset provisions on passed resolutions, would remove the stakes. Sure, nothing we're writing here is more important to the real world than sandcastles on a beach; but the laws we write don't wash away with the tides. The permanence of the accomplishment is part of what makes the work fulfilling.

[John Turner]

What would be the point of another reset? So people can rush to pass the exact same proposals they passed in the WA? We would be right back to square one within three months.

[Liagolas]

While I haven't been here for too long, I'm inclined to agree with those opposed to this idea. While perhaps there might be a temporary surge of activity, we'd very quickly end up back where we are right now. I feel like it'd be better if we determined a means of developing a wider player base with greater interest on a more long-term and permanent scale than just resetting the WA.

Additionally, as a relative novice I can say that I haven't been too discouraged by the sightly staggering amount of existing legislation. While I can see why it might be for some, reading and engaging in the debates is, I think, one of the best ways to learn the ropes of the WA. Writing a resolution can be very challenging when you're still learning how things work, and it's not because of some absence of topical diversity; it's just because a lot goes into a good resolution.

[Excidium Planetis]

First of all, let me say that a reset without a change in the rules does very little to fix the current problem.

However, I would like to see a reset, only for the GA.

1) It would get rid of GA#2. Huzzah, that is probably the greatest thing a reset would do.

2) It would stir up activity in players who now have exciting stuff to work on.

3) It cleans the house, so to speak. All those unsightly repealed resolutions and repeals get thrown away. We have a clean slate to write down all the perfect, really necessary resolutions from the WA on.

4) I can get a chance to make some very minor tweaks to GA#355, which, while they would definitely improve it, are not serious enough to merit a repeal. Likewise, all those excellent resolutions out there with only very minor flaws (like typos) can be fixed without needing to repeal them.

[Separatist Peoples]

Honestly, if we had a reset, I'd just resubmit my work as-is. I'm not interested in re-drafting my war crimes legislation, and I'm sure other authors would, too. Which is exactly what a reset would seek to fix.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Resolutions should expire.

[Excidium Planetis]

Resolutions should expire.

Screw that. Maybe if it applied only to repeals and repealed resolutions, and they were moved to archives, yeah.

But I don't want to have run a campaign to pass the same resolution every two years or whatever.

[Wallenburg]

Resolutions should expire.

"That, Ambassador, is perhaps the worst idea I have heard since a captain under my command requested permission to drive his tank squadron through the Hanst River."

OOC: Oops. That should be OOC. In that case, that is perhaps the worst idea I have heard since my friends suggested I annotate the entirety of The Brothers Karamazov in four days.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Resolutions should expire.

"That, Ambassador, is perhaps the worst idea I have heard since a captain under my command requested permission to drive his tank squadron through the Hanst River."

Obviously, your tanks aren't waterproof. If you had waterproof tanks like we do in the Imperium, this wouldn't be a problem.

[Sciongrad]

Resolutions should expire.

"That, Ambassador, is perhaps the worst idea I have heard since a captain under my command requested permission to drive his tank squadron through the Hanst River."

I don't know. While I'm opposed to a reset, I wouldn't mind sunset clauses. It would certainly introduce new blood into the stuffy, exclusive club that the GA has become.

[Cybraxia]

We could have an IC explanation if we do restart:

Someone sabotages the weapon nullifiers allowing for a terrorist attack, or even multiple attacks.

[Liagolas]

I don't know. While I'm opposed to a reset, I wouldn't mind sunset clauses. It would certainly introduce new blood into the stuffy, exclusive club that the GA has become.

But what's to stop people from just re-submitting their old resolution after the sunset clause takes effect?

[StarArmy]

A lot of times I see people proposing major reboots like this on RP sites, and there's excitement in the air of something new, and then it finally happens, and it completely flops because the same problems that plagued the first version were never addressed. The people who didn't want the change leave, and the people who wanted the change get overwhelmed.

If you want a real-world political analogy, look at Egypt after the Arab Spring: The oppressive government was overthrown, and the people had high hopes. But their existing problems never went away, and now they have a new oppressive government. By many measures life is even worse than before.

I think if the WA is reset, it's not going to fix things. We'll just have the same concerns as before, but also the years and years of work, which players put their hearts and minds into, would be tossed out like so much refuse and would have to be re-done and filling that void is a tremendous burden. Yes it's opportunity but it's also work. In the meantime the resolutions would be stuck in a broken, chaotic, and highly unfinished state. In fact I question whether the WA would ever again reach the level of refinement it has now in terms of quantity and quality of bills passed.

[Sandaoguo]

What would be the point of another reset? So people can rush to pass the exact same proposals they passed in the WA? We would be right back to square one within three months.

Few players who still post here were around for the first 100 or so resolutions. Hell, most of the current community didn't even start playing until around resolution 300, possibly even later. So it's not people passing the same resolutions they passed 4-8 years ago. It's people getting the chance to write on subjects that were written about years before they had ever joined NationStates.

The bulk of resolutions were written by people who no longer play the game. So, to me, the talk about 'throwing away hard work' is pretty wrong.

[Bears Armed]

Though I challenge your assertion that there are really that many when it comes to topics that people think are *worth* writing about.

I have two drafts from earlier in the year currently buried a few pages down in this forum: I not only plan to resume work on one of those, with the intention of submitting it during July or August if the legislative climate looks reasonable, but have two other ideas for proposals that I'd like to get ready for submission during that period as well... and both of those other ideas are for topics that really haven't been covered yet, rather than for 'minutiae'...

Re 'sunset clauses': And how easy would it be to write a third or fourth or fifth or sixth successive resolution to do a particular job, if the previous resolutions' authors neither allowed re-use of their wording nor simply re-submitted [more or less] the old versions themselves? Or would the rule against Plagiarism also be scrapped?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

What would be the point of another reset? So people can rush to pass the exact same proposals they passed in the WA? We would be right back to square one within three months.

Few players who still post here were around for the first 100 or so resolutions.

You were. So was I. So was uni. So was Scion. So was Bears. So was JT. You were saying?

The bulk of resolutions were written by people who no longer play the game. So, to me, the talk about 'throwing away hard work' is pretty wrong.

Oh ffs, the first page of passed resolutions contains Frisbeeteria (still active), Douria (still comes and goes), Charlotte Ryberg (still active), Quod (still comes and goes), Flib (still comes and goes), and Yours Truly (definitely still active). The very premise of your argument is disproved by the oldest data available.

[Imperializt Russia]

I can't help but nuking the WA will just completely jam the first few months with what amount to resubmissions, or at least rewritten submissions, of the existing resolutions.

It make lead to a lot of creativity, but I'm concerned by the sheer log jam scenario it poses. And also what I believe will be a lack of long-term work. I foresee a lot of simply reworded submissions of existing resolutions.

[Excidium Planetis]

I had thought I wrote a reply but I guess it got lost.

Glen-Rhodes is correctish, and Kenny is correctish.

Most of the earliest WA Resolutions were authored by players who are still playing NS.

But most of them are no longer very active in the GA, at least not regularly. Maybe a reset would get them involved just long enough to reset, but I certainly think a reset would give newer regulars a chance to write some of the foundational resolutions in a slightly better form. (some of those "Freedom" Resolutions could get rolled together, and NAPA could be rewritten to actually allow nuclear weapon use, maybe.)

Re 'sunset clauses': And how easy would it be to write a third or fourth or fifth or sixth successive resolution to do a particular job, if the previous resolutions' authors neither allowed re-use of their wording nor simply re-submitted [more or less] the old versions themselves? Or would the rule against Plagiarism also be scrapped?

This is an excellent point. I don't think sunset clauses are reasonable given that after several years plagiarism would essentially become inevitable.

[Gim]

I would first see how the World Assembly with an active role of "General Secretary" goes, and, if the World Assembly continues to provide discontent to nations, then we can petition or request for change.

[John Turner]

and NAPA could be rewritten to actually allow nuclear weapon use, maybe.)

The Nuclear Arms Protocol already does that.

[Imperializt Russia]

and NAPA could be rewritten to actually allow nuclear weapon use, maybe.)

The Nuclear Arms Protocol already does that.

I think the point rather is that he wishes the right to deploy and use such weapons should be considered fundamental, on the level of their ownership.

Hence why he would rather it be a part of NAPA; a fundamental part of the WA; than introduced through subsequent legislation.

[John Turner]

The Nuclear Arms Protocol already does that.

I think the point rather is that he wishes the right to deploy and use such weapons should be considered fundamental, on the level of their ownership.

Hence why he would rather it be a part of NAPA; a fundamental part of the WA; than introduced through subsequent legislation.

Which NAP doesn't prevent. It merely states you can't blow civilians to smithereens. This wasn't exactly new law. The ICC made that requirement for years until Mouse repealed it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Kenny, literally none of those people (including yourself) can actually be considered active GA regulars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk