The Amendment Rule

[Mallorea and Riva]

Amendments

You can't amend Resolutions. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Resolution, you have to Repeal it first.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Discussion bump.

[The Dark Star Republic]

There are technical and legislative reasons for keeping the rule, which I'm sure others will make.

I'd like to make a different argument for keeping it. A common complaint about the WA is that all of the big, juicy issues have already been taken. Slavery, torture, freedom of expression and assembly, the kinds of issues that everyone has an opinion on and a desire to legislate about, have already been done. This leaves new players often complaining there is nothing to legislate about (I disagree with them, but I also see their point). For old timers it's okay, we already got our chance to debate these issues and pass resolutions about them, but it's not much of an incentive to join in. Solutions to this don't seem very practical: Max Barry ruled out a hard reset, while the admin consideration of repeal+replace or sunset clauses stalled having not really gone far anyway, and we know that technical changes tend to take a long time to emerge.

The only real recourse is repeals. Repealing those old laws allows new players a chance, for better or worse, at passing their own versions as replacements - or debating replacements and deciding the WA is better off without them. Either way, there's an argument that repeals do a form of public service, even if that's not what the authors always intend: they go around opening up lots of new topics that otherwise the contradiction/duplication rules would keep closed off. I'd point to the current repeal as an example, if that's not too self-serving, but there are plenty of other examples.

If amendments were implemented, that possibility would be killed off forever. It's obvious that simply amending the Sexual Privacy Act to permit nations to regulate incest, but otherwise leaving it in tact, would be even more popular than the repeal is proving, given the number of opponents of the repeal admitting their main concern is not getting a replacement. Problematic resolutions such as Ban on Slavery and Trafficking, or International Transport Safety, would never be reviewed and replaced: they'd simply be incrementally amended, denying new players the chance of ever seriously broaching the subject. Why would anyone risk repealing entirely the ban on slavery for the sake of passing a replacement, if they could simply pass an amendment leaving it in place and adding on one extra bit of clarification that wasn't put in place originally?

That's my (typically long winded) argument against ever permitting amendments. They'll make the game even more boring.

[Kaboomlandia]

The amendment rule was made because of the coding difficulties. Since coding is one of the discussions here, maybe this rule should be changed/eliminated. The problem with repeal/replace is that the WA lemmings are notoriously fickle, as shown when RAT was passed and repealed by a larger margin than the original resolution. If we were to repeal, say, GAR #4 and try to replace it, there is a good chance that the replace could fail, leaving a blank space in the WA law.

[The Dark Star Republic]

What are you talking about? Repeal/replace has worked many times, Habeas Corpus notwithstanding.

the WA lemmings

Good grief.

[Christian Democrats]

I'd support the addition of a repeal-and-replace (R+R) function with three conditions:

• There is only one proposal text (3500 characters) with the repeal arguments limited to the preamble;
• The new resolution must have a new title and substantively different text (plagiarism rule); and
• R+R resolutions require a supermajority vote to pass (e.g., two-thirds support).

With respect to this third condition, a twist, which would add some intrigue and strategy to the WA, could be coded into the new function: If an R+R proposal obtains majority support but not supermajority support, the original resolution is struck out anyway.

Contrary to what DSR says above, an R+R function of this kind would enlarge the breadth of topics on which new authors could legislate. Old resolutions could not be "incrementally amended" because of the plagiarism rule, which would require fresh proposals. I would even go so far as to ban players from using R+R on their own resolutions, unless they refrain from plagiarizing themselves.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I would prefer R+R not be taken off the shelf. But CD's provisos work, provided that also:

-R+Rs aren't passed just to correct one or two minor errors (if that happened all the time it would make the WA incredibly boring)
-Replacements don't completely change the WA's stance on a certain issue (i.e., repeal "Protect endangered species" and replace it with "Kill all puppies!"); they only revise an extant stance on the issue and strive to make substantive improvements on addressing and enforcing it

...but even there, instituting such a complicated new procedure is going to require new rules no matter what form it took, which would inevitably cause more problems with moderation - and for those with short memories, this whole thing started with a discussion on dysfunctions within moderation, not the rules. Let's not forget that.

All that aside, I see no problems with the rule as it currently exists.

@CD: Most resolutions pass by a supermajority anyway (of the last ten, only one did not); maybe raise the threshold to 75%?

[Christian Democrats]

I would prefer R+R not be taken off the shelf. But CD's provisos work, provided that also:

-R+Rs aren't passed just to correct one or two minor errors (if that happened all the time it would make the WA incredibly boring)

What's a minor error? The Sexual Privacy Act allows consensual incest but is otherwise fine...?

The plagiarism rule would require an entirely new resolution, which could be sufficient to prevent minor error corrections.

Replacements don't completely change the WA's stance on a certain issue (i.e., repeal "Protect endangered species" and replace it with "Kill all puppies!"); they only revise an extant stance on the issue and strive to make substantive improvements on addressing and enforcing it

As long as the replacement deals with the same topic, why should we prevent stance reversals?

Example: Repeal "Convention on Execution" and replace with "Ban on Capital Punishment."

@CD: Most resolutions pass by a supermajority anyway (of the last ten, only one did not); maybe raise the threshold to 75%?

Three-fourths would be good too.

And it would make the Twist, if we implemented it, more common.

50-75% -- old resolution expires
75% or above -- old resolution expires and new resolution replaces

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

As long as the replacement deals with the same topic, why should we prevent stance reversals?

Example: Repeal "Convention on Execution" and replace with "Ban on Capital Punishment."

The feature was proposed as a means of amending existing law to make it stronger or more effective (or even, if you will, make it less strong) -- not rewriting law wholesale in one easy vote. If you want to reverse the WA's stance on a controversial issue, you should be able to do it the old-fashioned way. It's been done before.

Or else negate the purpose of blockers entirely.

50-75% -- old resolution expires

And the new operative section would be crossed out?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

At any rate, this might distract from the central purpose of this thread -- whether the amendment rule itself should stay or go or be revised, so maybe involved discussion on new tech fixes should go to Technical?

[Christian Democrats]

50-75% -- old resolution expires

And the new operative section would be crossed out?

Nothing new would be added to the books. The old resolution would be struck out, and the *REPEALED* note on the old resolution could say something like *FAILED REPLACEMENT (Thu May 21 2015)* without a link to anything.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Hm. That's interesting. I don't think authors would like the fact that their repeal passed but doesn't appear on the recordbooks for history, though.

[Frisbeeteria]

And the new operative section would be crossed out?

Right now repeals can add strikeout code automatically with fairly simple coding. I can't see a way to selective strikeout specific phrases or sections automatically. It would require giving mods access to the historical code and specific editing tools for that section, and I think that's incredibly unlikely. The goal is 100% automation - we're really going to have to fight hard for the manual Category Coding option. Adding an editor for old resolutions probably won't be worth the battle, even if we wanted to do it (and I surely don't).

whether the amendment rule itself should stay or go or be revised, so maybe involved discussion on new tech fixes should go to Technical?

I think they're inextricably linked. We can't really consider amendments as possible unless the Category Coding goes in, so that's one tech component. I could perhaps see an automated line added to a historical resolutions, "As amended by GAR # 442" added at the bottom, but even that's a stretch. What happens if GAR #442 gets repealed? Do we then have to automate adding strikeout code to prior links? It just gets really complicated.

[Defwa]

I would say that amendments should still not be allowed. I don't want to haggle over individual clauses years after something is passed.
But an R+R function seems like it would address what people want from amendments while avoiding real frivolous attempts. However the requirement for a super majority is out of the question. And I might expect shenanigans popping up claiming that the replacement isn't related enough

[The Dark Star Republic]

We can already pass repeals and replacements. I don't see why adding some special function to do so adds anything but complication.

[Old Hope]

Add amendments if and only if we introduce the stats coding system, and if Violet chooses to implement the technical details.
This would avoid repealing, failing the replacement for whatever reason, and the notice you cannot go back to the old resolution because of the plagiarism rule. And it would allow to keep the superior language in the resolution and not to rewrite a resolution that then has a weakness somewhere else.

[Separatist Peoples]

Would it be possible for a R+R function to have two possible boxes available for text? Currently, when submitting a resolution, there is one description. For a Repeal and Replace, maybe there would be a second description box below the first? That way, if supermajority fails, but a majority votes in favor, the failed replacement could be struck out, or even deleted entirely from the game (but not the Archive). I have no idea if this is possible or desirable from a technical standpoint.

Another question would be whether or not separate authors could be listed, or different coauthors. That depends, I suppose, on the result of the Branding rule discussion. Also, would that then count as one resolution, or two? Would it break the coding to count it as two?

[Mallorea and Riva]

R&R is a distinct issue from the Amendment Rule folks, if we want to start up this discussion again then I'd recommend we deal with Amendments first and then maybe open up a thread in technical.

[Tzorsland]

R&R is a distinct issue from the Amendment Rule folks, if we want to start up this discussion again then I'd recommend we deal with Amendments first and then maybe open up a thread in technical.

It depends on how it is implemented. Assuming that we work with the custom category idea. Suppose there was a "Amendment" button. When you hit the button the resolution text is loaded into the editor. You then make the changes to the proposal and hit submit. If passed the original resolution is completely struck out (and it's repeal is based on this resolution number) but instead of a repeal resolution you have an actual resolution that in turn can be repealed.

I'm assuming that this is going to take up a modicum of code. But it might be a lot less than other solutions for Amendments. You might even want to have the system do a diff of the old vs new resolution and highlight accordingly, but I don't think it is necessary.

[Ainocra]

I think the current rule is fine,

consider this

I write and pass a law about tacos
next year Kenny doesn't like tacos unless they have cheese
a few months later flib comes along and adds sour cream
then a year later mousey adds some fresh squeezed baby tears

where is my original taco?

So we should keep this rule as is, not just for the technical reasons but because I like my tacos plain

[Old Hope]

I think the current rule is fine,

consider this

I write and pass a law about tacos
next year Kenny doesn't like tacos unless they have cheese
a few months later flib comes along and adds sour cream
then a year later mousey adds some fresh squeezed baby tears

where is my original taco?

So we should keep this rule as is, not just for the technical reasons but because I like my tacos plain

You original taco doesn't exist anymore, but that is fine. After all, the World Assembly decided to allow those amendments. They could have denied those amendments- it is not the author, but the World Assembly that adds or removes something from your taco- or not.

[Christian Democrats]

I could perhaps see an automated line added to a historical resolutions, "As amended by GAR # 442" added at the bottom, but even that's a stretch. What happens if GAR #442 gets repealed? Do we then have to automate adding strikeout code to prior links? It just gets really complicated.

I agree, which is why I oppose amendments but favor R+R.

However the requirement for a super majority is out of the question.

Why is that? I do not imagine that the coding would be terribly difficult. Right now, there's one code: more than 50% means passage. If an R+R function were added, all we'd need is a second code with one minor adjustment: more than 75% means passage. Whether the first code or the second code would be in effect would depend on the proposal type selected at submission: regular, repeal, or R+R.

We can already pass repeals and replacements. I don't see why adding some special function to do so adds anything but complication.

As I note above and as you hint, it would open up more topics for new authors, which would increase participation. Too many WA voters are afraid of repeals because they don't think there will be replacements. Thus, subjects like the minimum wage, freedom of expression, and anti-discrimination are essentially closed off forever, which might be okay for oldies but turns off the newbies.

R&R is a distinct issue from the Amendment Rule folks, if we want to start up this discussion again then I'd recommend we deal with Amendments first and then maybe open up a thread in technical.

I agree with Fris that these conversations are "inextricably linked." This is, in fact, the "General Assembly Rules Consortium." Surely, you could get a few techies to come over here as there was some technical input during the R/D rules conference.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

I'd support the addition of a repeal-and-replace (R+R) function with three conditions:

• There is only one proposal text (3500 characters) with the repeal arguments limited to the preamble;
• The new resolution must have a new title and substantively different text (plagiarism rule); and
• R+R resolutions require a supermajority vote to pass (e.g., two-thirds support).

With respect to this third condition, a twist, which would add some intrigue and strategy to the WA, could be coded into the new function: If an R+R proposal obtains majority support but not supermajority support, the original resolution is struck out anyway.

Contrary to what DSR says above, an R+R function of this kind would enlarge the breadth of topics on which new authors could legislate. Old resolutions could not be "incrementally amended" because of the plagiarism rule, which would require fresh proposals. I would even go so far as to ban players from using R+R on their own resolutions, unless they refrain from plagiarizing themselves.

I like this idea.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

We can already pass repeals and replacements. I don't see why adding some special function to do so adds anything but complication.

As I note above and as you hint, it would open up more topics for new authors, which would increase participation.

Repeals already do that (as TDSR has repeatedly pointed out in the current official topic). If voters desire replacements, as you suggest, repeals allow them to happen. Tacking them on to repeals does not really give new authors that opportunity; in fact, it would rob them of it in some cases.

[Christian Democrats]

As I note above and as you hint, it would open up more topics for new authors, which would increase participation.

Repeals already do that (as TDSR has repeatedly pointed out in the current official topic). If voters desire replacements, as you suggest, repeals allow them to happen. Tacking them on to repeals does not really give new authors that opportunity; in fact, it would rob them of it in some cases.

I disagree.

A number of topics effectively are closed off to new authors because the old resolutions effectively have become "unrepealable."

These topics, however, are not "unamendable." They could be reopened to new legislation with an R+R function, and the supermajority requirement would ensure that old-style repeals and replacements still have a place.

(50+50, in many cases, would be a whole lot easier to obtain than, say, 75%)