GA Rules Discussion

[Mallorea and Riva]

This subforum is for the discussion of the current GA rules. You'll see each rule that is up for discussion listed with its own unique thread and the wording of the rule as it is currently found in the GA rule set. Not listed are the rules regarding offensive proposals, excessive pimping, and plagiarism, for obvious reasons. Those rules are not up for debate.

If you notice a rule that is not currently listed please make a note here and I will start a new thread for it. Please do not make new threads in this subforum, they will be locked. If you see an area for discussion that is not listed just comment here and I'll deal with it.

When commenting on the rules please indicate why the rule should be changed, kept the same, or removed completely. "Me too" posts are pointless since this isn't a vote, it is a discussion. Keep conversations cordial and on topic or else. All are welcome to contribute as long as they are respectful and are actively contributing to the discussion.

[Frisbeeteria]

We started this discussion with most of the rules/topics locked to allow players to focus on just a bit at a time. We'll be tossing a new topic into the mix every day or three. Enjoy!

[Kaboomlandia]

Just a question, how is the order that rules discussions get opened up chosen? Is it by how controversial they were, or is it just in order?

[Mousebumples]

Just a question, how is the order that rules discussions get opened up chosen? Is it by how controversial they were, or is it just in order?

I believe it's been random.

[Frisbeeteria]

I believe it's been random.

I've been centering the section of locked topics on my screen, closing my eyes, and sliding the mouse around the screen. I then open my eyes and unlock the thread under the pointer. That's about as random as I can make it without numbering the topics and generating =RND(Topic#).

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think we should discuss a new rule regarding moderation itself. One that states there must be moderators totally uninvolved in a legality decision, so that those decisions can actually be appealed.

[Frisbeeteria]

I think we should discuss a new rule regarding moderation itself. One that states there must be moderators totally uninvolved in a legality decision, so that those decisions can actually be appealed.

Not an awful idea, but I think a bit premature to bring to this discussion. Once we've opened up all the locked topics and had a chance to review existing rules, I think it would be reasonable to allow for new rule suggestion threads.

Meanwhile, why don't you work on phrasing such a rule and bring it to the table as a fully-fleshed draft, rather than a vague idea. It's probably going to be at least a couple of weeks before we've opened all the topics, so you have plenty of drafting time.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Should I post that here? Or will players be able to make new threads once all topics have been debated?

[Frisbeeteria]

Or will players be able to make new threads once all topics have been debated?

This.

[Old Hope]

Can someone please open one or more topics? Discussion is not that active anymore, so the new topics shouldn't be threatened to be ignored.

[Kaboomlandia]

Does the "legislating in a repeal" rule go under the Amendment rule? If so, can somebody just throw the definition for that in there?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Does the "legislating in a repeal" rule go under the Amendment rule? If so, can somebody just throw the definition for that in there?

Legislating in a repeal is a rule because repeals cannot be repealed, and hence, any laws which go into a repeal cannot be repealed.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Could the next thread opened be the one on the Amendment rule? There's no hurry, but there's been quite a bit of discussion of amendments during the proposal coding discussion, and the current repeal has also seen the issue mentioned (more than once) so it seems an opportune moment.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Could the next thread opened be the one on the Amendment rule? There's no hurry, but there's been quite a bit of discussion of amendments during the proposal coding discussion, and the current repeal has also seen the issue mentioned (more than once) so it seems an opportune moment.

Makes sense to me. Also opened up the format discussion since there has been quite a bit of talk about merging it with other rules.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Thanks.

[Kaboomlandia]

No hurry, but I think opening up Duplication soon would make sense, since that (wrongful) yanking of Non-Interference in Elections is kind of the reason we're here right now.

[The Dark Star Republic]

No hurry, but I think opening up Duplication soon would make sense, since that (wrongful) yanking of Non-Interference in Elections is kind of the reason we're here right now.

What are you talking about? That happened long after Mallorea opened the original thread.

[Defwa]

There's not a thread on it, but I'd like a word on how we interpret "all nations" and other things regarded as legislating on non WA members.

Would it not be easier just to assume that the WA is not enforcing its laws in areas where it obviously has no jurisdiction?
And what about setting barriers of entry to non members- such as access to certain WA services so long as they meet certain criteria. Nonmembers wouldn't be required to take any action by such a motion and would need to choose to take action to comply.

[Frisbeeteria]

I'd like a word on how we interpret "all nations" and other things regarded as legislating on non WA members.

Sounds like a reasonable idea. When we open the floor to new topics, you're more than welcome to raise that one. Should be in a week or two, I would hope.

[Bears Armed]

There's not a thread on it, but I'd like a word on how we interpret "all nations" and other things regarded as legislating on non WA members.

Would it not be easier just to assume that the WA is not enforcing its laws in areas where it obviously has no jurisdiction?

Except, obviously, that unless a resolution says otherwise then it also tells the members how to act when they are involved in areas that aren't actually within any member's territory: Otherwise, for example, rules limiting member's behaviour in wars wouldn't apply if & when their forces were invading non-members...

And what about setting barriers of entry to non members- such as access to certain WA services so long as they meet certain criteria. Nonmembers wouldn't be required to take any action by such a motion and would need to choose to take action to comply.

That's already legal, if suitably worded: see #87: ‘Meteorological Cooperation’ (and more specifically its clause '8'), for example.

[Frisbeeteria]

Bears, let's wait until we have break-out discussions on the sub topics; and leave this one for talking about the basic Consortium itself.

[Frisbeeteria]

I have unlocked all the remaining topics for discussion. Since some of them are among the most contentious, let's hold off on player-made threads for another week or so.

[Blood Wine]

Is there a similar thing planned for the SC? I understand the need to hold off on it before the GA part finishes, but an announcement for later would be nice

[Sedgistan]

Is there a similar thing planned for the SC? I understand the need to hold off on it before the GA part finishes, but an announcement for later would be nice

No; there's no need.

[Blood Wine]

Is there a similar thing planned for the SC? I understand the need to hold off on it before the GA part finishes, but an announcement for later would be nice

No; there's no need.

Any particular reason as why there is no need?