[Proposal] Single Subject Rule

[Christian Democrats]

I think we should consider adding a single subject rule, especially if the category system is abolished in favor of custom coding.

What is a single subject rule?
A single subject rule, which 41 U.S. states have in one form or another, is a rule that prohibits legislative proposals from addressing more than one issue. For example, an act regulating lethal weapons could not also contain a provision legalizing bigamy.

What are the benefits of a single subject rule generally?
A single subject rule makes it less likely that a proposal will deceive voters. Limiting a proposal's scope to one issue ensures a certain degree of simplicity, and it prevents authors from attaching undesirable riders to otherwise popular pieces of legislation.

Would the General Assembly, in particular, derive any other benefits?
Yes, by banning omnibus proposals, we would be giving more authors more opportunities to legislate on more issues. No longer would it be possible for an individual to write a catch-all resolution that effectively blocks off all future proposals in an area (that is popular). Such resolutions detract from this part of the game as they force players into the realms of obscure, unsexy dilemmas (e.g., the plight of declawed felines) or dissuade them from getting involved in the General Assembly altogether.

How would you propose enforcing a single subject rule?
Legal researchers have found that judges' rulings in single subject challenges become significantly more subjective and dependent on personal political views when the constitutional, statutory, or case law requires aggressive enforcement. A restrained, deferential approach, on the other hand, guarantees that adjudicators of all persuasions almost always reach the same decisions. Thus, in the case of the General Assembly, I would propose that moderators interpret our single subject rule somewhat broadly (e.g., a proposal on biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons is acceptable), limiting themselves to striking down only those proposals that quite clearly are overbroad and deal with multiple issues (e.g., a carbon emissions proposal that would make condoms free in all high schools).

Tentatively, here's what the wording for a single subject rule could look like:

Every proposal shall address only one topic, and that topic shall be indicated by the title. If you want to pursue, for example, a criminal rights proposal that guarantees trial by jury, access to an attorney, and the power to compel testimony, that's fine. If you submit an omnibus human rights proposal that protects religious liberty, gun ownership, and the right of a business owner to refuse service, a moderator will remove it. For guidance, look at how broad or how narrow the daily issues are that your nation receives.

[Frisbeeteria]

While I like this idea in principle, it's going to require significant mod interpretation when it comes to enforcement. I thought the trend was in the opposite direction.

especially if the category system is abolished in favor of custom coding.

Custom coding would make it significantly easier to deal with multiple concepts in a single proposal. That's a failed argument, I'm afraid.

[Christian Democrats]

especially if the category system is abolished in favor of custom coding.

Custom coding would make it significantly easier to deal with multiple concepts in a single proposal. That's a failed argument, I'm afraid.

I believe you've misunderstood my argument. The category system forms a natural barrier against eclectic proposals. Without that barrier, one legally could write a resolution that deals with every kind of issue under the sun.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Without that barrier, one legally could write a resolution that deals with every kind of issue under the sun.

But you can do that already. For example, you can sneak a gun control clause into a resolution on arms transfers (unless that's illegal, of course).

[Christian Democrats]

Without that barrier, one legally could write a resolution that deals with every kind of issue under the sun.

But you can do that already. For example, you can sneak a gun control clause into a resolution on arms transfers (unless that's illegal, of course).

How about sneaking a fishing quota into a resolution on arms transfers?

[The Dark Star Republic]

My concern is that this would be too dependent on mod discretion.

[Sciongrad]

But you can do that already. For example, you can sneak a gun control clause into a resolution on arms transfers (unless that's illegal, of course).

How about sneaking a fishing quota into a resolution on arms transfers?

Has something like that ever been a real concern? I can't recall any proposal doing something like this even being discussed, let alone getting to vote.

[Christian Democrats]

How about sneaking a fishing quota into a resolution on arms transfers?

Has something like that ever been a real concern? I can't recall any proposal doing something like this even being discussed, let alone getting to vote.

Because it would be removed under the category rule.

[Frisbeeteria]

You're essentially asking the mods to replace the discretionary Category rule with a similar discretionary Subject rule. One of the key reasons for considering category coding is to remove the need for mod judgement.

I also think that proposals should be based around a single subject, but I don't think it should be a rule. I think the voters should decide. Poorly written, incorrectly reasoned, sprawling proposals need to be shut down by the General Assembly, not an arbitrary body like the Secretariat.

---

In place of this rule, I'd like to see activist telegram campaigns against spam Approvers. Either that, or concerted political action (i.e. raids) to relieve them of their offices. Since campaign automation has given every proposal the potential for quorum, perhaps a new form of Approver education can be found.

[Christian Democrats]

You're essentially asking the mods to replace the discretionary Category rule with a similar discretionary Subject rule. One of the key reasons for considering category coding is to remove the need for mod judgement.

There'd be significantly less discretion in single subject challenges. Deciding whether or not a proposal addresses one subject would be much less a judgment call than deciding whether or not a proposal fits a generic category. As I note in the first post, legal researchers have found that subjectivity is reduced to a minimum when single subject rules are enforced in a restrained way (John G. Matsusaka and Richard L. Hasen, "Aggressive Enforcement of the Single Subject Rule," Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, December 2010, 9(4): 399-419).

I also think that proposals should be based around a single subject, but I don't think it should be a rule. I think the voters should decide.

The single subject rule would exist for the sake of the voters: it would prevent authors from sneaking in unrelated riders. More importantly, it would exist for the sake of authors: it would prevent a handful of players from blocking off entire areas of legislation. Also, with a single subject rule in place, the need for the blocker rule would virtually disappear. Pure blockers could be permitted as long as they restrained themselves to single subjects instead of entire categories of legislation.

[Frisbeeteria]

What constitutes "single subject"? GAR #9 covers torture, a single subject ... but it covers it over two entirely separate sets of legal systems, civilian and military. What are the parameters under which we must make our rulings? If somebody posted something about, say, nuclear weapons testing that also impacted environmental issues, would the mods be obligated to delete it? You're looking at this as if all cases are clear-cut. They aren't. They never have been, and they never will be.

The single subject rule would exist for the sake of the voters

Then the voters can decide. Why should a small group of 3-6 players (yes, mods are players too) be the only ones who can decide whether the voters want something? I really get the impression you're more enamored with the idea of this rule than the actual impact of the rule.

(John G. Matsusaka and Richard L. Hasen, "Aggressive Enforcement of the Single Subject Rule," Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, December 2010, 9(4): 399-419)

Case law is irrelevant here. This is a game, not a realistic simulation of international law, and we don't need that level of complication. But since you brought it up, note that case law can also be cited to show abuse of this rule. So how about we stick with actual game impact, please?

[Christian Democrats]

What are the parameters under which we must make our rulings?

Do the provisions of the proposal fit its title? Can a person reasonably say that the proposal deals with one subject? If somebody were submitting this proposal as an issue for the game, would we discard the submission for being too broad?

(John G. Matsusaka and Richard L. Hasen, "Aggressive Enforcement of the Single Subject Rule," Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, December 2010, 9(4): 399-419)

Case law is irrelevant here.

I'm not citing case law. I'm citing an article that finds that the single subject rule is not arbitrary when it is enforced in a restrained way. In other words, the single subject rule is "safe" when people are deferential in enforcing it. The concerns that have been expressed here about the single subject rule have already been allayed by social science.

Let the proposal go to the floor if you're in doubt whether or not it deals with one subject.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm not sure this is the solution to the problem stated. The issue of really broad resolutions removing an entire subject matter of proposals from the game is real, but this rule wouldn't really stop that. For instance, under this rule, it's entirely possible to write a single proposal on protecting biodiversity, as that's a single subject. But that's the kind of overly broad resolution that kills an entire subject area. We could get proposals on protecting migratory sharks, limiting the export-import of invasive species, deforestation, etc. out of that subject area. But instead, "Protecting Biodiversity" would create a committee with a mandate of studying and making recommendations, and pleading with member nations to not take actions that harm biodiversity in general.

I don't think the WA really sees proposals that cover different and multiple subject areas, like the examples you've given.

[Christian Democrats]

I think the current proposal at vote proves why a single subject rule would be desirable, especially in a post-category era. Even under the most liberal interpretation of "single subject," Section 6 has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the text.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think the current proposal at vote proves why a single subject rule would be desirable, especially in a post-category era. Even under the most liberal interpretation of "single subject," Section 6 has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the text.

The most liberal interpretation of 'single subject' would be 'the subject is free trade'. Liberalisation of market information falls under free trade. Hence, it is a single subject. Any single subject rule would be a massive source of subjectivity, especially so if considering that this Consortium was primarily called to address subjectivity in GA moderation.

I'll have to be opposed to anything which would increase subjectivity*. The rules should be laid out like a checklist. If [x], [y], or [z], then violation of rule [alpha]. Something like the legal tests encoded in modern law.

*: No. It isn't due to it being my resolution. I've had short truffles on the matter of clarity already with moderators... and as part of the group of people who are being moderated — I think all rules should be made outstandingly clear beforehand and clarifications issued immediately and without recourse from moderation not to issue a direct ruling within 72 hours. Such a system reminds me of my IRL father's time in the colonial Planning Commission in Hong Kong, where if no reply was given to a permit within a week, it was automatically approved.

[Bears Armed]

[I think all rules should be made outstandingly clear beforehand and clarifications issued immediately and without recourse from moderation not to issue a direct ruling within 72 hours. Such a system reminds me of my IRL father's time in the colonial Planning Commission in Hong Kong, where if no reply was given to a permit within a week, it was automatically approved.

Difference being that that Planning Commission presumably consisted of paid functionaries, with set hours of work, whereas the Mods here are unpaid volunteers who operate as & when they can find the time in which to do so...

[Mousebumples]

[I think all rules should be made outstandingly clear beforehand and clarifications issued immediately and without recourse from moderation not to issue a direct ruling within 72 hours. Such a system reminds me of my IRL father's time in the colonial Planning Commission in Hong Kong, where if no reply was given to a permit within a week, it was automatically approved.

Difference being that that Planning Commission presumably consisted of paid functionaries, with set hours of work, whereas the Mods here are unpaid volunteers who operate as & when they can find the time in which to do so...

Pretty much this. We try to respond as quickly as we're able; however, I'm getting hit by RL stuff this summer that's monopolizing what little free time I have to spend on NS - and, as it is , I've been one of the more "active" GA moderators, at least on the backend. Since I've had limited free time, my NS time has more been spent processing appeals or queries in that regard rather than posting on the GA forums since I figured that was the better place to spend the time I had. (and that doesn't even begin to touch on the non-GA mod duties that we all get tangled up in sometimes)

I can't speak for my colleagues, but if you expect the colonial Planning Commission approach to be taken, I think you're being more than slightly unrealistic with your expectations for a free webgame.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Points taken. However, going back to the idea of a single subject rule — there isn't any kind of bright line which can be drawn on the matter which is applicable to all situations, so I can't support such a proposal.

Mousey & Bears: There's nothing I like more than clarity in law. Bright lines which state what is and is not prohibited.