Legality Challenges and the World Assembly

[Belleroph]

Recently I've noticed a swath of challenges against at-vote proposals on the General Assembly. To be quite frank, I find such challenges absurd, asinine and counterproductive to actually providing a good World Assembly experience for the game as a whole.

The biggest problem with these challenges is that they actively discourage activity and engagement with the WA as a whole. Why should any new player bother spending so much time in the drafting process only to see their proposal thrown out at the last second while it's at vote, after the GenSec has ruled it as legal no less. Why should regions or players care about voting on proposals when those proposals that are allegedly legal are doomed to be challenged and the time and effort wasted? Why should anyone engage with a system that builds up one's expectations only to crush them with a rules violation that should have been litigated during the drafting period? The purpose of the drafting period is for issues to be litigated and for problems to be worked out. If a proposal passes legality checks from the GenSec, and makes it to vote, it should be immutable, the world had it's chance to challenge legality during the drafting phase, and if it failed to do so then, then perhaps they should have paid more attention. And just as a sidenote, it is one thing to have your proposal go to vote and for it to rejected by the world, that's just how the WA works, but it's another thing entirely for the process to be gatekept at the very last second by a rules violation, that allegedly, was not seen by the GenSec, the people who's job it is to litigate such rules violations.

Specifically, what I'd like to see changed is the following, amend the rules of the GenSec to add something along the lines of this in the area that defines Player-initiated challenges.

"Player-initiated challenges may only be instigated during the drafting period of any piece of WA legislation. Once at-vote, and ruled legal by the GenSec, challenges are no longer allowed."

[Tinhampton]

Hiya. I did the challenge on Civilian Air Compact that presumably prompted this.

IMO, either the current rules should remain or the Discard feature should be physically deleted from the website by [violet] herself. Discards were introduced in 2013 to, as far as I know, deal with annoying Z-Day proposals (certainly it was first used on The Dourian Embassy's "Condemn Horrible Zombies"). They have two effects nowadays: to hide egregiously illegal proposals from the proposal queue in the approval stage, and to prevent the passage of proposals with any rule violation while they're at vote.
All Discarded proposals at the approval stage are by definition illegal, so it's not strictly necessary to be able to Discard them. But now the GA community has largely developed a culture of hostility towards challenging, and consequently Discarding, illegal proposals at-vote. Combining that with the fact that Discards hardly ever happen in the SC... why keep them?

[Pasybfic]

Hiya. I did the challenge on Civilian Air Compact that presumably prompted this.

IMO, either the current rules should remain or the Discard feature should be physically deleted from the website by [violet] herself. Discards were introduced in 2013 to, as far as I know, deal with annoying Z-Day proposals (certainly it was first used on The Dourian Embassy's "Condemn Horrible Zombies"). They have two effects nowadays: to hide egregiously illegal proposals from the proposal queue in the approval stage, and to prevent the passage of proposals with any rule violation while they're at vote.

The second should honestly not happen in a system with the GenSec. If they already have to push the button to approve, calling them back to un-approve it just means they didn't do their job effectively the first time, and I believe that this second solution is solvable with a repeal, as was traditionally the case and has for years been the solution within the Security Council. (Don't get me started on my soapbox that if the GA wants to insist they're different from the SC, then we should allow nations to opt in to membership to one or both bodies.)

Either the GenSec is competent enough to do their vetting ahead of time, and thus the discard system doesn't need to be abused by users in the method it's recently been, or they're unable to do their jobs effectively and one half of the World Assembly is run by people who shouldn't be trusted to handle the button. I'm leaning towards the first, that the challenge system is often abused as a hail-mary attempt to unilaterally kill proposals, not as a genuine tool to pull horrendously poor-quality or trolling proposals from vote. I've worked with members of the second group in the past, and I think their competence isn't in question, but the culture involved in the GA as it stands creates a system where only those in the know can truly write a proposal that fits what they're looking for. This, ultimately, will be harmful and I think authorship numbers over the last several years shows this.

[Bisofeyr]

Hiya. I did the challenge on Civilian Air Compact that presumably prompted this.

IMO, either the current rules should remain or the Discard feature should be physically deleted from the website by [violet] herself. Discards were introduced in 2013 to, as far as I know, deal with annoying Z-Day proposals (certainly it was first used on The Dourian Embassy's "Condemn Horrible Zombies"). They have two effects nowadays: to hide egregiously illegal proposals from the proposal queue in the approval stage, and to prevent the passage of proposals with any rule violation while they're at vote.

The second should honestly not happen in a system with the GenSec. If they already have to push the button to approve, calling them back to un-approve it just means they didn't do their job effectively the first time, and I believe that this second solution is solvable with a repeal, as was traditionally the case and has for years been the solution within the Security Council. (Don't get me started on my soapbox that if the GA wants to insist they're different from the SC, then we should allow nations to opt in to membership to one or both bodies.)

Either the GenSec is competent enough to do their vetting ahead of time, and thus the discard system doesn't need to be abused by users in the method it's recently been, or they're unable to do their jobs effectively and one half of the World Assembly is run by people who shouldn't be trusted to handle the button. I'm leaning towards the first, that the challenge system is often abused as a hail-mary attempt to unilaterally kill proposals, not as a genuine tool to pull horrendously poor-quality or trolling proposals from vote. I've worked with members of the second group in the past, and I think their competence isn't in question, but the culture involved in the GA as it stands creates a system where only those in the know can truly write a proposal that fits what they're looking for. This, ultimately, will be harmful and I think authorship numbers over the last several years shows this.

This is very optimistic and based on a mostly recent trend of having a sizable queue. If we don’t have a queue and an illegal proposal gets submitted, gaining a lot of approvals quickly (as we see happen often in the SC, though it is usually not illegal due to the simplicity of the SC’s rules), there is a very real chance GenSec misses its ability to rule on it altogether. If we want to maintain the ruleset, at-vote discards are pretty damn important.

Now, whether there is a cultural (or GenSec) issue that causes these late challenges in the current system is a separate issue. I personally think the ruleset should just be simplified, but I don’t see any technical changes being preferable here.

On phone, sorry for formatting/grammatical issues.

[End666]

This is very optimistic and based on a mostly recent trend of having a sizable queue. If we don’t have a queue and an illegal proposal gets submitted, gaining a lot of approvals quickly (as we see happen often in the SC, though it is usually not illegal due to the simplicity of the SC’s rules), there is a very real chance GenSec misses its ability to rule on it altogether. If we want to maintain the ruleset, at-vote discards are pretty damn important.

Now, whether there is a cultural (or GenSec) issue that causes these late challenges in the current system is a separate issue. I personally think the ruleset should just be simplified, but I don’t see any technical changes being preferable here.

On phone, sorry for formatting/grammatical issues.

That is quite the extreme case. Everything you mentioned above is preventable by GenSec and fixable by repeal proposals if necessary even in the most extreme case. The at-vote challenges and discards are doing more harm than good to GA with how it is being used currently.

[Bisofeyr]

This is very optimistic and based on a mostly recent trend of having a sizable queue. If we don’t have a queue and an illegal proposal gets submitted, gaining a lot of approvals quickly (as we see happen often in the SC, though it is usually not illegal due to the simplicity of the SC’s rules), there is a very real chance GenSec misses its ability to rule on it altogether. If we want to maintain the ruleset, at-vote discards are pretty damn important.

Now, whether there is a cultural (or GenSec) issue that causes these late challenges in the current system is a separate issue. I personally think the ruleset should just be simplified, but I don’t see any technical changes being preferable here.

On phone, sorry for formatting/grammatical issues.

That is quite the extreme case. Everything you mentioned above is preventable by GenSec and fixable by repeal proposals if necessary even in the most extreme case. The at-vote challenges and discards are doing more harm than good to GA with how it is being used currently.

Again, sounds like a cultural complaint, not a technical one. I don’t really see a brief trend as indicative of a need for a mechanical change. I agree that challenging at-vote proposals is not desirable, but shit happens and GenSec has mechanisms to ignore frivolous challenges. If people are abusing the system, I imagine GenSec will utilize those mechanisms.

[Pasybfic]

That is quite the extreme case. Everything you mentioned above is preventable by GenSec and fixable by repeal proposals if necessary even in the most extreme case. The at-vote challenges and discards are doing more harm than good to GA with how it is being used currently.

Again, sounds like a cultural complaint, not a technical one. I don’t really see a brief trend as indicative of a need for a mechanical change. I agree that challenging at-vote proposals is not desirable, but shit happens and GenSec has mechanisms to ignore frivolous challenges. If people are abusing the system, I imagine GenSec will utilize those mechanisms.

I am of the honest belief that at-vote challenges for minor definition quibbles either forces a need for a mechanical change, or that the site staff involved need to step up and stamp down what should in all actuality be grounds for repeal discussion. What's actually happening now is that single GA players can hail-mary kill any resolution that would otherwise pass for minor definition debates. These claimed issues that are apparently worth bypassing the approval, legality check, and voting process could have been solved by community involvement, and can still be solved with repeal afterwards. I am old enough to remember the days before the GenSec, and do remember the era where repeal drafting with arguments about definitions and enforceability would start before the ink was dry.

I'd be fine with that discussion in a more appropriate venue, but I believe the technical aspect of "Either kill at-vote challenges or give that power only to moderation" does have a source for valid discussion here.

EDIT: sorry about the delete and repost. Wanted to put this all on the same nation lol

[Bisofeyr]

Again, sounds like a cultural complaint, not a technical one. I don’t really see a brief trend as indicative of a need for a mechanical change. I agree that challenging at-vote proposals is not desirable, but shit happens and GenSec has mechanisms to ignore frivolous challenges. If people are abusing the system, I imagine GenSec will utilize those mechanisms.

I am of the honest belief that at-vote challenges for minor definition quibbles either forces a need for a mechanical change, or that the site staff involved need to step up and stamp down what should in all actuality be grounds for repeal discussion. What's actually happening now is that single GA players can hail-mary kill any resolution that would otherwise pass for minor definition debates. These claimed issues that are apparently worth bypassing the approval, legality check, and voting process could have been solved by community involvement, and can still be solved with repeal afterwards. I am old enough to remember the days before the GenSec, and do remember the era where repeal drafting with arguments about definitions and enforceability would start before the ink was dry.

I'd be fine with that discussion in a more appropriate venue, but I believe the technical aspect of "Either kill at-vote challenges or give that power only to moderation" does have a source for valid discussion here.

EDIT: sorry about the delete and repost. Wanted to put this all on the same nation lol

I mean, I’m pretty sure you’re overstating the power that at-vote challenges give; I cannot imagine GenSec enjoys them and the one that (presumably) prompted this was shot down, as was the last one (which I’ll admit I submitted). There definitely should be greater feedback on individual proposals, but it seems to me like enforcing a technical change that removes the ability for GenSec to declare illegal proposals illegal would lead to bigger issues. If you disagree, that’s fine, but I think this is largely in response to a momentary trend of at-vote challenges that will almost certainly not continue.

[Elyreia]

I am of the honest belief that at-vote challenges for minor definition quibbles either forces a need for a mechanical change, or that the site staff involved need to step up and stamp down what should in all actuality be grounds for repeal discussion. What's actually happening now is that single GA players can hail-mary kill any resolution that would otherwise pass for minor definition debates. These claimed issues that are apparently worth bypassing the approval, legality check, and voting process could have been solved by community involvement, and can still be solved with repeal afterwards. I am old enough to remember the days before the GenSec, and do remember the era where repeal drafting with arguments about definitions and enforceability would start before the ink was dry.

I'd be fine with that discussion in a more appropriate venue, but I believe the technical aspect of "Either kill at-vote challenges or give that power only to moderation" does have a source for valid discussion here.

EDIT: sorry about the delete and repost. Wanted to put this all on the same nation lol

I mean, I’m pretty sure you’re overstating the power that at-vote challenges give; I cannot imagine GenSec enjoys them and the one that (presumably) prompted this was shot down, as was the last one (which I’ll admit I submitted). There definitely should be greater feedback on individual proposals, but it seems to me like enforcing a technical change that removes the ability for GenSec to declare illegal proposals illegal would lead to bigger issues. If you disagree, that’s fine, but I think this is largely in response to a momentary trend of at-vote challenges that will almost certainly not continue.

There have been at least 4 at-vote challenges the past month, and one challenge that met quorum, most of which resulted in removals. The latest challenge is one of two that I remember this summer surviving a challenge while in queue or at-vote.

Edit: I went looking. 7 challenges in September alone. I'm personally more concerned with the fact that apparently the drafting phase has become little more than a formality. I've heard many of the passing legislations are getting by with Discord being the primary method of critique and review, and that the forum has become little more than a stepping stone requirement. Some of the recent legislations challenged and discarded while at-vote were up for review for months, so it can't simply be a time constraint.

There is obviously a failure in the process now for this many to reach quorum, queue, and vote, and then passing vote just to be thrown away by GenSec at the eleventh hour.

[Imperium Anglorum]

What's actually happening now is that single GA players can hail-mary kill any resolution that would otherwise pass for minor definition debates. These claimed issues that are apparently worth bypassing the approval, legality check, and voting process could have been solved by community involvement, and can still be solved with repeal afterwards. I am old enough to remember the days before the GenSec, and do remember the era where repeal drafting with arguments about definitions and enforceability would start before the ink was dry.

I too am old enough to remember the GA before GenSec.

I also remember multiple challenges at vote to my proposals that were entirely secret. Literally Star Chamber shit where you couldn't even see the arguments for illegality. All you got was a notice from the moderators or the GHR filer that something had been filed. Just from my legislative activity at the time:

Repeal "Responsible Arms Trading" (GHR'd in queue) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=340747&p=24527668#p24527668
Repeal "Nuclear Security Convention" (GHR'd) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=331878&p=26730908&hilit=ghr#p26730908
Nuclear Material Safeguards (two separate GHRs?)
→ viewtopic.php?f=10&t=329797&p=23407189&hilit=ghr#p23407189 ("for when this hits the floor")
→ viewtopic.php?f=10&t=329797&p=26769709&hilit=ghr#p26769709 (this one was timely)
Ban on Booby-Trapped Aid (GHR'd and discarded) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=363074&p=27013313#p27013313
Reducing Statelessness (possibly two GHRs?)
→ viewtopic.php?f=10&t=361027&p=27642460&hilit=ghr#p27642460
→ viewtopic.php?f=10&t=361027&p=30183270&hilit=ghr#p30183270
Repeal "Stopping Suicide Seeds" (GHR'd on time with no notice until CD fessed up to it at vote) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=371910&p=28433527#p28433527

I'm sure that if you checked more than one author's legislative activity you'd find even more at vote or in queue GHRs. I certainly remember commenting on them. It got to the point that, as now, questions were raised as to whether at vote resolution discard had become too common.

Let's not do some revisionism and say that the moderator days were better. Authors have been Hail Marying against at vote resolutions they dislike for years; legality quibbles have always been a final veto point on the GA legislative process. Back in "the day" they were invisible, with challengers not even suffering a reputational hit because they could submit anonymously without even the challenge text exposed. Even when they fessed up to it, people openly plotted about writing GHRs to submit at vote.

We should have more instarepeals again; but having them wasn't caused by a lack of last-minute challenges.

I mean, I’m pretty sure you’re overstating the power that at-vote challenges give; I cannot imagine GenSec enjoys them and the one that (presumably) prompted this was shot down, as was the last one (which I’ll admit I submitted). There definitely should be greater feedback on individual proposals, but it seems to me like enforcing a technical change that removes the ability for GenSec to declare illegal proposals illegal would lead to bigger issues.

GenSec does not have the technical ability – I emphasise that because we are in the technical forum – to discard resolutions on its own initiative. The behind-the-scenes process for discard requires GenSec to inform a game moderator who then ministerially "pushes the button" (pun intended). There is no technical change that would make GenSec unable to discard at vote resolutions because GenSec in squo cannot discard at vote resolutions. I know this especially well because the repeal of my resolution Preventing the Execution of Innocents was supposed to be discarded. But, due to a miscommunication, the button was never pressed and the repeal therefore passed. If we wanted really to change this it would be something that, if we accept the status quo where GenSec discard decisions communicated to moderators are conclusive, would require changing GenSec procedure.

[Belleroph]

GenSec does not have the technical ability – I emphasise that because we are in the technical forum – to discard resolutions on its own initiative. The behind-the-scenes process for discard requires GenSec to inform a game moderator who then ministerially "pushes the button" (pun intended). There is no technical change that would make GenSec unable to discard at vote resolutions because GenSec in squo cannot discard at vote resolutions. I know this especially well because the repeal of my resolution Preventing the Execution of Innocents was supposed to be discarded. But, due to a miscommunication, the button was never pressed and the repeal therefore passed. If we wanted really to change this it would be something that, if we accept the status quo where GenSec discard decisions communicated to moderators are conclusive, would require changing GenSec procedure.

And to bring this all around again, it's not my desire to ask the moderation specifically to change anything. My intention here is to petition the GenSec to consider changing their own rules as to not allow at vote legality challenges. Some may argue that Technical is not the right place for this discussion, as it is not necessarily strictly a moderator action but, I think that matters not, as I feel the discussion still needs to be had and that doesn't negate any of the points I've made previously.

I will reiterate once more as well, I think the legality challenges of at vote legislation only serve to make the General Assembly a less engaging and less fun experience, the purpose of this game is to have fun after all, and having engaging gameplay elements that people can get excited about is paramount to this end.

Just on a small sidenote as well, I personally do not agree with what Tinhampton said earlier about removing the discard feature altogether. I am not particularly as fussed about something being discarded while in queue, as it is not the same as having something at vote, which has been checked for legality before, suddenly experience a moment of "Double Jeopardy", as it must be thrown to the body who had already ruled it legal before for a retrial.

[First Nightmare]

And to bring this all around again, it's not my desire to ask the moderation specifically to change anything. My intention here is to petition the GenSec to consider changing their own rules as to not allow at vote legality challenges. Some may argue that Technical is not the right place for this discussion, as it is not necessarily strictly a moderator action but, I think that matters not, as I feel the discussion still needs to be had and that doesn't negate any of the points I've made previously.

Well, in this case, if you want to say "okay, there was enough time to find the problem now stop discarding because that's harmful for engagement" then, even if GenSec would make a rule like that it should only apply to proposals that were in queue long enough. Not for proposals that had no time to be checked upon(e.g. submitted, 2 hours later in queue, 3 hours later at vote...)
Something like: Proposals can only be challenged when
1.the proposal is neither at vote nor top of the queue, AND/OR
2.the proposal was submitted at most 74 hours before the challenge was filed.

This assures that the WA has a minimum of discarded proposals, but does allow time for challenges of submitted proposals.
I left out draft because that would just open a can of worms.

[The Ice States]

I do agree that (1) late legality challenges are harmful to the game; and (2) this is not a Technical issue. I think the root issue causing this is a lack of engagement on the GA forum, in favour of Discord; this leads to proposals not being evaluated seriously when they are not from a narrow group of authors. Monopolisation is primarily a result of this trend, and not legality challenges themselves; though the latter may still exacerbate the issue.

(Don't get me started on my soapbox that if the GA wants to insist they're different from the SC, then we should allow nations to opt in to membership to one or both bodies.)

For whatever it's worth, I would support such a change. A Delegate's weight in each chamber could be determined by how many GA, SC or both members are endorsing it.

[Unibot III]

I’m old enough to remember prior to the Discard function — it worked well without discards. There was an understanding that resolutions were legal in a pro forma sense if they went to vote. As such, going to vote carried no precedent necessarily, the legal-but-not-legal resolution might simply exist as a grandfather policy after their passage.

This was a fairly elegant approach in my opinion and I’m not sure why we really abandoned it for the constant cycle of discards. I don’t think players were clamouring for a Discard function.

That having been said. I agree with The Ice States that this problem is more of a cultural problem than a technical one. Drafting on the forum plays a crucial role in vetting a resolution throughly. I’d add that I think the ruleset may need to be stripped down to be more easily enforceable - rulings have grown increasingly complex which in turn makes the whole jurisprudence more complex.

[First Nightmare]

There was an understanding that resolutions were legal in a pro forma sense if they went to vote

Still, there's good reason to not allow people to flagrantly break the rules and get away with it because the queue was empty and they could get that proposal in within hours without proper time for it to be evaluated. Discard is good for these type of proposals.
That's why I proposed to allow discard if the proposal was submitted less than 74 hours before the challenge was made. Yes, discarding is bad. But so is not even letting people properly evaluate if a proposal is actually legal.

[Bears Armed]

I’m old enough to remember prior to the Discard function — it worked well without discards.

And I remember the historical resolution 'Max Barry Day', which wasn't drafted here. It was submitted while the queue was empty, and pushed to quorum before the next update... and reached voting before any of the Mods noticed it. At that stage, apparently, even the Mods couldn't discard an at-vote proposal, so a blatantly illegal resolution passed. Admittedly it was repealed quite soon afterwards, but...

[Refuge Isle]

I share the position of Bears Armed. The ability to discard resolutions at vote is important for enforcing the rules when player actions may attempt to circumvent them. While it can be annoying for resolutions to be discarded after they reach the voting stage, the rules are there for a reason and we have no interest in incentivising players trying to treat them as optional if they get a proposal in quick enough.

While rules should be simple and easy for the average player to navigate, I don't feel that legality challenges are necessarily harmful in and of themselves. They are functionally a platform to formally discuss potentially hidden meanings in occasionally complex writing.

[Unibot III]

I’m old enough to remember prior to the Discard function — it worked well without discards.

And I remember the historical resolution 'Max Barry Day', which wasn't drafted here. It was submitted while the queue was empty, and pushed to quorum before the next update... and reached voting before any of the Mods noticed it. At that stage, apparently, even the Mods couldn't discard an at-vote proposal, so a blatantly illegal resolution passed. Admittedly it was repealed quite soon afterwards, but...

I’m well aware of the resolution, but I don’t think the ‘harm’ in its passage outweighs the problematic tendency for Discards to be overused and become disruptive.

First, slip ups like Max Barry Day were fairly rare. Far rarer than the use of Discard function today.

Second, events like Max Barry Day were harmless things, quickly resolved, and they give something for people to joke about. Frequent discards are far more disruptive in nature (and also less funny).

[First Nightmare]

I share the position of Bears Armed. The ability to discard resolutions at vote is important for enforcing the rules when player actions may attempt to circumvent them. While it can be annoying for resolutions to be discarded after they reach the voting stage, the rules are there for a reason and we have no interest in incentivising players trying to treat them as optional if they get a proposal in quick enough.

Which is why I proposed that challenges could be made for an at vote proposal up to 74 hours after it was submitted(and discards resulting from challenges could, of course, be made at any time). This would minimize voter frustration for proposals that had enough time to be scrutinized, and shut the door on circumventing challenges via instant at vote status. If voters get repeated discards that's not good either.

[Haganham]

I share the position of Bears Armed. The ability to discard resolutions at vote is important for enforcing the rules when player actions may attempt to circumvent them. While it can be annoying for resolutions to be discarded after they reach the voting stage, the rules are there for a reason and we have no interest in incentivising players trying to treat them as optional if they get a proposal in quick enough.

While rules should be simple and easy for the average player to navigate, I don't feel that legality challenges are necessarily harmful in and of themselves. They are functionally a platform to formally discuss potentially hidden meanings in occasionally complex writing.

Given how overwhelming recommended it is anyway, we might want to consider making drafting periods required. This bypasses the issue of people gaming the system by trying to rush proposals to vote before illegalities get flagged.
The new forums are supposed to have some linking of drafting thread and proposal status anyway, so it could be practical to have it enforced mechanically throw an error if the thread's age is shorter then the mandated drafting period.

In principle I do agree that if an objection could have been raised during drafting then it should have been, and that so long as authors give people a reasonable period to review the draft then they should not be subject to last minute discards just because someone chose to wait. It is toxic AF and GA legislation is difficult enough without that kind of BS.

That said I have not participated in the WA for years, so my views on it may not be as relevant.

[Army of Revolutions]

I share the position of Bears Armed. The ability to discard resolutions at vote is important for enforcing the rules when player actions may attempt to circumvent them. While it can be annoying for resolutions to be discarded after they reach the voting stage, the rules are there for a reason and we have no interest in incentivising players trying to treat them as optional if they get a proposal in quick enough.

While rules should be simple and easy for the average player to navigate, I don't feel that legality challenges are necessarily harmful in and of themselves. They are functionally a platform to formally discuss potentially hidden meanings in occasionally complex writing.

Given how overwhelming recommended it is anyway, we might want to consider making drafting periods required. This bypasses the issue of people gaming the system by trying to rush proposals to vote before illegalities get flagged.
The new forums are supposed to have some linking of drafting thread and proposal status anyway, so it could be practical to have it enforced mechanically throw an error if the thread's age is shorter then the mandated drafting period.

In principle I do agree that if an objection could have been raised during drafting then it should have been, and that so long as authors give people a reasonable period to review the draft then they should not be subject to last minute discards just because someone chose to wait. It is toxic AF and GA legislation is difficult enough without that kind of BS.

That said I have not participated in the WA for years, so my views on it may not be as relevant.

I actually agree with this, we should have a minimum 2 week drafting period for all WA legislation, thanks for the idea Haganham!

[Midlona]

the challenge system is often abused as a hail-mary attempt to unilaterally kill proposals, not as a genuine tool to pull horrendously poor-quality or trolling proposals from vote.

I agree with this. From what I've seen, at-vote discards have flimsy pretextual justifications, and are a manifestation of certain nations' desire to control the legislative process. The WA has a long way to go to become a democratic institution; limiting GenSec wand-waving as much as possible is a great first step.

[Tinhampton]

the challenge system is often abused as a hail-mary attempt to unilaterally kill proposals, not as a genuine tool to pull horrendously poor-quality or trolling proposals from vote.

I agree with this. From what I've seen, at-vote discards have flimsy pretextual justifications, and are a manifestation of certain nations' desire to control the legislative process. The WA has a long way to go to become a democratic institution; limiting GenSec wand-waving as much as possible is a great first step.

Can you provide examples of this effect?

[First Nightmare]

the challenge system is often abused as a hail-mary attempt to unilaterally kill proposals, not as a genuine tool to pull horrendously poor-quality or trolling proposals from vote.

I agree with this. From what I've seen, at-vote discards have flimsy pretextual justifications, and are a manifestation of certain nations' desire to control the legislative process. The WA has a long way to go to become a democratic institution; limiting GenSec wand-waving as much as possible is a great first step.

This is a rather drastic accusation. One that should be accompanied by solid evidence.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The only way that challengers will realise that they need to bring things up sooner rather than at vote is if they see that they can't throw toxic Hail Mary passes. People have a vision that the GA resolutions should all be pure or something; I don't really see the supposed harm that one or two illegal proposals passing would bring. Max Barry Day isn't really a strong negative example since that episode resolved itself quickly and created good repeal activity.

The toxicity of Hail Mary challenges needs to be reined in and there's been an undercurrent seeking to do this for years, going all the way back to the introduction of discards in the moderator days. (Bananaistan and I, for example, both supported reining in discards in 2015–16.) I pushed for and GenSec recently made procedural changes which hopefully will start to move in that direction. Details can be found on the GA forum.

There is a separate issue relating to drafting that Haganham brought up. I can't say I'm a huge fan of the idea of a required drafting period or something on the forum. There can be political reasons not to draft publicly since it's essentially giving your future moves away; if you are a competent player who can write a legal proposal without drafting so to capitalise on a break in the queue, that sounds like something we shouldn't penalise mechanically. Moreover, the main reason people drafted forum-side was to solicit feedback; this process is somewhat atrophied as of late. I don't know whether a requirement to draft forum-side would revitalise that but I am not hopeful on it.