Should we support Repeal/Replace WA resolutions?

[Sionis Prioratus]

Pray tell, why would that be a problem? Replacement is unworthy, gets voted down. On to the second and so on, until worth is achieved. A simple change in the rules would be democracy in action to the benefit of all players.

Sounds suspiciously like what we already do.

Except for the fact that it isn't. We can't submit a replacement until after a repeal is final. Even you can agree that that's the current status quo, no?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Because voters would know exactly what they're going to get.

Are you serious? No, you can't be serious Supposing you were, can't voters read?!?!? They can't read the various replacements and support the one which is deemed more worthy? Why don't you trust the voters?

Please cease with putting words in peoples mouths. Having multiple choices doesn't let voters know exactly what they're going to get. Let me outline the scenario for a voter:

1. Vote for the repeal, because there is a replacement you like. There are two replacements in queue.
2. Wait a second, what if my preferred replacement doesn't pass?
3. Now I have to decide whether I should risk my preferred replacement failing. Is it better to vote for the repeal and risk a sub-optimal replacement passing instead?
4. Or is it better to vote against the repeal -- even though I would like to see it replaced -- and wait until my preferred replacement is sure to pass?

I don't think you guys are properly addressing how your suggestions will play out. Yeah, it sounds like a simple fix. But it in no way resembles R&R.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Yeah, it sounds like a simple fix. But it in no way resembles R&R.

Yes, it sounds so, because it is. Of course it doesn't resemble R&Rs. A rules change works and R&Rs do not. Rules change erases the democratic deficit, whilst R&Rs are a straitjacket for the voters, tying their options. I don't think we should be afraid of democratic choices.

[Sionis Prioratus]

2. Wait a second, what if my preferred replacement doesn't pass?

A solution for this step should not subvert the democratic process and the voters' will.

[Cromarty]

2. Wait a second, what if my preferred replacement doesn't pass?

A solution for this step should not subvert the democratic process and the voters' will.

How does RandR 'subvert the democratic process and the voters' will'?

[Knootoss]

Only in Glen-Rhodes would being given no choice at all be considered "more democratic" than being given multiple choices. Because of "uncertainty" for the voter.

We just had elections in Russia and whatever else can be said for them, the voters didn't have "uncertainty" over what candidate to vote for or against, because all other credible opposition candidates were pretty much invalidated. That's the model for R&R that we're talking about. "Managed democracy".

It's pretty simple: let delegates decide which replacement should come to vote. There's no reason whatsoever to give the author of a repeal that special perk.

[Sionis Prioratus]

A solution for this step should not subvert the democratic process and the voters' will.

How does RandR 'subvert the democratic process and the voters' will'?

By pointing a gun to their heads and saying that they (voters) must choose one, and only one replacement for each repeal.

[Cromarty]

How does RandR 'subvert the democratic process and the voters' will'?

By point a gun to their heads and saying that they (voters) must choose one, and only one replacement for each repeal.

Hardly. If you dislike the replacement you can vote against the RandR.

[Sionis Prioratus]

By pointing a gun to their heads and saying that they (voters) must choose one, and only one replacement for each repeal.

Hardly. If you dislike the replacement you can vote against the RandR.

As for a "simple" replacement, placed along a "simple" repeal.

We should apply Occam's Razor, it's the most logical thing to do.

[Cromarty]

Hardly. If you dislike the replacement you can vote against the RandR.

As for a "simple" replacement, placed along a "simple" repeal.

We should apply Occam's Razor, it's the most logical thing to do.

I'd disagree that "simple" replacement alongside a "simple" repeal is the simplest/most logical thing to do.

[Krioval]

Actually...I like this suggestion. If there is a single author submitting both the repeal and potential replacement, they can campaign for both simultaneously. Obviously if the repeal fails to make quorum the replacement is removed (without penalty), and if the repeal fails at vote, likewise. If there are two authors, they could coordinate their efforts to get both proposals to qualify for a floor vote. If the repeal succeeds, the replacement goes to vote (if it reaches quorum). It reduces risk for the replacing author(s) since their proposal would be submitted alongside the repeal - preventing someone from putting forth a "replacement" that has a different effect. At the same time, it retains some element of risk in that the repeal could succeed while the replacement fails.

This doesn't do the positive effect of R&Rs which is provide reassurance to voters that the replacement will pass.. so really the only benefit is that it reduces quorum races.. which are really fun. It seems to me this idea antiquates a fun part of politicking with little reason.

I'm seeing some serious cognitive dissonance here. On one hand, you want to support "politicking" but on the other hand you want assurances as to which replacement will be coupled to a repeal. I would rather deal with the uncertainty as to what might replace a repealed resolution, and I think that allowing separate votes on the repeal/replacement, even if coupled, lets the voters decide whether they want the original resolution, the replacement, or neither.

[Unibot II]

Only in Glen-Rhodes would being given no choice at all be considered "more democratic" than being given multiple choices. Because of "uncertainty" for the voter.

We just had elections in Russia and whatever else can be said for them, the voters didn't have "uncertainty" over what candidate to vote for or against, because all other credible opposition candidates were pretty much invalidated. That's the model for R&R that we're talking about. "Managed democracy".

It's pretty simple: let delegates decide which replacement should come to vote. There's no reason whatsoever to give the author of a repeal that special perk.

In Soviet Russia this passed for a well reasoned argument.

R&R is not "managed democracy". If a voter either doesn't like the repeal or the replacement, they don't need to vote for it... then the author can either fix the text of either the repeal or the replacement or drop the replacement and go for a straight repeal -- it gives options. In your system, voters have one less option in many cases because they can't be reassured that the replacement will pass, so they are inclined not to vote for repeals unless they're bullied into it by NatSovers -- this is our current system: brute force and corruption by certain individuals. If that's fun for NatSovers, that's cool; I've been trying to make a case that it would help them out more than they think it would -- you're more than capable of writing a terrible replacement that doesn't do anything on the pretense that it does everything and passing it alongside a repeal that lies and misdirects more than a magic trick. R&R is as much a tool for NatSovers to exploit as it is a tool for Intfeds to use a reassurance package for like-minded voters.

[Unibot II]

This doesn't do the positive effect of R&Rs which is provide reassurance to voters that the replacement will pass.. so really the only benefit is that it reduces quorum races.. which are really fun. It seems to me this idea antiquates a fun part of politicking with little reason.

I'm seeing some serious cognitive dissonance here. On one hand, you want to support "politicking" but on the other hand you want assurances as to which replacement will be coupled to a repeal. I would rather deal with the uncertainty as to what might replace a repealed resolution, and I think that allowing separate votes on the repeal/replacement, even if coupled, lets the voters decide whether they want the original resolution, the replacement, or neither.

I think R&R provides a new mechanism for politicking, but it could be used as a reassurance package -- voters have to be smart and informed though. You could easily exploit the R&R system -- which is the hilarious part, NatSovers are shooting down a system that could allow them to lie and cheat their way into putting essentially blockers on some of the most high-profile resolutions and their reasoning for not supporting this idea is they want to lie and cheat using their old method and have less of a chance of out-right repealing these resolutions.

[Mousebumples]

After some reading of the logs - and realizing that Salusa (at the very least) supports a R&R situation in which the Repeal and Replacement don't have to be related:

Situation: Knoot's Traffic Light resolution exists, and I write Repeal X to get it off the books. I package it with Replacement Y, entitled HIPPOS ARE BIG.

HIPPOS ARE BIG is not meant to replace the traffic light resolution directly - it's only a "new" resolution for voters to VOTE YAY for. I think that such a distinction being allowed makes such a possibility more workable. Heck, I almost/sorta used the R&R category in this way already! A year-ish ago (I think?), I submitted to proposals to the queue at the same time - Repeal "Guns and Mental Capacity" and Missing Individuals Act - mostly because then I could conserve my limited free time and only run one TG campaign to get both to quorum.

Both passed, obviously, consecutively. I could definitely see how I and other NatSov's may be able to use the R&R category (presumably with a new name that implies that correlation between the Repeal and the New Proposal are not required?) without merely Repealing & Blocking everything in sight. (Which, honestly - and I may get my NatSov credentials revoked over this - doesn't appeal to me. I'd rather not have legislation on any number of topics than have to be bothered to write a blocker on a subject.)

Also, as a twist, could it be possible to package 2 non-germane proposals - and NEITHER is a repeal - for this same purpose? And/Or could 2 non-germane repeals be packaged? If the R&R don't have to be on the same topic, why limit this potential coding change to one of each? Why couldn't a proposal author try to carry a proposal with lukewarm support "across the finish line" with a stronger proposal that is likely to pass easily?

And a request: Could someone make a new thread in this forum about the ability to submit replacements for repeals while the repeal is At Vote or something? It's not my idea, so I don't want to start that thread, but I think it's worth discussing ... And I think it could really use its own thread.

In conclusion: HIPPOS ARE REALLY QUITE LARGE
Yes, these are like my favorite UN proposals, even though the first was never voted on and the second failed quite horrifically. They make me grin and want to post proposals in the GA thread about how GIRAFFES ARE TALL or how FLAMINGOS ARE QUITE ADORABLE. I figured we all needed a little silliness to lighten the mood a bit.

[Krioval]

I'm seeing some serious cognitive dissonance here. On one hand, you want to support "politicking" but on the other hand you want assurances as to which replacement will be coupled to a repeal. I would rather deal with the uncertainty as to what might replace a repealed resolution, and I think that allowing separate votes on the repeal/replacement, even if coupled, lets the voters decide whether they want the original resolution, the replacement, or neither.

I think R&R provides a new mechanism for politicking, but it could be used as a reassurance package -- voters have to be smart and informed though. You could easily exploit the R&R system -- which is the hilarious part, NatSovers are shooting down a system that could allow them to lie and cheat their way into putting essentially blockers on some of the most high-profile resolutions and their reasoning for not supporting this idea is they want to lie and cheat using their old method and have less of a chance of out-right repealing these resolutions.

Can we please stop with the whole IntFed vs. NatSov thing? It's utterly irrelevant. That you are highlighting a "hilarious part" of the situation is strange for this reason: people's opposition to the R&R mechanism, as proposed by some, is fueled by the desire to keep repeals and replacements separate. That's all. Of course people can hijack it for other purposes than yours; that's beside the point. I don't want to increase the connection between repeals and replacements, as far too many players seem insistent that a replacement should be drafted before the repeal is properly discussed. I also don't want it to be easy to replace proposals of a given type with another by way of a single proposal because I can think of many different ways in which such a system can be abused - potentially souring newer players on the GA by increasing the steepness of the (political) learning curve.

[Pantocratoria]

Actually...I like this suggestion. If there is a single author submitting both the repeal and potential replacement, they can campaign for both simultaneously. Obviously if the repeal fails to make quorum the replacement is removed (without penalty), and if the repeal fails at vote, likewise. If there are two authors, they could coordinate their efforts to get both proposals to qualify for a floor vote. If the repeal succeeds, the replacement goes to vote (if it reaches quorum). It reduces risk for the replacing author(s) since their proposal would be submitted alongside the repeal - preventing someone from putting forth a "replacement" that has a different effect. At the same time, it retains some element of risk in that the repeal could succeed while the replacement fails.

This doesn't do the positive effect of R&Rs which is provide reassurance to voters that the replacement will pass.. so really the only benefit is that it reduces quorum races.. which are really fun. It seems to me this idea antiquates a fun part of politicking with little reason.

I am not a NatSov or an IntFeder. I kind of think you're both stupid actually but I digress.

Your post which I've quoted here betrays that the true appeal of this R&R mechanism to you is that you perceive an advantage to you in it, because it makes it harder to repeal resolutions.

I can see how an R&R mechanism with separate votes for the repeal and replacements would add some interest to the game without drastically upsetting the existing balance and nature of WA debate, and without significantly reducing the likelihood of a successful repeal. It would increase the likelihood of a replacement accompanying that repeal, I grant, but at least it wouldn't reduce the likelihood of a repeal. I still don't think I would want even that mechanism, but it would certainly be a lot better than the "single vote" mechanism which you only support because it makes it harder to repeal resolutions.

[Bears Armed]

Although, too often the replacements do materialize, and they turn out to be vastly inferior to the original resolution. Last year we had to repeal/replace the missing-children resolution three times due to clumsy replacement writing, and the conscientious-objectors bill I think three as well.

And before that the 'Fair Trial' concept went through two repeals & two replacements as well...

[Ardchoille]

I am not a NatSov or an IntFeder. I kind of think you're both stupid actually but I digress.

i am hoping you meant that to be "they're both stupid" -- a reference to generic political positions, rather than to the intellectual capacities of the two players to whom you were replying. Remember (a) that this discussion is taking place outside the cosy halls of the WA, and is therefore OOC, and (b) it is a discussion; there is no need for emotionally laden terms.

And a request: Could someone make a new thread in this forum about the ability to submit replacements for repeals while the repeal is At Vote or something?

Coinkydink.

[Opaloka]

An excellent idea, which would allow the GA to behave in a responsible fashion.

Those who are just in the game of moving repeals to create chaos would be exposed & legislation could evolve in a considered fashion.

[Retired WerePenguins]

By pointing a gun to their heads and saying that they (voters) must choose one, and only one replacement for each repeal.

That's not quite true. One can only consider one resolution at a time. So under the current system.

Repeal passes. It is possible for a replacement.
First replace fails (hopefully you voted against it)
Second replace fails (hopefully you voted against it)
Third replace succeeds.
All other replaces are moot until another repeal passes.

Under the proposed system
First R&R fails (hopefully you voted against it)
Second R&R fails (again hopefully you voted against it - it's annoying to be on the loosing side)
Third R&R succeeds.
Fourth R&R (YES and a fifth and a sixth, indeed all manner of R&R can be in the queue. The passage of a R&R won't clear the queue as is the case with current repeals.)

This is either maddingly annoying or massively wonderful depending on your point of view at the moment.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

By pointing a gun to their heads and saying that they (voters) must choose one, and only one replacement for each repeal.

That's not quite true. One can only consider one resolution at a time. So under the current system.

Repeal passes. It is possible for a replacement.
First replace fails (hopefully you voted against it)
Second replace fails (hopefully you voted against it)
Third replace succeeds.
All other replaces are moot until another repeal passes.

Under the proposed system
First R&R fails (hopefully you voted against it)
Second R&R fails (again hopefully you voted against it - it's annoying to be on the loosing side)
Third R&R succeeds.
Fourth R&R (YES and a fifth and a sixth, indeed all manner of R&R can be in the queue. The passage of a R&R won't clear the queue as is the case with current repeals.)

This is either maddingly annoying or massively wonderful depending on your point of view at the moment.

Pardon me?

Any R&R still in queue when an R&R passes clearly becomes invalid, as it's trying to repeal a resolution that's already been repealed. New R&Rs would have to be drafted if someone wanted to make further revisions.

[Quelesh]

I saw a few pages ago the idea of requiring a larger majority to pass R&Rs, or requiring more delegate approvals. I haven't read the past few pages thoroughly though, so I'm not sure if that issue has been resolved. If so, I'm sorry for bringing it up again.

I don't think, though, that if the R&R idea is implemented a supermajority should be required. R&Rs would actually be more difficult to pass than repeals alone and replacements alone, even without the supermajority requirement. Pretty much the only people who would vote for an R&R are people who would have voted for both the repeal and the replacement separately. Many people would have supported the repeal, but would have voted against the replacement, had they been separate (because those people either want there to be no replacement or they want there to be a replacement, but just don't like this particular replacement). These people would vote against the R&R, because they don't like the replacement. Many people also would have voted against the repeal, because they like the original resolution as is, but, once the repeal passed, would have voted for the replacement, because the replacement is better than nothing. These people would also vote against the R&R, because they don't think the original should be repealed in the first place.

Since R&Rs would already be more difficult to pass than separate repeal and replace resolutions (well, not counting the time expenditure of TG campaigns, etc.), I don't think there would be a need to artificially increase the difficulty further.

[Knootoss]

Quelesh: The point of the argument that you just made, though, is that the introduction of R&R makes it less likely that a resolution will be repealed OR replaced. Don't you think that is a pretty good reason to oppose the idea? Because that is one of the things a lot of us fear, aside from the undemocratic, disfranchising aspect of it.

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

Quelesh: The point of the argument that you just made, though, is that the introduction of R&R makes it less likely that a resolution will be repealed OR replaced. Don't you think that is a pretty good reason to oppose the idea? Because that is one of the things a lot of us fear, aside from the undemocratic, disfranchising aspect of it.

By simple voting theory your statement about it being undemocratic and disenfranchising is false.

When voting on a replacement, voters can directly compare the two resolutions. When voting on a straight-up repeal, voters can directly judge whether they'd prefer no resolution on the books at all. That is the basic truth: R&R is more democratic, not less.

I seriously doubt your first statement, that R&R would make repeal or replacement less likely. Currently there is a chilling effect against trying to replace a resolution: trying risks destroying the resolution entirely and irreparably. This would remove that. And it would remove the reticence in a manner much better than alternatives because any WA member could at any time suggest improvement of any WA resolution.

[Snefaldia]

I seriously doubt your first statement, that R&R would make repeal or replacement less likely. Currently there is a chilling effect against trying to replace a resolution: trying risks destroying the resolution entirely and irreparably. This would remove that. And it would remove the reticence in a manner much better than alternatives because any WA member could at any time suggest improvement of any WA resolution.

I don't understand this, least of all because it's not true. I seriously doubt this chilling effect exists at all, and certainly not because "trying risks destroying the resolution entirely and irreparably" which is a completely nonsense statement. The political point of repeals are either to eliminate legislation or replace it; you seem to be suggesting that repeals somehow transmute into better material.

Your last statement seems to be about amendments, not R&R. It's not being proposed to allow amendments, which is something completely different.