Should we support Repeal/Replace WA resolutions?

[SalusaSecondus]

I am considering creating a new type of WA Resolution (General Assembly) which will permit a Repeal resolution to be joined with a New resolution. They would go up as a single proposal, reach quorum, and pass (or fail) as a single proposal. The effects would be identical to them passing independently.

Further notes:

• The proposal would consist of two different sections. One for the repeal, and one for the new resolution.
• The text in the repeal section would be bound by the existing standards and rules for repeal proposals.
• The text (category, effect, etc.) of the new section would be bound by the existing standards and rules for new proposals.
• The two sections do not need to be related in any way (including category or strength)
• This would not impact the existing ability to simply repeal a resolution.

I think permits a few new (interesting) use-cases:

• When the WA does not want there to be a time between a resolution being repealed and it being replaced (or risk it not being replaced).
• When there are two groups (one desiring to repeal a resolution and one desiring to pass a resolution) who cannot muster sufficient votes by themselves to pass either resolution independently.

Now, I'm not promising anything (or even that it will be possible). I am very interested in the Pros & Cons though and seeing what the players who use the WA more commonly than I think of this.

---

Some past discussions:

• Revisiting WA Amendments
• Streamlining Repeal-and-Replace: A New WA Category

[Fischistan]

Like the idea, but I don't think that many people would use it because it's much more favorable to write two separate resolutions, as you get bragging rights to say that you wrote two resolutions.

[Auralia]

Like the idea, but I don't think that many people would use it because it's much more favorable to write two separate resolutions, as you get bragging rights to say that you wrote two resolutions.

I think the two would be treated as separate resolutions for the purposes of numbering.

[Fischistan]

Like the idea, but I don't think that many people would use it because it's much more favorable to write two separate resolutions, as you get bragging rights to say that you wrote two resolutions.

I think the two would be treated as separate resolutions for the purposes of numbering.

Two resolution credits for one vote period seems odd to me.

[SalusaSecondus]

Like the idea, but I don't think that many people would use it because it's much more favorable to write two separate resolutions, as you get bragging rights to say that you wrote two resolutions.

I think the two would be treated as separate resolutions for the purposes of numbering.

That wasn't my intent. It might be doable though.

[Sedgistan]

Re-posting from the previous thread:

I don't think it'd be a good idea. Part of the appeal of the current system is that you get people supporting repeals for loads of different reasons - some are anti-WA, others don't want a resolution on that topic on the books, others want to replace with a blocker, and others want a stronger or weaker version of the resolution.

People who push a repeal have to deal with the politics of that - trying to appeal to them all - suggesting to some that it'll allow a replacement, to others that it'll never be replaced, and so on. It adds interest that no-one is entirely clear whether a repealed resolution will be replaced. This change would lose a lot of that politics - the intentions of the author, and the consequences of the repeal are clear. It'd also make it a lot harder to pass any repeal, as you wouldn't get those diverse coalitions supporting them.

I'll acknowledge Auralia's point that some repeals might fail because of a lack of clarity about subsequent intentions - but this change would only help those where the author wanted a replacement. It'd make it particularly hard to remove those where no replacement was intended.

[Mousebumples]

I am also opposed to this new "Repeal & Replace" category being developed - for many similar reasons to those that Sedge outlined in the previous threads. As some WA regulars may know, I have this whole "Why Repeal?" article that I put together a few months back. I'm afraid that with the introduction of a "Repeal & Replace" category/option, the WA would quickly make the following passage obselete:

Do repeals need to be replaced?
HELL NO!

Of course, if you ask some GA regulars, they'll insist that almost every repealed resolution needs a replacement. (After all, God forbid we actual govern our own nations without the oversight of the WA, right?) And you are certainly more than welcome to write a replacement for the repealed resolution yourself, should that be something you're interested in. However, you are by no means required to author a replacement, if you don't wish to do so.

Also, a part of the danger/risk (and, honestly, in my opinion part of the "game") of the World Assembly, when it comes to repeals, is that you may not be able to get a replacement passed, after you repeal a given resolution. There's no risk for one side or the other (Nat Sov v. Int Fed, notably), no risk that a proposal with an opposite direction would be passed after a successful repeal. (Example: the prostitution issue went from being internationally legalized to an issue that is now determined on an international level.)

Yes, on some topics, it would be nice to not have to risk having a period where no such resolution was in effect on a given topic. However, I just think that having a new procedure that would eliminate that risk would potentially decrease the need for fine-tuning in proposal drafting. After all, why worry if your proposal is top-notch if you can just repeal and replace it whenever you feel the need to make improvements? Same goes when drafting a repeal (and, more notably, a replacement piece of legislation). Why worry about perfecting your replacement if there's no "hole" in the law that needs to be filled? If it doesn't pass, nothing changes - no repeal, no replacement, no void of WA law in a specific arena.

I'm also concerned that there would be a lot of mostly superfluous "repeal & replace" submissions that don't really do/change much of anything. I mean, just looking at my own passed resolutions, I can think of a few things I would do slightly differently, if I had it to do all over again. The changes would be fairly minor, though, and they wouldn't change the overall point or message of the resolution. Still, I don't think that allowing me to include a metagaming-free reference to non-WA nations in the ULC resolution is worth calling for a whole new project for the techies.

[Auralia]

I'll acknowledge Auralia's point that some repeals might fail because of a lack of clarity about subsequent intentions - but this change would only help those where the author wanted a replacement. It'd make it particularly hard to remove those where no replacement was intended.

Should our goal be to pull the wool over people's eyes, though? Repeal authors who do not intend to pass a replacement should say so; a repeal shouldn't pass simply because people were fooled into thinking that a replacement would be forthcoming; that's dishonest.

[Sionis Prioratus]

No, no, no, no. What would simply happen is that some people would "Repeal & Replace" (R&R?) everything in the WA, replacing perfectly germane resolutions with blockers. The WA would be of a sordid dullness in 15 or 20 resolutions time. Proper repeal and replace should be difficult! Inasmuch NS is supposed to be a profitable game, to further that aim NS should attract new players, not drive them away.

[Mousebumples]

I'll acknowledge Auralia's point that some repeals might fail because of a lack of clarity about subsequent intentions - but this change would only help those where the author wanted a replacement. It'd make it particularly hard to remove those where no replacement was intended.

Should our goal be to pull the wool over people's eyes, though? Repeal authors who do not intend to pass a replacement should say so; a repeal shouldn't pass simply because people were fooled into thinking that a replacement would be forthcoming; that's dishonest politics.

Fixed that for you.

Now, I know I'm an old fogey around these parts, but I seem to recall there was one author back in the day who repealed a resolution and went so far as to draft an entire (well-written!) replacement for it, during the repeal process. When the repeal passed, he shelved the replacement and no one else could resubmit it due to the plagiarism clause.

Yes, it's dishonest, but the WA is a political body. To pretend otherwise is to ignore so much of the history of the Festering Snakepit, throughout the years.

[Mousebumples]

No, no, no, no. What would simply happen is that some people would "Repeal & Replace" (R&R?) everything in the WA, replacing perfectly germane resolutions with blockers. The WA would be of a sordid dullness in 15 or 20 resolutions time. Proper repeal and replace should be difficult! Inasmuch NS is supposed to be a profitable game, to further that aim NS should attract new players, not drive them away.

Hahahaha. I love seeing the IntFed perspective. You're worried about me (and my merry gang of Nat Sovs, of course), R&R'ing everything to put blockers in place. Meanwhile, I'm worried that I won't be able to just straight up repeal anything anymore because the IntFeds would demand an R&R instead.

[SalusaSecondus]

What would simply happen is that some people would "Repeal & Replace" (R&R?) everything in the WA, replacing perfectly germane resolutions with blockers. The WA would be of a sordid dullness in 15 or 20 resolutions time.

This would only happen if enough people voted for the WA to be a place of sordid dullness.

[Auralia]

I am also opposed to this new "Repeal & Replace" category being developed - for many similar reasons to those that Sedge outlined in the previous threads. As some WA regulars may know, I have this whole "Why Repeal?" article that I put together a few months back. I'm afraid that with the introduction of a "Repeal & Replace" category/option, the WA would quickly make the following passage obselete:

Do repeals need to be replaced?
HELL NO!

Of course, if you ask some GA regulars, they'll insist that almost every repealed resolution needs a replacement. (After all, God forbid we actual govern our own nations without the oversight of the WA, right?) And you are certainly more than welcome to write a replacement for the repealed resolution yourself, should that be something you're interested in. However, you are by no means required to author a replacement, if you don't wish to do so.

Repeal and Repeal-And-Replace would co-exist, so you would still be able to repeal without replacing.

Also, a part of the danger/risk (and, honestly, in my opinion part of the "game") of the World Assembly, when it comes to repeals, is that you may not be able to get a replacement passed, after you repeal a given resolution. There's no risk for one side or the other (Nat Sov v. Int Fed, notably), no risk that a proposal with an opposite direction would be passed after a successful repeal. (Example: the prostitution issue went from being internationally legalized to an issue that is now determined on an international level.)

I don't think it's a particularly fun aspect of the game. Frankly, it's a big pain to get repeals passed, since nobody will support since nobody knows for sure what's going to happen.

Yes, on some topics, it would be nice to not have to risk having a period where no such resolution was in effect on a given topic. However, I just think that having a new procedure that would eliminate that risk would potentially decrease the need for fine-tuning in proposal drafting. After all, why worry if your proposal is top-notch if you can just repeal and replace it whenever you feel the need to make improvements? Same goes when drafting a repeal (and, more notably, a replacement piece of legislation). Why worry about perfecting your replacement if there's no "hole" in the law that needs to be filled? If it doesn't pass, nothing changes - no repeal, no replacement, no void of WA law in a specific arena.

Repeal-And-Replace proposals would still need to go through the whole painful process - debate, quorum, voting, TG campaigns, etc. That would be reason enough for me to fine-tune my proposal before submitting.

I'm also concerned that there would be a lot of mostly superfluous "repeal & replace" submissions that don't really do/change much of anything. I mean, just looking at my own passed resolutions, I can think of a few things I would do slightly differently, if I had it to do all over again. The changes would be fairly minor, though, and they wouldn't change the overall point or message of the resolution. Still, I don't think that allowing me to include a metagaming-free reference to non-WA nations in the ULC resolution is worth calling for a whole new project for the techies.

We have an admin who's (I believe) willing to do it, so why not?

[Auralia]

Should our goal be to pull the wool over people's eyes, though? Repeal authors who do not intend to pass a replacement should say so; a repeal shouldn't pass simply because people were fooled into thinking that a replacement would be forthcoming; that's dishonest politics.

Fixed that for you.

Now, I know I'm an old fogey around these parts, but I seem to recall there was one author back in the day who repealed a resolution and went so far as to draft an entire (well-written!) replacement for it, during the repeal process. When the repeal passed, he shelved the replacement and no one else could resubmit it due to the plagiarism clause.

Yes, it's dishonest, but the WA is a political body. To pretend otherwise is to ignore so much of the history of the Festering Snakepit, throughout the years.

I think our goal should be to prevent incidents like that from happening, though.

[Sionis Prioratus]

No, no, no, no. What would simply happen is that some people would "Repeal & Replace" (R&R?) everything in the WA, replacing perfectly germane resolutions with blockers. The WA would be of a sordid dullness in 15 or 20 resolutions time. Proper repeal and replace should be difficult! Inasmuch NS is supposed to be a profitable game, to further that aim NS should attract new players, not drive them away.

Hahahaha. I love seeing the IntFed perspective. You're worried about me (and my merry gang of Nat Sovs, of course), R&R'ing everything to put blockers in place. Meanwhile, I'm worried that I won't be able to just straight up repeal anything anymore because the IntFeds would demand an R&R instead.

When IntFeds and Natsovs conspire together agree! Hopefully this should say something to The Powers That Be.

[Sionis Prioratus]

What would simply happen is that some people would "Repeal & Replace" (R&R?) everything in the WA, replacing perfectly germane resolutions with blockers. The WA would be of a sordid dullness in 15 or 20 resolutions time.

This would only happen if enough people voted for the WA to be a place of sordid dullness.

You overestimate the ones who pay the NS's bills. Lemming effect. Pray do show me the blockers which have been repealed, then compare statistically that number with the one of "normal" resolutions repealed.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'm feeling extremely apathetic towards this. It just doesn't seem necessary, and it would certainly be annoying when trying to debate the actual proposal. You'd need two threads to keep track of the two separate arguments, and crossover would be inevitable. It's too much to process in a single vote.

[Mousebumples]

Another question:

When it comes to the "replacement" WA proposal, in this situation, would the plagiarism rules still apply? (i.e. could the original resolution be resubmitted with only slight edits - deletions, additions, grammar fixes, etc.) Here's a "never going to happen" example -

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 1
The World Assembly
A resolution to establish administrative parameters.
Category: Bookkeeping | Effect: Sweeping | Proposed by: Maxtopia Mousebumples

Description: The Adopted Nations of the World Assembly,

NOTING that the United Nations has spectacularly imploded in a colossal fireball of extra-dimensional insanity;

BELIEVING that there is a vital and needed role for a global organizational body;

FURTHER NOTING that there are were once an awful lot of United Nations Resolutions;

FURTHER BELIEVING that the demise of the United Nations may be fashioned into a grand opportunity for nations to draw a new destiny;

HEREBY:

1. ESTABLISHES the World Assembly as the natural successor to the United Nations, with the full transfer of all Delegate ranks and associated endorsements;

2. ARCHIVES all previously passed UN Resolutions for historical purposes, so that citizens of today may forever look back upon the masterwork of their ancestors;

3. DECLARES the pages of international law to be blank and awaiting the whims of the assembled ambassadors to fill them;

4. INVITES members of the World Assembly to begin work on a new volume, which may in time exceed even the grandeur of its predecessor.

Clearly, that borrows heavily from the original resolution that Max drafted all those years ago. Would this be "okay" as it's merely replacing/updating the resolution in question? And, if it isn't legal (which, honestly, is what I'd expect), how does this accomplish the "amendment change" that started this whole discussion in the first place?

Alternatively, could R&R's be limited solely to submission by the original author? That's another wrinkle that would essentially eliminate the "plagiarism" problem, for starters, and it would reward those who elect to stick with the game for a long enough time to see if/that the end is nigh for one's resolutions. Rather than letting someone else take on that job, the original author could then R&R their own piece of legislation.

(Of course, this could get especially interesting if an individual changes "allegiances" over the years. I know I was pretty IntFed back in the day - long before I passed even the UN's ULC, though. To see someone repeal their own legislation and replace it with one of opposite aims could make for some great popcorn-eating entertainment .... )

P.S. to Sinois - it's easier to repeal IntFed proposals than NatSov ones because ours don't really do that much that's objectionable - other than block. And arguments against blocking provisions often come off sounding very NatSov-y in nature, ironically enough.

[Monganda]

I am considering creating a new type of WA Resolution (General Assembly) which will permit a Repeal resolution to be joined with a New resolution. They would go up as a single proposal, reach quorum, and pass (or fail) as a single proposal. The effects would be identical to them passing independently.

Further notes:

• The proposal would consist of two different sections. One for the repeal, and one for the new resolution.
• The text in the repeal section would be bound by the existing standards and rules for repeal proposals.
• The text (category, effect, etc.) of the new section would be bound by the existing standards and rules for new proposals.
• The two sections do not need to be related in any way (including category or strength)
• This would not impact the existing ability to simply repeal a resolution.

I think permits a few new (interesting) use-cases:

• When the WA does not want there to be a time between a resolution being repealed and it being replaced (or risk it not being replaced).
• When there are two groups (one desiring to repeal a resolution and one desiring to pass a resolution) who cannot muster sufficient votes by themselves to pass either resolution independently.

Now, I'm not promising anything (or even that it will be possible). I am very interested in the Pros & Cons though and seeing what the players who use the WA more commonly than I think of this.

---

Some past discussions:

• Revisiting WA Amendments
• Streamlining Repeal-and-Replace: A New WA Category

Sounds interesting, and wouldn't clutter the archives as much.

[The Republic of Lanos]

Good idea but I don't think it would go well on the first proposal that would take place and be voted on, whatever that topic may be. However, it makes great sense. Saves time and cuts debate time down to four instead of 8 (or 12+!) days. In the end, it would simplify things but make everything a lot more interesting in the GA. Now we can replace bad resolutions with better drafts! Then again, who knows what can happen on the first attempt to implement this.

(Lol to replacing WA#1. However, only Max can do that.)

[Frisbeeteria]

Another question:

When it comes to the "replacement" WA proposal, in this situation, would the plagiarism rules still apply?

We would obviously have to revisit the rules if this was implemented. Best to separate such questions from the interesting idea of "original author replacement".

Incidentally, that would be far too limiting, particularly with players who have left the game. All you would have to do to secure a resolution from R&R would be to use a puppet which was then allowed to die. Doesn't seem fair to me.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

[violet] has addressed this before:

This situation is very common in real-life, though. Voters & lawmakers frequently have to choose between imperfect legislation or nothing. That's politics.

I suspect that if you could amend resolutions, WA votes would be far more rubber-stampy, because almost every proposed amendment would be a clear minor improvement. It would also encourage rough first drafts to be put up as resolutions, and passed with the thinking that it can always be improved later.

Repeal "amend" and replace it with "R&R," and it would have the same effect. Because a lot of these R&R votes would be mere procedural votes on minor revisions. Sort of like Liberation repeals, when the only argument is, "The region has been Liberated and wants to have a password again." Making it that much easier for unimaginative authors to introduce mundane revisions to resolutions only assures that it will happen, and often.

[Connopolis]

This strikes me as being an amendment process dressed in a more benevolent suit. You're effectively nullifying the effects of one resolution only to simultaneously change the effects while maintaining the theme. In theory, this is a very good idea, but in application, it's bound to be disasterous.

[Frisbeeteria]

You're effectively nullifying the effects of one resolution only to simultaneously change the effects while maintaining the theme.

Not necessarily maintaining the theme. I could easily see International Security swapping places with Global Disarmament in one R&R. For that matter, there's no reason why you couldn't replace a resolution on International Trade with another on Genocide. From a coding perspective, Salsa's suggestion is category neutral.

[Flibbleites]

I oppose this idea primarily because it could potentially eliminate the chances of one person repealing a resolution with the intention of replacing it, only to have someone else get their replacement submitted and passed first.

You're effectively nullifying the effects of one resolution only to simultaneously change the effects while maintaining the theme.

Not necessarily maintaining the theme. I could easily see International Security swapping places with Global Disarmament in one R&R.

Yeah, I could see someone trying to replace the NAPA with a ban on nukes should this happen.