Should we support Repeal/Replace WA resolutions?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Hmm...perhaps require a 3/5 or 2/3 majority to pass R&Rs then? If we're voting on two at once, why not make it harder to get them to passing by having a majority requirement?

Just to clarify, do we get to vote on the repeal and replacement separately but simultaneously, if you see what I mean? Certainly if that's not what's intended, I think it would be safer from the repealing biological weapons and allowing free trade on chocolates point of view.
(Although there'd have to be something to stop the replacement from passing if it contradicts what's meant to be repealed if the repeal fails.)

And if we're going to introduce sunset clauses, I would agree iff the after the sun sets, the proposal is automatically sent back to the WA. That would save us from going through quorum, acquiring copyright from the original author, and all of that stuff again, because otherwise in a gap they wouldn't be in force. (And the former author might be inactive.)

[Knootoss]

Getting an automatic re-vote on the old proposal would sort of defeat the point of having sunset clauses. You don't need "copyright" [sic] to write a resolution about the same idea either. It's better to have the sunset clauses be predictable. That way, folks can know that hey, prisoners of war are going to be coming up in 30 days.

[Ballotonia]

Here's an opinion from someone who was involved in GA matters a long time ago, but ended up throwing up his hands in the air and leaving in dismay.

Repeal/Replace (R/R) looks nice as an extra option for players. How it is used is up to the players. I've seen repeal authors pressured to draft an improved version of the targeted proposal, and this will undoubtedly continue to happen even with R/R in place. And such pressure will not always work, nor should it.

One problem the GA has is stagnation. Prior authors have done a lot of work, and while legislation certainly can always be improved upon it's often not realistic to expect certain resolutions to be repealed. It is deemed 'good enough', and uncertainty about a replacement means there's no repeal happening. Even good resolutions hence become blockers. That's where a R/R proposal would service new budding authors: they can write up something and still get their improved legislation on the books. While I do see this as a definite plus, it doesn't truly solve the stagnation itself. It merely pushes that to a new (yet unknown) boundary.

Knootoss' suggestion for a Sunset Clause is also interesting, but I do wonder where the GA will be by the time the 9th implementation of Healthcare comes up for a vote. Won't that get boring? Will it merely be copy/paste of prior work?Or will it truly open up the GA and will we see actual swings in overall policy?

I'm taking the predictions of what the actual effects will be with quite some salt, because it sounds to me as if some of the negative opinions posed are colored by the author's own current position in the GA and what would be most beneficial to their own GA-interests. I recognize this approach to debate from some Gameplay discussions in technical I've participated in . Please keep in mind that the objective here isn't finding a more streamlined method of getting to higher quality GA legislation either. It's about making the game more fun to play, for as many players as possible. In that sense a more diverse set of tools to play politics, make allies and enemies, and stab ones opponents in the back sounds to me like more possibilities to have fun in the game.

As for me, I stopped being actively involved because of the overly complex swamp of rules governing proposals. None of the above fixes that problem.

Ballotonia

[Knootoss]

I've drawn a schematic of the Sunset clauses idea and how it would work.



(Larger version)


Specifics like the duration of a sunset clause and the specific intervals can be played with of course. So far, 22 WA resolutions have made the > 80% cut-off, so it is hard to get but not unattainable. It includes "core" resolutions such as the ban on slavery, the prostitution blocker and the ban on Female Genital Mutilation. It excludes all legislation that was extremely controversial at the time.

[Knootoss]

One problem the GA has is stagnation. Prior authors have done a lot of work, and while legislation certainly can always be improved upon it's often not realistic to expect certain resolutions to be repealed. It is deemed 'good enough', and uncertainty about a replacement means there's no repeal happening. Even good resolutions hence become blockers. That's where a R/R proposal would service new budding authors: they can write up something and still get their improved legislation on the books. While I do see this as a definite plus, it doesn't truly solve the stagnation itself. It merely pushes that to a new (yet unknown) boundary.

I don't see how R&R would service new budding authors.

The huge existing block of legislation is still there as jurisprudence. Aspiring authors would still have to gain the support for repealing the original resolution AND their new resolution, splitting their vote because people who want a repeal without a replacement would certainly vote against an R&R. Moreover, the bright-eyed new author would have to comply with the rule-set for a valid repeal, the rules for a new resolution, AND would still face the exact same block of political opposition from the original author and his posse that he did before.

Sunset clauses sidestep this problem. Most old resolutions automatically expire and there isn't a huge body of law that serves as blocker-friendly precedent. Moreover, because resolutions expire automatically, the opposition would be in the shape of friendly competition between different authors to get the replacement going, rather than an old author and his friends bitterly leaping to the defence of their Old Accomplishment.

Knootoss' suggestion for a Sunset Clause is also interesting, but I do wonder where the GA will be by the time the 9th implementation of Healthcare comes up for a vote. Won't that get boring? Will it merely be copy/paste of prior work?Or will it truly open up the GA and will we see actual swings in overall policy?

Well, look at it from perspective of new players, rather than the perspective of those of us who have already been here for bloody ages. We've both been around for nine-odd years, but most of the proposals come from fresh-faced, idealistic people who have an opinion about abortion, or pot or guns. They try to submit something and... are promptly informed that the issue was already decided upon in the spring of 2010. Most of the proposals that actually get passed right now come from a small group of people who pass resolutions for their own sake, finding ever-smaller niches to legislate about.

On the "political simulation" level, I also think it's valuable that battles have to be re-fought as a matter of course. It'll certainly reduce the stagnation.

I'm taking the predictions of what the actual effects will be with quite some salt, because it sounds to me as if some of the negative opinions posed are colored by the author's own current position in the GA and what would be most beneficial to their own GA-interests. I recognize this approach to debate from some Gameplay discussions in technical I've participated in . Please keep in mind that the objective here isn't finding a more streamlined method of getting to higher quality GA legislation either. It's about making the game more fun to play, for as many players as possible. In that sense a more diverse set of tools to play politics, make allies and enemies, and stab ones opponents in the back sounds to me like more possibilities to have fun in the game.

I think you are short-selling the community here. Most of the "GA interests" of the people here is to have a fun time playing this game and to write quality legislation. We don't have imaginary regions to invade/defend and there is no competitive aspect involved. I think it is particularly telling that a lot of prominent players from both the NatSov/AO camp and the IntFed/Dharma camp, and everything in-between, have spoken out against R&R resolutions. I cannot for the love of God remember when that happened. Ever. Not even on technical proposals.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It would, however, largely spell the death of blockers.

So would R&R. Since the entire advantage passing blockers was that the fluffies would have to pass two resolutions just to change it. Well, that would no longer necessarily be true anymore, now would it?

Or has this been mentioned before?

[Glen-Rhodes]

It would, however, largely spell the death of blockers.

So would R&R. Since the entire advantage passing blockers was that the fluffies would have to pass two resolutions just to change it. Well, that would no longer necessarily be true anymore, now would it?

I don't think it's right to say that two resolutions aren't being passed in R&R. To get rid of a blocker, you would still have to 'pass' two resolutions. It's just that people are voting on the repeal and the replacement simultaneously. That means that people are judging both the repeal and the replacement. The hurdle to removing blockers is still there. There is nothing that will happen with R&R that doesn't already happen, except saving 4 days at a minimum of voting.

[Knootoss]

So would R&R. Since the entire advantage passing blockers was that the fluffies would have to pass two resolutions just to change it. Well, that would no longer necessarily be true anymore, now would it?

I don't think it's right to say that two resolutions aren't being passed in R&R. To get rid of a blocker, you would still have to 'pass' two resolutions. It's just that people are voting on the repeal and the replacement simultaneously. That means that people are judging both the repeal and the replacement. The hurdle to removing blockers is still there. There is nothing that will happen with R&R that doesn't already happen, except saving 4 days at a minimum of voting.

That implies that one can cast two separate votes, though. Does the R&R you imagine imply that you can vote FOR the repeal but AGAINST the replacement?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm justifiably afraid that this theoretical "new" development would make what I enjoy most about the General Assembly irrelevant. What's the point of arguing and analyzing and perfecting such details if they can be easily corrected at a later date with a repeal & replace? Yes, a proposal/repeal must be firm enough in it's arguments to pass ... But loopholes in new proposals would, presumably, be much less of a concern since they could be rectified much more easily through this avenue.

This assumes that R&R would be much easier to orchestrate than the current system. I think it save time and streamline the process, but there is no reason, in my opinion, to think that repealing and replacing would be significantly easier to do. If anything, it makes it slightly more difficult, because people would now judge a repeal based upon a replacement, which would no longer be just some promise or idea sent around by the repeal author.

We currently repeal resolutions because of loopholes, only to submit extremely similar resolutions that do nothing much but fix those loopholes. It's not as if we are always stuck with our mistakes. But sometimes we are. We've all seen how resolutions are repealed on technicalities, only to find out that it's near impossible to get a replacement passed. I think one of the greatest aspects of R&R is that this would no longer happen.

If Knootoss were to have used R&R in his repeal, it would have been voted down, because his replacement was not well received. We wouldn't be in the situation where we no longer have a resolution, simply because we tried and failed to fix a mistake. Instead, we would have to wait until we actually have a viable replacement. This is definitely more realistic from a roleplaying perspective. From a community perspective, it's also good, because we all value having these resolutions. Otherwise, why do we keep trying to pass replacements?

While the addition of repeals was originally fought by some, I think we can all accept that - overall - such a change was for the best. I still don't really care for the whole SC side of things, but they have their own playpen now, so I suppose I shouldn't complain too much about all that. This, however, strikes me as essentially the desire for a shortcut and an elimination of risk, which, in my view, undermines so much of what the General Assembly is about and should be about.

I wish we still had threads from when repeals were first created. I wouldn't be surprised if the same argument was used then...

In conclusion, Nat Sovs and Int Feds - by their very nature - don't often agree on much. When you see both sides united in opposition to this sort of proposal, though? That should speak volumes, in my mind.

For the record, I'm not part of this unity. And I think if some of my colleagues take a closer look at this, they'd realize that the doom and gloom scenario is pretty unlikely.

That implies that one can cast two separate votes, though. Does the R&R you imagine imply that you can vote FOR the repeal but AGAINST the replacement?

I think that's what was suggested long before Salusa posted this thread. But I'm assuming that you cast one vote, to approve or disapprove of a package deal. The point I was making is that people will vote strategically. If they don't like the replacement, then they won't vote for the repeal-and-replace package.

[Knootoss]

Well, then the conclusion that r&r takes away a vote from the member states and imposes a sort of lesser evil doctrine is pretty inescapable.

EDIT: Moreover I find Glen-Rhodes' assertion that, with R&R in place, badly written resolutions would never get repealed, a pretty damning argument against putting that system in place.
EDIT: In fact, because all the alternatives were rejected compared to NOT HAVING A RESOLUTION AT ALL, the original, loophole-ridden hilariously badly written resolution that even the author distanced himself from would still be in place! Is that REALLY advertisement for R&R?

[Flibbleites]

There could be a higher quorum set for R&R resolutions (maybe 8-12 percent).

Honestly Quorum only separates those willing to campaign from those who aren't. Granted those who write good resolutions are almost always willing, but at the same time with the advent of scripts it is no longer difficult.

And sometimes not even that, the Clean Prostitute Act hit quorum with no campaign at all.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Honestly Quorum only separates those willing to campaign from those who aren't. Granted those who write good resolutions are almost always willing, but at the same time with the advent of scripts it is no longer difficult.

And sometimes not even that, the Clean Prostitute Act hit quorum with no campaign at all.

Exactly. Granted, the title of that is marvelous, but my point remains the same.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Well, then the conclusion that r&r takes away a vote from the member states and imposes a sort of lesser evil doctrine is pretty inescapable.

This doesn't match the narrative that so many people demand replacements today. Assuming they do -- and, in fact, they actually do -- then they're already voting strategically. They're voting based upon a real replacement or the promise of one.

Either way, if they feel that there's not going to be a replacement, they vote against the repeal. If they feel the replacement isn't good enough, they vote against. If they see that the replacement is actually a blocker, they will definitely vote against. This is played out in various regional forums (e.g. XKI) all the time

At the very least, R&R removes all of the possible disingenuousness. It makes the World Assembly more democratic, by letting voters see what the promised replacement actually is. Crafty WA politicians won't be able to make false promises of replacements, knowing full well that they aren't going to author one and that they'll ensure any actual replacement isn't passed. Or, even worse, promise to fix a problem, only to write a blocker.

Both of those things are harmful to the game. Doing that breeds hatred and conflict. It makes people distrust WA regulars. They also likely are two big reasons why people now demand to see a replacement before voting for a repeal.

EDIT: Moreover I find Glen-Rhodes' assertion that, with R&R in place, badly written resolutions would never get repealed, a pretty damning argument against putting that system in place.

EDIT: In fact, because all the alternatives were rejected compared to NOT HAVING A RESOLUTION AT ALL, the original, loophole-ridden hilariously badly written resolution that even the author distanced himself from would still be in place! Is that REALLY advertisement for R&R?

You are not getting the point that was made. R&R would have forced us to come up with a viable replacement first. If the goal is to repeal and replace, how is that a bad requirement? Furthermore, none of this would force authors to replace a resolution. They can just submit a repeal alone. They would face the same uphill battle regarding a replacement as they do today.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Good point, actually. Is there an actual technical issue with the repeals function that needs fixing here, or are we entertaining radical changes to the game just for the fun of it?

The admins are always experimenting with new features to add to the game or ways to adjust and improve it. (So, closer to "just for the fun of it", but not that arbitrary.)

Why don't you ever experiment on any other community in NS? Changing issues mechanics perhaps? Or the rules for invading? Maybe fiddle with the forums in order to change the gaming experience for II? Why is it always the WA that gets the shaft whenever you admins come up with a TOTALLY AWESOME IDEAR!!!!111!! that MUST be added to "improve" the game?

[Knootoss]

Glen-Rhodes, really, all those arguments about "disingenuousness" are completely self-serving. Admit it. You oppose repeals. You think Repeal/Replace resolutions will make it harder to repeal things, and therefore you're all for them. This "false promises of replacements" shit is bull. It's never happened. The only thing that's happened on occasion is that you, personally, have righteously demanded a replacement from the repeal author and then didn't get one.

Lots of your friends/allies in this thread have managed to look beyond their petty self-interest and seen that R&R is going to screw over the gaming experience both for newbies and for regulars.

Also I agree with Kenny that the admins should go and screw around with some other community. I nominate the Generalites.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Glen-Rhodes, really, all those arguments about "disingenuousness" are completely self-serving. Admit it. You oppose repeals. You think Repeal/Replace resolutions will make it harder to repeal things, and therefore you're all for them. This "false promises of replacements" shit is bull. It's never happened. The only thing that's happened on occasion is that you, personally, have righteously demanded a replacement from the repeal author and then didn't get one.

It's not helpful making this personal. If you must know my record, it's publicly available for all votes from July 6, 2011 to January 25, 2012 over at my vote tracker. (Apparently I need to fix this thing.) I don't oppose repeals simply because they are repeals.

We all know that that things I've mentioned happen on a regular basis. I'm not accusing anybody, because this isn't a witchhunt. I'm saying that there are several significant benefits to having a streamlined repeal and replace system. Among those benefits is the fact that a streamlined system would make things more democratic.

These are legitimate points. Please don't turn this around and make it a personal fight. I'm sure that'll be a quick way to end this debate, but I think it's important that we actually discuss things and not demonize people because they disagree with you.

[The Blaatschapen]

The admins are always experimenting with new features to add to the game or ways to adjust and improve it. (So, closer to "just for the fun of it", but not that arbitrary.)

Why don't you ever experiment on any other community in NS? Changing issues mechanics perhaps? Or the rules for invading? Maybe fiddle with the forums in order to change the gaming experience for II? Why is it always the WA that gets the shaft whenever you admins come up with a TOTALLY AWESOME IDEAR!!!!111!! that MUST be added to "improve" the game?

Excuse me? Other communities also go through developments and changes. To claim that it is only the WA people is flat out wrong.

@Knoot: Generalites are quite fine right now. A massive upheaval on them at the same time as an American election year will be asking for trouble.

Edit: I know this was a threadjack, but I find it quite irritating that people demand changes in other aspects of NS(and random ones at that in a thread that doesn't ask for input on those other aspects) when they're hardly taking part in them >_> Note that I did not give an opinion on the topic here, because then I would be doing the exact same thing.

[Mousebumples]

I think Knoot's Sunset Clauses idea is a good one. (And I say that knowing that only half of my own resolutions - ULC & International Drug Education - exceed the 80% threshold.)

I will agree with the many that have stated here that it can be difficult to find new corners of the GA universe, on which to legislate due to the fact that there are so many pieces of legislation that have already been passed. (This is one reason why I have semi-jokingly endorsed the second-coming of GAR#1, the World Assembly - repeal 'em all and let us replace 'em one by one.)

List of legislation that would be subject to such a Sunset Clause
Rights & Duties
Child Labor
Humanitarian Transport
Workplace Safety Standards
WA HQ
Prevention of Torture
NAPA (Side comment: then we could see Flib's new replacement )
Freedom of Marriage Act
Sexual Privacy Act
WA General Fund
Prisoners of War Accord
Child Protection Act
Suppress International Privacy
Living Wage Act
Diplomat Protection Act
WA Counterterrorism Act
WA Economic Union
Freedom of Assembly
Freedom of Expression
International Transport Safety
Charter of Civil Rights
Fairness in Criminal Trials
Convention Against Genocide
The Right to a Lawful Divorce
The Landmine Convention
Access to Life-Saving Drugs
WA Labor Relations Act
Reduction of Abortion Act
Access to Science in Schools
Stem Cells for Greater Health
International Salvage Laws
Humanitarian Aid Coordination
Food Welfare Act
Epidemic Response Act
Dignified End of Life Choices
Numismatics Appreciation Act
Refugee Protection
Right to Privacy
WA Copyright Charter
For the Detained and Convicted
Protection of Outer Space Act
Food and Drug Standards
Endangered Species Protection
National Economic Freedoms
International Competition Law
Cultural Heritage Protection
International Postal Union
International Radio Act
Standardised Passport Act
Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws
A Promotion of Basic Education
Universal Clinical Trials Act
International Road Safety
A Ban on Forced Disappearances
Museums of Musical Heritage
WA Numeration and Units Act
Internet Net Neutrality Act
Drug Trafficking Act
A Convention on Gender
The General Patent Charter
Microcredits and Microgrants
Responsible Offshore Drilling
Quality in Health Services
Oil Tanker Standards Act
Multilateral Prosecution Act
Anti-Cyberterrorism Act
International Criminal Court
Preparing for Disasters
Assitance Givers Protection
Clean Water Act
For the Wrongly Convicted
Rights of the Orphaned Child
Identity Theft Prevention Act
Medical Research Ethics Act
Convention on Execution
The Gem Trading Accord
Nuclear Waste Safety Act
Delineation of Borders Act
Ethics in International Trade
Nuclear Testing Safety
Medical Facilities Protection
Read the Resolution Act
Reducing Problem Gambling
Essential Medication Act
On Abortion
Elections and Assistance Act
Military Freedom Act
Convention on Wartime Deceased
Consumer Product Safety
Institutional Psychiatry Act
Permit Male Circumcision
Animal Cruelty Prevention
Recognizing Achievements Act
Extradition Rights
Against Conflict Minerals
Missing Individuals Act
Freedom of the Press
On Genetically Modified Foods
Promotion of Intl Education
Forced Marriages Ban Act
Medical Standards in Prisons
A Model World Assembly
Law of the Seas
Protect War Correspondents
Freedom in Medical Research
International Expositions Act
Right to Petition
Organ and Blood Donations Act
Disability Welfare Act
Concerning Financial Fraud
Renewable Research Committment
Defense of Self and Others

Resolutions which have reached the 80% threshold
The World Assembly
Patient's Rights Act
World Health Authority
Nuclear Disaster Response Act
Universal Library Coalition
Meteorological Cooperation
Cooperation in Science Act
International Drug Education
Nautical Pilotage Act
On Female Genital Mutilation
On Expiration Dates
Consular Rights
Clean Prostitute Act
A Decriminalization of Suicide

Like Hack, I think that this R&R feature is essentially a solution in need of a problem. As I said above, I would agree that there is a slight problem with not having much in the way of "new topics" to legislate on. I really think that the Sunset Clauses idea is an interesting way to help solve that problem - presuming, of course, that the original author (if they are still active) would be able to resubmit the proposal almost identically, if they so choose.

[Cromarty]

The admins are always experimenting with new features to add to the game or ways to adjust and improve it. (So, closer to "just for the fun of it", but not that arbitrary.)

Why don't you ever experiment on any other community in NS? Changing issues mechanics perhaps? Or the rules for invading? Maybe fiddle with the forums in order to change the gaming experience for II? Why is it always the WA that gets the shaft whenever you admins come up with a TOTALLY AWESOME IDEAR!!!!111!! that MUST be added to "improve" the game?

The idea that the WA 'always gets the shaft' is ludicrous. The WA forums currently have 3 or 4 mods who seem to be dedicated... just to those forums. WAers frequently get away with what, in any other subforum, would normally be considered flamebaiting or flaming, on the grounds that it's 'IC'.

In the other subforums what do have? Well, F7 still suffers from an unneeded and unfair autoprune that still hasn't been justified and still makes the quality of F7 devolve. II, due to Jenrak's real life concerns and Czar's retirement doesn't have a dedicated mod. F&NI rules seem to change monthly.

WAers are easily the most influential group in NS, as seen by you getting almost anything you want when asked for. Compensation for R4? Mod/admin bias towards the WA? Perhaps. Or you just complain loudest when you have little reason to.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I really think that the Sunset Clauses idea is an interesting way to help solve that problem - presuming, of course, that the original author (if they are still active) would be able to resubmit the proposal almost identically, if they so choose.

I think it's really important to discuss multiple solutions. But I really don't like this one. While I would love the chance to replace Rights and Duties, we have plenty of resolutions that now represent a consensus. If people aren't trying to replace them, why force us to reconsider our decision? This seems far more disruptive than R&R would ever be. It's an interesting idea, but really unconventional in both gameplay and roleplay contexts. If the end result is the same, I opt for using a more conventional approach.

Sunset clauses would end the consensus, or the appearance of one, which is good if we're up against voters who think, "We already do X with this resolution. Why change it?" But I foresee so much more bad coming out of sunset clauses than good.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I really think that the Sunset Clauses idea is an interesting way to help solve that problem - presuming, of course, that the original author (if they are still active) would be able to resubmit the proposal almost identically, if they so choose.

I think it's really important to discuss multiple solutions. But I really don't like this one. While I would love the chance to replace Rights and Duties, we have plenty of resolutions that now represent a consensus. If people aren't trying to replace them, why force us to reconsider our decision? This seems far more disruptive than R&R would ever be. It's an interesting idea, but really unconventional in both gameplay and roleplay contexts. If the end result is the same, I opt for using a more conventional approach.

I'm just going to throw an idea out there, maybe existing resolutions come up for vote again automatically every X months/weeks/whatever timeframe? Eh? Once every six months? A kind of vote of confidence in existing legislation, if you will? Repeals and whatnot would still exist, but it would stir up activity and allow for older legislation to fall away without having to write a repeal.

I literally just thought of this so take it with a grain of salt.

[Glen-Rhodes]

A kind of vote of confidence in existing legislation, if you will?

That's interesting, but probably doesn't address the problem that Knootoss was getting at. Presumably, the problem he wants to solve is that people already give their confidence to old resolutions, so are reluctant to revisit them.

[Mallorea and Riva]

A kind of vote of confidence in existing legislation, if you will?

That's interesting, but probably doesn't address the problem that Knootoss was getting at. Presumably, the problem he wants to solve is that people already give their confidence to old resolutions, so are reluctant to revisit them.

I realized this as I was typing that in, but decided to throw it in anyways just in case someone could build on the idea.

[Sedgistan]

The "my community it more oppressed than yours" argument ends now. It's not the topic of this thread, and it's not going to become the topic of this thread.

[Ardchoille]

[modhat]OK, let's cool the "Admins are getting at the WA" stuff, and let's cool the "You are/No, you are" stuff, too. This is not personal. Sal is a coder and doesn't get the ins and outs of every forum. He's asking you to explain how an idea would work in the forum you do know the ins and outs of. Stick to the topic, guys, and don't make him have to dredge through poo-flinging contests.[/modhat]

I'm finding Knoot's "Sunset Clause" (use-by date?) plan so appealing, especially now he's incorporated Hack's amendment, that I'm not going to comment in detail on it until I've had a chance to really think about possible downsides. Two general things I can see straight away: it would make for more politicking (which I think is a good thing, though obviously some don't); and it would resolve the stagnation problem, and I like that, too.

But I'll leave the Sunset Clause thing there for now, though, because by this stage I have had a chance to think about the Repeal + Replace idea. Obviously, given the above, I am opposed to what seems to be the original reason for introducing R+R, ie, reducing politicking.

A few of my other objections have melted, because I can see ways around: two separate At Vote threads for R&Rs would reduce modly craziness, and running R+R as an adjunct to, rather than as a replacement for, the existing system would mean that a Repealing player would still have the option of improving Replace legislation, or deciding not to legislate, thanks to At Vote and post-repeal discussions.

But what does still concern me is the probable effect on proposal rules. For example, with R+R:

• A proposal is illegal if it duplicates an existing one, except if that proposal is the"replace" part of an R+R.
• A proposal is illegal if duplicates contradicts an existing one, except if that proposal is the "replace" part of an R+R.
• A player may not re-submit a mod-deleted proposal unchanged, except if it is the legal part of an R+R that was deleted for the illegality of the other part.
• Plagiarism is forbidden, except where it's an R+R "amendment" replacement.
• If you amend by just putting "not" in front of all the active verbs, it's back to being plagiarism. (This form seems super-bad to me because you'd be coasting in on someone else's effort, in order to overthrow their effort.)

Re mod-deleted proposals: that's assuming that the legal part of an R+R will have to be re-submitted. Will it? Or could a legal Repeal part of it go to vote even if the Replace part was illegal -- ie, defaulting to the existing system on Repeals and staying quorate on the strength of the approvals the combined proposals gained? Because that seems a likely way to sneak an unappealing Repeal to quorum on the basis of a Replace that the writer knows he will not have to live with, by salting the latter with a subtle illegality. (And yes, there are GA players good enough to get away with that till quorum and then "notice" the illegality in an apologetic GHR.)

All up, I'm seeing R+R as needing more complex rules in a ruleset that I understand is already regarded in some quarters as too complex. Plus, some of the rules would contradict existing rules, or create confusing exceptions, or require differing penalties for the same offence, which i suspect would be hell on everyone involved.

It might be useful if it were introduced on the basis that it could be used only [edit]by or[/edit] with the permission of the original author or with mods' permission. That would save some time and allow minor corrections to what's essentially good legislation. It would also largely answer my concerns about plagiarism and "adding 'not' " amendments.

Possibly more work for mods and angst for players, though, because we would presumably deny some requests for R+Rs -- like, if you want to do the Chocolate proposal, you're gonna have to do it separately. We'd have to work out some general basis so players would know what sort of thing would cause us to deny permission. The more things decided by mods, not players, the less players "own" their part of the game. Plus, judgments that would have to be subjective create suspicions of bias, or cause delays by requiring "safe" group assessment of proposals.

I'm not yet seeing major complexity with the Knoot/Hack idea, since it can be expressed so simply -- GA resolutions run out at a rate depending on the size of the vote -- but of course I don't know what that one would mean to coders.