Should we support Repeal/Replace WA resolutions?

[The Most Glorious Hack]

No offense, but it seems to largely be a solution in search of a problem. Frankly, it's a neat idea, but I think it will cause far more difficulties than it will solve.

[Knootoss]

I similarly have to come out in opposition to Repeal & Replace resolutions. Both for reasons already mentioned, and because it will weaken the existing repeal option. Some folks might vote against a "plain" repeal simply because it doesn't have the replacement they want, knowing that it CAN be replaced.

[Alqania]

Against.

I'm basing my opposition on my experience in passing a repeal. I managed to pass a repeal on a Controversial Topic^TM where an earlier repeal attempt had been voted down. Painful? It took a bit of drafting, arguing and copy-and-paste TG campaigning delegates. In other words, it took a bit of time. If that can be considered painful then my threshold of pain must be astronomical.

When drafting my repeal, I clearly stated that I felt that no replacement was necessary and that I would not be drafting any replacement. I gathered that sympathisers of the repeal had different positions on whether the target resolution should be replaced. During the repeal process, several different replacements were drafted. One of the replacement drafts was by the original author of the target resolution, the others (as far as I am aware/can remember all of them) were blockers. Two blockers made it to the GA forum and while I maintained the position that no replacement was necessary, I gave both of those two blockers my support in the at vote thread of the repeal. I didn't choose one of them, I thought that either blocker should pass, but that it would also be fine if none of them did. My campaign TG for approvals didn't mention the possibility of a replacement at all, neither did the text in the repeal.

Nobody really knew what would happen if my repeal passed, but it still did. Flib's replacement blocker got massive support in the votes. Perhaps another blocker could have won a similar majority. Perhaps the original author's replacement could have. Who knows? I believe my repeal was successful because people had different reasons for repealing the target resolution. Some wanted it gone, others wanted it replaced and some of those wanted the replacement to be a blocker.

I'm concerned that this change would make repeals harder to pass. While the current system means that voters can support a repeal with contrasting, even opposite, intentions, I'm afraid that forcing drafters to choose between a repeal and an R&R would force us to take an even clearer position on whether the target resolution should be replaced than what we already do, and that voters wanting a replacement would only vote for an R&R, while voters wanting the resolution gone would only vote for a repeal.

The GA forum is an IC area and the vast majority of statements of intent are made IC by RP'ed Ambassadors. It comes with the territory that some nations and Ambassadors will be brutally honest while others will say one thing and do another. That people can be dishonest or disingenuous is a fact of life and certainly a truth of politics. NS and the WA is a political simulation. Technical solutions aimed at preventing trickery, deceit and backstabbing in the GA will make the simulation less real and less fun.

[Glen-Rhodes]

This is because repeal authors consistently attack resolutions based on technical merit. This implies that a better version can exist. If authors who don't want replacement would just write repeals attacking the resolution altogether, then I don't think we would be in a situation where voters always expect a replacement.

But if the authors couldn't use those 'technical merit' attacks then what would they have left to use except pure NatSov arguments, which are of course (and unfortunately) illegal?

Those aren't the only two arguments that can be made. For example, say I want to repeal Dignified End of Life Choices simply because I believe assisted suicide is morally wrong. If I argue in a repeal that it is technically flawed because of its "less or more restrictive" clause, then I am implicitly saying that a better version can exist. This would lead many people into thinking, "Well, where's the replacement that will fix this problem?"

However, if I argue that assisted suicide is immoral and unethical, then nobody would think that I'm implicitly saying a better version can exist. This isn't a NatSov argument. The problem I frequently see is that authors keep writing repeals based upon technical flaws, when they really just don't like the resolution at all. So, the whole problem with laymen expecting replacements lies at the feet of disingenuous repeal language. And the only reason that language is used is because authors have self-regulated themselves into using it. There is no rule that says we can only repeal a resolution because it has technical flaws.

I'm concerned that this change would make repeals harder to pass. While the current system means that voters can support a repeal with contrasting, even opposite, intentions, I'm afraid that forcing drafters to choose between a repeal and an R&R would force us to take an even clearer position on whether the target resolution should be replaced than what we already do, and that voters wanting a replacement would only vote for an R&R, while voters wanting the resolution gone would only vote for a repeal.

Why should we be tricking voters? Shouldn't it be a goal here to ensure that voters really know what they're voting on? In other words, I don't think it's a very good argument against R&R to say that we need to maintain smoke-and-mirrors when it comes to replacements.

And, personally as a voter, I would like to know definitively if a repeal author plans on replacing it. Indeed, this is the common situation already. If they don't, then by not submitting an R&R, I would know not to vote for the repeal, because there's no guarantee of a replacement being passed. This, again, already happens. Plenty of repeals have failed because voters doubted that a replacement would be written/passed, or that the replacement was genuine.

If they do want it replaced, but just don't want to write the replacement themselves, then we'd simply have a situation that we already have today. You write a repeal, include language that there will be a replacement, and ensure that you mention possible replacements in a campaign for those who doubt you

[The Republic of Lanos]

Could we forgo the "repeal" part of the idea and just use replace?

[Delegate Vinage]

Mmm like many others I read this and went - yes please! Then read the other comments and realised perhaps this isn't the best thing out there.

However, such as the case for the Medical Blockade repeal-and-replace, had I known that we would have waited quite a while for the replacement legislation to come into play it is unlikely I would have voted in favour for it. We have in place an informal repeal-and-replace system which could easily be broken or corrupted by someone not giving on the promise of the replacement legislation.

My thoughts anyway

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

No offense, but it seems to largely be a solution in search of a problem. Frankly, it's a neat idea, but I think it will cause far more difficulties than it will solve.

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?

[SalusaSecondus]

No offense, but it seems to largely be a solution in search of a problem. Frankly, it's a neat idea, but I think it will cause far more difficulties than it will solve.

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.)

[Mallorea and Riva]

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.)

I'm in agreement with Hack and Kenny. It's a really interesting idea, and I'm glad that the admins are paying attention to the ideas of the players, but at the same time I'm just not comfortable with this. The positives are outweighed by the negatives.

1. Authors who simply wish to repeal a resolution and not replace it will be told that simple repeals aren't good enough anymore (the: "We have a new feature therefor you must use it" fallacy),
2. The debate surrounding it would be a mess. Normally you have a logical flow, here's a repeal, we're working on a replacement to address concerns, now we'd have to have two threads running at the same time, with inevitable crossover.
3. The question of the character limit would have to be addressed, along with rules regarding plagiarism,
4. Finally I'm stubborn and change frightens me. But mostly those first three points.

[SalusaSecondus]

While I definitely plan on going through and addressing many of the concerns in this thread, these four have come up a decent amount already.

1. Authors who simply wish to repeal a resolution and not replace it will be told that simple repeals aren't good enough anymore (the: "We have a new feature therefor you must use it" fallacy),
2. The debate surrounding it would be a mess. Normally you have a logical flow, here's a repeal, we're working on a replacement to address concerns, now we'd have to have two threads running at the same time, with inevitable crossover.
3. The question of the character limit would have to be addressed, along with rules regarding plagiarism,
4. Finally I'm stubborn and change frightens me. But mostly those first three points.

1. I think this is manageable, both from a documentation perspective and from player culture perspective. If you (and enough other players) don't want this to happen, it won't.
2. Sounds like politics to me :-) Whether it would be a single thread or two would be figured out by people much more involved in the day-to-day politics of the WA than I. I think this should be managable.
3. Agreed, but these are technical and rules problems. I'm glad they've been identified, but I'm confident we can fix them.
4. Most changes to NationStates face this.

I am definitely reading this thread and listening to all of points raised. You guys don't need to worry about this suddenly appearing. I haven't even sketched out how the code would actually work yet so even if I decided right now (which I haven't done) to do this, there would be quite a delay before anything happened.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Here's a question: how would a repeal of a R/R work? Would it simply repeal the replacement but leave the repeal intact?

[SalusaSecondus]

Here's a question: how would a repeal of a R/R work? Would it simply repeal the replacement but leave the repeal intact?

Good question. My gut instinct would be to just repeal the new part and leave the original resolution repealed. (Just as you can't repeal repeals now, it would work similarly.)

[Frisbeeteria]

Here's a question: how would a repeal of a R/R work? Would it simply repeal the replacement but leave the repeal intact?

It would work however Salusa coded it, and I think your suggestion is the way it should be done. Might make sense to have an R/R create two separate GA entries, so there's no confusion about what can or can't be repealed. (I'm thinking the rules should be relaxed slightly to allow different co-authors on repeals versus replacements, and two entries would help clarify that aspect.)

[Mallorea and Riva]

Here's a question: how would a repeal of a R/R work? Would it simply repeal the replacement but leave the repeal intact?

It would work however Salusa coded it, and I think your suggestion is the way it should be done. Might make sense to have an R/R create two separate GA entries, so there's no confusion about what can or can't be repealed. (I'm thinking the rules should be relaxed slightly to allow different co-authors on repeals versus replacements, and two entries would help clarify that aspect.)

Right. I dunno. I see why it could be useful (saves time, two birds with one stone and whatnot), but I don't really see a need for it *shrugs* I've added my two cents, take from it what you will

[The Palentine]

I'm opposing this as well. Its an interesting idea, but I think that repealing well written and good legilation should be difficult. Besides i've really never seen the need to replace repealed legislation, especially bad resolutions(unless its to prevent some jeeter from submitting one thats even worse).

[Glen-Rhodes]

I'm opposing this as well. Its an interesting idea, but I think that repealing well written and good legilation should be difficult. Besides i've really never seen the need to replace repealed legislation, especially bad resolutions(unless its to prevent some jeeter from submitting one thats even worse).

You would still be able to repeal without replacing...

[Mallorea and Riva]

I'm opposing this as well. Its an interesting idea, but I think that repealing well written and good legilation should be difficult. Besides i've really never seen the need to replace repealed legislation, especially bad resolutions(unless its to prevent some jeeter from submitting one thats even worse).

You would still be able to repeal without replacing...

And you can already repeal, then replace. His point is the same point in my earlier list: people will begin to expect replacements, even when not warranted.

[Auralia]

I think the best course of action is to give the feature a trial run; after a few weeks/months, we can make a decision on whether to make it permanent.

[Sanctaria]

I think the best course of action is to give the feature a trial run; after a few weeks/months, we can make a decision on whether to make it permanent.

Or not.

[Frisbeeteria]

I think the best course of action is to give the feature a trial run; after a few weeks/months, we can make a decision on whether to make it permanent.

Institutional inertia indicates that added features are rarely removed unless they break something technical in the game. Like NatSov arguments, "I don't like it" is insufficient reason to remove an existing feature.

I'd much rather have it talked out first to identify the problems. Our userbase is pretty smart sometimes, so I'm confident that major and mionor flaws in the theory will become apparent as we continue this thread.

[Discoveria]

This might be obvious, but I feel that adding a Repeal/Replace function would make the WA more realistic (so, desirable simply in terms of simulating politics more accurately). Actual, RL legislation repeals bits of previous law at the same time as creating new law.

However I am also concerned that the negatives outweigh the benefits here.

I am only prepared to commit a fairly small amount of time to making decisions on WA resolutions. Following a R&R discussion would probably take more time than following the two separate Repeal and Replacement discussions separately (because of confusion, and contributors having even more to say making the discussion extra complicated to follow).

In addition I am concerned also about the possible negative impact on competing Replacements (as Ossitania explained earlier). This would detract from the 'realism' achieved by a combined Repeal/Replace. (Political arguments don't die just because the original proposer dies.)

Just my 2c.

[[violet]]

I think it could be useful.

My earlier thoughts here are reasons why I personally didn't choose to code it, but those aren't show-stoppers.

This is essentially an "Amend" feature, right? I'm not sure about the terminology "Repeal/Replace." The OP says, "The two sections do not need to be related in any way (including category or strength)," but were this to be implemented, I think they should always be related. Otherwise, the major difference between a R/R and what we do now is that you don't have to wait so long. So to give R/Rs their own conceptual space, I think it would be better to define them as amendments, not just regular proposals + turbo speed boost.

Correct me if I'm wrong: It seems like a passed R/R would add two new resolutions: a repeal and a new resolution. This would be simplest from a technical perspective, and allow the WA to subsequently amend or repeal the new resolution as well.

We might wind up with a lot of ex-resolutions (e.g. three old versions, three accompanying repeals, plus the latest, active version), but that's not terrible, either.

[Frisbeeteria]

This is essentially an "Amend" feature, right? I'm not sure about the terminology "Repeal/Replace." The OP says, "The two sections do not need to be related in any way (including category or strength)," but were this to be implemented, I think they should always be related.

One of the occasional complaints about bad resolutions is Strength / Area of Effect. This appears when someone feels strongly about something, and therefore codes it "strong", when in fact it's pretty weak. Also possible are things like Environmental, where a minor proposal hits All Businesses. I guess we could use the original Repeal provision to handle such complaints, but there are pros as well as cons to allowing at least a Strength variant.

Correct me if I'm wrong: It seems like a passed R/R would add two new resolutions: a repeal and a new resolution. This would be simplest from a technical perspective, and allow the WA to subsequently amend or repeal the new resolution as well.

Completely agree.

We might wind up with a lot of ex-resolutions (e.g. three old versions, three accompanying repeals, plus the latest, active version), but that's not terrible, either.

We've got plenty of electrons left on the servers.

[Glen-Rhodes]

You would still be able to repeal without replacing...

And you can already repeal, then replace. His point is the same point in my earlier list: people will begin to expect replacements, even when not warranted.

People already expect replacements, and the only reason they do is because authors don't know how to write repeals without implying that a replacement is wanted.

What Repeal/Replace would do is offer a stream-lined system for those who do wish to offer a replacement. Furthermore, it would prevent people from being misled about the probability of a replacement being passed. It would also pretty much stop the unethical and annoying practice of authors disingenuously implying that they or somebody else have every intention of replacing the resolution.

I think the fears that authors will be compelled to use this system are completely unfounded. If you don't write a repeal implying that a replacement is warranted, then you should have no problem with people expecting one. If you're saying that you want to maintain the status quo of misleading voters into thinking there will be a replacement, I think that's a pretty bad argument against this pretty neat idea.

[[violet]]

This is essentially an "Amend" feature, right? I'm not sure about the terminology "Repeal/Replace." The OP says, "The two sections do not need to be related in any way (including category or strength)," but were this to be implemented, I think they should always be related.

One of the occasional complaints about bad resolutions is Strength / Area of Effect. This appears when someone feels strongly about something, and therefore codes it "strong", when in fact it's pretty weak. Also possible are things like Environmental, where a minor proposal hits All Businesses. I guess we could use the original Repeal provision to handle such complaints, but there are pros as well as cons to allowing at least a Strength variant.

Oh sure, that'd be fine. When I say, "they should always be related," I mean only that I think they should address the same topic--as opposed to an R/R that combines, say, "Repeal 'Defense of Self and Others'" with a new proposal 'Free Trade in Chocolates'.