Liberation Question

[Daynor]

After FJ's repeal passes and it's re-raided and te-passworded, are they free to pass a new liberation??

I mean really at this point it'd be repealing the repeal.

I think a good plan to only allow one. I mean, we could keep invading for months. Invade-password-resolution-fenda liberation-repeal-repeat. And I think there are enough raiders out there who hate Liberations enough to do it. It may not happen with FJ, but we all know it will be attempted at some point. And the GAers are pissed off enough that four days are taken from them, to take 16 to vote on the same thing over and over...

[Kandarin]

Is this a question of "Can a new repeal be submitted?" or "Should new repeals be submittable?"

If it's the latter, I think it's best that we keep it at the present system, wherein something can be brought to quorum as many times as quorum can be mustered. "Why?" You might ask. "But Kandarin, anyone can bring something to quorum with enough spamming, shouldn't we crack down on that?" you might also ask. The latter is why. Yes, I know it means that some things come to vote that some folks aren't happy with. It also means that delegates are being forced to think more about what they endorse and have to deal with unprecedented pressure from their peers and constituents if they don't. In short, it's making the mass-TG-spamming technique of proposal advancement less effective and creating a higher need for actual widespread support.

In the early(ish) days of the game, we had a similar development with respect to endorsement-swapping in major regions. Yes, the consequences of it going on undisturbed at first were Very Bad, but that forced the rest of the game world to realize as much and create limitations (both of the cultural and directly enforced variety) on that sort of behavior. Finally having something similar happen to Proposal promotion is a good thing, not a bad thing...even if you're about as happy about the specifics as we were about Francos Spain teaching us why regions need to regulate endoswapping.

[Daynor]

^ I didn't see the relevancy...

I'm just saying with the SC, Commends and Condemns and Liberations all do the same thing. So after this repeal passes if raiders attack again (and it's not that unlikely) then Liberate FJ passes, we have a law on the books (the repeal) saying the password is installed, and one on the books saying it's been removed. Same goes if we repealed a commend or condemn...

[Pythagosaurus]

And same if the GA passes a resolution, repeals it, and then passes a new one to replace it.

[Daynor]

No, the GA repeal would have different wording. If it had the exact same wording it'd be plagarism. And because it has different wording it's (supposed) effects are different (the GA is pointless, nothing really happens from resolutions except stat changes slightly). One might regulate drug use via comitee to organize member nations drug-use departments, the other by a large organization across all nations...

With the SC it's just NationX is commended/condemned. NationX is not commended/condemned.

[Pythagosaurus]

I'm fairly certain liberation proposals have different wordings.

[Daynor]

Yes but the wording of a GA proposal called "Endangered Species Protection" could do a billion things depending on the wording. You repeal one, and you can still replace it with another one designed to proctect animals in a different way.

Liberate FJ, no matter how many different ways you word it can only do one thing.

It still seems redundent to me.

[Kandarin]

Yes but the wording of a GA proposal called "Endangered Species Protection" could do a billion things depending on the wording. You repeal one, and you can still replace it with another one designed to proctect animals in a different way.

Liberate FJ, no matter how many different ways you word it can only do one thing.

It still seems redundent to me.

If we're looking at it from a purely mechanical standpoint, a moderate Furtherment of Democracy proposal does the same thing (stat effect) whether it bans poll taxes or sets a default age of suffrage. The GA has developed beyond that, on the belief that some people will actually read the proposal and consider its argument beyond the name and the stat effect. The SC is quite capable of doing something similar.