Not a draft, but a thought...

[Kovasckitz]

As I am not endorsed by anyone I can not propose this as a draft, and thus it is not in that form, but please if someone thinks this is a good idea, bring it to a vote. I need no credit, just some relief.

I have noticed since the beggining of my time in Nationstates (which is, admittedly, not a time that is that far back) that after a resolution passes, there a good chances it will be brought up for a second vote in the form of a repeal. I am not sure if this is the norm, but the repeals themselves are often of poor construct and reason, something that they seem to love to critisize their intended target for as grounds for repeal (what are the mentioned 'loopholes' that are mentioned in the current reppeal that is up to vote, that were included in the previous resolution of the Preservation of Monuments, or something like that? I couldn't tell).

Now while I did not particularly support the resolution that is intended to be reppealed (and it certainly seems to be on the chopping block) I voted against the act to reppeal for the simple fact that it had already been decided upon very recently.

Not that I am discouraging the reppealing of of contested laws.

It's just that we need to have a restriction on when a reppeal can be brought to vote. Valuably time has been wasted in the WA for the simple inablility of people to accept what has happened, that a cause that they did not support has passed. My country hardly had time to begin thinking on how we would implement the new resolution before an attempt to strike it down was made.

So I propose that the WA has a waiting period of at least 2 weeks (not a huge amount of time, but once again, if a resolution is contested it should be reppealed) before a reppeal may be brought to vote on a passed resolution.

This would save valuble time for more constructive measures in the esteemed WA that I am proud to be a part of, and filter out the repeals that are only brouhgt to the eyes of the delegates in the heat of the moment.

There, I feel better now.

EDIT: Also, for those who disagree with the idea that I have brought up, a restriction could also be placed only upon the resolutions that passed by a healthy enough vote of 2/3 or the like. This would allow the more heavily contraversal subjects to still be brought up quickly.

Remember, this is not to restrict the democracy of this establishment, but to quicken democracy's pace to cover more ideas.

[Krioval]

OOC: Unfortunately, that would be a game mechanics effect, which is illegal per the WA rules for proposals.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

Dragged this over to Tech, where it's a better fit. Not likely to happen, but... enjoy.

[JURISDICTIONS]

I like it but i do not have enough people to submit...also it is against WA rules.

[Philimbesi]

Also why should we live with a bad resolution that trickled through simply because it JUST trickled through?

[Flibbleites]

Also why should we live with a bad resolution that trickled through simply because it JUST trickled through?

Or resolutions that never should have come up for vote to begin with.

Max Barry Day

[Gobbannium]

I don't see any pressing need to actually do anything over this. As you said, the knee-jerk repeals are usually poorly thought out and worse-presented. The only ones that get to quorum are the ones which are sensibly (or at least entertainingly) written and properly campaigned for, like the one currently at vote.

It also has to be said that just because something passed by a large margin doesn't mean it's any good. People have a bad habit of voting for fluffily titled proposals without paying any attention to what they actually say or do. Which reminds me, I must get a repeal of For The Convicted And Detained together

There doesn't actually appear to be any problem here. Let's not try fixing it, OK?

[The Palentine]

I don't see any pressing need to actually do anything over this. As you said, the knee-jerk repeals are usually poorly thought out and worse-presented. The only ones that get to quorum are the ones which are sensibly (or at least entertainingly) written and properly campaigned for, like the one currently at vote.

It also has to be said that just because something passed by a large margin doesn't mean it's any good. People have a bad habit of voting for fluffily titled proposals without paying any attention to what they actually say or do. Which reminds me, I must get a repeal of For The Convicted And Detained together

There doesn't actually appear to be any problem here. Let's not try fixing it, OK?

Lets not forget my ground breaking research, old bean. It helps explain how bad laws get on the books.

These percentages are based on years of careful observation(using the Scientific Method, mind you) of the denizens of the Festering Snakepit, and their voting habits and trends.

80% Only read the title, and vote accordingly.
10% Actually read the entire damned resolution before voting.
5% Pay attention to and/or participate in the Forum debate before voting.
2% Vote by the warm and fuzzy feelings the resolution gives them.
2% use a magic eight ball to make their decision.
1% gut a sheep, and fondle the entrails, looking for a divine augary on how to vote.*

*disclaimer: Not that there is anything wrong with this method....far be it from me to cast any aspersions on any voting practice.

[Bears Armed]

I don't see any pressing need to actually do anything over this. As you said, the knee-jerk repeals are usually poorly thought out and worse-presented. The only ones that get to quorum are the ones which are sensibly (or at least entertainingly) written and properly campaigned for, like the one currently at vote.

It also has to be said that just because something passed by a large margin doesn't mean it's any good. People have a bad habit of voting for fluffily titled proposals without paying any attention to what they actually say or do. Which reminds me, I must get a repeal of For The Convicted And Detained together

There doesn't actually appear to be any problem here. Let's not try fixing it, OK?

Lets not forget my ground breaking research, old bean. It helps explain how bad laws get on the books.

These percentages are based on years of careful observation(using the Scientific Method, mind you) of the denizens of the Festering Snakepit, and their voting habits and trends.

80% Only read the title, and vote accordingly.
10% Actually read the entire damned resolution before voting.
5% Pay attention to and/or participate in the Forum debate before voting.
2% Vote by the warm and fuzzy feelings the resolution gives them.
2% use a magic eight ball to make their decision.
1% gut a sheep, and fondle the entrails, looking for a divine augary on how to vote.*

*disclaimer: Not that there is anything wrong with this method....far be it from me to cast any aspersions on any voting practice.

You forgot to mention the ones who vote based on which side has paid them the most...

[Kovasckitz]

Bump

Also, for any new readers this topic has been moved from from the General Assembly to here, I assume, because of my misunderstanding of a piece of the game, I won't go into it now, but still feedback would be nice. Thanks.