An alternative to repealing WA Laws

[Bordurian Islands]

Just an idea I had: what if, instead of having to repeal a law and replace it with a similiar one(if that was your intention), you could vote on just changing the current law, adding and taking away certain parts while still keeping the body of the bill intact. That way, it would be faster and, I believe, break up the constant "enact and repeal" stuff.

[This City of Ours]

That would be coding amendments into the game, which is highly unlikely to ever happen. There’s a post about it here: viewtopic.php?p=8133714#p8133714

Also some people want to repeal a law and keep it repealed.

[Bordurian Islands]

That would be coding amendments into the game, which is highly unlikely to ever happen. There’s a post about it here: viewtopic.php?p=8133714#p8133714

Also some people want to repeal a law and keep it repealed.

Thank you.

[Unibot III]

I've always thought that the old "Why Amendments are Illegal?" argument was terribly, terribly silly. That post has been held up as the gold standard of Socratic logic since time immemorial, but it's paper-thin reasoning.

Why not just have an amendment feature and ban amendments that would have otherwise have shifted the resolution into a different category or strength?

Or alternatively, why not just have an amendment feature that can shift the resolution into a different, specified category / strength by counteracting the original stats change and then some?

The former would be a preferable system. Less complicated and it would be the game's way of encouraging the amendment feature not to be used for malicious or intellectually dishonest amendments. As it stands, with no amendment feature, the WA and the NSUN before it has always followed a predictable pattern with the limited responses available to correcting minor errors - repeals are attempted and do not succeed. Something like the CoCR or GA#2 are just buggered for eternity (the latter due to wrongful moderator intervention to boot) because voters see the title and can't fathom them being repealed.

[Bears Armed]

I've always thought that the old "Why Amendments are Illegal?" argument was terribly, terribly silly. That post has been held up as the gold standard of Socratic logic since time immemorial, but it's paper-thin reasoning.

Why not just have an amendment feature and ban amendments that would have otherwise have shifted the resolution into a different category or strength?

I suggested something like that during a previous discussion on the concept (although my version would have had 'Weaken' /'Neutral' /'Strengthen' options) but it was rejected. I agree, though, that as judgement already has to be applied about whether proposals are correctly labelled extending it like this should be reasonable. Whether the coding could be changed so that the original & all amendments counted as a single item for the purpose of Repeal resolutions' effects, which would seem necessary, I don't pretend to know.