Do a WA reset

[Warzone Codger]

I've got a better idea:

Resolution #1 can't be repealed, right? Simply change that, and if it does get repealed, it automatically repeals every other (GA) resolution. That would put any reset up to significant political debate, rather than moderation approval or some automatic cycle.

(Also, I want to be able to say I destroyed the WA.)

This is surprisingly elegant. The main risk is that 'GPers' could do it for the lolz. I like to think people have their limits though.

[Sanctaria]

In 2008, NSUNers (you included) were outraged that the NSUN was dumped without consultation.

Underlining the relevant part here. The point of this thread is to encourage consultation on the matter. If it were to happen, it wouldn't come as a surprise (or be confused as an April Fool).

I'm on the fence, really. I think it'll definitely cause a flurry of activity, and potentially entice older authors back to, yes, re-submit their old resolutions, but I also think the activity would be short-medium term and not sustainable.

I will say though that even compared to 08 and the establishment of the WA, the standard of review and drafting that resolutions go through in the GA at least seems to be miles better, and I'd like to think we'd have quality resolutions from the off.

[Quintessence of Dust]

In 2008, NSUNers (you included) were outraged that the NSUN was dumped without consultation.

Utter bullshit. Here's what I said at the time:

I am very keen that the WA succeed, and that it should prove as entertaining as its predecessor.

So, as we Brits like to say: let's play up, play up, and play the game.

The "outrage" came years later when [violet] suddenly invented a completely fictional history in which UN players had been arguing that things had "stagnated".

I will say though that even compared to 08 and the establishment of the WA, the standard of review and drafting that resolutions go through in the GA at least seems to be miles better, and I'd like to think we'd have quality resolutions from the off.

This is also false, though. The WA much, much worse now.

[Sanctaria]

This is also false, though. The WA much, much worse now.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, I didn't regard the standard at the end of the UN/start of the WA as particularly high quality, nor the contributions from established authors at the time particularly helpful.

[South Olpen]

Does any RL international organisation throw out all of its passed laws every 'X' years, all in one go, as a matter of policy? Seriously?

Regardless of any OOC benefits that this might bring to the game (even if, as I think should be the case, pre-reboot resolutions must still be taken into account for the purposes of the 'No Plagiarism' rule...), I do not see how it could be justified IC other than by something along the lines of "The nations now existing that have the same names as pre-reboot nations are all 'Alternative Reality' counterparts of those, from a timeline where the WA never existed before this", and some players -- particularly among those who already incorporate 'alternate reality' concepts in their RP, and object to having which versions of their nations now exist godmoded because of this -- might not accept that. If the WA is rebooted like that then I, for one, am just going to ignore the rebooted version altogether and continue running the version of my nation that has had a 'Mission' as a member of the pre-reboot WA... and that, in its RPed appearances, might still have a Mission in that organisation.

No offense, but that argument is hella dumb. This isn't real life, its a game, made for fun. And you can also say that, like the UN the old WA was abolished, and replace it with maybe a "League of Nations" or a "Association of States" or something.

[Sunemia]

I feel like this would be unfair to recent WA resolution authors. Possibly dumb, but what if every GA resolution until a certain date was reseted?

[WayNeacTia]

I feel like this would be unfair to recent WA resolution authors. Possibly dumb, but what if every GA resolution until a certain date was reseted?

Why would it be unfair to recent authors?

[Ankuran]

Does any RL international organisation throw out all of its passed laws every 'X' years, all in one go, as a matter of policy? Seriously?

I can't think of any extant examples offhand, but I'm pretty sure Jefferson proposed the US Constitution should expire and be rewritten every 19 years.

I've got a better idea:

Resolution #1 can't be repealed, right? Simply change that, and if it does get repealed, it automatically repeals every other (GA) resolution. That would put any reset up to significant political debate, rather than moderation approval or some automatic cycle.

Love this. It's almost like a vote of no confidence, and a great solution to something that should, rightly, be put in the hands of the voting members. I think the biggest issue here, aside from other dissenting players, would be if the tech can handle it. But even if this particular idea doesn't pan out, the fact that there are technological limitations preventing the introduction of a "repeal and replace" mechanic makes me think the ability to call a full systemic reset periodically is necessary.

[Sunemia]

I feel like this would be unfair to recent WA resolution authors. Possibly dumb, but what if every GA resolution until a certain date was reseted?

Why would it be unfair to recent authors?

Because the proposals which were passed weeks ago would be repealed. Proposals passed in '09 should not be treated the same as one passed 11 days ago.

[Bears Armed]

Does any RL international organisation throw out all of its passed laws every 'X' years, all in one go, as a matter of policy? Seriously?

Regardless of any OOC benefits that this might bring to the game (even if, as I think should be the case, pre-reboot resolutions must still be taken into account for the purposes of the 'No Plagiarism' rule...), I do not see how it could be justified IC other than by something along the lines of "The nations now existing that have the same names as pre-reboot nations are all 'Alternative Reality' counterparts of those, from a timeline where the WA never existed before this", and some players -- particularly among those who already incorporate 'alternate reality' concepts in their RP, and object to having which versions of their nations now exist godmoded because of this -- might not accept that. If the WA is rebooted like that then I, for one, am just going to ignore the rebooted version altogether and continue running the version of my nation that has had a 'Mission' as a member of the pre-reboot WA... and that, in its RPed appearances, might still have a Mission in that organisation.

No offense, but that argument is hella dumb. This isn't real life, its a game, made for fun.

Not to the IC characters from [at least] my nation, it isn't.

And you can also say that, like the UN the old WA was abolished, and replace it with maybe a "League of Nations" or a "Association of States" or something.

For which the Bears would need an IC explanation, and for which -- smelling the creation of organisations that claim to handle important matters but that then prove rather ephemeral in nature -- they almost certainly would not sign up.

Does any RL international organisation throw out all of its passed laws every 'X' years, all in one go, as a matter of policy? Seriously?

I can't think of any extant examples offhand, but I'm pretty sure Jefferson proposed the US Constitution should expire and be rewritten every 19 years.

If so, then his contemporaries clearly rejected that idea.

How many RL nations do you think would bother with the UN, for example, or the EU, if this situation applied to those?

[Frisbeeteria]

Because the proposals which were passed weeks ago would be repealed. Proposals passed in '09 should not be treated the same as one passed 11 days ago.

A reset wouldn't repeal current proposals. They'd be retired like the old UN proposals were.

Repeals have an actual game function. When resolutions pass, stat changes get made. When repealed, some of those changes are reversed. The game doesn't keep track of each repeal's effects - they simply change the stats to all who are WA members at the time the repeal is passed. If you vote for a resolution and leave the WA, you are not impacted by future repeals.

As such, if we did a simple reset, the current GA proposal list would be archived. There would be no stat changes as a result. The authors could still take pride of ownership of their Historical Proposals, just as UN authors can still take pride in the ones from that era.

[Quintessence of Dust]

How many RL nations do you think would bother with the UN, for example, or the EU, if this situation applied to those?

This is a specious argument. No RL nation would join any organization like the WA.

[Frisbeeteria]

Resolution #1 can't be repealed, right? Simply change that, and if it does get repealed, it automatically repeals every other (GA) resolution. That would put any reset up to significant political debate, rather than moderation approval or some automatic cycle.

Can't do it that way and be fair to anyone. No matter what happens on this topic, it won't be "automatic". Admins and code will be a core part of the process. Having a GA bookkeeping proposal is not a bad idea, but the automatic repeal simply can't and won't fly. If there's a reset, passed proposals will remain passed, just archived.

(Also, I want to be able to say I destroyed the WA.)

This comes as no surprise to anyone who has been around the GA and/or Gameplay for any length of time.

[Old Hope]

No offense, but that argument is hella dumb. This isn't real life, its a game, made for fun.

Not to the IC characters from [at least] my nation, it isn't.

And you can also say that, like the UN the old WA was abolished, and replace it with maybe a "League of Nations" or a "Association of States" or something.

For which the Bears would need an IC explanation, and for which -- smelling the creation of organisations that claim to handle important matters but that then prove rather ephemeral in nature -- they almost certainly would not sign up.

I can't think of any extant examples offhand, but I'm pretty sure Jefferson proposed the US Constitution should expire and be rewritten every 19 years.

If so, then his contemporaries clearly rejected that idea.

How many RL nations do you think would bother with the UN, for example, or the EU, if this situation applied to those?

OOC:Well, these can amend.
We cannot. That's a very important difference.
If there's a reset, then only if we have a passed Bookkeeping resolution that says there is, please. Anything else would be unfair.
(Example: The World Assembly, Finding that the amount of laws passed by this body has resulted in many economic crashes due to the many financial burdens placed on member states due to excessive WA spending, bureaucracy, and other spending demands,
Wanting to fix this at once,
Archives all prior World Assembly Resolutions as historical and non-binding. Bookkeeping, Sweeping)

[Ankuran]

If so, then his contemporaries clearly rejected that idea.

How many RL nations do you think would bother with the UN, for example, or the EU, if this situation applied to those?

And rejecting that proposal arguably led to a lot of questionable legal practices that are beyond the scope of matters at hand. But even with Jefferson's proposal on Constitutional limit being denied, the Constitution can be amended, as previously mentioned. We lack this ability here, leaving us with a lengthy repeal-and-replace process, and aging legislation whose replacement is likely opposed by many through a desire to maintain the status quo rather than risk unrest during the period required to pass a replacement.

And I can't speak for issues with the EU because I don't follow those, but the UN appointed China and Russia to its human rights council and is nominally a peacekeeping organization that lacks the ability to police its members. The UN is clearly not a standard that should be strictly adhered to, both for reasons such as these and because the UN isn't required to legislate over polities such as interstellar empires.

[WayNeacTia]

Why would it be unfair to recent authors?

Because the proposals which were passed weeks ago would be repealed. Proposals passed in '09 should not be treated the same as one passed 11 days ago.

Why? What makes your resolution any different than the others? "I'm new" doesn't qualify a resolution for special status.

[The Python]

Yeah, bad idea. Clearing the entire WA would just mean that some issues won't be able to be re-legislated, especially if people are generally apathetic about them.

[WayNeacTia]

Yeah, bad idea. Clearing the entire WA would just mean that some issues won't be able to be re-legislated, especially if people are generally apathetic about them.

All the more reason to make it happen.

[Cormactopia Prime]

This is the kind of a game change that serves the authors, but it doesn't necessarily serve the WA or its member-nations.

This is the kind of game change that could attract new authors. The contradiction/duplication rule is ridiculously prohibitive when it means having to wade through hundreds of resolutions to make sure you're not contradicting or duplicating anything. It's consistently amazing to me that anyone authors GA proposals at this point, but not at all surprising that so few people are now doing it. They're the only ones left who can be bothered to wade through the morass and try to understand it. That's no way to run a game. You should always want any game to be accessible enough new players can get involved with reasonable effort.

[Astrobolt]

The idea which I discussed on the WA Discord was this:

1. Create a score based on age and on the per cent in favour of a resolution (both positive in the scoring function).

2. Order the resolutions based on that score, descending.

3. Every month (or two weeks) retire the first resolution on that list, unless it is marked as reaffirmed.

4. Create a new resolution category that applies to resolutions. Resolutions can be reaffirmed; those resolutions are then exempt from score-based sunsetting.

This idea resolves a few issues. First, topics for which there is more of a consensus are not brought back as perennial issues. Second, there is no flood of expiries based on activity gluts something like 10 years ago. Third, it also means that recent resolutions are not lumped in with really old resolutions. More broadly, a queued sunset also opens up topics at a rate which the WA can deal with and produce drafts for instead of having a rush of haphazard replacements.

I broadly agree with IA's suggestions. In addition to the benefits he mentioned, this also would prevent us being in the same position 6 years from now.

[WayNeacTia]

The idea which I discussed on the WA Discord was this:

1. Create a score based on age and on the per cent in favour of a resolution (both positive in the scoring function).

2. Order the resolutions based on that score, descending.

3. Every month (or two weeks) retire the first resolution on that list, unless it is marked as reaffirmed.

4. Create a new resolution category that applies to resolutions. Resolutions can be reaffirmed; those resolutions are then exempt from score-based sunsetting.

This idea resolves a few issues. First, topics for which there is more of a consensus are not brought back as perennial issues. Second, there is no flood of expiries based on activity gluts something like 10 years ago. Third, it also means that recent resolutions are not lumped in with really old resolutions. More broadly, a queued sunset also opens up topics at a rate which the WA can deal with and produce drafts for instead of having a rush of haphazard replacements.

If we are really wedded to GA 2 (I'm not, I have desired it's repeal for some time), we can reaffirm it so it doesn't isn't immediately queued out. (To do this, one of course would have to open reaffirmations before the sunsetting queue starts processing.)

This also is true. The analogies to real world governments break down in the face of the game's mechanics.

Isn't this just basically adding a sunset clause to every resolution?

[Meretica]

If I might propose an idea? Nah, screw manners, I'll do it anyways :P

What if we combined several of the above ideas regarding how to handle the situation and set up a scenario like this:

Divided on matters of policy, politics, and diplomacy, the WA fell into disarray and nations began to abandon the General Assembly and Security Council. The WA soon became a memorial to the Old World Order, a monument to what once was. Unable to function due to the apparent lack of nations, the WA officially disbanded and was replaced by XYZ, started by Max Barry, who came to the aid of the multiverse itself and saved it from self-destruction. With a clean slate to draft a new set of policies, a new set of guidelines was debated and agreed upon. Now, new proposals are in the works with regions once again using diplomacy and respect to rule the XYZ.

At the very least, it'd make for interesting RPing.

[Luziyca]

While the Security Council should not be reset for the reasons raised by Fris, I do think the General Assembly is overdue for a reset: we've gone seven years between the founding of the UN and its replacement with the WA, and given that the General Assembly has had 558 resolutions, compared to the UN's 244 resolutions before the UN was forced to dissolve, I do feel that it would be a good idea to retire the old proposals, maybe give the GA a new name (I suggest NSG Assembly ), and see what can be done.

[Bananaistan]

I'd draw people's attention to the following: Ensuring Safe Syringe Use (since repealed) and its replacement Proper Hygiene for Medical Instruments. This is the sort of subject matter that the WA is dealing with after ~12+ years. A reset clears the books for new players to legislate on worthwhile topics instead of this sort of minutiae. I'm willing to put up with a certain amount of repeats but as has been pointed out above, it happened in 2008 but wasn't a major problem.

[Sanctaria]

While the Security Council should not be reset for the reasons raised by Fris, I do think the General Assembly is overdue for a reset: we've gone seven years between the founding of the UN and its replacement with the WA, and given that the General Assembly has had 558 resolutions, compared to the UN's 244 resolutions before the UN was forced to dissolve, I do feel that it would be a good idea to retire the old proposals, maybe give the GA a new name (I suggest NSG Assembly ), and see what can be done.

Honestly I don't think a brand new assembly, or name, is necessary/warranted. Admins/Maxtopia could introduce a bookkeeping resolution retiring all previous WA legislation and inviting authors to start afresh. There'd be some coding necessary for a once-off resolution like that, but it's less of a hassle than dreaming up a new body with new names and graphics/logos etc.