The Amendment Rule

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It doesn't add any new opportunity that didn't already exist with repeals.

[Mousebumples]

I disagree.

A number of topics effectively are closed off to new authors because the old resolutions effectively have become "unrepealable."

You do realize that we're currently voting on a repeal of an old resolution, and that it's passing handily, right? Unless Resolution#16 isn't old enough to be qualify as an "old resolution" in your aforementioned reference.

Anyhow, I'm opposed to amendments, personally, and I don't like the idea of R&R. But, as Mall said, if you want to talk about R&R either bump up that old Technical thread on the subject or start a new one there. This thread is not about Repeal and Replace - it's about amendments.

[Ikania]

I'm not opposed to amendments at all, and any amendments making the resolution non-effective or something like that can just become illegal. It gets rid of having to trash a whole resolution when there's one error instead of just correcting it. It limits the time it takes from two resolutions to one.

[Mousebumples]

I'm not opposed to amendments at all, and any amendments making the resolution non-effective or something like that can just become illegal. It gets rid of having to trash a whole resolution when there's one error instead of just correcting it. It limits the time it takes from two resolutions to one.

But what about the author of an original resolution who intentionally didn't do XYZ thing with their resolution, and now - all of a sudden, their resolution on XYZ thing does something they don't want associated with them and their work?

For me, it's less about "streamlining the process" and more about "respecting the original intent of the author."

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'm not opposed to amendments at all, and any amendments making the resolution non-effective or something like that can just become illegal.

That's a massive the judgement call the moderators would have to make. Just the other day they ruled that they "don't police interpretation"; while we all know that's bollocks, taking it at face value, it would lead to a situation where people complained that resolutions were being rendered meaningless by amendments, and moderators would then have to rule on interpretation of the resolution!

I haven't been as successful as I'd like (or at all) in convincing other people that this rules summit should see judgement calls taken out of moderators' hands and given back to the players to resolve, but it doesn't seem so controversial to suggest we shouldn't be giving them even more.

It gets rid of having to trash a whole resolution when there's one error instead of just correcting it. It limits the time it takes from two resolutions to one.

If people know they can correct errors so easily, they won't bother writing good resolutions. They'll just pass crap and amend it later. The fact that making even one mistake risks a resolution being targeted for repeal promotes thorough drafting.

[Christian Democrats]

I disagree.

A number of topics effectively are closed off to new authors because the old resolutions effectively have become "unrepealable."

You do realize that we're currently voting on a repeal of an old resolution, and that it's passing handily, right? Unless Resolution#16 isn't old enough to be qualify as an "old resolution" in your aforementioned reference.

"A number of . . . "

I don't like the idea of R&R. But, as Mall said, if you want to talk about R&R either bump up that old Technical thread on the subject or start a new one there. This thread is not about Repeal and Replace - it's about amendments.

I thought we were going to let players lead this Consortium. We aren't talking about the technical feasibility of R+R but rather the logic of the R+R idea. R+R is a form of amendment, and it's directly relevant to this conversation. The Amendment Rule says:

You can't amend Resolutions. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Resolution, you have to Repeal it first.

R+R is an idea for adjusting WA law without passing a repeal resolution first.

[Mousebumples]

I thought we were going to let players lead this Consortium. We aren't talking about the technical feasibility of R+R but rather the logic of the R+R idea. R+R is a form of amendment, and it's directly relevant to this conversation. The Amendment Rule says:

You can't amend Resolutions. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Resolution, you have to Repeal it first.

R+R is an idea for adjusting WA law without passing a repeal resolution first.

From Mall's post in the main pinned thread in this subforum:

When commenting on the rules please indicate why the rule should be changed, kept the same, or removed completely. "Me too" posts are pointless since this isn't a vote, it is a discussion. Keep conversations cordial and on topic or else. All are welcome to contribute as long as they are respectful and are actively contributing to the discussion.

Players are contributing to this discussion, but discussion of each rule is meant to stay on topic to the rule in question. Your comments on R&R are not about the Amendment rule. They are about another avenue you'd like to see considered, but they aren't as simple as just deciding "change this rule and ta-da!" Creating a mechanism for R&R is separate from Amendments and, as such, belongs in its own thread in Technical.

[Ainocra]

I'm not opposed to amendments at all, and any amendments making the resolution non-effective or something like that can just become illegal. It gets rid of having to trash a whole resolution when there's one error instead of just correcting it. It limits the time it takes from two resolutions to one.

But what about the author of an original resolution who intentionally didn't do XYZ thing with their resolution, and now - all of a sudden, their resolution on XYZ thing does something they don't want associated with them and their work?

For me, it's less about "streamlining the process" and more about "respecting the original intent of the author."

Exactly my point, I like my tacos plain!

[Christian Democrats]

Creating a mechanism for R&R is separate from Amendments and, as such, belongs in its own thread in Technical.

I don't want to discuss the mechanism; I want to discuss the logic of R+R as a process for amending WA law.

Should I listen to you or Fris? Apparently, the moderators aren't on the same wavelength...

maybe involved discussion on new tech fixes should go to Technical?

I think they're inextricably linked.

I agree that these discussions are "inextricably linked." It's obvious that R+R is technically feasible; all it would do is combine the repeal and new resolution functions into a single function, effectively creating a process for amending WA law.

What must be discussed first, however, is the desirability of such a change when held up against traditional repeal-and-replace.

[Mousebumples]

Creating a mechanism for R&R is separate from Amendments and, as such, belongs in its own thread in Technical.

I don't want to discuss the mechanism; I want to discuss the logic of R+R as a process for amending WA law.

Should I listen to you or Fris? Apparently, the moderators aren't on the same wavelength...

I think they're inextricably linked.

I agree that these discussions are "inextricably linked." It's obvious that R+R is technically feasible; all it would do is combine the repeal and new resolution functions into a single function, effectively creating a process for amending WA law.

What must be discussed first, however, is the desirability of such a change when held up against traditional repeal-and-replace.

Since when is R&R about amending existing WA law? Under the current rules, resubmitting existing WA law with minor changes would fall afoul of the Plagiarism rule unless you submitted it yourself. If you're submitting a whole other proposal as a replacement, calling that an "amendment" seems to be stretching reality more than a little.

Right now, you have 2 mods telling you to take R&R discussion to Technical:

R&R is a distinct issue from the Amendment Rule folks, if we want to start up this discussion again then I'd recommend we deal with Amendments first and then maybe open up a thread in technical.

Additionally, Fris wasn't talking about R&R - his statement was about other technical changes regarding the Amendment rule, as I read his statement. He's welcome to correct me, but I would consider further discussion on R&R to be off-topic threadjacking at this point.

[Frisbeeteria]

Additionally, Fris wasn't talking about R&R - his statement was about other technical changes regarding the Amendment rule, as I read his statement. He's welcome to correct me, but I would consider further discussion on R&R to be off-topic threadjacking at this point.

Completely agree. I was talking about the technical challenges of amendments. R&R isn't part of this discussion.

[Unibot III]

Gruen: I'm inclined to think that because repeals are kind of a nuclear option, they often mean new players will never get to tinker with stuff like the CoCR - if there was an amendment process, they'd be able to amend it and discuss the future of CoCR. Because we need to repeal CoCR first, there isn't much hope there.

[Frisbeeteria]

It depends on how it is implemented. Assuming that we work with the custom category idea. Suppose there was a "Amendment" button. When you hit the button the resolution text is loaded into the editor. You then make the changes to the proposal and hit submit. If passed the original resolution is completely struck out (and it's repeal is based on this resolution number) but instead of a repeal resolution you have an actual resolution that in turn can be repealed.

While there are still a lot of procedural holes in the process, this is the kind of technical response I was hoping for. It's not precisely "repeal and replace". It's not an isolated amendment that leaves partial strikeouts floating around, or one that requires lots of cross-reference links. I'd like to see some expanded speculation on how something like this would work, and how something like this would break.

there isn't much hope

Have you even read the suggestions in this thread? Way to write off the discussion before it's even really started.

[The Dark Star Republic]

It depends on how it is implemented. Assuming that we work with the custom category idea. Suppose there was a "Amendment" button. When you hit the button the resolution text is loaded into the editor. You then make the changes to the proposal and hit submit. If passed the original resolution is completely struck out (and it's repeal is based on this resolution number) but instead of a repeal resolution you have an actual resolution that in turn can be repealed.

While there are still a lot of procedural holes in the process, this is the kind of technical response I was hoping for. It's not precisely "repeal and replace". It's not an isolated amendment that leaves partial strikeouts floating around, or one that requires lots of cross-reference links. I'd like to see some expanded speculation on how something like this would work, and how something like this would break.

That honestly just seems like plagiarism. You'd be taking someone else's work, changing it a bit, and resubmitting it to earn your own new resolution.

Gruen: I'm inclined to think that because repeals are kind of a nuclear option, they often mean new players will never get to tinker with stuff like the CoCR - if there was an amendment process, they'd be able to amend it and discuss the future of CoCR. Because we need to repeal CoCR first, there isn't much hope there.

Why not? When I was a new player, my first resolution was a repeal: amending UCPL instead of repealing it would have been vastly more complex, probably prohibitively so.

---

The amendment rule is also linked to the category system. If that system is abolished, then amendments could be revisited, but if it's not, there are technical issues that could trump any other argument. So why not simply close off discussion of amendments for now, see whether the proposal coding system is implemented, then see whether after a live trial of the system works, and if it does and proposal coding becomes the new norm, revisit discussion of this rule. Until we know whether or not that change happens, though, much of the arguing here risks being completely academic.

[Tzorsland]

That honestly just seems like plagiarism. You'd be taking someone else's work, changing it a bit, and resubmitting it to earn your own new resolution.

The current situation is actually worse. If there is a single defect in the resolution the whole resolution has to be struck down and every good part has to be recreated so as to not cause plagiarism. So if a resolution contained A,B,C,D,E,and F and clause E was a problem instead of working on an E' you have to recreate A',B',C',D', and F' so as to avoid plagiarism even though A,B,C,D, and F was working perfectly fine, thank you very much.

And it's not as though the HISTORICAL RECORD doesn't have the original author enshrined as the author of the original struck out version FOR ALL ETERNITY in the first place.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

[violet] has already expressed how she does not want the WA to become bogged down by procedural votes to simply amend existing language. She said it would be incredibly tedious and make the game boring. I think people are forgetting a very important point here: this is a game; it it's no longer fun to play, then there's no point to it.

Another comment from vi years back that TDSR has already repeated here: authors will become careless in the drafting of legislation if they know they can always go back and change it, meaning the quality of laws passed will seriously decline.

Now, do we really want to damage WA gameplay on that level, just for the sake of convenience?

[The Dark Star Republic]

There is also a technical restriction of 3500 characters per proposal. It would be almost impossible to amend Ban Slavery and Trafficking without removing some parts of it - unless amendments were allowed to exceed that limit, in which case people could simply pass their resolutions in installments.

[Tzorsland]

[violet] has already expressed how she does not want the WA to become bogged down by procedural votes to simply amend existing language. She said it would be incredibly tedious and make the game boring. I think people are forgetting a very important point here: this is a game; it it's no longer fun to play, then there's no point to it.

There is a flaw in this logic. It's obviously has to be "fun to play" to SOMEONE otherwise they would not be submitting the amendments in the first place. The question is whether or not it would be fun for a majority of the players on the site. The solution to that is not to prevent the potential for some people to have "fun" but to raise the requirements for a proposal to move to the vote queue so that if a majority of the players don't want it, they will simply not support those proposals in the first place.

EDIT: Just had a thought. Under Roberts Rules of Order it takes a majority vote to approve a resolution. It takes a 2/3 vote to approve an amendment to a resolution that has already been passed. We only need to raise the requirements for amending an existing a resolution, thus naturally giving advantages to encourage people to write new ones.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

We only need to raise the requirements for amending an existing a resolution...

I absolutely agree. We need to ban amendments from consideration. That'll certainly raise the bar.

[Ainocra]

It strikes me as the same problem with adding riders to a resolution

you eventually get somewhere that is nowhere near the original intent .

What about amending multiple resolutions at once?

The General assembly:
Realizing: that Ainocra is Awesome blah blah blah, blah
Amends section blah of GA#2 to state that :Ainocra is Awesome blah blah blah
Disagreeing with paragraph 4 of GA #142 Amends it to read: Ainocra is awesome blah blah blah
Stating: that only Ainocra's opinion is right in all things blah blah, blah blah
Amends section z of GA# 3004546 to :Ainocra is a pagan love god, all nations must sacrifice virgins to him on a daily basis. Blah Blah Blah blah.

So despite my newly proclaimed status as an awesome pagan love god, I'm going to have to say that amendments are bad.

[Frisbeeteria]

Summary of proposed changes:

• General consensus that amendments are technically difficult, and that the Repeal function operates fairly well
• General consensus that plagiarism concerns are difficult to address in an amended resolution
• General consensus that the proposed coding system would be a game-changer for amendments

[The Gatewatch]

I really think that amendments should be allowed. A substantial number of resolutions are repealed because, despite good intentions, they have serious oversights. Their repeal basically prevents much from getting done. If amendments were allowed, a large number of future repeals would instead be amendments to correct oversights instead of destroying potentially useful resolutions. It would help end the repeal culture we see today.

[Kaboomlandia]

I really think that amendments should be allowed. A substantial number of resolutions are repealed because, despite good intentions, they have serious oversights. Their repeal basically prevents much from getting done. If amendments were allowed, a large number of future repeals would instead be amendments to correct oversights instead of destroying potentially useful resolutions. It would help end the repeal culture we see today.

Read one post above you. Allowing amendments would be a technical nightmare.