The Honest Mistake Rule (aka no lying in repeals)

[Mallorea and Riva]

Honest Mistakes

This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the Resolution and submit a Repeal that supports the Resolution, or tries to undo a Resolution because they think it does something it doesn't (Freedom of Marriage Act comes to mind...)

[The Dark Star Republic]

I am firmly in favour of keeping this rule. However, the example resolution, Freedom of Marriage Act, should be changed as it has been repealed.

[Sciongrad]

Of all the rules currently in place, I am, by a large margin, the most opposed to removing this one. I would actually like it to be enforced more rigorously, if I'm being honest.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

However, the example resolution, Freedom of Marriage Act, should be changed as it has been repealed.

I don't even know what it's talking about when it says FOMA was repeatedly subject to Honest Mistakes violations - as far as I can recall, it was just a bunch of nations who had a moral objection to gay marriage. Unless FOMA didn't actually legalize same-sex marriage (as Auralia and B+N both argued).

Anywho, one more vote for keeping the rule.

[Christian Democrats]

I favor this rule, but I think the way the moderators have interpreted it should be codified. Namely, if there are two or three reasonable interpretations of an ambiguous resolution, a repeal is not prohibited from adopting just one of those interpretations.

For example, let's pretend that somebody passed a one-line resolution that says, "Everybody has a right to the internet." Somebody else comes along and wants to repeal it, and he argues that "it is too costly for the government to ensure that everyone gets the internet for free!" The author of the one-line resolution challenges that interpretation and says, "All I meant was: the government should not restrict internet access." Both interpretations -- the government must give everyone free internet, and the government shall not restrict internet access -- are reasonable give the ambiguous text, so the moderators should stand aside and let the voters decide.

[Tzorsland]

The article in question doesn't have to be "ambiguous." It could also be a logical consequence of a part of the resolution itself. As long as a reasonable argument can be made that it is a logical consequence and not a clear misstatement of facts it should be allowed to stand. I think this should be renamed "Debatable Points."

[Ainocra]

I'm gonna be that guy


We are playing a game about politics.
How many honest politicians do you know of IRL?

Out here in the desert of the real you have politicians constantly lying, misconstruing and misrepresenting "facts"

Just watch Fox news for a bit if you don't believe me.

If we are playing a political simulation, shouldn't we be able to have just as much .... Leeway ..... with the truth as real politicians have?


Now I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with me eats babies, but I wouldn't ask them to sit for me either .......

[Blaccakre]

I'm gonna be that guy


We are playing a game about politics.
How many honest politicians do you know of IRL?

Out here in the desert of the real you have politicians constantly lying, misconstruing and misrepresenting "facts"

Just watch Fox news for a bit if you don't believe me.

If we are playing a political simulation, shouldn't we be able to have just as much .... Leeway ..... with the truth as real politicians have?


Now I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with me eats babies, but I wouldn't ask them to sit for me either .......

I am in favor of retaining this rule, and renaming it the "No False Statements" rule.

Even in politics (at least in the US system I'm familiar with) a person can be sued or even prosecuted for intentionally misrepresenting a position for the purpose of achieving a political end. And, in their current form, repeals create a permanent law that cannot itself ever be repealed and permanently strike a prior law, which (while it can be resubmitted and voted on again) cannot be fully restored to its earlier state. The stakes are high enough that where there has been an objective lie included in a proposal, the secretariat should remove that from consideration.

[Sciongrad]

I'm gonna be that guy


We are playing a game about politics.
How many honest politicians do you know of IRL?

Out here in the desert of the real you have politicians constantly lying, misconstruing and misrepresenting "facts"

Just watch Fox news for a bit if you don't believe me.

If we are playing a political simulation, shouldn't we be able to have just as much .... Leeway ..... with the truth as real politicians have?


Now I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with me eats babies, but I wouldn't ask them to sit for me either .......

Yeah, but we're not trying to emulate real world politicians and we're certainly not trying to emulate Fox News. This is a game and our goal should be to maximize enjoyment - lying in repeals completely removes the need for debates or discussions on quality and policy. Anyone's mother could simply repeal a resolution they didn't like for thinly veiled ideological reasons and no one would have any power to stop them. That isn't fun. If anything, this rule needs to be enforced more vigorously. I'm tired of having the moderators say "well, this isn't quite lying enough for it to be an honest mistake violation." Any lie or inaccuracy should result in the removal of a repeal, period.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I'm gonna be that guy


We are playing a game about politics.
How many honest politicians do you know of IRL?

Out here in the desert of the real you have politicians constantly lying, misconstruing and misrepresenting "facts"

Just watch Fox news for a bit if you don't believe me.

If we are playing a political simulation, shouldn't we be able to have just as much .... Leeway ..... with the truth as real politicians have?


Now I'm not saying anyone who disagrees with me eats babies, but I wouldn't ask them to sit for me either .......

Yeah, but we're not trying to emulate real world politicians and we're certainly not trying to emulate Fox News. This is a game and our goal should be to maximize enjoyment - lying in repeals completely removes the need for debates or discussions on quality and policy. Anyone's mother could simply repeal a resolution they didn't like for thinly veiled ideological reasons and no one would have any power to stop them. That isn't fun. If anything, this rule needs to be enforced more vigorously. I'm tired of having the moderators say "well, this isn't quite lying enough for it to be an honest mistake violation." Any lie or inaccuracy should result in the removal of a repeal, period.

Should it not be up to the voters to decide the truth of the matter? The Security Council for instance has no rule on "honest mistakes" and it operates fine. Let the truth be in the eye of the beholder.

[Kaboomlandia]

Yeah, but we're not trying to emulate real world politicians and we're certainly not trying to emulate Fox News. This is a game and our goal should be to maximize enjoyment - lying in repeals completely removes the need for debates or discussions on quality and policy. Anyone's mother could simply repeal a resolution they didn't like for thinly veiled ideological reasons and no one would have any power to stop them. That isn't fun. If anything, this rule needs to be enforced more vigorously. I'm tired of having the moderators say "well, this isn't quite lying enough for it to be an honest mistake violation." Any lie or inaccuracy should result in the removal of a repeal, period.

Should it not be up to the voters to decide the truth of the matter? The Security Council for instance has no rule on "honest mistakes" and it operates fine. Let the truth be in the eye of the beholder.

Yes, but this isn't the Security Council. The Honest Mistake rule was made to require that a repeal understands the target resolution and doesn't think it do something it doesn't. I support keeping this rule, and in fact enforcing it more strictly.

[Sciongrad]

Yeah, but we're not trying to emulate real world politicians and we're certainly not trying to emulate Fox News. This is a game and our goal should be to maximize enjoyment - lying in repeals completely removes the need for debates or discussions on quality and policy. Anyone's mother could simply repeal a resolution they didn't like for thinly veiled ideological reasons and no one would have any power to stop them. That isn't fun. If anything, this rule needs to be enforced more vigorously. I'm tired of having the moderators say "well, this isn't quite lying enough for it to be an honest mistake violation." Any lie or inaccuracy should result in the removal of a repeal, period.

Should it not be up to the voters to decide the truth of the matter? The Security Council for instance has no rule on "honest mistakes" and it operates fine. Let the truth be in the eye of the beholder.

You can't vote on the truth, what's accurate exists independently of how people feel about it. Because the majority of players probably don't have enough interest in the GA to verify the claims made in repeals by rereading the original or forum debates or whatever, it should be one of the very few areas where moderators should get involved to maintain some order. When truth becomes something that changes based on majority opinion, then we can eliminate this rule, but until then, I think we have to retain it.

Also, the GA is fundamentally different from the SC. Any comparisons are probably not germane to the discussion.

[Christian Democrats]

The problem with stricter enforcement is that it puts the mods in a position to start adjudicating when there are different interpretations of resolutions. They would have to begin saying "these are the right interpretations" and "those are the wrong interpretations," which is the sort of subjectivity this Rules Consortium was opened to reduce. We're trying to make decisions more predictable, not less.

I stick by my earlier statement that any reasonable interpretation* of a resolution ought to be allowed. It's the duty of voters, not moderators, to determine which interpretations are better and worse when the meaning of a resolution is ambiguous.

* Any interpretation that somebody who has a reasonable understanding of English legitimately could hold even if in a small minority.

[Sciongrad]

The problem with stricter enforcement is that it puts the mods in a position to start adjudicating when there are different interpretations of resolutions. They would have to begin saying "these are the right interpretations" and "those are the wrong interpretations," which is the sort of subjectivity this Rules Consortium was opened to reduce. We're trying to make decisions more predictable, not less.

I stick by my earlier statement that any reasonable interpretation* of a resolution ought to be allowed. It's the duty of voters, not moderators, to determine which interpretations are better and worse when the meaning of a resolution is ambiguous.

* Any interpretation that somebody who has a reasonable understanding of English legitimately could hold even if in a small minority.

I don't necessarily disagree. By stricter interpretation, I was referring to their bizarre policy of "some inaccuracy is okay," which I disagree with intensely. I have no problem with multiple reasonable interpretations existing from a legal standpoint. I do have a problem with unreasonable interpretations being used in repeals and then permitted by moderators because there aren't enough misinterpretations or lies to warrant removal. Although I would say, I'm concerned with the definition you provided. "Any interpretation that somebody who has a reasonable understanding of English legitimately could hold even if in a small minority" could permit contrived interpretations that defy reasonable nation theory. I agree that we need to remove moderator interpretation as much as possible, but interpreting what is a reasonable interpretation can sometimes be subjective as well.

[Ainocra]

alot of the problem is that interpretation is often in the eye of the beholder. There are many terms that can be interpreted in more than one way.

I would suggest scrapping the rule and replacing it with something along the lines of

No outright slander in repeals or resolutions.
IE: Dismayed That this resolution would cause the mass eating of babies.

Or perhaps merge this into the format rule.

[Bears Armed]

Keep and enforce the rule.

As has already been pointed out:
1/. many of the voters will -- if they even look past the title -- be going solely by the proposal's text, rather than reading the debate too.
2/. Because repeals can't themselves be repealed, any false claims would remain "permanently" in the WA's law-books.

[Frisbeeteria]

Summary of proposed changes:

• Consensus seems to be to keep this rule, though a vocal minority disagrees
• No rewrite has been posted, though removing some text was suggested.
• No one has suggested any moderation guidelines for enforcing this rule

[Christian Democrats]

No one has suggested any moderation guidelines for enforcing this rule

I think the consensus from the Game Mechanics discussion applies here:

add (somewhere, not necessarily here) "if a proposal can reasonably be interpreted as legal, it should be."