GA Rules Discussion

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Something you bitterly complained about at the time!!

Something I later realized made a lot of sense.

[John Turner]

And the fact that every resolution forces nations to change their laws and exacts unexpected stats changes on them, thereby violating their sovereignty? That's why the rule was put in place, by the way.

No - the rule was put in place to cover for GMC, who had begun deleting repeals with national sovereignty arguments without realizing that they weren't - at the time - illegal. Something you bitterly complained about at the time!!

I can understand why Kenny would have been upset. If something wasn't illegal at the time, why should the contributor be punished for it. It is illegal now, and GMC had good reasons for making it illegal.

[The Dark Star Republic]

No - the rule was put in place to cover for GMC, who had begun deleting repeals with national sovereignty arguments without realizing that they weren't - at the time - illegal. Something you bitterly complained about at the time!!

I can understand why Kenny would have been upset. If something wasn't illegal at the time, why should the contributor be punished for it. It is illegal now, and GMC had good reasons for making it illegal.

His reason was that he didn't like PC. That was it. That's not a very good reason.

[John Turner]

I can understand why Kenny would have been upset. If something wasn't illegal at the time, why should the contributor be punished for it. It is illegal now, and GMC had good reasons for making it illegal.

His reason was that he didn't like PC. That was it. That's not a very good reason.

It's politics. I am curious as to your opinion on the matter though. Would you like to see the NatSov rule dropped? You have been around a lot longer than most and have passed an extraordinary number of both U.N. and W.A. resolutions so your opinion would may shed some better insight.

[The Dark Star Republic]

His reason was that he didn't like PC. That was it. That's not a very good reason.

It's politics. I am curious as to your opinion on the matter though. Would you like to see the NatSov rule dropped?

Yes. But if it's a case of choosing between keeping the rule and actually enforcing the Honest Mistake rule, or dropping both, then I'd go for keeping it.

You have been around a lot longer than most and have passed an extraordinary number of both U.N. and W.A. resolutions so your opinion would may shed some better insight.

I don't think that should matter, but I can say that I (and others) can remember a time before the NatSov rule existed. And though that meant NatSov repeals were more common, they were (a) not so excessively common that it was particularly annoying and (b) mostly unsuccessful. The histrionic fears that the moment the rule is removed the walls will come tumbling down seem overblown.

[Syrth]

I don't think that should matter, but I can say that I (and others) can remember a time before the NatSov rule existed. And though that meant NatSov repeals were more common, they were (a) not so excessively common that it was particularly annoying and (b) mostly unsuccessful. The histrionic fears that the moment the rule is removed the walls will come tumbling down seem overblown.

My 'glory days' were in the Jolt era and this is my recollection as well.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Which of these rules have consensus? If certain rules have consensus, like Game Mechanics, why can't they be implemented immediately?

[Frisbeeteria]

why can't they be implemented immediately?

Most of the consensus rules are already in the ruleset. As for the others, I think we'd prefer a completely updated rules thread rather than a patchwork system. If we'd redone the game mechanics of the Category system, there would be greater urgency. Since there are no impending plans to change anything gameside, I think we can take our time.

Also, we're looking for input from several mods who have serious IRL conflicts before we decide that consensus has been reached. I could have done this solo months ago, but I'm not active enough in GA these days to impose my version on more active players and mods.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Now, there are just so many rule sets, its like the red herring from Microcosmographia Academica!

[Sciongrad]

I wonder when we can see some actual action here? I'm not opposed to holding off if there's a reason, but what exactly is holding us back from implementing a new ruleset based on the consensus changes agreed upon in the individual threads? Unless the moderators move forward with an official draft ruleset that reflects the consensuses established in the individual rule threads, this entire project is very likely to die a slow, quiet death. We can already see signs of that quite clearly happening with the multiple alternative rulesets that are appearing (which, as IA rightly noted, will only make it harder to form consensus around an official moderator ruleset down the road).

[Bananaistan]

It has been heading that way for a while. Bonkers rulings based on magic invisible clauses, inconsistent interpretation of the rules, inconsistent application of the tools available to moderators, occasional bursts of activity after each latest snafu, the rules consortium starting off with a fanfare and its protracted death with hardly a whimper a year later. I wouldn't bother with any serious effort at a resolution in the current "regulatory environment" and I find it hard to see how anyone does considering we are never too far away from the next moderator curve ball to wreck players' work in the GA.

I posted the above in the now archived Repeal "Stopping Suicide Seeds". It's all well and good for Reploid Productions to point people to make succinct reports regarding moderator corruption while at the same time warning against doing so on the basis that CD's compliant was just dismissed out of hand. The greater issue of moderator incompetence, negligence and inactivity can then be ignored while any serious GA player will just get more and more frustrated.

This rules consortium is an excellent example. There is nothing here reportable to the admins but it is still a huge issue that we've had a huge hooha about the rules with no end result. In my two and a half years as a GA regular we've had the same thing a few times now: there's some major controversy, followed by a major discussion about rules, interpretation, discards etc, followed by a spike in moderator activity, followed by .... nothing. The major issue IMO boils down to moderator inactivity. It would be my recommendation that we need a number of active mods to see through any overhaul of the rules and practices. While the same is achievable with the current moderators in place, it would be insane to expect different results while continuing to leave things as they are.

[Mousebumples]

It has been heading that way for a while. Bonkers rulings based on magic invisible clauses, inconsistent interpretation of the rules, inconsistent application of the tools available to moderators, occasional bursts of activity after each latest snafu, the rules consortium starting off with a fanfare and its protracted death with hardly a whimper a year later. I wouldn't bother with any serious effort at a resolution in the current "regulatory environment" and I find it hard to see how anyone does considering we are never too far away from the next moderator curve ball to wreck players' work in the GA.

I posted the above in the now archived Repeal "Stopping Suicide Seeds". It's all well and good for Reploid Productions to point people to make succinct reports regarding moderator corruption while at the same time warning against doing so on the basis that CD's compliant was just dismissed out of hand. The greater issue of moderator incompetence, negligence and inactivity can then be ignored while any serious GA player will just get more and more frustrated.

This rules consortium is an excellent example. There is nothing here reportable to the admins but it is still a huge issue that we've had a huge hooha about the rules with no end result. In my two and a half years as a GA regular we've had the same thing a few times now: there's some major controversy, followed by a major discussion about rules, interpretation, discards etc, followed by a spike in moderator activity, followed by .... nothing. The major issue IMO boils down to moderator inactivity. It would be my recommendation that we need a number of active mods to see through any overhaul of the rules and practices. While the same is achievable with the current moderators in place, it would be insane to expect different results while continuing to leave things as they are.

As always, if you have suggestions for new WA mods, please submit your nominations through the designated process in the Moderation forum.

As Sedge alluded to here, we have been finalizing some wording changes to the rules in our Seekrit Mod Lair and those should be dropping shortly.

Additionally, to touch on what Sedge says there, there seems to be a complete misunderstanding amongst the player base about what the Honest Mistake rule means. Heck, before I was modded, I was sure I was going to have a proposal pulled for a legit "honest mistake" - when I made a math error when trying to repeal one of Quelesh's proposals. (I was told that the repeal was legal and I was incorrect in my understanding.)

GA mods do not rule on "interpretation." There are lots of way to interpret and read resolutions, and while the author may have intended [X], [Y] can also be a viable reading. If the scenario outlined in the repeal is possible, we let the voters decide.

[Sciongrad]

As always, if you have suggestions for new WA mods, please submit your nominations through the designated process in the Moderation forum.

If I recall correctly, there was an entire thread dedicated to this issue where several players made several suggestions. Don't deflect this issue by assigning blame to us for not recommending anyone through the proper channel.

Additionally, to touch on what Sedge says there, there seems to be a complete misunderstanding amongst the player base about what the Honest Mistake rule means. Heck, before I was modded, I was sure I was going to have a proposal pulled for a legit "honest mistake" - when I made a math error when trying to repeal one of Quelesh's proposals. (I was told that the repeal was legal and I was incorrect in my understanding.)

We understand the rule. Evidently, you guys do not. It has never, ever been interprpreted as permitting deliberate lies. That is a new interpretation, presumably a post hoc fix to prevent having to remove the most recent resolution. But let's assume you're right. Can we get a clarification as to what it is then? Because I was under the assumption, as was every other player except apparently IA, that the GA rule prohibited mistakes in proposals. Even previous awful rulings that argued repeals weren't quite wrong enough to be removed at least acknowledged that much.

As Sedge alluded to here, we have been finalizing some wording changes to the rules in our Seekrit Mod Lair and those should be dropping shortly.

Hmmm. Awful ruling. Widespread player discontent. Promises of sweeping change. Sounds familiar. I can't say I'm hopeful.

GA mods do not rule on "interpretation." There are lots of way to interpret and read resolutions, and while the author may have intended [X], [Y] can also be a viable reading. If the scenario outlined in the repeal is possible, we let the voters decide.

No on is asking that GA Mods rule on interpretation. We are asking that you remove things that are objectively wrong. GA regulars unanimously agreed that the recent repeal of CD's resolution was incorrect. That is not a matter of interpretation. Saying that relentlessly does not make it true.

[Mousebumples]

As always, if you have suggestions for new WA mods, please submit your nominations through the designated process in the Moderation forum.

If I recall correctly, there was an entire thread dedicated to this issue where several players made several suggestions. Don't deflect this issue by assigning blame to us for not recommending anyone through the proper channel.

Additionally, to touch on what Sedge says there, there seems to be a complete misunderstanding amongst the player base about what the Honest Mistake rule means. Heck, before I was modded, I was sure I was going to have a proposal pulled for a legit "honest mistake" - when I made a math error when trying to repeal one of Quelesh's proposals. (I was told that the repeal was legal and I was incorrect in my understanding.)

We understand the rule. Evidently, you guys do not. It has never, ever been interprpreted as permitting deliberate lies. That is a new interpretation, presumably a post hoc fix to prevent having to remove the most recent resolution. But let's assume you're right. Can we get a clarification as to what it is then? Because I was under the assumption, as was every other player except apparently IA, that the GA rule prohibited mistakes in proposals. Even previous awful rulings that argued resolutions weren't quite wrong enough at least acknowledged that much.

I was the one who replied to your GHR. I had been occupied with work over the previous days, so I was the "uninvolved mod" who hadn't already ruled on the objection.

I evaluated the repeal text, and the original, and while the crowd of GA regulars may disagree with the assessment made by myself and the other mods, that doesn't mean that it's inherently wrong. I can't speak for other mods, but I view the Honest Mistake rule similarly to the NatSov rule. Your entire repeal text cannot be an Honest Mistake, but a a bit of hyperbole or political speak isn't enough to get it nuked.

The biggest "concern" comes over the first clause of the repeal, I believe, but do you deny that the rest of the repeal text is 100% on-target?

Convinced that regulation to prevent the exploitation of farmers is preferable to an outright ban of a technology which has considerable utility in limiting the spread of transgenic crops,

I view that as preamble. That's a statement that regulation is preferable to a ban. The explicit "this is why the resolution is so bad" is all in the Items number 1-3. Are you disputing that the items in 1-3 are 100% on target?

From my previous review:
1 - explicit use of "ban" in the original
2 - explicit use of "mandate" in the original
3 - explicit use of "prohibit" in the original

No on is asking that GA Mods rule on interpretation. We are asking that you remove things that are objectively wrong. GA regulars unanimously agreed that the recent repeal of CD's resolution was incorrect. That is not a matter of interpretation. Saying that relentlessly does not make it true.

We disagree on this, but we've had multiple GA mods weigh in on this one, and not a single GA mod felt that Honest Mistake rule should be invoked about this repeal. GA regulars may be unanimous, but so were GA mods. To me, that says perhaps GA regulars don't understand the rule or how it's interpreted or enforced. That's what my responses in this thread have been about.

[Sciongrad]

I evaluated the repeal text, and the original, and while the crowd of GA regulars may disagree with the assessment made by myself and the other mods, that doesn't mean that it's inherently wrong. I can't speak for other mods, but I view the Honest Mistake rule similarly to the NatSov rule. Your entire repeal text cannot be an Honest Mistake, but a a bit of hyperbole or political speak isn't enough to get it nuked.

It is confounding that you guys keep making this exact argument when it invariably unleashes player outrage. We do not believe that is an appropriate reading of the honest mistake rule. We have not believed that for years. You moderators are smart folks. I have no idea why you insist on interpreting it that way when players have overwhelmingly suggested they would prefer it if repeals were removed for any inaccuracy. It's not like the text of the rule as its currently written demands that interpretation.

The biggest "concern" comes over the first clause of the repeal, I believe, but do you deny that the rest of the repeal text is 100% on-target?

No one has ever suggested that the entire proposal is incorrect. Only that specific clauses are.

I view that as preamble. That's a statement that regulation is preferable to a ban. The explicit "this is why the resolution is so bad" is all in the Items number 1-3. Are you disputing that the items in 1-3 are 100% on target?

Every single clause in a repeal except for the final "hereby repeals" clause is preambulatory - or perhaps it would be more exact to say that repeals do not have preambles at all because the entire text is meant to be an argument, whereas normal resolutions use a distinct preambulatory section to justify the operative section. Either way, this is an imaginary distinction.

Of course, this clause:

Believing that 249 GA's ban on a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile' would make it significantly harder to protect native species from the accidental spread of transgenic organisms without prohibitively expensive administrative protocols,

States explicitly that GAR#249 requires that nations ban GUR technology. I am not sure how you can dispute that.

We disagree on this, but we've had multiple GA mods weigh in on this one, and not a single GA mod felt that Honest Mistake rule should be invoked about this repeal. GA regulars may be unanimous, but so were GA mods. To me, that says perhaps GA regulars don't understand the rule or how it's interpreted or enforced. That's what my responses in this thread have been about.

I think you're wrong, obviously. As does every other active GA regular, which is why accusations of moderator incompetence are so pervasive. As I'm sure you know, this is demonstrably not how the honest mistake rule was interpreted years ago. But let's assume you're right and every single one of us is wrong. If the rule is enforced in such a way that literally every single regular finds it actively detrimental to the quality of the game, I still think that's your fault. We have suggested changes to the rule that we would find more conducive to a fun atmosphere - among them is a strict honest mistake rule that removes repeals for any factual inaccuracies. It is not our fault that the moderators have drawn out the official rules changing process for more than a year. So either you guys are incompetent or you guys are simply not taking what players want into account. It's one or the other and either way, its the moderators' fault, not ours.

[Bananaistan]

As always, if you have suggestions for new WA mods, please submit your nominations through the designated process in the Moderation forum.

As Sedge alluded to here, we have been finalizing some wording changes to the rules in our Seekrit Mod Lair and those should be dropping shortly.

Additionally, to touch on what Sedge says there, there seems to be a complete misunderstanding amongst the player base about what the Honest Mistake rule means. Heck, before I was modded, I was sure I was going to have a proposal pulled for a legit "honest mistake" - when I made a math error when trying to repeal one of Quelesh's proposals. (I was told that the repeal was legal and I was incorrect in my understanding.)

GA mods do not rule on "interpretation." There are lots of way to interpret and read resolutions, and while the author may have intended [X], [Y] can also be a viable reading. If the scenario outlined in the repeal is possible, we let the voters decide.

There were plenty of suggestions after Wrapper's appointment. I would be amazed if you are not aware of the contributions of all the players who were mentioned in the discussion thread.

With all due respect, I won't be holding my breath. We've been promised big changes many times before. I'll wait and see.

In any case, a nice shiny new rule set will be great and all that but if the same level of moderator inactivity and lack of interaction with the regulars continues, it will make very little difference.

Specifically re: interpretation. You do rule on interpretation and a lot of moderator rulings are interpretations of passed resolutions. When you ruled on Right to sexual privacy and its interaction with Child Pornography Ban, you interpreted Child Pornography Ban in a certain fashion which appeared to rely on words and intentions not even mentioned in it and in a way which virtually no one else had.

[Sandaoguo]

It's a good thing we're talking about what the rules should be, then, Mouse!

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I evaluated the repeal text, and the original, and while the crowd of GA regulars may disagree with the assessment made by myself and the other mods, that doesn't mean that it's inherently wrong. I can't speak for other mods, but I view the Honest Mistake rule similarly to the NatSov rule. Your entire repeal text cannot be an Honest Mistake, but a a bit of hyperbole or political speak isn't enough to get it nuked.

The biggest "concern" comes over the first clause of the repeal, I believe, but do you deny that the rest of the repeal text is 100% on-target?

Convinced that regulation to prevent the exploitation of farmers is preferable to an outright ban of a technology which has considerable utility in limiting the spread of transgenic crops,

I view that as preamble. That's a statement that regulation is preferable to a ban. The explicit "this is why the resolution is so bad" is all in the Items number 1-3. Are you disputing that the items in 1-3 are 100% on target?

From my previous review:
1 - explicit use of "ban" in the original
2 - explicit use of "mandate" in the original
3 - explicit use of "prohibit" in the original

No on is asking that GA Mods rule on interpretation. We are asking that you remove things that are objectively wrong. GA regulars unanimously agreed that the recent repeal of CD's resolution was incorrect. That is not a matter of interpretation. Saying that relentlessly does not make it true.

We disagree on this, but we've had multiple GA mods weigh in on this one, and not a single GA mod felt that Honest Mistake rule should be invoked about this repeal. GA regulars may be unanimous, but so were GA mods. To me, that says perhaps GA regulars don't understand the rule or how it's interpreted or enforced. That's what my responses in this thread have been about.

A quick glance at occurrences of the phrase "honest mistake" in the GA Silly/Illegal thread appears to show not that players have a poor understanding of the meaning of the rule; rather Moderation's understanding of the rule has "evolved" in some fashion. On my phone now so not gonna post millions of citations, but on page 2-3 of here (http://forum.nationstates.net/search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keywords="honest+mistake"&t=548&sf=msgonly&ch=-1&start=50), there appear to be a number of cases where a piecemeal HM violation (about on the level of the first & fourth clauses of "Repeal SSS") was enough to sink the proposal. If we've been misinterpreting the rule all these years, 1) there's been a gravely serious lack of communication about that and 2) Flib used to misinterpret it right along with the rest of us - so it's hardly surprising that people who've been here longer than I have would interpret it the same way they used to, and create a culture that expects the old interpretation to be the norm. If it's no longer to be the norm, that's news.

It's also likely to make playing the GA basically impossible for anyone unwilling to spend either tons of time tweaking telegram scripts, or Bitelian levels of money for stamps. Now, there might be an argument for that from a "we can't afford to host the site on ad dollars alone" perspective, but it's not likely to be a good idea from a participation and new-blood standpoint.

[Christian Democrats]

GA mods do not rule on "interpretation." There are lots of way to interpret and read resolutions.

IA's repeal was not an interpretation. It clearly mischaracterized the original resolution. Apparently, GA mods are unwilling or unable to see something that everybody else observed. I don't know if this is due to inactivity or incompetence, but it ought to be fixed.

We understand the rule. Evidently, you guys do not. It has never, ever been interprpreted as permitting deliberate lies. That is a new interpretation, presumably a post hoc fix to prevent having to remove the most recent resolution. But let's assume you're right. Can we get a clarification as to what it is then? Because I was under the assumption, as was every other player except apparently IA, that the GA rule prohibited mistakes in proposals. Even previous awful rulings that argued resolutions weren't quite wrong enough at least acknowledged that much.

Just wait. Contrary to the will of all GA regulars, the mods have said that they're watering down the Honest Mistakes rule.

viewtopic.php?p=28477145#p28477145

I can't speak for other mods, but I view the Honest Mistake rule similarly to the NatSov rule. Your entire repeal text cannot be an Honest Mistake, but a a bit of hyperbole or political speak isn't enough to get it nuked.

A bit of hyperbole?! The entire proposal was based on a lie, and Wrapper said as much and condoned it.

The biggest "concern" comes over the first clause of the repeal, I believe, but do you deny that the rest of the repeal text is 100% on-target?

Yes, the fourth clause says that Stopping Suicide Seeds imposed a "ban on a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile.'" The resolution did not say anything of the like. In fact, it said exactly the opposite:

1. Defines the following terms for use in this resolution:

1. Variety genetic use restriction technology (V-GURT): a genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile;
   . . .

2. Requires that all member states ban or strictly regulate V-GURT.

Convinced that regulation to prevent the exploitation of farmers is preferable to an outright ban of a technology which has considerable utility in limiting the spread of transgenic crops,

I view that as preamble. That's a statement that regulation is preferable to a ban.

Stopping Suicide Seeds did regulate genetic use restriction technology. Where was there an "outright ban"?

We disagree on this, but we've had multiple GA mods weigh in on this one, and not a single GA mod felt that Honest Mistake rule should be invoked about this repeal. GA regulars may be unanimous, but so were GA mods. To me, that says perhaps GA regulars don't understand the rule or how it's interpreted or enforced.

To me, that says the GA mods are unjust. Allow me to give a hypothetical:

In Ruritania, the people are unanimous that going to war with Graustark is wrong. Ruritania's political leaders are unanimous that war ought to be declared on Graustark.

Do you think the people's unanimous will should be dismissed and that Ruritania should declare war anyway, or do you think the Ruritanian government is an unjust one: a government whose will is totally disconsonant with the will of the governed?

[Sandaoguo]

A quick glance at occurrences of the phrase "honest mistake" in the GA Silly/Illegal thread appears to show not that players have a poor understanding of the meaning of the rule; rather Moderation's understanding of the rule has "evolved" in some fashion.

I mean, you just have to look at Mallorea and Riva's ruleset to see this. "Any factual inaccuracy will result in a proposal being pulled" is a pretty clear standard. But, hey, Mall wanted to remove that rule even when everybody said to keep it. I imagine player consensus bears very little in what the mods decide to do in their secret forums.