GA Rules Discussion

[Mallorea and Riva]

Indeed, but I knew coming into this that consensus was something that would be rare. I've just posted a very rough draft of a new ruleset for the other mods to view, once we've hammered it out into something we think is acceptable we'll present it for further suggestion here.

So what's been the point of any of this? You opened up multiple discussions, virtually ignored all of them - you didn't even make a single contribution to the most contentious rules issue, the MetaGaming rule - and have now written up a private draft, which you could have done anyway? Please don't tell me this entire thing was just to rewrite the Branding rule.

I didn't ignore any of them, in fact I read through each one a final time before drafting the new rules and incorporated as much player wording and opinion as possible. My contributions were limited because, as I stated before, my internet access was lost and I couldn't afford to replace it until recently. No this was not just to rewrite the Branding rule.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Regarding threads with "no consensus" -- maybe we shouldn't be thinking in terms of needing a consensus?

I guess the question now is how mods are going to treat this draft of theirs. How much can be changed on it? Can players rewrite it wholesale? Or will this just be a chance to comment, but the draft will ultimately be slated to replace the existing rules no matter what. My hopes is that the draft will simply be something to spur players to create their own organic rule sets.

[Frisbeeteria]

I guess the question now is how mods are going to treat this draft of theirs. How much can be changed on it? Can players rewrite it wholesale? Or will this just be a chance to comment, but the draft will ultimately be slated to replace the existing rules no matter what. My hopes is that the draft will simply be something to spur players to create their own organic rule sets.

Here's a sure thing - the final rules will have to be approved and posted by the Mods. Can't get around that.

As for player input, here's my suggestion: Mall posts his version, and we get comments / revisions on that in a single thread. If anyone other than Mall wants to do a full rewrite after he posts his, start a new thread, with comments and revisions on that version in that thread. I don't know how the final decision will be made, but I'm hoping whatever rule set we end up with will be mostly clear and unambiguous.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Fris more or less hit the nail on the head with what I was thinking. Nothing is set in stone on my draft, if a compelling argument is made then it will be listened to.

[Christian Democrats]

Regarding threads with "no consensus" -- maybe we shouldn't be thinking in terms of needing a consensus?

I agree. There's no reason to show deference to the current rules. This consortium began on account of widespread dissatisfaction with the current rules. Any suggestion that we need to meet some sort of supermajority to change the current rules is quite simply an argumentum ad antiquitatem, an appeal to antiquity. Such an appeal might be persuasive if things are working well, but the fact is that they're not.

Nothing is set in stone on my draft, if a compelling argument is made then it will be listened to.

Compelling to whom? To the moderators or to the GA regulars? Why does the argument for changing a rule need to be "compelling" (not able to be refuted; not able to be resisted)? Certainly, we could settle on lower standards than "consensus" and "compelling."

[Mallorea and Riva]

Regarding threads with "no consensus" -- maybe we shouldn't be thinking in terms of needing a consensus?

I agree. There's no reason to show deference to the current rules. This consortium began on account of widespread dissatisfaction with the current rules. Any suggestion that we need to meet some sort of supermajority to change the current rules is quite simply an argumentum ad antiquitatem, an appeal to antiquity. Such an appeal might be persuasive if things are working well, but the fact is that they're not.

While consensus would be nice it isn't what we're expecting.

Nothing is set in stone on my draft, if a compelling argument is made then it will be listened to.

Compelling to whom? To the moderators or to the GA regulars? Why does the argument for changing a rule need to be "compelling" (not able to be refuted; not able to be resisted)? Certainly, we could settle on lower standards than "consensus" and "compelling."

What standard would you prefer? As Fris said, at the end of the day the Mod team will make the final call. That's just how it is.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Regarding threads with "no consensus" -- maybe we shouldn't be thinking in terms of needing a consensus?

I agree. There's no reason to show deference to the current rules. This consortium began on account of widespread dissatisfaction with the current rules. Any suggestion that we need to meet some sort of supermajority to change the current rules is quite simply an argumentum ad antiquitatem, an appeal to antiquity. Such an appeal might be persuasive if things are working well, but the fact is that they're not.

Bullshit. If some sort of consensus doesn't evolve in favour of the changes, then those changes will continue to meet the same level of "widespread dissatisfaction" and the entire exercise will be futile.

As Fris said, at the end of the day the Mod team will make the final call. That's just how it is.

It's not really a "final call" at the "end of the day" if from the outset the premise is that you're writing the rules and we can do no more than comment on them. We could comment on them already before you even began the "Consortium".

[Elke and Elba]

@Mall and Fris:

If we're going to have the idea that only 'the Mod team will make the final call', I think we're certainly heading in a direction that will head us back to square one, Pre-Consortium times where players are pissed off and in some cases, rightly so.

If your intention is so, there is no rhyme and reason for the Consortium to exist in the first place, because it's a bloody farce.

Second - I hope ANY discussion between the mods over the new rules be done in the open, because from some of the rules discussion it is fair to say that the mods aren't the brightest nor most logical lot. We've seen weird arguments made by mods and refuted by other mods being silly sometime during the discussion. I hope people do bloody realise there's a point why we have a goddamn public Consortium in the first place.

So, if any mod thinks fasttracking the process by bringing everything in house is the better deal, I suggest that you wake up your idea - if the WA regulars aren't happy with the changes (either because a mod thinks his redness makes him more justified to impose his version of rules or whatever), we're just be back to where we were before the Consortium and have the problem hanging just because of some people's folly and haste.

[Reploid Productions]

We're discussing rules here, guys. The rules are not, and never will be up to a vote. The idea behind this exercise was to get as much constructive input from the community that would be affected by these rules as possible. At the end of the day though, it's still going to be the mods who will have to make rulings based on these rules who have to finalize any changes made, and not all of that discussion can take place out in the open. I mean, chairs could be thrown. While on fire. We'd need to put up a LOT more safety netting if we were to move that to a public venue.

Ideally, sure, actual consensus would be wonderful. In reality though, there will undoubtedly be some topics that will never reach a uniform or even a majority consensus. There comes a point where we just have to go "What's the best we can do with what we've currently got?" and press onward. Do we expect everyone to be happy about it? Unlikely. And folks crying woe, doom, and despair before the draft of the updated ruleset has even been posted contributes a whole lot of sound and fury, and precious little of the aforementioned constructive input.

So I would recommend that everybody takes a chill pill, cools their jets, calms their tits/nuts/whatevers as appropriate, and remember that nothing has been set in stone yet; the draft could still undergo substantial revision once it's posted and y'all get a chance to rip into it to offer your input. And let's remember that input =/= voting. Voting on the new rules is not, and was never intended to be a part of the process here.

Raging against the mods serves no productive purpose here, and actively flaming the mods *pointed look at Elke and Elba* serves even less a purpose. There are plenty of ways to express one's dissatisfaction about something that does not involve insulting someone else's intelligence; I would advise that those methods be considered.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Admin
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Elke and Elba]

We're discussing rules here, guys. The rules are not, and never will be up to a vote. The idea behind this exercise was to get as much constructive input from the community that would be affected by these rules as possible. At the end of the day though, it's still going to be the mods who will have to make rulings based on these rules who have to finalize any changes made, and not all of that discussion can take place out in the open. I mean, chairs could be thrown. While on fire. We'd need to put up a LOT more safety netting if we were to move that to a public venue.

Ideally, sure, actual consensus would be wonderful. In reality though, there will undoubtedly be some topics that will never reach a uniform or even a majority consensus. There comes a point where we just have to go "What's the best we can do with what we've currently got?" and press onward. Do we expect everyone to be happy about it? Unlikely. And folks crying woe, doom, and despair before the draft of the updated ruleset has even been posted contributes a whole lot of sound and fury, and precious little of the aforementioned constructive input.

So I would recommend that everybody takes a chill pill, cools their jets, calms their tits/nuts/whatevers as appropriate, and remember that nothing has been set in stone yet; the draft could still undergo substantial revision once it's posted and y'all get a chance to rip into it to offer your input. And let's remember that input =/= voting. Voting on the new rules is not, and was never intended to be a part of the process here.

Raging against the mods serves no productive purpose here, and actively flaming the mods *pointed look at Elke and Elba* serves even less a purpose. There are plenty of ways to express one's dissatisfaction about something that does not involve insulting someone else's intelligence; I would advise that those methods be considered.

(Image)
~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Admin
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

Hmm. Upon re-reading it seems that my comment could be read/misconstrued as a flame especially given the "isn't the brightest or most logical lot", which I apologise for. My entire point there is that no one of us certainly aren't the brightest (we aren't Einstein) - including the mods and therefore we should be taking a more inclusive approach in using the collective brainpower of WA regulars and that of the mods to form the most logical and smartest way to solve this problem, which obviously hasn't been demonstrated by Fris and Mall in particular by their unwillingness to cooperate, as well as their rather heavy-handed way of dealing with the arguments the others have put forth for a more inclusive process.

While I do understand (certainly) that input =/= voting, I do take offence that the collective intelligence of the non-mods who post on here are being slighted - to say the very least - by mods. First off, we know exactly that input =/= voting, Reploid. I don't think anyone would disagree on that point. But upon reading Mall's post in particular, there is a underlying insidious tone into it that we must have a compelling argument in order to change anything on the draft that Mall has posted. There is also the indication by Mall at least, that the draft posted by him is the canonical one and most probably the one adopted at the end of the day (variance or not disregarding). Furthermore, the entire conversation here seems to have set the tone that "yes, you can propose changes, but they aren't likely to be heeded as they have to be really, really, really compelling (which is nigh impossible, rather than logical, or on some other understandable measure). You probably will have to take whatever's on the table, and even though you have something slightly better to offer on wording or whatsoever for a part, don't hold your hopes too high because it probably won't be 'really, really, really compelling'". Reploid, if anything, we're getting the vibes that input, constructive or not, don't matter anymore.

And that's what riled us. We've been invited to the Consortium to give our feedback, of which worked quite well in the initial phase, but now what we're seeing is the return to the insular culture fostered by some apparent mod superiority in the rewriting of the rule book. If that's the case, don't bloody invite us. If that's the case, you should have just did it in-house - which will obviously make people equally disgruntled, but better than wasting our time and making us even more annoyed at this point in time.

If the mods are sincere about doing something right about this, continue with the transparency and openness we've seen initially, rather than just sidelining us with a policy of tokenism and top-down directed process when it comes to writing the rulebook again.

[Mallorea and Riva]

E&E I honestly have no idea where your feelings are coming from. I started this entire process to get player feedback, and my draft will be changed based on further feedback. It's not perfect, and I don't expect it to be the final word until significant debate has changed it into something that will work.

[Christian Democrats]

Compelling to whom? To the moderators or to the GA regulars? Why does the argument for changing a rule need to be "compelling" (not able to be refuted; not able to be resisted)? Certainly, we could settle on lower standards than "consensus" and "compelling."

What standard would you prefer?

A rule should be changed if somebody offers a compelling persuasive argument that wins consensus general assent.

[Frisbeeteria]

As for player input, here's my suggestion: Mall posts his version, and we get comments / revisions on that in a single thread. If anyone other than Mall wants to do a full rewrite after he posts his, start a new thread, with comments and revisions on that version in that thread.

Mall's thread is posted and is getting comments. I'm still waiting for someone to post their version. Frankly, I'd be delighted to see a fresh take on the rules rather than tiny variations on the same 2003 ruleset. Show me what you've got!

[Mallorea and Riva]

As for player input, here's my suggestion: Mall posts his version, and we get comments / revisions on that in a single thread. If anyone other than Mall wants to do a full rewrite after he posts his, start a new thread, with comments and revisions on that version in that thread.

Mall's thread is posted and is getting comments. I'm still waiting for someone to post their version. Frankly, I'd be delighted to see a fresh take on the rules rather than tiny variations on the same 2003 ruleset. Show me what you've got!

Ditching the WA Army rule, blocker rule, NatSov rule, etc are not tiny variations >.>
*shakes fist*

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Why are we ditching the blocker rule and the NatSov rule?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Why are we ditching the blocker rule and the NatSov rule?

There hasn't been anything even resembling a consensus on either issue as far as I can tell, and from what I've seen the more convincing arguments lead me to believe that the GA would be better off without them. I tend to believe that we should let voters decide more so than the mods when it comes to which proposals should pass.

[John Turner]

Why are we ditching the blocker rule and the NatSov rule?

There hasn't been anything even resembling a consensus on either issue as far as I can tell, and from what I've seen the more convincing arguments lead me to believe that the GA would be better off without them. I tend to believe that we should let voters decide more so than the mods when it comes to which proposals should pass.

You do understand what will happen if we ditch the NatSov rule right? As I iterated in the original thread on it, we will have stupid repeal after stupid repeal. I ask you in the name of all that is holy and good please don't allow that to happen?

[Tinfect]

You do understand what will happen if we ditch the NatSov rule right? As I iterated in the original thread on it, we will have stupid repeal after stupid repeal. I ask you in the name of all that is holy and good please don't allow that to happen?

I know I don't normally pop in here, but I have to agree with JPT here; I do not want to have to vote on a repeal of GAR 2 in the event of another WSA Catastrophe.

[Christian Democrats]

There hasn't been anything even resembling a consensus on either issue as far as I can tell, and from what I've seen the more convincing arguments lead me to believe that the GA would be better off without them. I tend to believe that we should let voters decide more so than the mods when it comes to which proposals should pass.

You do understand what will happen if we ditch the NatSov rule right? As I iterated in the original thread on it, we will have stupid repeal after stupid repeal. I ask you in the name of all that is holy and good please don't allow that to happen?

I don't think this is necessarily true. There are a lot of stock arguments: this resolution is immoral, this resolution is costly and inefficient, this resolution is poorly worded, etc. To single out the stock NatSov argument doesn't make much sense. We might as well let NatSovs say what they actually think. What's more, the Rules don't stop "stupid repeal after stupid repeal" right now because the sorts of players who write "stupid" proposals don't read the Rules anyway. The game moderators will retain their game-based authority to delete spam, and you're the only one who's threatened to clog up the queue with stock NatSov proposals.

Also, listen to yourself. We have a delegate approval system. Essentially, what you're arguing is that WA delegates are too stupid to know what kinds of proposals to approve and that modly aristocrats should determine what reaches the floor instead. You could be right (we'll find out), but ought the default position not be trust in the players to make good decisions in a democratic way?

[Mallorea and Riva]

I think CD has very eloquently summed up both my specific position on this issue and my general philosophy regarding how the rules ought to operate.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

"CD sums up my position perfectly" is not a valid reason to completely ditch perfectly sensible rules for "lack of consensus."

(Normally one would think you drop rules because there actually is a consensus to drop them, but that's just me.)

Also, listen to yourself. We have a delegate approval system. Essentially, what you're arguing is that WA delegates are too stupid to know what kinds of proposals to approve and that modly aristocrats should determine what reaches the floor instead. You could be right (we'll find out), but ought the default position not be trust in the players to make good decisions in a democratic way?

Alright, so which rules should be left up to delegate discretion, and which ones should remain in place? Because if delegates are already perfectly good quality checkers, then there's no reason to keep any rules in the ruleset, apart from the ones that merely reinforce site rules, and just let the delegates referee everything outside OSRS.

[John Turner]

"

Also, listen to yourself. We have a delegate approval system. Essentially, what you're arguing is that WA delegates are too stupid to know what kinds of proposals to approve and that modly aristocrats should determine what reaches the floor instead. You could be right (we'll find out), but ought the default position not be trust in the players to make good decisions in a democratic way?

Alright, so which rules should be left up to delegate discretion, and which ones should remain in place? Because if delegates are already perfectly good quality checkers, then there's no reason to keep any rules in the ruleset, apart from the ones that merely reinforce site rules, and just let the delegates referee everything outside OSRS.

I agree. If the delegates are perfectly capable of ensuring only legal proposals get to the floor (i.e. the WSA, On Scientific Cooperation *which turned out was illegal* and so on) why even bother having a rule set? We can have a floor full of crap and spam, and nobody will ever have to complain there is nothing to vote on.

Now being serious. I understand what you are trying to do Mall, but you of all people should know that removing certain fundamental rules will lead to anarchy and stupidity. All I ask is that you re-think this position.

[Christian Democrats]

Also, listen to yourself. We have a delegate approval system. Essentially, what you're arguing is that WA delegates are too stupid to know what kinds of proposals to approve and that modly aristocrats should determine what reaches the floor instead. You could be right (we'll find out), but ought the default position not be trust in the players to make good decisions in a democratic way?

Alright, so which rules should be left up to delegate discretion, and which ones should remain in place? Because if delegates are already perfectly good quality checkers . . .

The moderators aren't supposed to be judging quality. They're supposed to remove proposals that would undermine GA mechanics: e.g., a proposal that would contradict an active resolution, a proposal that would try to change how NationStates functions, or a proposal that has been placed in the wrong category (i.e., inappropriate statistical effects).

I agree. If the delegates are perfectly capable of ensuring only legal proposals get to the floor (i.e. the WSA, On Scientific Cooperation *which turned out was illegal* and so on) why even bother having a rule set? We can have a floor full of crap and spam, and nobody will ever have to complain there is nothing to vote on.

The moderators judge legality; the delegates judge quality. Spam, as we all know, is illegal. Crap is a matter of quality.

Now being serious. I understand what you are trying to do Mall, but you of all people should know that removing certain fundamental rules will lead to anarchy and stupidity.

The NatSov rule has never been a fundamental rule. It's a rule that unreasonably targets a specific kind of repeal argument. The fundamental rules are the rules that are necessary because of the GA's setup, such as the category rule and the amendment rule.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Now being serious. I understand what you are trying to do Mall, but you of all people should know that removing certain fundamental rules will lead to anarchy and stupidity.

The NatSov rule has never been a fundamental rule. It's a rule that unreasonably targets a specific kind of repeal argument. The fundamental rules are the rules that are necessary because of the GA's setup, such as the category rule and the amendment rule.

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. Because the argument is a game-verse ending paradox. You can't tell the WA not to violate national sovereignty when that's the entire point to their existence.

What were saying about "GA mechanics"?

[The Dark Star Republic]

The NatSov rule has never been a fundamental rule. It's a rule that unreasonably targets a specific kind of repeal argument. The fundamental rules are the rules that are necessary because of the GA's setup, such as the category rule and the amendment rule.

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!!