[Draft] GA Rules

[Christian Democrats]

What your rule would do is close off an avenue of activity and input for players who come along and want to write a resolution on something they're interested in, but can't because there's some minor overlap with another.

Are you even reading, or are you just repeating the same things over and over again?

Proposals will be deleted if any of their provisions substantially overlap with previous resolutions or if they would render one or more previous resolutions largely meaningless or obsolete. This is an area where moderator discretion comes into play, so please take the time to thoroughly draft your proposal to ensure that you are not duplicating prior legislation.

[Excidium Planetis]

who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths

That's an incomplete sentence, and does not in the rules make it clear that those are disallowed. Perhaps you should clarify this?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Giving this a bump since I'd like to get a new rule set posted soon. The time for input is now folks air your grievances with my current draft and I'll address them as best I can. I maintain that the lying in repeals rule should be removed, but it remains in this rule set.

[Excidium Planetis]

who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths

That's an incomplete sentence, and does not in the rules make it clear that those are disallowed. Perhaps you should clarify this?

This still needs to be fixed.

Also, the Blocker section "Proposals cannot be repeal-proof"... Isn't that a little short? Does this mean that blockers are allowed, they just have to be repealable blockers?

All mention of ideological bans are gone too... Is this my opportunity to draft "Ban on Islam"?

[Mallorea and Riva]

That's an incomplete sentence, and does not in the rules make it clear that those are disallowed. Perhaps you should clarify this?

This still needs to be fixed.

Also, the Blocker section "Proposals cannot be repeal-proof"... Isn't that a little short? Does this mean that blockers are allowed, they just have to be repealable blockers?

All mention of ideological bans are gone too... Is this my opportunity to draft "Ban on Islam"?

Fixed I think, let me know if that is better.

Blockers would now be legal, as would ideological bans.

[Normlpeople]

Blockers would now be legal, as would ideological bans.

Blockers already kind of are. Taking out ideological bans is a bad idea. If we all wanted to RP parliamentary democracies, we would do so. We will be forced to quite quickly if it is not included.

I see this as quite counter-productive.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Blockers would now be legal, as would ideological bans.

Blockers already kind of are. Taking out ideological bans is a bad idea. If we all wanted to RP parliamentary democracies, we would do so. We will be forced to quite quickly if it is not included.

I see this as quite counter-productive.

You're going to need to explain WHY it is a bad idea. And blockers by themselves are not legal.

The theory here is that moderators should not be the primary force ensuring quality in the game, but rather that players should do so through their voting power. That creates greater flexibility for authors, spurs activity, decreases the necessity of moderation, and makes the game easier to understand.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't like the way the rules here are formulated. They are just a list of what not to do with no explanations whatsoever on why not doing something is necessary.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I don't like the way the rules here are formulated. They are just a list of what not to do with no explanations whatsoever on why not doing something is necessary.

I don't think we want to get into the weeds on why the rules are the way they are, that could be done in a different post. This is the bare bones rules framework.

[Excidium Planetis]

Unlike some of the more... cautious... players here, I would be quite willing to see how the rules work out without any prohibition on ideological bans and plain blockers. If within a week we've managed to finally eliminate all dictatorships and supported universal socialism, well, maybe we can think about changing the rules back.

But I don't think that will happen. I think it will work out fairly fine for several months, until someone mounts a successful campaign to ban Nazism.

But enough of my personal opinion. Here's an argument for removing the ideological ban rule and cutting the blocker rule down:
1) In makes little In Character sense. Game Mechanics violations make sense, because In Character players could not effect the Out Of Character Game Mechanics. Ideological Bans, however, should be possible from an In Character standpoint.
2) It would make the game more interesting. Imagine, instead of boring Tuesday NAPA Repeals, we'd have the thrill of fighting campaigns to endorse Christianity as the official WA religion!
3) The rule change actually allows a way to combat the nonsense: we can implement a pure blocker that blocks ideological bans. Huzzah!

[The Silver Sentinel]

How's about a rule on misleading titles? The title of the proposal should match the text of the proposal. What we don't need is "Fluffy Kitten Convention" that legalizes terrorism. Lately we have had some incidents with authors proposing disingeneous titles that make a resolution damn near unrepealable, due to fact lemmings do not read past titles.

[Mallorea and Riva]

How's about a rule on misleading titles? The title of the proposal should match the text of the proposal. What we don't need is "Fluffy Kitten Convention" that legalizes terrorism. Lately we have had some incidents with authors proposing disingeneous titles that make a resolution damn near unrepealable, due to fact lemmings do not read past titles.

How would you like to see such a rule be written?

[Bears Armed]

How's about a rule on misleading titles? The title of the proposal should match the text of the proposal.

That used to be a rule, one that the Mods enforced...

[Mallorea and Riva]

How's about a rule on misleading titles? The title of the proposal should match the text of the proposal.

That used to be a rule, one that the Mods enforced...

Examples?

[Railana]

Giving this a bump since I'd like to get a new rule set posted soon. The time for input is now folks air your grievances with my current draft and I'll address them as best I can. I maintain that the lying in repeals rule should be removed, but it remains in this rule set.

Please don't rush!

I'm presently working on my own draft of the rules, which should be done (I hope) in about a week.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm presently working on my own draft of the rules, which should be done (I hope) in about a week.

That is pretty long, but I feel we're falling into the Alternative Proposal. The third accepted means of obstruction is the Alternative Proposal. This is a form of Red Herring. As soon three or more alternatives are in the field, there is pretty sure to be a majority against any one of them, and noth- ing will be done.

[Excidium Planetis]

I'm presently working on my own draft of the rules, which should be done (I hope) in about a week.

TL;DR.

That is pretty long, but I feel we're falling into the Alternative Proposal. The third accepted means of obstruction is the Alternative Proposal. This is a form of Red Herring. As soon three or more alternatives are in the field, there is pretty sure to be a majority against any one of them, and noth- ing will be done.

What happened to your flag?

[Tinfect]

What happened to your flag?

He said something about 'Throwback Thursday'.
I used one of my old flags for a while, but I couldn't stand looking at it any longer.

[Excidium Planetis]

What happened to your flag?

He said something about 'Throwback Thursday'.
I used one of my old flags for a while, but I couldn't stand looking at it any longer.

I saw that, thought it was odd. Never realized how awful your old flag was until I got used to the new one.

Throwback Thursday... I've always used this flag. Literally only the aboriginal flag and then this one. I didn't even change for Gay Pride Day II or I'm Not Actually Parisian.

/thread

[Wallenburg]

Is the WA army rule removed only because GAR#2 already prohibits one?

[Mallorea and Riva]

Is the WA army rule removed only because GAR#2 already prohibits one?

Nope. GAR #2 can be repealed and a WA army could be installed if this rule set were adopted.

[Wallenburg]

Is the WA army rule removed only because GAR#2 already prohibits one?

Nope. GAR #2 can be repealed and a WA army could be installed if this rule set were adopted.

Yes, but that's never going to happen.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Nope. GAR #2 can be repealed and a WA army could be installed if this rule set were adopted.

Yes, but that's never going to happen.

Never say never.

[Wallenburg]

Yes, but that's never going to happen.

Never say never.

Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes.

Anyway, I'm just asking why the army rule has been removed.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Never say never.

Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes.

Anyway, I'm just asking why the army rule has been removed.

I don't find the arguments in favor of keeping it convincing.