[Draft] GA Rules

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

And you can't just say "most of the proposal"?

Yeah, sure, you can. But in my experience, this player base has a really difficult time judging words like "significant" and "most." *snipped over-analysis*

I really don't think we should be writing rules for stupid people. If a player is really being so careless in his reading of the rules that he misinterprets commonly understood words like "significant" and "most," he deserves to have his proposal deleted.

Incidentally, one of the category strengths is "Significant." Could that be easily misconstrued as well? Should we change it to "More than Half"?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Incidentally, one of the category strengths is "Significant." Could that be easily misconstrued as well? Should we change it to "More than Half"? :roll:

You laugh, but...

[Christian Democrats]

"more than half"? I'd stay away from actually trying to quantify how duplicative a proposal can be. "Significant" made perfect sense to me.

I agree.

[EDIT] Actually, the current wording says "substantially." In my view, "substantially" and "significantly" are equivalent words.

Which is why I would prefer a rule which bans all duplication.

Then we need to ban broad resolutions.

I agree, but nobody liked my proposal.

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=344399

The history I'm referring to is mostly with the Charter of Civil Rights, where we have a broad resolution that tackles a lot of things in a less-than-satisfying generalized way.

Solution: Repeal COCR.

Either we need a ban on broad resolutions, or we need to repeal broad resolutions. Allowing duplication isn't the answer.

[Christian Democrats]

Contradiction

The opposite of duplication. This is where a proposal does the exact opposite of an existing resolution.

I don't think the phrase "exact opposite" should be used.

- Resolution A: Requiring member states to adopt genderless marriage laws.
- Resolution B: Letting member states call heterosexual unions "marriages" and homosexual unions "domestic partnerships."
- Moderator deletes B because it contradicts A by differentiating between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.
- Author B's response: But my proposal doesn't do the "exact opposite" of A. The exact opposite would be a ban on homosexual unions.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Contradiction

The opposite of duplication. This is where a proposal does the exact opposite of an existing resolution.

I don't think the phrase "exact opposite" should be used.

I agree, for the reason you outlined. Contradiction shouldn't even be described as the "opposite" of duplication, either, because the two have quite different standards: a bit of duplication is generally legal, whereas any contradiction whatsoever can be grounds for illegality.

[Kaboomlandia]

Should we move Grossly Offensive into the OSRS violation section?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yeah, sure, you can. But in my experience, this player base has a really difficult time judging words like "significant" and "most." *snipped over-analysis*

I really don't think we should be writing rules for stupid people. If a player is really being so careless in his reading of the rules that he misinterprets commonly understood words like "significant" and "most," he deserves to have his proposal deleted.

Incidentally, one of the category strengths is "Significant." Could that be easily misconstrued as well? Should we change it to "More than Half"?

I'm not talking about stupid people, actually. It's mostly seasoned players and mods that fight over these words.

@CD: It's easy to say "just repeal it." But I actually don't think the CoCR is a bad resolution. I view it in a negative light because people always try to make duplication arguments based on it. There's no reason why we can't have the CoCR *and* more detailed resolutions on race and sex discrimination. The mods, afaik, already interpret the rules the way I'm saying they should be written, as far as the CoCR is concerned. But it's inconsistent, so a wording change on the duplication rule would be beneficial.

We need to have an actual reason to oppose "duplication." The above type of duplication is not a good reason to oppose it, because that type actually contributes to the quality of the game. Yeah, let's make sure we have a rule preventing basically carbon copies of resolutions. But let's not ban any and all duplication just for the sake of itself. The goal isn't to have a duplication rule; the goal is to have rules that make the game better.

[Christian Democrats]

The goal isn't to have a duplication rule; the goal is to have rules that make the game better.

The Duplication Rule does make the game better. If a player wants to effect a change in the direction of GA legislation, he doesn't have to repeal four or five resolutions; he just has to repeal one. I repeat: If you think an old resolution is too "general" and that the topic is so important that it deserves its own piece of "specific" legislation, repeal the old resolution and replace it with "specific" resolutions. Your idea of building on old resolutions violates not only the letter and spirit of non-duplication but also the letter and spirit of house of cards. The GA is structured for discrete resolutions on discrete topics; it is not and should not become a comprehensive legal code.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Expansion of previously protected rights as G-R describes used to be perfectly acceptable under the current rule. Whether it's still considered so is anyone's guess, though I do recall Ard saying as much several times in the past.

[Glen-Rhodes]

CD, that's great and all, but I've been here for over 7 years, and I can tell you that's not how players approach the WA. You've been here just as long as me, so I know you're aware of how incredibly unlikely your "common sense" solution is to actually play out in the game.

@Kenny: Yes, that's the kind of thing that has been allowed in the past. My goal is simply for the rule to actually reflect that, so we're not relying on lost precedents that'll be reversed as soon as a mod forgets they exist.

[Christian Democrats]

CD, that's great and all, but I've been here for over 7 years

I don't believe that matters.

You've been here just as long as me

Exactly. And, again, I don't believe that matters.

When discussing (proposed) rules, can we debate their merits rather than players' (our own) merits? I'm not an opponent of building per se; I'm an opponent of legislating the same thing over and over again in different ways. Hence, I suggested the wording "substantially overlap" as opposed to an incidental overlap that might occur when two resolutions address similar topics.

[Frisbeeteria]

CD, that's great and all, but I've been here for over 7 years

I don't believe that matters.

It's not always am effective touchstone, but it IS relevant. Glen-Rhodes has been observing submitted resolutions for 7 years. I've been doing the same for 11 years. That's allowed us plenty of time for both apocryphal and statistical judgements. When I say "Branding in GA proposals is mostly spam", I'm basing that on years of moderation and removing spammy illegal proposals. You can't discuss the merits of a suggestion without taking into account known historical data that relates to that suggestion.

Should we move Grossly Offensive into the OSRS violation section?

No need, and counterproductive. All GA proposal rules belong in one place. If something is so grossly offensive that it would qualify for OSRS inclusion, it probably already violates multiple site rules. We don't need a separate ruling section to delete a nation that posts (for example) gore or porn links as a GA proposal.

[Christian Democrats]

I again voice my support for the reinstatement of the Branding Rule. Since nobody else has done so yet, I'll offer a draft:

Branding

Each time you submit a proposal, you may identify (if you want) up to two coauthor nations using plain text, the [nation=short] tag, or the [nation=short+noflag] tag (e.g., Coauthored by Frisbeeteria). You shall not use your proposals to promote yourself, your region, or your group in any way; and that includes creating fake coauthor puppet nations and trying to sneak advertisment acronyms into your proposals. Furthermore, do not credit your nation's roleplay leadership in your proposals (e.g., Minister of WA Affairs Jane Doe).

[Imperium Anglorum]

Each time you submit a proposal, you may identify (if you want) up to two coauthor nations using plain text, the [nation=short] tag, or the [nation=short+noflag] tag (e.g., Coauthored by Frisbeeteria). You shall not use your proposals to promote yourself, your region, or your group in any way; and that includes creating fake coauthor puppet nations and trying to sneak advertisment acronyms into your proposals. Furthermore, do not credit your nation's roleplay leadership in your proposals (e.g., Minister of WA Affairs Jane Doe).[/blocktext]

Based off that, may I offer:

Resolutions are not advertisements for any nation, region, or organisation. Limited branding in the form of one co-author, marked through use of the [nation=short] tag, is permissible. Any other form of branding, through nation names, roleplayed characters, or otherwise, is not permitted.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The point I'm trying to make, CD, is that you can't ignore how the game is *actually* played while assessing the merits of the proposed rules. That's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

The fact is that players will continue to submit broad proposals and they will pass. Given that, our duplication rules should offer leeway for us to continue legislating on a specific topic that's covered too broadly in another resolution. That allows for more and better debate, more proposals, and more fun playing the game.

[Christian Democrats]

I think the solution is banning overbroad proposals, but it appears that nobody agrees with me.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I think the solution is banning overbroad proposals, but it appears that nobody agrees with me.

I think the solution isn't to ban those proposals, it's to repeal them and make the duplication rule tight. So we agree.

[Christian Democrats]

it's to repeal them and make the duplication rule tight. So we agree.

Yes, that's the second best solution. Since we've ruled out an overbreadth rule, this is my position.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think the solution is banning overbroad proposals, but it appears that nobody agrees with me.

I think the solution isn't to ban those proposals, it's to repeal them and make the duplication rule tight. So we agree.

That literally is not a solution. How does repealing overbroad resolutions and making the duplication rule even more strict going to solve any issue regarding overbroad resolutions and a strict duplication rule blocking the ability of players to write higher quality, more specific resolutions? The existence of overbroad resolutions is the problem. If you're not going to stop them from being submitted, then you're subjecting the game to unnecessary BS by not allowing players to write more specific resolutions.

I just don't see how this isn't creating a rule for the sake of having a rule. The game isn't harmed by allowing players to write a resolution on protecting migratory sharks even though there's already a resolution on conserving critical species in general. The game is diminished greatly by having a nonsense rule that prevents creativity and, well, writing resolutions that aren't boring as hell.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Conceding the fact that I'm outvoted in the Moderation team and that the player base also has strong opinions on the matter, I've reinstated the branding rule in this draft.

I think the solution isn't to ban those proposals, it's to repeal them and make the duplication rule tight. So we agree.

That literally is not a solution. How does repealing overbroad resolutions and making the duplication rule even more strict going to solve any issue regarding overbroad resolutions and a strict duplication rule blocking the ability of players to write higher quality, more specific resolutions? The existence of overbroad resolutions is the problem. If you're not going to stop them from being submitted, then you're subjecting the game to unnecessary BS by not allowing players to write more specific resolutions.

I just don't see how this isn't creating a rule for the sake of having a rule. The game isn't harmed by allowing players to write a resolution on protecting migratory sharks even though there's already a resolution on conserving critical species in general. The game is diminished greatly by having a nonsense rule that prevents creativity and, well, writing resolutions that aren't boring as hell.

There is no "solution" to overbroad resolutions except to vote against them and repeal them for being overly broad. There currently is no rule against them and if you would like to see one please draft a rule regarding them. The reason the rule exists as currently proposed is to ensure that we aren't legislating on the same topic numerous times, and I for one don't feel like it would be a good idea to try and distinguish between a "legal overbroad related duplication" and an "illegal non overbroad duplication". I'd rather just outlaw duplication and let voters sort out what level of specificity they want in their proposals.

[Glen-Rhodes]

In other words, you would really rather not have to moderate with any level of nuance.

There is a solution, and it's rather easy to implement. There's no reason why we can't legislate on specific issues of socioeconomic inequality, even while we have the Charter of Civil Rights still in effect. You've yet to explain why this isn't possible or preferable. It's actually the current precedent for how the duplication rule is interpreted. All I've proposed is that we codify how you guys have been interpreting the rule, rather than adopting a new wording that not only reverses long-standing precedent, but further restricts how many resolutions we can actually write before the game grinds to a halt.

The suggestion that I propose a rule banning broad resolutions doesn't make very much sense, either. If you think you can't distinguish between harmless coincidental duplication and harmful carbon copying, how are you going to distinguish between broad and tailored resolutions?

[Normlpeople]

Just so I understand this, under these proposed new rules, not only will the ideological bans acceptable, but so to is a WA military force to ensure such?

[Mousebumples]

In other words, you would really rather not have to moderate with any level of nuance.

My understanding was that players didn't want us to moderate with "levels of nuance." The clearer and less open to interpretation the rules are, the more consistently they can be applied, no matter which GA mods are present at the time of a given challenge or ruling.

[Glen-Rhodes]

In other words, you would really rather not have to moderate with any level of nuance.

My understanding was that players didn't want us to moderate with "levels of nuance." The clearer and less open to interpretation the rules are, the more consistently they can be applied, no matter which GA mods are present at the time of a given challenge or ruling.

I don't think you should read a call for more consistency as a call for less, well, debate about the rules. It's a call for mods to be more responsive to players and more open about the moderation process.

Regardless, my quip was directed at Mall's preference to just "let the players decide." It's a lazy way to approach the rules, and he might as well not be a mod if that's the route he wants to take. What's happening here is that a rule is being changed to be more strict for no reason other than Christian Democrats has an unrealistic view of how players actually play this game. It's a bad rule change. Our duplication rules don't need to be more strict, because that will simply shorten the life expectancy of the GA. Players will continue to write broad resolutions, and future players will continue to want to write more specific resolutions that end up being illegal for duplication because they fall under a broad issue area that's already been legislated with a paint roller instead of a pen.

There are two solutions here:

1. Ban over-broad resolutions. This is requires nuance and judgement from moderators. Mall doesn't want to have to think about what is and isn't over-broad.

2. Don't freak out when a player wants to write a proposal on a subset of issues vaguely or broadly covered by a "larger" resolution. (This is, arguably now I suppose, how the rule is currently handled. But it's not how the rule is written.)

I've been asking for us to adopt option 2. Christian Democrat's rule proposal would make that strictly illegal.

I'm rejecting the oft-given and lazy solution of "repeal broad resolutions, then" because it's nonsense advice. There's no reason why we should need to. Those resolutions aren't inherently bad or low-quality. They're simply broad in language, which shouldn't rule out being able to approach an issue in a more granular way in another resolution, as long as there isn't any contradiction. The duplication rule isn't about make sure we only talk about an issue once, no matter how broadly or narrowly we're talking about it. It's a rule meant to prevent legislating on the exact same issues. A resolution on supporting conservation of species isn't the same as a resolution on protecting migratory shark species specifically. There's no reason at all that we can't or shouldn't have both.

[Frisbeeteria]

Regardless, my quip was directed at Mall's preference to just "let the players decide." It's a lazy way to approach the rules

Given the depth of our current resolution base, it would be very easy to remove practically every proposal for duplication. That's why I've always been an advocate of your second point, allowing duplicated areas without necessarily allowing duplicated content.

As for a more pro-active moderation team, I've also been against that. Yes, mods are necessary to keep the spam and game mechanics proposals cleaned up, and there are other rule violations that require pro-active mods as well. That said, my main objection to having mods decide on duplication and ideology bans (among others) is that it's so anti-democratic. As a player in a very privileged position, I don't think I have the right, or the duty, to decide issues that are potentially open to different interpretations. Giving mods the sole power to pick and choose which proposals are left in queue hands over the WA management to the four or five active GA mods. In other words, the Secretariat (4-5 players) control the queue much more stringently than even GCR delegates.

So my interpretation is fairly simple. If there are multiple ways to read a possible rule violation, and at least one of those ways is legal, the Delegates and voters should decide. Using GHRs or even the Silly Proposals thread to eliminate questionable Duplication, Ideology, and/or Honest Mistakes seems more like Mods-as-Weapons than pro-active moderation.

As in all things moderation, it's a judgement call. I really don't want the rules set so strictly that judgement is no longer a factor.