[RANT] All those repeals

[Chedonia]

Am I the only one who's getting a little fed up about all the repeals lately? I'm talking about proposals that are submitted to repeal an already-passed resolution, purely based on the fact that it doesn't take some other (and unknown at the time) elements into account.

I mean, if the old one was inadequate, why not just submit a replacement proposal instead, where those unknown-or-not-accounted-for elements are included? How hard can it be to just base yourself on the old resolution text, and add your amendments to it, and submit that proposal instead?

Or better yet, why not have the ability to propose amendments to existing resolutions in the World Assembly, just as lawmakers can in other real-world countries? That way, when resolutions are just inadequate, we can just submit amendment proposals to them, instead of repealing them altogether.

What do you think?

[Bears Armed]

WA rules say no amending passed resolutions, no contradicting passed resolutions, no duplicating passed resolutions... Oh, and no plagiarism, neither. Repeal-and-replace is the only 'legal' way of making changes once a resolution has been passed.

And before you ask "Why?!?", this is because of the way in which the passage of resolutions affecting member nations' stats is coded.

[Gullud]

There are definite problems in the current WA. I feel that there has been a major shift away from looking for laws that will improve the lives of all citizens of WA member nations to an anger at the existing law. Often laws are repealed with adequate replacements ever proposed. It's just angry Ambassadors that want to spit on international law. It is time that we stand up to the crap. I have done so with the current repeal vote on the floor. Nations need to stand up and say this law helped me, helped my nation. Then it will stop.

Also, I have not seen any well written proposals in at least 2 months. The proposals that are written well are fail to receive quorum. The repeals do get quorum though. I would rather vote once a month on a good proposal than every 5 days on a repeal of a law that was clearly not read beyond the title by the author of the repeal. This is not saying that there have not been good repeal proposals. Three month we had the Repeal "Habeas Corpus Act" (GA# 195). It was well written, clear and replaced with GA# 201 within a month. This is proper use of repeal. I do think that we need to call a rules committee for a WA' general assembly to rewrite the rules on appealing laws. Otherwise, we must present the replacement before the repeal (unless we are going for nullification; then you should have a very good reason).

[Mousebumples]

There are definite problems in the current WA. I feel that there has been a major shift away from looking for laws that will improve the lives of all citizens of WA member nations to an anger at the existing law. Often laws are repealed with adequate replacements ever proposed. It's just angry Ambassadors that want to spit on international law. It is time that we stand up to the crap. I have done so with the current repeal vote on the floor. Nations need to stand up and say this law helped me, helped my nation. Then it will stop.

Also, I have not seen any well written proposals in at least 2 months. The proposals that are written well are fail to receive quorum. The repeals do get quorum though. I would rather vote once a month on a good proposal than every 5 days on a repeal of a law that was clearly not read beyond the title by the author of the repeal. This is not saying that there have not been good repeal proposals. Three month we had the Repeal "Habeas Corpus Act" (GA# 195). It was well written, clear and replaced with GA# 201 within a month. This is proper use of repeal. I do think that we need to call a rules committee for a WA' general assembly to rewrite the rules on appealing laws. Otherwise, we must present the replacement before the repeal (unless we are going for nullification; then you should have a very good reason).

For the record, the current repeal at vote DOES have replacements that are pretty much ready to go. In fact, it has THREE replacements - and I'm preparing to edit in some new revisions shortly.

(1) Medical Donation Rights - Human Rights, Significant
(2) Biomedical Innovation Organization - Education & Creativity, Education
(3) Biomedical Trade & Treatments - Free Trade, Mild

Provided that I can get the 2 repeals necessary passed, I hope to submit all 3 of these within a week of the successful repeals. (Please see any of those 2 threads for details on which 2 resolutions I am targeting for repeal.)

I understand your concerns - especially regarding important legislation that affects the health of those within our nations. So while I am disappointed with the 2 present resolutions in question, that is exactly why I am working to ensure that they are replaced with higher quality resolutions when all is said and done.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

ETA/OOC: For the record, only one of the options in the poll is even LEGAL under current WA law, unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning for the second and third options.

[Gullud]

There are definite problems in the current WA. I feel that there has been a major shift away from looking for laws that will improve the lives of all citizens of WA member nations to an anger at the existing law. Often laws are repealed with adequate replacements ever proposed. It's just angry Ambassadors that want to spit on international law. It is time that we stand up to the crap. I have done so with the current repeal vote on the floor. Nations need to stand up and say this law helped me, helped my nation. Then it will stop.

Also, I have not seen any well written proposals in at least 2 months. The proposals that are written well are fail to receive quorum. The repeals do get quorum though. I would rather vote once a month on a good proposal than every 5 days on a repeal of a law that was clearly not read beyond the title by the author of the repeal. This is not saying that there have not been good repeal proposals. Three month we had the Repeal "Habeas Corpus Act" (GA# 195). It was well written, clear and replaced with GA# 201 within a month. This is proper use of repeal. I do think that we need to call a rules committee for a WA' general assembly to rewrite the rules on appealing laws. Otherwise, we must present the replacement before the repeal (unless we are going for nullification; then you should have a very good reason).

For the record, the current repeal at vote DOES have replacements that are pretty much ready to go. In fact, it has THREE replacements - and I'm preparing to edit in some new revisions shortly.

(1) Medical Donation Rights - Human Rights, Significant
(2) Biomedical Innovation Organization - Education & Creativity, Education
(3) Biomedical Trade & Treatments - Free Trade, Mild

Provided that I can get the 2 repeals necessary passed, I hope to submit all 3 of these within a week of the successful repeals. (Please see any of those 2 threads for details on which 2 resolutions I am targeting for repeal.)

I understand your concerns - especially regarding important legislation that affects the health of those within our nations. So while I am disappointed with the 2 present resolutions in question, that is exactly why I am working to ensure that they are replaced with higher quality resolutions when all is said and done.

Yours,
Nikolas Eberhart
Ambassador from the Doctoral Monkey Feet of Mousebumples
WA Delegate for Monkey Island

ETA/OOC: For the record, only one of the options in the poll is even LEGAL under current WA law, unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning for the second and third options.

This was written during the first attempt at repeal of Medical Donation Rights Act. I know that you have a better one in the works.

[Mallorea and Riva]

You're missing the option where you repeal the resolution... and then you let the issue be a national one.

[Mousebumples]

This was written during the first attempt at repeal of Medical Donation Rights Act. I know that you have a better one in the works.

Actually, I have FOUR replacements currently in the works - three of which have been submitted - compared to the three listed.

(1) Biomedical Donor Rights
(2) Biomedical Recipient Rights
(3) Biomedical Innovation Org
(4) [STILL BEING DRAFTED] Biomedical Trade & Treatments

Anyhow, I'm guessing this is (hopefully) a moot point, as the repeals passed and are now in the process (*presuming I make quorum on my replacements) of being voted upon to replace the now voided resolutions.

[Moronist Decisions]

A few thoughts:

- Basing a new proposal on an old one, as you described, would probably make you run afoul of plagiarism - the one auto-ejection offense in the WA.

How hard can it be to just base yourself on the old resolution text, and add your amendments to it, and submit that proposal instead?

- Some resolutions should not be replaced. They are just poorly done on topics that should not be legislated by the WA.
- Replacements need not be written by the same party. If you are annoyed that something you like is repealed, then go ahead and write the replacement!
- Amendments can't be done, for very good reasons (c.f. the rules post.

[Mousebumples]

- Replacements need not be written by the same party. If you are annoyed that something you like is repealed, then go ahead and write the replacement!

Replacements are also a good "starting job" for new proposal writers. Heck, back in the Olden Days, my first resolution was a replacement for the then-repealed UN Resolution for the "Global Library."

[Aqua Regia]

Repeal and replace is likely the best way to go about it when it comes to augmenting a past resolution. In the surrealistic environment that is NationStates, certain resolutions have the potential to "evolve". Meaning to say that newly discovered breakthroughs in a certain field may prompt past resolutions to be modified. However, amending a resolution is barred because it is not fair to affected nations to deal with the changes since alterations are considered beyond the scope of the existing resolution that nations have agreed on (what they see is what they should be getting, no more no less). So repealing an existing resolution and then drafting a replacement that addresses the shortcomings of the previous one is a sound and fair process.

On the other hand, some resolutions may have just become obsolete by nature. This is a little harder to justify because NS isn't bound by an evolving era much like what happens in the real world, which throughout its history has had a lot of circumstances that may have applied at one point but no longer applies in the present. This is highlighted by the fact that there are many nations that belong to fundamentally different environments from each other such as tech-type (i.e. fantasy) or relative location (i.e. space vs. terrestrial setting). Yet to a certain extent, this phenomena may still govern some aspects in the NS world with the same set of rules (i.e. while child labor of any kind is considered to be one avenue of improving productivity, it is universally frowned upon regardless of whether it takes place in the real world or NS because it is a harsh practice by nature).

[Mousebumples]

However, amending a resolution is barred because it is not fair to affected nations to deal with the changes since alterations are considered beyond the scope of the existing resolution that nations have agreed on (what they see is what they should be getting, no more no less).

Nope. Not true.

Amendments are "barred," but your listed reasoning is not why. For more details, check the above links.

[Aqua Regia]

Amendments are "barred," but your listed reasoning is not why. For more details, check the above links.

Yeah I'm sure I read that quite a while back and I do agree that coding is a lot of hard work and frustrations. It's easier to keep things simple. I should have argued it as a personal opinion though since that was my intent. It's like having a contract you already signed. If it gets "amended", you'd normally be upset because such amendments may no longer cater to what you have agreed upon with the other party(ies).

[Galiantus]

Am I the only one who's getting a little fed up about all the repeals lately? I'm talking about proposals that are submitted to repeal an already-passed resolution, purely based on the fact that it doesn't take some other (and unknown at the time) elements into account.

I mean, if the old one was inadequate, why not just submit a replacement proposal instead, where those unknown-or-not-accounted-for elements are included? How hard can it be to just base yourself on the old resolution text, and add your amendments to it, and submit that proposal instead?

Or better yet, why not have the ability to propose amendments to existing resolutions in the World Assembly, just as lawmakers can in other real-world countries? That way, when resolutions are just inadequate, we can just submit amendment proposals to them, instead of repealing them altogether.

What do you think?

Personally, I like all the repeals.