Why Repeal?

[Steinbock Liebe]

Have you noticed, countless times, when an issue in the World Assembly arrives at the door step to the many WA region rulers throughout NS. They vote "For" a resolution. It is very uncommon almost anything gets voted "against" anymore. But then a week or so later when an issue comes up, asking to repeal the resolution you just voted "for", you vote "For" for it. Why is that? Do people even read the issues and resolutions. Or do you think people follow the crowd and tend to vote for whatever has the most votes already? It is so often a Resolution gets passed and then one to Repeal that resolution gets passed too. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

MODEDIT: From the One-Stop Rules Shop:

Garish Posts: We like fonts and colors, really we do, but anything used in excess becomes annoying. Think twice about posts that make other users cringe... especially if you've been repeatedly asked to refrain by players and mods alike.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Could you please make your text even bigger? It's not quite obnoxious enough at the moment.

As to the voting, many resolutions fail. This one right now is failing. Sometimes repeals of resolutions that passed by large margins do pass, but this is just a game. Not everyone has the time to read a resolution in depth, and a repeal may bring to light an issue they hadn't previously noticed. There is circumstantial evidence, but not definitive proof, that voters follow voting patterns, but I believe it would be hard to establish that this is why voters vote a certain away.

[Steinbock Liebe]

OOC: Could you please make your text even bigger? It's not quite obnoxious enough at the moment.

Lol I like to make it big so people can read it no problem. Idk. Maybe its just me being picky. The topic at hand must be big!!

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Could you please make your text even bigger? It's not quite obnoxious enough at the moment.

Lol I like to make it big so people can read it no problem. Idk. Maybe its just me being picky. The topic at hand must be big!!

OOC: Lemme put it in more clear terms then: Cut it out. Its annoying as hell and garish, which is poor forum etiquette at best, and against the rules at worst.

As for your question, some of us, who regularly visit the forum, have informed opinions on resolutions at vote. Still others are not forum regulars, but read the resolution and vote accordingly. Then, you have the vast majority of the WA, who reads the title and votes for or against without any information. These rubber stampers are the reason flawed resolutions pass so frequently. Additionally, there are often issues that are not noticed until after the voting is over. Its why resolutions take so much time to write: so the regulars have time to consider them from all angles, even when their lives are too busy to do so regularly.

[Point Breeze]

There's so much more that goes into proposals that the majority of WA nations don't understand, which is a reason a lot of acts get passed that shouldn't. Case in point - the Industrial Pollution Control Act which was recently passed. Global climate change is a hot topic basically around the world, so many players see it as something the WA should act on. The proposal was formatted well and looked like a resolution, so many just voted for it. The regulars, however, pointed out several flaws that wouldn't be apparent unless you spend time on the WA forum.

Another example, the threads for drafts that get put to a vote usually swell with people who read the resolution, then decide to hop on the forum. Many have low post numbers and don't participate in drafting. They might see a resolution as valid on its face when in reality it is flawed. The resolution at vote now is one of those. It looks good, and is a good-faith attempt, but (I'll admit, even though I'm co-author) contains a gaping loophole.

This is all OOC and my personal opinions and observations.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The resolution at vote now is one of those. It looks good, and is a good-faith attempt, but (I'll admit, even though I'm co-author) contains a gaping loophole.

OOC: Flaws were pointed out long before it went to vote. It wasn't withdrawn. Nor has there been any response from author or co-author since it went to vote. Not exactly my definition of a "good-faith attempt".

Edit: To make the above relevant to this thread - however high an opinion of themselves those who contribute on the forums may have, they are no less fallible than the silent majority of voters.

[Point Breeze]

The resolution at vote now is one of those. It looks good, and is a good-faith attempt, but (I'll admit, even though I'm co-author) contains a gaping loophole.

OOC: Flaws were pointed out long before it went to vote. It wasn't withdrawn. Nor has there been any response from author or co-author since it went to vote. Not exactly my definition of a "good-faith attempt".

Edit: To make the above relevant to this thread - however high an opinion of themselves those who contribute on the forums may have, they are no less fallible than the silent majority of voters.

I don't recall the non-WA loophole coming forward until after we went to a vote. Sometimes the regulars don't even catch everything. It happens.

[Elke and Elba]

The resolution at vote now is one of those. It looks good, and is a good-faith attempt, but (I'll admit, even though I'm co-author) contains a gaping loophole.

OOC: Flaws were pointed out long before it went to vote. It wasn't withdrawn. Nor has there been any response from author or co-author since it went to vote. Not exactly my definition of a "good-faith attempt".

Edit: To make the above relevant to this thread - however high an opinion of themselves those who contribute on the forums may have, they are no less fallible than the silent majority of voters.

OOC:

however high an opinion of themselves those who contribute on the forums may have, they are no less fallible than the silent majority of voters.

That applies to you too - what it might seem not to be a "good-faith attempt" to you might differ to others, and it is not up to you to dictate whatever logic you wish people to take in.

Essentially - to OP - people don't reply, people don't respond, then bitch thereafter after the resolution gets submitted and expect concessions from yourself. And repeals get written to throw it down. That's what (will) happen to Industrial Pollution Control Act - I was mildly surprised that no one said anything about it before it got submitted. And now people are blaming on the lemmings for passing it - which I honestly don't think it is good to blame them on since they are in fact right since a) ~80 delegates approved it and b) they saw nothing wrong themselves.

So then, why repeal? Four reasons.

a) Demographics and maturity in thinking in WA has changed in a way that makes something unacceptable now, despite it being acceptable last time.

b) There is honestly a problem - which is either found reeaaaallly early (and thus invokes a repeal quite quickly), or found a loooong time after, which caused the repeal to surface.

c) Fault lies on people on the forum - either OP or people who refused to read/reply initially and start uber-hating the thing and repealing it. The most malevolent kind and the one I would say happens a lot - and isn't really acceptable at all. Especially so when repeated warnings of submissions are given.

d) You've got locked on by a major WA nation/region who hates it although others don't - and starts a great lobbying effort to repeal. As you might know, lobbying hard enough gets you what you want.

[Goddess Relief Office]

Have you noticed, countless times, when an issue in the World Assembly arrives at the door step to the many WA region rulers throughout NS. They vote "For" a resolution. It is very uncommon almost anything gets voted "against" anymore. But then a week or so later when an issue comes up, asking to repeal the resolution you just voted "for", you vote "For" for it. Why is that? Do people even read the issues and resolutions. Or do you think people follow the crowd and tend to vote for whatever has the most votes already? It is so often a Resolution gets passed and then one to Repeal that resolution gets passed too. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

If this was your main nation, you haven't been here long enough to make that kind of sweeping statement. Many proposals do fail, and instant-repeals generally have a lower chance of passing than non-instant ones.

[Aligned Planets]

a reason a lot of acts get passed that shouldn't. Case in point - the Industrial Pollution Control Act which was recently passed.

And repeals get written to throw it down. That's what (will) happen to Industrial Pollution Control Act - I was mildly surprised that no one said anything about it before it got submitted.

If this was your main nation, you haven't been here long enough to make that kind of sweeping statement. Many proposals do fail, and instant-repeals generally have a lower chance of passing than non-instant ones.

Indeed, the proportion of proposed ideas here on the forums that actually make it onto the GA proposal queue, let alone reach quoracy or amass enough votes to pass, is minimal.

I had a lovely message of support for my own Fracking Protocol, at quoracy vote, from a fellow delegate; whilst not on the radar whilst proposing, it is nice to think that some element of the IPCA may be retained in spirit through the requirements of FP.

[Steinbock Liebe]

I am appalled that posting something in a color, or bigger text is really that big of a deal. I mean honestly, with all the time in the world it is that much a problem to spend your god-forsaken time and tell me to stop. Ok.

[Mousebumples]

Look what I have for you to read!

Why Repeal? which is an article I wrote on this very subject.

[Separatist Peoples]

I am appalled that posting something in a color, or bigger text is really that big of a deal. I mean honestly, with all the time in the world it is that much a problem to spend your god-forsaken time and tell me to stop. Ok.

With all the time in the world is it that much of a problem to read and follow the rules?

[Grays Harbor]

I am appalled that posting something in a color, or bigger text is really that big of a deal. I mean honestly, with all the time in the world it is that much a problem to spend your god-forsaken time and tell me to stop. Ok.

Did you miss this perhaps?

MODEDIT by Ardchoille: From the One-Stop Rules Shop:

Garish Posts: We like fonts and colors, really we do, but anything used in excess becomes annoying. Think twice about posts that make other users cringe... especially if you've been repeatedly asked to refrain by players and mods alike.

[Corumm]

The WA is a despicable creation, it must be destroyed!

[WA Kitty Kops]

The WA is a despicable creation, it must be destroyed!

OOC: Good luck with that. Oh, and post it in its own thread, not this once.

[Tatooene]

a reason a lot of acts get passed that shouldn't. Case in point - the Industrial Pollution Control Act which was recently passed.

And repeals get written to throw it down. That's what (will) happen to Industrial Pollution Control Act - I was mildly surprised that no one said anything about it before it got submitted.

If this was your main nation, you haven't been here long enough to make that kind of sweeping statement. Many proposals do fail, and instant-repeals generally have a lower chance of passing than non-instant ones.

Indeed, the proportion of proposed ideas here on the forums that actually make it onto the GA proposal queue, let alone reach quoracy or amass enough votes to pass, is minimal.

I had a lovely message of support for my own Fracking Protocol, at quoracy vote, from a fellow delegate; whilst not on the radar whilst proposing, it is nice to think that some element of the IPCA may be retained in spirit through the requirements of FP.

Happy to oblige you sir
In response to the original question, there are always nations who dislike the passing legislature. The natural response to a new law that one dislikes, is to try to get it repealed immediately. It happens with the majority of bills that pass the General Assembly.