Secretariat

[Morgantown West Virginia]

It is WAY easier to understand soccer rules than WA rules.

Doesn't matter. Read the rules or your proposals will be removed, my friend. I say this because I don't want you to end up getting kicked out of the WA (the punishment for three illegal proposals).

EDIT: I should add, feel free to ask questions. That's what the forum is for.

But wouldn't be easier for more WA members to understand the rules so that you do not have to spend time answering questions all day, instead looking for illegal WA proposals. (Which, again as I have said multiple times if WA members understand the rules, there would be less illegal WA proposals.)

[Christian Democrats]

I can be very forgiving toward players who violate the Contradiction and Duplication Rules because there are a lot of resolutions, and contradictions and duplications are often total accidents. That said, most rules violations are violations of easy rules: no real-world references, no amendments to previous resolutions, no changing the way that the game works, etc.

[Separatist Peoples]

1. People do not have time to sit there that long and read all these rules.
2. The WA Secretariat's should not call the people they work for lazy/liars
3. Loosening a rule would allow for less work for you, and allow for more resolutions to be voted on.

1. If you can't be bothered to read the rules, I can't be bothered to change them. The rules aren't actually that hard or long, as CD pointed out. Especially for a text based game.

2. I don't work for the GA. If anything, I work for the mods.

3. Loosening the rules would let crap through. No.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

I can be very forgiving toward players who violate the Contradiction and Duplication Rules because there are a lot of resolutions, and contradictions and duplications are often total accidents. That said, most rules violations are violations of easy rules: no real-world references, no amendments to previous resolutions, no changing the way that the game works, etc.

No amendments is not a good rule, and this is because amending a prior passed resolution, can make the prior passed resolution better. Real-world legislatures do this all the time.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

1. People do not have time to sit there that long and read all these rules.
2. The WA Secretariat's should not call the people they work for lazy/liars
3. Loosening a rule would allow for less work for you, and allow for more resolutions to be voted on.

1. If you can't be bothered to read the rules, I can't be bothered to change them. The rules aren't actually that hard or long, as CD pointed out. Especially for a text based game.

2. I don't work for the GA. If anything, I work for the mods.

3. Loosening the rules would let crap through. No.

How do you not work for the GA?

[Mallorea and Riva]

What exactly is the point of this thread? Is it to answer the question in the OP? Is it to ask for a simplification of the rules? Or is it an axe that needs grinding? I can't tell right now, which makes my "lock the thread" senses tingle.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

What exactly is the point of this thread? Is it to answer the question in the OP? Is it to ask for a simplification of the rules? Or is it an axe that needs grinding? I can't tell right now, which makes my "lock the thread" senses tingle.

It is interesting that a mod shows up, after one of the Secretariat's admits that they work for the mods, rather than the WA.

[Separatist Peoples]

1. If you can't be bothered to read the rules, I can't be bothered to change them. The rules aren't actually that hard or long, as CD pointed out. Especially for a text based game.

2. I don't work for the GA. If anything, I work for the mods.

3. Loosening the rules would let crap through. No.

How do you not work for the GA?

Emphasis added.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

How do you not work for the GA?

Emphasis added.

Is that why WA reform is not allowed to be even proposed, because the mods do not want it.

[Mallorea and Riva]

What exactly is the point of this thread? Is it to answer the question in the OP? Is it to ask for a simplification of the rules? Or is it an axe that needs grinding? I can't tell right now, which makes my "lock the thread" senses tingle.

It is interesting that a mod shows up, after one of the Secretariat's admits that they work for the mods, rather than the WA.

Yeah it is interesting, because the thread has gone off the rails and I'm trying to give you a chance to salvage it. So answer the question I asked or I lock the thread, because this looks more and more like someone has an axe to grind.

Emphasis added.

Is that why WA reform is not allowed to be even proposed, because the mods do not want it.

As the mod who argued the loudest for significant GA change which promulgated a modified rule set and eventually the GenSec I can tell you that your statement is ridiculous.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

It is interesting that a mod shows up, after one of the Secretariat's admits that they work for the mods, rather than the WA.

Yeah it is interesting, because the thread has gone off the rails and I'm trying to give you a chance to salvage it. So answer the question I asked or I lock the thread, because this looks more and more like someone has an axe to grind.

Is that why WA reform is not allowed to be even proposed, because the mods do not want it.

As the mod who argued the loudest for significant GA change which promulgated a modified rule set and eventually the GenSec I can tell you that your statement is ridiculous.

Then why cannot then, the rules be relaxed so that more resolutions can get proposed?

[Separatist Peoples]

Yeah it is interesting, because the thread has gone off the rails and I'm trying to give you a chance to salvage it. So answer the question I asked or I lock the thread, because this looks more and more like someone has an axe to grind.
As the mod who argued the loudest for significant GA change which promulgated a modified rule set and eventually the GenSec I can tell you that your statement is ridiculous.

Then why cannot then, the rules be relaxed so that more resolutions can get proposed?

Because that,would allow bad proposals.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

Then why cannot then, the rules be relaxed so that more resolutions can get proposed?

Because that,would allow bad proposals.

No it would not, if people understand the WA rules.

[Separatist Peoples]

Because that,would allow bad proposals.

No it would not, if people understand the WA rules.

The rules wouldn't change if all we are doing is not enforcing them as rigorously. The text never changes in this plan.

And if the rules are rewritten to be more relaxed, lower quality proposals than what currently pass would be legal. Ergo, crap would pass. Your suggestion is actively harmful to the WA.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

No it would not, if people understand the WA rules.

The rules wouldn't change if all we are doing is not enforcing them as rigorously. The text never changes in this plan.

And if the rules are rewritten to be more relaxed, lower quality proposals than what currently pass would be legal. Ergo, crap would pass. Your suggestion is actively harmful to the WA.

It will allow for more democratic practices in the WA.

[Separatist Peoples]

The rules wouldn't change if all we are doing is not enforcing them as rigorously. The text never changes in this plan.

And if the rules are rewritten to be more relaxed, lower quality proposals than what currently pass would be legal. Ergo, crap would pass. Your suggestion is actively harmful to the WA.

It will allow for more democratic practices in the WA.

Democracy purely for democracy's sake is pointless. There's no benefit to this approach, merely a weakening of the WA's quality. The value of the democratic process doesn't negate the awfulness of an idea.

[Aclion]

No it would not, if people understand the WA rules.

I assure you this is not the case.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Then don't play the game. If you try to join a soccer team, get called out by the referee for breaking the rules, and then complain that no one has time to read the rules, do you think it's fair for them to bench you?

It is WAY easier to understand soccer rules than WA rules.

OK then. State all the different methods with which play can be restarted in an association football match and state the exact circumstances in which the methods are used.

I can be very forgiving toward players who violate the Contradiction and Duplication Rules because there are a lot of resolutions, and contradictions and duplications are often total accidents. That said, most rules violations are violations of easy rules: no real-world references, no amendments to previous resolutions, no changing the way that the game works, etc.

No amendments is not a good rule, and this is because amending a prior passed resolution, can make the prior passed resolution better. Real-world legislatures do this all the time.

WA =/= RL

Here's why amendments are illegal.

[The Second Moon Rising]

OOC: Okay. I'm not a Mod or the Sec's, afflilated with the Mods or one of the Sec's. Nor do I ever WANT to be.

1. People do not have time to sit there that long and read all these rules.

I read it. I've read it a -few- times to try and get a hold of how they work. When I look at funky submitted proposals, I re-read them again to see if I'm understanding correctly if something is illegal. Unless I'm some cosmic anomaly, people -do- have time to sit there and read the rules... and more than once. I think the longest it ever took me was ten minutes during my first reading, cause I like to re-read sentences a few times.

2. The WA Secretariat's should not call the people they work for lazy/liars

There is no trick question when it comes to clicking that box. Either you read or you didn't, and clicking that box says you did. If "People deliberately and knowingly check the box saying that they read the rules/guidelines and that their proposal is compliant with these rules/guidelines, even though they did not read the rules/guidelines for whatever reason" is the WA Secretariat them calling people lazy or liars... well... if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. If you're a duck, don't complain when people call you a duck.

3. Loosening a rule would allow for less work for you, and allow for more resolutions to be voted on.

Relaxing rules doesn't automatically mean less rules -- sometimes it means more because they have to go in-depth to explain the degree of relaxation, especially when there's people who have been going by one set of rules for a decade and now need to be informed of the new limits.

Because that,would allow bad proposals.

No it would not, if people understand the WA rules.

According to you, people don't have time to read the rules anyways. The rules we currently have aren't overly complicated. There's also a fairly obvious Q&A thread that people can ask questions in. Posting a draft, as is normal procedure, also gives people a chance to find out if they're proposing something illegal and how to/if it can be fixed before they submit it and get dinged for it.

No amendments is not a good rule, and this is because amending a prior passed resolution, can make the prior passed resolution better. Real-world legislatures do this all the time.

Come back to us when you've written the code that allows for amendments to be applied to the proper resolutions. Cause that's the reason why there's no amendments. Perhaps you can teach the site's code-jockeys some new tricks, hm?

[Luna Amore]

This thread was the single worst 'Who's on first?' joke I've ever read.

Since we seem to be stuck on repeat, iLock.