[RULES DISCUSSION] Repeals and Operative Clauses

[Wrapper]

The topic of this discussion is not mod precedent (which has been answered multiple times). It's whether or not the playerbase supports or objects to GenSec's proposed change to allow the Description line in a repeal to function as the active clause. Please stay on topic.

[Araraukar]

*snip*

But if mod precedent is valid, then reading the auto-stamped text as the repeal clause is a CHANGE OF RULES. If it's not valid, then it's just, like some GenSec peeps have tried to argue, a different point of view. That's why we're talking about it, and that's why it's both important and on topic.

[Sciongrad]

*snip*

But if mod precedent is valid, then reading the auto-stamped text as the repeal clause is a CHANGE OF RULES. If it's not valid, then it's just, like some GenSec peeps have tried to argue, a different point of view. That's why we're talking about it, and that's why it's both important and on topic.

It isn't. Mod precedent is not binding at all right now. Let's talk about the change rather than mod precedent, which has no binding influence at all on GenSec's legal decisions.

[Araraukar]

Let's talk about the change rather than mod precedent, which has no binding influence at all on GenSec's legal decisions.

Ok, so then it is a rules change.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Let's talk about the change rather than mod precedent, which has no binding influence at all on GenSec's legal decisions.

Ok, so then it is a rules change.

No, you said it yourself. If moderator decisions are binding, then it is a rules change. Else, they are a change of view. Sciongrad says they are not binding. Therefore, follow your own Else to the conclusion that it is a change in view.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I'm having a hard time seeing the relevance of the semantic discussion. OK, so it used to be the rule that a repeal that didn't have a "repeal clause" was illegal, regardless of the game supplying the helpful text "X resolution shall be struck out and rendered null and void." We stopped enforcing that rule some time ago, to be honest, at least in the proposal queue with the legality control panel. Now we are seeking to formalize this new-ish state of affairs (or in the event of a massive counter-reaction from the community, not do so).

Practically speaking, I don't see the difference between calling this a change in policy versus a change in the interpretation of existing policy (or whatever the dictionary-disputed dichotomy is deemed to be) - the effect on the game is the same (viz., repeal authors have one less thing to remember and a few more characters' worth of space for argument if they need it).

Does anyone have a serious argument against the new status quo, or are we cool?

[Araraukar]

Does anyone have a serious argument against the new status quo, or are we cool?

Just add it in the rules and it's ok (not great, but not horrible either) as far as I'm concerned.

[Frisbeeteria]

Just add it in the rules

If this is generally acceptable, somebody please come up with appropriate phrasing and location. Brevity is important, as we like to keep the rules as simple as possible. Does it go under Format: Operative Clause, or somewhere else?

[Christian Democrats]

Just add it in the rules

If this is generally acceptable, somebody please come up with appropriate phrasing and location. Brevity is important, as we like to keep the rules as simple as possible. Does it go under Format: Operative Clause, or somewhere else?

I don't think we need to add anything to the Rules. We're just (re)interpreting the Operative Clause Rule.

[Bananaistan]

If this is generally acceptable, somebody please come up with appropriate phrasing and location. Brevity is important, as we like to keep the rules as simple as possible. Does it go under Format: Operative Clause, or somewhere else?

I don't think we need to add anything to the Rules. We're just (re)interpreting the Operative Clause Rule.

I agree. It's not a rules change per se. There's no mention of precedent or moderator rulings in the rules: there's nothing to change.

[Potted Plants United]

Does it go under Format: Operative Clause, or somewhere else?

I would think Operative Clause, and maybe something like "Repeals are excempt from this rule, as the repeal clause is automatically added by the submission system."

Also, I know I'm on the "wrong" account, but I cba switch to Ara just to say this.

[Wrapper]

This sounds reasonable! Will it also apply to the Security Council, or does the ruling only impact the General Assembly?

GA only. SC Rule 3 is still in effect.

[Wallenburg]

This sounds reasonable! Will it also apply to the Security Council, or does the ruling only impact the General Assembly?

GA only. The SC description field ("A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation") is just that, a description, and not an operative clause ("...shall be struck out and rendered null and void"). SC Rule 3 is still in effect.

No, that's not quite accurate. SC repeal resolutions do have an operative clause (Security Council Resolution #404 “Liberate Whatshisface” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.)

[Wrapper]

That's what I said!

Okay, okay....

[Wallenburg]

That's what I said!

Okay, okay....

PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINK!!!

[Tzorsland]

Do the rest of you consider this reasonable, or are there objections?

I haven't been keeping close tabs on the forums lately (it's another Camp NaNoWriMo) but I have to strongly approve of this idea and throw in some not really discussed points.

Repeals are not Resolutions. It's been a while since I was in the WA, so I can't look at the screens offhand, but IIRC, when you submit a request for a repeal, the large box where you enter your text specifically says "argument." So it's not really, technically a "resolution" and the text isn't a resolution text but a repeal argument. Therefore it should have absolutely no operative clauses at all, and if it does, it merely is describing in the argument what the operative clause (automatically generated) actually does.

[Wallenburg]

Do the rest of you consider this reasonable, or are there objections?

I haven't been keeping close tabs on the forums lately (it's another Camp NaNoWriMo) but I have to strongly approve of this idea and throw in some not really discussed points.

Repeals are not Resolutions. It's been a while since I was in the WA, so I can't look at the screens offhand, but IIRC, when you submit a request for a repeal, the large box where you enter your text specifically says "argument." So it's not really, technically a "resolution" and the text isn't a resolution text but a repeal argument. Therefore it should have absolutely no operative clauses at all, and if it does, it merely is describing in the argument what the operative clause (automatically generated) actually does.

Repeals are resolutions. I'm not sure what you think you're talking about.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Repeals are resolutions. I'm not sure what you think you're talking about.

Only after the recent graphical update. Before, they had the format (e.g. the first repeal I could find):

Description: General Assembly Resolution #16 “Sexual Privacy Act” (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that WA Resolution #16, "Sexual Privacy Act", mandates that all member nations legalise incest,

Understanding that children conceived by closely related persons can be in severe danger of inheriting congenital birth defects,

Believing that there is a compelling government interest in restricting incest,

Regretting that such action is illegal under WA law with the Sexual Privacy Act in place,

Resolves the situation by repealing WA Resolution #16, "Sexual Privacy Act".

And the 'resolution' part, consistent with the old UN format, is the part under Description, which is simply that "General Assembly Resolution #16 “Sexual Privacy Act” (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void."

[Tzorsland]

I'm still seeing the Argument format in the General Resolutions Thread

Repeal "World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #400
Proposed by: Helaw

Description: General Assembly Resolution #400 "World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact" (Category: Health, Area of Effect: Research) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

Commending the principles outlined and adhered to by the target resolution,

Concerned by the restrictive definition of the term 'medicinal knowledge' as it omits specific medical cases, which in turn means that niche knowledge in regards to rare medical occurrences (i.e, only present in a single case and not fully understood) cannot be accounted for within the WACMD database,

Bamboozled by technological research being discounted in the definition of 'medicinal knowledge', as this prevents innumerable medical technologies and biomedical advances from being archived by the WACMD (many of which are integral to having a full understanding of modern medicinal science),

Confounded by the term 'medicinal knowledge' being defined by the resolution, as the active clauses instead use the separate and undefined term 'medical knowledge', with this inconsistency allowing member nations to interpret many clauses as they desire,

Noting that the medical applications of technologies developed during the creation of biological weapons in the world's history would be discarded simply due to their initial place of origin,

Puzzled by the fact that the proposal both allows access to the WACMD database by 'all' - an ambiguous term - and exclusively to WA member nations; a notable contradiction that, depending on interpretation, may allow for dangerous and potentially malicious misuse of the database by non-member nations,

Appalled by the fact that the WACMD database exists solely online, restricting access to member nations that possess digital networks,

Displeased with the waste of World Assembly funds that the target resolution ultimately represents, as other resolutions such as GA #103, GA #78, and GA #31 already perform most - if not all - of the important functions that the target resolution details,

Bemused by the failure of the resolution to specify any form of curation in regards to submitted medical data, giving rise to potentially misleading information being added to the database,

Believing that the resolution is not fit to legislate in regards to the restriction and regulation of private medical research nor per-nation medical legislation and policy, and that it overstretches its focus by attempting to do so,

Hereby repeals GA #400, 'World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact'.

Votes For: 10 788 (60.1%)
Votes Against: 7 169 (39.9%)

Implemented Wed May 17 2017

[402 GA on NS] [Official Debate Topic]

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm still seeing the Argument format in the General Resolutions Thread

Repeal "World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #400
Proposed by: Helaw

Description: General Assembly Resolution #400 "World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact" (Category: Health, Area of Effect: Research) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

Commending the principles outlined and adhered to by the target resolution,

Concerned by the restrictive definition of the term 'medicinal knowledge' as it omits specific medical cases, which in turn means that niche knowledge in regards to rare medical occurrences (i.e, only present in a single case and not fully understood) cannot be accounted for within the WACMD database,

Bamboozled by technological research being discounted in the definition of 'medicinal knowledge', as this prevents innumerable medical technologies and biomedical advances from being archived by the WACMD (many of which are integral to having a full understanding of modern medicinal science),

Confounded by the term 'medicinal knowledge' being defined by the resolution, as the active clauses instead use the separate and undefined term 'medical knowledge', with this inconsistency allowing member nations to interpret many clauses as they desire,

Noting that the medical applications of technologies developed during the creation of biological weapons in the world's history would be discarded simply due to their initial place of origin,

Puzzled by the fact that the proposal both allows access to the WACMD database by 'all' - an ambiguous term - and exclusively to WA member nations; a notable contradiction that, depending on interpretation, may allow for dangerous and potentially malicious misuse of the database by non-member nations,

Appalled by the fact that the WACMD database exists solely online, restricting access to member nations that possess digital networks,

Displeased with the waste of World Assembly funds that the target resolution ultimately represents, as other resolutions such as GA #103, GA #78, and GA #31 already perform most - if not all - of the important functions that the target resolution details,

Bemused by the failure of the resolution to specify any form of curation in regards to submitted medical data, giving rise to potentially misleading information being added to the database,

Believing that the resolution is not fit to legislate in regards to the restriction and regulation of private medical research nor per-nation medical legislation and policy, and that it overstretches its focus by attempting to do so,

Hereby repeals GA #400, 'World Assembly Central Medicinal Database Compact'.

Votes For: 10 788 (60.1%)
Votes Against: 7 169 (39.9%)

Implemented Wed May 17 2017

[402 GA on NS] [Official Debate Topic]

That's just because I'm a buff-old traditionalist, and it would be impractical to change all ~400 resolutions to the new format.

[Araraukar]

It's not a rule change. How many times does that need to be itterated? It is an interpretation and nothing more.

• Format: Other universal standards for all General Assembly proposals.
  
  • Operative Clause: Every proposal has to have some recognizable effect on member nations, such as requiring them to take action or encouraging them to support a policy change.

Additional emphasis mine. Doesn't say anything about the passed resolution or a submitted proposal, it just says that every proposal needs an operative clause. If repeal proposals no longer need an operative clause, then that is a Proposal Rules change.

[Bananaistan]

There has been discussion in the past about whether the 'Description' line that the game automatically adds to any Repeal proposal constitutes an adequate operative clause, so that the author doesn't need to add a "Hereby repeals" line in their 'Argument' section as well.
During the period just before responsibility for policing the list of submitted proposals passed from the Mods to the Secretariat, at least one Mod was operating on the basis that that line is adequate.
The Secretariat has considered the matter, and currently supports that idea 5-0. After all, a Repeal only does one thing, so that one line of Description is a clear statement of its purpose.
Do the rest of you consider this reasonable, or are there objections?

My emphasis. All repeals will still have an operative clause. They just won't have two of them anymore.

[Araraukar]

My emphasis. All repeals will still have an operative clause. They just won't have two of them anymore.

Passed ones (and possibly submitted ones, I can't remember if it gets added during submission process), yes. Which is not what the rules say.

Seriously, why is it so difficult to add "repeals are excempt from this requirement" into the proposal rules? It would make it much clearer to any newbie who comes in and is told to read the rules before writing their proposal? It's the "unwritten rules" around here that are the most obscure ones to newbies.

[Excidium Planetis]

This just in (several weeks ago): The GA Secretariat has internally decided that repeal do not need a repeals clause.

In their own words:

The 'Description' line that the game automatically adds for any Repeal proposal constitutes enough of an operative clause that the author's doesn't have to include one in their 'Argument' as well for legality.

This was just brought to my attention recently because I don't pay attention to that thread and missed this overturning of years of mod precedent.

I strongly disagree with the ruling, obviously.

Firstly, for the game added text to be considered an operative clause, it must be considered an IC part of the resolution. I do not believe any game added text should be considered to be In Character text since it was not written by a character, but this is especially problematic as it makes references to Category and Strength an In Character reference. This should not be required of GA players, as it can be considered to break character.

Secondly, this decision overturns years of precedent with no fanfare, and I cannot see why. Why did the Secretariat feel that repeals did not need a written operative clause? Who really wanted that? All it does is allow players who have not read the rules and did not take the time to add a really easy sentence to their repeal to have a legal as opposed to illegal proposal. This encourages crappy repeals. The rule itself was no barrier to GA participation and literally anyone can write "Hereby repeals X" at the end of a resolution.

[Bananaistan]

Is it necessary to have a second thread? This was already discussed here.