[D] Removing the NatSov-Only rule

[Heavens Reach]

Why shouldn't unfair arguments be allowed? Can't the WA just figure the mess out for themselves? Won't they just not vote for a repeal that mischaracterizes the target resolution? Why does there need to be a rule?

No, they won't "just not vote for a repeal that mischaracterizes the target". There's a massive gap in the required information a voter must have to evaluate the merits of a NatSov argument versus the veracity of a dishonest repeal.

If a repeal says "Legalization of prostitution isn't something the World Assembly should address", the average voter can form an opinion on that themselves, with little information needed. Do they believe the WA should be addressing prostitution? Do they believe it shouldn't? There's no harm in putting such a repeal before voters.

However, if a repeal says "The target legalizes child prostitution, which isn't something the WA should legalize", when that is not the case that the target allows child prostitution, it is not sufficient for a voter to merely decide whether the argument itself has merit... even if they agree that child prostitution is bad, that doesn't enabled them to make an informed vote, because they don't know that the claim is in fact false. They need additional information to determine whether the claim is true or not. That's an additional barrier to informed voting, and one that not many voters would be able to get over, I imagine.

There is literally no barrier to gathering information. You can literally just look at the target resolution.

I made your statements. You stated the Ideological Ban rule did not make the WA more functional, and that it was a bad rule because of that.

I merely replaced "Ideological Ban" with "NatSov".

And?

[Heavens Reach]

Like I assume you're going somewhere with this? There's an entire thread of my arguments for why the Nat-Sov only rule makes the WA more functional. Did you really think I was going to retype it all up just for you? Maybe I should just start quoting myself at you instead of responding? Would that be better?

[Excidium Planetis]

There is literally no barrier to gathering information. You can literally just look at the target resolution.

That is not the case. There's literally hundreds of examples where flaws in resolutions were not caught until after they were on the voting floor, even though plenty of players had read the text.

There's even cases where the author of a proposal doesn't believe their own proposal does something that it actually does do.

If this is the case, you can't "just look at the target" to see if a claim is true.

Like I assume you're going somewhere with this? There's an entire thread of my arguments for why the Nat-Sov only rule makes the WA more functional. Did you really think I was going to retype it all up just for you? Maybe I should just start quoting myself at you instead of responding? Would that be better?

There's also an entire thread of people telling you that the NatSov only rule makes the WA less functional. Did you think I was going to type it all up again for you?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Speaking for myself: no objections to abolition.

We have been for some time slow-motion discussing changes to HM and the other related rules which are probably going to get lumped into "relevance" or something of that sort.

Thank you for making this thread, we will take comments made in it under consideration.

[Attempted Socialism]

Speaking for myself: no objections to abolition.

We have been for some time slow-motion discussing changes to HM and the other related rules which are probably going to get lumped into "relevance" or something of that sort.

Thank you for making this thread, we will take comments made in it under consideration.

Have you considered the possibility of adding a good-faith or plausible reading requirement to replace or rewrite the HM rule, if you end up doing so?

[WayNeacTia]

Speaking for myself: no objections to abolition.

We have been for some time slow-motion discussing changes to HM and the other related rules which are probably going to get lumped into "relevance" or something of that sort.

Thank you for making this thread, we will take comments made in it under consideration.

Have you considered the possibility of adding a good-faith or plausible reading requirement to replace or rewrite the HM rule, if you end up doing so?

While both are great ideas, how would you enforce a plausible reading rule?

[Attempted Socialism]

Have you considered the possibility of adding a good-faith or plausible reading requirement to replace or rewrite the HM rule, if you end up doing so?

While both are great ideas, how would you enforce a plausible reading rule?

In practise it would be by limiting the (currently allowed) amount of exaggeration. If a resolution has a possible but exaggerated reading that would be to the clear detriment of the nation applying that reading, I don't think that's a good basis for repeal, if there is a reading that is possible, not exaggerated, and would not be to the clear detriment of nations applying said other reading. Even if it's not misrepresenting the resolution, that is, the reading is reasonably within the text of the resolution, it's not a plausible reading if a nation 1) has to exaggerate the text to 2) their own clear detriment, and there exists 3) a non-detrimental reading that is 4) at least as straightforward as the detrimental one.

[El Lazaro]

I agree. If a repeal truly lacks convincing arguments, then it should be apparent to voters. Subjective valuations should be decided on by the WA.

[Old Hope]

While both are great ideas, how would you enforce a plausible reading rule?

In practise it would be by limiting the (currently allowed) amount of exaggeration. If a resolution has a possible but exaggerated reading that would be to the clear detriment of the nation applying that reading, I don't think that's a good basis for repeal, if there is a reading that is possible, not exaggerated, and would not be to the clear detriment of nations applying said other reading. Even if it's not misrepresenting the resolution, that is, the reading is reasonably within the text of the resolution, it's not a plausible reading if a nation 1) has to exaggerate the text to 2) their own clear detriment, and there exists 3) a non-detrimental reading that is 4) at least as straightforward as the detrimental one.

There's always the other possibility. Abolishing Honest Mistake and let the people find out the failures and/or lies on their own. Easy, reduces oversight, and has no credible downsides.
Nat-Sov is misused on arguments that are actually on national efficiency - arguments about why it is better left to nation states... Such arguments should not be illegal.
All what could be illegal are repeals solely based on "National Sovereignity" as a replacement for "I don't want that" because "National Sovereignity" directly contradicts the purpose of the WA(to make the world better through forcing its members to adhere to resolutions), not, however, efficiency arguments because these at least dispute the "making the world better" of that resolution.
But it could be abolished as well.

[Heavens Reach]

There is literally no barrier to gathering information. You can literally just look at the target resolution.

That is not the case. There's literally hundreds of examples where flaws in resolutions were not caught until after they were on the voting floor, even though plenty of players had read the text.

There's even cases where the author of a proposal doesn't believe their own proposal does something that it actually does do.

If this is the case, you can't "just look at the target" to see if a claim is true.

Like I assume you're going somewhere with this? There's an entire thread of my arguments for why the Nat-Sov only rule makes the WA more functional. Did you really think I was going to retype it all up just for you? Maybe I should just start quoting myself at you instead of responding? Would that be better?

There's also an entire thread of people telling you that the NatSov only rule makes the WA less functional. Did you think I was going to type it all up again for you?

OOC: you're the one who quoted me, buddy. So I didn't think you were going to do anything. If you have nothing new to contribute, and just wanted to start an argument, I have no reason to contribute anything new back. And, as for the point I'm making: you have to make up your mind whether or not players can get on just fine with the rules or not. You can't just cherry-pick when it's insulting to hold the players' hands and when it's not. Some rules make the game better, and as I've argued, Nat-Sov only, which both you and OP keep curiously shortening to "Nat-Sov" as if national sovereignty arguments, in general, aren't allowed, is one of them.

Edit: To be clear, it was Hannasea suggesting that it was insulting, and that's the particular argument you decided to jump in on. So I assume you're making the same argument.

[Excidium Planetis]

Nat-Sov only, which both you and OP keep curiously shortening to "Nat-Sov" as if national sovereignty arguments, in general, aren't allowed, is one of them.

If we all know which rule is being talked about, why should I type two words when typing one will suffice?

[The Ice States]

That is not the case. There's literally hundreds of examples where flaws in resolutions were not caught until after they were on the voting floor, even though plenty of players had read the text.

There's even cases where the author of a proposal doesn't believe their own proposal does something that it actually does do.

If this is the case, you can't "just look at the target" to see if a claim is true.


There's also an entire thread of people telling you that the NatSov only rule makes the WA less functional. Did you think I was going to type it all up again for you?

OOC: you're the one who quoted me, buddy. So I didn't think you were going to do anything. If you have nothing new to contribute, and just wanted to start an argument, I have no reason to contribute anything new back. And, as for the point I'm making: you have to make up your mind whether or not players can get on just fine with the rules or not. You can't just cherry-pick when it's insulting to hold the players' hands and when it's not.

People's resolutions being repealed because someone decided to make up some patently false argument that people believe is unfair. People's resolutions being repealed because they aren't found to be of international concern, however, is not unfair. Literally just write a resolution on something that people think is actually "international."

Some rules make the game better, and as I've argued, Nat-Sov only, which both you and OP keep curiously shortening to "Nat-Sov" as if national sovereignty arguments, in general, aren't allowed, is one of them.

The rules sticky refers to the rule as "National Sovereignty", not "National Sovereignty Only".

[Old Hope]

People's resolutions being repealed because someone decided to make up some patently false argument that people believe is unfair.

It's not unfair. If the resolution can be repealed by false statements - so what? It should be your job to prevent this from happening by informing the delegates who vote for it, not the job of the Secretariat. If no one bothers to save the resolution from obvious falsehoods then the resolution was probably not worth saving in the first place.

[Starman of Stardust]

If no one bothers to save the resolution from obvious falsehoods then the resolution was probably not worth saving in the first place.

While this discussion is about the NatSov rule, not HM, if it's really that bad then repeal it for being such a bad resolution that it's "not worth saving", rather than something that is patently false.

Edit: The NatSov rule should go because (1) it's useless, and (2) whether something is a matter of international concern is a valid, political complaint and should be left up to the voters. On the other hand, the HM rule rightfully only targets arguments that are patently false and non-colourable -- and having resolutions be repealed on things that aren't even colourable is unfair on target authors.

[Heavens Reach]

OOC: you're the one who quoted me, buddy. So I didn't think you were going to do anything. If you have nothing new to contribute, and just wanted to start an argument, I have no reason to contribute anything new back. And, as for the point I'm making: you have to make up your mind whether or not players can get on just fine with the rules or not. You can't just cherry-pick when it's insulting to hold the players' hands and when it's not.

People's resolutions being repealed because someone decided to make up some patently false argument that people believe is unfair. People's resolutions being repealed because they aren't found to be of international concern, however, is not unfair. Literally just write a resolution on something that people think is actually "international."

Some rules make the game better, and as I've argued, Nat-Sov only, which both you and OP keep curiously shortening to "Nat-Sov" as if national sovereignty arguments, in general, aren't allowed, is one of them.

The rules sticky refers to the rule as "National Sovereignty", not "National Sovereignty Only".

Fairness isn't the only reason for the existence of the rules. And you, yourself, but only in your title, refer to it as Nat Sov-Only, except when making up examples that are clearly Nat Sov and not Nat Sav-Only.

[Attempted Socialism]

People's resolutions being repealed because someone decided to make up some patently false argument that people believe is unfair.

It's not unfair. If the resolution can be repealed by false statements - so what? It should be your job to prevent this from happening by informing the delegates who vote for it, not the job of the Secretariat. If no one bothers to save the resolution from obvious falsehoods then the resolution was probably not worth saving in the first place.

I'm not sure if this is some weird crusade you're on because you just want to see the WA burn after failing for so many years, or if this is genuinely an attempt at an argument, but there's a crucial challenge in presenting only one side's argument on the supplied game-side voting page. When only the presenting side is given time to speak, that will make their case extraordinarily preferred. Advocating without even the possibility of a counterargument being voiced is the case that any lawyer, rhetorician, politician, marketing consultant etc. would want. If each vote had an inbuilt mechanic to identify good counterarguments or present several sides to a debate, this would be different, but that's not what we have. Instead the debate concerning the resolution is on the forum, voters have to mull over the resolution and repeal texts themselves, and IFVs if you know where to find them.
Repeals, since they can present only their own case, are already massively privileged. There's no good reason to also give them the option of straight up lying. But then again, good reasons were never a concern of yours. I'm sure you'll continue your strategy of picking the worst arguments when you reply to this, making me ask why I even bother engaging with you, but now at least it's said for the record.

[Heavens Reach]

It's not unfair. If the resolution can be repealed by false statements - so what? It should be your job to prevent this from happening by informing the delegates who vote for it, not the job of the Secretariat. If no one bothers to save the resolution from obvious falsehoods then the resolution was probably not worth saving in the first place.

I'm not sure if this is some weird crusade you're on because you just want to see the WA burn after failing for so many years, or if this is genuinely an attempt at an argument, but there's a crucial challenge in presenting only one side's argument on the supplied game-side voting page. When only the presenting side is given time to speak, that will make their case extraordinarily preferred. Advocating without even the possibility of a counterargument being voiced is the case that any lawyer, rhetorician, politician, marketing consultant etc. would want. If each vote had an inbuilt mechanic to identify good counterarguments or present several sides to a debate, this would be different, but that's not what we have. Instead the debate concerning the resolution is on the forum, voters have to mull over the resolution and repeal texts themselves, and IFVs if you know where to find them.
Repeals, since they can present only their own case, are already massively privileged. There's no good reason to also give them the option of straight up lying. But then again, good reasons were never a concern of yours. I'm sure you'll continue your strategy of picking the worst arguments when you reply to this, making me ask why I even bother engaging with you, but now at least it's said for the record.

For what it's worth, I was being completely facetious in arguing against the HM policy (because I was arguing, at least originally, with someone who stated that rules, in general, were hand-holding, but still came out in defense of HM). I think it's pretty absurd to actually want to repeal it as a rule, and I agree with this argument. (And am grateful, in general, that you make great in-good-faith arguments, even when I don't fully agree).

[Separatist Peoples]

In practise it would be by limiting the (currently allowed) amount of exaggeration. If a resolution has a possible but exaggerated reading that would be to the clear detriment of the nation applying that reading, I don't think that's a good basis for repeal, if there is a reading that is possible, not exaggerated, and would not be to the clear detriment of nations applying said other reading. Even if it's not misrepresenting the resolution, that is, the reading is reasonably within the text of the resolution, it's not a plausible reading if a nation 1) has to exaggerate the text to 2) their own clear detriment, and there exists 3) a non-detrimental reading that is 4) at least as straightforward as the detrimental one.

There's always the other possibility. Abolishing Honest Mistake and let the people find out the failures and/or lies on their own. Easy, reduces oversight, and has no credible downsides.
Nat-Sov is misused on arguments that are actually on national efficiency - arguments about why it is better left to nation states... Such arguments should not be illegal.
All what could be illegal are repeals solely based on "National Sovereignity" as a replacement for "I don't want that" because "National Sovereignity" directly contradicts the purpose of the WA(to make the world better through forcing its members to adhere to resolutions), not, however, efficiency arguments because these at least dispute the "making the world better" of that resolution.
But it could be abolished as well.

This will not be happening.

[Attempted Socialism]

I'm not sure if this is some weird crusade you're on because you just want to see the WA burn after failing for so many years, or if this is genuinely an attempt at an argument, but there's a crucial challenge in presenting only one side's argument on the supplied game-side voting page. When only the presenting side is given time to speak, that will make their case extraordinarily preferred. Advocating without even the possibility of a counterargument being voiced is the case that any lawyer, rhetorician, politician, marketing consultant etc. would want. If each vote had an inbuilt mechanic to identify good counterarguments or present several sides to a debate, this would be different, but that's not what we have. Instead the debate concerning the resolution is on the forum, voters have to mull over the resolution and repeal texts themselves, and IFVs if you know where to find them.
Repeals, since they can present only their own case, are already massively privileged. There's no good reason to also give them the option of straight up lying. But then again, good reasons were never a concern of yours. I'm sure you'll continue your strategy of picking the worst arguments when you reply to this, making me ask why I even bother engaging with you, but now at least it's said for the record.

For what it's worth, I was being completely facetious in arguing against the HM policy (because I was arguing, at least originally, with someone who stated that rules, in general, were hand-holding, but still came out in defense of HM). I think it's pretty absurd to actually want to repeal it as a rule, and I agree with this argument. (And am grateful, in general, that you make great in-good-faith arguments, even when I don't fully agree).

Yeah I know, that's why I am replying to Old Hope re. HM, and not you. I'm not trying to tie Old Hope to you in any way.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

There's always the other possibility. Abolishing Honest Mistake and let the people find out the failures and/or lies on their own. Easy, reduces oversight, and has no credible downsides.

lol

[The Pacific Northwest]

So having read through this discussion I have to say I think I’ll side with those who want to remove the rule. The honest mistake rule should stay because lying in order to repeal a resolution would be unfair to the author. Reading and understanding resolutions takes time, so if lying were allowed, many people would take them at their word or only skim the resolution. I don’t trust people to actually read it and repeal to be honest.

But whether the topic of a resolution is or is not something the WA should be legislating on is not objective fact but something nations should decide for themselves. The aforementioned onion futures and toilet paper proposals are not something the WA should legislate on. Therefore I would vote to repeal those hypothetical resolutions on that basis only. Repealing human rights resolutions on the other hand would need a much better reason and a replacement before I vote to repeal, and it seems most users would agree.

[Unibot III]

I think the HM rule is a much tougher problem for reform, NatSov is easy (scrap it).

The easiest way is to scrap the HM rule entirely, which would be consistent with how the WASC has operated since its inception really without much issue (I can only think of one resolution that abused it.)

If the Secretariat believes that lying must be prevented. My suggestion first would be to rename the Honest Mistake rule as it’s inaccurate: you don’t need to be honest to misinterpret a resolution. Second, I would suggest a legal test where a statement has to jump over several hoops to qualify, like…

Misinterpretation

A description of a past resolution that is:
1. Significant to the repeal’s argument
2. Clearly neither a reasonable inference nor extrapolation
3. Demonstrably untrue

This way the offending language has to be wrong. Not arguably wrong. Wrong. And it can’t be something mentioned in passing, the misinterpretation must cut at the core of an argument.

[Magecastle Embassy Building A5]

Seeing as this matter has enjoyed no update from GenSec for over a month, can we assume that such a change to the NatSov rule is still being considered?

[Heidgaudr]

Seeing as this matter has enjoyed no update from GenSec for over a month, can we assume that such a change to the NatSov rule is still being considered?

There were four months between the last community discussion regarding the ideological ban rule and GenSec deciding to abolish it.

[The Ice States]

Any progress on the part of Gensec?