[D] Removing the NatSov-Only rule

[The Ice States]

If it's really that easy to avoid the rule -- as there can always be another argument besides NatSov to include -- then it's useless and too ought to be chucked out.

As to any resolution being possible to oppose because of NatSov, while that is true, that seems to draw a false equivalence between the different cases of NatSov arguments. For example, nobody is going to argue that because onion futures are not a matter of international concern, genocide and war crimes also should not be prohibited by the World Assembly due to NatSov.

You are completely ignoring my principal argument, which is that it is good for procedure that people are required to come up with real reasons -- not a single, bad-faith, one-size-fits-all one -- for repeals.

Other bad-faith, one-size-fits-all arguments are completely legal, as long as they don't lie about the target. In fact, countless resolutions have been repealed on weak arguments. How does NatSov in particular necessitate Ooc intervention to prevent it from even being considered, and not simply...voted down if found to be a poor or bad faith argument?

You keep coming up with completely ridiculous examples that are ridiculous for completely non-Nat-Sov only reasons.

But that's a real example, however. GA#368.

It is not, however, as Magecastle seems to be suggesting, a NatSov repeal. The target was genuinely flawed and the flaws were pointed out.

I am not arguing that it's a NatSov only repeal -- just that nonsense, one-size-fits-all arguments for repeal have passed before, accordingly a) hypothetically including a similar argument in a repeal is sufficient to avoid the NatSov-only rule anyway, and b) it seems rather odd to single out NatSov only of all other hypothetical poor arguments for a repeal that don't patently lie about their targets.

[Heavens Reach]

You are completely ignoring my principal argument, which is that it is good for procedure that people are required to come up with real reasons -- not a single, bad-faith, one-size-fits-all one -- for repeals.

Other bad-faith, one-size-fits-all arguments are completely legal, as long as they don't lie about the target. In fact, countless resolutions have been repealed on weak arguments. How does NatSov in particular necessitate Ooc intervention to prevent it from even being considered, and not simply...voted down if found to be a poor or bad faith argument?

But that's a real example, however. GA#368.

It is not, however, as Magecastle seems to be suggesting, a NatSov repeal. The target was genuinely flawed and the flaws were pointed out.

I am not arguing that it's a NatSov only repeal -- just that nonsense, one-size-fits-all arguments for repeal have passed before, accordingly a) hypothetically including a similar argument in a repeal is sufficient to avoid the NatSov-only rule anyway, and b) it seems rather odd to single out NatSov only of all other hypothetical poor arguments for a repeal that don't patently lie about their targets.

I never said anything about a "weak" argument. This is what I mean about you not engaging with what's actually being said. So, again, I'm not repeating myself.

[The Ice States]

I never said anything about a "weak" argument. This is what I mean about you not engaging with what's actually being said. So, again, I'm not repeating myself.

I am engaging with what you are saying. If people should be "required to come up with real reasons -- not a single, bad-faith, one-size-fits-all one -- for repeals", why should NatSov in particular be illegal, when, once again, other bad-faith, one-size-fits-all arguments are completely legal, as long as they don't lie about the target?

[Heavens Reach]

I never said anything about a "weak" argument. This is what I mean about you not engaging with what's actually being said. So, again, I'm not repeating myself.

I am engaging with what you are saying. If people should be "required to come up with real reasons -- not a single, bad-faith, one-size-fits-all one -- for repeals", why should NatSov in particular be illegal, when, once again, other bad-faith, one-size-fits-all arguments are completely legal, as long as they don't lie about the target?

Because you're just using the words "bad-faith, one-size-fits-all" without actually thinking about what that means. What other argument could you apply just as equally to any resolution? What other problem could you solve for yourself simply by surrendering your entirely voluntary membership in the WA? That's what's meant by "bad-faith" (you know you could just leave if your only motivation is national sovereignty) and "one-size-fits-all" (it could literally apply to any resolution).

[Unibot III]

I support this rule being removed. It’s another old, arbitrary rule. It’s customary, it lacks a necessary justification.

I’ll add that I think Nat-Sov arguments may be entirely sufficient and valid, depending on the target resolution — requiring additional arguments can result in a weaker text.

Let’s imagine a resolution on an extremely niche technical subject. Maybe the resolution is also extremely well written. GA#888 “Standardizing the colours of toothpaste.” The argument that a repeal should make is that the resolution micro-manages member-nations — the repeal shouldn’t be stretching to find additional (bogus) reasons for the repeal to satisfy the rules.

The main reason why the NatSov rule has survived modernization is that it is extremely easy to avoid. Which raises the question why it is a helpful rule to begin with if you can add a fig leaf to the text to satisfy the rule.

(I feel differently about blockers as the fig leaf requirement often causes real problems for the blockers and opens them up for challenges down the line, because the authors of blocker resolutions try to address complicated issues in an overly simplified way.)

[The Ice States]

I agree with Unibot.

I am engaging with what you are saying. If people should be "required to come up with real reasons -- not a single, bad-faith, one-size-fits-all one -- for repeals", why should NatSov in particular be illegal, when, once again, other bad-faith, one-size-fits-all arguments are completely legal, as long as they don't lie about the target?

Because you're just using the words "bad-faith, one-size-fits-all" without actually thinking about what that means. What other argument could you apply just as equally to any resolution?

That the target fails to do something completely outside of its scope. Moreover, "just as equally" is itself a misrepresentation of NatSov arguments. Nobody other than maybe statwankers is going to argue that because onion futures are not a matter of international concern, neither is genocide or war crimes.

What other problem could you solve for yourself simply by surrendering your entirely voluntary membership in the WA? That's what's meant by "bad-faith" (you know you could just leave if your only motivation is national sovereignty) and "one-size-fits-all" (it could literally apply to any resolution).

You can avoid compliance with -- and, in nearly all cases, the effects of -- any resolution by resigning from the WA.

[Excidium Planetis]

(you know you could just leave if your only motivation is national sovereignty)

This argument is, quite frankly, stupid, and a gross misunderstanding of what NatSov is.

You are equating National Sovereignty with not wanting any WA regulations at all. I don't think there are any such WA members, because, as you seem to be aware, they could just leave the WA.

The idea behind NatSov is not that there should be no regulation, but that there are certain things that the WA should not regulate.

To compare the WA to a real life government, even if you have no issue paying your taxes and following traffic laws, that doesn't mean you agree that the government should dictate what color shoes you wear, or who you should marry. Likewise, just because a nation believes that the WA should regulate the rules of warfare or establish protocol for identifying infectious diseases, does not necessarily mean that they are okay with the WA deciding that they should decriminalize drug possession or make pimping a legal profession. Telling them to leave because of those issues and abandon all the other benefits of the WA fails to understand their position at all.

Where a player decides to draw the line for what regulation their nation will accept determines where they fall on the spectrum that runs from Anti-WA (no regulation) to International Federalists (the WA should operate as a federal government with the member nations as states). There's plenty of room between the extreme ends, NatSov just falls closer to one end.

[Comfed]

I do not agree that NatSov arguments can be generalized as "bad faith" arguments. It can be a perfectly valid reason to repeal a resolution, especially if it is explained why the regulation made by the resolution is something better left to national governments. The NatSov rule seems to be to be little more than quality-control according to the preferences of some players.

[Heavens Reach]

I agree with Unibot.

Because you're just using the words "bad-faith, one-size-fits-all" without actually thinking about what that means. What other argument could you apply just as equally to any resolution?

That the target fails to do something completely outside of its scope. Moreover, "just as equally" is itself a misrepresentation of NatSov arguments. Nobody other than maybe statwankers is going to argue that because onion futures are not a matter of international concern, neither is genocide or war crimes.

What other problem could you solve for yourself simply by surrendering your entirely voluntary membership in the WA? That's what's meant by "bad-faith" (you know you could just leave if your only motivation is national sovereignty) and "one-size-fits-all" (it could literally apply to any resolution).

You can avoid compliance with -- and, in nearly all cases, the effects of -- any resolution by resigning from the WA.

It's really not a misrepresentation, because the reason those aren't "matters of international concern" are themselves based on arguments that are not Nat-Sov only. Nat-Sov is just a drum that people who don't like being regulated beat, and that has the unique solution of leaving the WA.

[Heavens Reach]

I do not agree that NatSov arguments can be generalized as "bad faith" arguments. It can be a perfectly valid reason to repeal a resolution, especially if it is explained why the regulation made by the resolution is something better left to national governments. The NatSov rule seems to be to be little more than quality-control according to the preferences of some players.

Like I said, I view it to be of benefit to procedure. If you can argue why something is not a matter of international regulation, for reasons other than threats to your nation's sovereignty, you've already moved passed "Nat-Sov only." In that, the reason it's not a matter of international regulation isn't because of concerns over threats to the sovereignty of one's nation. As I said in my reply to The Ice States Nat-Sov only is just a drum people like to beat over every single resolution without moving passed Nat-Sov only. If they did, they'd already not be in violation of the rule, and there would be something actually meaningful to discuss.

[Excidium Planetis]

Like I said, I view it to be of benefit to procedure. If you can argue why something is not a matter of international regulation, for reasons other than threats to your nation's sovereignty, you've already moved passed "Nat-Sov only." In that, the reason it's not a matter of international regulation isn't because of concerns over threats to the sovereignty of one's nation. As I said in my reply to The Ice States Nat-Sov only is just a drum people like to beat over every single resolution without moving passed Nat-Sov only. If they did, they'd already not be in violation of the rule, and there would be something actually meaningful to discuss.

You're wrong, and I don't really know what else to say. Four different people in a row tried to explain NatSov to you and your take away was still "NatSov is just people not wanting to be regulated".

[The Ice States]

I agree with Unibot.


That the target fails to do something completely outside of its scope. Moreover, "just as equally" is itself a misrepresentation of NatSov arguments. Nobody other than maybe statwankers is going to argue that because onion futures are not a matter of international concern, neither is genocide or war crimes.


You can avoid compliance with -- and, in nearly all cases, the effects of -- any resolution by resigning from the WA.

It's really not a misrepresentation, because the reason those aren't "matters of international concern" are themselves based on arguments that are not Nat-Sov only. Nat-Sov is just a drum that people who don't like being regulated beat, and that has the unique solution of leaving the WA.

The only people who seriously argue that there is absolutely nothing that the WA should legislate on is statwankers, not genuine NatSovers. Once again, very few people are going to seriously argue that, because the WA should not legislate on the domestic distribution of pillows, the WA should also refrain from banning war crimes, genocide, and slavery.

[Heavens Reach]

It's really not a misrepresentation, because the reason those aren't "matters of international concern" are themselves based on arguments that are not Nat-Sov only. Nat-Sov is just a drum that people who don't like being regulated beat, and that has the unique solution of leaving the WA.

The only people who seriously argue that there is absolutely nothing that the WA should legislate on is statwankers, not genuine NatSovers. Once again, very few people are going to seriously argue that, because the WA should not legislate on the domestic distribution of pillows, the WA should also refrain from banning war crimes, genocide, and slavery.

"Very few," huh? It's illegal and yet there are Nat-Sov only proposals all the time. I can only imagine how it will be when there's not even a rule against it. And no one would "seriously" argue Nat-Sov only because it isn't a serious argument. I'm really hoping, for the sake of a whole lot of time not having been wasted, that we are differentiating between "Nat-Sov" and "Nat-Sov only" right? We are? Because you keep seeming to bring up things that are, perhaps, Nat-Sov related, but definitely not Nat-Sov only.

[The Ice States]

The only people who seriously argue that there is absolutely nothing that the WA should legislate on is statwankers, not genuine NatSovers. Once again, very few people are going to seriously argue that, because the WA should not legislate on the domestic distribution of pillows, the WA should also refrain from banning war crimes, genocide, and slavery.

"Very few," huh? It's illegal and yet there are Nat-Sov only proposals all the time. I can only imagine how it will be when there's not even a rule against it. And no one would "seriously" argue Nat-Sov only because it isn't a serious argument. I'm really hoping, for the sake of a whole lot of time not having been wasted, that we are differentiating between "Nat-Sov" and "Nat-Sov only" right? We are? Because you keep seeming to bring up things that are, perhaps, Nat-Sov related, but definitely not Nat-Sov only.

If there are so many examples, do point me to one example of an otherwise-legal repeal of legislation on war crimes, genocide, slavery, etc. on the basis of NatSov only. Even if you could, how would it be Ooc harmful to the WA for a NatSov-only repeal to be even considered, as opposed to simply being poor policy/argumentation?

[Heavens Reach]

Like, saying something is not serious enough for the WA to legislate on it, because its resources are better directed elsewhere and because it's an issue that is more efficiently handled locally is not even a Nat-Sov argument, let alone a Nat-Sov only argument. And that's the basis on which anyone would seriously argue against things that don't fall into the categories of "war crimes, genocide, and slavery" vs "the domestic distribution of pillows" (which, by the way, is literally a joke resolution)

[Heavens Reach]

"Very few," huh? It's illegal and yet there are Nat-Sov only proposals all the time. I can only imagine how it will be when there's not even a rule against it. And no one would "seriously" argue Nat-Sov only because it isn't a serious argument. I'm really hoping, for the sake of a whole lot of time not having been wasted, that we are differentiating between "Nat-Sov" and "Nat-Sov only" right? We are? Because you keep seeming to bring up things that are, perhaps, Nat-Sov related, but definitely not Nat-Sov only.

If there are so many examples, do point me to one example of an otherwise-legal repeal of legislation on war crimes, genocide, slavery, etc. on the basis of NatSov only. Even if you could, how would it be Ooc harmful to the WA to be even considered, as opposed to simply being poor policy/argumentation?

First of all, I never limited the scope of my issue to only those proposals you find serious enough for the WA to legislate on, and second of all, show you how? Have you figured out a way to retrieve illegal proposals that fall off of the board?

I have stated, several times now, why it's "OOC harmful." I've also explained the difference between a bad faith, one-size-fits-all argument and a weak argument at least once, if not more now. And there's absolutely no reason for me to get dragged into more tedium than I already find myself in.

Edit: actually, I'm just going to take my own advice, but take it better and wash my hands of this discussion. As is, I don't think your arguments have a strong chance of getting this rule changed, and if you come up with a better one then I might even end up agreeing with you. But as of right now, this going in circles is pointless, and not fun. I don't come here to not have fun.

[Attempted Socialism]

To begin with a bit of long-winded pseudo-intellectual pontificating, what do we want from the rules? The rules are there to support the game environment, to make it compelling to engage in, and to act as a support structure for some continuity of the game. Our rules, generally, should identify some harm to the game that can be removed or alleviated, or identify some good that can be achieved. Rules for the sake of rules, for veterans to trip up newbies, or what have you, should not be implemented and removed when found. It's in the nature of laws or rules to reproduce power relations, but revealing that in game is decidedly not fun; it makes the game less engaging. Likewise, arbitrary rules, ideally, should not replace or reduce game systems without very good reason. But an apparent arbitrary rule can be justified if it supports the central conceit of the game: Writing resolutions for a legislature like the GA is a weird hobby to have, on the surface, so why do it? Partially because you can try to get ideas out, partially because of the community, partially for the learning experience like Model UN, but also the feeling of accomplishment, the idea of having a lasting legacy. Would we have the same community if we voted on a resolution and upon both passing and failing it then disappeared into a memory-hole, to be kept entirely either off-site or registered in user-maintained threads? I don't think so. And so we get to the rules of repeals.
Removing the Nat-Sov rule will make it easier to attempt bad repeals of resolutions, let's not mince words. Better authors know how to either include non-Nat-Sov arguments or to clad their Nat-Sov arguments in other garments. Part of the enticement to play the game is that, after passing a legislation that sets forth arguments for its policy, repeals have to in some ways engage with those arguments or that policy. Working hard to get a resolution drafted, on the floor, and passed, would be undercut if the repeal can just contain some boilerplate rejection of passing international legislation. A repeal stating some version of "not an international issue" or "decision better left to member states" is not just a slap in the face to the specific person who passed a resolution but also to those in the past who might now wonder "why did I bother" and those in the future who does not want to play a game that so callously allows their hard work to be repealed without effort or engagement. There are good reasons to maintain a rule to require repeals to take some work and engagement with the original debate, from the perspective of those already in the game or those coming in to pass legislation.
There is also an argument that it is good training to pass repeals for first-timers, which is only good advice if repeals are similar enough to passing legislation in resolutions to actually work as training. If we tell newbies to dip their toes in the water by repealing something (Or even better, repeal-and-replace), repeals should properly engage with the GA game for it to be a decent exercise. That means addressing legislation not through the mere rejection of passed legislation, but by countering the arguments it sets forth, analysis of the flaws in the policy, or some good politicking that changes enough votes.
But, and this is crucial, we already have another rule that compels authors to engage with the argument or policy of a resolution they want to repeal: The (poorly named) Honest Mistake rule. The kind of issues I point out here, not properly engaging with the contents of a resolution and instead just using some boilerplate rejection of legislation, would be illegal even without Nat-Sov. The thing that the Nat-Sov rule adds apart from HM is that shitty arguments (Against, e.g., abortion or marriage rights) are moved to the illegal side of the queue rather than falling out naturally due to lack of support. But, to call back to my beginning, is this enough of a justification for the rule? What is the damage to the game if we allowed a resolution that properly and specifically engaged with, and argued against, some passed resolution (I.e. passed the HM bar with flying colours) with the express intend to move the policy from the GA to the member states and without any flaws except that, in the view of the author, member states would be better suited to handle that policy? If the majority of participants believe a policy shouldn't be set by the GA, but they otherwise add to the game by arguing that point in good faith against that particular proposal (Rather than some boilerplate rah rah no international legislation) should that majority be denied because of the current phrasing of the rules? I don't think so.
There may be other things that the Nat-Sov rule does which I have overlooked, but the IMO most important and substantive thing that it forces, namely to engage with the resolution that is to be repealed on the merits of that resolution, is already in place through the HM rule. Unless some other risk to the game environment is pointed out, I can support removing the Nat-Sov rule, preferably alongside a renaming of the HM rule.

Edit: Removed a double negation.

[Heavens Reach]

To begin with a bit of long-winded pseudo-intellectual pontificating, what do we want from the rules? The rules are there to support the game environment, to make it compelling to engage in, and to act as a support structure for some continuity of the game. Our rules, generally, should identify some harm to the game that can be removed or alleviated, or identify some good that can be achieved. Rules for the sake of rules, for veterans to trip up newbies, or what have you, should not be implemented and removed when found. It's in the nature of laws or rules to reproduce power relations, but revealing that in game is decidedly not fun; it makes the game less engaging. Likewise, arbitrary rules, ideally, should not replace or reduce game systems without very good reason. But an apparent arbitrary rule can be justified if it supports the central conceit of the game: Writing resolutions for a legislature like the GA is a weird hobby to have, on the surface, so why do it? Partially because you can try to get ideas out, partially because of the community, partially for the learning experience like Model UN, but also the feeling of accomplishment, the idea of having a lasting legacy. Would we have the same community if we voted on a resolution and upon both passing and failing it then disappeared into a memory-hole, to be kept entirely either off-site or registered in user-maintained threads? I don't think so. And so we get to the rules of repeals.
Removing the Nat-Sov rule will make it easier to attempt bad repeals of resolutions, let's not mince words. Better authors know how to either include non-Nat-Sov arguments or to clad their Nat-Sov arguments in other garments. Part of the enticement to play the game is that, after passing a legislation that sets forth arguments for its policy, repeals have to in some ways engage with those arguments or that policy. Working hard to get a resolution drafted, on the floor, and passed, would be undercut if the repeal can just contain some boilerplate rejection of passing international legislation. A repeal stating some version of "not an international issue" or "decision better left to member states" is not just a slap in the face to the specific person who passed a resolution but also to those in the past who might now wonder "why did I bother" and those in the future who does not want to play a game that so callously allows their hard work to be repealed without effort or engagement. There are good reasons to maintain a rule to require repeals to take some work and engagement with the original debate, from the perspective of those already in the game or those coming in to pass legislation.
There is also an argument that it is good training to pass repeals for first-timers, which is only good advice if repeals are similar enough to passing legislation in resolutions to actually work as training. If we tell newbies to dip their toes in the water by repealing something (Or even better, repeal-and-replace), repeals should properly engage with the GA game for it to be a decent exercise. That means addressing legislation not through the mere rejection of passed legislation, but by countering the arguments it sets forth, analysis of the flaws in the policy, or some good politicking that changes enough votes.
But, and this is crucial, we already have another rule that compels authors to engage with the argument or policy of a resolution they want to repeal: The (poorly named) Honest Mistake rule. The kind of issues I point out here, not properly engaging with the contents of a resolution and instead just using some boilerplate rejection of legislation, would be illegal even without Nat-Sov. The thing that the Nat-Sov rule adds apart from HM is that shitty arguments (Against, e.g., abortion or marriage rights) are moved to the illegal side of the queue rather than falling out naturally due to lack of support. But, to call back to my beginning, is this enough of a justification for the rule? What is the damage to the game if we allowed a resolution that properly and specifically engaged with, and argued against, some passed resolution (I.e. passed the HM bar with flying colours) with the express intend to move the policy from the GA to the member states and without any flaws except that, in the view of the author, member states would be better suited to handle that policy? If the majority of participants believe a policy shouldn't be set by the GA, but they otherwise add to the game by arguing that point in good faith against that particular proposal (Rather than some boilerplate rah rah no international legislation) should that majority be denied because of the current phrasing of the rules? I don't think so.
There may be other things that the Nat-Sov rule does which I have overlooked, but the IMO most important and substantive thing that it forces, namely to engage with the resolution that is to be repealed on the merits of that resolution, is already in place through the HM rule. Unless some other risk to the game environment is pointed out, I can support removing the Nat-Sov rule, preferably alongside a renaming of the HM rule.

Edit: Removed a double negation.

I still disagree on some points, like that Nat-Sov only is capable of being anything but boilerplate "rah rah no international legislation," but this seems like a more substantive and well-considered argument. I will just reiterate that I see the spectre of bad faith already looming in the shadows at the fringes of the game, and would rather this place not devolve into a toxic tug-o-war between people who want the WA to essentially do nothing and people who have good faith ideas, whether ultimately good or bad, about how it can meaningfully legislate.

[Unibot III]

To begin with a bit of long-winded pseudo-intellectual pontificating, what do we want from the rules? The rules are there to support the game environment, to make it compelling to engage in, and to act as a support structure for some continuity of the game. Our rules, generally, should identify some harm to the game that can be removed or alleviated, or identify some good that can be achieved. Rules for the sake of rules, for veterans to trip up newbies, or what have you, should not be implemented and removed when found. It's in the nature of laws or rules to reproduce power relations, but revealing that in game is decidedly not fun; it makes the game less engaging. Likewise, arbitrary rules, ideally, should not replace or reduce game systems without very good reason. But an apparent arbitrary rule can be justified if it supports the central conceit of the game: Writing resolutions for a legislature like the GA is a weird hobby to have, on the surface, so why do it? Partially because you can try to get ideas out, partially because of the community, partially for the learning experience like Model UN, but also the feeling of accomplishment, the idea of having a lasting legacy. Would we have the same community if we voted on a resolution and upon both passing and failing it then disappeared into a memory-hole, to be kept entirely either off-site or registered in user-maintained threads? I don't think so. And so we get to the rules of repeals.
Removing the Nat-Sov rule will make it easier to attempt bad repeals of resolutions, let's not mince words. Better authors know how to either include non-Nat-Sov arguments or to clad their Nat-Sov arguments in other garments. Part of the enticement to play the game is that, after passing a legislation that sets forth arguments for its policy, repeals have to in some ways engage with those arguments or that policy. Working hard to get a resolution drafted, on the floor, and passed, would be undercut if the repeal can just contain some boilerplate rejection of passing international legislation. A repeal stating some version of "not an international issue" or "decision better left to member states" is not just a slap in the face to the specific person who passed a resolution but also to those in the past who might now wonder "why did I bother" and those in the future who does not want to play a game that so callously allows their hard work to be repealed without effort or engagement. There are good reasons to maintain a rule to require repeals to take some work and engagement with the original debate, from the perspective of those already in the game or those coming in to pass legislation.
There is also an argument that it is good training to pass repeals for first-timers, which is only good advice if repeals are similar enough to passing legislation in resolutions to actually work as training. If we tell newbies to dip their toes in the water by repealing something (Or even better, repeal-and-replace), repeals should properly engage with the GA game for it to be a decent exercise. That means addressing legislation not through the mere rejection of passed legislation, but by countering the arguments it sets forth, analysis of the flaws in the policy, or some good politicking that changes enough votes.
But, and this is crucial, we already have another rule that compels authors to engage with the argument or policy of a resolution they want to repeal: The (poorly named) Honest Mistake rule. The kind of issues I point out here, not properly engaging with the contents of a resolution and instead just using some boilerplate rejection of legislation, would be illegal even without Nat-Sov. The thing that the Nat-Sov rule adds apart from HM is that shitty arguments (Against, e.g., abortion or marriage rights) are moved to the illegal side of the queue rather than falling out naturally due to lack of support. But, to call back to my beginning, is this enough of a justification for the rule? What is the damage to the game if we allowed a resolution that properly and specifically engaged with, and argued against, some passed resolution (I.e. passed the HM bar with flying colours) with the express intend to move the policy from the GA to the member states and without any flaws except that, in the view of the author, member states would be better suited to handle that policy? If the majority of participants believe a policy shouldn't be set by the GA, but they otherwise add to the game by arguing that point in good faith against that particular proposal (Rather than some boilerplate rah rah no international legislation) should that majority be denied because of the current phrasing of the rules? I don't think so.
There may be other things that the Nat-Sov rule does which I have overlooked, but the IMO most important and substantive thing that it forces, namely to engage with the resolution that is to be repealed on the merits of that resolution, is already in place through the HM rule. Unless some other risk to the game environment is pointed out, I can support removing the Nat-Sov rule, preferably alongside a renaming of the HM rule.

Edit: Removed a double negation.

With respect, this essay assumes that objectively it is better to challenge a resolution on how it goes about accomplishing something rather than challenging the resolution’s necessity.

It’s entirely possible to imagine a resolution that is sound, very well written, tight as drum, and a completely and utterly useless regulatory mess.

In such a case, the central argument of the repeal should be that national governments are perfectly capable of determining (without international assistance) what colour your toothpaste should be, or how soft your mattress is ideal, or whether children should be allowed to be named Doug or not, if indeed national governments believe this is an area that requires regulation (certainly the WA is within its rights to believe otherwise.)

Any additional arguments … like whether the Toothpaste Regulation Advisory Special Headquarters (T.R.A.S.H) has properly defined “reasonable colour” and “sufficient density,” ? and considered the possibility of teeth yellowing at different rates culturally ? … all these kinds of supplementary arguments are not only not necessary, but they bog the repeal down, and erroneously imply that if the author had fixed those problems that the WA should in fact pursue regulation on the subject.

An author should just be allowed to state clearly “just, no” and let the Assembly determine for itself whether that argument in and of itself is sufficient and compelling. For some overreaching, regulatory legislation, it’s possible that the WA will agree. For civil rights legislation, it’s unlikely to be persuasive.

[Hannasea]

The only people who seriously argue that there is absolutely nothing that the WA should legislate on is statwankers, not genuine NatSovers. Once again, very few people are going to seriously argue that, because the WA should not legislate on the domestic distribution of pillows, the WA should also refrain from banning war crimes, genocide, and slavery.

"Very few," huh? It's illegal and yet there are Nat-Sov only proposals all the time. I can only imagine how it will be when there's not even a rule against it.

No, you can't "only" imagine: you can look at how it was before the rule existed. Which was: NatSov-only repeals existed but there weren't a slew of them, and they were rarely successful.

To begin with a bit of long-winded pseudo-intellectual pontificating, what do we want from the rules? The rules are there to support the game environment, to make it compelling to engage in, and to act as a support structure for some continuity of the game. Our rules, generally, should identify some harm to the game that can be removed or alleviated, or identify some good that can be achieved. Rules for the sake of rules, for veterans to trip up newbies, or what have you, should not be implemented and removed when found.

Completely agree. The hope was the introduction of the pink power rangers would see the rules reformed, but that doesn't seem to have happened much years on. I think there's a slate of players who like having tortured and obscure rules so they can smack newbies around with them.

[Attempted Socialism]

(Cut for brevity.)

I still disagree on some points, like that Nat-Sov only is capable of being anything but boilerplate "rah rah no international legislation," but this seems like a more substantive and well-considered argument. I will just reiterate that I see the spectre of bad faith already looming in the shadows at the fringes of the game, and would rather this place not devolve into a toxic tug-o-war between people who want the WA to essentially do nothing and people who have good faith ideas, whether ultimately good or bad, about how it can meaningfully legislate.

Identifying the policy areas where a convincing argument can be put forth that member states are better at handling this topic, while engaging with the content of a hypothetical resolution to be repealed, will in my view limit the risks. The Venn diagram of repeal attempts that are currently 1) struck for being purely Nat-Sov, but do address the lack of international need for the targeted resolution in a way that is both 2) correctly engaging with the original argument and 3) convincing to voters is not so large as to be a likely issue. On that last point, I think that voters, the majority having once made up their minds to vote for a resolution, will not be swayed by the poor or bad-faith arguments you might be imagining; the precedent that a topic is already open for GA legislation by virtue of the resolution-to-be-repealed will most likely require some substantive arguments to overcome.

(Cut for brevity.)

With respect, this essay assumes that objectively it is better to challenge a resolution on how it goes about accomplishing something rather than challenging the resolution’s necessity.

Where?
I'm (trying to) lay out why I believe challenging a resolution's necessity also requires engaging with the resolution's content, which is already required per the HM rule (Even if I would perhaps want more good faith in the HM rule), making the protections we actually do want from a Nat-Sov rule mostly redundant. We don't want or really need protections against poorly argued repeals because they mostly die in ignominy anyway, and are voted down if they ever garner enough approvals.

It’s entirely possible to imagine a resolution that is sound, very well written, tight as drum, and a completely and utterly useless regulatory mess.

In such a case, the central argument of the repeal should be that national governments are perfectly capable of determining (without international assistance) what colour your toothpaste should be, or how soft your mattress is ideal, or whether children should be allowed to be named Doug or not, if indeed national governments believe this is an area that requires regulation (certainly the WA is within its rights to believe otherwise.)

Any additional arguments … like whether the Toothpaste Regulation Advisory Special Headquarters (T.R.A.S.H) has properly defined “reasonable colour” and “sufficient density,” ? and considered the possibility of teeth yellowing at different rates culturally ? … all these kinds of supplementary arguments are not only not necessary, but they bog the repeal down, and erroneously imply that if the author had fixed those problems that the WA should in fact pursue regulation on the subject.

I... honestly don't know how this relates to my argument for doing away with Nat-Sov.

An author should just be allowed to state clearly “just, no” and let the Assembly determine for itself whether that argument in and of itself is sufficient and compelling. For some overreaching, regulatory legislation, it’s possible that the WA will agree. For civil rights legislation, it’s unlikely to be persuasive.

I think an author should be allowed to explain why a particular resolution is not needed, absent any flaws in the resolution, as long as they engage with the arguments in the resolution in some cogent way. Explaining why a specific topic is better addressed at a local level as a reason to repeal a resolution should not, IMO, be a problem, which is why I can see the merit in getting rid of the Nat-Sov rule. My short post of less than 900 words was my attempt to work through why I believe that. "Just no" is not conducive to a good game, but a well-argued repeal could easily be.

[Heavens Reach]

"Very few," huh? It's illegal and yet there are Nat-Sov only proposals all the time. I can only imagine how it will be when there's not even a rule against it.

No, you can't "only" imagine: you can look at how it was before the rule existed. Which was: NatSov-only repeals existed but there weren't a slew of them, and they were rarely successful.

Actually, no, no I can't. I'm going to go by what I currently see.

[Hannasea]

Why not? This game was played without this rule for years.

[Heavens Reach]

Why not? This game was played without this rule for years.

Because I'm basing it on current player behavior and current WA social dynamics. I've been here long enough (much, much, longer than my nation makes it seem) to know that it's definitely not constant, and that we are in a particularly repeal-hungry epoch of the WA, where Nat-Sov only arguments are already drummed out on almost every proposal even with it being currently illegal. Promoting an even more reactionary game environment is not in anyone's OOC interest, and, in roleplaying terms, it's bad for procedure.

[Hannasea]

So the rule basically exists to protect players from themselves, because they can't be trusted to play the game without their intellectual superiors deciding which arguments they are allowed to use?