[RULE CHANGE] House of Cards rule revision

[The Ice States]

*** Public consultation on House of Cards rule revision ***

The Secretariat proposes revision of the House of Cards rule. This change emerges from a recent discussion to align the ruleset more closely to the tests used to evaluate violations.

No operative proposal clause may reference or depend on an existing resolution in a way that would make the clause nonsensical or inoperative if that previous resolution were repealed. Repeals do not fall under this rule.

Historically, preambulatory clauses could not cite previous resolutions, as per eg (Sirocco, 2009). However, Gensec no longer enforces this, as codified in [2017] GAS 12. The main standard used for determining House of Cards is that a resolution becomes nonsensical or inoperative without another, as per eg (Kryozerkia, 2014). We intend for the new rule text to mirror the modern enforcement of the rule. It was composed collaboratively by Desmosthenes and Burke, Imperium Anglorum and The Ice States, who all voted in favour of it. Kenmoria and Separatist Peoples did not express a view.

The following are the main points on which the Secretariat requests comment.

1. Is it unclear what constitutes an "operative proposal clause", especially with the Operative Clause rule which includes only provisions directly targeting member nations? Is there a better term or is "operative proposal clause" appropriate?
   
   
2. Is this new text understandable and clear, especially for new players?

We would appreciate comments and responses to be topical. Under the procedures, this comment period will end in two weeks, subject to finalisation.

---

Related resources.

• House of Cards consortium discussion: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=340131
  
  
• Player-initiated discussion thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=423107

[The Overmind]

It may be sufficient for the rule text to read:

"No operative proposal clause may depend on an existing resolution in a way that would make the clause nonsensical or inoperative if that previous resolution were repealed. Repeals do not fall under this rule."

---

It is unlikely, in the first place, that an operative clause would reference an existing resolution without also depending on it. For example, an instance where a resolution is referenced in an operative clause, it might look something like this:

"Pursuant to [Your Resolution Here]..."

In this case, there is an implicit dependency baked into the word "pursuant," and it would be illegal under either version of the rule text.

Alternatively, a case where a previous proposal may be referenced, but not depended on might look like this:

"In the spirit of [Your Resolution Here]..."

This sort of reference is not, in the spirit of House of Cards, problematic, because nothing about the proposal changes if that resolution is repealed. It is surely still in the spirit of that resolution that the operative clause is written even if the referenced resolution no longer stands. Since we do not totally expunge repealed resolutions from the record, but simply stop enforcing them, having a reference of this sort does not create an issue where players have no access to the resolution motivating the clause. Since it generates neither legal friction nor confusion, I do not see any real reason that references are per se in need of a rule.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think this point is well-taken.

[The Ice States]

I also have no objections to omitting "reference or".

[Yelda]

Yes omit "reference or".

[Fachumonn]

I also have no objections to omitting "reference or".

I would agree with this. The main point of the rule is to make sure resolutions don't rely on each other, so "reference or" is not needed imo.

There's my 2 cents for ya, otherwise I think this is fine.

[Bisofeyr]

For posterity (and for current people who want to minimize their number of tabs open), the current wording is as follows:

Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent. However, repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal.

I support this change broadly, but I would personally favor the following wording:

No operative proposal clause may reference or depend on any existing extant resolutions in a way that would make the clause such that the clause would be rendered nonsensical or inoperative if that previous resolution were repealed. Repeals do not fall under this rule.

Without the red/green text, this would read as follows:

"No operative proposal clause may depend on any extant resolutions such that the clause would be rendered nonsensical or inoperative if that previous resolution were repealed. Repeals do not fall under this rule."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think changes that serve merely to elevate register should be avoided. We write in too high a register already.

[Bisofeyr]

I think changes that serve merely to elevate register should be avoided. We write in too high a register already.

This may be true (though I think that the elevation I suggested is still significantly below the level that causes confusion, and is pervasive throughout the GA), but I believe that "extant" or a synonym thereof is better than "existing", even if you discard my other changes, as it removed any potential interpretation that HoC also holds for repeals/repealed resolutions (While the suggested wording says "Repeals do not fall under this rule", this reads to me as saying that repeals cannot be found guilty of a HoC violation, not that a new proposal cannot refer elaborately and perhaps inextricably to a specific repeal).

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think changes that serve merely to elevate register should be avoided. We write in too high a register already.

This may be true (though I think that the elevation I suggested is still significantly below the level that causes confusion, and is pervasive throughout the GA), but I believe that "extant" or a synonym thereof is better than "existing", even if you discard my other changes, as it removed any potential interpretation that HoC also holds for repeals/repealed resolutions (While the suggested wording says "Repeals do not fall under this rule", this reads to me as saying that repeals cannot be found guilty of a HoC violation, not that a new proposal cannot refer elaborately and perhaps inextricably to a specific repeal).

For that, I would use "previous".

[Bisofeyr]

This may be true (though I think that the elevation I suggested is still significantly below the level that causes confusion, and is pervasive throughout the GA), but I believe that "extant" or a synonym thereof is better than "existing", even if you discard my other changes, as it removed any potential interpretation that HoC also holds for repeals/repealed resolutions (While the suggested wording says "Repeals do not fall under this rule", this reads to me as saying that repeals cannot be found guilty of a HoC violation, not that a new proposal cannot refer elaborately and perhaps inextricably to a specific repeal).

For that, I would use "previous".

I don't see how this solves the issue. Perhaps a lower-register word with the same effect of "extant" is "active"?

[Imperium Anglorum]

For that, I would use "previous".

I don't see how this solves the issue. Perhaps a lower-register word with the same effect f "extant" is "active"?

I'm unclear as to how this is an issue. You cannot rely on a repealed resolution's text either.

[Simone Republic]

I would argue against using the words "operative proposal clause" because this would be even more confusing for newcomers who don't understand the difference between "operative clause" and "operative proposal clause".

I usually start with "noting" previous resolutions since it merely notes that it exists (or existed) but makes no judgment on it.

Use another adjective. Some suggestions:

1. Non-preambulatory
2. Instructive
3. Directive
4. Non-waffling
5. Non-grandstanding

Preambulatory is the word used by Model United Nations (TM). I'd prefer "instructive" because whatever is contained in the resolution is still some kind of instruction from the WA to a member (or to WAHQ), even if the instruction is merely to encourage X, Y, Z.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I would argue against using the words "operative proposal clause" because this would be even more confusing for newcomers who don't understand the difference between "operative clause" and "operative proposal clause".

I usually start with "noting" previous resolutions since it merely notes that it exists (or existed) but makes no judgment on it.

Use another adjective. Some suggestions:

1. Non-preambulatory
2. Instructive
3. Directive
4. Non-waffling
5. Non-grandstanding

Preambulatory is the word used by Model United Nations (TM). I'd prefer "instructive" because whatever is contained in the resolution is still some kind of instruction from the WA to a member (or to WAHQ), even if the instruction is merely to encourage X, Y, Z.

If you're going to following MUN... https://www.wichita.edu/academics/fairm ... he%20issue. The thing that follows "preambulatory clauses" is ... "operative clauses".

[Bisofeyr]

I don't see how this solves the issue. Perhaps a lower-register word with the same effect f "extant" is "active"?

I'm unclear as to how this is an issue. You cannot rely on a repealed resolution's text either.

It's not a dealbreaker by any means: It seems to me that the GA Rules ought to be in a state where someone wholly unfamiliar can come in, read them, and have to do as little additional research/double-checking as possible to then write a legal proposal. While it's not quite possible (or at least extremely difficult) to have a resolution reliant on a repeal or repealed resolution, someone who is unfamiliar with GA Rules or similar political entities may not understand that intuitively, and it seems to me that clarifying something along those lines as opposed to leaving newcomers to have to come to that conclusion themselves.

Like I said, it's not a dealbreaker and is nitpicky regardless, but it's something that I personally think would be beneficial. I'll leave it at that so as not to derail the thread, but when I think about difficulties in understanding the GA from the get-go, the place to make as straightforward as possible is the rules.

[Simone Republic]

*snip*

If you're going to following MUN... https://www.wichita.edu/academics/fairm ... he%20issue. The thing that follows "preambulatory clauses" is ... "operative clauses".

The problem is of course that the term "operative clause" is used for something else in NS.

[Tinhampton]

Why was a fully-throttled rewrite needed? House of Cards as written only applies to operative clauses; perhaps the first "it" in the current rule should have been replaced only with "outside of its non-binding introductory clauses," say.

If GA#1185 says that "This resolution's definition of a zoo shall be identical to that of GA#1019. No zoo shall mistreat the animals under its care.", and GA#1019 is then repealed, is GA#1185 then nonsensical or inoperative? If it is, then that backs up my suspicions.

[Imperium Anglorum]

We have non-binding operative clauses as well. "Encourages member nations to enact restrictions on capital punishment in accordance with GA 443" is also illegal. An operative clause here is a clause used to define something or, otherwise, require or encourage member nations or entities therein to make any act or omission. I think that definition is clear but also not very accessible to new players.

The problem is of course that the term "operative clause" is used for something else in NS.

Which is...?

[Kenmoria]

We have non-binding operative clauses as well. "Encourages member nations to enact restrictions on capital punishment in accordance with GA 443" is also illegal. An operative clause here is a clause used to define something or, otherwise, require or encourage member nations or entities therein to make any act or omission. I think that definition is clear but also not very accessible to new players.

The problem is of course that the term "operative clause" is used for something else in NS.

Which is...?

There is an operative clause as a clause following the preambulatory clauses, and there is an Operative Clause in the sense of a clause with a measurable impact on member-nations, used to avoid a breach of the rule of the same name. A definitional clause is an operative clause but not an Operative Clause. I believe that this is the point that Simone was making.

[Imperium Anglorum]

We have non-binding operative clauses as well. "Encourages member nations to enact restrictions on capital punishment in accordance with GA 443" is also illegal. An operative clause here is a clause used to define something or, otherwise, require or encourage member nations or entities therein to make any act or omission. I think that definition is clear but also not very accessible to new players.


Which is...?

There is an operative clause as a clause following the preambulatory clauses, and there is an Operative Clause in the sense of a clause with a measurable impact on member-nations, used to avoid a breach of the rule of the same name. A definitional clause is an operative clause but not an Operative Clause. I believe that this is the point that Simone was making.

I wouldn't be opposed then to renaming the "Operative clause rule" to the, in line with how we probably should keep the text informal, "Must do something rule".

[First Nightmare]

*** Public consultation on House of Cards rule revision ***

The Secretariat proposes revision of the House of Cards rule. This change emerges from a recent discussion to align the ruleset more closely to the tests used to evaluate violations.

No operative proposal clause may reference or depend on an existing resolution in a way that would make the clause nonsensical or inoperative if that previous resolution were repealed. Repeals do not fall under this rule.

Historically, preambulatory clauses could not cite previous resolutions, as per eg (Sirocco, 2009). However, Gensec no longer enforces this, as codified in [2017] GAS 12. The main standard used for determining House of Cards is that a resolution becomes nonsensical or inoperative without another, as per eg (Kryozerkia, 2014). We intend for the new rule text to mirror the modern enforcement of the rule. It was composed collaboratively by Desmosthenes and Burke, Imperium Anglorum and The Ice States, who all voted in favour of it. Kenmoria and Separatist Peoples did not express a view.

The following are the main points on which the Secretariat requests comment.

1. Is it unclear what constitutes an "operative proposal clause", especially with the Operative Clause rule which includes only provisions directly targeting member nations? Is there a better term or is "operative proposal clause" appropriate?
   
   
2. Is this new text understandable and clear, especially for new players?

We would appreciate comments and responses to be topical. Under the procedures, this comment period will end in two weeks, subject to finalisation.

---

Related resources.

• House of Cards consortium discussion: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=340131
  
  
• Player-initiated discussion thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=423107

Against.
You have nonsensical or inoperative but you are missing big changes, and also the reverse - when you build a house of cards with older resolutions instead of the other way around...
If the effect of a resolution completely changes upon the repeal of another then that's a problem. Even if it not intended. As long as the category system is rigid, with amendments forbidden, all potential large scale interactions between proposals must be banned.


Example:

WA Resolution A: People with health problems are granted access to healthcare without payment.
WA Resolution B: People who would get free healthcare more than thrice are euthanized.
WA Resolution A gets repealed.
WA Resolution C: Everyone who makes negative comments about the WA shall be considered to have gotten free healthcare more than thrice.
WA Resolution B gets repealed.

There's a lot of effects changing here.
C might be the closest to "inoperative" in a sense... but anyways..
The better way would be to enact this:

If repeals of any extant resolution(s) would render the category or strength of a proposal invalid, it is illegal.

[The Overmind]

*** Public consultation on House of Cards rule revision ***

The Secretariat proposes revision of the House of Cards rule. This change emerges from a recent discussion to align the ruleset more closely to the tests used to evaluate violations.

No operative proposal clause may reference or depend on an existing resolution in a way that would make the clause nonsensical or inoperative if that previous resolution were repealed. Repeals do not fall under this rule.

Historically, preambulatory clauses could not cite previous resolutions, as per eg (Sirocco, 2009). However, Gensec no longer enforces this, as codified in [2017] GAS 12. The main standard used for determining House of Cards is that a resolution becomes nonsensical or inoperative without another, as per eg (Kryozerkia, 2014). We intend for the new rule text to mirror the modern enforcement of the rule. It was composed collaboratively by Desmosthenes and Burke, Imperium Anglorum and The Ice States, who all voted in favour of it. Kenmoria and Separatist Peoples did not express a view.

The following are the main points on which the Secretariat requests comment.

1. Is it unclear what constitutes an "operative proposal clause", especially with the Operative Clause rule which includes only provisions directly targeting member nations? Is there a better term or is "operative proposal clause" appropriate?
   
   
2. Is this new text understandable and clear, especially for new players?

We would appreciate comments and responses to be topical. Under the procedures, this comment period will end in two weeks, subject to finalisation.

---

Related resources.

• House of Cards consortium discussion: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=340131
  
  
• Player-initiated discussion thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=423107

Against.
You have nonsensical or inoperative but you are missing big changes, and also the reverse - when you build a house of cards with older resolutions instead of the other way around...
If the effect of a resolution completely changes upon the repeal of another then that's a problem. Even if it not intended. As long as the category system is rigid, with amendments forbidden, all potential large scale interactions between proposals must be banned.


Example:

WA Resolution A: People with health problems are granted access to healthcare without payment.
WA Resolution B: People who would get free healthcare more than thrice are euthanized.
WA Resolution A gets repealed.
WA Resolution C: Everyone who makes negative comments about the WA shall be considered to have gotten free healthcare more than thrice.
WA Resolution B gets repealed.

There's a lot of effects changing here.
C might be the closest to "inoperative" in a sense... but anyways..
The better way would be to enact this:

If repeals of any extant resolution(s) would render the category or strength of a proposal invalid, it is illegal.

No proposal would ever be legal again. How can you possibly guard against all unintended interactions with past resolutions?

[First Nightmare]

Against.
You have nonsensical or inoperative but you are missing big changes, and also the reverse - when you build a house of cards with older resolutions instead of the other way around...
If the effect of a resolution completely changes upon the repeal of another then that's a problem. Even if it not intended. As long as the category system is rigid, with amendments forbidden, all potential large scale interactions between proposals must be banned.


Example:

WA Resolution A: People with health problems are granted access to healthcare without payment.
WA Resolution B: People who would get free healthcare more than thrice are euthanized.
WA Resolution A gets repealed.
WA Resolution C: Everyone who makes negative comments about the WA shall be considered to have gotten free healthcare more than thrice.
WA Resolution B gets repealed.

There's a lot of effects changing here.
C might be the closest to "inoperative" in a sense... but anyways..
The better way would be to enact this:

If repeals of any extant resolution(s) would render the category or strength of a proposal invalid, it is illegal.

No proposal would ever be legal again. How can you possibly guard against all unintended interactions with past resolutions?

Not against all, only those affecting strength or category.
You just have to read every single resolution and change your resolution or these resolutions(repeal + replace) accordingly.
That's what you should be doing anyways, at least in theory, you should read all extant resolutions and their effects on your resolution; to comply with the Contradiction and Duplication rules. So there's no real change in workload, in theory, at least.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This "concern" is nonsense of the sort one can only expect from First Nightmare/Old Hope: take some normal idea and devolve it into some absolute doctrine that brooks no exception. These kinds of interactions are permitted in the status quo; this consultation is not intended to change the status quo.

[The Ice States]

There is an operative clause as a clause following the preambulatory clauses, and there is an Operative Clause in the sense of a clause with a measurable impact on member-nations, used to avoid a breach of the rule of the same name. A definitional clause is an operative clause but not an Operative Clause. I believe that this is the point that Simone was making.

I wouldn't be opposed then to renaming the "Operative clause rule" to the, in line with how we probably should keep the text informal, "Must do something rule".

Why not just "non-preambulatory clause" instead of "operative clause" in this rule? Or perhaps, "No proposal clause outside of the preamble may depend on...".