[RULE CHANGE] Contradiction

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think substituting "legal effect" would suffice. Moreover, I don't really see either (1) the "rules" as a particularly textualist construct or (2) this reading as particularly plausible. We would reject it on standard common law grounds.

Can you elaborate? This proposed revision creates a totally novel question that precedent does not apply to. I don't see how "common law grounds" enter into it unless you simply say "nah, we're not enforcing what the rule says".

The "cumulative legal effect" of something does not include "bad vibes for suffrage". I don't think "cumulative impact" includes that either, which is your "stretch" reading proposed earlier and what "(2)" above is directed toward.

The "standard common law grounds" at hand is the scope of the rules' review of proposals, which has never included positive or negative vibe emanations on a topic. The scope of the review has always been the direct impact of a proposal. The word "cumulative" is so to read "No ice cream on Sundays + No ice cream on Monday through Saturday" as "no ice cream".

---

I am unclear as to what Biso is arguing for. The main gist of it seems to be entirely duplicative of the standard presumption that a proposal is legal and that every reasonable reading should be availed to before finding it illegal. This is already part of the general way that the rules are read. If we were to place this presumption in the rules it would be in a preamble or something like that.

As to Old Hope/First Nightmare's suggestion, the preemptive subordination clause ("later resolutions may override this resolution") has none of the "cheat code" problems – replacement before repeal – that others have alluded to. It defers to later proposals. Banning those has little effect other than facilitating the badge hunt.

[Simone Republic]

I agree with Banana above. I would much rather see subordination clauses go away than see them codified in the rules.

I disagree with that view, to the extent that some very minor exceptions can apply to avoid having to repeat very long-winded exceptions from previous resolutions. See example below.

A proposal's clauses, or their cumulative impact, may not conflict with resolutions in force. A proposal may use subordination clauses, such as "subject to previous resolutions in force", to avoid contradiction provided that these affect only a small part of the proposal's overall hypothetical impact.

To give an example, based on the latest resolution that I am drafting, I am using the following sentence:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=547171 (this is from here)

Stakeholders from other WA states, such as diplomats and family members, have a right to attend inquests unless barred by extant WA resolutions, such as due to national security.

I consider this anti-contradiction clause a small or de minimis one. It is relatively small because it only applies to a single sub-clause and not the entire resolution. Otherwise I'd need to recite long parts of GA37 (Fairness in Criminal Trials) plus a couple of the other exclusions from subsequent GA various resolutions, which would add a couple of sentences.

[Tigrisia]

Determining whether next-of-kin is the same as legal guardian requires knowing things about family law and conservatorship.

How to deal with different interpretation of such things in different legal systems? While most here stem from the US, we do have some Europeans (like me) who have drastically different laws compared to the US. That often leads to confusion, at least IMHO.

[The Overmind]

I agree with Banana above. I would much rather see subordination clauses go away than see them codified in the rules.

I disagree with that view, to the extent that some very minor exceptions can apply to avoid having to repeat very long-winded exceptions from previous resolutions. See example below.

To give an example, based on the latest resolution that I am drafting, I am using the following sentence:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=547171 (this is from here)

Stakeholders from other WA states, such as diplomats and family members, have a right to attend inquests unless barred by extant WA resolutions, such as due to national security.

I consider this anti-contradiction clause a small or de minimis one. It is relatively small because it only applies to a single sub-clause and not the entire resolution. Otherwise I'd need to recite long parts of GA37 (Fairness in Criminal Trials) plus a couple of the other exclusions from subsequent GA various resolutions, which would add a couple of sentences.

Also, anti-contradiction clauses are ancient with respect to this body. They've been in use forever.

[Simone Republic]

I'll be open and say I don't really like subordinating clauses. If you are writing a proposal, I think you should make the effort to make sure there is no contradiction, and if there is, either repeal the prior resolution or narrow the focus of your proposal. I would not be opposed to banning such clauses entirely, though of course without retroactive effect. In the alternative, I encourage authors to use some variant of "no future resolution may be enacted which would become active, in whole in part, upon the repeal of this resolution" to avoid this problem.

I support having a de minimis or small exception (as has been originally proposed). Say this sentence from here:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=547171

Stakeholders from other WA states, such as diplomats and family members, have a right to attend inquests unless barred by extant WA resolutions, such as due to national security.

The "such as" exception cites one example (GA37), but there are actually several issues, such as:

1. whether diplomats from states at war with that state can attend
2. what about family members that are barred from entering that WA state
3. what about family members that are barred from exiting another WA state
4. what about quarantine (389 is actually quite broad)
5. what about other resolutions that mention tangentially related grounds

[Wallenburg]

Can you elaborate? This proposed revision creates a totally novel question that precedent does not apply to. I don't see how "common law grounds" enter into it unless you simply say "nah, we're not enforcing what the rule says".

The "cumulative legal effect" of something does not include "bad vibes for suffrage". I don't think "cumulative impact" includes that either, which is your "stretch" reading proposed earlier and what "(2)" above is directed toward.

The "standard common law grounds" at hand is the scope of the rules' review of proposals, which has never included positive or negative vibe emanations on a topic. The scope of the review has always been the direct impact of a proposal. The word "cumulative" is so to read "No ice cream on Sundays + No ice cream on Monday through Saturday" as "no ice cream".

I don't recall arguing for vibes-based evaluations of overlapping areas of effect. When you write a Contradiction rule that concerns itself with the outcomes on top of the letter of a law, you necessarily invite issues such as these where two laws may expressly pursue incompatible outcomes and therefore Contradict despite nothing in their text actually conflicting in particular.

[The Ice States]

I think it would be a good idea in general to use "active clauses" or something similar instead of just "clauses", to make it clear that preambles are not subject to the Contradiction rule.

Re Wally, do you have any suggestions for wording to address this?

[Imperium Anglorum]

The "cumulative legal effect" of something does not include "bad vibes for suffrage". I don't think "cumulative impact" includes that either, which is your "stretch" reading proposed earlier and what "(2)" above is directed toward.

The "standard common law grounds" at hand is the scope of the rules' review of proposals, which has never included positive or negative vibe emanations on a topic. The scope of the review has always been the direct impact of a proposal. The word "cumulative" is so to read "No ice cream on Sundays + No ice cream on Monday through Saturday" as "no ice cream".

I don't recall arguing for vibes-based evaluations of overlapping areas of effect. When you write a Contradiction rule that concerns itself with the outcomes on top of the letter of a law, you necessarily invite issues such as these where two laws may expressly pursue incompatible outcomes and therefore Contradict despite nothing in their text actually conflicting in particular.

It doesn't do that though. The phrase "their cumulative impact" clearly refers back to the clauses themselves and not an abstract impact of the proposal.

[Wallenburg]

I don't recall arguing for vibes-based evaluations of overlapping areas of effect. When you write a Contradiction rule that concerns itself with the outcomes on top of the letter of a law, you necessarily invite issues such as these where two laws may expressly pursue incompatible outcomes and therefore Contradict despite nothing in their text actually conflicting in particular.

It doesn't do that though. The phrase "their cumulative impact" clearly refers back to the clauses themselves and not an abstract impact of the proposal.

"Their cumulative impact" clearly does not refer back to the clauses themselves, otherwise the proposed rule text would effectively read "A proposal's clauses, or its clauses, may not conflict with resolutions in force." That's absurd. The structure of this rule alone necessitates that "cumulative impact" mean something other than the letter of the law. The most natural conclusion is that this includes purpose-oriented effects not immediately present in the text but logically predictable from the text. For instance, the furtherance of the suffrage in an automatic voter registration proposal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Re "cumulative impact", I think that interpretation nonsense and the only interpretation of "cumulative impact" is exactly what is on the tin. Two proposal clauses can interact to have a separate effect than each one read separately.

Re subordination, it appears that the community and the Secretariat are still divided. I would want to know whether people want (1) a trial period on no subordination, (2) an actual consensus, or (3) failing both of those we probably will default to the status quo.

[Bisofeyr]

Re "cumulative impact", I think that interpretation nonsense and the only interpretation of "cumulative impact" is exactly what is on the tin. Two proposal clauses can interact to have a separate effect than each one read separately.

Re subordination, it appears that the community and the Secretariat are still divided. I would want to know whether people want (1) a trial period on no subordination, (2) an actual consensus, or (3) failing both of those we probably will default to the status quo.

A trial period would work well from my perspective.

[Simone Republic]

Re "cumulative impact", I think that interpretation nonsense and the only interpretation of "cumulative impact" is exactly what is on the tin. Two proposal clauses can interact to have a separate effect than each one read separately.

Re subordination, it appears that the community and the Secretariat are still divided. I would want to know whether people want (1) a trial period on no subordination, (2) an actual consensus, or (3) failing both of those we probably will default to the status quo.

The "trial" has a couple of major issues, I reckon:

1. What happens to current resolutions at vote (or soon to go into queue)? I know Mage pulled his demilitarisation thing, but are any new submissions subject to the trial?

2. Are ruling that concern this rule binding during the trial? (I assume no if you change the rule since that resets precedents anyway).

Default to status quo until there's consensus seems to work better.

[The Ice States]

For the record, this change is still being discussed within the Secretariat, particularly given the divided community input on the matter of subordination clauses. I am optimistic that at some point it will be finalised, but we may request further community input before that happens.