NationStates

<personal opinion rant>

I’ve noticed that, lately, there have been two resolutions that have been passed by fairly substantial margins only to be repealed within a few weeks. Granted, the overturned resolutions weren’t perfect, but, given that they were written by those who probably don’t have any legal training and little to no diplomatic experience to be voted on by several thousand people each with their own ideas about how things should be done, they were pretty good.

So, what’s going on?

I can think of two reasons why this is happening. The first, which has been discussed and lampshaded in Resolution #122, “Read the Resolution Act,” is that people aren’t reading the resolutions when they come to vote and vote based on the title alone. When the repeal comes up, they assume that the original resolution, which they didn’t read in the first place, wasn’t very good and vote for the repeal.

The second possibility is a little less cynical. People might not feel that strongly about the original resolution but voted for it because it seemed like it was the best that could be presented at that time. When the repeal comes, they decide to vote for it hoping that someone can do better.

A repeal is essentially a second vote on a resolution, so it’s very confusing when the resolution gets passed by a good margin then gets repealed soon after also by a good margin. Voting multiple times on something that was passed the first time is a waste of time for all WA members. If this is happening because of reason one, then there isn’t much that can be done currently (maybe the NS folks could come up with a way to prevent people from voting if it’s obvious that they didn’t read the resolution, but I don’t know how that could be done, and I’m not going to make any suggestions for that). If this is happening because of reason two, the best solution is to vote against the resolution. If you have reservations that cause you to vote against a resolution the second time, you probably shouldn’t have voted for it the first time.

While we would all like bulletproof resolutions, pieces of legislation that can survive repeal attempts, loophole seeking rules lawyers, and anything else that the writers can think of to stop, it probably isn’t going to happen. The best thing to do until we can put Kevlar on the legislation is to vote for legislation that is good and vote against anything that causes you to go, “I don’t know about that,” even if it seems like the best thing that can be written at this time.

I'd like to know what my fellow WA members think about this.

</personal opinion rant>

MMA and USTA were "pretty good"? MMA had a glaring flaw in that nations could easily evade its provisions, and the resolution should have focused on missing persons. USTA was terrible. Both were repealed because they had major issues. The system is working, in that the WA is open to reconsidering its position when a new argument is brought to its attention.

Resolutions are ideas, and idea are bulletproof.

Really, the instarepeal is not something new. Historically, it has been well-used. The trouble is the huge number of semi-active members (some of whom are delegates of large regions) that do not pay attention to the debate thread. They see a great-looking argument in the proposal, so they vote for it without hearing the other side. Then they see the repeal, which of course also has a great argument. They forget how great the resolution's argument was and vote for the repeal.

Another part of the problem is that everything is getting an instarepeal attempt, and due to the low number of approvals needed such attempts easily reach the floor.

Linux and the X wrote:Another part of the problem is that everything is getting an instarepeal attempt, and due to the low number of approvals needed such attempts easily reach the floor.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's a "low number of approvals" (although I will definitely concede that less approvals are needed than were required when I passed my first historical resolution) ... I think it's more that GA regulars know the tricks of the trade (so to speak) when it comes to getting a proposal to quorum.

I've supported both of the most recent Insta-Repeals, so I have no problems with the process as it's currently working.

Krioval wrote:The system is working, in that the WA is open to reconsidering its position when a new argument is brought to its attention.

I have no problem with instarepeals. People have the right to voice their opinions about resolutions. If they think a resolution is bad, then, by all means, they should offer up a repeal. My issue comes when a resolution passes by 3,000 votes then gets repealed by nearly the same margin. It makes me wonder if people are paying attention what they're voting on.

Linux and the X wrote:Really, the instarepeal is not something new. Historically, it has been well-used. The trouble is the huge number of semi-active members (some of whom are delegates of large regions) that do not pay attention to the debate thread. They see a great-looking argument in the proposal, so they vote for it without hearing the other side. Then they see the repeal, which of course also has a great argument. They forget how great the resolution's argument was and vote for the repeal.

I hadn't thought about that. It's sort of a reverse of not reading the resolution. I would hope that WA members would have the memory to remember how they voted on the original resolution, but that might be asking for too much.

While we would all like bulletproof resolutions, pieces of legislation that can survive repeal attempts, loophole seeking rules lawyers, and anything else that the writers can think of to stop, it probably isn’t going to happen.

No, there is certainly a category for bulletproof resolutions --> repeals, you cannot repeal them.

Unibot II wrote:

While we would all like bulletproof resolutions, pieces of legislation that can survive repeal attempts, loophole seeking rules lawyers, and anything else that the writers can think of to stop, it probably isn’t going to happen.

No, there is certainly a category for bulletproof resolutions --> repeals, you cannot repeal them.

Unless you can.

Linux and the X wrote:

Unibot II wrote:
No, there is certainly a category for bulletproof resolutions --> repeals, you cannot repeal them.

Unless you can.

I'm fairly sure that it won't actually submit. Of course, even if it did, I'm guessing it'd be monstrously illegal.

Krioval wrote:

Linux and the X wrote:Unless you can.

I'm fairly sure that it won't actually submit. Of course, even if it did, I'm guessing it'd be monstrously hilarious.

Fixed.

It's probably about as legal as repealing a bookkeeping resolution.

Linux and the X wrote:

Unibot II wrote:
No, there is certainly a category for bulletproof resolutions --> repeals, you cannot repeal them.

Unless you can.

^ Someone try this.

Christian Democrats wrote:

Linux and the X wrote:Unless you can.

^ Someone try this.

You have enough endorsements. You do it.

DISCLAIMER: When you get WA banned forever, it's your own damn fault.

Linux and the X wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:^ Someone try this.

You have enough endorsements. You do it.

DISCLAIMER: When you get WA banned forever, it's your own damn fault.

I don't think someone would be banned forever, but I don't want to take the chance of losing this nation.

(Maybe someone can try it, take a screen shot, post it here, and then ask for the proposal's removal.)

Christian Democrats wrote:

Linux and the X wrote:Unless you can.

^ Someone try this.

Please don't.

Sedgistan wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:^ Someone try this.

Please don't.

Besides possibly being banned . . . . . . what's the worst that could happen?

Maybe a moderator could try it?

Christian Democrats wrote:

Sedgistan wrote:Please don't.

Besides possibly being banned . . . . . . what's the worst that could happen?

Maybe a moderator could try it?

Maybe nobody should try it, considering that a moderator has said "please don't".

Krioval wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Besides possibly being banned . . . . . . what's the worst that could happen?

Maybe a moderator could try it?

Maybe nobody should try it, considering that a moderator has said "please don't".

A game moderator could introduce the proposal and then immediately delete it after seeing what happens.

Krioval wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:Besides possibly being banned . . . . . . what's the worst that could happen?

Maybe a moderator could try it?

Maybe nobody should try it, considering that a moderator has said "please don't".

Because it would be fun.

i'm awfully tempted to try it...

Mahaj WA Seat wrote:i'm awfully tempted to try it...

Don't bother, the submit button won't work.

Flibbleites wrote:

Mahaj WA Seat wrote:i'm awfully tempted to try it...

Don't bother, the submit button won't work.

so I can't do this?

Mahaj WA Seat wrote:

Flibbleites wrote:Don't bother, the submit button won't work.

so I can't do this?

Exactly.

Flibbleites wrote:

Mahaj WA Seat wrote:so I can't do this?

Exactly.

A repeal is effectively an encouragement to create a better proposal. I do however think that a resolution that is not completely flawed in some sense shouldn't be repealed but instead other resolutions should add to it.

Leepaidamba wrote:A repeal is effectively an encouragement to create a better proposal. I do however think that a resolution that is not completely flawed in some sense shouldn't be repealed but instead other resolutions should add to it.

As in like an amendment? You do know that amendments are illegal, right?

Mahaj WA Seat wrote:

Leepaidamba wrote:A repeal is effectively an encouragement to create a better proposal. I do however think that a resolution that is not completely flawed in some sense shouldn't be repealed but instead other resolutions should add to it.

As in like an amendment? You do know that amendments are illegal, right?

Not an exact amendment but a complementary resolution.