The New Health Category

[Sciongrad]

Frankly, I think we should stop teaching newbies to not shoehorn. The best resolutions, in my opinion, deal with civil rights, or absolutely were shoehorned by any stretch of the imagination. Watch most veteran authors - the category is not the first thing they think of and it shouldn't be. Your first thought should be: what issue do I want to tackle? How do I want to tackle it? What do I need to do to make that possible?

The category system is there to box you in as an author - run circles around it, run circles around the rules, run circles around your opponents. That's what the World Assembly is about.

The category is not the first thing I think about when writing a resolution, but it's certainly an important consideration I have while writing. I don't know of any veteran authors that shoehorn. It is never a good idea to force a resolution into a category because a resolution written without a category in mind will almost always have components that may fit under several categories. For example, the recent Reproductive Rights proposal was written in such a way that some of its provisions did not fit under the selected category. This could have been resolved if the author wrote to the category in the first place.

You seem to be asserting that there's a correlation between resolution quality and selecting a category - in my opinion, there is not. Shoehorning, or not, the quality of the proposal is not affected, so asserting that all the good resolutions are shoehorned makes no sense. Unless you can demonstrate how, exactly, shoehorning makes a resolution better than others, I can't see any merit to your argument.

[Unibot III]

I don't think I've ever seen the mods give out a warning about a category equivocation - so long as you ask them if a category fits and they agree, there isn't going to be any trouble, usually.

For example, "Against Conflict Minerals", did not really fit any of the categories because it had shades of regulation, trade and political stability - the mods and I ended up agreeing Free Trade fit the best. I have no qualms about blatantly not writing to the category in some cases: complex issues don't easily fit into one simply category or in this case, any of the simple categories.

It's correct to say that writing to the category is easier - it informs you of a framework to write within. But the category isn't necessarily what you should be writing to, for every issue.

You seem to be asserting that there's a correlation between resolution quality and selecting a category - in my opinion, there is not. Shoehorning, or not, the quality of the proposal is not affected, so asserting that all the good resolutions are shoehorned makes no sense. Unless you can demonstrate how, exactly, shoehorning makes a resolution better than others, I can't see any merit to your argument.

The most nuanced responses to the most complex issues often are shoehorned, with the exception of the civil rights category. Why? Because the categories are not nuanced, they're as extreme and black and white as an NS Issue.

[Unibot III]

For example, the recent Reproductive Rights proposal was written in such a way that some of its provisions did not fit under the selected category. This could have been resolved if the author wrote to the category in the first place.

The strength of Reproductive Rights as a proposal is actually the reason why it wouldn't have fit into a category - Reproductive Rights is not simply a civil rights issue, it's a social justice issue, it's a gender equality issue and it's a medical issue.It's a nuanced piece for a nuanced, complex issue. It would have seriously weakened the resolution to write to a category.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Could we have a separate discussion thread for "Unibot explains why everything about the WA should be changed", and keep this one for discussing the specifics of the Health category?

[Sciongrad]

I don't think I've ever seen the mods give out a warning about a category equivocation - so long as you ask them if a category fits and they agree, there isn't going to be any trouble, usually.

For example, "Against Conflict Minerals", did not really fit any of the categories because it had shades of regulation, trade and political stability - the mods and I ended up agreeing Free Trade fit the best. I have no qualms about blatantly not writing to the category in some cases: complex issues don't easily fit into one simply category or in this case, any of the simple categories.

It's correct to say that writing to the category is easier - it informs you of a framework to write within. But the category isn't necessarily what you should be writing to, for every issue.

This is an infrequent exception and often involves moderator intervention. While it may be necessary to seek moderator assistance regarding the category when writing on a complex issue, this only presents an exception to the rule. Most resolutions can and do fit into a certain category when written properly.

The most nuanced responses to the most complex issues often are shoehorned, with the exception of the civil rights category. Why? Because the categories are not nuanced, they're as extreme and black and white as an NS Issue.

I still do not see the correlation between being shoehorned and being a high quality resolution. Because a resolution is nuanced (and therefore must be shoehorned?) does not make a resolution better than any other resolution either. For example, GAR#9, which is not very complicated and clearly a human rights resolution, is much more important than a more complicated resolution that had to be shoehorned, like Against Conflict Minerals. There is no correlation between the degree of nuance or how the category was selected and the quality of the resolution.

[Christian Democrats]

it's a gender equality issue

How is abortion a gender equality issue?

In a given country, it is just as legal/illegal for a man to obtain an abortion as it is for a woman to obtain one.

[Pacifist Chipmunks]

Regardless of whether the idea (chicken) or category (egg) came first, the categories as they exist at the time of drafting affect how the proposal is shaped. Even if a proposal author is shoehorning, shoehorning will be performed in accordance with the categories as they exist at that time, not as the categories may potentially someday exist if the mods so will it. Likewise, the WA electorate votes on proposals in terms of the categories it is aware of at the time.

In my mind, the reason we should not re-categorize is similar to the reason people do not go back and rewrite Beethoven's symphonies with a modern brass section. His composition was a product of the technology of the time (i.e. limited brass technology), and it is not the place of historians--however well-versed they may be with his life and works--to assume what Beethoven would have done if he had had at his disposal a modern array of instruments.

Likewise, the WA has passed the resolutions it has, with the categories available to it at the time. It is highly presumptuous to think that the author or the electorate would have written or passed the resolutions in a different category.

If the WA wants to "re-categorize", let it be upon their own heads to do so: by repealing and replacing.

[Ardchoille]

The trend seems to be against re-categorising. I personally agree with those arguments, particularly the idea that a mass modly shoehorning is not a great example to set. However, I can see the techies' point about consistency -- there seem to be more vaguely-health Resolutions than there were vaguely-Environment or vaguely-Education Resolutions when those categories were introduced. We're keeping the admins updated on these discussions.

I think it helps when people speculate on specific Resolutions and where they'd fit or fail in the new category, because that both clarifies the coverage of the new and highlights features of the old, to everyone's benefit.

On the recurrent query about what happens to the health component of Social Justice proposals, I think that's one of those questions that will answer itself by usage. We won't be removing that component (it's coded, OK?), but perhaps there will be fewer arguments as people direct actual health proposals to their own sub-categories. Social Justice is essentially to do with economic freedoms.

On the current threadjack: authors may write proposals from whatever soaringly creative viewpoint they choose, but mods review them from the ploddingly mundane viewpoint of the Rules, which includes the categories. This nasty habit of ours may burst many a charming red balloon, but, hey, it's what we do.

So prithee, gentles all, back to the topic.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The trend seems to be against re-categorising. I personally agree with those arguments, particularly the idea that a mass modly shoehorning is not a great example to set. However, I can see the techies' point about consistency -- there seem to be more vaguely-health Resolutions than there were vaguely-Environment or vaguely-Education Resolutions when those categories were introduced. We're keeping the admins updated on these discussions.

The techies didn't care too much for "consistency" when they summarily deleted every single one of our resolutions and then tried to blame us for the idea.

But, on topic, I don't see why "consistency" should be a concern. The WA doesn't work on precedent. If we tried whining that we should be allowed to x because past resolution did x, you would - rightly - get out your rolled up newspaper and tell us to stop rules lawyering.

Furthermore, resolution rules are updated: for example, the "No Army" rule had "peacekeepers" added to it relatively recently, despite that never having been banned in the original formulation of the rule. More pertinently, the Nautical Pilotage Act didn't technically break any rules, but in its wake, the Branding rule was revised to prevent such wankery recurring. But that didn't mean the resolution was edited or deleted: it was revised as it should have been, through repeal. I'd like for the same to happen to that utterly asinine passport committee, but I'm not about to propose the moderators do the job a repeal should.

At the time these resolutions passed, there was no Health category. Now there is. So the resolution rules are updated to say that now, resolutions mainly affecting Health go in that category. All that is required is a clear and public statement of the rules.

I think it helps when people speculate on specific Resolutions and where they'd fit or fail in the new category, because that both clarifies the coverage of the new and highlights features of the old, to everyone's benefit.

Yeah, except it's just that - speculation. I (with the wrong nation) posted a list - GRO is right that I missed the Epidemic one - but it's really no more than my personal interpretation. I can't go back in time and discern what the authors would have done had those categories been available to them. Mousebumples seems to be saying she would have used the Health category, whereas I would imagine - but really can only imagine - that Cat-Tribe would still have used Social Justice for the Reduction of Abortion Act. (On which note, heh, if you're actually going to go for "consistency", you will have to reclassify the repealed resolutions as well.)

We can speculate about what would have been different if... but we obviously can't say for sure, and it seems to me that the whole point of the resolution legality process is to make definitive rulings: y is legal, z is not.

Edit: Another approach to what I'm saying is that the counterfactual, while maybe intellectually interesting, can't be used for a definitive ruling. Had the Health category existed previously, authors would have made different choices about the content of their resolutions.

[Mousebumples]

Yeah, except it's just that - speculation. I (with the wrong nation) posted a list - GRO is right that I missed the Epidemic one - but it's really no more than my personal interpretation. I can't go back in time and discern what the authors would have done had those categories been available to them. Mousebumples seems to be saying she would have used the Health category, whereas I would imagine - but really can only imagine - that Cat-Tribe would still have used Social Justice for the Reduction of Abortion Act. (On which note, heh, if you're actually going to go for "consistency", you will have to reclassify the repealed resolutions as well.)

To clarify, had the Healthcare category been available when I wrote my resolutions, I would have likely used it on multiple occasions. However, since it wasn't available, I wrote my resolutions to the category in question, and I would prefer for them not to be shoehorned into the new category where they don't necessarily belong.

[Kryozerkia]

To clarify, had the Healthcare category been available when I wrote my resolutions, I would have likely used it on multiple occasions. However, since it wasn't available, I wrote my resolutions to the category in question, and I would prefer for them not to be shoehorned into the new category where they don't necessarily belong.

And that's why we have discussion threads. So we can learn.

[Bears Armed]

I can't go back in time and discern what the authors would have done had those categories been available to them. Mousebumples seems to be saying she would have used the Health category, whereas I would imagine - but really can only imagine - that Cat-Tribe would still have used Social Justice for the Reduction of Abortion Act. (On which note, heh, if you're actually going to go for "consistency", you will have to reclassify the repealed resolutions as well.)

We can speculate about what would have been different if... but we obviously can't say for sure

Speaking as the co-author of the 'Sustainable Fishing Act', I think it's fairly safe to say that in that case if submitting it as affecting 'Fishing' rather than 'All Businesses' had been allowed at the time then that's the option that would have been chosen and the text wouldn't have been significantly different, but I acknowledge that the situation may be less obvious in other cases.

[Ardchoille]

I've just updated the Healthcare areas of effect slightly, mainly Bioethics. The Research phrasing has been revamped to remove any hint of an effect on economic freedoms: there is none. As usual, mods can't say exactly what stats will be hit, or where would the frustration fun be?

[Alchemic Queendom]

I know you won't give a pre-emptive ruling or anything, but would it be possible to glance over my Organ Trafficking Directive and see if I'm at least in the right ballpark/cricket stadium/Quidditch arena for what constitutes "Bioethics", given the lack of any precedent to draw on?

~~~ AQ ~~~

[Ardchoille]

Answered in the drafting thread. Basically, within the ballpark.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Except that a "Quidditch arena" is actually called a "pitch."