or...
Kenny's handy-dandy guide to creating legislative logjams
or...
How I learned to stop worrying and love the block
So, what's a 'blocker,' anyway?
OK, first things first: a blocker resolution (or simply, blocker) is a piece of legislation submitted with the express purpose of "blocking" another proposal on the same subject from coming to vote. For example, if I wanted to pass a resolution requiring nations to incite an angry torch-wielding mob to seize Justin Bieber and pull out his vocal chords before his next concert, but you love the Bieb and don't want that to happen, you could quickly pull together a resolution protecting pop stars from cruel and inhumane treatment -- and if it passed the GA before mine had the chance, my anti-Bieber proposal would be DOA for violating the rules on Contradiction, and most likely removed from the queue. In effect, you would have blocked my proposal from becoming law. (By the way, these are just silly examples, and wouldn't even come close to being considered legal, so don't try introducing either of them.)
Blockers are usually introduced with the intent of blocking a specific proposal from another author, like Permit Male Circumcision (PMC) blocked a series of "male-genital mutilation" bans. Other resolutions that contain "blocker language" but weren't intended to block another draft -- like WA General Fund, which prevents the WA from taxing private individuals or regulating nations' internal tax policies -- aren't technically blockers.
Wait a second...I read through your entire definition and didn't see the words 'right-wing scheme to neuter the WA' or 'evil NatSov conspiracy' anywhere. Just who are you trying to fool?
Heh, well, you got me there. Blockers are indeed a very popular tactic among national sovereigntists, to the point that many players don't know of any other kind of blocker. "NatSov blockers" are the kinds of resolutions that completely write the WA out of a certain issue, with language like: "RESERVES to nations the authority to determine how much weed a person must smoke before he can be legally considered 'high as fuck.'" (Again, silly example; don't try to propose it!) One of the most controversial historic examples of this type of blocker is Abortion Legality Convention (which didn't legalize abortion, but rather left the decision to member states). NatSov resolutions like ALC, or the more modern examples of Nuclear Arms Possession Act (NAPA) and Clean Prostitute Act, are what players usually think of when they hear the word "blocker."
But this is not always the case. In fact, a resolution widely considered to be one of the first blockers, Outlaw Pedophilia, was introduced by Goobergunchia (who could hardly be considered a "sovereigntist"), and contained no overtly NatSov "blocker language," but it did block another, widely criticized proposal on pedophilia from seeing the light of day, and gave nations significantly more leeway on enforcing it than its competitor. Other examples of "non-NatSov" blockers include Freedom of Expression and On Abortion.
Wow...a lot of examples of passed blocker resolutions you got there. They must be pretty popular, huh?
Not necessarily. In fact, all you "IntFeds" out there will be happy to know that blockers often fail. Prohibition of UN Militaries, Unconventional Arms Accord, and the (UN version of) Free Expression Act all were defeated at vote by the United Nations, as were On Biological Weapons, Abortion Ethics Act and On Hydraulic Fracking in the common era. The reasons for their failure are obviously varied, but one thing's for certain: there are some legislative subjects (particularly biological weapons) where voters simply don't want to limit the power of the UN/WA. And as most of the examples listed here were NatSov-type blockers, sovereigntists should be wary about introducing unnecessary blocker resolutions.
OK, I'm getting a little confused here. I thought blockers were illegal?
Common misconception. There are types of blockers that are illegal, though, the one most often cited being so-called "pure blockers," which declare national determination on a certain subject, but do nothing else. Any legal resolution will always contain specific instructions to member states (even only mild-strength ones), so blockers must not limit themselves simply to protecting nations' rights; they should also go on to make at least "urgings" or "recommendations" that nations try to be reasonable about this freedom the WA is extending to them.
Attempts to ban future types of legislation comprise another, more obvious type of illegal blocker. Any resolution that declares outright that "Henceforth, all Human Rights resolutions are banned from consideration be the WA" is going to earn the author censure by the mods, as that is explicitly outlawed in the rules for proposals. So if like me, you're sick of voting on ridiculous environmental regulations too, don't take it out on the proposal queue. Illegal proposals give Flibbleites migraines.
So how do I write a blocker without the mods kicking my ass?
OK, a few pointers.
1. Limit your subject matter. Moderators are usually hostile toward proposals that try to "close out a category" entirely, or have the effect of blocking most other kinds of legislation within a particular category. Obviously Human Rights and Social Justice are very broad subject areas, but Gun Control and Recreational Drug Use are not, so if you're trying to give nations total authority on whether to legalize, regulate or prohibit any type of gun, you're in trouble. Back off quick.
2. Write to the category. Always write to the category. Don't think of your proposal as just a blocker provision with a little meaningless fluff tacked on to make it look pretty; look at it as a traditional kind of WA law (albeit probably a mild-strength one) that just happens to include a clause giving nations freedom to slaughter babies to appease the Dark Lord Cthulhu (silly example -- don't submit!). One of the problems with ALC was that it was written in a rush, without much mind to category, so that it had the effect of crossing several categories. But the mods eventually decided that it just slid by as a legal Moral Decency resolution. Don't let that happen to you. Put some thought into your meaningless fluff, and make sure your blocker's instructions steer one way or the other. Human Rights or Moral Decency; International Security or Global Disarmament. You can't have it both ways.
3. Be sensitive to how your proposal will be viewed in terms of overall effect. You may think that your proposal may pass muster as one that on the whole increases personal freedoms, but the mods may look at it differently. They once killed a "Human Rights" abortion blocker on the grounds that its allowance for nations to ban abortion meant that it decreased, not increased, personal freedoms. This was just one isolated ruling, and it's anyone's guess whether future mod rulings will honor it as "established precedent," but still be careful. If a critic tells you your proposal isn't the fluffy children's rights accord you consider it to be, and that it actually serves to legalize child slavery, don't be stubborn. They just might know what they're talking about.
4. "...within the confines of past resolutions on the subject." Never, ever forget to add a disclaimer to your nations' rights provision, if you're trying to be a good NatSover. It helps make sure you don't run afoul of the rule on Contradiction. If the WA has already passed resolutions on recreational drug use (and FYI, it has), you can't just state that nations have full authority over whether to legalize or criminalize certain types of drugs, because they don't; not really. So, "RESERVES to nations the authority to legalize or ban recreational drugs, subject to past resolutions on the matter," NOT "RESERVES to nations full authority over recreational drug use, so suck my dick, stupid IntFed whiners!" Get it. Got it? Good.
That is some capital advice, good sir. You are obviously a god among men when it comes to blockers (overlooking the fact that most of your blockers failed miserably at vote)! Got anything else to add about making a good blocker?
Just remember the K.I.S.S. principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid. In theory blockers are supposed to be simple, common-sense alternatives to more complex and comprehensive (read: "micromanaging") proposals on a particular topic, which is why they are often such attractive prospects for voters. Part of why Unconventional Arms Accord was so unpopular was that it was so complicated, and tried to cover so many different aspects of unconventional weapons (chemical/biological/nuclear) that it found foes with just about everybody who had an issue with just one. So make your blockers straight and to the point, and you might find greater success with them than I have. Also, don't be an asshole when people offer constructive suggestions on improvement (which is of course good advice when drafting any resolution). You don't want to endanger your proposal by unnecessarily making enemies before you've even submitted your work. People already think sovereigntists are dickheads without you adding more fuel to the fire. So be nice.
But, the truth of the matter is, once a blocker passes, the debate's over. Right?
Wrong. ALC did have the uncommon effect of squelching abortion debates (for the most part) pretty much till the UN disbanded, but that was mostly a fluke. On Abortion, its WA successor, did not have nearly the same success. Then of course there's the prospect that all your hard work will be forgotten to history, and succeeding resolutions will continue to trample upon the reputed sovereignty of nations with impunity, even though an extant resolution says they can't. Witness National Economic Freedoms. (Sorry, Krioval!) And it doesn't hurt to remember that anything that passes can always be repealed. Personally I cannot think of a single instance of a blocker being successfully repealed -- although there have been countless attempts made on all of them, particularly NAPA and PMC -- but there's always a first time for everything.
Yeah, and also because you can always avoid an unpopular blocker-repeal by simply introducing a new resolution to "redefine" certain legislative language so that new restrictions can be passed, even with the blocker still in place! Hehehehe!!! Oh, I'm so clever!
No you're not. Believe it or not, it's been tried before, by more-experienced "rules-lawyers" than you, and even they got slapped down for trying to amend a passed resolution. (cf. "Why amendments are illegal") Let alone that such a dishonest approach to legislating violates the spirit of the Contradiction rule, even if you think it doesn't technically violate it to the letter. Past examples of this unfortunate practice include a haphazard effort to bypass PMC and institute a ban on infant circumcision, and another during the UN era, which tried to get around Fair Sentencing Act so that a ban on the death penalty could be introduced. The mods said no. (Remember, kids: "The only legal way to totally reverse or amend an existing, international Resolution is to repeal it.") But what the hey? If you think you're more clever than your forebearers, just try doing the same thing to another blocker, and see what happens!
It's informative but just as entertaining to read. I personally enjoy the snarky bits, but I can see how some new players might not be very receptive to it. I'm glad you wrote this when you did as well because there's been a tendency recently to write blockers for essentially no reason. Hopefully this will remind authors what blockers are meant to do and when they're meant to be written.
