Discussion: change GA modding? (split from Q&A)

[Mallorea and Riva]

I can guarantee you that none of our decisions are made with the intention of spiting anyone. It makes me want to open up our discussions to the public just to debunk that notion.

Reppy is suggesting it because it's an interesting, if unsound, idea. Consider this a space to put forth such ideas for discussion, no sense in holding back.

Auralia's proposal wasn't discarded until it started winning. When it had literally had days/weeks/months on the forums, and days in the queue for them to declare it illegal.

Look, for the longest time I was a staunch proponent of "There isn't a mod conspiracy against [insert name here]." But it gets really hard when the mod team does "There is a conspiracy against [insert name here] stuff."

If you honestly think there was a conspiracy, submit a GHR. That's a serious claim to throw around, back it up or back down.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Consider this a space to put forth such ideas for discussion, no sense in holding back.

Okay, no holding back:

Delete Rights & Duties. Either through recoding or just by inputting a blank repeal and making it automatically pass, the coding details aren't important. It's the biggest stumbling block to the GA changing, it should have been repealed anyway and was only preserved on an incredibly dubious technicality, it's plagiarised, it was illegal at the time it was submitted...

[Reploid Productions]

Consider this a space to put forth such ideas for discussion, no sense in holding back.

Okay, no holding back:

Delete Rights & Duties. Either through recoding or just by inputting a blank repeal and making it automatically pass, the coding details aren't important. It's the biggest stumbling block to the GA changing, it should have been repealed anyway and was only preserved on an incredibly dubious technicality, it's plagiarised, it was illegal at the time it was submitted...

Sadly, that's well beyond the bounds of the mod tool set, that'd have to be [v]'s call.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Consider this a space to put forth such ideas for discussion, no sense in holding back.

Okay, no holding back:

Delete Rights & Duties. Either through recoding or just by inputting a blank repeal and making it automatically pass, the coding details aren't important. It's the biggest stumbling block to the GA changing, it should have been repealed anyway and was only preserved on an incredibly dubious technicality, it's plagiarised, it was illegal at the time it was submitted...

Could you go into more detail as to how it's a stumbling block to the GA changing, and what changes you think would result?

[Sciongrad]

I think this is a truly awful idea. So much so that I'm not even sure why you're suggesting it. I'm not exaggerating when I say I could get a resolution that used only variations of the letters in the word "fork" to queue if there was no one enforcing the rules. We have so many resources to contact thousands of delegates instantly that without moderators actively removing illegal proposals, you would need to use the discard function for more than just spiting Auralia.

True, but as I already mentioned in the first post, blatant spam would still get yanked, along with flaming and other such rulebreaking content. But if coupled with a reworking of the proposal queue to make the thing navigable without mods having to chuck every slightly illegal proposal, it could remove the need for an entire special subset of WA proposal rules that really are a rather intimidating thing for new players to learn and mods to enforce.

Fair enough. But I have to ask, why have any rules in the first place if its okay to break just a few of them? What is a "slightly illegal" proposal? It's one that still violates the rules, so I don't know why it wouldn't be removed. Why have those rules in the first place? Letting illegal proposals through doesn't make any sense. If you're truly set on allowing proposals that only have minor rules violations through, why not discuss eliminating rules that wouldn't be considered important enough to warrant removing proposals that violate them? Not that I'm necessarily in favor of removing any of the current rules, but at least that would prevent the need for "certain illegal proposals are legal" doublethink.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Okay, no holding back:

Delete Rights & Duties. Either through recoding or just by inputting a blank repeal and making it automatically pass, the coding details aren't important. It's the biggest stumbling block to the GA changing, it should have been repealed anyway and was only preserved on an incredibly dubious technicality, it's plagiarised, it was illegal at the time it was submitted...

Sadly, that's well beyond the bounds of the mod tool set, that'd have to be [v]'s call.

You're the one proposing rewriting the proposal queue, which I imagine would also be [violet]'s call. If we're going to discuss that, why not discuss this?

Okay, no holding back:

Delete Rights & Duties. Either through recoding or just by inputting a blank repeal and making it automatically pass, the coding details aren't important. It's the biggest stumbling block to the GA changing, it should have been repealed anyway and was only preserved on an incredibly dubious technicality, it's plagiarised, it was illegal at the time it was submitted...

Could you go into more detail as to how it's a stumbling block to the GA changing, and what changes you think would result?

Frisbeeteria and other mods have routinely said that they will only reconsider changes to things like the ruling that led to whatever Auralia's version of the Vienna Convention was called being declared illegal, the No Army rule, and rulings on compliance in general, should Rights & Duties be repealed. Which it was going to be, until a moderator just flipped the WA on its head because they couldn't be bothered to enforce their own rules.

[Sciongrad]

Okay, no holding back:

Delete Rights & Duties. Either through recoding or just by inputting a blank repeal and making it automatically pass, the coding details aren't important. It's the biggest stumbling block to the GA changing, it should have been repealed anyway and was only preserved on an incredibly dubious technicality, it's plagiarised, it was illegal at the time it was submitted...

Could you go into more detail as to how it's a stumbling block to the GA changing, and what changes you think would result?

While I won't answer that for Gruen, I will say that it's really not disputed that the repeal of GAR#2 legitimately passed and was removed on what has been widely considered the worst blunder by moderation in the recent history. If the moderators are serious about being more consistent or making more judicious rulings, removing GAR#2 would definitely prove that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

But I have to ask, why have any rules in the first place if its okay to break just a few of them? What is a "slightly illegal" proposal? It's one that still violates the rules, so I don't know why it wouldn't be removed. Why have those rules in the first place? Letting illegal proposals through doesn't make any sense. If you're truly set on allowing proposals that only have minor rules violations through, why not discuss eliminating rules that wouldn't be considered important enough to warrant removing proposals that violate them? Not that I'm necessarily in favor of removing any of the current rules, but at least that would prevent the need for "certain illegal proposals are legal" doublethink.

And then some proposals which would upset everything ... are thrown out on technicalities.

[Sovreignry]

Auralia's proposal wasn't discarded until it started winning. When it had literally had days/weeks/months on the forums, and days in the queue for them to declare it illegal.

Look, for the longest time I was a staunch proponent of "There isn't a mod conspiracy against [insert name here]." But it gets really hard when the mod team does "There is a conspiracy against [insert name here] stuff."

If you honestly think there was a conspiracy, submit a GHR. That's a serious claim to throw around, back it up or back down.

I didn't say there was one, I said that it's hard to defend that position when the mods make seemingly capricious rulings. And if there was a mod conspiracy, what good would a GHR do? The mods are the ones that respond to it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

About GHRs, I remember there was a post (perhaps by Unibot) which spoke about how the use of GHRs has had the effect of making legality decisions significantly less transparent. I agree and would take it a step further. For WA proposals, I feel that legality challenges should be made solely on the Moderation forum and that GHR-submitted legality challenges should not be heard.

EDIT: Found it:

I do wonder if rulings in the past were more consistent because in the past, when legal questions were brought up in moderation, you could expect a number of players from your own 'personal opposition' to provide their own, shall we say, 'amicus curiae' on the subject (usually trying to shut your proposal down) and you'd naturally, defend your proposal and your case... such that the actual thread became fairly comprehensive because both sides were covering a lot of ground in trying to nail each other. While I wouldn't suggest encouraging animosity, I do wonder if the restrictions on discussions in moderation have meant legality threads are less informative for moderators, so they're having to do more independent research to reach decisions on resolutions.

[Mallorea and Riva]

If you honestly think there was a conspiracy, submit a GHR. That's a serious claim to throw around, back it up or back down.

I didn't say there was one, I said that it's hard to defend that position when the mods make seemingly capricious rulings. And if there was a mod conspiracy, what good would a GHR do? The mods are the ones that respond to it.

Accusations of mod abuse are dealt by uninvolved mods and admin as necessary. The GA mods wouldn't rule on it.

Could you go into more detail as to how it's a stumbling block to the GA changing, and what changes you think would result?

While I won't answer that for Gruen, I will say that it's really not disputed that the repeal of GAR#2 legitimately passed and was removed on what has been widely considered the worst blunder by moderation in the recent history. If the moderators are serious about being more consistent or making more judicious rulings, removing GAR#2 would definitely prove that.

Why doesn't Auralia (or someone else, except Douria) just resubmit the repeal? Or draft a different one? Auralia's repeal being declared legal initially was the blunder, whether or not the discard should have been used is apparently a matter of contention. Removing GAR2 wouldn't prove that we're serious, that alone wouldn't change any of the rules.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Why doesn't Auralia (or someone else, except Douria) just resubmit the repeal? Or draft a different one? Auralia's repeal being declared legal initially was the blunder, whether or not the discard should have been used is apparently a matter of contention.

Because (a) it's obvious that if it looks like succeeding some minor technicality will just happen to crop up again and (b) Mousebumples and Douria trolled the shit out of him so effectively last time that he's probably understandably burnt on the prospect of wasting his time and effort on another try?

Removing GAR2 wouldn't prove that we're serious, that alone wouldn't change any of the rules.

It would remove the impression that you're hiding behind Rights & Duties to avoid discussing rules changes.

[Sciongrad]

Why doesn't Auralia (or someone else, except Douria) just resubmit the repeal? Or draft a different one? Auralia's repeal being declared legal initially was the blunder, whether or not the discard should have been used is apparently a matter of contention. Removing GAR2 wouldn't prove that we're serious, that alone wouldn't change any of the rules.

Not that I want to start this discussion here, but it was stated that the discard function would be used only to remove those resolutions that contained the most egregious rules violations. And then you used it to remove a repeal of GAR#2 for a branding violation. My point was that acknowledging that the discard of the repeal was a terrible idea by rectifying for the error would demonstrate that you're serious, not that it would change any rules. Requiring Auralia to resubmit the repeal would essentially be a tacit vindication of the mod ruling that discarded the repeal in the first place.

EDIT: I just want to distance myself from the idea that the discard was part of some elaborate conspiracy against Auralia. I just think that it was a very bad ruling that has really caused serious damage to the relationship between players and moderators.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Why doesn't Auralia (or someone else, except Douria) just resubmit the repeal? Or draft a different one? Auralia's repeal being declared legal initially was the blunder, whether or not the discard should have been used is apparently a matter of contention. Removing GAR2 wouldn't prove that we're serious, that alone wouldn't change any of the rules.

Because Douria fucked him over and poisoned the well. The debate will undoubtedly revolve around that deletion, and the terrible ruling made on it. If anything Douria should have been DEAT'd for that blatant misrepresentation, yet he wasn't even sanctioned over it. he was permitted to humiliate Auralia, and absolutely dick all was done about it. Reverse that second ruling, and allow it to be submitted under the original author name and the problem will be fixed.

[Sovreignry]

Why doesn't Auralia (or someone else, except Douria) just resubmit the repeal? Or draft a different one? Auralia's repeal being declared legal initially was the blunder, whether or not the discard should have been used is apparently a matter of contention. Removing GAR2 wouldn't prove that we're serious, that alone wouldn't change any of the rules.

Not that I want to start this discussion here, but it was stated that the discard function would be used only to remove those resolutions that contained the most egregious rules violations. And then you used it to remove a repeal of GAR#2 for a branding violation. My point was that acknowledging that the discard of the repeal was a terrible idea by rectifying for the error would demonstrate that you're serious, not that it would change any rules. Requiring Auralia to resubmit the repeal would essentially be a tacit vindication of the mod ruling that discarded the repeal in the first place.

Also, why doesn't someone else submit it? Because they don't want to take the weeks/months that GA regulars like to require to draft a proposal since they can't just submit Auralia's version without it getting pulled/discarded for plagiarism.

[Reploid Productions]

True, but as I already mentioned in the first post, blatant spam would still get yanked, along with flaming and other such rulebreaking content. But if coupled with a reworking of the proposal queue to make the thing navigable without mods having to chuck every slightly illegal proposal, it could remove the need for an entire special subset of WA proposal rules that really are a rather intimidating thing for new players to learn and mods to enforce.

Fair enough. But I have to ask, why have any rules in the first place if its okay to break just a few of them? What is a "slightly illegal" proposal? It's one that still violates the rules, so I don't know why it wouldn't be removed. Why have those rules in the first place? Letting illegal proposals through doesn't make any sense. If you're truly set on allowing proposals that only have minor rules violations through, why not discuss eliminating rules that wouldn't be considered important enough to warrant removing proposals that violate them? Not that I'm necessarily in favor of removing any of the current rules, but at least that would prevent the need for "certain illegal proposals are legal" doublethink.

I think we're getting some crossed-signals here; when I mean "rulebreaking" content, I mean the main site rules, not the current set of special WA proposal rules, which largely came about originally as a means of justifying and creating a standard to eliminate the drek so as to make the proposal queue actually manageable and navigable.

In a situation where there is no longer that need to keep the queue length trimmed so it's navigable (by redesigning the proposal queue so that it's still easy to search through even when full of material that might be less-than-stellar by the current WA rules,) that would pretty effectively eliminate the need for those WA proposal rules as a mod-enforced thing. Without the need for those special rules, moderation also wouldn't be needed to step in and try and make these infuriatingly subjective rulings. Instead of being moderation-enforced rules, they could be left as a community guideline for players to argue and modify as the WA and its population changes over time; while leaving the mod enforcement side more in line with the rest of the site.

That would also make the WA easier to moderate overall- I won't lie, about the time the Enodian rules became the norm, that's about when I ran screaming from the NSUN. It's such a subjective and tedious process that not many of us want to try and step into that quagmire of acting as the WA Supreme Court. If we can simplify things so that the moderation side of it is akin to modding the rest of the site and put the proposal legality back into the hands of the players, that would make it much easier for any mod to come tidy up some OSRS rulebreaking proposals rather than leave it for some manner of WA-specialist to deal with.

Plus, that'd then put arguing precedent and everything back in the players' hands, which strikes me as a much better system for what is supposed to be an international legal body, y'know? Like how Influence got the ridiculously infuriating subjective moderation judgment calls out of the R/D quadmire forever ago.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Why doesn't Auralia (or someone else, except Douria) just resubmit the repeal? Or draft a different one? Auralia's repeal being declared legal initially was the blunder, whether or not the discard should have been used is apparently a matter of contention.

Because (a) it's obvious that if it looks like succeeding some minor technicality will just happen to crop up again and (b) Mousebumples and Douria trolled the shit out of him so effectively last time that he's probably understandably burnt on the prospect of wasting his time and effort on another try?

Removing GAR2 wouldn't prove that we're serious, that alone wouldn't change any of the rules.

It would remove the impression that you're hiding behind Rights & Duties to avoid discussing rules changes.

Why not ask Auralia if you can submit it? He was open to someone else taking the reigns, albeit he made the mistake of trusting Douria with it. And we aren't hiding behind Rights and Duties, we're having the discussion here and now with it in place.

Why doesn't Auralia (or someone else, except Douria) just resubmit the repeal? Or draft a different one? Auralia's repeal being declared legal initially was the blunder, whether or not the discard should have been used is apparently a matter of contention. Removing GAR2 wouldn't prove that we're serious, that alone wouldn't change any of the rules.

Not that I want to start this discussion here, but it was stated that the discard function would be used only to remove those resolutions that contained the most egregious rules violations. And then you used it to remove a repeal of GAR#2 for a branding violation. My point was that acknowledging that the discard of the repeal was a terrible idea by rectifying for the error would demonstrate that you're serious, not that it would change any rules. Requiring Auralia to resubmit the repeal would essentially be a tacit vindication of the mod ruling that discarded the repeal in the first place.

Except that I stand by using the discard feature for all illegalities, so in my mind it was entirely valid. Obviously this is something the mod team is discussing, as was mentioned before. Player input is welcome.

Not that I want to start this discussion here, but it was stated that the discard function would be used only to remove those resolutions that contained the most egregious rules violations. And then you used it to remove a repeal of GAR#2 for a branding violation. My point was that acknowledging that the discard of the repeal was a terrible idea by rectifying for the error would demonstrate that you're serious, not that it would change any rules. Requiring Auralia to resubmit the repeal would essentially be a tacit vindication of the mod ruling that discarded the repeal in the first place.

Also, why doesn't someone else submit it? Because they don't want to take the weeks/months that GA regulars like to require to draft a proposal since they can't just submit Auralia's version without it getting pulled/discarded for plagiarism.

Players can give permission to use drafts in the GA Sov.

Why doesn't Auralia (or someone else, except Douria) just resubmit the repeal? Or draft a different one? Auralia's repeal being declared legal initially was the blunder, whether or not the discard should have been used is apparently a matter of contention. Removing GAR2 wouldn't prove that we're serious, that alone wouldn't change any of the rules.

Because Douria fucked him over and poisoned the well. The debate will undoubtedly revolve around that deletion, and the terrible ruling made on it. If anything Douria should have been DEAT'd for that blatant misrepresentation, yet he wasn't even sanctioned over it. he was permitted to humiliate Auralia, and absolutely dick all was done about it. Reverse that second ruling, and allow it to be submitted under the original author name and the problem will be fixed.

Douria didn't break any rules, he was playing politics. You don't have to like it though, and I know that many don't. It was a dirty political move, but still within the realm of the rules. I think it has been long enough now that any "poisoned well" effect will be undone. That was a long time ago.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Why not ask Auralia if you can submit it? He was open to someone else taking the reigns [sic], albeit he made the mistake of trusting Douria with it

Because I don't trust you not to just magic up some other tenuous grounds for illegality should it get anywhere. Not trusting the GA mods is kind of the theme of this thread. Also, I don't like talking about private forums, but you know full well what I have seen that gives me extreme doubt that Mousebumples or yourself would ever actually allow a repeal of Rights & Duties to pass.

Except that I stand by using the discard feature for all illegalities, so in my mind it was entirely valid. Obviously this is something the mod team is discussing, as was mentioned before. Player input is welcome.

Wasn't it just last week or so that you refused to discard an obviously illegal proposal?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Fair enough. But I have to ask, why have any rules in the first place if its okay to break just a few of them? What is a "slightly illegal" proposal? It's one that still violates the rules, so I don't know why it wouldn't be removed. Why have those rules in the first place? Letting illegal proposals through doesn't make any sense. If you're truly set on allowing proposals that only have minor rules violations through, why not discuss eliminating rules that wouldn't be considered important enough to warrant removing proposals that violate them? Not that I'm necessarily in favor of removing any of the current rules, but at least that would prevent the need for "certain illegal proposals are legal" doublethink.

I think we're getting some crossed-signals here; when I mean "rulebreaking" content, I mean the main site rules, not the current set of special WA proposal rules, which largely came about originally as a means of justifying and creating a standard to eliminate the drek so as to make the proposal queue actually manageable and navigable.

In a situation where there is no longer that need to keep the queue length trimmed so it's navigable (by redesigning the proposal queue so that it's still easy to search through even when full of material that might be less-than-stellar by the current WA rules,) that would pretty effectively eliminate the need for those WA proposal rules as a mod-enforced thing. Without the need for those special rules, moderation also wouldn't be needed to step in and try and make these infuriatingly subjective rulings. Instead of being moderation-enforced rules, they could be left as a community guideline for players to argue and modify as the WA and its population changes over time; while leaving the mod enforcement side more in line with the rest of the site.

That would also make the WA easier to moderate overall- I won't lie, about the time the Enodian rules became the norm, that's about when I ran screaming from the NSUN. It's such a subjective and tedious process that not many of us want to try and step into that quagmire of acting as the WA Supreme Court. If we can simplify things so that the moderation side of it is akin to modding the rest of the site and put the proposal legality back into the hands of the players, that would make it much easier for any mod to come tidy up some OSRS rulebreaking proposals rather than leave it for some manner of WA-specialist to deal with.

Plus, that'd then put arguing precedent and everything back in the players' hands, which strikes me as a much better system for what is supposed to be an international legal body, y'know? Like how Influence got the ridiculously infuriating subjective moderation judgment calls out of the R/D quadmire forever ago.

Absolutely agree. I would support a change towards this end.

[Sciongrad]

In a situation where there is no longer that need to keep the queue length trimmed so it's navigable (by redesigning the proposal queue so that it's still easy to search through even when full of material that might be less-than-stellar by the current WA rules,) that would pretty effectively eliminate the need for those WA proposal rules as a mod-enforced thing. Without the need for those special rules, moderation also wouldn't be needed to step in and try and make these infuriatingly subjective rulings. Instead of being moderation-enforced rules, they could be left as a community guideline for players to argue and modify as the WA and its population changes over time; while leaving the mod enforcement side more in line with the rest of the site.

Again, I'm extremely uncomfortable with this idea. The GA rules currently, as it applies to regulars, not random nations that submit nonsense, need to be enforced to prevent wild inconsistencies or contradictions. The general electorate will pass anything because there are only a very select few players that are familiar with any of the previously passed legislation. Unless moderators removed resolutions that duplicated or contradicted previous ones, there is a very good likelihood that such resolutions would pass, which would destroy the IC consistency of the WA, and all because moderators didn't want to enforce any subjective rules? Simply eliminating the rules because they're a hassle to enforce is a very poor idea that would very quickly ruin whatever fun is currently left in the GA.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Why not ask Auralia if you can submit it? He was open to someone else taking the reigns [sic], albeit he made the mistake of trusting Douria with it

Because I don't trust you not to just magic up some other tenuous grounds for illegality should it get anywhere. Not trusting the GA mods is kind of the theme of this thread.

Well we aren't going to get very far clearly since you lack all faith in us. I'll see if someone else is more willing.

Except that I stand by using the discard feature for all illegalities, so in my mind it was entirely valid. Obviously this is something the mod team is discussing, as was mentioned before. Player input is welcome.

Wasn't it just last week or so that you refused to discard an obviously illegal proposal?

I wasn't a game mod a week ago, I didn't have any access to the discard function.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The general electorate will pass anything because there are only a very select few players that are familiar with any of the previously passed legislation

To put it in context: in the pre-Enodian days, there weren't 300 passed resolutions to contend with. That is just as much an "unnavigable morass" without rules on contradiction or duplication.

[Sovreignry]

Mall, the GCR community hasn't had enough of a turnover for the bad taste of Auralia's many "sins" to have left the mouths of the high endo nations or those that have their ear. Also, Auralia has mentioned that he was done with trying to repeal GAR #2 because of the fact that people screwed him over it. I doubt he wants to rehash it, especially since one of his biggest political opponents from that debacle now has the shiny red name badge and could use that to her advantage when telegramming the more impressionable delegates.

[Sciongrad]

Except that I stand by using the discard feature for all illegalities, so in my mind it was entirely valid. Obviously this is something the mod team is discussing, as was mentioned before. Player input is welcome.

This is demonstrably not what was told to us. If that's the case, then the players involved were functioning under a rule that wasn't available to them.

[Imperium Anglorum]

In a situation where there is no longer that need to keep the queue length trimmed so it's navigable (by redesigning the proposal queue so that it's still easy to search through even when full of material that might be less-than-stellar by the current WA rules,) that would pretty effectively eliminate the need for those WA proposal rules as a mod-enforced thing. Without the need for those special rules, moderation also wouldn't be needed to step in and try and make these infuriatingly subjective rulings. Instead of being moderation-enforced rules, they could be left as a community guideline for players to argue and modify as the WA and its population changes over time; while leaving the mod enforcement side more in line with the rest of the site.

Again, I'm extremely uncomfortable with this idea. The GA rules currently, as it applies to regulars, not random nations that submit nonsense, need to be enforced to prevent wild inconsistencies or contradictions. The general electorate will pass anything because there are only a very select few players that are familiar with any of the previously passed legislation. Unless moderators removed resolutions that duplicated or contradicted previous ones, there is a very good likelihood that such resolutions would pass, which would destroy the IC consistency of the WA, and all because moderators didn't want to enforce any subjective rules? Simply eliminating the rules because they're a hassle to enforce is a very poor idea that would very quickly ruin whatever fun is currently left in the GA.

What is the issue then, if we keep just the rule against contradictions [and duplications]? I feel that this proposed reform would alleviate the necessity of many rules, and in my opinion, removing many of the rules is for the best.