Advertisement
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Fri May 22, 2015 2:17 pm
by Mousebumples » Fri May 22, 2015 2:35 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:I disagree.
A number of topics effectively are closed off to new authors because the old resolutions effectively have become "unrepealable."
by Ikania » Fri May 22, 2015 2:37 pm
by Mousebumples » Fri May 22, 2015 2:44 pm
Ikania wrote:I'm not opposed to amendments at all, and any amendments making the resolution non-effective or something like that can just become illegal. It gets rid of having to trash a whole resolution when there's one error instead of just correcting it. It limits the time it takes from two resolutions to one.
by The Dark Star Republic » Fri May 22, 2015 2:49 pm
Ikania wrote:I'm not opposed to amendments at all, and any amendments making the resolution non-effective or something like that can just become illegal.
It gets rid of having to trash a whole resolution when there's one error instead of just correcting it. It limits the time it takes from two resolutions to one.
by Christian Democrats » Fri May 22, 2015 3:34 pm
Mousebumples wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:I disagree.
A number of topics effectively are closed off to new authors because the old resolutions effectively have become "unrepealable."
You do realize that we're currently voting on a repeal of an old resolution, and that it's passing handily, right? Unless Resolution#16 isn't old enough to be qualify as an "old resolution" in your aforementioned reference.
Mousebumples wrote:I don't like the idea of R&R. But, as Mall said, if you want to talk about R&R either bump up that old Technical thread on the subject or start a new one there. This thread is not about Repeal and Replace - it's about amendments.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Mousebumples » Fri May 22, 2015 4:44 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:I thought we were going to let players lead this Consortium. We aren't talking about the technical feasibility of R+R but rather the logic of the R+R idea. R+R is a form of amendment, and it's directly relevant to this conversation. The Amendment Rule says:You can't amend Resolutions. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Resolution, you have to Repeal it first.
R+R is an idea for adjusting WA law without passing a repeal resolution first.
When commenting on the rules please indicate why the rule should be changed, kept the same, or removed completely. "Me too" posts are pointless since this isn't a vote, it is a discussion. Keep conversations cordial and on topic or else. All are welcome to contribute as long as they are respectful and are actively contributing to the discussion.
by Ainocra » Fri May 22, 2015 5:10 pm
Mousebumples wrote:Ikania wrote:I'm not opposed to amendments at all, and any amendments making the resolution non-effective or something like that can just become illegal. It gets rid of having to trash a whole resolution when there's one error instead of just correcting it. It limits the time it takes from two resolutions to one.
But what about the author of an original resolution who intentionally didn't do XYZ thing with their resolution, and now - all of a sudden, their resolution on XYZ thing does something they don't want associated with them and their work?
For me, it's less about "streamlining the process" and more about "respecting the original intent of the author."
by Christian Democrats » Fri May 22, 2015 5:20 pm
Mousebumples wrote:Creating a mechanism for R&R is separate from Amendments and, as such, belongs in its own thread in Technical.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Mousebumples » Fri May 22, 2015 6:08 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Mousebumples wrote:Creating a mechanism for R&R is separate from Amendments and, as such, belongs in its own thread in Technical.
I don't want to discuss the mechanism; I want to discuss the logic of R+R as a process for amending WA law.
Should I listen to you or Fris? Apparently, the moderators aren't on the same wavelength...Frisbeeteria wrote:I think they're inextricably linked.
I agree that these discussions are "inextricably linked." It's obvious that R+R is technically feasible; all it would do is combine the repeal and new resolution functions into a single function, effectively creating a process for amending WA law.
What must be discussed first, however, is the desirability of such a change when held up against traditional repeal-and-replace.
Additionally, Fris wasn't talking about R&R - his statement was about other technical changes regarding the Amendment rule, as I read his statement. He's welcome to correct me, but I would consider further discussion on R&R to be off-topic threadjacking at this point.Mallorea and Riva wrote:R&R is a distinct issue from the Amendment Rule folks, if we want to start up this discussion again then I'd recommend we deal with Amendments first and then maybe open up a thread in technical.
by Frisbeeteria » Fri May 22, 2015 6:28 pm
Mousebumples wrote:Additionally, Fris wasn't talking about R&R - his statement was about other technical changes regarding the Amendment rule, as I read his statement. He's welcome to correct me, but I would consider further discussion on R&R to be off-topic threadjacking at this point.
by Unibot III » Fri May 22, 2015 8:10 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Frisbeeteria » Fri May 22, 2015 10:46 pm
Tzorsland wrote:It depends on how it is implemented. Assuming that we work with the custom category idea. Suppose there was a "Amendment" button. When you hit the button the resolution text is loaded into the editor. You then make the changes to the proposal and hit submit. If passed the original resolution is completely struck out (and it's repeal is based on this resolution number) but instead of a repeal resolution you have an actual resolution that in turn can be repealed.
Unibot III wrote:there isn't much hope
by The Dark Star Republic » Sat May 23, 2015 1:22 am
Frisbeeteria wrote:Tzorsland wrote:It depends on how it is implemented. Assuming that we work with the custom category idea. Suppose there was a "Amendment" button. When you hit the button the resolution text is loaded into the editor. You then make the changes to the proposal and hit submit. If passed the original resolution is completely struck out (and it's repeal is based on this resolution number) but instead of a repeal resolution you have an actual resolution that in turn can be repealed.
While there are still a lot of procedural holes in the process, this is the kind of technical response I was hoping for. It's not precisely "repeal and replace". It's not an isolated amendment that leaves partial strikeouts floating around, or one that requires lots of cross-reference links. I'd like to see some expanded speculation on how something like this would work, and how something like this would break.
Unibot III wrote:Gruen: I'm inclined to think that because repeals are kind of a nuclear option, they often mean new players will never get to tinker with stuff like the CoCR - if there was an amendment process, they'd be able to amend it and discuss the future of CoCR. Because we need to repeal CoCR first, there isn't much hope there.
by Tzorsland » Sat May 23, 2015 6:56 pm
The Dark Star Republic wrote:That honestly just seems like plagiarism. You'd be taking someone else's work, changing it a bit, and resubmitting it to earn your own new resolution.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sat May 23, 2015 8:11 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Sun May 24, 2015 1:37 am
by Tzorsland » Sun May 24, 2015 12:10 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:[violet] has already expressed how she does not want the WA to become bogged down by procedural votes to simply amend existing language. She said it would be incredibly tedious and make the game boring. I think people are forgetting a very important point here: this is a game; it it's no longer fun to play, then there's no point to it.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sun May 24, 2015 7:22 pm
Tzorsland wrote:We only need to raise the requirements for amending an existing a resolution...
by Ainocra » Mon May 25, 2015 12:11 pm
The General assembly:
Realizing: that Ainocra is Awesome blah blah blah, blah
Amends section blah of GA#2 to state that :Ainocra is Awesome blah blah blah
Disagreeing with paragraph 4 of GA #142 Amends it to read: Ainocra is awesome blah blah blah
Stating: that only Ainocra's opinion is right in all things blah blah, blah blah
Amends section z of GA# 3004546 to :Ainocra is a pagan love god, all nations must sacrifice virgins to him on a daily basis. Blah Blah Blah blah.
by Frisbeeteria » Sun Jun 07, 2015 2:22 pm
by The Gatewatch » Sun May 22, 2016 6:44 am
by Kaboomlandia » Sun May 22, 2016 6:45 am
The Gatewatch wrote:I really think that amendments should be allowed. A substantial number of resolutions are repealed because, despite good intentions, they have serious oversights. Their repeal basically prevents much from getting done. If amendments were allowed, a large number of future repeals would instead be amendments to correct oversights instead of destroying potentially useful resolutions. It would help end the repeal culture we see today.
Advertisement
Return to General Assembly Rules Consortium
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement