The Blocker Rule

[Mallorea and Riva]

Blockers

Resolutions cannot be "repeal-proof"or prohibit types of legislation.

To summarize regarding blockers: being a blocker isn't illegal. It's being a blocker and nothing else that gets a proposal dinged. That, or closing off an entire area of WA legislation -- say, "RESERVES to nations the power to make all decisions on all matters concerning the human rights of their citizens and residents" -- or trying to write the "unrepealable" resolution: "RESOLVES that the WA shall never speak of this again".

[The Dark Star Republic]

I don't think this was a good rule.

It was introduced during the NSUN>WA changeover, as a result of Jey and myself going admittedly a bit mad in passing vast blockers that took out very large legislation areas. But the rule has never been particularly well worded or explained.

As irritating as sweeping blockers might be, there is no rule against a sweeping substantive resolution like Charter of Civil Rights, and that has just as much of a blocking effect. I feel this rule should be abolished.

[Christian Democrats]

I believe we should keep this rule, but it should be stricter. I've advocated for a new rule limiting each proposal to one topic. Blocker resolutions would be permitted, but they would likewise be restricted to one topic.

ILLEGAL: Every nation shall be free to regulate trade within its borders however it wishes.
LEGAL: Every nation shall be free to regulate its own automotive industry however it wishes.

The former deals with an entire area (economic regulation), whereas the latter deals with one industry.

EDIT: Also, I have no problem with "pure blockers" -- blockers that block and do nothing else.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

I agree with CD on the second point. Why do we need to force regulations down everyone's throat just to block off a certain piece of legislation?

[The Candy Of Bottles]

Pure blockers should remain illegal- it's one thing to try to make further legislation on a topic unnecessary, another to try to prevent it. Heck, perhaps even try to crack down a bit more on this one- those NatSov folks seem a bit too cocky in my opinion, and blockers are their main weapon. We definitely shouldn't be making this rule looser for them.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

- one those NatSov folks seem a bit too cocky in my opinion, and blockers are their main weapon. We definitely shouldn't be making this rule looser for them.

Aw... And I thought no one cared.

[Kaboomlandia]

I agree with CD in keeping the rule and making it stricter. Suggested wording:

Resolutions cannot be unrepealable or block off an entire category of legislation.

To summarize: being a blocker isn't illegal. It's being a blocker and nothing else that makes it illegal. Likewise, closing off an entire area of further legislation is illegal (for example, writing a resolution on free expression is fine, but if you try to write a universal bill of rights, it'll be nuked). If you try to write the "unrepealable" resolution "RESOLVES that the WA shall never speak of this again" it'll be yanked.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Obligatory disclaimer that proposal coding might not be/probably won't be implemented.

EDIT: Also, I have no problem with "pure blockers" -- blockers that block and do nothing else.

How would you imagine a proposal like that being coded? If it's a "pure blocker" it doesn't really have any statistical impact on nations. That used to be illegal under the category rules, but if categories were no longer removed, "resolution editors" would be faced with a resolution that didn't seem to change anything.

[Christian Democrats]

EDIT: Also, I have no problem with "pure blockers" -- blockers that block and do nothing else.

How would you imagine a proposal like that being coded? If it's a "pure blocker" it doesn't really have any statistical impact on nations. That used to be illegal under the category rules, but if categories were no longer removed, "resolution editors" would be faced with a resolution that didn't seem to change anything.

Who says that every resolution would have to have some statistical effect?

Maybe, the administrators could add variables for cosmopolitanism and isolationism.

[Ainocra]

I say remove it.

Nothing is repeal proof. if it's bad enough then it will eventually get pulled.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I don't think this was a good rule.

It was introduced during the NSUN>WA changeover, as a result of Jey and myself going admittedly a bit mad in passing vast blockers that took out very large legislation areas. But the rule has never been particularly well worded or explained.

As irritating as sweeping blockers might be, there is no rule against a sweeping substantive resolution like Charter of Civil Rights, and that has just as much of a blocking effect. I feel this rule should be abolished.

I don't agree with this at all. Charter of Civil Rights is interpreted in a way that allows further specific resolutions on civil rights. A huge category blocker cannot be interpreted as such.

[Krioval]

Blocker proposals can also be used to counteract what to some might be an overabundance of not-quite-overlapping resolutions dealing with a particular issue, such as domestic trade restrictions. Also, every resolution technically blocks some other kind of legislation, so we are really arguing over how strong a given piece of legislation can/should be. I'm not convinced that there is a bright line that can be applied in every circumstance.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I don't think this was a good rule.

It was introduced during the NSUN>WA changeover, as a result of Jey and myself going admittedly a bit mad in passing vast blockers that took out very large legislation areas. But the rule has never been particularly well worded or explained.

As irritating as sweeping blockers might be, there is no rule against a sweeping substantive resolution like Charter of Civil Rights, and that has just as much of a blocking effect. I feel this rule should be abolished.

I don't agree with this at all. Charter of Civil Rights is interpreted in a way that allows further specific resolutions on civil rights. A huge category blocker cannot be interpreted as such.

I've seen a ton of proposals ruled out for duplication of Charter of Civil Rights. I'm honestly not sure what you're alluding to, but I don't see there's any difference between the blocking effect of a substantive proposal on discrimination or a national rights proposal on discrimination. They have exactly the same scope of impact, only is legal, one is not.

[Tzorsland]

Blockers made more sense before repeals were allowed. Now they are just an annoyance, a roadblock in the path of progress. Just write a cute repeal that everyone will pass and then write your own legislation. It doesn't even stop controversial topics, because the topic shifts to annoying repeals instead of annoying resolutions.

[Christian Democrats]

Blockers made more sense before repeals were allowed. Now they are just an annoyance, a roadblock in the path of progress.

You're missing the point that many people consider national sovereignty to be progress as opposed to imperialism and colonialism.

[Blaccakre]

I don't agree with this at all. Charter of Civil Rights is interpreted in a way that allows further specific resolutions on civil rights. A huge category blocker cannot be interpreted as such.

I've seen a ton of proposals ruled out for duplication of Charter of Civil Rights. I'm honestly not sure what you're alluding to, but I don't see there's any difference between the blocking effect of a substantive proposal on discrimination or a national rights proposal on discrimination. They have exactly the same scope of impact, only is legal, one is not.

Frankly I think CoCR should be repealed. I've seen far too many reasonable laws abandoned or ruled illegal because of the general ban on discrimination found in CoCR. There's no reason why the relatively broad prohibition found in CoCR should block off efforts to legislate on narrow, specific examples of discrimination, especially when specific legal measures to deal with that discrimination are not addressed in CoCR.

Wait, am I on topic?

The Blocker Rule actually has three completely independent clauses. Its first two clauses prevent resolutions from being repeal proof and from "prohibiting types of legislation." The third clause requires that blockers "do something else" in addition to blocking (not direct quote).

The first one is self explanatory, though it's of questionable value because any resolution purporting to make itself repeal proof (i.e. RESOLVES that the WA shall never repeal this proposal once enacted, and that any attempt to do so is unlawful) would be a game mechanics violation. I'm a fan of simplicity in rule making; you can cut that bit out of the rule without changing how the WA works.

The second one really has not been fully thought out. What does is mean to prohibit "types" or "areas" of legislation? This has been interpreted very narrowly: all we mean when we say you cannot block off "types" of legislation is that you cannot close off whole categories from future legislation. Arguably, however, the rule really has a broader scope. Most blockers, by their nature, block off "types" of legislation by effectively saying "THIS IS THE LAST WORD ON THAT SUBJECT." I suppose that a "matter" of legislation, might be different from an "area" or "type" of legislation, but type/area definitely does not mean "category" as it has been interpreted. I'd suggest, if the rule really is limited to categories, that the rule be changed to say that.

Finally, the explanation of the rule introduces the third clause: "being a blocker isn't illegal. It's being a blocker and nothing else that gets a proposal dinged." It's not at all clear from the earlier clauses why that statement is true, so essential this "blocker and nothing else" rule is a separate clause. I don't see why that rule exists. So long as a proposal does not make itself repeal-proof or close off entire areas of legislation, why shouldn't a "bare" blocker be allowed? If member nations want to vote for a law that does nothing more than prevent WA meddling in plumbing and electrical standards promulgation, why should that law have to do "something else" to be legal?

I'd say, scrap the first and third clauses, as the first duplicates the mechanics rule and the third needlessly stifles democracy. As to the second, keep it, but either (1) make it explicitly apply only to blocking off whole categories, or (2) put in additional guidance about what it means to block off whole "areas" or "types of legislation" including: whether the blocker would prevent exploring the nuances of a broader topic, covers only a general area of law without delving into specifics, and contains little, or very little substantive law other than blocking off legislation.

Thank you for your time!

[Tzorsland]

You're missing the point that many people consider national sovereignty to be progress as opposed to imperialism and colonialism.

Progress, aka. Progressivism, is actually a specific ideology, sharing a common ideology with socialism and communism. As such it tends to seek ever higher levels of incorporation until everyone is incorporated under it.

[Christian Democrats]

You're missing the point that many people consider national sovereignty to be progress as opposed to imperialism and colonialism.

Progress, aka. Progressivism, is actually a specific ideology, sharing a common ideology with socialism and communism. As such it tends to seek ever higher levels of incorporation until everyone is incorporated under it.

In that case, you're threadjacking. Your assertion that blockers are "a roadblock in the path of progress" is not a legal argument for or against the Blocker Rule. It's a political argument that should be saved for the drafting threads of blocker proposals.

The progressive mentality -- we need to civilize the savages of the world -- is not a legitimate ground for keeping the Blocker Rule.

[Flibbleites]

Finally, the explanation of the rule introduces the third clause: "being a blocker isn't illegal. It's being a blocker and nothing else that gets a proposal dinged." It's not at all clear from the earlier clauses why that statement is true, so essential this "blocker and nothing else" rule is a separate clause. I don't see why that rule exists. So long as a proposal does not make itself repeal-proof or close off entire areas of legislation, why shouldn't a "bare" blocker be allowed? If member nations want to vote for a law that does nothing more than prevent WA meddling in plumbing and electrical standards promulgation, why should that law have to do "something else" to be legal?

It's a game mechanics thing, I'm sure everyone here is aware that when a proposal passes the WA members' stats are changed to reflect the proposal's category and strength. Now the stat effects of a pure Blocker should be zero because a pure Blocker is the WA essentially saying, "we're not going to deal with this subject, you guys are on your own." However, there's no category that does that, so something is needed to explain why nations are changing when the WA is essentially doing nothing.

[Tzorsland]

Your assertion that blockers are "a roadblock in the path of progress" is not a legal argument for or against the Blocker Rule.

Of course it is. The original argument was that blockers PREVENTED things. With repeals, blockers merely delay things. Thus the primary reason for blockers (to prevent things) is no longer possible. Thus blockers are not NECESSARY.

[Defwa]

I know this will be unpopular, but I think the common line "leaves *blank* totally up to member nations" should be illegal.
The ability of nations to decide blank for themselves is implied by lack of legislation on it. However a present lack does not negate the potential for a future need.

If the WA does not want to legislate on something, then it won't. Blockers (including those that do one small thing and block everything else) run contrary to the purpose of the organization if you ask me.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

You don't get it. Blockers don't simply allow nations to decide for themselves on a particular issue; they specifically prevent future legislation on the subject from coming forward. A simple lack of legislation does not actively prevent the introduction of disagreeable (and likely damaging) laws. Besides, as TDSR has already explained, since resolutions can be neither duplicated nor contradicted, all resolutions have something of a blocking effect. A blocker is no more contrary to the WA's purpose than Mild legislation which makes no specific requirements of members. Numerous non-blocker resolutions also give specific allowances to nations on relatively minor details of law; should all of those be banned as well?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I don't agree with this at all. Charter of Civil Rights is interpreted in a way that allows further specific resolutions on civil rights. A huge category blocker cannot be interpreted as such.

I've seen a ton of proposals ruled out for duplication of Charter of Civil Rights. I'm honestly not sure what you're alluding to, but I don't see there's any difference between the blocking effect of a substantive proposal on discrimination or a national rights proposal on discrimination. They have exactly the same scope of impact, only is legal, one is not.

Substantive resolutions block as an unavoidable byproduct of actually *playing the game*. Blockers block as a purposeful action, taking out swathes of potential future resolutions. They are different in purpose and that actually matters.

[Defwa]

You don't get it. Blockers don't simply allow nations to decide for themselves on a particular issue; they specifically prevent future legislation on the subject from coming forward. A simple lack of legislation does not actively prevent the introduction of disagreeable (and likely damaging) laws. Besides, as TDSR has already explained, since resolutions can be neither duplicated nor contradicted, all resolutions have something of a blocking effect. A blocker is no more contrary to the WA's purpose than Mild legislation which makes no specific requirements of members. Numerous non-blocker resolutions also give specific allowances to nations on relatively minor details of law; should all of those be banned as well?

I get it just fine. I'm saying I don't like it.

I'm not saying anything against legislation that does something and thus prevents duplication or contradiction. However there is a difference between "Urges nations to be kinder" and "Bans the WA from ever legislating on war"

[Frisbeeteria]

Summary of proposed changes:

No consensus. No rewrite of the section has been proposed.