[RULES DISCUSSION] House of Cards rule

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'd like to propose the following change, from the following text to the second following text.

House of Cards: Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent. However, repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal.

House of Cards: Proposal mandates and operative clauses cannot rely on past resolutions. Resolutions may reference other resolutions to provide argumentative support.

I'd also like to change the rule name to 'Independence', but that is wholly cosmetic. EDIT: This is somewhat contingent on a different change, which would define the operative clause.

Foremost, some context. To quote Cardozo:

Few rules in our time are so well established that they may not be called upon any day to justify their existence as means adapted to an end. If they do not function, they are diseased. If they are diseased, they must not propagate their kind. Sometimes they are cut out and extricated altogether. Sometimes they are left with the shadow of continued life, but sterilised, truncated, impotent for harm.

Rules derived by a process of logical deduction from pre-established conceptions of contract and obligation have broken down before the slow and steady and erosive action of utility and justice.

And to quote Holmes:

It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.

Anyway, there are a number of important points which any supporters of the House of Cards rule, as it is, need to address.

1. How is the House of Cards rule different in substantive legislation? If repeals have full ability to reference other resolutions, what is the difference between repeals and normal substantive legislation that justifies the difference in the application of the rules?
   
   
2. Why should the House of Cards rule be applied on an 'any reference' basis when it can easily be applied on a 'dependent reference' basis with less restriction on the ability of authors to legislate, i.e. the purpose of the GA game?
   
   
3. Why should reference of events which factually occurred in the past, the past being invariant, be impermissible, given the mutability justification?
   
   
4. How should we deal with the problem that resolutions in the past (e.g. Protection of Sapient Rights) have already referenced repealed resolutions, and therefore, there is precedent for construction of resolutions in this manner?

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

I can definitely support a change of wording for clarity.

[Araraukar]

House of Cards: Proposal mandates and operative clauses cannot rely on past resolutions. Repeals may reference other resolutions to provide argumentative support.

That I'll happily agree with. But how exactly "letting resolutions use previous ones to provide argumentative support" does not make them rely on past resolutions? If the previous resolution is repealed, the support for the arguments vanishes.

EDIT: Just to make it clear, the underlined is my edit on IA's post.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That I'll happily agree with. But how exactly "letting resolutions use previous ones to provide argumentative support" does not make them rely on past resolutions? If the previous resolution is repealed, the support for the arguments vanishes.

In what world do you believe that resolutions simply disappear after they* are repealed? What, were they wiped from the memories of the people who wrote and read them? I see no compelling reason to restrict the ability for people to directly reference other resolutions. When resolutions are repealed, when it says null and void, it doesn't mean the imposition of a damnito memoriae. Hell, I'd be absolutely fine with something like a re-enactment clause being interpreted that something remains in force after repeal if reaffirmed.

You were fine with the idea of allowing for the reference of Secretariat decisions when it came up. Those decisions can be reversed, we don't have stare decisis in the World Assembly. What changed?

[Araraukar]

In what world do you believe that resolutions simply disappear after their are repealed?

In the one that includes the WA.

What, were they wiped from the memories of the people who wrote and read them?

They were wiped from being valid reasons for contradiction/duplication on account of no longer being extant resolutions. I wouldn't consider referring to them (in terms of using them as a basis for arguments) being any more sensible or legal than referring to NSUN resolutions.

I see no compelling reason to restrict the ability for people to directly reference other resolutions.

Yes, I know this is your opinion. And you know I disagree with it. Although, you keep missing the word "if" a lot of times when I mention the existence of this rule to newbies.

it doesn't mean the imposition of a damnito memoriae.

I don't care about damned memories (and yes, I know it's likely Latin and no, I'm not going to look it up because I know you're doing it on purpose).

Hell, I'd be absolutely fine with something like a re-enactment clause being interpreted that something remains in force after repeal if reaffirmed.

The whole point of a repeal is to remove all effects of a resolution...

You were fine with the idea of allowing for the reference of Secretariat decisions when it came up.

I was? I don't remember that. GenSec (and mods) exist outside the IC sphere, mentioning them should count as Metagaming. As should mentioning what other players may have said on other threads on this forum... (EDIT: "I don't remember that" =/= "it didn't happen".)

What changed?

My opinion, probably. Thanks to you most likely.

[Imperium Anglorum]

In what world do you believe that resolutions simply disappear after their are repealed?

In the one that includes the WA.

I don't want to drop a link to every single repealed resolution here. I also don't see how reference for argumentative support isn't relevant. If I want to pass a replacement to say, for example, Napa (assuming it were somehow repealed), it would be helpful to say: (1) this has been done before, (2) this is in fulfilment of the goals set out by the repeal, and (3) this corrects the issues noted in the repeal.

This is in the same way people argued in favour of referencing controlling interpretations issued by the Secretariat by saying 'per the interpretation of the Secretariat the resolution possesses the following flaws . . .' is helpful to establishing the premises of an argument.

You say something about how repeals remove all effects of a resolution: direct inclusion of reaffirming clauses would transclude past provisions forward.

And about reference of Secretariat decisions, I may have mixed up who said what again, it was over a year ago by now.

[Tzorsland]

In the one that includes the WA.

I must be playing a different game that includes the WA. In the game I play resolutions "shall be struck out and rendered null and void." Struck Out is not the same as "erased." Which means it still exists (because if it did not exist then the repeal resolution itself is a HOC as it refers to a resolution that no longer exists in any state whatsoever) but that its text has been struck out and it is therefore not in effect.

[Tzorsland]

By the way, I don't often agree with I.A. but here I agree completely that referencing is not the same as relying on and should not be used as a HoC violation if it doesn't depend on the resolution remaining in effect. I'm pretty sure that some resolution did this either in the UN days or the WA days but I don't have the time right now to verify this.

[Fauxia]

By the way, I don't often agree with I.A. but here I agree completely that referencing is not the same as relying on and should not be used as a HoC violation if it doesn't depend on the resolution remaining in effect. I'm pretty sure that some resolution did this either in the UN days or the WA days but I don't have the time right now to verify this.

I agree with this. Referencing a resolution should be okay, but it's not like you can get rid of the House of Cards rule. If you base a resolution off of GA #2, and use it for preamble purposes, then GA #2 gets repealed, your argument is irrelevant.

Maybe you can use that like NatSov in repeals, where there has to be something else in the argument. Only thing about that is that preambles aren't even mandatory strictly speaking.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You remember UFoC's Napa repeal, right? Let's pretend it passed. And then I passed my own repeal of the Nuclear Security Convention. The arguments in UFoC's repeal become irrelevant! Oh noes! What will we do now?! This idea that 'arguments become irrelevant' is schizophrenically inconsistent unless you universalise it to both repeals and new legislation. Nobody has been able to show a difference or logical reason for maintaining it as it currently is, beyond 'Buht mah tradishunn'.

[Bears Armed]

If you're "referencing" the arguments in a previous resolution then I think you should need consent from that resolution's author to do so...

[Imperium Anglorum]

If you're "referencing" the arguments in a previous resolution then I think you should need consent from that resolution's author to do so...

We don't have such a requirement in repeals now. Where's the difference?

Seeing that the goal of $resolution is to do $thing, eminently justifiable, as the resolution itself states,

Observing that it fails in that regard as it blah, blah, blah,

Hoping a replacement will be passed,

Repeals $resolution.

Whereas the World Assembly has in the past legislated on the topic $thing in the resolution Blah blah blah, that the aforementioned resolution was repealed for reasons stated in sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of GA ###: (not a real link)

And whereas this resolution corrects the issues noted in the aforementioned sections and fulfils the World Assembly's hope noted in section 5 of GA ### that replacement legislation be passed:

Now, therefore, be it enacted...

And even if there were a difference, referencing something isn't plagiarism. Nor is it theft (copyright infringement). Otherwise, I would assure you that there are a great many number of academic works which would both be plagiarism and theft.

[Bears Armed]

If you're "referencing" the arguments in a previous resolution then I think you should need consent from that resolution's author to do so...

We don't have such a requirement in repeals now. Where's the difference?

In repeals you have to reference the targeted resolution, to explain why you think it should be repealed.

In other cases, you might be using the previous author's words to "justify" something with which they actually disagree...

[Imperium Anglorum]

In other cases, you might be using the previous author's words to "justify" something with which they actually disagree...

In a lawmaking body of a political game? Why I never-!

[Araraukar]

In other cases, you might be using the previous author's words to "justify" something with which they actually disagree...

In a lawmaking body of a political game? Why I never-!

You're one to talk, considering that you're the actual one that tried to take personal stuff into the body of a resolution text to do exactly what Bears just said, and that wasn't even an argument based on a passed resolution but something that was said elsewhere on this forum!

Yes, this is a political game, but it's not meant to be a personal political game, not the way RL politics is. I've been in that game, and I prefer this one.

If referring to passed repealed resolutions required the original author's permission, and you still couldn't base your entire argument on them (since by being repealed they're no longer extant/legal), depending on the wording I might be cautiously in favour.

[Imperium Anglorum]

what Bears just said, and that wasn't even an argument based on a passed resolution but something that was said elsewhere on this forum!

No, it think it's clear from context that Bears is talking about the use of previous resolution text, because we're talking about a change to the House of Cards rule, which talks about . . . referencing past resolutions.

[Araraukar]

which talks about . . . referencing past resolutions.

But you're not talking about referencing past exstant resolutions anymore. And if we go into the "using repealed resolutions' text is fine" territory, where do we draw the line? Are NSUN resolutions fair game too? (And do you really want someone to use the really bad ones as legitimate points of debate?)

All passed non-repealed resolutions are considered legal just because they managed to pass, that's why legality can't be used as a repeal argument. To me that implies that once something's repealed, it's no longer "legal" from the WA's point of view. It's basically got just as much value as anything anyone puts into a proposal text, which means "not a lot", and can be illegal in terms of currently existing resolutions.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Have I changed the proposed change from 'Resolutions may reference other resolutions to provide argumentative support' to 'Resolutions may reference whatever the fuck they want to provide argumentative support'?

I'm fine with reference of NSUN resolutions. (Though, Tzorland does make a good point down there about the cease-and-desist order.) "And do you really want someone to use the really bad ones as legitimate points of debate?" If they are truly bad points, then the arguments won't win. Or are we suddenly afraid of having arguments now? So much for your signature.

Also – no, WA resolutions are not illegal because they are repealed. Legality with reference to resolutions has always meant legal under the General Assembly ruleset. You can resubmit resolutions with no changes. You can even pass them with no changes. Repealed resolutions do not magically become illegal because they were repealed. The doctrine about presumed legality is an override of the standard rules framework.

[States of Glory WA Office]

If they are truly bad points, then the arguments won't win.

*coughWorldSpaceAdministrationcough*

[Imperium Anglorum]

If they are truly bad points, then the arguments won't win.

*coughWorldSpaceAdministrationcough*

Is it still active?

[States of Glory WA Office]

*coughWorldSpaceAdministrationcough*

Is it still active?

Did its arguments lose?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Did its arguments lose?

Yes, in the long run. Otherwise, we should just say that everything both wins and loses in the first few seconds voting.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Did its arguments lose?

Yes, in the long run. Otherwise, we should just say that everything both wins and loses in the first few seconds voting.

That doesn't change the fact that at one point, its arguments did win. The fact that they lost at a later point in time is irrelevant when the claim being investigated is that proposals with bad points won't win. The implication there is that they won't win at all rather than they won't win when challenged through a repeal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That doesn't change the fact that at one point, its arguments did win. The fact that they lost at a later point in time is irrelevant when the claim being investigated is that proposals with bad points won't win. The implication there is that they won't win at all rather than they won't win when challenged through a repeal.

There isn't an actual debate between two points where both sides get to air their views. When I talk about truly bad points, I'm responding to Araraukar's context provided by the words 'legitimate points of debate'. The World Assembly gets the option to vote yes or no on the presented material without consideration of opposing viewpoints. When there is an actual back-and-forth, i.e. when repeals come up, is the first point when an argument's merit in a debate can emerge.

[Tzorsland]

And if we go into the "using repealed resolutions' text is fine" territory, where do we draw the line? Are NSUN resolutions fair game too?

Obviously not because of cease and desist orders. That's a special problem with the history of the game and has nothing to do with the argument of age. Rotate right randomly to the real world United States. Would I cite a law from the Articles of Confederation if it bolstered my case? Damn straight I would! (Obviously I can't do that in NS because of RW violations and only because of RL violations.)

The purpose of the house of cards rule is to prevent the actual working clauses from collapsing because they used the working action clauses of a resolution that has been subsequently repealed and as a result (the working action clauses) are no longer in effect. Repeal doesn't wipe out the collective memory of people voting for and against the resolution and why they voted for or against the resolution. (Consider the RW again; just because the US passed a constitutional amendment banning slavery does not mean that slavery never existed. It doesn't mean you can't reference the Dred Scott decision in your argument if that is necessary because that decision still is valid even though the result is annulled by constitutional amendment.)

Seriously, we are starting to get into the "blessed are the cheese makers" territory. The house of cards rule was all about active clauses not arguments.