[CHALLENGE] Safeguarding Nuclear Materials

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Anything preambulatory isn't placing any weight on prior resolutions, and thus can only be treated as the air atop your putative House of Cards - weightless for our purposes and not a violation.

Except preamble is used to make the case/get support for the proposal body. Most proposals rely on the preamble to make sense/bypass NEF. If the preamble relies on the justification of a previous resolution, then how does the proposal itself not rely on a previous resolution? EDIT: The rule specifically says to support it. Preamble drums up support for the proposal's active clauses.

I think you're conflating political/rhetorical support with logical support. Name dropping or giving props (political/rhetorical) to previous resolutions in general doesn't make the resolution stop making sense if those predecessors are repealed. Only when you rely on the substance of a predecessor to form the foundation of the new resolution (logical) is there an issue if it gets repealed.

If I write something like "The WA shall hereby extend the protections rendered to children in GAR #4 to further encompass the right not to have to do home chores of any kind whatsoever," that's more what I'm getting at. (No, that's not an amendment, as it doesn't try to change the meaning of GAR #4, and there's no contradiction either). What there is is a nonsensical resolution whose entire point vanishes if suddenly children can be sent back down the coal mines. So these kids can work in terrifyingly dangerous jobs for pay, but they can't wash the dishes or take out the trash or feed the chickens? THAT is a house of cards.

[Sciongrad]

I don't think 'reliance' means the same thing in the rules as the GenSec (And others) makes it out to be, for two reasons:
- A resolution, or an argument for passing a resolution, can rely on many things, in this case other (repealed) resolutions. To argue that references in the preambulatory clauses are exempted is, in my mind, to argue that arguments for passing a resolution can be divorced from the resolution itself. As I see it, this would simply be a HoC-violation moved into the preamble, making this particular resolution illegal were it not for the word 'existing' in the ruleset. 'Existing', to me at least, means passed, currently unrepealed, as that is where the HoC would enter: Repealing them would take out the card, and the house collapse. If those cards are already removed, there's no HoC to build upon. Rather than debating 'reliance', I'd go with 'existing', were it not for...
- The repeals-sentence explicitly allows for referencing other resolutions, and as I read the rules, in contrast with normal resolutions. If I were to interpret that rule, I'd see it as a rule against references for resolutions, and an exeption for repeals. Why else would the second line of the rules be phrased that way?
Now the second point is simply an interpretation of the rule: A general rule against references and a specific exemption for references when repealing. 'Reliance' could be both broader and narrower (Ranging from any references to general topics or goals, to specific clauses or definitions), so I don't get why that word was used.

I don't think the rule is phrased in a consistent manner. If we can debate 'reliance', 'existing' and 'reference', then clearly the rules are not interpreted the same way by everyone. Personally I think the preambulatory exemption is BS, so if GenSec decides to do any lasting interpretation, I really hope they go with 'existing'. Then, at least, we'd just have the same two inconsistently phrased lines, rather than opening the gateway to preambulatory purgatory.

I honestly think you're overcomplicating this. Reliance in the context of the house of cards rules means that the proposal's reference of a previous resolution must create a house of cards. It's that simple. Referencing something in the preamble really can't create a house of cards because preambulatory clauses have no binding effect. We're not offering some arbitrary exemption to preambulatory clauses, it just so happens that because preambulatory clauses are, ipso facto, non-binding, then they can never activate the House of Cards rule. I really don't know what else to say except that the word "reliance" in the context of a house of cards can really only mean dependence, not just reference.

[Bears Armed]

I agree with my colleagues. "Reliance" on a previous resolution would be something like "The WA hereby defines the term 'torture' as used in GAR #9, incorporating it herein..." If GAR 9 is then repealed, your resolution is screwed. Anything preambulatory isn't placing any weight on prior resolutions, and thus can only be treated as the air atop your putative House of Cards - weightless for our purposes and not a violation.

And I also agree with this.

[Excidium Planetis]

In my opinion, the true House of Cards would be something like "Establishes a WA Police Force, whose task it shall be to examine the evidence submitted by the Compliance Commission, and apprehend suspected violators of WA law based on such evidence."

Clearly, if the Compliance Commission resolution was repealed, this clause would no longer function. The removal of one resolution would bring down another, like a House of Cards.

However, as the argument presented in this case, as in GA#338, continues to work even with the resolutions repealed, there is no collapsing House of Cards. The resolution at vote will never cease to make sense.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If any of the people who support the old conception of the House of Cards rule, feel, in any way, they should engage, I think there are four questions they need to answer to justify the comparative differences between the two conceptions of the rules here.

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, if the justification given for the House of Cards rule is that resolutions are mutable?
   
   
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 reference of resolutions in this manner?

[Wallenburg]

If any of the people who support the old conception of the House of Cards rule, feel, in any way, they should engage, I think there are four questions they need to answer to justify the comparative differences between the two conceptions of the rules here.

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?

The difference is that the HoC rule explicitly exempts repeals from its effect.

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?

Because rules are meant to always be applied, not only when you feel like it.

Why should reference of events which factually occurred in the past, the past being invariant, be impermissible, if the justification given for the House of Cards rule is that resolutions are mutable?

The value of having a HoC rule is irrelevant to this challenge and this thread. This question belongs elsewhere.

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 reference of resolutions in this manner?

Oh my, resolutions that were illegal when passed? Say it isn't so!

[Sciongrad]

If any of the people who support the old conception of the House of Cards rule, feel, in any way, they should engage, I think there are four questions they need to answer to justify the comparative differences between the two conceptions of the rules here.

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?

The difference is that the HoC rule explicitly exempts repeals from its effect.

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?

Because rules are meant to always be applied, not only when you feel like it.

Why should reference of events which factually occurred in the past, the past being invariant, be impermissible, if the justification given for the House of Cards rule is that resolutions are mutable?

The value of having a HoC rule is irrelevant to this challenge and this thread. This question belongs elsewhere.

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 reference of resolutions in this manner?

Oh my, resolutions that were illegal when passed? Say it isn't so!

You have not explained why you believe your interpretation of the HoC rule is more convincing than the interpretation put forward by GenSec. We have explained why we believe our interpretation is a more natural reading of the rule. Before we conclude, I think we'd like to hear some rebuttal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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?

The difference is that the HoC rule explicitly exempts repeals from its effect.

That doesn't address the question, which is a normative claim, not a positive one. When we can choose between two different interpretations, why ought be choose that interpretation? And thus, we return to the question: What is the difference between the forms of legislation that justifies that differential treatment?

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?

Because rules are meant to always be applied, not only when you feel like it.

Again, fundamental to any argument over interpretation is a normative claim for why we ought to prefer one thing other than the other. A positive claim on 'the rules are what the rules are' is irrelevant, because we are debating what the rules are themselves, which, given multiple interpretations, falls to a normative claim for why we ought prefer one set of rules or the other. In fact, that is exactly what this question asks. To prefer your interpretation, a justification is necessary.

Why should reference of events which factually occurred in the past, the past being invariant, be impermissible, if the justification given for the House of Cards rule is that resolutions are mutable?

The value of having a HoC rule is irrelevant to this challenge and this thread. This question belongs elsewhere.

The subject at hand is a reference to events which factually occurred in the thread. This is central to the challenge. If you believe that your interpretation of the ruleset is preferable to mine and you believe this based on the standard justification of the House of Cards rule, which is that mutable resolutions mean a mutable context, why ought we be prohibited from referencing immutable events?

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 reference of resolutions in this manner?

Oh my, resolutions that were illegal when passed? Say it isn't so!

That doesn't address the question, which is how we should deal with the problem. What solution do you propose?

[Frisbeeteria]

That doesn't address the question, which is how we should deal with the problem. What solution do you propose?

Seems to me that most of the respondents in this tread disagree that there's a problem. If you see one, you should be the one proposing the solution.

All I'm seeing is deliberate trolling, which you've already admitted to in this thread.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Seems to me that most of the respondents in this tread disagree that there's a problem. If you see one, you should be the one proposing the solution.

First, the solution I'm proposing is the simply make it legal, which is exactly what the change I have been supporting for months would have it do and what I proposed when I posted these questions. Second, given that the questions were posed four posts ago, it is impossible that "most of the respondents in this t[h]read disagree that there's a problem". At most, given there is one response to on that point, one person disagrees there is a problem. Third, a simple answer to this question, if I were supporting the opposite side, would be to grandfather in the clause. The fact of the matter is, such an answer did not emerge.

All I'm seeing is deliberate trolling, which you've already admitted to in this thread.

I don't see how engagement on the central clash of an argument constitutes trolling and the creation of posts for the purpose of angering people. Direct engagement on the merits and relevance of those arguments in a civil manner is central to debate over legality questions such as these. If you believe the post you quoted is trolling, please report it.

EDIT: The central premise of the responses I give above to responses themselves by Wallenburg parallels to Scion's responses above that, that what should be provided to the discussion are reasons to prefer the old interpretation of the HoC rule rather than the interpretation that (as it seems) has been adopted unanimously by the members of the Secretariat. Central to questions over interpretation are normative arguments to prefer one set of rules rather than the other. That is the centre of this debate.

[Wallenburg]

The difference is that the HoC rule explicitly exempts repeals from its effect.

That doesn't address the question, which is a normative claim, not a positive one. When we can choose between two different interpretations, why ought be choose that interpretation? And thus, we return to the question: What is the difference between the forms of legislation that justifies that differential treatment?

There's no choice involved. The rule very explicitly, word for word says "repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal." You can't interpret that out of the rule.

Because rules are meant to always be applied, not only when you feel like it.

Again, fundamental to any argument over interpretation is a normative claim for why we ought to prefer one thing other than the other. A positive claim on 'the rules are what the rules are' is irrelevant, because we are debating what the rules are themselves, which, given multiple interpretations, falls to a normative claim for why we ought prefer one set of rules or the other. In fact, that is exactly what this question asks. To prefer your interpretation, a justification is necessary.

If you aren't going to stay on topic, leave this thread and go to the discussion on the rule itself and what alternatives it may be replaced with in the future.

The value of having a HoC rule is irrelevant to this challenge and this thread. This question belongs elsewhere.

The subject at hand is a reference to events which factually occurred in the thread. This is central to the challenge. If you believe that your interpretation of the ruleset is preferable to mine and you believe this based on the standard justification of the House of Cards rule, which is that mutable resolutions mean a mutable context, why ought we be prohibited from referencing immutable events?

You aren't arguing about interpretation. You are arguing about the merits of the rule itself. That is off topic. Stay on topic.

Oh my, resolutions that were illegal when passed? Say it isn't so!

That doesn't address the question, which is how we should deal with the problem. What solution do you propose?

Also off topic. Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion, or are you just wasting forum space?

[Wallenburg]

You have not explained why you believe your interpretation of the HoC rule is more convincing than the interpretation put forward by GenSec. We have explained why we believe our interpretation is a more natural reading of the rule. Before we conclude, I think we'd like to hear some rebuttal.

Well, apart from all that I have already said, the rule provides an exemption to the HoC rule for repeals. Specifically, the exemption refers to references to resolutions. So, if mere references are not illegal under the HoC rule, one must ask again, why does the rule offer special exemption for references within repeals? You cannot exempt repeals from rules that do not exist. Common sense dictates that the HoC rule must apply to the preambulatory clauses of substantive resolutions.

[Imperium Anglorum]

That doesn't address the question, which is a normative claim, not a positive one. When we can choose between two different interpretations, why ought be choose that interpretation? And thus, we return to the question: What is the difference between the forms of legislation that justifies that differential treatment?

There's no choice involved. The rule very explicitly, word for word says "repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal." You can't interpret that out of the rule.

Exactly. This is why I state, in the original post of these four questions, the comparative difference is what matters. The comparative difference between these two interpretations is allowing it in all situations and allowing it only in repeals. Why ought we prefer the latter, and what difference between the two justifies that difference?

Again, fundamental to any argument over interpretation is a normative claim for why we ought to prefer one thing other than the other. A positive claim on 'the rules are what the rules are' is irrelevant, because we are debating what the rules are themselves, which, given multiple interpretations, falls to a normative claim for why we ought prefer one set of rules or the other. In fact, that is exactly what this question asks. To prefer your interpretation, a justification is necessary.

If you aren't going to stay on topic, leave this thread and go to the discussion on the rule itself and what alternatives it may be replaced with in the future.

It seems to me that your argument here is basically a circular one. Given that your interpretation is right, your interpretation is right, meaning that the change adopted by (it seems) the Secretariat and myself falls outside the realm of the rules as they stand. However, you haven't provided any support for why your interpretation is correct. My post asks for why reasons to why you believe that to be true.

The subject at hand is a reference to events which factually occurred in the thread. This is central to the challenge. If you believe that your interpretation of the ruleset is preferable to mine and you believe this based on the standard justification of the House of Cards rule, which is that mutable resolutions mean a mutable context, why ought we be prohibited from referencing immutable events?

You aren't arguing about interpretation. You are arguing about the merits of the rule itself. That is off topic. Stay on topic.

If you justify the basis of the House of Cards rule on the mutability justification, how do you justify referencing of historical events as a matter of mutability? This is a direct consequence of your interpretation of the rule. As the consequences of interpretation are central to evaluating the interpretation as a whole, (1) why is your interpretation preferable, (2) what should be do about the consequences of that interpretation, and (3) how do you justify those consequences?

That doesn't address the question, which is how we should deal with the problem. What solution do you propose?

Also off topic. Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion, or are you just wasting forum space?

The consequences of interpretation are central to evaluating the interpretation as a whole. Why is your interpretation preferable and what should be do about the consequences of that interpretation?

[Imperium Anglorum]

So, if mere references are not illegal under the HoC rule, one must ask again, why does the rule offer special exemption for references within repeals? You cannot exempt repeals from rules that do not exist.

So you mean to say that the exception proves the rule, in its original sense.

Yet, repeals can also justify saying, 'X is already covered in GA 123, we do not require the prohibitions on X in this resolution'. Of course, this is a mutable fact. On the other hand, my proposal argues based on historical events that occurred and are immutable. References of arguments made or events taken are immutable.

[Attempted Socialism]

I don't think 'reliance' means the same thing in the rules as the GenSec (And others) makes it out to be, for two reasons:
- A resolution, or an argument for passing a resolution, can rely on many things, in this case other (repealed) resolutions. To argue that references in the preambulatory clauses are exempted is, in my mind, to argue that arguments for passing a resolution can be divorced from the resolution itself. As I see it, this would simply be a HoC-violation moved into the preamble, making this particular resolution illegal were it not for the word 'existing' in the ruleset. 'Existing', to me at least, means passed, currently unrepealed, as that is where the HoC would enter: Repealing them would take out the card, and the house collapse. If those cards are already removed, there's no HoC to build upon. Rather than debating 'reliance', I'd go with 'existing', were it not for...
- The repeals-sentence explicitly allows for referencing other resolutions, and as I read the rules, in contrast with normal resolutions. If I were to interpret that rule, I'd see it as a rule against references for resolutions, and an exeption for repeals. Why else would the second line of the rules be phrased that way?
Now the second point is simply an interpretation of the rule: A general rule against references and a specific exemption for references when repealing. 'Reliance' could be both broader and narrower (Ranging from any references to general topics or goals, to specific clauses or definitions), so I don't get why that word was used.

I don't think the rule is phrased in a consistent manner. If we can debate 'reliance', 'existing' and 'reference', then clearly the rules are not interpreted the same way by everyone. Personally I think the preambulatory exemption is BS, so if GenSec decides to do any lasting interpretation, I really hope they go with 'existing'. Then, at least, we'd just have the same two inconsistently phrased lines, rather than opening the gateway to preambulatory purgatory.

Reliance in the context of the house of cards rules means that the proposal's reference of a previous resolution must create a house of cards. It's that simple.

That might be a sensible rule to have, but it's not a sensible interpretation of the current rules. If you decide that is your interpretation of the rules, I think you ought to change the wording of the rules.
Relying on other resolutions for support is exactly what IA does with SNM here. The argument presented is (In part) that due to specific resolutions having been repealed, this resolution is now necessary - i.e. giving up some independence for ethos when arguing for passing the resolution. This may not be the kind of breach you want the rule to apply to, but I can't see how it could not; we vote on a resolution that clearly relies on other resolutions. Had IA presented this argument outside the resolution text it would be different, but we actually vote on a text that is building the House of Cards that the rules ban. Again, you don't seem to think the current rules are right-as-written (Insofar that I think your interpretation is beyond what is supported by a fair reading of the rule), and your suggestion for a HoC rule seems reasonable... but that would be creating a new rule based on this case, not applying the current rule as it is written.
(I leave out the technicality that 'existing' complicates the matter for now.)

Referencing something in the preamble really can't create a house of cards because preambulatory clauses have no binding effect.

But 'reliance' here is not about the effect, but the whole resolution. Is this proposal independent, or does it rely on other resolutions? Even if that reliance is preambulatory, we're voting for the whole resolution. Most resolutions, policypapers, amendments, rulings and bylaws I have voted on leave out preambles, motivations and explanations in the final text because they serve no purpose but to convince people to vote for the actual effect, but here we are required to vote onr both the argument and the effect. This resolution builds its argument, partially, on other resolutions. It is supported by other resolutions. That is a HoC violation under the current rules. If you want to change that rule to something more sensible, please do so.

We're not offering some arbitrary exemption to preambulatory clauses,

You say that, yet right after that comma...

it just so happens that because preambulatory clauses are, ipso facto, non-binding, then they can never activate the House of Cards rule.

... comes the arbitrary exemption to preambulatory clauses. The HoC rule doesn't require a clause to be binding, and we are asked to vote on both argument and effect anyway.

I really don't know what else to say except that the word "reliance" in the context of a house of cards can really only mean dependence, not just reference.

Which would be a fair response to my second point if the second line hadn't started with 'however', setting it in contrast to the first. It also leaves out the huge flaw with 'reliance', which ought to condemn the challenged proposal if the resolutions it relies upon had not been repealed.

To reiterate the two issues I see:
- This resolution relies on repealed resolutions to argue for its passing, in the resolution itself. We are asked to vote on a card to be placed on two cards lying down. A ruling ought to take that seriously. The reason this particular resolution is not a violation of the first line is not that it doesn't rely on resolutions (Because it does), but because the resolutions it relies on have been repealed; the HoC came pre-crumbled, and this resolution builds on the ruins, so to speak. A narrow ruling could simply avoid the deeper argument.
- The reason a narrow ruling should be avoided comes in the second line, that, as I argue, is set up as an exemption to the general rule. Otherwise, there's no reason to have 'however' and the specific permission for repeals to reference other resolutions. I can't see any other interpretation of this, than the one I presented before.

To me, this rule contains several issues, as I've outlined here. The reinterpretations presented are often largely rewriting the rule, partly because the rule itself has issues to resolve, but also because some seem to be arguing that more references should be allowed than currently.
If GenSec decides to rule in favour of IA, I think they should accompany that ruling with either a) a fresh version of the HoC rule; or b) a specific reinterpretation of the word 'however' that does not contrast two statements. Anything else would be arbitrarily disregarding the rules in place in favour of ad-hoc rulings.

There's no choice involved. The rule very explicitly, word for word says "repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal." You can't interpret that out of the rule.

Exactly. This is why I state, in the original post of these four questions, the comparative difference is what matters. The comparative difference between these two interpretations is allowing it in all situations and allowing it only in repeals. Why ought we prefer the latter, and what difference between the two justifies that difference?

That is an argument for changing the rule, not an argument for why your proposal does not fall foul of the current rule. Your four questions are irrelevant to the specific challenge, and are instead arguments for why either both normal resolutions and repeals, or neither, should be able to reference other resolutions. That may be one of your goals with this proposal (I can't remember if you explicitly said so), but it's not a defense against the challenge.

[Wallenburg]

*snip*

Look, I really don't care how you cloak your threadjacking. Stop threadjacking. I will not respond to off-topic posts. As it is, your repeated claim that I have not supported my interpretation is false. I have made several posts supporting my position. Your failure to read/remember them is not of my concern.

[Excidium Planetis]

Well, apart from all that I have already said, the rule provides an exemption to the HoC rule for repeals. Now, if the HoC rule only applies to operative clauses, why do repeals have an exemption?

As IA points out, repeals often rely on resolutions being in force for their arguments. Since resolutions may be repealed, the argument for a repeal may fall apart in the future. The House of Cards rule specifically exempts repeals so that this argument cannot be made against repeals.

The only operative clause in a repeal is the one that reads "hereby repeals GAR#807...".

Yes, and that is a reference to another resolution. If the House of Cards rule applied to repeals, we'd be in a spot of trouble, wouldn't we? Even if the HoC rule applied to operative clauses, an exemption for repeals is still necessary.

Upon closer examination of this exemption, the exemption specifically refers to references to resolutions. So, if mere references are not illegal under the HoC rule, one must ask again, why does the rule offer special exemption for references within repeals?

To exempt repeals from any interpretation of the HoC rule. Since the rule can be interpreted (however, not necessarily must be) to prohibit any references, the exemption is necessary to prevent your interpretation from also applying to repeals, which would be disastrous.

You cannot exempt repeals from rules that do not exist.

Nobody is claiming the rule does not exist. The exemption is there to preclude any interpretation to the contrary.

Common sense dictates that the HoC rule must apply to the preambulatory clauses of substantive resolutions.

Common sense dictates that rules should be interpreted in accordance with their original purpose. The purpose of HoC was never to prevent references, but to prevent reliance of prior resolutions, which would lead to collapsing resolution chains.

[Wallenburg]

The only operative clause in a repeal is the one that reads "hereby repeals GAR#807...".

Yes, and that is a reference to another resolution. If the House of Cards rule applied to repeals, we'd be in a spot of trouble, wouldn't we? Even if the HoC rule applied to operative clauses, an exemption for repeals is still necessary.

I'm confused. Are you saying that the HoC rule does not apply to operative clauses? What do you think it does apply to?

Upon closer examination of this exemption, the exemption specifically refers to references to resolutions. So, if mere references are not illegal under the HoC rule, one must ask again, why does the rule offer special exemption for references within repeals?

To exempt repeals from any interpretation of the HoC rule. Since the rule can be interpreted (however, not necessarily must be) to prohibit any references, the exemption is necessary to prevent your interpretation from also applying to repeals, which would be disastrous.

Why would the rule author be so specific in their exemptions so as to avoid misinterpretation, and yet leave the rest of the rule entirely open to interpretation? That isn't how people write. They don't go from being extremely broad to highly specific in a single sentence.

You cannot exempt repeals from rules that do not exist.

Nobody is claiming the rule does not exist. The exemption is there to preclude any interpretation to the contrary.

I never said someone claimed the HoC rule does not exist. I am referring to the element of the HoC rule that prohibits references to other resolutions.

Common sense dictates that the HoC rule must apply to the preambulatory clauses of substantive resolutions.

Common sense dictates that rules should be interpreted in accordance with their original purpose.

Do you know what this nebulous "original purpose" is of the most recent iteration of the HoC rule? Did the moderator who wrote it tell you?

The purpose of HoC was never to prevent references, but to prevent reliance of prior resolutions, which would lead to collapsing resolution chains.

That is not how the rule reads.

[Sciongrad]

*snip*

Look, I really don't care how you cloak your threadjacking. Stop threadjacking. I will not respond to off-topic posts. As it is, your repeated claim that I have not supported my interpretation is false. I have made several posts supporting my position. Your failure to read/remember them is not of my concern.

Come on Wally, you're not fooling anyone. IA's questions are all very relevant. You can choose not to answer them, but he's not threadjacking.

[Wallenburg]

Look, I really don't care how you cloak your threadjacking. Stop threadjacking. I will not respond to off-topic posts. As it is, your repeated claim that I have not supported my interpretation is false. I have made several posts supporting my position. Your failure to read/remember them is not of my concern.

Come on Wally, you're not fooling anyone. IA's questions are all very relevant. You can choose not to answer them, but he's not threadjacking.

Questions on whether or not the HoC rule is good or should be changed or whatnot are not relevant.

[Sciongrad]

That might be a sensible rule to have, but it's not a sensible interpretation of the current rules. If you decide that is your interpretation of the rules, I think you ought to change the wording of the rules.

No, I, and the rest of GenSec evidently, feel not only that the current rule reflects out interpretation, but that is does not reflect the interpretation you've offered.

Relying on other resolutions for support is exactly what IA does with SNM here. The argument presented is (In part) that due to specific resolutions having been repealed, this resolution is now necessary - i.e. giving up some independence for ethos when arguing for passing the resolution.

That is not reliance. Nothing can happen to the resolutions he mentions that would stop his proposal from making sense. Reliance means that this proposal would not make sense if the resolution mentioned changed. The resolutions mentioned cannot change in a way that stop this resolution from making sense, so therefore, this resolution does not rely on them.

But 'reliance' here is not about the effect

This is where you're wrong. It is. That is, by definition, what a house of cards is. A house of cards can only be a house of cards if removing one of the supporting cards causes the house to collapse. That can only happen if relying on previous resolutions has some substantive effect in the new proposal.

... comes the arbitrary exemption to preambulatory clauses. The HoC rule doesn't require a clause to be binding, and we are asked to vote on both argument and effect anyway.

That's not arbitrary. Because preambulatory clauses are non-binding, and the sole determinant of a house of cards violation is whether a proposal relies on some previous resolution to create a policy outcome, preambulatory clauses cannot violate the HoC rule. Period.

This resolution is legal as written according to the current rule. GenSec has formed a 5-0 consensus and will issue a memorandum opinion very shortly.

[Sciongrad]

Come on Wally, you're not fooling anyone. IA's questions are all very relevant. You can choose not to answer them, but he's not threadjacking.

Questions on whether or not the HoC rule is good or should be changed or whatnot are not relevant.

If there are two possible interpretations of a rule, then normative considerations are, of course, relevant. However, upon further reflection, I agree with you. As far as I'm concerned, there are not two reasonable interpretations here. The interpretation offered by you and Attempted Socialism is not a possible reading of the HoC rule.

[Wallenburg]

Questions on whether or not the HoC rule is good or should be changed or whatnot are not relevant.

If there are two possible interpretations of a rule, then normative considerations are, of course, relevant. However, upon further reflection, I agree with you. As far as I'm concerned, there are not two reasonable interpretations here. The interpretation offered by you and Attempted Socialism is not a possible reading of the HoC rule.

The interpretation based on what the rule actually says is not possible? Yeah, that's bullshit.

[Sciongrad]

If there are two possible interpretations of a rule, then normative considerations are, of course, relevant. However, upon further reflection, I agree with you. As far as I'm concerned, there are not two reasonable interpretations here. The interpretation offered by you and Attempted Socialism is not a possible reading of the HoC rule.

The interpretation based on what the rule actually says is not possible? Yeah, that's bullshit.

Four of us have explicitly explained our rationale. I explicitly invited you to rebut it. You didn't. You can't call bullshit on our interpretation if you aren't willing to defend it from alternative interpretations and criticism.

[Wallenburg]

The interpretation based on what the rule actually says is not possible? Yeah, that's bullshit.

Four of us have explicitly explained our rationale. I explicitly invited you to rebut it. You didn't. You can't call bullshit on our interpretation if you aren't willing to defend it from alternative interpretations and criticism.

I gave you input. I'm not sure if you are lying and think I'm too stupid to remember what I have posted, or if you simply didn't bother looking for my input. Either way, your assertion is disingenuous.