The GA Secretariat proposes revision of the current blocker rule. This change comes from a somewhat-dormant discussion that started in 2017 in the aftermath of the Rules Consortium's changes to the blocker rule text. It is well known that the blocker rule's official text is internally contradictory and needs revision. National Control of Elections [2016] GAS 2 ("'Broad and specific issues,' interpreted literally, is a meaningless and nonsensical phrase").
The following are the main points on which the Secretariat requests comment.
- The status quo test is the "whole category" from [2016] GAS 2. Alternatively, the Secretariat could adopt a "majority-of-a-category" test. Should the Secretariat do so?
- If the "majority-of-a-category" test were to be adopted, what specific guidelines should the Secretariat use to determine what constitutes a "majority" of a category?
- Alternatively, would a discretionary standard (ie a "smell test") be acceptable?
- Currently, without a clear and nondiscretionary test for "majority-of-a-category", Secretariat prefers a "whole category" test, which would preserve the status quo, implemented with the following wording. What improvement could be made to the wording below?No proposal may block off an entire category or area of effect. Nor may any proposal be "repeal-proof" or attempt to block repeal of another resolution. A proposal may not solely block legislation (a "pure blocker"); but blocking, in general, is permitted if there is additional action.
- Should the blocker rule be expanded to take over prohibition of clauses such as those found in Protections During Territorial Transitions [2021] GAS 4 (ie clauses which insulate past resolutions' effects from repeal; holding that such clauses violate the game mechanics rule)? Would statement in the blocker rule be clearer than the current means of imputing the prohibition from game mechanics?
Those voting in favour of the given wording were Bananaistan, Imperium Anglorum, Sierra Lyricalia, and Separatist Peoples. Grays Harbor is absent on leave. Under the procedures, this comment period will end in two weeks, subject to finalisation.
Related resources.
(2011) 1 IAM 14. viewtopic.php?p=5750199#p5750199
(2011) 1 IAM 16. viewtopic.php?p=7199905#p7199905
[2016] GAS 2. viewtopic.php?p=30328564#p30328564
Consortium discussion. viewtopic.php?f=36&t=340118