NATION

PASSWORD

Legality Challenges and the World Assembly

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.
User avatar
Belleroph
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 18
Founded: Dec 09, 2023
Psychotic Dictatorship

Legality Challenges and the World Assembly

Postby Belleroph » Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:57 pm

Recently I've noticed a swath of challenges against at-vote proposals on the General Assembly. To be quite frank, I find such challenges absurd, asinine and counterproductive to actually providing a good World Assembly experience for the game as a whole.

The biggest problem with these challenges is that they actively discourage activity and engagement with the WA as a whole. Why should any new player bother spending so much time in the drafting process only to see their proposal thrown out at the last second while it's at vote, after the GenSec has ruled it as legal no less. Why should regions or players care about voting on proposals when those proposals that are allegedly legal are doomed to be challenged and the time and effort wasted? Why should anyone engage with a system that builds up one's expectations only to crush them with a rules violation that should have been litigated during the drafting period? The purpose of the drafting period is for issues to be litigated and for problems to be worked out. If a proposal passes legality checks from the GenSec, and makes it to vote, it should be immutable, the world had it's chance to challenge legality during the drafting phase, and if it failed to do so then, then perhaps they should have paid more attention. And just as a sidenote, it is one thing to have your proposal go to vote and for it to rejected by the world, that's just how the WA works, but it's another thing entirely for the process to be gatekept at the very last second by a rules violation, that allegedly, was not seen by the GenSec, the people who's job it is to litigate such rules violations.

Specifically, what I'd like to see changed is the following, amend the rules of the GenSec to add something along the lines of this in the area that defines Player-initiated challenges.

"Player-initiated challenges may only be instigated during the drafting period of any piece of WA legislation. Once at-vote, and ruled legal by the GenSec, challenges are no longer allowed."
Senator of Diplomatic Affairs of the New Pacific Order

"You can make your dream reality, be a shining star for all to see."

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14544
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Sep 30, 2024 5:38 pm

Hiya. I did the challenge on Civilian Air Compact that presumably prompted this.

IMO, either the current rules should remain or the Discard feature should be physically deleted from the website by [violet] herself. Discards were introduced in 2013 to, as far as I know, deal with annoying Z-Day proposals (certainly it was first used on The Dourian Embassy's "Condemn Horrible Zombies"). They have two effects nowadays: to hide egregiously illegal proposals from the proposal queue in the approval stage, and to prevent the passage of proposals with any rule violation while they're at vote.
All Discarded proposals at the approval stage are by definition illegal, so it's not strictly necessary to be able to Discard them. But now the GA community has largely developed a culture of hostility towards challenging, and consequently Discarding, illegal proposals at-vote. Combining that with the fact that Discards hardly ever happen in the SC... why keep them?
Last edited by Tinhampton on Mon Sep 30, 2024 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 329,537): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385, GA#597, GA#607, SC#415, GA#647, GA#656, GA#664, GA#671, GA#674, GA#675, GA#677, GA#680, Issue #1580, GA#682, GA#683, GA#684, GA#692, GA#693, GA#715, GA#757
The rest of my CV: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; anti-NPO cabalist in good standing; proclaimer of WZTC's move to Palmetto
Tinhampton the player: 49yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing (sorry)

User avatar
Pasybfic
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Feb 18, 2022
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Pasybfic » Mon Sep 30, 2024 8:32 pm

Tinhampton wrote:Hiya. I did the challenge on Civilian Air Compact that presumably prompted this.

IMO, either the current rules should remain or the Discard feature should be physically deleted from the website by [violet] herself. Discards were introduced in 2013 to, as far as I know, deal with annoying Z-Day proposals (certainly it was first used on The Dourian Embassy's "Condemn Horrible Zombies"). They have two effects nowadays: to hide egregiously illegal proposals from the proposal queue in the approval stage, and to prevent the passage of proposals with any rule violation while they're at vote.


The second should honestly not happen in a system with the GenSec. If they already have to push the button to approve, calling them back to un-approve it just means they didn't do their job effectively the first time, and I believe that this second solution is solvable with a repeal, as was traditionally the case and has for years been the solution within the Security Council. (Don't get me started on my soapbox that if the GA wants to insist they're different from the SC, then we should allow nations to opt in to membership to one or both bodies.)

Either the GenSec is competent enough to do their vetting ahead of time, and thus the discard system doesn't need to be abused by users in the method it's recently been, or they're unable to do their jobs effectively and one half of the World Assembly is run by people who shouldn't be trusted to handle the button. I'm leaning towards the first, that the challenge system is often abused as a hail-mary attempt to unilaterally kill proposals, not as a genuine tool to pull horrendously poor-quality or trolling proposals from vote. I've worked with members of the second group in the past, and I think their competence isn't in question, but the culture involved in the GA as it stands creates a system where only those in the know can truly write a proposal that fits what they're looking for. This, ultimately, will be harmful and I think authorship numbers over the last several years shows this.
Last edited by Pasybfic on Mon Sep 30, 2024 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 889
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Mon Sep 30, 2024 11:00 pm

Pasybfic wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:Hiya. I did the challenge on Civilian Air Compact that presumably prompted this.

IMO, either the current rules should remain or the Discard feature should be physically deleted from the website by [violet] herself. Discards were introduced in 2013 to, as far as I know, deal with annoying Z-Day proposals (certainly it was first used on The Dourian Embassy's "Condemn Horrible Zombies"). They have two effects nowadays: to hide egregiously illegal proposals from the proposal queue in the approval stage, and to prevent the passage of proposals with any rule violation while they're at vote.


The second should honestly not happen in a system with the GenSec. If they already have to push the button to approve, calling them back to un-approve it just means they didn't do their job effectively the first time, and I believe that this second solution is solvable with a repeal, as was traditionally the case and has for years been the solution within the Security Council. (Don't get me started on my soapbox that if the GA wants to insist they're different from the SC, then we should allow nations to opt in to membership to one or both bodies.)

Either the GenSec is competent enough to do their vetting ahead of time, and thus the discard system doesn't need to be abused by users in the method it's recently been, or they're unable to do their jobs effectively and one half of the World Assembly is run by people who shouldn't be trusted to handle the button. I'm leaning towards the first, that the challenge system is often abused as a hail-mary attempt to unilaterally kill proposals, not as a genuine tool to pull horrendously poor-quality or trolling proposals from vote. I've worked with members of the second group in the past, and I think their competence isn't in question, but the culture involved in the GA as it stands creates a system where only those in the know can truly write a proposal that fits what they're looking for. This, ultimately, will be harmful and I think authorship numbers over the last several years shows this.

This is very optimistic and based on a mostly recent trend of having a sizable queue. If we don’t have a queue and an illegal proposal gets submitted, gaining a lot of approvals quickly (as we see happen often in the SC, though it is usually not illegal due to the simplicity of the SC’s rules), there is a very real chance GenSec misses its ability to rule on it altogether. If we want to maintain the ruleset, at-vote discards are pretty damn important.

Now, whether there is a cultural (or GenSec) issue that causes these late challenges in the current system is a separate issue. I personally think the ruleset should just be simplified, but I don’t see any technical changes being preferable here.

On phone, sorry for formatting/grammatical issues.

Notable Government Officials:

Magus Regent: Delfi Quix

Chief WA Delegate: Norde Lot

Telegram me with time-sensitive requests.

User avatar
End666
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 6
Founded: Feb 11, 2014
Democratic Socialists

Postby End666 » Tue Oct 01, 2024 12:00 am

Bisofeyr wrote:This is very optimistic and based on a mostly recent trend of having a sizable queue. If we don’t have a queue and an illegal proposal gets submitted, gaining a lot of approvals quickly (as we see happen often in the SC, though it is usually not illegal due to the simplicity of the SC’s rules), there is a very real chance GenSec misses its ability to rule on it altogether. If we want to maintain the ruleset, at-vote discards are pretty damn important.

Now, whether there is a cultural (or GenSec) issue that causes these late challenges in the current system is a separate issue. I personally think the ruleset should just be simplified, but I don’t see any technical changes being preferable here.

On phone, sorry for formatting/grammatical issues.


That is quite the extreme case. Everything you mentioned above is preventable by GenSec and fixable by repeal proposals if necessary even in the most extreme case. The at-vote challenges and discards are doing more harm than good to GA with how it is being used currently.

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 889
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Tue Oct 01, 2024 12:07 am

End666 wrote:
Bisofeyr wrote:This is very optimistic and based on a mostly recent trend of having a sizable queue. If we don’t have a queue and an illegal proposal gets submitted, gaining a lot of approvals quickly (as we see happen often in the SC, though it is usually not illegal due to the simplicity of the SC’s rules), there is a very real chance GenSec misses its ability to rule on it altogether. If we want to maintain the ruleset, at-vote discards are pretty damn important.

Now, whether there is a cultural (or GenSec) issue that causes these late challenges in the current system is a separate issue. I personally think the ruleset should just be simplified, but I don’t see any technical changes being preferable here.

On phone, sorry for formatting/grammatical issues.


That is quite the extreme case. Everything you mentioned above is preventable by GenSec and fixable by repeal proposals if necessary even in the most extreme case. The at-vote challenges and discards are doing more harm than good to GA with how it is being used currently.

Again, sounds like a cultural complaint, not a technical one. I don’t really see a brief trend as indicative of a need for a mechanical change. I agree that challenging at-vote proposals is not desirable, but shit happens and GenSec has mechanisms to ignore frivolous challenges. If people are abusing the system, I imagine GenSec will utilize those mechanisms.

Notable Government Officials:

Magus Regent: Delfi Quix

Chief WA Delegate: Norde Lot

Telegram me with time-sensitive requests.

User avatar
Pasybfic
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 50
Founded: Feb 18, 2022
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Pasybfic » Tue Oct 01, 2024 5:38 am

Bisofeyr wrote:
End666 wrote:
That is quite the extreme case. Everything you mentioned above is preventable by GenSec and fixable by repeal proposals if necessary even in the most extreme case. The at-vote challenges and discards are doing more harm than good to GA with how it is being used currently.

Again, sounds like a cultural complaint, not a technical one. I don’t really see a brief trend as indicative of a need for a mechanical change. I agree that challenging at-vote proposals is not desirable, but shit happens and GenSec has mechanisms to ignore frivolous challenges. If people are abusing the system, I imagine GenSec will utilize those mechanisms.


I am of the honest belief that at-vote challenges for minor definition quibbles either forces a need for a mechanical change, or that the site staff involved need to step up and stamp down what should in all actuality be grounds for repeal discussion. What's actually happening now is that single GA players can hail-mary kill any resolution that would otherwise pass for minor definition debates. These claimed issues that are apparently worth bypassing the approval, legality check, and voting process could have been solved by community involvement, and can still be solved with repeal afterwards. I am old enough to remember the days before the GenSec, and do remember the era where repeal drafting with arguments about definitions and enforceability would start before the ink was dry.

I'd be fine with that discussion in a more appropriate venue, but I believe the technical aspect of "Either kill at-vote challenges or give that power only to moderation" does have a source for valid discussion here.

EDIT: sorry about the delete and repost. Wanted to put this all on the same nation lol

User avatar
Bisofeyr
Diplomat
 
Posts: 889
Founded: Nov 26, 2023
Democratic Socialists

Postby Bisofeyr » Tue Oct 01, 2024 8:04 am

Pasybfic wrote:
Bisofeyr wrote:Again, sounds like a cultural complaint, not a technical one. I don’t really see a brief trend as indicative of a need for a mechanical change. I agree that challenging at-vote proposals is not desirable, but shit happens and GenSec has mechanisms to ignore frivolous challenges. If people are abusing the system, I imagine GenSec will utilize those mechanisms.


I am of the honest belief that at-vote challenges for minor definition quibbles either forces a need for a mechanical change, or that the site staff involved need to step up and stamp down what should in all actuality be grounds for repeal discussion. What's actually happening now is that single GA players can hail-mary kill any resolution that would otherwise pass for minor definition debates. These claimed issues that are apparently worth bypassing the approval, legality check, and voting process could have been solved by community involvement, and can still be solved with repeal afterwards. I am old enough to remember the days before the GenSec, and do remember the era where repeal drafting with arguments about definitions and enforceability would start before the ink was dry.

I'd be fine with that discussion in a more appropriate venue, but I believe the technical aspect of "Either kill at-vote challenges or give that power only to moderation" does have a source for valid discussion here.

EDIT: sorry about the delete and repost. Wanted to put this all on the same nation lol

I mean, I’m pretty sure you’re overstating the power that at-vote challenges give; I cannot imagine GenSec enjoys them and the one that (presumably) prompted this was shot down, as was the last one (which I’ll admit I submitted). There definitely should be greater feedback on individual proposals, but it seems to me like enforcing a technical change that removes the ability for GenSec to declare illegal proposals illegal would lead to bigger issues. If you disagree, that’s fine, but I think this is largely in response to a momentary trend of at-vote challenges that will almost certainly not continue.

Notable Government Officials:

Magus Regent: Delfi Quix

Chief WA Delegate: Norde Lot

Telegram me with time-sensitive requests.

User avatar
Elyreia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 383
Founded: Jun 29, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Elyreia » Tue Oct 01, 2024 12:44 pm

Bisofeyr wrote:
Pasybfic wrote:
I am of the honest belief that at-vote challenges for minor definition quibbles either forces a need for a mechanical change, or that the site staff involved need to step up and stamp down what should in all actuality be grounds for repeal discussion. What's actually happening now is that single GA players can hail-mary kill any resolution that would otherwise pass for minor definition debates. These claimed issues that are apparently worth bypassing the approval, legality check, and voting process could have been solved by community involvement, and can still be solved with repeal afterwards. I am old enough to remember the days before the GenSec, and do remember the era where repeal drafting with arguments about definitions and enforceability would start before the ink was dry.

I'd be fine with that discussion in a more appropriate venue, but I believe the technical aspect of "Either kill at-vote challenges or give that power only to moderation" does have a source for valid discussion here.

EDIT: sorry about the delete and repost. Wanted to put this all on the same nation lol

I mean, I’m pretty sure you’re overstating the power that at-vote challenges give; I cannot imagine GenSec enjoys them and the one that (presumably) prompted this was shot down, as was the last one (which I’ll admit I submitted). There definitely should be greater feedback on individual proposals, but it seems to me like enforcing a technical change that removes the ability for GenSec to declare illegal proposals illegal would lead to bigger issues. If you disagree, that’s fine, but I think this is largely in response to a momentary trend of at-vote challenges that will almost certainly not continue.


There have been at least 4 at-vote challenges the past month, and one challenge that met quorum, most of which resulted in removals. The latest challenge is one of two that I remember this summer surviving a challenge while in queue or at-vote.

Edit: I went looking. 7 challenges in September alone. I'm personally more concerned with the fact that apparently the drafting phase has become little more than a formality. I've heard many of the passing legislations are getting by with Discord being the primary method of critique and review, and that the forum has become little more than a stepping stone requirement. Some of the recent legislations challenged and discarded while at-vote were up for review for months, so it can't simply be a time constraint.

There is obviously a failure in the process now for this many to reach quorum, queue, and vote, and then passing vote just to be thrown away by GenSec at the eleventh hour.
Last edited by Elyreia on Tue Oct 01, 2024 12:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The Principality of Elyreia (Dārilarostegun Elyreia)
The Principality of Elyreia Wiki
Currently recovering from abdominal surgery IRL
Proud member of the Gay Furry Pacific Clique

World Assembly Ambassador: Dārilaros Korus Vaelans
Uncrowned Head of the House of Vaelans-Volaria
[he/him/she/her/they/them]
(Character Dossier)

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13007
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Oct 01, 2024 9:11 pm

Pasybfic wrote:What's actually happening now is that single GA players can hail-mary kill any resolution that would otherwise pass for minor definition debates. These claimed issues that are apparently worth bypassing the approval, legality check, and voting process could have been solved by community involvement, and can still be solved with repeal afterwards. I am old enough to remember the days before the GenSec, and do remember the era where repeal drafting with arguments about definitions and enforceability would start before the ink was dry.

I too am old enough to remember the GA before GenSec.

I also remember multiple challenges at vote to my proposals that were entirely secret. Literally Star Chamber shit where you couldn't even see the arguments for illegality. All you got was a notice from the moderators or the GHR filer that something had been filed. Just from my legislative activity at the time:

Repeal "Responsible Arms Trading" (GHR'd in queue) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=340747&p=24527668#p24527668
Repeal "Nuclear Security Convention" (GHR'd) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=331878&p=26730908&hilit=ghr#p26730908
Nuclear Material Safeguards (two separate GHRs?)
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=329797&p=23407189&hilit=ghr#p23407189 ("for when this hits the floor")
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=329797&p=26769709&hilit=ghr#p26769709 (this one was timely)
Ban on Booby-Trapped Aid (GHR'd and discarded) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=363074&p=27013313#p27013313
Reducing Statelessness (possibly two GHRs?)
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=361027&p=27642460&hilit=ghr#p27642460
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=361027&p=30183270&hilit=ghr#p30183270
Repeal "Stopping Suicide Seeds" (GHR'd on time with no notice until CD fessed up to it at vote) viewtopic.php?f=10&t=371910&p=28433527#p28433527

I'm sure that if you checked more than one author's legislative activity you'd find even more at vote or in queue GHRs. I certainly remember commenting on them. It got to the point that, as now, questions were raised as to whether at vote resolution discard had become too common.

Let's not do some revisionism and say that the moderator days were better. Authors have been Hail Marying against at vote resolutions they dislike for years; legality quibbles have always been a final veto point on the GA legislative process. Back in "the day" they were invisible, with challengers not even suffering a reputational hit because they could submit anonymously without even the challenge text exposed. Even when they fessed up to it, people openly plotted about writing GHRs to submit at vote.

We should have more instarepeals again; but having them wasn't caused by a lack of last-minute challenges.

Bisofeyr wrote:I mean, I’m pretty sure you’re overstating the power that at-vote challenges give; I cannot imagine GenSec enjoys them and the one that (presumably) prompted this was shot down, as was the last one (which I’ll admit I submitted). There definitely should be greater feedback on individual proposals, but it seems to me like enforcing a technical change that removes the ability for GenSec to declare illegal proposals illegal would lead to bigger issues.

GenSec does not have the technical ability – I emphasise that because we are in the technical forum – to discard resolutions on its own initiative. The behind-the-scenes process for discard requires GenSec to inform a game moderator who then ministerially "pushes the button" (pun intended). There is no technical change that would make GenSec unable to discard at vote resolutions because GenSec in squo cannot discard at vote resolutions. I know this especially well because the repeal of my resolution Preventing the Execution of Innocents was supposed to be discarded. But, due to a miscommunication, the button was never pressed and the repeal therefore passed. If we wanted really to change this it would be something that, if we accept the status quo where GenSec discard decisions communicated to moderators are conclusive, would require changing GenSec procedure.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Tue Oct 01, 2024 9:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 59+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

User avatar
Belleroph
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 18
Founded: Dec 09, 2023
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Belleroph » Wed Oct 02, 2024 6:14 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:GenSec does not have the technical ability – I emphasise that because we are in the technical forum – to discard resolutions on its own initiative. The behind-the-scenes process for discard requires GenSec to inform a game moderator who then ministerially "pushes the button" (pun intended). There is no technical change that would make GenSec unable to discard at vote resolutions because GenSec in squo cannot discard at vote resolutions. I know this especially well because the repeal of my resolution Preventing the Execution of Innocents was supposed to be discarded. But, due to a miscommunication, the button was never pressed and the repeal therefore passed. If we wanted really to change this it would be something that, if we accept the status quo where GenSec discard decisions communicated to moderators are conclusive, would require changing GenSec procedure.


And to bring this all around again, it's not my desire to ask the moderation specifically to change anything. My intention here is to petition the GenSec to consider changing their own rules as to not allow at vote legality challenges. Some may argue that Technical is not the right place for this discussion, as it is not necessarily strictly a moderator action but, I think that matters not, as I feel the discussion still needs to be had and that doesn't negate any of the points I've made previously.

I will reiterate once more as well, I think the legality challenges of at vote legislation only serve to make the General Assembly a less engaging and less fun experience, the purpose of this game is to have fun after all, and having engaging gameplay elements that people can get excited about is paramount to this end.

Just on a small sidenote as well, I personally do not agree with what Tinhampton said earlier about removing the discard feature altogether. I am not particularly as fussed about something being discarded while in queue, as it is not the same as having something at vote, which has been checked for legality before, suddenly experience a moment of "Double Jeopardy", as it must be thrown to the body who had already ruled it legal before for a retrial.
Senator of Diplomatic Affairs of the New Pacific Order

"You can make your dream reality, be a shining star for all to see."

User avatar
First Nightmare
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 187
Founded: Apr 27, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby First Nightmare » Wed Oct 02, 2024 11:49 am

Belleroph wrote:And to bring this all around again, it's not my desire to ask the moderation specifically to change anything. My intention here is to petition the GenSec to consider changing their own rules as to not allow at vote legality challenges. Some may argue that Technical is not the right place for this discussion, as it is not necessarily strictly a moderator action but, I think that matters not, as I feel the discussion still needs to be had and that doesn't negate any of the points I've made previously.

Well, in this case, if you want to say "okay, there was enough time to find the problem now stop discarding because that's harmful for engagement" then, even if GenSec would make a rule like that it should only apply to proposals that were in queue long enough. Not for proposals that had no time to be checked upon(e.g. submitted, 2 hours later in queue, 3 hours later at vote...)
Something like: Proposals can only be challenged when
1.the proposal is neither at vote nor top of the queue, AND/OR
2.the proposal was submitted at most 74 hours before the challenge was filed.

This assures that the WA has a minimum of discarded proposals, but does allow time for challenges of submitted proposals.
I left out draft because that would just open a can of worms.

User avatar
The Ice States
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 3699
Founded: Jun 23, 2022
Capitalist Paradise

Postby The Ice States » Wed Oct 02, 2024 3:52 pm

I do agree that (1) late legality challenges are harmful to the game; and (2) this is not a Technical issue. I think the root issue causing this is a lack of engagement on the GA forum, in favour of Discord; this leads to proposals not being evaluated seriously when they are not from a narrow group of authors. Monopolisation is primarily a result of this trend, and not legality challenges themselves; though the latter may still exacerbate the issue.

Pasybfic wrote:(Don't get me started on my soapbox that if the GA wants to insist they're different from the SC, then we should allow nations to opt in to membership to one or both bodies.)

For whatever it's worth, I would support such a change. A Delegate's weight in each chamber could be determined by how many GA, SC or both members are endorsing it.
Last edited by The Ice States on Wed Oct 02, 2024 5:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Guides to the General Assembly · GA Resolution Stat Effects · Festering Snakepit Wiki · WACampaign

Factbooks · WA Authorships · Nation map


"Petty tyrant", "antithetical to a better future for the WA". Posts in the WA forums are Ooc and unofficial, unless indicated otherwise.

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7172
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Unibot III » Wed Oct 02, 2024 6:30 pm

I’m old enough to remember prior to the Discard function — it worked well without discards. There was an understanding that resolutions were legal in a pro forma sense if they went to vote. As such, going to vote carried no precedent necessarily, the legal-but-not-legal resolution might simply exist as a grandfather policy after their passage.

This was a fairly elegant approach in my opinion and I’m not sure why we really abandoned it for the constant cycle of discards. I don’t think players were clamouring for a Discard function.

That having been said. I agree with The Ice States that this problem is more of a cultural problem than a technical one. Drafting on the forum plays a crucial role in vetting a resolution throughly. I’d add that I think the ruleset may need to be stripped down to be more easily enforceable - rulings have grown increasingly complex which in turn makes the whole jurisprudence more complex.
[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.
Org. Join Date: 25-05-2008 | Former Delegate of TRR

Factbook // Collected works // Gameplay Alignment Test //
9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Headlines from Unibot // WASC HQ: A Guide

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
First Nightmare
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 187
Founded: Apr 27, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby First Nightmare » Thu Oct 03, 2024 5:58 am

Unibot III wrote:There was an understanding that resolutions were legal in a pro forma sense if they went to vote

Still, there's good reason to not allow people to flagrantly break the rules and get away with it because the queue was empty and they could get that proposal in within hours without proper time for it to be evaluated. Discard is good for these type of proposals.
That's why I proposed to allow discard if the proposal was submitted less than 74 hours before the challenge was made. Yes, discarding is bad. But so is not even letting people properly evaluate if a proposal is actually legal.

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21559
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Thu Oct 03, 2024 6:32 am

Unibot III wrote:I’m old enough to remember prior to the Discard function — it worked well without discards.

And I remember the historical resolution 'Max Barry Day', which wasn't drafted here. It was submitted while the queue was empty, and pushed to quorum before the next update... and reached voting before any of the Mods noticed it. At that stage, apparently, even the Mods couldn't discard an at-vote proposal, so a blatantly illegal resolution passed. Admittedly it was repealed quite soon afterwards, but...
Last edited by Bears Armed on Thu Oct 03, 2024 6:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Refuge Isle
Technical Moderator
 
Posts: 2364
Founded: Dec 14, 2018
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Refuge Isle » Thu Oct 03, 2024 10:45 am

I share the position of Bears Armed. The ability to discard resolutions at vote is important for enforcing the rules when player actions may attempt to circumvent them. While it can be annoying for resolutions to be discarded after they reach the voting stage, the rules are there for a reason and we have no interest in incentivising players trying to treat them as optional if they get a proposal in quick enough.

While rules should be simple and easy for the average player to navigate, I don't feel that legality challenges are necessarily harmful in and of themselves. They are functionally a platform to formally discuss potentially hidden meanings in occasionally complex writing.

User avatar
Unibot III
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7172
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby Unibot III » Thu Oct 03, 2024 11:24 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Unibot III wrote:I’m old enough to remember prior to the Discard function — it worked well without discards.

And I remember the historical resolution 'Max Barry Day', which wasn't drafted here. It was submitted while the queue was empty, and pushed to quorum before the next update... and reached voting before any of the Mods noticed it. At that stage, apparently, even the Mods couldn't discard an at-vote proposal, so a blatantly illegal resolution passed. Admittedly it was repealed quite soon afterwards, but...


I’m well aware of the resolution, but I don’t think the ‘harm’ in its passage outweighs the problematic tendency for Discards to be overused and become disruptive.

First, slip ups like Max Barry Day were fairly rare. Far rarer than the use of Discard function today.

Second, events like Max Barry Day were harmless things, quickly resolved, and they give something for people to joke about. Frequent discards are far more disruptive in nature (and also less funny).
[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.
Org. Join Date: 25-05-2008 | Former Delegate of TRR

Factbook // Collected works // Gameplay Alignment Test //
9 GA Res., 14 SC Res. // Headlines from Unibot // WASC HQ: A Guide

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
✯ Duty is Eternal, Justice is Imminent: UDL

User avatar
First Nightmare
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 187
Founded: Apr 27, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby First Nightmare » Fri Oct 04, 2024 5:03 am

Refuge Isle wrote:I share the position of Bears Armed. The ability to discard resolutions at vote is important for enforcing the rules when player actions may attempt to circumvent them. While it can be annoying for resolutions to be discarded after they reach the voting stage, the rules are there for a reason and we have no interest in incentivising players trying to treat them as optional if they get a proposal in quick enough.

Which is why I proposed that challenges could be made for an at vote proposal up to 74 hours after it was submitted(and discards resulting from challenges could, of course, be made at any time). This would minimize voter frustration for proposals that had enough time to be scrutinized, and shut the door on circumventing challenges via instant at vote status. If voters get repeated discards that's not good either.

User avatar
Haganham
Senator
 
Posts: 3639
Founded: Aug 17, 2021
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Haganham » Fri Oct 04, 2024 10:12 am

Refuge Isle wrote:I share the position of Bears Armed. The ability to discard resolutions at vote is important for enforcing the rules when player actions may attempt to circumvent them. While it can be annoying for resolutions to be discarded after they reach the voting stage, the rules are there for a reason and we have no interest in incentivising players trying to treat them as optional if they get a proposal in quick enough.

While rules should be simple and easy for the average player to navigate, I don't feel that legality challenges are necessarily harmful in and of themselves. They are functionally a platform to formally discuss potentially hidden meanings in occasionally complex writing.

Given how overwhelming recommended it is anyway, we might want to consider making drafting periods required. This bypasses the issue of people gaming the system by trying to rush proposals to vote before illegalities get flagged.
The new forums are supposed to have some linking of drafting thread and proposal status anyway, so it could be practical to have it enforced mechanically throw an error if the thread's age is shorter then the mandated drafting period.

In principle I do agree that if an objection could have been raised during drafting then it should have been, and that so long as authors give people a reasonable period to review the draft then they should not be subject to last minute discards just because someone chose to wait. It is toxic AF and GA legislation is difficult enough without that kind of BS.

That said I have not participated in the WA for years, so my views on it may not be as relevant.
Last edited by Haganham on Fri Oct 04, 2024 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Imagine reading a signature, but over the course of it the quality seems to deteriorate and it gets wose an wose, where the swenetence stwucture and gwammer rewerts to a pwoint of uttew non swence, an u jus dont wanna wead it anymwore (o´ω`o) awd twa wol owdewl iws jus awfwul (´・ω・`);. bwt tw sinawtur iwswnwt obwer nyet, it gwos own an own an own an own. uwu wanyaa stwop weadwing bwut uwu cwant stop wewding, uwu stwartd thwis awnd ur gwoing two fwinibsh it nowo mwattew wat! uwu hab mwoxie kwiddowo, bwut uwu wibl gwib ub sowon. i cwan wite wike dis fwor owors, swo dwont cwalengbe mii..

… wbats dis??? uwu awe stwill weedinb mwie sinatwr?? uwu habe awot ob detewemwinyanyatiom!! 。◕‿◕。! u habve comopweedid tha signwtr, good job!

User avatar
Army of Revolutions
Attaché
 
Posts: 98
Founded: Sep 22, 2023
Corporate Police State

Postby Army of Revolutions » Fri Oct 04, 2024 2:34 pm

Haganham wrote:
Refuge Isle wrote:I share the position of Bears Armed. The ability to discard resolutions at vote is important for enforcing the rules when player actions may attempt to circumvent them. While it can be annoying for resolutions to be discarded after they reach the voting stage, the rules are there for a reason and we have no interest in incentivising players trying to treat them as optional if they get a proposal in quick enough.

While rules should be simple and easy for the average player to navigate, I don't feel that legality challenges are necessarily harmful in and of themselves. They are functionally a platform to formally discuss potentially hidden meanings in occasionally complex writing.

Given how overwhelming recommended it is anyway, we might want to consider making drafting periods required. This bypasses the issue of people gaming the system by trying to rush proposals to vote before illegalities get flagged.
The new forums are supposed to have some linking of drafting thread and proposal status anyway, so it could be practical to have it enforced mechanically throw an error if the thread's age is shorter then the mandated drafting period.

In principle I do agree that if an objection could have been raised during drafting then it should have been, and that so long as authors give people a reasonable period to review the draft then they should not be subject to last minute discards just because someone chose to wait. It is toxic AF and GA legislation is difficult enough without that kind of BS.

That said I have not participated in the WA for years, so my views on it may not be as relevant.


I actually agree with this, we should have a minimum 2 week drafting period for all WA legislation, thanks for the idea Haganham!
Why do people even read this?
Any posts I make are not a representation of the orgs I'm in and solely my questionable opinions
Lieutenant in The Black Hawks, Assassin in The Brotherhood of Malice

User avatar
Midlona
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 114
Founded: Jan 20, 2023
Corporate Bordello

Postby Midlona » Mon Oct 07, 2024 12:52 pm

Pasybfic wrote: the challenge system is often abused as a hail-mary attempt to unilaterally kill proposals, not as a genuine tool to pull horrendously poor-quality or trolling proposals from vote.


I agree with this. From what I've seen, at-vote discards have flimsy pretextual justifications, and are a manifestation of certain nations' desire to control the legislative process. The WA has a long way to go to become a democratic institution; limiting GenSec wand-waving as much as possible is a great first step.
Office of the Ambassador to the World Assembly
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
, The Federal Republic of Midlona

National Homepage | Statements on Prior Votes | Resolutions Midlona Supports Repealing | Legislative Initiatives Midlona Supports

"Those that deny fundamental truth do so to peddle falsehoods, often dangerous ones."

User avatar
Tinhampton
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14544
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Oct 07, 2024 3:45 pm

Midlona wrote:
Pasybfic wrote: the challenge system is often abused as a hail-mary attempt to unilaterally kill proposals, not as a genuine tool to pull horrendously poor-quality or trolling proposals from vote.


I agree with this. From what I've seen, at-vote discards have flimsy pretextual justifications, and are a manifestation of certain nations' desire to control the legislative process. The WA has a long way to go to become a democratic institution; limiting GenSec wand-waving as much as possible is a great first step.

Can you provide examples of this effect?
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 329,537): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375, GA#589, GA#590, SC#382, SC#385, GA#597, GA#607, SC#415, GA#647, GA#656, GA#664, GA#671, GA#674, GA#675, GA#677, GA#680, Issue #1580, GA#682, GA#683, GA#684, GA#692, GA#693, GA#715, GA#757
The rest of my CV: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; anti-NPO cabalist in good standing; proclaimer of WZTC's move to Palmetto
Tinhampton the player: 49yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading nothing (sorry)

User avatar
First Nightmare
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 187
Founded: Apr 27, 2018
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby First Nightmare » Mon Oct 07, 2024 5:36 pm

Midlona wrote:
Pasybfic wrote: the challenge system is often abused as a hail-mary attempt to unilaterally kill proposals, not as a genuine tool to pull horrendously poor-quality or trolling proposals from vote.


I agree with this. From what I've seen, at-vote discards have flimsy pretextual justifications, and are a manifestation of certain nations' desire to control the legislative process. The WA has a long way to go to become a democratic institution; limiting GenSec wand-waving as much as possible is a great first step.

This is a rather drastic accusation. One that should be accompanied by solid evidence.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13007
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Oct 08, 2024 8:59 am

The only way that challengers will realise that they need to bring things up sooner rather than at vote is if they see that they can't throw toxic Hail Mary passes. People have a vision that the GA resolutions should all be pure or something; I don't really see the supposed harm that one or two illegal proposals passing would bring. Max Barry Day isn't really a strong negative example since that episode resolved itself quickly and created good repeal activity.

The toxicity of Hail Mary challenges needs to be reined in and there's been an undercurrent seeking to do this for years, going all the way back to the introduction of discards in the moderator days. (Bananaistan and I, for example, both supported reining in discards in 2015–16.) I pushed for and GenSec recently made procedural changes which hopefully will start to move in that direction. Details can be found on the GA forum.

There is a separate issue relating to drafting that Haganham brought up. I can't say I'm a huge fan of the idea of a required drafting period or something on the forum. There can be political reasons not to draft publicly since it's essentially giving your future moves away; if you are a competent player who can write a legal proposal without drafting so to capitalise on a break in the queue, that sounds like something we shouldn't penalise mechanically. Moreover, the main reason people drafted forum-side was to solicit feedback; this process is somewhat atrophied as of late. I don't know whether a requirement to draft forum-side would revitalise that but I am not hopeful on it.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Tue Oct 08, 2024 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 59+ GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
GenSec (24 Dec 2021 –); posts not official unless so indicated
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Twice-commended toxic villainous globalist kittehs

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Feia, NationStates Hacker

Advertisement

Remove ads