by Belleroph » Mon Sep 30, 2024 3:57 pm
by Tinhampton » Mon Sep 30, 2024 5:38 pm
by 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.
by 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.
by 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.
by 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.
by 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.
by 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
by 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.
by 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.
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.
by 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.
by 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.
by The Ice States » Wed Oct 02, 2024 3:52 pm
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.)
by Unibot III » Wed Oct 02, 2024 6:30 pm
[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.
by 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
by 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.
by Refuge Isle » Thu Oct 03, 2024 10:45 am
by 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...
[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.
by 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.
by 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.
by 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.
by 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.
by 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.
by 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.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Oct 08, 2024 8:59 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement