Two minded repeals

[Deropia]

I was really just intrigued and moved by the current Vote to Repeal Marriage Equality posted a day after the vote with an axiomatic response to the initial vote.

That was because well...people read the fluffy title and voted on that, not worrying about the gaping holes and horrible writing. Usually the insta-repeal is reserved for horrendous resolutions that for some reason made it to the floor and voted in.

[Separatist Peoples]

Hello, Outdoor Bovita. Welcome to the forum.

I appreciate your enthusiasm to create a new and interesting way to change how things work around here. I really do. Its that kind of forward-thinking that keeps the game innovative. Unfortunately, what you're suggesting is likely to be incredibly unpopular and downright impossible to keep sustainable. The game relies on repeals, even of good resolutions, to ensure that the law is always up to date and at it's best. Blocking that off would make the game harder to play and much less fun. And, at the end of the day, isn't that why we play?

I suggest that you take some time participating in the forum before suggesting any major changes. You'll get some experience and might get a few more ideas that way.

Thanks,

- Sep

[Outdoor Bovita]

Sorry for the confusion Deropia, and I feel I should try to further explain as it is my last intention to increase violet's workload ..

The problem I can see with a sensitive issue such as a Marriage Equality Vote being repealed straight away is the Hobson's choice principle..

..An option I could see of avoiding this in my opinion may be the following or may not be...

Repeal Marrige Equality

Yes []
No []

Void Repeal []

.. Although I am starting to see it may not be so popular , I was really just intrigued and moved by the current Vote to Repeal Marriage Equality posted a day after the vote with an axiomatic response to the initial vote.

Okay, I will make one more comment on how asinine this is, even reworded. You simply want an iron-clad method to ensure the Issue per se and ensure that no repeal can or could be made. No sane individual would support this.

I personally disagree and feel you need to find out from the data how many people care strongly about the issue.

"I was intending it to be like "Dismiss the issue" as apposed to Don't repeal marriage Equality. The idea is that it may give better insight in to how many people actually care strongly about the issue!"

[Principality of the Raix]

Okay, I will make one more comment on how asinine this is, even reworded. You simply want an iron-clad method to ensure the Issue per se and ensure that no repeal can or could be made. No sane individual would support this.

I personally disagree and feel you need to find out from the data how many people care strongly about the issue.

"I was intending it to be like "Dismiss the issue" as apposed to Don't repeal marriage Equality. The idea is that it may give better insight in to how many people actually care strongly about the issue!"

If they cared, they would vote against a repeal. Let a lone any data on this is shown by the votes prior to the issue thus those who voted for it against those whom disagreed. While the same data is strewn across the repeal, there is 3 days left. If you don't want a repeal, they'll vote against it. Thus I disagree with the very issue at hand, seeing as it would make it more of a Dictatorship controlled by whatever majority be it liberal or conservative that is on that week. So you see how this issue is non-sense. I am trying to use your reasoning in a logical sense, it will not play out the way that you want it too.

[Auralia]

Is the OP is asking for an "abstain" option?

That wouldn't be a bad idea, actually. It would indeed be helpful to know whether states simply don't care enough to vote or whether they actively want to abstain on the question.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Is the OP is asking for an "abstain" option?

That wouldn't be a bad idea, actually. It would indeed be helpful to know whether states simply don't care enough to vote or whether they actively want to abstain on the question.

That would be relatively simple (and has been proposed before), though IIRC it has been explicitly rejected by the admin team in the past.

What I believe the OP is getting at is that if you vote against a repeal, you then have the option to vote whether or not to make the targeted resolution repeal-proof. That is why the responses to the idea have been universally negative thus far.

Hello, Outdoor Bovita. Welcome to the forum.

I appreciate your enthusiasm to create a new and interesting way to change how things work around here. I really do. Its that kind of forward-thinking that keeps the game innovative. Unfortunately, what you're suggesting is likely to be incredibly unpopular and downright impossible to keep sustainable. The game relies on repeals, even of good resolutions, to ensure that the law is always up to date and at it's best. Blocking that off would make the game harder to play and much less fun. And, at the end of the day, isn't that why we play?

I suggest that you take some time participating in the forum before suggesting any major changes. You'll get some experience and might get a few more ideas that way.

Thanks,

- Sep

^ What he said. ^

[Outdoor Bovita]

Is the OP is asking for an "abstain" option?

That wouldn't be a bad idea, actually. It would indeed be helpful to know whether states simply don't care enough to vote or whether they actively want to abstain on the question.

That would be relatively simple (and has been proposed before), though IIRC it has been explicitly rejected by the admin team in the past.

What I believe the OP is getting at is that if you vote against a repeal, you then have the option to vote whether or not to make the targeted resolution repeal-proof. That is why the responses to the idea have been universally negative thus far.

Hello, Outdoor Bovita. Welcome to the forum.

I appreciate your enthusiasm to create a new and interesting way to change how things work around here. I really do. Its that kind of forward-thinking that keeps the game innovative. Unfortunately, what you're suggesting is likely to be incredibly unpopular and downright impossible to keep sustainable. The game relies on repeals, even of good resolutions, to ensure that the law is always up to date and at it's best. Blocking that off would make the game harder to play and much less fun. And, at the end of the day, isn't that why we play?

I suggest that you take some time participating in the forum before suggesting any major changes. You'll get some experience and might get a few more ideas that way.

Thanks,

- Sep

^ What he said. ^

I am sorry, I am new to this particular game and was just trying to post a basic idea to get some ideas on the topic, maybe I have chosen to post this question in the wrong forum. I am certainly not looking to make hard changes but more for a debate.

I think Aurilia outlined my point well although thanks all for the input!

[Outdoor Bovita]

Is the OP is asking for an "abstain" option?

That wouldn't be a bad idea, actually. It would indeed be helpful to know whether states simply don't care enough to vote or whether they actively want to abstain on the question.

Interested by this response, I again repealed and replaced the OP

[Netherspace]

An alien creature floated in, glanced at the draft, tore it to pieces, and floated out.

[Wrapper]

Towed to Technical, since you're talking about making changes to the game.

I don't see the benefit of this. It still comes down to, repeal or don't repeal.

Is the OP is asking for an "abstain" option?

That wouldn't be a bad idea, actually. It would indeed be helpful to know whether states simply don't care enough to vote or whether they actively want to abstain on the question.

I don't see the point of adding in a choice that isn't going to be counted in the results anyway. Just, don't vote.

[Auralia]

I don't see the point of adding in a choice that isn't going to be counted in the results anyway. Just, don't vote.

It should be counted in the results, though, because it's different than simply not voting.

I'm going to open a separate topic for this.

[The Bible Baptist Republic]

Uhm, correct me if I'm wrong isn't the best way to express the voter's wish to block a repeal is to vote no?

[Outdoor Bovita]

I don't see the point of adding in a choice that isn't going to be counted in the results anyway. Just, don't vote.

It should be counted in the results, though, because it's different than simply not voting.

I'm going to open a separate topic for this.

<-- I made a new post regarding Abstaining in relation to Repeals on your post "Adding an abstain option for World Assembly votes", hope this is ok?