[DISCUSSION] New rule on deceptive titles

[Auralia]

At the moment, there is no rule prohibiting deceptive titles for proposals -- that is, a title that asserts or implies the proposal does something it doesn't actually do.

This is unfortunately, as of today, a real problem. A proposal that does nothing but legalize and encourage funding of embryonic stem cell research should not be called "Promoting Research On Life In Foetuses And Embryos", as it is not "PROLIFE" as that term is conventionally understood (admittedly subjective), does not promote research on life in embryos, and does not have anything to do with fetuses whatsoever.

The only possible motivation for such a title for a submitted (non-joke) proposal is to fool pro-life voters into thinking this proposal does precisely the opposite of what it actually does.

The rationale for this rule would be the same as for the Honest Mistake rule. This game is more fun if proposals rise or fall on their merits, as opposed to lies or deceit.

The following is proposed text for such a rule, based on the existing text of the Honest Mistake rule:

Proposal titles must accurately reflect their contents. While embellishment, exaggeration, and ambiguous language are permitted, factual inaccuracies and misrepresentation are not.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Then I must argue that Stopping Suicide Seeds should have been ruled illegal. Under the author's own arguments, it did not stop suicide seeds.

[Araraukar]

Then I must argue that Stopping Suicide Seeds should have been ruled illegal.

And everything with "Agreement" in it.

And let's not forget "Ban On Secret Treaties"... >_>

[Auralia]

Then I must argue that Stopping Suicide Seeds should have been ruled illegal. Under the author's own arguments, it did not stop suicide seeds.

At least the resolution in question actually dealt with suicide seeds. Your proposal doesn't have anything to do with research into fetal development or human embryology (i.e. "Research On Life In Foetuses And Embryos"). In fact, it has nothing to do with fetuses at all!

[Araraukar]

In fact, it has nothing to do with fetuses at all!

That's funny coming from you of all people, considering how you seem to think that "stem cells" equals "aborted fetuses" equals "somethingbadforultrareligiousnations".

[Christian Democrats]

Then I must argue that Stopping Suicide Seeds should have been ruled illegal. Under the author's own arguments, it did not stop suicide seeds.

And its repeal is the only resolution that, as conceded by the moderators, violates the Honest Mistake Rule.

[Kenmoria]

Aside from the current arguement, the rule seems like a good idea. It would be confusing for a resolution doing something about infrastructure to have a title, "Resolution on Cats and Dogs." There is also the possibility of someone giving a proposal a feel-good name and relying on the lemming effect to carry it through.

[Triangle And Square]

(nvm ignore this post)

[The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper]

Posting from this account to emphasize that it's me the player talking, not me the moderator.

Then I must argue that Stopping Suicide Seeds should have been ruled illegal. Under the author's own arguments, it did not stop suicide seeds.

And its repeal is the only resolution that, as conceded by the moderators, violates the Honest Mistake Rule. would have violated the old Honest Mistake Rule as well as the current Honest Mistake Rule, but did not violate the as-written Honest Mistake Rule that was in force for a very short time when the rules were last amended.

Fixed that for you. That was a painful time around here, for all of us, and I for one would rather not revisit that whole episode, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to correct you when you make a statement like that. Thankfully, you won't have to worry about Moderation making such awful decisions anymore. Moving on.

Proposal titles must accurately reflect their contents. While embellishment, exaggeration, and ambiguous language are permitted, factual inaccuracies and misrepresentation are not.

As a player, I concur with this language. As a moderator I'm going to sit on my hands until GenSec does something first.

[Bears Armed]

I dislike deceptive titles, too, but unfortunately I'm not sure how well we could draw a clear line beyond the current rule. If people would be happy with "I know it when I see it" as the basis for rulings then, fine, let's tighten up policy on this point.
(For the record, I questioned the legality of calling [the proposal that became] GA Resolution #286 'Reproductive Freedoms' on the basis that that title implied freedom to reproduce whereas the proposal involved the freedom not to reproduce... but that challenge was rejected by the Mods...)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I dislike deceptive titles, too, but unfortunately I'm not sure how well we could draw a clear line beyond the current rule. If people would be happy with "I know it when I see it" as the basis for rulings then, fine, let's tighten up policy on this point.

I would urge caution here, as a plain reading of the proposal that I assume prompted this yields a result for me that's basically - "Well, it urges potentially life-saving research using raw materials obtained from fetuses and embryos, so there's nothing even remotely misleading about it." What the OP appears to be asking for is a massive intervention on the part of GenSec of a type about which we have internally expressed deep, deep reservations. If we're to be arbiters of fact rather than simply proposal rules, that's a big departure from how we've run things so far.

(For the record, I questioned the legality of calling [the proposal that became] GA Resolution #286 'Reproductive Freedoms' on the basis that that title implied freedom to reproduce whereas the proposal involved the freedom not to reproduce... but that challenge was rejected by the Mods...)

And properly so. Tasking GenSec with interpreting facts in a way that would judge that question the other way would not be good for the GA culture, which is already laboring under enough stress without adding regular "Well, actually..." overrides to the mix.

[Auralia]

Well, it urges potentially life-saving research using raw materials obtained from fetuses and embryos, so there's nothing even remotely misleading about it."

But it doesn't! The proposal text doesn't even mention fetuses.

What the OP appears to be asking for is a massive intervention on the part of GenSec of a type about which we have internally expressed deep, deep reservations. If we're to be arbiters of fact rather than simply proposal rules, that's a big departure from how we've run things so far.

I don't really understand this comment. Enforcing the Honest Mistake rule necessarily makes GenSec arbiters of whether a particular claim in a repeal is factual.

[Separatist Peoples]

What the OP appears to be asking for is a massive intervention on the part of GenSec of a type about which we have internally expressed deep, deep reservations. If we're to be arbiters of fact rather than simply proposal rules, that's a big departure from how we've run things so far.

I don't really understand this comment. Enforcing the Honest Mistake rule necessarily makes GenSec arbiters of whether a particular claim in a repeal is factual.

Not really. Its a question of whether the resolution actually does in its text what the repeal claims it does based on a reading. We don't assess, say, scientific facts or policy effectiveness.

IA made an argument in his proposal (obviously the genesis of this proposed rule) that the policy he suggests will save lives in the aggregate. While that is not the traditional definition of Pro-Life, it can be described as being in favor of saving lives. Whether the policy does so or not isn't really something GenSec answers. A reasonable argument was made to that effect, and I don't see why that shouldn't go to the voters.

[Araraukar]

IA made an argument in his proposal (obviously the genesis of this proposed rule) that the policy he suggests will save lives in the aggregate. While that is not the traditional definition of Pro-Life, it can be described as being in favor of saving lives.

Plus it makes much more sense than his "Ban on Secret Treaties"...

[Dirty Americans]

At the moment, there is no rule prohibiting deceptive titles for proposals -- that is, a title that asserts or implies the proposal does something it doesn't actually do.

On the one hand, deceptive titles is a common practice in real world (at least in the United States, ever hear of the "affordable care act" that caused everyone's rates to go through the roof once it was passed). And from one point of view it does fit into the real spirit of Nation States (I do miss all the "Think of the Children" and how all resolutions would "cure cancer" era of resolution debate) I also see that the "Lemmings" who just vote based on the title are being played here and that's not right. (It's damn fun, but not right.)

[Auralia]

Not really. Its a question of whether the resolution actually does in its text what the repeal claims it does based on a reading. We don't assess, say, scientific facts or policy effectiveness.

IA made an argument in his proposal (obviously the genesis of this proposed rule) that the policy he suggests will save lives in the aggregate. While that is not the traditional definition of Pro-Life, it can be described as being in favor of saving lives. Whether the policy does so or not isn't really something GenSec answers. A reasonable argument was made to that effect, and I don't see why that shouldn't go to the voters.

I can certainly understand GenSec's unwillingness to enforce the conventional meaning of the term "pro-life". On balance, that's probably too subjective to enforce.

But the other two issues I raised are precisely a question of whether -- to borrow your own words -- the resolution actually does in its text what the title claims it does.

"Promoting research on life in fetuses and embryos" is an awkward construction, but it clearly means supporting research having to do with the lives of fetuses and embryos; in other words, fetal development and embryology. It does not mean arbitrary medical research using materials derived from fetuses and embryos. The title is not "promoting research on life using fetuses and embryos".

Even if you think that's too subjective, it is absolutely clear that the proposal has absolutely nothing to do with fetuses, much less any sort of research related to them. They aren't mentioned once in the proposal.

[Christian Democrats]

And its repeal is the only resolution that, as conceded by the moderators, violates the Honest Mistake Rule. would have violated the old Honest Mistake Rule as well as the current Honest Mistake Rule, but did not violate the as-written Honest Mistake Rule that was in force for a very short time when the rules were last amended.

Fixed that for you. That was a painful time around here, for all of us, and I for one would rather not revisit that whole episode, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to correct you when you make a statement like that. Thankfully, you won't have to worry about Moderation making such awful decisions anymore. Moving on.

Technically incorrect. When the moderators upheld the repeal of SSS, they hadn't released the new rule yet. At the time, the "old Honest Mistake Rule" was still what was listed in the official GA Rules. The rule was amended after the decision.

We have, in this case, revisited the ruling that you have requested an appeal on, and our decision remains the same: "Repeal "Stopping Suicide Seeds"" does not contain an "Honest Mistake" violation.

This ties into a wider review on the Honest Mistake rule, which has been stretched from its original intent (to ensure that repeals contained arguments relevant to the resolution they wish to repeal) to encompass disagreements over interpretation. As is being announced separately (and imminently), the wording of the Honest Mistake rule is being changed to clarify this, along with a number of other rule changes.

[Wrapper]

Technically incorrect. When the moderators upheld the repeal of SSS, they hadn't released the new rule yet. At the time, the "old Honest Mistake Rule" was still what was listed in the official GA Rules. The rule was amended after the decision.

My sincere apologies, you are correct. The rules were amended a few days later. That said:

We have, in this case, revisited the ruling that you have requested an appeal on, and our decision remains the same: "Repeal "Stopping Suicide Seeds"" does not contain an "Honest Mistake" violation.

Looks like we were both wrong.

[Christian Democrats]

Technically incorrect. When the moderators upheld the repeal of SSS, they hadn't released the new rule yet. At the time, the "old Honest Mistake Rule" was still what was listed in the official GA Rules. The rule was amended after the decision.

My sincere apologies, you are correct. The rules were amended a few days later. That said:

We have, in this case, revisited the ruling that you have requested an appeal on, and our decision remains the same: "Repeal "Stopping Suicide Seeds"" does not contain an "Honest Mistake" violation.

Looks like we were both wrong.

I took Sedge's later apologies to be a concession that the rule was misapplied.

viewtopic.php?p=29777009#p29777009
viewtopic.php?p=29777172#p29777172

[Wrapper]

No, that was for us dragging our feet on the GHR and taking far too long to respond.

Needless to say, I’m more than happy that GenSec has worked out so far.

[Vespertania]

I'm not sure if that's going to fly with Max Barry, Auralia.

I do agree with your opinion - I think it would be more satisfying if a proposal of mine passed because of how well I wrote it. I dislike cheating and lying. I don't think Max Barry will agree though. I should mention I also respect your beliefs too, before you read on.

(playing devil's advocate) This is a political simulator, and if we're simulating real-life politics to some degree, it shouldn't be (a OOC surprise/a OOC problem?) to see nations engaged in 'dirty politicking' in the World Assembly.

I think this event is uncommon in NS, and you've taken personal offense, Auralia, because of your beliefs. Remember this is just a game. Take a break NS if it causes you any undue stress.

[Frisbeeteria]

I'm not sure if that's going to fly with max Barry, Auralia.

There will be no Deus Ex Machina response from Max Barry. He's entirely in favor of players (in this case, GenSec) making and enforcing their own rules. If the players want it, and it doesn't require changes to either game mechanics or game rules, it's fine.

[Vespertania]

There will be no Deus Ex Machina response from Max Barry. He's entirely in favor of players (in this case, GenSec) making and enforcing their own rules. If the players want it, and it doesn't require changes to either game mechanics or game rules, it's fine.

Cool.

[Araraukar]

"Promoting research on life in fetuses and embryos" is an awkward construction,

And that discussion should be in the proposal's own thread, since rules discussions need to be more general rather than getting stuck on single proposals.

I think this event is uncommon in NS, and you've taken personal offense, Auralia, because of your beliefs.

Also, ^this.

You weren't starting up this discussion when Ban On Secret Treaties was topical.

[Christian Democrats]

"Promoting research on life in fetuses and embryos" is an awkward construction,

And that discussion should be in the proposal's own thread, since rules discussions need to be more general rather than getting stuck on single proposals.

I think this event is uncommon in NS, and you've taken personal offense, Auralia, because of your beliefs.

Also, ^this.

You weren't starting up this discussion when Ban On Secret Treaties was topical.

We shouldn't act as if this is a new debate; it's been going on for years.

viewtopic.php?p=24682754#p24682754