NationStates Jolt Archive

There's been some discussion in the current voting thread about the nature of repeals, but it's come up before, and furthermore I didn't think we should hijack that thread. So, how do you vote on repeals? To what extent do you think the arguments presented do matter?

Bahgum does not like repeals, either the UN are clever and level-headed enough to vote in the right legislation when they first see it or......ummmm wait, that's not a good argument really is it?

Arguments are key. If I don't like a resolution, well and good. It's what the repeal itself says that most influences my vote. Particularly if a repeal makes a claim that goes directly against my views.

I'm also very edgy about the entire conept of repeal-and-replace. Yes, it can work wonders, but there always remains the possibility of something far worse getting in in the meantime.

I don't much mind the idea of re-opening cans of worms. At least you don't need to scratch your head to come up with new arguments.

I'm also very edgy about the entire conept of repeal-and-replace. Yes, it can work wonders, but there always remains the possibility of something far worse getting in in the meantime.
My view on repeal-replace is as follows:

What Reformentia did, fine. Whether one agrees with that particular campaign or not, it was fairly well organized. "contagious weaponry should be banned", "the existing resolution is inadequate" --> repeal, replace. Fine by me.

What I don't like is the following: the idea that repealers are morally obliged to replace every resolution they repeal. They can if they want, but they shouldn't have to (unless their repeal is built on an argument of replacement). There is nothing wrong with striking a resolution, and saying that's that.

What I don't like is the following: the idea that repealers are morally obliged to replace every resolution they repeal. They can if they want, but they shouldn't have to (unless their repeal is built on an argument of replacement). There is nothing wrong with striking a resolution, and saying that's that.

I concur. I also don't give a flying fork what the argument of a repeal is. It's the operative clause (i.e., "REPEALS Resolution X") that matters. If there's a shite resolution on the books, I'm all for striking it.

That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying the sponsor of a repeal should not be under an obligation to replace the repealed resolution. I do care what arguments are used in a repeal.

That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying the sponsor of a repeal should not be under an obligation to replace the repealed resolution. I do care what arguments are used in a repeal.

I know. I quoted the part of your post with which I agreed and was merely adding my own opinion beyond that. Sorry if that was unclear.

What I don't like is the following: the idea that repealers are morally obliged to replace every resolution they repeal. They can if they want, but they shouldn't have to (unless their repeal is built on an argument of replacement). There is nothing wrong with striking a resolution, and saying that's that.This statement pleases me much.

I voted for #2 above.

I could care less what's written in the repeal except for the teeth of it - removing the bill. If it's ok enough to reach queue and mods don't delete it, then the arguments are good enough to repeal if you want to get rid of the resolution it will strike.

Proposals that are not repeals are an entirely different matter. However, I would still look at what the teeth of the proposal was. If I agreed with the action and disagreed with an argument in it, I'd still vote for it. We're not always going to get what we want. The problem that I find the biggest is . . . not everyone thinks exactly like me :( :)

What I don't like is the following: the idea that repealers are morally obliged to replace every resolution they repeal. They can if they want, but they shouldn't have to (unless their repeal is built on an argument of replacement). There is nothing wrong with striking a resolution, and saying that's that.I would agree that a delegate responsible for a repeal is under no obligation to provide replacement.

However, in such a case I would be much happier if the primary argument for the repeal was not "the original is a shite resolution that does not do what it says it does". That line of argument implies that the subject of the original is supported by the repealer, and thus a replacement could reasonably be expected to follow. Granted, that would often only leave natsov as the prevailing argument (thus putting the repeal in jeopardy), but frankly far too often the various arguments for repeals are smokescreen for what is essentially a natsov goal.

I voted for the first two and the last one. The Resolution has be doing more harm than good in the Books for me to want it to be repealed, and the repeal has to be agreeable in order for me to vote for it.

OOC: The last one was because I say things of that sort all the time. "Let's go to the park!" "I'll park YOUR go!"

IC: I am not the RL character Machiavelli. Means have to be just as agreeable to me as the Ends.

"I usually base my vote on the original resolution, but make exception for some arguments."