NationStates Jolt Archive

The purpose of this thread is to have a congenial discussion of one of the key rules of proposal-writing: the concept of “duplication”.

First off, I'd like to establish a rule: while we may cite examples of past legality rulings by the mods, none of these examples are intended as a direct challenge to their authority, skill, or conduct as parliamentarians. So if I say, “I don't see how Clause 8 of the failed UCAA doesn't duplicate UNR #110”, that is not me saying, “The mods were fools for letting that through.” In fact, even if I say, “I don't think they called that one right,” that should not be taken as a slap in their faces - rather it's just a case of saying that what happened doesn't make sense to me.

(And by inference, I think everybody else's remarks should be read the same way.)

Why duplication and not contradiction? Two reasons: first, because in most cases of contradiction either: The author failed to see the previous piece of blocking legislation, or...


The author knows that there's a danger of that happening and is trying to work a loophole or cut a fine edge on things.Either way, it's less a problem of understanding than it is one of effort or legal interpretation.

Duplication is different; we seem to allow a lot more of it, and to the neophyte (or even the seasoned player) the do's and don't seem baffling. I suspect that this is because, in spite of the rules against duplication, we do in fact allow some overlap between resolutions - but then I could be wrong.

So I'll open the floor to (OOC) discussion. Remember, the idea here is to be collegial; we can disagree vehemently, but let's not get personal.____________________What does it mean to say that a proposal is illegal due to duplication? What are the limits of the problem, and (other than research into existing measures) what are some of the workarounds when you're addressing a subject that's close but not identical to one where we already have legislation?

It might be a good idea to discuss this question here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503526). Just a thought.

You know, you keep citing "Clause 8," but I don't remember UCAA even having one.

Duplication means your proposal does little more than restate the effects of legislation already in existence. UCAA went far beyond the mandates of UNSA, so it was legal. Also, it failed, so I don't see why you have to keep beating a dead horse.

I think you have a broken linky there, Tex. :)

And good morning to you all! ;)

I'm barely awake, but let me see if I understand what you are looking for, CP. Are you referring to similar or duplicate language in proposals, or simply the intent? As far as the discussion, I mean. I'm a newcomer, but if you are referring to both of the aforementioned, I suspect part of it is due to the same factors you cited in your initial post.

Probably moreso the fact that from what I've seen, some new proposal writers don't seem to even see what existing legislation is out there.

I think you have a broken linky there, Tex. :)

Indeed. A past thread merge seems to have changed the URL of the thread. I fixed it.

UCAA went far beyond the mandates of UNSA, so it was legal. Also, it failed, so I don't see why you have to keep beating a dead horse.Oh, I'm not - or that wasn't my intention, anyway. It's just that recent examples work better than ancient ones. We could use any example you please.

But - while we're on the example of the UCAA - while I don't doubt that the UCAA went way beyond the UNSA (and it really doesn't matter what the number of that last clause was) - your view raises a hugely interesting question that I wouldn't mind discussing. Let me see if I can state this in quasi-Boolean terms:Resolution A

Mandates A1


A2


A3Resolution B

Mandates B1


B2


A3The two resolutions are clearly different, and yet there's an overlap. That's what I want to explore: is the overlap duplication? If so, is it always, or are there times and ways that it wouldn't be?

Again, I'm not picking on the UCAA; it's just fresh in everyone's mind, and it appears to be duplication, even though (because it was ruled legal) we know that it's not.

Probably moreso the fact that from what I've seen, some new proposal writers don't seem to even see what existing legislation is out there.Undeniable! And the only cure for that is research. But there are many cases where you want to legislate on a subject that's close to another that's already on the books, and it's here that I think the risk of contradiction/duplication gets very real.

Let's take labor relations as an example (since we've also had recent votes in that area). You've got IWF regulating working hours and UNFWC regulating compensation. Let's say that you want to write something about pensions or time off (I believe Ellelt's been toiling in that area) or something similar. You're working around existing legislation, so the need for non-contradiction is obvious (and at least easy to envision, if not state [the memory of my failed IP resolution springs to mind on that last point]); but resolutions aren't supposed to duplicate each other, either, and it's that point I'd like to explore.Are you referring to similar or duplicate language in proposals, or simply the intent? As far as the discussion, I mean. I'm a newcomer, but if you are referring to both of the aforementioned, I suspect part of it is due to the same factors you cited below.Well, now, that really gets at the heart of the question: is it language, subject, intent, or what?

So back to basics: what is duplication?It might be a good idea to discuss this question here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503526). Just a thought.So should we graft this right onto that thread or wait until we've run a ways and then boil it down?

OOC: I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and try to address the question as I think you have presented it. Bear in mind that I at present do not have the time to give it the length of time it deserves - I have to go and sing the Messiah in two hours - so excuse the mess of the logic.

Your example as written seems to be clear duplication. But it's a bad example. Resolutions often have a hierarchy of clauses not just a linear list. The hierarchy isn't always obvious from the resolution format, but you can clearly see some clauses are dependent on other clauses.

Note this discussion is on the active clauses, defining clauses can clearly be duplicated and active clauses can be dependent on their defining clauses without any problems.

If a clause depends on any clause in a previous resolution it is a possible HOC violation and thus cannot be done. This is why the blocker is so effective, it cannot be modified and it cannot be directly used as a dependency.

If a clause duplicates any clause in a previous resolution it is a possible duplication violation and thus cannot be done. This would mean it would require two repeals to repeal the clause, repealing the previous resolution and repealing the new resolution.

If, on that third hand, it takes an active clause in a previous resolution and turns that clause into a defining clause in the current resolution, the whole question takes on a new meaning and I'm sure even the mods would have to look at it on a case by case basis. If the previous resolution, the foundation of the defining resolution may be effected, but not always. This it may be possible to take a resolution's action clause, use it as a defining clause and use that clause as a dependency in an action clause because the repeal of the original action clause may not cause the defining clause to collapse.

Did that make sense?

I agree that the need for multiple repeals is one of the strongest arguments against duplication, and for a very long time believed that this required writing around past resolutions; but in recent weeks more than one person has expressed the notion that overwriting another resolution is possible if you have a new take on the situation or extend the previous wording in some way (without relying on it directly).

Another example will suffice: in my deleted proposal, “Individual Privacy”, I took great care to write around the whole issue of electronic eavesdropping (or more to the point, the surveillance of conversations between individuals). The fact that I failed due to some unfortunate wording is not germane to the point I'm making, so we'll leave that aside for the moment.

I was told by more than one person that the effort to do this (i.e., write around conversational surveillance) was unnecessary, a statement that I find puzzling. Is it in fact possible to do this, or am I basically right about having to work around what has been passed before?

P.S. Odd coincidence. The University Musical Society sang the Messiah today at Hill Auditorium in Ann Arbor, MI (http://www.ums.org/messiah/), but it's sung all over the place this time of year. It's a fun event; hope you enjoyed it.

So back to basics: what is duplication?So should we graft this right onto that thread or wait until we've run a ways and then boil it down?

I don't really want to have yet another merge, so no. If somebody else wants to merge it and update the link and such, they can do so. But I won't be.

So back to basics: what is duplication?
Pardon me while I borrow a classic ...
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . but I know it when I see it . . . "
I can't speak for Hack and the other mods on this, but I'm very hesitant to delete a proposal on duplication alone unless it's blatant. There are only so many areas of potential legislation that can be expressed via one of our categories. Limiting that be being assholes about every single potential duplication clause reduces the fun in the game. This is also the problem with blocker legislation. I'm more likely to let a otherwise-decent proposal slip by on duplication violations than to enforce a blocker.

Our job is less about enforcing a strictly legal interpretation of the rules and more about keeping the game fun and interesting. Players who seek to reduce choices by closing off all avenues via blocker legislation and overly-aggressive mod rulings on duplication are (IMO) working against the purpose of the game.


(As for Texan Hotrodders' suggestion about moving to the Comments thread, I'm inclined to leave it here. All Duplication complaints are likely to be mod judgment calls, so there isn't really likely to be a rule change coming out of this discussion. Feel free to prove me wrong, of course.)

I'm largely mirroring Fris' views here. Minor overlap is usually okay. Of course, these vagueries are part of why we like people to have their Proposals vetted here before submission.

I don't see how much productive can come of this thread: things like this have to be judged based on the specific proposal in question, and trying to draw general rules is only going to lead to problems.

Then again, I'm the one bumping this bit of nauseous rules-lawyering, so I can't claim too much superiority.

Alright, let's talk hypothetical for a moment.

Let's say we have one passed resolution and in it, it says you can and can't do a bunch of things, but it says you can't do X. X is a minor event in the whole resolution and means nothing. The resolution in itself is about the environment.

Now, let's say I decide to make a proposal. It is about Standards and and it is related completely to X in the already passed resolution. At the time of the writing, it is unknown whether the resolution will be repealed at some time, so I decide to put X in word for word. Is this or is this not considered legal?

I have duplicated the clause and some people would say it is duplication. Other's would say that a resolution needs to be stand-a-lone and should be able to take a clause from another resolution.

Which side is right?

Note: This is a completely fictional event. I have only written repeals except for one which contradicts a marriage resolution. "I" is just easier to write.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/floghorse.jpg

I think that operative clause itself can make the difference between duplication and reiteration.


Resolution 1

1. Mandates ... (A1)

2. Mandates ... (A2)

3. Mandates ... (A3)


I think this is a duplication ...

Resolution 2

1. Mandates ... (B1)

2. Mandates ... (B2)

3. Mandates ... (A3)


I think this is not ...

Resolution 2

Recalling its resolution 1, which states ...


1. Reiterates ... (A3)

2. Mandates ... (B1)

3. Mandates ... (B2)


Many players / mods might consider this to be a house of cards violation, but I've never really agreed with the need for that rule. If the 1,000s of players in the UN want to revisit issues without repealing, I feel they should have the chance to do so.

I think the difference between the two resolution 2 outlines I've created is the first version is just duplicating something without acknolwedging it has been done before. The second version however it a weaker version of the original and bases its inclusion on the first (nations disagreeing with the original should probably vote no) ... if the first were repealed, the inclusion of this link would actually be a good reason to submit a repeal on this resolution. I'd even go as far as to say that the first clause is non-mandatory, since it reiterated the action of the first resolution ... it is "flavour" text.

The reason to include / duplicate something in any resolution is that with nearly 200 resolutions, few players have the time to research them all when reviewing new ones. By calling attention to a previous resolution, a proposal author can shorten the justification, skip some basics, and really dive into greater detail in the new resolution.

Alright, let's talk hypothetical for a moment.

Let's say we have one passed resolution and in it, it says you can and can't do a bunch of things, but it says you can't do X. X is a minor event in the whole resolution and means nothing. The resolution in itself is about the environment.

Now, let's say I decide to make a proposal. It is about Standards and and it is related completely to X in the already passed resolution. At the time of the writing, it is unknown whether the resolution will be repealed at some time, so I decide to put X in word for word. Is this or is this not considered legal?

I have duplicated the clause and some people would say it is duplication. Other's would say that a resolution needs to be stand-a-lone and should be able to take a clause from another resolution.

Which side is right?

Note: This is a completely fictional event. I have only written repeals except for one which contradicts a marriage resolution. "I" is just easier to write.Actually, this is exactly the sort of situation that prompted me to open this thread. And no, Cluich, this isn't equine necroflagellation - not when a fair number of people have the same basic question on their minds.

As for Fris' comment, there is certain an element of judgment in all these calls. We're never going to have a hard and fast rule; yet at the same time, to the extent that the rules are fluid and unspoken, it hurts new players who want to write proposals to not be able to sit down and write one without being reasonably sure if it's legal - and that can't be good for the game.

Actually, this is exactly the sort of situation that prompted me to open this thread. And no, Cluich, this isn't equine necroflagellation - not when a fair number of people have the same basic question on their minds.

As for Fris' comment, there is certain an element of judgment in all these calls. We're never going to have a hard and fast rule; yet at the same time, to the extent that the rules are fluid and unspoken, it hurts new players who want to write proposals to not be able to sit down and write one without being reasonably sure if it's legal - and that can't be good for the game.

They can always consult with those of us more familiar with the UN proposal rules. And that draws them into the community and gives them a valuable resource in their proposal-writing. That hardly seems detrimental to either the game or to new players who are looking to get involved in the UN process.

Actually, this is exactly the sort of situation that prompted me to open this thread. And no, Cluich, this isn't equine necroflagellation - not when a fair number of people have the same basic question on their minds.

As for Fris' comment, there is certain an element of judgment in all these calls. We're never going to have a hard and fast rule; yet at the same time, to the extent that the rules are fluid and unspoken, it hurts new players who want to write proposals to not be able to sit down and write one without being reasonably sure if it's legal - and that can't be good for the game.

Try reading Mik's post. That's the best explanation there can be.

They can always consult with those of us more familiar with the UN proposal rules. And that draws them into the community and gives them a valuable resource in their proposal-writing. That hardly seems detrimental to either the game or to new players who are looking to get involved in the UN process.Indeed, and this is welcome. But it's always less discouraging to be able to write a proposal that is mostly right than to present one that's wrong in major ways and then have to face criticism (not all of which, sadly, is constructive) for it.Try reading Mik's post. That's the best explanation there can be.I agree that Mik has offered a good explanation, but I'm not certain that further elaboration would be a waste of time.

In the ideal world (and yes this world is far from ideal) the basic quesiton for a HOC violation would be for a gven reslution X & Y where Y references resolution X if reslution X were to be repealed would Y suddenly have no legal leg to stand on.

I'm not really sure (which is I think this question is important) that duplication has been adequately defined in the clause level. I always thought the idea of duplication was you can't say the same thing only differently.

But I don't think either one of these ideas have really been defined and there will probably never be any desire to define these ideas. This may well be a dead horse but I occasionally like to think that making UN resolutions can be a logical process and not a case of guess the whim du jour of the moderator.

I agree that Mik has offered a good explanation, but I'm not certain that further elaboration would be a waste of time.

Good? That is the explanation. Yet you continue to engage in, as you put it, equine necroflagellation. :rolleyes:

They can always consult with those of us more familiar with the UN proposal rules. And that draws them into the community and gives them a valuable resource in their proposal-writing. That hardly seems detrimental to either the game or to new players who are looking to get involved in the UN process.

To add to this, the "Index of UN Resolutions" list on NSWiki is a great tool. There is a reason I've included it in my .sig. :)

While I think it is counter-productive to zap newbies for not having participated in these forums when drafting a proposal (and I've noticed that the UN mods have actually had a very light touch as of late ... something I've appreciated), those of us that do spend more time here can help in several ways:

1) Contribute to the NSWiki UN Resolution articles and let's work together to keep that index active and useful.

2) When you see proposals in the queue that are violating something because of a "duplication", instead of reporting the violation, just telegram the author and encourage him/her to swing by here for more help.

3) Let's the proposals that look like they'll fail HARD, fail HARD. The mods do this ... they don't delete some silly proposals that obviously aren't going to run the gambit. Sometimes they do, but sometimes they don't. This is essentially another way to say, "Don't make a mountain out of a molehill."

4) UN Debates ... when you see a newbie who's opinion or style you like, make a point to even do a "me too" post to encourage more posts from that individual! :)