NationStates Jolt Archive

Considering that I was of the same opinion, when someone mentioned to me in private that this issue is going to come up again, I thought it might be best to drag it out in the open and get it out of the way.

Obviously, we have very different opinions about the replacement question and about half of Akimonad's drafting thread has now been hijacked to the question. So let's sit down, chew each other out where no drafter (especially new drafter) is going to be the main casualty. With luck, we can discuss this civily, come to an understanding of what each other's position is, and then be able to have a reasonable single exchange on the matter in threads and the issue is done.

With reality, we can bitch the matter out for a few days and have vented enough that the next few proposers won't have to see such a massive hijack.

----------------------------

My thoughts:

There are three ways to word the point, each of which have different places:

1) Accuse the proposer for failure to provide a replacement. This belongs in cases where the proposal in question suggests that a replacement either should come along or will come along. Mind you, the statement "so that a suitable replacement can be made" isn't one of those cases. Now one of the proposals on the boards right now, IMO, indicates as such or deserves that treatment. There have, however, been proposals or otherwise in the past that don't have even 5 minute doodles but have promised the body a replacement.

2) Ask the proposer if they're going to have a replacement. This, I think, is worthwhile in any repeal thread - especially repeals that you support but want to see replaced. If the author says yes, you may wish to do the author the courtesy of giving him a wide birth to work with. If the answer is no, then you can go play with your own words. I honestly think it's a good question....so long as it isn't asked 5 times

3) State that you have not intention of supporting a repeal on that particular resolution without a replacement ready to go. This is for when you think the resolution could be improved, can envision improvements for it, but you don't see a direct, immediate risk serious enough that it needs an immediate repeal. Hell, some of the useless resolutions from the old era could easily fall under this category if you think that the intent of the resolution was good, the intent of the author is relatively clear, but it's so useless of a rag that there is no real enforcement - the intent is still followed by many nations who wish to follow the intent, so why not keep the intent on the books until something better comes along?

Within their explicit purposes, I think each of the 3 are fully valid if used correctly. Hounding on a person with a repeal you like and support for not having a replacement is ridiculous. However, I have yet to see that here.

On a related note, there's a few questions about whether we should post our opinions within threads or if they should be "help only". That's the only other attack that really could be made on Gobbannium's post in Akimonad's thread and St Edmund was just complaining about it this morning. If you guys want to discuss that as a side debate, feel free and I'll post my thoughts on it later.

An interesting submission; while we do not wholly agree with the sentiments expressed, we would support it as worthy of the consideration of most in this chamber. In particular, while we would not wish to denigrate an author for having no replacement under consideration, we would always consider that asking the question was fair game. If nothing else, the answers are always highly illuminating.

The third option is in many ways bound up with the question of opinions intruding into drafting comments. We would defend this as in fact being necessary information for the drafter. We in this chamber are not impartial beings; in fact every one of us is here precisely to be partial to our nations' policies and prejudices. We can strive to put these aside when we offer advice, but we will never entirely succeed. It is therefore appropriate for us to let our opinions be known so that the drafter can take some account of them, and improve their proposal in accordance with their biases. If we dislike a proposal, for example, our intention in suggestion changes in wording will be different from the case when we approve of it.

I'd opt for number #2, but also think it never hurts to force the issue by creating the replacement thread if you are really Gung-Ho about the replacement. It is when a draft is placed that I'd encourage players to try to work cooperatively to see which version you might work together on to get into the queue.

In general I'd encourage players whom have had a resolution or repeal to be adopted to give a shot to newbies *if* you feel that they will do the hard leg work to get the endorsements. In the process of taking a second seat, you may find a friend for life! :)

A politely (and singly) asked question with regard to intent to replace made to a repeal author is a valid question at any point in the process and warrants a polite answer. Instructive to both asker and asked, it can lead to a better written repeal, and in potentially more honest support for the repeal.. I doubt if anyone who regularly spends time here, thinks the repeal author is obligated to produce a replacement. That is certainly true in the exchange you reference.

As for the first scenario, to me the statement "so that a suitable replacement can be made" is suggestive of intent to replace on the part of the repeal's author...almost as much as "look y'all, I've got a replacement". However, without evidence of intent to hoodwink this Assembly, I would think an accusation would be too strong in any case.

There's a few questions about whether we should post our opinions within threads or if they should be "help only".

Opinions (I'm assuming you mean of support or opposition to the repeal) can be "help" as long as they're not just "you/this suck/s" or "no". An opinion that says, "the only way I could support this is if it is repeal & replace" helps gauge ultimate support. I wonder about the requests for help that I've seen now and again. For me, someone saying "your argument is ignoring X factor and could be strengthened by addressing that" is helpful. I get the impression however, that "help" is frequently being used to mean, "give me some lines I can put in my argument". I guess it's the old teacher in me that cringes at the latter.

3) State that you have not intention of supporting a repeal on that particular resolution without a replacement ready to go. This is for when you think the resolution could be improved, can envision improvements for it, but you don't see a direct, immediate risk serious enough that it needs an immediate repeal.

There's a simple three-word respose to that argument: Write it your fucking self, you lazy bastard.

Sorry, that's more than three words. I got carried away. In three words, write it yourself. If you see the flaws in it and agree with the argument presented in the repeal, vote for the repeal. It's that simple. Then, if you feel so strongly that the resolution needs to be replaced, write the damned replacement. It's that simple.

Of course, it's not simple enough, I suppose, for the lazy arses who can't be bothered to actually do anything productive around here, apart from bitching and moaning about repeals. And that's oh-so-productive... :rolleyes:

I am of two minds on this matter. I think we can divide the problem into two types of questions: discussions by reasonable people and arguments of the moronically insane.

As for the former, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask, “Do you have a replacement?” And I think it is perfectly reasonable to reply, “No.” I think if the answer is yes it might be reasonable to ask if this was hashed out by a group, or on an offsite forum. There are many other questions I could reasonably ask but they tend to get flooded out by the arguments of the moronically insane.

There are, after all, two reasons to write repeal; because the old resolution is bad and because a better resolution is waiting to be considered. These reasons are not mutually exclusive. There are some resolutions where the old resolution needs to be repealed ASAP, and the new resolution can be placed eventually. There are some resolutions where the gap between repeal and replacement is critical. There are some resolutions that should simply be repealed.

The problem is people who use the question of replacements for repeals as either a red herring or as a sabot thrown into the works of the voting for the repeal. I have seen the following situations arise in the course of repeal debates.

“I have a replacement; here it is (but there is no way in hell I’m ever going to submit it and if you try submitting it I’ll get the mods to ban you to where the sun doesn’t shine).” This is outright deceit at a level to make Machiavelli proud.

On the other hand you have the opposite situation, “I have no real argument against this repeal but show me the replacement. The perfect is the enemy of the good and I know no ones resolution is perfect so I can tear down the replacement instead of attacking the repeal itself.”

Because both types of argument can be used, it is often assumed that everyone is using them even when they seriously want reasonable discussion on the matter. Sure X is bad, but can you really write something better? Unfortunately, given the general state of affairs in the UN and the vile tactics people often employ to get both repeals and resolutions passed by any means they can get away with. Reasonable discussion will never happen. It’s sad really, but it’s NationStates!

There's a simple three-word respose to that argument: Write it your fucking self, you lazy bastard.

Sorry, that's more than three words. I got carried away. In three words, write it yourself. If you see the flaws in it and agree with the argument presented in the repeal, vote for the repeal. It's that simple. Then, if you feel so strongly that the resolution needs to be replaced, write the damned replacement. It's that simple.

You see, it is a mistake in logic to assume that such scenarios mean that you actually support the repeal. In fact, the very concept is that you DON'T support the repeal. However, there are many here who subscribe to a higher purpose of effect of legislation and, quite frankly, might support a repeal they would otherwise oppose if there is a good replacement sitting on the sidelines. Why? Because the replacement has a campaign ready to go, and it's better than the original. Our more recent resolutions such as, say, SPA, I don't think any of us would DREAM of repealing unless, of course, someone brings forth a proposal that does something we hadn't thought of before and requires the repeal of SPA or if a problem crops up. Do I know what that improvement is? No.

There's other reasons to desire a repeal. How about we go back to UNR #113, which passed under a hail of opposition. Within a few months, Sheknu comes around, creates a decent Chemical Weapons proposal, gets it to quarom and withdraws it. Several other attempts in and around that time to get Chemical Weapons drafts through fail miserably. Now, having worked on UNR #113 and having spent a lot of time debating with DLE and Reformentia over it, I'm well aware of many of the failings of UNR #113. However, I know nothing about bio-weapons, I know even less about how to regulate WMDs and having seen the failings of the attempts to replace the Chemical Weapons ban and having seen DLE turn Reformentia into a pretzel over his own attempt at bio-weapons, I think it would be fair to say that it would actually be a step backwards rather than forwards to attempt my own replacement of UNR #113 - even if someone came up with a repeal to it that pointed out all the known flaws. Indeed, the first thing I asked Paradica when the repeal came to vote was whether a replacement was in the works and that DID decide my vote. I felt UNR #113 was sufficient, I knew that it had room for improvement, I did not know how to make that improvement, so I let that decide my vote.

Of course, it's not simple enough, I suppose, for the lazy arses who can't be bothered to actually do anything productive around here, apart from bitching and moaning about repeals. And that's oh-so-productive... :rolleyes:

This is a place to try and bring understanding and, hopefully, alleviate some of the animosity. You have a problem with the way people operate, fine. Call them out and say it. You want to snipe, to jibe, to flame, whatever, leave the thread alone. Let's try for a candid, civil discussion.

Calling it like it is, FL.

It might surprise you, Cluich, but I agree with most of your reasoning.

However as to doing something more productive than speaking your mind is a tricky thing. Some folks just don't have the time to write resolutions and engage in long term TG campaigns to get the final product to quorum. Does this invalidate their opinions? No.

While I appreciate the fact there are people here dedicated enough to take the time to write resolutions and herd them through the process, I think the nature of the process removes or makes it very difficult on the person who wants to write one good resolution and see if it makes it on it's own merits.

It further frustrates the process of having a civil discussion when a person who thinks that they are being reasonable, gets called names and is immediately relegated to the category of threadjacker. Passions run high here, but that is no excuse for some of the language I see used and occasionally use myself (much to my shame).

As for myself, I have tried to contribute something to the process. I don't hold a candle to some of the things you folks contribute, but I try in my own small way to be useful and make people think.

Most of the time, it quite simply fails. <shrug>

At any rate I grow weary of the fights, namecalling and the dragging up of one time warnings.

It is time for my participation in this personal experiment to come to a close.

I wish you all well, and I do hope that you resolve all of this to some degree of satisfaction. I just don't have the inclination to be here anymore.

Calling it like it is, FL.

You're trying to sling mud in a thread where I said my hope was for civility. I could spend my time defending my record, but I'd rather not distract this thread from the question of "What is and isn't acceptable?" Right now, we seem to fight every time the word replacement is whispered in a repeal thread and then threadjack to the point that we need to cut our debate short.

Well, the rule of course is that repeal authors are under no obligation to post a replacement. So if players are still allowed to harass repeal authors and hijack their draft/discussion threads, it really makes you wonder what the bloody point to the mod ruling (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12050778&postcount=177) even was.

Well, the rule of course is that repeal authors are under no obligation to post a replacement. So if players are still allowed to harass repeal authors and hijack their draft/discussion threads, it really makes you wonder what the bloody point to the mod ruling (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12050778&postcount=177) even was.

I've got to ask: do you have any other instances where Mods stepped in. I know Hack tried to stop it on the UNR #10 repeal thread, but that was the second time it was hijacked, it was well after half of the thread had been discussing the matter, and yet neither Fris nor Hack stepped in to stop the debate or correct any of the assumptions or claims that were made by Rubina, Gobbannium, or myself. It wasn't the first time I'd seen a few comments by regulars about replacements on threads and yet none of those got responded to either

Furthermore, with exception to Point 1 where the repeal author has effectively suggested he would commit to the replacement, not one of these instances am I suggesting means harassing the author on the issue of a replacement. Indeed, #2 is a polite question (and I even said that one of the reasons for it might be just plain out of courtesy) and #3 is a statement of position no worse than many responses we see on these boards.

BTW: If you would be so kind as to dig up the other threads that Schwarzchild hijacked when Fris took exception, I might be able to place context to it. However, from my understanding of how the mods use the term hijack, from my understanding of what a hijack is, I don't believe I'm advocating a hijack.

The mods have rarely regulated our debate unless there is an issue that violates the explicit rules set. Perhaps this was an exception, but I have a hard time believing that this was Fris's intent, especially since the ruling was made in the "Comments on UN Rules" thread, the comment came after a discussion about amendments, that looks like it was broken off of a different thread and tossed in there.

Furthermore, from my reading of the ruling, it merely states that we can't hold the author's feet to the sand about not writing a replacement when the author has made no such commitment. There is no implicit commitment that exists or is or should be enforced on repeal authors to have a replacement. Rulings don't have to have wide-sweeping effects to be rulings, nor do they have to say "this side is right, this side is wrong". In this case, I think it was meant to attack a single thread of concern and discussion and I think it was explicitly targeted at Schwarzchild because of his particular approach.

Perhaps I'm wrong and perhaps the mods can clear the matter up when they see this thread. In the meantime, I think we can still actually discuss the manner and let our personal opinions be known so we understand why we think what we think.

I wasn't addressing Schwarzchild or anyone else in particular: I'm just adding my own thoughts on the discussion: What is the point to a mod ruling declaring repeal authors don't have to post replacements if players can still harass them about it?

I wasn't addressing Schwarzchild or anyone else in particular: I'm just adding my own thoughts on the discussion: What is the point to a mod ruling declaring repeal authors don't have to post replacements if players can still harass them about it?

Where is anyone advocating harassment?

The incident with Gobbannium wasn't harassment, it was a single post and yet people jumped on him. At no point did anyone hound Akimonad about not having a replacement, just discussed the validity of Gobbannium's statement. So every time I hear someone complain about harassment on this issue, I'm curious because I see no harassment yet the people that seem most frustrated with the issue are complaining about harassment.

I never specified Aki's thread; I'm speaking in general. I was harassed plenty about replacement when I proposed Repeal MRoB, though the question still irritates me. Demanding to know if a replacement is forthcoming really doesn't help matters when authors are trying to seek input for a repeal draft. If authors want to base their repeal efforts on a replacement, let them, but I don't see why repeal authors have to be hounded for a replacement if they don't mention one.

I've got to ask: do you have any other instances where Mods stepped in.

My standard is that I don't make Official Rulings until or unless it's becoming a problem. At the time of my post, there was a regular procession of such demands. One poster, since defunct (I think), had it so bad that we had to forumban him. He'd taken the IC position that the author was obligated to provide a replacement, and threatened to spam every UN thread (or create new threads, the details evade me) until one was posted. Once he made good on his threat, he was banned.

Now that the ruling is in place, I'm content to stand back and let you lot self-police. For the most part, you do a pretty good job of it, so there's no need for us to step in and reinforce the point.

the ruling was made in the "Comments on UN Rules" thread, the comment came after a discussion about amendments, that looks like it was broken off of a different thread and tossed in there.
No, just stream-of-consciousness on the part of several players, myself included. If you surf back to December 2006, you can probably find multiple examples.

Let me add an Option 4 to the OP:

While the author's name is on the Repeal, the repeal itself was advanced onto the voting floor by at least 6% of the approving Delegates, and voted into existence by a majority of voting members. To me, that says that the UN General Assembly has committed to the text of the proposal, and the onus need not be on the repeal author at all.

I don't see any need or circumstance that makes the repeal author the ideal and only choice for a replacement author. You can do the legislation work as a committee. Y'all are the UN. That's your job.

.

My standard is that I don't make Official Rulings until or unless it's becoming a problem. At the time of my post, there was a regular procession of such demands. One poster, since defunct (I think), had it so bad that we had to forumban him. He'd taken the IC position that the author was obligated to provide a replacement, and threatened to spam every UN thread (or create new threads, the details evade me) until one was posted. Once he made good on his threat, he was banned.

Wow, that explains a lot. Thanks for the context info.

Now that the ruling is in place, I'm content to stand back and let you lot self-police. For the most part, you do a pretty good job of it, so there's no need for us to step in and reinforce the point.

Excellent

Let me add an Option 4 to the OP:

While the author's name is on the Repeal, the repeal itself was advanced onto the voting floor by at least 6% of the approving Delegates, and voted into existence by a majority of voting members. To me, that says that the UN General Assembly has committed to the text of the proposal, and the onus need not be on the repeal author it all.

I don't see any need or circumstance that makes the repeal author the ideal and only choice for a replacement author. You can do the legislation work as a committee. Y'all are the UN. That's your job.

Alright, within the context of the 3 earlier examples:

#1: The concern is that the repeal author is making underhanded tactics. Indeed, I don't think 1 really has anything to do with there actually being a replacement, but rather legislative tactics to get a proposal passed. We talk about contradictions in wording, contradictions in intent, purpose of proposals, side-effects, etc, etc, etc so pretending to have a replacement lying around or claiming you will have one without really any truth to the statement to get votes just strikes me as another one of those and I think such a thing is worth bringing up. I don't think anything we've seen recently NOR do I think this is a common example, but there have been incidents, historically, where such cases have happened.

#2: Personally, if someone I know has a replacement lined up to a repeal and I support the overall attempt of what they're trying to do, I'd like to give them a wide birth rather than stepping on their toes. Like I said, it's courtesy. Does it mean that I couldn't do a better job....perhaps not, (Well....actually no because I'm in no condition for an actual campaign, but I don't think I've ever asked the question anyways so....whatever) but I would like to give them the opportunity to have that shot and do it their way.

#3: I suppose if it's incorrectly interpreted, it could easily be associated with the old issues. Nor, necessarily, does it have to be done by the same author as we saw with the actual R&R attempt on UNR #113.

That doesn't make the position of "I only want to repeal this resolution if a better replacement is ready to go for it" an invalid position. If nothing else, there have been historical cases where such a position was a core concern within the UN because a good blocker could get through without major difficulty. We wouldn't mind seeing a better resolution on the topic, but if it came down to the possibility a blocker will beat us there vs keeping the old, semi-good resolution, there are many of us that would vote to keep the semi-good resolution. Incidents like ALC and ELC (both of which beat their considerably less NatSov friendly counterparts to quarom - the latter, of course, being deleted for doing nothing) do weigh into the minds of voters and they do remember incidents like that as what could happen if we just delete old resolutions because their poor quality. Mind you, both those cases had actual replacements in the works and I've certainly heard the argument that ALC (at least) existed because Clinical Abortion Rights existed, but we know that ALC was drafted in a minute amount of time compared to CAR and we know that if we had attempted our own replacement after Abortion Rights was repealed instead of prior to, ALC could easily squeeze in before we had even gotten as far as we did with CAR.

Yes, I know, someone is going to get annoyed that I'm talking about ALC again, but do you see my point?

It isn't even somewhat as simple as "Do I think the original needs to go: y/n" and I don't think that claiming that is, necessarily, fair. Therefore, the position that would push someone to case #3 is a valid scenario.

So then we have to step back and ask why #3 would have to ask about a replacement. They don't. They don't even have to pipe up. However, that is why I added the little extra question to the bottom that Rubina touched upon briefly: we state our position and our reason for our position all the time - even in drafting threads. Unless we want to completely remove ourselves from doing such and losing the ability to get morally outraged when someone brings a proposal up that legalizes Pediophilia, #3 is valid to bring up because it is yet another position, another personal manner of approaching the UN.

Yes, I know, someone is going to get annoyed that I'm talking about ALC again, but do you see my point?

Yes, I do see your point. You've still got your knickers in a wad over that one and can't get over it.

quorum -- the required threshold for a motion to advance to another activity.
Quarom - the brother of Ferengi's Quark and Rom, QuaRom; or a men's perfume. But quarom is NOT a word, it is a proper noun -- a bad one at that.

http://www.startrek.com/imageuploads/200303/ds9-480-nog--quark-and-rom-are/320x240.jpg

For Serious. Don't believe me, look it up. I've been watching the abuse of that word for well over a year. Please stop the torture!

Sorry if this has been said already. It doesn't take a giant mental leap to realize that if Repeal "X" says 'the UN shouldn't do x', there's not going to be a replacement, and if it says 'the UN should be x better', there should be. Quite where the idea that every repeal necessitated a replacement came from, I don't know, but it's abominably stupid.

I appreciate that given I myself am drafting a replacement, I could be accused of hypocrisy. But that's really my point: "End Slavery" does need replacing, "Legalise Slavery" wouldn't.

Yes, I do see your point. You've still got your knickers in a wad over that one and can't get over it.

Nope, you've missed my point completely.

Sorry if this has been said already. It doesn't take a giant mental leap to realize that if Repeal "X" says 'the UN shouldn't do x', there's not going to be a replacement, and if it says 'the UN should be x better', there should be. Quite where the idea that every repeal necessitated a replacement came from, I don't know, but it's abominably stupid.
Clearly, not every repeal requires a replacement; the utter lack of enthusiasm for replacing the Axis of Evil resolution demonstrates that consensus can be reached on that subject. On the other hand, we believe Ambassador Madison's logic is slightly questionable.

We would suggest that it is more often the case that repeals say neither that X shouldn't be done nor that X should be done better, but that the resolution doesn't do X well. Under such circumstances, asking about a potential replacement does clarify which of the two camps the author falls into, which with all due respect to Mr Flibble's prior arguments can reasonably be important to a delegate's decision to support or not. A nation is perfectly at liberty to decide, after all, that doing X poorly is preferable to not doing X at all, especially when one has neither the time nor the energy to put forward a replacement oneself.

Nope, you've missed my point completely.

That, I believe, is intitutively obvious to even a casual observer.

Emotional scars, even though old, blind many people even to this day.

Mik, you just reminded me of why I'm so glad I'm not a mod. Visual spam not against a person't argument but against a typographical error? You deserve a yellow card for that foul. (Actually I'd really enjoy throwing a red card but even I'm not that evil.)

I don't think that was Madison talking.....

We would suggest that it is more often the case that repeals say neither that X shouldn't be done nor that X should be done better, but that the resolution doesn't do X well. Under such circumstances, asking about a potential replacement does clarify which of the two camps the author falls into, which with all due respect to Mr Flibble's prior arguments can reasonably be important to a delegate's decision to support or not. A nation is perfectly at liberty to decide, after all, that doing X poorly is preferable to not doing X at all, especially when one has neither the time nor the energy to put forward a replacement oneself.
But it's unlikely the repeal would pass by simply saying 'it doesn't do x well': some degree of explanation is required. It doesn't do x well because it is vague and allows nations to easily circumvent the requirements --> more comprehensive replacement needed. It doesn't do x well because it oversteps the UN mandate and turns a good idea into an unworkable one --> no replacement needed.

This originated in the thread about Repeal "Stop privacy intrusion". Almost all of the clauses in that repeal argued that the resolution allowed for intrusions of privacy because it did not provide adequate protection. So, obviously, a replacement would be the next logical step. But Repeal "Mutual Recognition of Borders" argued that it wasn't in the UN's interests to interfere in solely bilateral matters. So, obviously, a replacement wouldn't be a logical follow-up.

My point is: why not judge proposals on their texts rather than their titles (if that)? (And I note the time that people - yes, including me - have spent on this topic could have been used in drafting five separate proposals by now.)

I just have a question for all of you: do you think that if a well done replacement that you fully supported to a resolution existed and possibly you even had a hand in helping draft - do you think you'd be willing to take a repeal who's arguments you might not agree with but its conclusion you do agree with just so you can get the replacement through? I'm talking about the scenarios where the replacement came first - such as Quod's Slavery Ban or Kiv's Bio-weapons resolution.

I suppose while I'm at it, if there's a resolution who you didn't feel quite did the job but did it fairly well, would you support a repeal on it?

(And I note the time that people - yes, including me - have spent on this topic could have been used in drafting five separate proposals by now.)

(And I note that the time I've spent on other things could have been used to write the entire legal system for most of the active nations here. Instead, I wrote one ... and that one was all I thought we needed. Quantity isn't necessarily a laudable goal.)

I suppose while I'm at it, if there's a resolution who you didn't feel quite did the job but did it fairly well, would you support a repeal on it?

It depends. If it's a good proposal with one noticeable and reasonbly important omission, yes, but if it's a collection of very small issues in an otherwise good resolution, probably not.

That's a difficult question to answer firmly yes or no, it would depend entirley on the specifics of the resolution, repeal, and replacement.

But it's unlikely the repeal would pass by simply saying 'it doesn't do x well':
Recent history would appear to bear out that statement :-)

My point is: why not judge proposals on their texts rather than their titles (if that)?
Our point is that there are meta-texts that are as important as the text. The text should not be ignored by any means, but the side-lights cast on it by other issues such as the existence or not of a replacement (by anyone, not just the repeal author) do affect the primary text. History, for instance, is something we ignore at our peril.

I just have a question for all of you: do you think that if a well done replacement that you fully supported to a resolution existed and possibly you even had a hand in helping draft - do you think you'd be willing to take a repeal who's arguments you might not agree with but its conclusion you do agree with just so you can get the replacement through? I'm talking about the scenarios where the replacement came first - such as Quod's Slavery Ban or Kiv's Bio-weapons resolution.
We would have trouble doing that. One of the features of the way the UN operates which is either very important or very unfortunate depending on one's mood of the moment is that successful repeal arguments stay on the books forever. They may have no force on anything once passed, but they remain with a certain weight of history as the opinion of the UN at that moment in time. Putting our seal of approval on arguments that we disagree with, and which may run counter to the replacement we support -- lying through our teeth, in other words -- and having those arguments remain unchallengably public is something we would have great difficulty in reconciling with ethical governance.

I suppose while I'm at it, if there's a resolution who you didn't feel quite did the job but did it fairly well, would you support a repeal on it?
This would definitely be one of those occasions when the pre-existence of a superior replacement would influence our voting. A repeal without replacement under those circumstances would be worse than the imperfect resolution.

Mik, you just reminded me of why I'm so glad I'm not a mod. Visual spam not against a person't argument but against a typographical error? You deserve a yellow card for that foul. (Actually I'd really enjoy throwing a red card but even I'm not that evil.)

Yes, it is a good thing.
Typographical errors != grammatical errors. :p

I'm just wondering when we will next spot a Ferengi.

I just have a question for all of you: do you think that if a well done replacement that you fully supported to a resolution existed and possibly you even had a hand in helping draft - do you think you'd be willing to take a repeal who's arguments you might not agree with but its conclusion you do agree with just so you can get the replacement through? I'm talking about the scenarios where the replacement came first - such as Quod's Slavery Ban or Kiv's Bio-weapons resolution.

I suppose while I'm at it, if there's a resolution who you didn't feel quite did the job but did it fairly well, would you support a repeal on it?

My answer to your second question is that I would tend to not support a repeal of a resolution that wasn't perfect in my opinion, because I believe repeals are easier to gather support for (and write) than resolutions. This is just my general opinion, but not a steadfast rule with me.

Your first question is interesting too, but weighed by my first reply. In general if I had a replacement, but a repeal was on the floor and I did not agree with the arguments -- despite the fact that the repeal would clear the way for a replacement I liked, I'd very likely abstain or oppose the repeal.

In general, I'll vote for resolutions (even blockers), but against repeals. I'm not sure how many forum regulars here share my next opinion, but I actually believe that many players that represent "centrist" or "moderate" nations (either via their own opinions or RPed), probably fall into a similar pattern. I could be wrong here, but when I've read debates, there seems to be a bit more disapproval of repeals.

My advice to repeal authors would be to tone down your arguments. While it is true that resolutions include opinion based preambles, repeals seem much more opinionated in part because they are attempting to reserve an opinion that was proven to have some measurable (50%+1) popular support.

(And I note the time that people - yes, including me - have spent on this topic could have been used in drafting five separate proposals by now.)Ah, but it's not the drafting that's the rub. Not to diminish in any way the difficulty of drafting, whether repeal, replacement, or original, but the arduous task of getting a proposal to quorum and then passed is significant. That process, and its likelihood of success, has to be weighed against just keeping the original proposal. Where things are not black and white, and in the realm of law and policy there are many grays, the pragmatic parries with the purist.

I just have a question for all of you... For some of the same reasons Gobbannium mentioned, I would not be able to support a repeal when the argument for it is any way abhorrent. If I find the argument unimpressive but ethically neutral, I would be willing to be pragmatic and adopt the repeal in order to make way for the replacement.

As for the second part, almost certainly not. Repealing a "fair to middling" resolution, when not part of a repeal/replace action, opens the door to far worse legislation. Better to let it do its job best it can, while a thoughtful drafting process occurs.

--L.T.

Bump

OOC:

I just have a question for all of you: do you think that if a well done replacement that you fully supported to a resolution existed and possibly you even had a hand in helping draft - do you think you'd be willing to take a repeal who's arguments you might not agree with but its conclusion you do agree with just so you can get the replacement through? I'm talking about the scenarios where the replacement came first - such as Quod's Slavery Ban or Kiv's Bio-weapons resolution.

That depends. Taking your scenario, and adding that, not only is a better replacement in draft, but also I believe it stands a good chance of passage, I'd certainly be less demanding of the quality of the replacement. If I thought some of the arguments were shaky, I'd likely vote for the repeal. But, if I find the repeal to be truly bad legislation, no way. My prime example is a recent failed attempt at a repeal of "Right to Form Unions". I have real heartburn with one provision of the resolution. There was an effort underway to draft a replacement for submission if the repeal succeeded, and it was a solid, thoughtful effort, supported by some respected members. I believe it had a good chance of passage. But the repeal was a travesty. It misrepresented a key provision of the resolution and included patently spurious arguments. To me, a repeal is a resolution, just like any other. If it passes, it enters the record as reflecting the majority view of the NSUN. I won't go on record as supporting garbage, no matter how laudable the effect. Doing so just encourages the production of more trash.

I suppose while I'm at it, if there's a resolution who you didn't feel quite did the job but did it fairly well, would you support a repeal on it?

That's something I really couldn't give a general response to. It's too much a case-by-case, judgment call. It would depend on how much of an improvement the proposed replacement was over the original, and what my assessment was of the probability of its passage.

I never specified Aki's thread; I'm speaking in general. I was harassed plenty about replacement when I proposed Repeal MRoB, though the question still irritates me. Demanding to know if a replacement is forthcoming really doesn't help matters when authors are trying to seek input for a repeal draft. If authors want to base their repeal efforts on a replacement, let them, but I don't see why repeal authors have to be hounded for a replacement if they don't mention one.

Alright...I was pointed into checking out the thread in question (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519174) and looking into whether there was harassment on the issue. Thus far, I'm having a hard time figuring out why you use the word "Harass"

Only two people brought up the issue of replacement in your drafting thread. Gobbannium:

Bearing in mind who the proposer of this repeal is, we find it necessary to ask whether the honoured representative has any replacement legislation in mind. If so, could the current state of thought on that project be shared with us, for all that it may be an incomplete work at this stage.

He later qualified his statement as merely asking if there was one. This might be unnecessary as was suggested by Quod, but the thread of conversation died quickly. The second was Schwarzchild:

*snip*

If the good nation of Ohmygodtheykilledkenny was interested in a resolution with enforcement language then I might be impressed with this repeal measure. But as the author of a repeal resolution is under no obligation to follow up with a resolution addressing the alleged problems, I am content to not support this repeal until such time as someone is willing to take BOTH steps.

I note that this was the third post by Schwarzchild and it was the first time he had hinted at a replacement. Both of his previous posts had indicated that he supported the spirit of the original resolution and was not content in a repeal. For me, this was merely an extension of his previous argument that you guys had dragged him into and the next 4 exchanges which were focused on complaining about how he should make his own replacement were completely off-focus from what he was trying to say. Indeed, if anyone was being harassed here, it was Schwarzchild. While I understand the frustration of the replacement question, I don't think this is an instance where you can go crying to the ruling and I think painting Schwarzchild as the guilty party in this case would be extraordinarily unfair.

As we move onto the voting thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=523582), as you can imagine, the cast became quite varied. First up was SilentScope001 who said that a replacement should be written, and as we all know, he did, indeed, go write one. Enough said on the matter

The second incident came from Rubina who incorrectly interpreted Kivisto's comment to suggest a repeal

We want it out of the way because it is useless waste of bureaucracy that impedes proper legislation in this area.

Oskar Feldstein
UN Ambassador for Kivisto
Rinsing The Master's thingies

So, Ambassador Feldstein, are we to assume there is actually "proper legislation" on this topic in the pipeline? Or is this just another bait-and-switch move?

One would think you would learn to use the 'future legislation' argument for repeal only when there actually is future legislation in the offing.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador
Rubina

In this case, I think Rubina got a bit ahead of herself and assumed that saying that it impedes proper legislation on the matter means that a repeal is forthcoming. I think it's important that we visit the context of Kiv's post where he's attacking someone who opposed the repeal on the grounds that it did do something or the repeal was a waste of time and blah blah blah. The entire thread of the debate had been ongoing and just as with Schwarzchild's previous little dive into the question of replacement, Kiv similarly was saying "hey, this proposal doesn't do anything except remove the ability to write a proposal that does do anything on this matter" - just much less eloquently. I understand that there's some history behind the "bait-and-switch" comment, but in this case, Rubina was the one who went over the top.

That said, it probably would've been valid for Rubina to ask if Kiv knew something about a theoretical replacement. His statement does suggest that a replacement was forthcoming. The attack was unnecessary. Indeed, Kiv acknowledged such an interpretation about a page later.

This debate continues on for over a page and I don't really care to read a lot of it - heck, I didn't care to read a lot of it the first time around.

Post 68, I finally said the R word (4th post) in response to Altanar

Do you have a suggestion or do you just wish to stand there and say "this isn't good enough"? If the latter, isn't SOMETHING better than nothing? Until I see a viable idea for replacement, I don't buy this argument.

BTW - before someone claims otherwise, you yourself admitted it was not nothing. Almost nothing is still something.

Again, I'm saying there is value in the original resolution, and unless I see a concept to make the original better, I want to keep the original. Indeed, my entire statement didn't even refer to the repeal or the opinions of the author or proposal.

On top of these points, there were 3 newbies that mentioned replacements. I also made a comment about how I would have liked to have seen the repeal fail so that a proper "repeal and replace campaign" could take place on very different arguments - something that I don't think would really qualify for asking you the repeal author to provide a replacement. Outside of the battles cited, there weren't other debates about potential replacements.

All in all, we have 6 incidents covering 6 individuals not including the newbies. The incidents that went on extensively were more about their participants than Kenny, the positions, the history, etc, etc, etc. Indeed, only ONE of these incidents actually asked Kenny directly whether he had a replacement, one reacted to a statement by Kiv that suggested there might be one, 3 indications of no support unless it was a repeal replace campaign - all of which noted how they fully support the original resolution - and one which was merely a comment about how a replacement for the resolution would be good and the person in question did write a replacement.

I have to ask: what harassment are you speaking of Kenny?

There's a lot to address about conduct on both sides of these debates and there were several overreactions in the process. I'm looking to minimize these overreactions so I think it is worth looking at these threads and recognizing where we misread and where we didn't.

I just have a question for all of you: do you think that if a well done replacement that you fully supported to a resolution existed and possibly you even had a hand in helping draft - do you think you'd be willing to take a repeal who's arguments you might not agree with but its conclusion you do agree with just so you can get the replacement through? I'm talking about the scenarios where the replacement came first - such as Quod's Slavery Ban or Kiv's Bio-weapons resolution.

There was a time when I would have said that I would support the repeal of a resolution I wanted removed regardless of the arguments; that it was the end that was important, and not the means to get there. There came a discussion at some point, for the life of me I don't remember when where or why, where it was pointed out that repeals cannot be repealed, that they stay on the books in perpetuity, and that those arguments would remain for future generations of legislators to see. That bothered me. The idea that there would be those looking back on what arguments we had accepted to remove legislation and wonder what the hell we were thinking. I started being a little more cautious about what repeals I would support and what arguments are used in them.

I still grant repeals a little more argumentative leniency than I grant resolutions in that the only operative clause is the "Hereby repeals" or whatever, but there are limits. For example, had there been a repeal of the Bio-Weapon Ban that looked very much like Karmi's but included some argument about how the original reso should have banned chemical weapons as well, I might have let that passed. I wouldn't entirely agree with it, but it's not a huge enough issue to warrant my opposition. If, on the other hand, that same repeal included some argument about how the original reso made nations sacrifice puppies to Christ for penance, I would most likely vigourously oppose that repeal for its flagrant falsities.

I might be more lenient with a repeal if I know that there is a better piece of legislation coming to replace it, but those same limits still somewhat apply. I won't just mindlessly any repeal just for its convenience. Those arguments will be with the UN until the UN is no more, and I'd rather not put my name to something that will cause future generations to wonder how our species managed to survive as long as it has accepting arguments such as they see on the pages in front of them.

I suppose while I'm at it, if there's a resolution who you didn't feel quite did the job but did it fairly well, would you support a repeal on it?

This is a great scenario to bring up to demonstrate what I believe was your original point of this conversation. If I believe that the resolution is adequate, but not as good as it could be, then I probably would not support a repeal unless I knew that there was a replacement on hand, and had a chance to examine it for myself to ensure that it was an actual improvement on its predecessor. That is, of course, assuming, that I believed that the original needs to remain in place for some reason. For example, were someone to put forth a repeal of the Bio-Agent Convention that demonstrated some loophole in it, I would be inclined to ask after a replacement that would cover said loophole. If there was no replacement to be had, from the author or anyone else, or I did not believe their replacement was up to snuff, I would probably oppose the repeal unless the loophole they demonstrated was so grand that it rendered the whole bill completely useless.

What I mean to say with that last bit is that a loophole that allowed people to develop, but not utilize, sell, keep, stockpile, or give away, some bio-agent would not drive me to support a repeal without a better replacement, since the legislation is something that I believe needs to bein place to help make the world a safer place. If the loophole somehow allowed nations to do whatever they wanted with bioweapons, then the whole thing is useless. Scrap it, and work on a replacement later if they don't already have one, since it won't make any difference whether it is on the books or not at that point.

I guess, to go back to the suggestions you made in the OP, that politely asking after a possible replacement shouldn't be any huge deal, as long as, as Kenny put forth, the author isn't harassed about it.

For the most part, I try to judge the repeal on its own merits, regardless of anything aside from its text. There are situation, like I describe above, where I would request some form assurance that the hole in international law would be filled in a prompt fashion, but those come up fairly rarely.

Granted, if the text explicitly declares some form of replacement is forthcoming, then arguing after a replacement would still be arguing the repeal on its own text, and the author would have made themselves fair game.

I take them case by case. I recently supported the dreadful Repeal the Metric System on the grounds that the original resolution was even worse. However, I didn't particularly care about the outcome, as it seemed to me that the original resolution, though faulty, had already achieved the aim of establishing an internationally recognised system.

There was a time when the existence of a well-written replacement would have influenced my vote strongly. Now, however, I am more influenced by personal factors, such as whether I trust the writer of the replacement to actually submit it and to campaign honestly for it. This has had the effect of limiting my support for repeal-and-replace arguments.

I do not subscribe to the view that a bad repeal is as damaging as a bad resolution. It seems to me that, if later UN members are to judge us on the poor quality of a repeal, they need not necessarily assume that we were negligent to accept such a botch-up. They might equally as well say that if the UN accepted those feeble arguments, the original resolution must have been completely appalling and they can understand why we were so eager to get rid of it.

It does seem reasonable to me to ask the author of a repeal why they're repealing the original. This includes asking if they have, or intend to have, a replacement for the original. To ask if they have one is not to insist that they should have one. Obviously, if their reason for the repeal boils down to, "This was always a stupid idea and the UN must have been zonked out of its collective mind to approve it," there's not going to be a replacement.

In theory, having a replacement prepared should make for a more effective repeal, as, in the process of writing the replacement, the author would become more aware of the faults of the original and be better able to articulate them in the repeal.