NationStates Jolt Archive

Since it's National Nitpicking Week in Ardchoille ...

The "ENDORSES" clause makes me uneasy, for two reasons. One, it's a repeal. Repeals just repeal. Endorsing is doing something else, however wimpy.

Two, it seems to me an attempt to influence a future UN proposal.

(Now all I need is for someone to come along and point out all the repeals that have "ENDORSES" in them. And then I'll scream.)

Repeal "Gay Rights" had "Affirming" and "Reaffirming" in it; does that count?

This 'un (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10394932&postcount=145), you mean?

Argument : This Assembly,

AFFIRMING that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals are deserving of full and equal protection under the law;

REAFFIRMING its earlier stance in Resolution #99: Discrimination Accord, that the resolution Gay Rights "in practice does virtually nothing to protect citizens' rights";

I dunno ... they seem different from Jey's "endorsing" clause to me. "Reaffirming" definitely isn't doing something new. "Affirming", in that example, is part of the argument for action, rather than the action itself (the action being "repeals").

It's not the UN doing it, it's you saying that you affirm, as a tactic to get others to agree with your argument for repeal.

So what Repeal Gay Rights asks the UN to do is Repeal Gay Rights, whereas Jey's draft seems to me to ask the UN to do something new (endorse) and to bind the UN -- well, "bind" is too strong a word, but "push in a specific direction" -- to pass further legislation on the topic.

I'll agree, it's hairsplittery, but I'd feel easier with the repeal without that clause.

If it was switched to preambulatory language, as in Repeal Gay Rights, would it work for you?

UNDERSTANDING that it is in the interests of the United Nations to strike out legislation containing mostly persuasion, not action;

ENDORSING the passage of legislation containing more actionable language to prevent serious environmental hazards, including oil spills:

1. REPEALS Resolution #11: “Ban Single-Hulled Tankers.”No one could possibly argue it's binding language if it's safely couched in the preamble; it is tough to find a word besides "endorsing" -- at least it is for me at this late hour -- but you have to admit it's better than "urging," "requesting" or even "encouraging."

"Endorse" strikes me as requiring a definite action. I guess I'm thinking of legalisms -- "cheques must be endorsed with the signatures of both parties", etc. It sounds as if you're seeking a stamp of approval.

You're merely wishing (and hopin', and thinkin', and prayin', plannin' and dreamin' -- uh, sorry, wrong decade) that the UN will see it that way.

How about "DESIRING the passage ..."?

Though I can't see anything wrong with "ENCOURAGING".

Would "ACKNOWLEDGING a need for the passage ..." do it? You're acknowledging that you feel a need, and hoping others will?

This might not be a vote-swayer, but I'm leery of anything that seems to come down on one side or the other of the great "Gotta provide a replacement/ No I don't" debate that regularly sweeps the GA.

It's the precedent, rather than the subject, that's got my radar beeping.

Since it's National Nitpicking Week in Ardchoille ...

The "ENDORSES" clause makes me uneasy, for two reasons. One, it's a repeal. Repeals just repeal. Endorsing is doing something else, however wimpy.

Two, it seems to me an attempt to influence a future UN proposal.Would it be possible to go ahead and get a formal mod ruling on the inclusion of this type of clause in repeals. As Ardchoille notes, these seem to be an attempt to control future UN action, and another of them has cropped up in the attempted repeal of UNLRA by The Sacred Orb.
ADVOCATES a new resolution reaffirming the right of people to determine their own fate, provided that resolution addresses the above practical concerns and avoids overt infringment on nations' sovereignty.

Would it be possible to go ahead and get a formal mod ruling on the inclusion of this type of clause in repeals. As Ardchoille notes, these seem to be an attempt to control future UN action, and another of them has cropped up in the attempted repeal of UNLRA by The Sacred Orb.

I wouldn't say they're an attempt at control, I'd say it's more likely that they're advertising what they're going to do next. At least that's how I view it being used. More accurately, what they're really saying is...

JUST LETTING YOU ALL KNOW that I'll be proposing a new version of the legislation I'm repealing, with all the loopholes I complained about in this repeal removed, and If you guys could keep an eye out for it and endorse it and vote for it and stuff, that'd be great. k thx bye.

I'd say it's more likely that they're advertising what they're going to do next. A plain reading of the text wouldn't seem to support your interpretation. The clause, although mild, contained as it is in a resolution (if and when passed) reflects the sense and will of the NSUN, not the author himself.

Even if your interpretation were correct, I would be uncomfortable with the wording of the clause, in that, it would at that point be an in-game obligation placed on a player to take ooc action (writing the replacement) and thus fall under the umbrella of metagaming.

Look, the no-new-legislation rule for repeals wasn't instituted to give quibbling rules-lawyers something to argue about; it was created to prevent repeals from introducing new legislation. And in case anyone hasn't already noticed, simply "advocating" or "endorsing" new legislation isn't exactly creating any. And it's far from placing "obligations" upon any player. The language is quite clear as to the opinion of the General Assembly (and expressing the opinion of the GA is precisely what a repeal argument is for), but relatively neutral as to how quickly it must be done or by whom.

That said, a moderator finding would probably prevent future threadjacks on this topic.

Would it be possible to go ahead and get a formal mod ruling on the inclusion of this type of clause in repeals.I'm going to go with the Kennyite interpretation for now. I don't see this as setting any sort of significant precedent, and the language in The Sacred Orb's proposal isn't worth killing a proposal at quorum.

the no-new-legislation rule for repeals wasn't instituted to give quibbling rules-lawyers something to argue about; it was created to prevent repeals from introducing new legislation. And in case anyone hasn't already noticed, simply "advocating" or "endorsing" new legislation isn't exactly creating any. And it's far from placing "obligations" upon any player. The language is quite clear as to the opinion of the General Assembly (and expressing the opinion of the GA is precisely what a repeal argument is for), but relatively neutral as to how quickly it must be done or by whom.

If I have a chance to get up with Hack, Ardchoille, Hotrodia, or any of the other UN regular mods, I'll get a consensus opinion. However, I think it's unlikely we'll have a chance to meet before TSO's proposal goes to the floor.

I'd prefer it if Repeals kept their language more neutral, but that's just personal opinion. A strict, hardcore interpretation could consider it to be mandating action, and thus, technically, creating "new legislation", but that strikes me as reaching and fishing for problems. Much like wanting to avoid anaphora, this is a style issue as opposed to a legality one.

I don't think this particular one is merely a matter of style. It doesn't just say that the UN should have a new resolution on the topic -- which I'd disagree with anyway, for the same reason I disagreed with "endorses". The UN's had any number of arguments about "does a repeal imply a replacement", and, despite any equivalent number of modly statements that it doesn't, people keep suggesting that it does. So I don't think any repeal should add even the smallest twig to that particular fire. (I'm even tempted to include in that QoD's current repeal of the same resolution, which has much milder language, but still foreshadows another proposal).

But the one Rubina quoted does more than that. It attempts to govern the content of any future proposal. It says the UN shouldn't even consider any replacement that doesn't meet particular philosophical criteria:avoids overt infringment on nations' sovereignty.

Seems to me that any UN member who can get the endorsements has a right to propose "overt infringements on nations' sovereignty", so that if they get it to a quorum, the UN can vote on it. This is a way of insisting that the UN make up its mind on a vote before the relevant proposal's even been put. It's not like a blocker, which more or less sets out areas in which the UN goes, so that by implication it doesn't go into other areas.

Besides, the UN gets to vote on blockers. But to vote on the repeal, worded this way, is voting on two things at once: whether to repeal the resolution, and whether to restrict all future proposals on the subject to those which "avoid(s) overt infringment on nations' sovereignty".

So it's possible to be in favour of the repeal, but opposed to the restriction; yet we can't vote Yes/No. I think the only question in a repeal should be, Do We Repeal This?

Well, this is something of a dicey (HA!) situation.

The portion quoted by Rubina isn't binding, though.

ADVOCATES a new resolution reaffirming the right of people to determine their own fate, provided that resolution addresses the above practical concerns and avoids overt infringment on nations' sovereignty.Imagining, for a moment, that the Repeal is a sentient thing that can talk, it's saying something like: "I fully support a replacement that is all NatSov friendly." The members of the UN are more than able to pass the Repeal, and then tell it where it can stuff its opinions and storm ahead with a more "infring[ing]" Proposal. The Repeal isn't binding in that regard.

Also, people have voted against Repeals that they have supported in abstract but objected to in practice before ("I don't like the argument"), so I don't see this as unique in this regard.

Oh, and I'm gonna split this discussion out. No need to clutter Jey's thread, as we're spinning off to theory.

Spinning off to theory? Heh, going stratospheric, methinks -- which was why I'd intended to shut up until the repeal debate started and I could argue it IC (though in Dicey's current state, perhaps not).

However, since we're on it now: Also, people have voted against Repeals that they have supported in abstract but objected to in practice before ("I don't like the argument"), so I don't see this as unique in this regard.

That's the nub of it. It's not a matter of "I don't like the argument"; as argument, it's bearable. But as action, it's not. I see this as asking the UN to take two actions in one.

When the clause I was niggling about in Jey's repeal was switched to the argument, I found it sufferable (though I like your version better, because it does away with any action. The UN has my august permission to believe what it likes. It's how it acts on the beliefs that I argue about.)

What I'm objecting to in this is that it commits the UN to taking two actions at once, actions which could be contradictory, but allows a vote on only one of them.

I agree, "advocates" isn't very binding -- I translate it into gnomes going through the halls ringing bells and shouting "Who will propose? Won't someone please propose?"

But when somebody pops up and says "I will!" they say, "Ah, but you're only allowed to if it's natsov friendly".

However, you're reading it as, "Oh, okay, but we'd really, really like you to make it natsov friendly," to which our spirited delegate replies, "Suck it up, gnomes!"?

Well, okay, that's livable for this repeal, but I'm still uneasy about it as a general notion. I think it would be easier to just insist that repeals repeal.

The portion quoted by Rubina isn't binding, though.Well, technically nothing in a repeal except the conclusionary "hereby repeals" statement is binding. So in that light, this does devolve down to the personal choice of voting for a repeal whether or not one agrees with the arguments put forward or not.

I was giving the wording a strict interpretation. Given the heavy emphasis lately on "the law means what the law says", I wanted a clearer understanding of how much weight to give to such (heh, and whether I could use them in the future. ;) ). Even though non-binding, I do still feel they violate the essence of "repeals repeal and nothing else". They belong in the debate rather than in the resolution itself.

The members of the UN are more than able to pass the Repeal, and then tell it where it can stuff its opinions and storm ahead with a more "infring[ing]" Proposal. The Repeal isn't binding in that regard.This is interesting, because there has been some discussion (and the gods know where, at this point) of the role of non-binding clauses in expressing the will of the UN and whether proposals should (not "should be able to" because certainly they can) completely contradict earlier resolutions stated intent as contained in argument and non-binding articles. One of the examples was Quod's possible inclusion of execution devices in his ban of torture equipment and the contradiction that creates with FSA.

What I'm objecting to in this is that it commits the UN to taking two actions at once, actions which could be contradictory, but allows a vote on only one of them.Well, UN Resolutions have been known to do that. How often do we see people liking the general argument, but voting against because of a deal breaking clause?

Yes, Repeals are different, but I still see that clause as strongly encouraging. It can't mandate anything, after all.

However, you're reading it as, "Oh, okay, but we'd really, really like you to make it natsov friendly," to which our spirited delegate replies, "Suck it up, gnomes!"?Pretty much. Had the clause been DEMANDS or REQUIRES or something like that, we'd be on the same page. I see it as the gnome does a lot of pleading, but can still be told to sod off.

Well, okay, that's livable for this repeal, but I'm still uneasy about it as a general notion. I think it would be easier to just insist that repeals repeal.Perhaps for future Repeals (a little late now). I'm not trying to close the door on this (hence the thread), but it seem to be a bit of hair-splitting.

Well, technically nothing in a repeal except the conclusionary "hereby repeals" statement is binding.Well, it's possible to put mandating language in, but it's illegal. Heh.

I was giving the wording a strict interpretation. Given the heavy emphasis lately on "the law means what the law says", I wanted a clearer understanding of how much weight to give to such (heh, and whether I could use them in the future. ;) ).I don't see this running afoul of that concept. The "law" says 'ADVOCATES', which is just really strong urging, but my reading.

whether proposals should [...] completely contradict earlier resolutions stated intent as contained in argument and non-binding articles.Hm. This is an interesting point.

One of the examples was Quod's possible inclusion of execution devices in his ban of torture equipment and the contradiction that creates with FSA.That seems a little more black and white to me, though. FSA is pretty direct.

ADVOCATES a new resolution reaffirming the right of people to determine their own fate, provided that resolution addresses the above practical concerns and avoids overt infringment on nations' sovereignty.

This looks like non-binding language to me. It doesn't prohibit supporting a future resolution which infringes on national sovereignty, merely saying one that doesn't might be ok (but ofcourse that future resolution still could be shot down for whatever else may be in there... heck, one could shoot it down for the same reason and say support for the repeal was for reasons not mentioned in the supporting language of the repeal).

If The Sacred Orb were to tell me I had to vote in favor of his/her new resolution due to the above language, I'd vote against that new resolution just to show I can ;)

Ballotonia

Well, for what it's worth, here's our opinion....

From the Rules for UN Proposals: "Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws."

The intent of the repeal rule, as we see it, is that, when it passes a repeal, the NSUN should be doing only one thing: repealing the resolution in question. That means a repeal should contain only one action clause: the one starting out "REPEALS". The only other things that should be in the repeal are the arguments or rationale for the repeal. In another proposal, that's the stuff in the preambulatory clauses, almost always ending in -ing. There should be no other actions.

If the NSUN advocates something, that's an action. If it endorses, supports, or encourages something, that's an action. The tip-off is in the -s ending on the verb. The NSUN is doing something beyond repealing. The repeal is not "only repeal[ing] the existing resolution". The action is a "new provision".

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

--Snip -- Succinct clarification of what I was trying to say.

Yeah! What Lorelei said!

Perhaps simply a reminder in the rule book:
New proposals/resolutions are not bound by any suggestions made in repeals on the same or similar topics. Moreover, if there is a suggestion of a replacement within a repeal, it is merely a suggestion.

Well, let's have a look at the precedent already in place, shall we?:


ASSURING member nations of future legislation, which will be more comprehensive and explanatory in scope, more serviceable to member nations in protecting their rights to determining their own tax systems, while more permitting of international determination of international taxation issues: ~Repeal "National Systems of Tax"
IMPLORES the General Assembly to ensure speedy replacement of certain admittedly important aspects of "The Law of the Sea" concerning the sovereignty of territorial waters, and its well-intentioned but ineffectively and dangerously executed attempts to combat piracy. ~Repeal "The Law of the Sea"
Urges delegates to consider the differing structures of legislatures in member States when proposing future resolutions. ~Repeal "Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning"
Urges delegates to consider existing definitions and usage when defining terms in future resolutions. ~Repeal "Public Domain"It can hardly be argued that the current resolution at vote is worse than existing repeals in this regard, and in fact is much more innocuous, for in the past, under Hackian protocols, the General Assembly has "assured," "implored" and even "urged" replacement legislation, in some cases specifically dictating the terms of said replacement, and in TLOTS's case demanding a "speedy replacement."

I would ask, do moderators and petitioners actually think such distinguished proposal authors as Powerhungry Chipmunks, Gruenberg and Safalra have set a bad example in this regard, or are we making too big a deal out of this?

I would ask, do moderators and petitioners actually think such distinguished proposal authors as Powerhungry Chipmunks, Gruenberg and Safalra have set a bad example in this regard, or are we making too big a deal out of this?In a word, yes to your first question. An appeal to authority ("these are wonderful proposal authors, therefore everything they do is wonderful") doesn't change the essential nature of the rule that "repeals repeal and nothing else".

The existence of precedent (and thank you for digging those up) doesn't eliminate a forward-looking clarification of an issue. Even under stare decisis previous decisions can be overturned.

As to your second question, what I see (in the thread in the UN forum and here) is a fairly calm, theoretical discussion of such statements. If that's a big deal, then okay.

This would be a great place for those who dislike the phrasing to campaign for the defeat of the resolution. You can't have precedent unless it passes.Here? In moderation? ;) I'd rather defeat it because it contains a crappy repeal argument, but given that not even the authors are interested in participating in debate... *shrug*.

In a word, yes to your first question. An appeal to authority ("these are wonderful proposal authors, therefore everything they do is wonderful") doesn't change the essential nature of the rule that "repeals repeal and nothing else".Is that the rule? I was always to assume it was "repeals cannot introduce new legislation," and as I've said before, advocating new legislation is not making new legislation. Promoting replacement law is only an opinion being voted on, it's part of the repeal argument, it's hardly binding -- and if you happen not to like any arguments made in a repeal, you can always vote against it. It's as simple as that.

Perhaps simply a reminder in the rule book:
New proposals/resolutions are not bound by any suggestions made in repeals on the same or similar topics. Moreover, if there is a suggestion of a replacement within a repeal, it is merely a suggestion.

Such a suggestion is therefore misleading -- granted, not a fact that seems to trouble repeal-writers at present -- and would be better not made. We are particularly not fond of its use to imply that the repeal writer intends to introduce replacement legislation when no such intention exists.

The greatest issue that we have with such language in repeals -- indeed, any language in repeals -- is that it is recorded in the UN statute books. For any other form of resolution this is not a great issue, because one can always repeal a resolution that makes erroneous statements in its arguments. For repeals, there exists no means of deleting the factually incorrect. One cannot repeal a repeal -- such a vote would have no effect beyond deleting the statements in the law books. The precedent is set, and the best that can be done is to vote in a new resolution that directly contradicts the repeal arguments, something which with any other form of resolution would be illegal.

Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.[My emphasis, though "only" is italicized in the original text.

So the rules say both, though I interpret the emphasis to be on the first sentence with the second sentence explanatory of the first. "So an improved resolution can be passed" is a reason to repeal; "so we can pass a natsov friendly version" strikes me as dancing on the line of using natsov as an argument to repeal.

I shifted some of these posts back here from the discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13010360#post13010360) in Moderation so we could keep the argument together. If a poster seems to be referring to a post you can't see, that's why.

We would remind our distinguished colleague and friend from Omigotheykilledkenny that, even in the most precedent-bound of judicial systems, precedent can be overturned. We would also remind him that precedent binding on judicial authorities (in our case, the Moderators) is set only by their own decisions, not by anyone else. Was the question of legality raised and settled regarding the clauses cited? If not, no precedent was set. While we have great respect for the authors cited, those clauses are useful examples to consider, but not precedent.

We must go back to the specific language of the rule: "Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws."

To endorse, urge, or anything similar is to go beyond "only" repealing the existing resolution. The clause from "Repeal 'National Systems of Tax'" does not do that. It simply states the author's confidence that better legislation will be forthcoming. The other clauses are affirmative acts by the Assembly. The Assembly is doing something beyond simple repeal.

Now, that sort of clause has no real legislative effect. An "endorsement" in a repeal cannot guarantee passage of the "endorsed" legislation. But it's something more than "provid[ing] a reason for the repeal"; it's a "new provision". In our view, it goes beyond what is allowable in a repeal proposal.

And now we'll return to counting the angels on the head of that pin. (It's tough. The little things keep moving around.)

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Was the question of legality raised and settled regarding the clauses cited?
Yes (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10190061&postcount=39).

We thank the distinguished representative for the reference. With two Moderators ruling on the question, that does indeed set a precedent. Now, just to clarify....

In the cited case, the repeal implored the Assembly to take an action. The ruling was that, not only was that legal, but the author could also "urge" or "strongly urge" the action. Now, if urging the Assembly to do something is legal, is it also legal for a repeal to urge member nations to do something?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Now, if urging the Assembly to do something is legal, is it also legal for a repeal to urge member nations to do something?Hmm? You mean like this?

URGES member nations to continue hopping on one foot until a replacement foot hopping Resolution is passed

URGES member nations to continue hopping on one foot until a replacement foot hopping Resolution is passed

GAH! Has Hack sold out to the International Conspiracy to Make Ardchoille Take Physical Exercise? :(

Look, I know this how-many-angels thing looks like real bush lawyer stuff, but bear with me for a bit, there's a point behind it all.

To address the concerns I had, that (thankfully imaginary) clause would have to read:

URGES member nations to continue hopping on one foot until a replacement foot hopping Resolution is passed, provided that Resolution avoids overt infringement on nations' footedness.

No doubt that clause would be joyfully received by nations that bind their childrens' feet at birth to ensure that the right foot only is hoppable on, nations that see it as a religious obligation to hop only on the left foot, nations that, to show their independence from former oppressors, hop proudly on both feet at once, dodecapod nations where the question of which is or are the hoppable foot or feet is a really hot political issue, and so on.

But nations that couldn't give a damn what foot they hop on, or didn't hop at all, or actively campaigned against indiscriminate premarital hopping, would be limited, as they would have been urged by the UN not to present any legislation that might infringe on footedness.

The fact that they can easily ignore that urging doesn't change the fact that the UN has told them they really, really shouldn't ignore it. Further, the UN can tell them they had a chance to vote on that restriction and, because they voted for the repeal, they effectively voted for the restriction, too.

My original objection to Jey's draft clause was that it seemed to give fuel -- not much, barely a twig, but some nonetheless -- to the view that a repeal should be followed by a replacement. As this one comes up repeatedly, and generates heat repeatedly, I was hoping to eliminate a possible uncertainty.

So, even if previous resolutions had carried such clauses, the point about Jey's original version still stands: if there's a way to avoid something annoying, why not take it? It wouldn't be necessary to do anything new, it would just be necessary to stick to a stricter reading of "repeals repeal".

The second objection came up after Rubina pointed out the detail of the repeal at vote. While I don't favour TKOs so close to a debate, I think it's raised another issue worth considering: if it is permitted to call for a replacement in a repeal, is it also permitted to say what that replacement should contain? Because it seems to me that permitting it puts that cloudy thing, a "psychological barrier", on subsequent UN legislation.

Whereas insisting that "repeals just repeal" would put the whole thing at rest.

*resumes state of suspended hoppingness*

GAH! Has Hack sold out to the International Conspiracy to Make Ardchoille Take Physical Exercise? :(I'm a charter member, baby!

if there's a way to avoid something annoying, why not take it? It wouldn't be necessary to do anything new, it would just be necessary to stick to a stricter reading of "repeals repeal".Well, it would require further codifying of the Proposal rules. It's not that I'm opposed to work, I just want to make sure it's necessary. The Proposal rules thread is kinda bloated as is, and I don't want to make it more intimidating than necessary.

And, well, this urging nonsense came about to shut up people who would whine about replacements. I'm more than willing to make it an unofficial rule or preference, but I hesitate when it comes to setting it in stone, as it were.

if it is permitted to call for a replacement in a repeal, is it also permitted to say what that replacement should contain? Because it seems to me that permitting it puts that cloudy thing, a "psychological barrier", on subsequent UN legislation.Well, yes. I admit that's something to ponder, which is part of why this thing is here, after all. But, again, I don't want to futz with the ruleset too quickly.

It also is a matter of the rules being what's against the rules, as opposed to being things we'd like. Such clauses may make a "psychological barrier", but they don't do anything... ah... "real". Sure, it's irritating in an "I'm not touching you!" kind of way, but... to steal from Aus, The Rules Are What The Rules Say.

OOC: I figured I oughta put some effort where my mouth is. Here's what I came up with. The only change in substance is the last paragraph. With the rest, I just twiddled with the language a bit.

Repeals

Yes, you can repeal a resolution, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make a proposal in some other category and it's really a repeal, it's going to be deleted.

A repeal proposal must contain at least one argument or reason for the repeal. If it doesn't, it will be deleted. Simply stating that a resolution violates "national sovereignty" is not enough reason for a repeal. That could be said of just about every resolution. If that's the only argument in a repeal, it will be deleted.

Also, you can't repeal a resolution just because it violates the current rules. Many old resolutions were in existence before this rule set (or the Enodian rules) were in effect; some were in effect before Moderators existed. And the rules have changed over time. It wouldn't be fair to expect old resolutions to have complied with rules that didn't exist.

A repeal can only repeal an existing resolution. You can't do anything else in a repeal. You must state the reason or reasons why the resolution should be repealed, but that's all. You can't have the Assembly doing anything else. A repeal can't "urge", "endorse", or "advocate" anything or take any other action.

Now I'll go back to my angel counting. ;)

Well, it would require further codifying of the Proposal rules. It's not that I'm opposed to work, I just want to make sure it's necessary. The Proposal rules thread is kinda bloated as is, and I don't want to make it more intimidating than necessary.

And, well, this urging nonsense came about to shut up people who would whine about replacements. I'm more than willing to make it an unofficial rule or preference, but I hesitate when it comes to setting it in stone, as it were.

It also is a matter of the rules being what's against the rules, as opposed to being things we'd like. Such clauses may make a "psychological barrier", but they don't do anything... ah... "real". Sure, it's irritating in an "I'm not touching you!" kind of way, but... to steal from Aus, The Rules Are What The Rules Say.No, I don't think the rules need further clarification, unless urgings for replacement somehow translate into trying to create new law, as opposed to simply calling for the creation of such. The replacement urgings bother me too, especially since I despise the repeal/replace game, and the harassment of repealers we often see from replacement-wankers: "Do you have a replacement for this?! I'm not voting for your repeal until we have one!!" But I don't think calls for replacement in the repeal text should be banned outright. Like you said, they don't really do anything, except annoy the nitpickers.

As a charter member of NitpickerS, I should point out that a nitpicker happily employed in nitpicking is generally not an annoyed nitpicker.