NationStates

Having withdrawn my own repeal proposal (which admittedly lacked language neutral enough for most WA members to support) in order to facilitate The Dorian Embassy's attempt, I wish GA#248 a speedy and painless repeal.

Anyone else have some input on the piece?

Apart from personal opinion, I see nothing wrong with this

I gave this a bit of an overhaul, and I submitted it for a test run. We'll see how it goes.

There's really not much to it, the error is an indisputable problem, and it's the primary basis of the repeal.

I very much dislike the noting line, as I said. If this language passes it is very likely the second after the vote ends I will submit the exact same version with the typo fixed.

Weed wrote:I haven't disputed any repeal attempt based on the typo. I've simply disputed repeals that use bad logic. I'd vote for it if it was free of any untrue clauses.

I understand you dislike the noting line. But it is not untrue. You mistakenly left it in after a redraft, I get that. Nothing in the repeal says that you didn't do that. If it's a big deal, just go do it again without the error.

I will, but yes, it is poorly worded to give the impression that I knew about prior to it going to vote.

You were aware of the issue prior submitting the proposal a few days after posting the draft (what's the point of a draft thread if you don't give time to draft?). It would have been rather simple to add a "was discovered too late" or "was acknowledged after already at vote" or a several variations thereof. But instead you pushed ahead, knowing the issue, and not giving us time to respond to the other errors in your proposal (like the missing space between the word 'error' and the opening parenthesis after it). I conclude with great sadness that Douria now approaches his WA authorship about as much seriousness as he does the management of regions. I mean heck, mine had a typo but it was at least left open for suggestions for weeks/months with numerous bumps from myself prior to submission.

Actually you'll probably notice(if you look anyway) that the parenthesis is just how I write. As for the rest, I asked you for another way to phrase it and you never responded(except to say yet again you just didn't like the phrasing). I don't see any issue with how it is worded, and most others don't either. I also telegrammed you to let you know I was going to move forward on the thing, so if you had an idea, that might've been the time to say so.

So thank you for your input, and just get your replacement ready in case you need it, alright?

I appreciate your concerns that I should be doing something other than point out that you rushed this and ignored suggestions in this thread that would have been easy to work around. Luckily, I am and have always been a skilled at multitasking.

Weed wrote:I appreciate your concerns that I should be doing something other than point out that you rushed this and ignored suggestions in this thread that would have been easy to work around. Luckily, I am and have always been a skilled at multitasking.

No, I'm sorry. You've misunderstood me here. I made a good faith effort to work with you on this piece. To help you correct a flaw that you acknowledged, corrected, and then accidentally put back in. A flaw that is both serious and obvious. And yet here we are, at odds for some reason. You're still speaking bitterly about a repeal you should've sought out when you first noticed the mistake.

Ok.

You may continue to complain, I'm alright with that. There are, of course, other delegations who might find it interesting or useful.

Thanks for your interest.

I have my own repeal draft, actually, which I would describe as more thought out than yours. It is currently third in line (possibly second, not sure about one still) in terms of future plans, but I have been less than active and prefer to actually put thought into what I do.

I have little interest in whether you see the err of your ways. My only hope is that people see the type of effort you put in here, a 2 day draft period and little openness to my own input when I basically said I would support your effort if you added two or three small words. My main concern is that we all start to recognize authors that are flying on autopilot, turning out resolutions with little thought or effort to make them the best they could be. As a body, the WA accepts this behaviour far too often.

See, this is the issue. I've been drafting for over a week before I posted it here, and I posted it here 5 days ago(rather than the 2 you just claimed). Sure, that may not meet the criteria of multiple months you seem to be pressing for, but it seems more than enough time for a repeal that essentially points out a typo(albeit a serious one).

You come here to talk about a repeal of a resolution you wrote that included a multi-month spanning drafting period and yet still contained a critical flaw, and are saying "Hey you guys, take more time to draft" like you suddenly have the moral high ground.

I took most of the input to heart, boiled down my arguments, took out some clause that were essentially questions of interpretation and left the rich creamy center of "This resolution contains a mistake that creates a critical flaw".

You made that mistake, you've admitted that mistake. No one has an issue with that language except for you, and I'm disinclined to change it just because you've decided to be obstinate about it. If you'd suggested some differing language when I posted twice here asking for feedback, or when I TGed you about this repeal moving forward a day ago... I might've included it. Since you didn't avail yourself of the opportunity, I see no reason to deal with your issues now.

Except you asked me if I had any alternative texts on the 31st, and then submitted it on the first because I didn't respond in the whopping one day you gave me. That's not drafting, that's not giving a flying freak how good your resolution is, just trying to rack up the passed resolutions count. I wouldn't ask everyone to spend months drafting resolutions, though I certainly appreciate those who do, I realize NS is a game and not everyone has that kind of patience. But when there are active contributors to a thread giving them a couple day warning prior to throwing it out there and campaigning is done fairly regularly, and seems like common sense if valuing quality over your own personal quantity. Especially when you ask for a suggestion from said contributor.

And yes, I about the telegram, even though it was not addressed to the nation you were actively holding discussions with (this one, with links to it all over this thread) but rather to my old nation, the one who wrote the original, which you had to do more work to find. I just now found it of course, because I never log into that nation. But it does give you a certain degree of cover, a pretty clever trick. [EDIT: Though it was sent moments before you actually submitted it, so it did not really give me time to answer the question even if I was active on that nation. It was sent 1 day 1 hour ago, and the automatic TG that gets sent to the author by the game if a repeal is submitted came also 1 day 1 hour ago.]

Weed wrote:And yes, I about the telegram, even though it was not addressed to the nation you were actively holding discussions with (this one, with links to it all over this thread) but rather to my old nation, the one who wrote the original, which you had to do more work to find. I just now found it of course, because I never log into that nation. But it does give you a certain degree of cover, a pretty clever trick. [EDIT: Though it was sent moments before you actually submitted it, so it did not really give me time to answer the question even if I was active on that nation. It was sent 1 day 1 hour ago, and the automatic TG that gets sent to the author by the game if a repeal is submitted came also 1 day 1 hour ago.]

Yes. And I waited for a reply before I TG'ed for it. I assumed your submitting nation was your main, which is completely reasonable. You want to talk about timing? I sent that campaign TG and how many minutes later you came into this discussion ripping and roaring?

So yeah, I'm a little steamed at your little derailing attempt here. You had ample time to give input, and failed to do so.

I have no idea when you campaigned for it. The only reason I know that you did is based on the number of approvals it has (despite you saying the submission was to judge the level of support or whatever, I can tell it indeed was campaigned for). That may have just been bad timing on my part, but all I was paying attention to on the 31st and since was the zombie event and the delegate elections in my region. I really didn't know I almost caught this prior to your campaign, I wish I had checked back sooner, I really do. Nonetheless, in the General Assembly forum, taking a day to respond is not being slow. I had no reason to believe you would submit it if I failed to respond in 16 hours, especially since it was only a couple days since you posted a [DRAFT] thread.

Campaigns aren't hard to run, I have an API key. Because I just missed your campaign and was in fact online (though paying attention elsewhere) if you will do me the favour of adding the words I corrected I swear on my honour and reputation (which is something I very much take seriously, if you cannot tell) I would be willing to run the campaign for it myself [EDIT: and note that as the original author I support your repeal], out of regret that I did not check back sooner.

Weed wrote:Campaigns aren't hard to run, I have an API key. Because I just missed your campaign and was in fact online (though paying attention elsewhere) if you will do me the favour of adding the words I corrected I swear on my honour and reputation (which is something I very much take seriously, if you cannot tell) I would be willing to run the campaign for it myself [EDIT: and note that as the original author I support your repeal], out of regret that I did not check back sooner.

That is both reasonable and fair. Done. I'll have it taken out of the queue now, resubmit and telegram you on "Weed" to let you know to TG for it.

A pleasure doing snarky business with you.

Weed wrote:A pleasure doing snarky business with you.

With a little luck the secretariat will notice the request in the next hour or so and I can resubmit before I go to bed.

Seconds ago: The proposal "Repeal "Against Corruption"" was removed from the floor.

OOC: I was going to jump in here and try to see if you guys would calm down, but it's nice to see you actually managed to reach an incredibly passive aggressive peace! Good luck on the repeal resubmission.

aaaand the new proposal is up. With the language included that was suggested.

lol it took two of you to draft this?! I hope I could have banged out a better repeal in less than two minutes myself. Your grammar is even worse than in the resolution you are trying to repeal because of its grammatical issues.

You, Dourian et al., have correctly identified that the resolution is flawed, but why you felt that your repeal is adequate to pass into legislation is beyond my comprehension. The missing space before the first parentheses is literally killing me. I'm dying.

AGAINST. If Dourian et al. wants to put a modicum of effort in to this repeal effort, I will happily support it.

OOC: In keeping with my word I have just started the campaign to get this to quorum. Apologies for the delay, if your adviser or degree plan ever says you need to take a class called "Organizational Behaviour" in order to graduate, drop out of school, kids. I also had to spend a while Guy Fawkesing my flag.

All should be done in the next six hours or so. Good luck Douria.

Weed

Eist wrote:lol it took two of you to draft this?! I hope I could have banged out a better repeal in less than two minutes myself. Your grammar is even worse than in the resolution you are trying to repeal because of its grammatical issues.

You, Dourian et al., have correctly identified that the resolution is flawed, but why you felt that your repeal is adequate to pass into legislation is beyond my comprehension. The missing space before the first parentheses is literally killing me. I'm dying.

AGAINST. If Dourian et al. wants to put a modicum of effort in to this repeal effort, I will happily support it.

I won't change that(in fact included it deliberately after someone criticized my regular use of it not too long ago). That's just how I type. If you have any other issues, I'd love to know them, but they're not critical flaws that change the meaning of whole clauses, so yeah... that.

You're equating "grammatical issues" with "using the wrong word". When it comes to grammatical issues(except for maybe, the misspelling of a resolution's title), we're a very lenient body. When it comes to a missing period, an extra comma... we don't care too much. I've never seen a repeal effort based on that, and if we did it would fail.

You are aware that there is a difference between correct grammar and using a word that changes the meaning of a clause, right? Or(and I find this possibility much more likely), maybe you just decided not to read any of the debate here?

I had this exact argument when I was passing the repeal for "Assitance(sic) Givers Protection,". Enough typos and grammatical issues are enough to torpedo a piece. A few, however, are reasonable and expected.

OOC: Because we're not the UN and we don't have fifty people working for us to correct these kinds of things. Stuff falls through the cracks. It's an acceptable break from reality, and you really need to lighten up.

The Dourian Embassy wrote:See, this is the issue. I've been drafting for over a week before I posted it here, and I posted it here 5 days ago(rather than the 2 you just claimed).

No offence, Dourian, but drafting outside of the GA forum doesn't really count.

Araraukar wrote:

The Dourian Embassy wrote:See, this is the issue. I've been drafting for over a week before I posted it here, and I posted it here 5 days ago(rather than the 2 you just claimed).

No offence, Dourian, but drafting outside of the GA forum doesn't really count.

Horsefeathers. Back in the old days - (the Jolt days) - there used to be a half dozen offsite forums dedicated to proposal drafting.
Personally, I think it is better that way. These days the stranger's bar often gets bumped to the bottom of page 2 for goodness sake!