[DEFEATED] Non-interference in Elections

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Hive Mind ruling:

On review, we have decided that the original proposal should not have been removed. However, we feel that the author could fruitfully re-work sections to avoid the areas that led to the removal decision. GA Moderators will be posting their own thoughts and suggestions for clarification in this thread in the coming days/week.

Personal comment: I regret that this took so long. Thank you for your patience.

Are you serious? This is the second time this has happened now. I just don't get it, I really don't. Are there that many mods that are this unfamiliar with GA rules? Seriously, you guys ask for patience and understanding, yet you continually shit the bed. Please tell me how you actually believe you guys can be trusted any longer? Was the offending party sanctioned over this again? We're they apprised not to make this mistake again?

[Elke and Elba]

We probably need some due diligence on the entire mod-ruling process, *le sigh*. There should not be a reason for 1) any mod to remove a proposal before a total consensus is reached, 2) and agreed that there is a problem that warrants its removal, and 3) have the ruling written out before it's removed.

While I have been pretty supportive of the GA mods in the past, I don't think it's fair for all of us to be at the brunt of your poor decisions and poor judgement calls because of your own incompetence.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

There should not be a reason for 1) any mod to remove a proposal before a total consensus is reached,

At the risk of turning this into yet another "What's the Matter with #ModCave?" thread, "consensus" decisions have been part of the problem, as they encourage unaccountable "behind closed doors" moderating, groupthink, and imperil potential appeals by players. What is needed is one or two players, a la Hack or Fris, to get out in front of the Hivemind and more-or-less be part of the drafting process. That way, the mods have a greater understanding of the thinking behind the language and the components of the proposed legislation, and there are fewer misunderstandings and fuck-ups in the queue.

Oh, and remove kryo as moderator. If her primary motivation for "participating" in the WA is just up her numbers for the Mod Olympics, I'm sure there are other "sports" she could be competing in.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

On review, we have decided that the original proposal should not have been removed. However, we feel that the author could fruitfully re-work sections to avoid the areas that led to the removal decision.

I'm honestly sorry to pile on, but... did nobody even raise an eyebrow at putting these two sentences literally right next to each other? Most people try to put a few lines of filler in there before transitioning right into blaming the victim. Brass balls big enough to try to do it in consecutive sentences are usually reserved for political pundits and daytime sports talk show hosts.

I don't have the long history of participation here that lots of you have, but this is absurd no matter what you're used to.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Banana - if you don't feel like spending more money on stamps this time around, I can help you TG the "old-fashioned way" if you like. It usually takes a few hours (less if you split the workload), if you only hit the delegates who have voted on the most recent resolution. Proposals usually hit quorum easily if you get them all.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Banana - if you don't feel like spending more money on stamps this time around, I can help you TG the "old-fashioned way" if you like. It usually takes a few hours (less if you split the workload), if you only hit the delegates who have voted on the most recent resolution. Proposals usually hit quorum easily if you get them all.

I also have a key and a script. I am not currently campaigning for anything at the moment, and have nothing pressing on the go.

[Bananaistan]

Resubmitted.

Thanks for the offers to help TGing folks. I had enough stamps left to hit the delegates again and I have done so.

[Sedgistan]

Bananaistan, if you used stamps for the previous submission that was mistakenly removed, submit a GHR to let us know how many, and we should be able to put them back on your account.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Is this something new? Because I recall both Auralia and Chester complaining about wasted stamps after their proposals were wrongfully removed (Repeal "Rights and Duties" and Nuclear Arms Protocols respectively), and there was never any (public) word on reimbursing them.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Auralia said he was refunded, and Chester Pearson uses a TG script for his campaigns.

[Bears Armed]

There should not be a reason for 1) any mod to remove a proposal before a total consensus is reached, 2) and agreed that there is a problem that warrants its removal, and 3) have the ruling written out before it's removed.

Not even if the proposal's racing to quorum and both the queue & the floor are empty, so that if not removed it would probably go to vote at the very next update?

[Ardchoille]

Bananaistan, I understand you were disappointed, but I regret that you went straight to re-submission. SL, it's not victim-blaming to say that those mods who reversed the decision accepted the deleting mod's explanation pointing out to us the issues they saw with the text.

As to reimbursement, I'm afraid that when Sedge takes it up with Admin, I'll be putting the case that you should not be reimbursed for your stamps. I believe you are a fair-minded person and will understand why I oppose setting a precedent that would disadvantage players who don't use, or can't afford, them.

Auralia's reimbursement was not a precedent. It was instantly suggested as reparation by the mods who discussed the Discard, because I had given wrong information about a specific rule, and mods stand in lieu of Max. Further, the DIscard was new and its operation was unpredictable. Reimbursement seemed fair, in those unusual circumstances.

Your proposal, by contrast, was deleted for cause during a standard sweep of the list. Regardless of the fact that it was later declared legal, having a quorate proposal swept is something that could happen to any player (though, naturally, we'd all prefer it didn't happen at all). A player who had bought stamps to campaign would lose the stamps. A player who had campaigned the old-fashioned way, or with a script, would lose their time. As the time cannot be replaced, then, in my personal opinion, the money should not be, either. Stamps buy convenience, not any extra guarantees. Buying them is the player's choice, and I see it as unfair that stamp-buyers should be reimbursed -- suffer no loss, yet gain convenience -- when non-stamp campaigners do lose out.

Kenny, you know that if you feel you have a case against a mod, you should submit a GHR. It will go straight to Admin. I don't know why I still have to tell you this.

Regarding the "it's happened twice" argument: as I understand it, the deletion of JPT's proposal was a mechanical slip. Possibly the suggested redesign of the proposal queue might help avoid such errors. The deletion of Bananaistan's was done in good faith by a mod sweeping the queue, and reversed as quickly as possible, given the difficulties of arranging a review across international datelines and RL obligations. In my opinion, there is no cause for any individual mod to be "sanctioned".

[Defwa]

Bananaistan, I understand you were disappointed, but I regret that you went straight to re-submission. SL, it's not victim-blaming to say that those mods who reversed the decision accepted the deleting mod's explanation to us that there were issues with the text.

As to reimbursement, I'm afraid that when Sedge takes it up with Admin, I'll be putting the case that you should not be reimbursed for your stamps. I believe you are a fair-minded person and will understand why I oppose setting a precedent that would disadvantage players who don't use, or can't afford, them.

Auralia's reimbursement was not a precedent. It was instantly suggested as reparation by the mods who discussed the Discard, because I had given wrong information about a specific rule, and mods stand in lieu of Max. Further, the DIscard was new and its operation was unpredictable. Reimbursement seemed fair, in those unusual circumstances.

Your proposal, by contrast, was deleted for cause during a standard sweep of the list. Regardless of the fact that it was later declared legal, having a quorate proposal swept is something that could happen to any player (though, naturally, we'd all prefer it didn't happen at all). A player who had bought stamps to campaign would lose the stamps. A player who had campaigned the old-fashioned way, or with a script, would lose their time. As the time cannot be replaced, then, in my personal opinion, the money should not be, either. Stamps buy convenience, not any extra guarantees. Buying them is the player's choice, and I see it as unfair that stamp-buyers should be reimbursed -- suffer no loss, yet gain convenience -- when non-stamp campaigners do lose out.

Okay, now I'm going to start calling you out because this is becoming too ridiculous to ignore.
You don't want to set precedent? Whatever you do, precedent will be set (or continued?). What we have currently is a system in which mod error negatively impacts players and there is no repercussion for the failure of moderation or return for the impacted player.

The proposal wasn't deleted for a valid cause- it was deleted because someone got trigger happy and no amount of you stubbornly denying that is going to change the fact that the gun is still smoking. I understand time cannot be returned to script users but when you remove a proposal that made use of stamps, you are invalidating the service rendered that the player paid money for.
There should be some kind of guarantee behind those, unless you want all players to start using free scripting methods instead. I'm sure the website is just rolling in dough so losing stamps wouldn't hurt too much. Might as well just do away with them.

Either cough up some damn stamps or put that mods head on a pike. No game can stand with some damn accountability.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Bananaistan, I understand you were disappointed, but I regret that you went straight to re-submission. SL, it's not victim-blaming to say that those mods who reversed the decision accepted the deleting mod's explanation to us that there were issues with the text.

As to reimbursement, I'm afraid that when Sedge takes it up with Admin, I'll be putting the case that you should not be reimbursed for your stamps. I believe you are a fair-minded person and will understand why I oppose setting a precedent that would disadvantage players who don't use, or can't afford, them.

Auralia's reimbursement was not a precedent. It was instantly suggested as reparation by the mods who discussed the Discard, because I had given wrong information about a specific rule, and mods stand in lieu of Max. Further, the DIscard was new and its operation was unpredictable. Reimbursement seemed fair, in those unusual circumstances.

Your proposal, by contrast, was deleted for cause during a standard sweep of the list. Regardless of the fact that it was later declared legal, having a quorate proposal swept is something that could happen to any player (though, naturally, we'd all prefer it didn't happen at all). A player who had bought stamps to campaign would lose the stamps. A player who had campaigned the old-fashioned way, or with a script, would lose their time. As the time cannot be replaced, then, in my personal opinion, the money should not be, either. Stamps buy convenience, not any extra guarantees. Buying them is the player's choice, and I see it as unfair that stamp-buyers should be reimbursed -- suffer no loss, yet gain convenience -- when non-stamp campaigners do lose out.

Okay, now I'm going to start calling you out because this is becoming too ridiculous to ignore.
You don't want to set precedent? Whatever you do, precedent will be set (or continued?). What we have currently is a system in which mod error negatively impacts players and there is no repercussion for the failure of moderation or return for the impacted player.

The proposal wasn't deleted for a valid cause- it was deleted because someone got trigger happy and no amount of you stubbornly denying that is going to change the fact that the gun is still smoking. I understand time cannot be returned to script users but when you remove a proposal that made use of stamps, you are invalidating the service rendered that the player paid money for.

Either cough up some damn stamps or put that mods head on a pike. No game can stand with some damn accountability.

This is being discussed by the moderation team as a whole, we're taking all of this into account in our deliberation. In the meantime let's get back to the proposal.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"We support this proposal, both for its expansion of the scope of the OEA into election monitoring beyond transitioning nations, and for its firm stance against further interfering in matters of internal governance by the World Assembly. Non-democratic states should not be able to lecture democratic states on how to run their elections and until such time as the WA embraces democratisation more fully, any attempts at regulating elections through GA legislation are skewed, unfair and self-defeating.

"However we did also predict this would go down in flames, and lo..."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

[Sovreignry]

Regarding the "it's happened twice" argument: as I understand it, the deletion of JPT's proposal was a mechanical slip. Possibly the suggested redesign of the proposal queue might help avoid such errors. The deletion of Bananaistan's was done in good faith by a mod sweeping the queue, and reversed as quickly as possible, given the difficulties of arranging a review across international datelines and RL obligations. In my opinion, there is no cause for any individual mod to be "sanctioned".

"Yes your honor, I did pull the trigger with the full intent of killing the man, but it was actually a mechanical failure of the gun that it fired and the bullet struck and killed him."

That's what I'm hearing.

[Excidium Planetis]

I see no reason to vote against this resolution. It only affects democracies that want to be affected, as far as I can tell, so I don't see why so many people are opposed to it.

[Christian Democrats]

<snip>

As I've said before, there should be a function for game moderators to queue proposals.

I see no reason to vote against this resolution. It only affects democracies that want to be affected, as far as I can tell, so I don't see why so many people are opposed to it.

It would block future resolutions promoting free and fair elections.

[Sam R]

I would consider myself a strong supporter of this because it gives the people of the world freedom.

[The Backwardest Nation You Know]

Dictocracy ftw!

[Excidium Planetis]

<snip>

As I've said before, there should be a function for game moderators to queue proposals.

I see no reason to vote against this resolution. It only affects democracies that want to be affected, as far as I can tell, so I don't see why so many people are opposed to it.

It would block future resolutions promoting free and fair elections.

How so?

I would consider myself a strong supporter of this because it gives the people of the world freedom.

Not really...

[Kaltib]

Kaltib believes that this idea to expand democracy is ridiculous. We can not impose democracy on sovereign nations. In addition some countries don't want to rule with a democracy and that is fine.

[Excidium Planetis]

Kaltib believes that this idea to expand democracy is ridiculous. We can not impose democracy on sovereign nations. In addition some countries don't want to rule with a democracy and that is fine.

Your nation obviously does not know how to read resolutions. This resolution imposes democracy on no one.

[Christian Democrats]

It would block future resolutions promoting free and fair elections.

How so?

Read Section 3.

[Kaboomlandia]

How so?

Read Section 3.

Hey! This is a blocker!