[Passed]Repeal and Replace GA#92

[The Dark Star Republic]

So for those keeping track, branding is more egregious than committee-only.

[Ainocra]

So noted,

I do not feel that it was illegal.
Was it close? absolutely it was. Given the fact that a fix, had one been deemed necessary would have taken all of about 5 minutes and required only minor changes I can see why it wouldn't be called egregious.

[Ardchoille]

No, it wasn't egregious. But it was technically illegal -- even the mods were unanimous! (It was a struggle to come up with reasons why it might not be, but I hope the discussion points helped players focus their fire on the technicalities.) Thanks to all who responded so thoughtfully.

It's now in the same position as past technically-illegal proposals: the content's as legal as anything else (WASP now has extra duties), but its existence is not to be used as a precedent for other committee violations. Hopefully, it will be used by the whole community as a precedent for spotting the damn things.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

No, it wasn't egregious. But it was technically illegal -- even the mods were unanimous! (It was a struggle to come up with reasons why it might not be, but I hope the discussion points helped players focus their fire on the technicalities.) Thanks to all who responded so thoughtfully.

It's now in the same position as past technically-illegal proposals: the content's as legal as anything else (WASP now has extra duties), but its existence is not to be used as a precedent for other committee violations. Hopefully, it will be used by the whole community as a precedent for spotting the damn things.

Great... Great job guys. A perfectly legal repeal of #2 was passing, and yanked, because of the author name within 8 hours of it going to vote, yet a clearly illegal proposal is allowed to pass? This has moved passed pathetic into some realm I didn't even think was possible.

[Ainocra]

No, it wasn't egregious. But it was technically illegal -- even the mods were unanimous! (It was a struggle to come up with reasons why it might not be, but I hope the discussion points helped players focus their fire on the technicalities.) Thanks to all who responded so thoughtfully.

It's now in the same position as past technically-illegal proposals: the content's as legal as anything else (WASP now has extra duties), but its existence is not to be used as a precedent for other committee violations. Hopefully, it will be used by the whole community as a precedent for spotting the damn things.

Fair enough,

I suppose I'll start working on a corrected version then. At least I'll have a clear reason for a repeal.
I don't intend to get in a rush though.

Great... Great job guys. A perfectly legal repeal of #2 was passing, and yanked, because of the author name within 8 hours of it going to vote, yet a clearly illegal proposal is allowed to pass? This has moved passed pathetic into some realm I didn't even think was possible.

Gentlemen

Please grind your axes elsewhere. Thank you