[Request] Permission for second opinions in the WA?

[The Dark Star Republic]

^ Feel free to edit the tag, I wasn't sure what to use but this is not a [Report] thread.

Recently two moderators have made what I consider to be questionable rulings in the WA. Some WA rulings are not allowed to be appealed for a second opinion, but which ones are and which ones aren't remains rather opaque, so I'd like to ask whether we are allowed to seek a second opinion on either of these:

Global warming and ozone holes are RW violations because as far as we know they apply to only one planet, real-world, present-day Earth.

This seems to flatly contradict the fact that multiple proposals on global warming and ozone holes were ruled legal - and voted into resolutions! - in the NSUN. The question of whether global warming was "to real world a term" [sic] was even explicitly asked before, with the answer:

No.

It's just likely to spawn all sorts of IC complaints. Then again, so does everything else...

Gun Control, be it "relax" or "tighten", is about degrees of control (background checks, etc), not outright prohibition of ownership. That would be Moral Decency, since it would be removing a right or privilege (depending on how a nation views gun ownership).

The idea that a proposal to ban guns does not belong in the Gun Control category is afaik completely new. The follow-up explanation just adds further murkiness and completely contradicts previous statements.

I've spoilered the commentary so it's there but it won't cause this thread to spawn a whole discussion: all I'm asking (again) is, can we ask for a second opinion on either, both, or neither of these rulings?

[Ardchoille]

You may certainly query my comment.

In order to help clarify, for any wandering GA mod, the circumstances of the query relating to my comment are:

My reply was a continuation of a conversation with Tzorsland, in which he had said

<snip>I really hope that such limitations are not imposed on resolutions, especially when real world earth problems (such as global warming, ozone holes, etc) are generally considered real world violations.

Thus, it was an explanation of why such proposals are generally considered RW violations. Such proposals usually come from newcomers whose writing makes clear that they are referring to Earth throughout their proposal, a fact of GA life to which Tzors and I were making glancing reference.

As to DS's example, I would certainly agree with Hack that the words "global warming" would not, of themselves, be "to(o) real world a term". It would depend on the body of the proposal. As I said later in that same post, "What can be brought into Resolution text is a real-world situation so general that it applies widely in the NS Multiverse". If it were generalised enough to fit other planets, real or imaginary, as well, it would be fine.

The other point DS raised in his original post, but not here, was whether my comment "completely overturns Frisbeeteria's ruling on ''Help Prevent Ozone Depletion' ". Since that ruling proved to be focussed on the existence of north and south poles, I concur with Fris's ruling. Mentioning the existence of poles is not a real-world reference.(I doubt that the NS UN version of that Resolution would go unchallenged today, but it could be rewritten to fit the more Multiverse-oriented outlook of the GA.)

I regret that the existence of the concept "unappealable ruling" causes such confusion. I will try, once again, to clarify it. Any passing comment by a GA mod that a player chooses to take as a one-size-fits-all ruling may be queried; usually this is best done instantly, while the mod is online, to seek clarification. In this case, I regret that other more time-sensitive modding duties, followed by a week-long recovery from an attack of heat exhaustion (bloody sneaky Australian spring!), made it impossible for me to reply instantly myself. Failing that, the next step could have been to refer it to Q&A for whatever GA mod picked it up to comment. This parallels the system of appeals in Moderation, where people may ask for a second opinion. It is generally more informal because WA rulings, while legislatively significant, are not usually punitive. However, there is nothing to stop anyone making a query into a formal appeal by asking in Moderation for a second opinion.

Players may also appeal via GHR. Sometimes these are dealt with by a single mod. If the issue needs further clarification, players may ask other GA mods to comment publicly. If it is contentious, the available GA mods will discuss it, and issue a public Hive MInd ruling, labelled as such. This parallels the first appeal/final appeal process used for punitive issues, in which Final Appeals are, well, Final, or, if you will, unappealable. Hive Mind rulings are also unappealable because there is simply nowhere else to go. If you appeal to the Seniors or Admins, they will toss it back in our laps. The GA is not the stamping-ground of choice for many mods, and its intricate rules, and attempts by players to lawyer their way around them, remain opaque to those who specialise in other areas (just as non-Sports Mods would not dream of arbitrating an Olympics dispute, or non-RPers settle canon for International Incidents, but all would happily enter any forum to deal with flaming).

As to your query regarding Kryo's ruling, we're looking at the stats effects, so there's no need for a further appeal.

[The Dark Star Republic]

You may certainly query my comment.

Ok, thank you. I'd like to do so, then: I don't mind whether the opinion is posted to the original thread (but Hakio probably does), the Q&A thread, this thread, a new thread, wherever.

I am sorry that you were ill; obviously, your RL health always comes first. But equally, something you guys tend to forget when beating us over the head with that big "mods have real lives" stick is that we do too. Asking for a second opinion "instantly" may not always be possible, and if you're going to go over a month without reading forum threads, I don't even see how you would notice such requests.

As to your query regarding Kryo's ruling, we're looking at the stats effects, so there's no need for a further appeal.

If not an appeal, then, at least a little clarification? That one really came out of the blue. You said:

With guns, the extreme of "Tighten" would be "Ban Civilian Guns!"

and then in a thread entitled "Bann [sic] Gun Ownership by Civilians", whose first operative clause is "Gun ownership is banned from civilians", the ruling comes that Gun Control > Tighten is not appropriate? At the risk of sounding like one of those "befuddled newcomers" you so dislike, that really leaves me very confused as to how that whole category works.

[Ardchoille]

You may certainly query my comment.

Ok, thank you. I'd like to do so, then.

OK, have sent up a flare for a GA mod.

... something you guys tend to forget when beating us over the head with that big "mods have real lives" stick is that we do too. Asking for a second opinion "instantly" may not always be possible, and if you're going to go over a month without reading forum threads, I don't even see how you would notice such requests.

We don't forget it, we try to work around it. That's the point I thought I was making. If you've had a query, but not been able to put it at the moment it occurred, or it hasn't been answered, there are other ways to get a response, such as Q&A.

As to your query regarding Kryo's ruling, we're looking at the stats effects, so there's no need for a further appeal.

If not an appeal, then, at least a little clarification? That one really came out of the blue. You said:

With guns, the extreme of "Tighten" would be "Ban Civilian Guns!"

and then in a thread entitled "Bann [sic] Gun Ownership by Civilians", whose first operative clause is "Gun ownership is banned from civilians", the ruling comes that Gun Control > Tighten is not appropriate?

What you'll get, when we've discussed the stats guys' explanations, will be a clarification. We'll also expand on the category description to cover this point. Please consider previous rulings on this inoperative until we sort it out.

... At the risk of sounding like one of those "befuddled newcomers" you so dislike ...

I adore befuddled newcomers! I clasp them reassuringly to my maternal bosom before directing their faltering baby steps towards the welcoming arms of the Regulars, all of whom are so charmingly eager to guide them in the paths of GA righteousness.

[Sedgistan]

On the "global warming/ozone holes" query, those terms are often RW violations (new players referring to them in the context of the RW earth) but both concepts can be referred to legally - that was the point Ardchoille was aiming to get across.

There'll be an update on the Gun Control category soon; it's just required some discussion around stats.

[The Dark Star Republic]

On the "global warming/ozone holes" query, those terms are often RW violations (new players referring to them in the context of the RW earth) but both concepts can be referred to legally - that was the point Ardchoille was aiming to get across.

That is not at all what Ardchoille actually said, but I'm relieved to see it revised anyway.

Thank you.

[Ardchoille]

That is not at all what Ardchoille actually said, but I'm relieved to see it revised anyway.

Thank you.

I refer you to the spoiler in my post above.

[Ardchoille]

Further to the query on Kryo's ruling: her ruling was completely accurate. The category, as written, included a quirk that had been enforced in the past, but many had forgotten: "tighten" did not extend to "ban". The category simply didn't have the statistical changes to support a ban.

This prompted the stats guys to look more closely at the Gun Control stats, and also those of some earlier categories. As a result, the following has been added to the Gun Control category description:

Note that proposals under this category are Strong to Significant.

As of October 16, 2014, this category may also be used to ban or compel the private use of firearms, though not as a blanket "all forms of firearms under any circumstances" (hint: think practical personal exemptions).

Discussion on other categories is ongoing, but purely technical. Stats changes made shouldn't affect the way proposals are written. If any do, we'll let you know -- a possibility is that the stark Outlaw/Legalise choice in Gambling may be brought into line with Gun Control's new format, allowing graded regulation.

Further discussion about the changes to Gun Control should go in the thread that started the discussion, where I'll make a slightly more detailed post shortly.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Further to the query on Kryo's ruling: her ruling was completely accurate.

It also contradicts literally every statement you guys have ever made about the category, so you can perhaps understand me at least questioning it?

The category, as written, included a quirk that had been enforced in the past,

I don't believe you. I can find no reference to it being enforced in this way anywhere in either the NS.net forums or Jolt archives. Unless it was only ever enforced on the very first NS forums c.2003.

In any case, thank you for following up on this and I look forward to further clarification in the eminently sensible location of a weeks old gravedig of a proposal no longer being actively drafted, as this is still all deeply confusing and unclear.

[Ardchoille]

The category, as written, included a quirk that had been enforced in the past,

I don't believe you. I can find no reference to it being enforced in this way anywhere in either the NS.net forums or Jolt archives. Unless it was only ever enforced on the very first NS forums c.2003.

Perhaps it will help your unbelief to know that the Gun Control, Moral Decency and Political Stability categories were added on April 29, 2003. As to "enforced in this way", if you are looking only for examples of proposals removed after submission, you may be missing player or mod comments that caused text to be amended in drafting.

Whatever, you are obviously not the only one to have missed the implications of the original category description. It is fortunate that Kryo's acuity brought that detail to light, prompting the stats review to ensure consistency.