I know it's too late to remove it, but is this really legal?

[Naivetry]

Requesting a ruling on the legality of the resolution at vote in the SC:

The World Assembly,

NOTING that Ninja Pirate awesome town has recently created well over 250 puppet nations, boosting their region's ranking of population in the world to 18;

UNDERSTANDING that this move is legal, yet disappointing, unsportsmanlike, and dishonest to others;

NOTING that through two main "puppetmasters", Ninja Pirate awesome town has been using these (at the very least) 250 nations to release false propaganda and spam other regions, nations, and message boards several times, decrease other regions' integrity, and threatening other regions' cultural heritage;

FURTHER NOTING that among the regions affected by this is Imperium Sine Fine;

FURTHER UNDERSTANDING that spam and harassment shouldn't be reasons for a condemnation, as there have already been several bans on this issue, but, rather, the other actions of the region, such as the irritating puppet nations and constant annoyances in general;

BELIEVING that the actions of Ninja Pirate awesome town should be condemned;

HEREBY CONDEMNS Ninja Pirate awesome town for utilising unfair advantages, spam, harassment, and false propaganda.

The first two clauses address a perceived puppet flooding problem. The other arguments violate the rule against Condemning people for mod-actionable offenses (spamming). While the resolution notes that "spam and harassment shouldn't be reasons for a condemnation", all it mentions besides this spam is "the irritating puppet nations and constant annoyances in general", without listing any "constant annoyances" that would not fall under a GHR.

In other words, the only legal rationale behind this proposal is (apparently) that the region consists of puppets, but the entire resolution (apart from the first two clauses) centers around mod-actionable harassment, NOT the puppets themselves. If it passes, it's going to give the impression that the SC exists to disapprove of regions when the mods aren't doing their job quickly enough for the proposer.

So - are those two first clauses enough to make it legal?

[The Most Glorious Hack]

If it's At Vote, you're stuck.

[Enn]

As a hypothetical then, would something like this be judged legal in the future? To my mind, it straddles the boundary between legal and illegal (since much of the proposal is about Mod-worthy actions), but the SC is after all still working out its rules.

[Naivetry]

If it's At Vote, you're stuck.

I know, hence the title of the thread. Enn phrased the question better.

[JURISDICTIONS]

Why shouldn't mod actions be discussed in the SC, if you look at it one way, NS mods are like an Universal Police Force... they have put rules in place so everyone plays nice... and if a player violates these mod rules... then the nation has broken something of "International standards" I personally do not see what is wrong with mod actions along with other things to prove the said entity is bad. But, if the entire resolution is based on mod actions then it should be illegal... what do you guys think?

[Mousebumples]

Why shouldn't mod actions be discussed in the SC, if you look at it one way, NS mods are like an Universal Police Force... they have put rules in place so everyone plays nice... and if a player violates these mod rules... then the nation has broken something of "International standards" I personally do not see what is wrong with mod actions along with other things to prove the said entity is bad. But, if the entire resolution is based on mod actions then it should be illegal... what do you guys think?

From "Why Did My C&C Get Chucked Out of the Queue?" by Ard:

2. You've made a proposal about something that can and should be dealt with in another forum, probably Moderation: "The WA should condemn Sparky because he flamed me today in my thread about my embassy because I said his guards couldn't carry nuclear-powered pistols" is O-U-T.

While the proposal in question doesn't deal with flaming, it deals with spam/harassment - which should also be handled via Moderation (well, GHR's, but the same concept).

As such, I tend to agree with Nai that it's legality is perhaps borderline, at best. However, as I'm not a mod, that's not my distinction to make.

[Ardchoille]

For now, I'll just say it has to do with the distinction between using a Condemnation as an alternative to -- instead of -- mod action, and using it to complement (supplement, underline) mod action. Since the distinction isn't clear in the rules, looks like it's rewrite time. Sorry, right now I'm chasing a deadline, but I'll get back to this.