Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Bananaistan]

No, that's not at all obvious! It would be the very personification of the previously much maligned WA elite. Every single GA player has an interest in working out the standards of the council. It would be utterly disastrous if it's going to be that case the mods are going to appoint X number of players and let them off to do as they wish with no oversight from anyone nor input into the processes. How would this be any improvement on the current GA where the mods already do this after running through the pretense of consulting the community? Letting the council off to work out their own standards is no improvement!

The Council is going to be doing the work, why shouldn't it set those standards? Do you have any interest in reading a ten page argument on a minor rule point? I sure wouldn't if I was on the Council, I have a life, such as it is. Some of these have to be judgment calls. When is an argument too vague? Can you give me a hard and fast limit on that? That would have to be a function of judgment. What is too long? As previously mentioned, you might be fine reading through a ten page Word document. I wouldn't want to read through more than two.

That is precisely the point I'm making. I can't give a hard and fast limit on what is too vague, neither can you, neither could this new official GA clique. If nobody can define it, don't include it in the rules. But still allow all of the GA have their say on the rules given that this new official GA clique will have a major impact on how everyone plays this part of the game.

If a challenger lacks the language skills, what is the Council supposed to do? Parse it out and hope they got it right? If one cannot articulate the issue clearly, then one cannot make an appeal. That is basically how the real world works. Try again better or don't.

I will refer you back to the very first sentence of my original comment on this matter:

Throwing out a ruling request which fails to state a specific legal question is fair enough.

Yeah, it's not like they wouldn't bring any preconceived notions of legality to their own wording.

Everybody is going to bring preconceived notions and prior experience. We balance that by bringing in a diverse group.

I can't agree with this. A councilor participating in deliberations on a part of a resolution which they themselves wrote, which would be the case in the particular hypothetical I posited: a councilor suggests a specific wording for a clause or part of a clause, subsequently there is a legal challenge to this clause or part of a clause, or indeed the entire resolution. If this councilor now sits in judgement of that resolution, they are acting as a judge in their own case. You seem fine with this, I'm not, and I'd suggest that if this new official GA clique is going to work in such a fashion it will do greater harm to the GA than the current system does. Particularly as it will perpetuate the already stated in the thread perception that this new official GA clique will further "dominate" this part of the game for the benefit of a select few GA regulars.

What? This is pure revisionism. I recall that the majority of players were in favour of the council subforum being viewable by the "general public" and what you are actually referring to was the discussion around the anonymity of GHRs.

Not everybody was. Just one example I pulled out of many from CD.

And if the council must reach a majority opinion, just how would "council shopping" be possible?

Not all members are available always. Easy enough to wait until you know somebody is on temporary hiatus. The Mods had their own issues with this and appealing punishments.

Again, I operate off of what I viewed the majority opinion of regulars to be in the thread. Kryo and Sedge, both active mods in this thread, have come out in favor of a degree of anonymity. I have no horse in that race.

No you didn't operate off of the majority opinion as the majority opinion wanted full transparency as evidenced by the answers to Ara's questions. You then decided to include anonymity in your suggested procedures based on the opinion of the opposing minority.

And the simple way to get around this non-issue of "council shopping" is to require that in all cases a decision of illegality must be agreed to a majority of members of the council, rather than just a majority of those online at the time.

Well that is why I refered to "issues other than a point of law". So any accusations of bias, or improper conduct, or a case not fairly heard, etc, would be appealed to the mods. Unless you imagine that the mods are effectively going to completely remove themselves from the GA and permit this new GA clique to police themselves and the GA up to and including the site rules?

Which would neuter the entire thing. The entire point was, as I was loudly told by Gruen, to get the moderators out of this. If anybody can take it right up the ladder every time, then there isn't going to be any point to sticking with the Council, because the Mod team is just going to dish out the rulings.

If the Council's behavior violates site rules, the mods can deal with that. The entire point of the Council was to leave the issue of legality in the hands of the GA community.

In simple terms, my suggestion here is:
A point of law = not appealable
Everything else including allegations of misconduct by the council = appealable

[Separatist Peoples]

That is precisely the point I'm making. I can't give a hard and fast limit on what is too vague, neither can you, neither could this new official GA clique. If nobody can define it, don't include it in the rules. But still allow all of the GA have their say on the rules given that this new official GA clique will have a major impact on how everyone plays this part of the game.

Once the council forms, they can make that decision, by collective agreement. They can say "Nothing more than two pages", or "No more than 13 words" or "Absolutely less than 50 Characters, but no more than 7". I left if vague because thats a decision the seated members should make collectively, not something we should make for them.

Obviously, my examples are a little absurd, but its just to make a point.

Throwing out a ruling request which fails to state a specific legal question is fair enough.

Fair enough.

I can't agree with this. A councilor participating in deliberations on a part of a resolution which they themselves wrote, which would be the case in the particular hypothetical I posited: a councilor suggests a specific wording for a clause or part of a clause, subsequently there is a legal challenge to this clause or part of a clause, or indeed the entire resolution. If this councilor now sits in judgement of that resolution, they are acting as a judge in their own case. You seem fine with this, I'm not, and I'd suggest that if this new official GA clique is going to work in such a fashion it will do greater harm to the GA than the current system does. Particularly as it will perpetuate the already stated in the thread perception that this new official GA clique will further "dominate" this part of the game for the benefit of a select few GA regulars.

That's why Councilmembers with a personal interest have to recuse themselves...Which I wrote down in my proposed procedure...thats why I didn't leave it solely with authors.

In simple terms, my suggestion here is:
A point of law = not appealable
Everything else including allegations of misconduct by the council = appealable

I think we were talking past each other, which created this misunderstanding. I thought you meant appealing a point of law to the mods.

The issue here is that there will potentially be allegations of bias and misconduct for every ruling that goes against a player. The easy way around this, I feel, is to place the burden of proof on the party claiming the misconduct. This is an excellent argument against anonymity, certainly.

[Separatist Peoples]

Which are just as likely as not to be founded accusations. You know as well as I do, politics will play right into this.

Prove it. Show evidence of your point. As the one making that assertion, the burden of proof falls on you.

Which is almost impossible if the council members are anonymous.

Yet you are the one who is pushing for anonymity in the first place.

You just can't manage anything gracefully, can you? Generally, when one cedes a point, you don't start playing the "Neener-Neener" card.

[Sciongrad]

I don't know if you are some sacrificial lamb that is parading out these suggestions at the behest of the powers at be...

Pffft, what kind of crazy conspiracy theory is this? "Some sacrificial lamb?" acting at the behest of "the powers that be?" That's just crazy, honestly. The last thing we need is for anyone to buy into these crazy conspiracy theories. What even is a UNOG, anyway? Sounds like some type of energy drink, am I right? Hahahahahahaha... What do you mean they never mentioned UNOG? Hey, look at that shiny thing over there!

[Excidium Planetis]

I don't know if you are some sacrificial lamb that is parading out these suggestions at the behest of the powers at be...

Pffft, what kind of crazy conspiracy theory is this? "Some sacrificial lamb?" acting at the behest of "the powers that be?" That's just crazy, honestly. The last thing we need is for anyone to buy into these crazy conspiracy theories. What even is a UNOG, anyway? Sounds like some type of drink, am I right? What do you mean they never mentioned UNOG? Hey, look at that shiny thing over there!

The WA Elite will prevail.

[Separatist Peoples]

How can I provide evidence, when said council doesn't even exist yet? Have the members already been chosen?

Fantastic, so you admit it's a purely speculative charge.

Sure I can. But when something of this enormity is being decided, I feel it is best to drive the point home so it doesn't get swept under the rug. It wasn't a personal shot at you. I don't know if you are some sacrificial lamb that is parading out these suggestions at the behest of the powers at be, or you are simply just trying to help. If I am mistaken, I sincerely apologize, but my point is still valid is it not? I don't seek to make enemies around here, just to point out flaws in what could be one of the most monumental and potentially divisive decisions ever made in the history of the General Assembly.

That wasn't meant to drive the point home. Its clearly an option to vent rage at the system that, near as I can tell, has managed to wrong you. Its entirely unhelpful, and it's been a reliable pattern with you.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fantastic, so you admit it's a purely speculative charge.

Not at all. I am merely pointing out a potential problem that has a chance of cropping up.

I think that what SP is trying to say is that there is no concrete reason why we should assume that politics will play a part in the Council. If that is his argument, I'd have to agree. Like I've said before, I might just be over-optimistic, but I'd trust that the Mods would take a dim view of Council members abusing their power for political gain.

[Gruenberg]

I'd trust that the Mods would take a dim view of Council members abusing their power for political gain.

Why would you trust that? This whole thing has come about because the moderators have obviously failed to inspire trust among the players. And it's not like there haven't been examples of the moderators themselves collaborating for political gain.

[Sedgistan]

Just noting that Pays-Bas was DOS Chester, so there's nothing to gain from responding to them further.

[Cardoness]

I don't have much to add to this discussion at this time other than to weigh in supporting this idea. I have long supported the idea of a group of more knowledgable WA members acting as "mentors" of sorts for the newer members, as Abacathea, Ard, and others can attest. I also like the idea of a group of members with demonstrated understanding of the rules being able to take some of the more time consuming debate and ruling off the plates of the mods. I believe this will speed the process of challenge/ruling up considerably and still allow the mods to overturn on appeal if needed. As for any other thoughts I have at this moment, SP has stated the case clearly enough thus far.

[Excidium Planetis]

Should we allow dissenting Council members to appeal the Council's own rulings? Say, for example you have a divisive issue where the Council decides 3-2 (or 4-3 or 5-4 whatever) on something, and one of the dissenters wants a higher opinion.

[Sedgistan]

We'd like to thank everyone for their feedback so far. We still want to hear your thoughts going forward, so what we're about to announce doesn't mean an end to this thread.

We are going ahead with a Council. This will initially be player-nominated and mod-appointed, though we (all of us) will review the method of selection again in the future.

This bring us to a key point. We're doing something entirely new and experimental here. We're willing to try different things in the process. How things start out may not be how they end up, and we may make changes in the meantime that later get scrapped. The discussion we've had, and continue to have, is extremely useful, but it's also key to try things out and see how they work. That doesn't mean that we're about to adopt completely wacky ideas, because "why not", but that we're going to be adventurous, and also accept that if something doesn't work it needs changing.

At the initial stage, while we see how things go, Council decisions will require mod "sign-offs". This helps us to get things established, makes it easier to change things as necessary, and saves the admins from coding up tools (e.g. "Hold") that may require significant changes if it's decided that the Council should work differently. We do expect the Council to transition to having full decision-making powers.

Council Composition:

• 6 players nominated and vetted from a selection of General Assembly players
• No on elections for now. However, could be open to future council discussion.
• Mods wanting to participate

Council Responsibilities:

• Discuss and process legality challenges and appeals to old rulings
• OSRS violations, Plagiarism and Games Mechanics are reserved for Moderation only.
• Provide a second opinion on proposals falling into a grey area not yet subject to a legal challenge
• Encourage newer authors to seek drafting assistance and legality rulings before proposal submission
• Members whose proposals are subject to a legality challenge will abstain from participation in the discussion and vote on its status
• Mods acting in the council can participate in legality rulings as much as they like. Mods don't have to weigh in on the legality debates, but the actual removal of any proposals that the council has deemed illegal requires a mod to enact. GA mods can continue to remove obvious violations while deferring for 'grey area' proposals

We are posting a thread for people to post nominations for the Council (here). All discussions regarding potential candidates belong in that thread. This thread will remain open for general discussion of the Council.

[Separatist Peoples]

Why six and not five or seven? This open the doors to a tie issue.

[Bananaistan]

1. A strong understanding of the proposal rules, including subtle nuances;
2. A relatively clean warn history (though we don't expect records to be spotless) and proven ability to debate civilly;
3. A passion to make the General Assembly better for newcomers and veterans;
4. Regular participation in the General Assembly forum;
5. An understanding of where they came from thus understanding the newcomer;
6. A willingness to work on a team with others to resolve legality challenges

The above are the "qualifications" listed in the nominations thread (which are surprisingly similar to those listed in the first post despite there having been many pages of discussion since).

Number 1 seems reasonable and everyone can see who does and does not have a strong understanding of the rules.

Number 2 is not necessarily apparent to ordinary GA regulars, nor is "relatively" clear. Perhaps this should be clarified. Just how much of a warn history is a no no? And are we talking forum warn history or illegal proposal dings?

Number 3 is fine sentiment but completely wooly and incredible difficult to quantify.

Number 4 is fair enough but again "regular participation" is not particularly clear. How many posts over what period of time are we talking?

Number 5 seems to be complete nonsense and impossible to quantify.

Number 6 is impossible to quantify prior to seeing how an individual works as part of this team.

---

Given that these qualifications are so anomalous, just how are the mods going judge the relative merits of nominees? Are we back to "X seems like a good fit"?

How long is this trial period going to last?

There is no mention of how this is going to work. Is there going to be a private forum? Do past rulings form binding precedent? Does the council deal only with challenges submitted by GHR? The only mention of conflict of interest is in respect of proposals authored by a council member, what about co-authors, or substantial contributions or advice?

[Excidium Planetis]

Why six and not five or seven? This open the doors to a tie issue.

I want an answer to this question too. I don't think anyone in this entire thread suggested 6 members. It seems common sense to avoid ties by choosing an odd number.

[The Blaatschapen]

Number 2 is not necessarily apparent to ordinary GA regulars, nor is "relatively" clear. Perhaps this should be clarified. Just how much of a warn history is a no no? And are we talking forum warn history or illegal proposal dings?

There's no hard and fast answer here.

For me, speaking strictly personally, I would not want anyone that has warnings/bans for severe harassment, password cracking, or having multiple deletions for repeated rulebreaking on any team (also Mentors, Editors, etc.). In the Council's case, I guess that being WA banned also would not make sense

[Reploid Productions]

Why six and not five or seven? This open the doors to a tie issue.

For the time being, the GA-knowledgeable mods can serve as tiebreakers, plus we're not absolutely beholden to keeping it at six forever; the exact details can and may very well change as we start to thrash out how things work in practice. Odds are that once things are tested out, we have a better idea of what to look for in council members, and mods can reduce our involvement that we will probably shift it to an odd number.

Given that these qualifications are so anomalous, just how are the mods going judge the relative merits of nominees? Are we back to "X seems like a good fit"?

How long is this trial period going to last?

There is no mention of how this is going to work. Is there going to be a private forum? Do past rulings form binding precedent? Does the council deal only with challenges submitted by GHR? The only mention of conflict of interest is in respect of proposals authored by a council member, what about co-authors, or substantial contributions or advice?

To answer in order:
-The qualifications are guidelines, and may (and most likely will) be further refined as time goes on and everybody gets a better feel for what works and what doesn't work. Given we don't yet know what actually makes a good council member, nailing down more quantifiable requirements is going to be a live fire exercise.

-I don't have an answer for how long the trial period will last. A few months at the least, and that's assuming that what we've hashed out thus far works flawlessly and needs no adjustments. It will probably be more like a series of trial periods as we test out the initial version, find something that doesn't work very well and replace/change it, then test the new version and so on.

-The council will have a private chamber at the outset, though like everything else with this project, it is entirely possible that could change in the future.

-Hard to say at this point how much precedent past rulings will create regarding new decisions. Past decisions will most likely be brought up when the council is debating the legality of a new proposal that has similarities to a past ruling, but how great an impact that has on new legality challenges remains to be seen. It could well be that a new challenge brings up a point that hadn't been considered previously, thus upending the previous precedent as well.

-We're actually discussing whether or not to continue accepting legality challenges via GHR in favor of requiring legality challenges to be made in the forum. Reason being is that if it's submitted via GHR, it needs a game mod to then cross-post it to the council; and legality challenges aside, the GHR is for reporting TOS violations, while proposal legality is more of a community standards issue than a TOS issue. But yes, the council would primarily be dealing with submitted legality challenges. Hopefully we can also get aspiring proposal authors to bring their proposals to the council for feedback and legality checks before they submit them. Hopefully players getting into a habit like that will reduce situations such as "Oh crap, this proposal has a legality issue but the author stamp-campaigned it like crazy to reach quorum and now we've got to rush a legality decision and/or discard an at-vote proposal!"

-... I could swear the original version of that in the sekrit lair included co-author credit and "substantial investment of time and advice" on the "Council members plz to abstain from voting on legality challenges in these situation-" list. Oops.

[Gruenberg]

Discuss and process legality challenges and appeals to old rulings

Just so long as we are unambiguously clear that they can indeed overturn previous moderator rulings?

Provide a second opinion on proposals falling into a grey area not yet subject to a legal challenge

If they haven't been subject to a challenge, what was the "first opinion"?

Encourage newer authors to seek drafting assistance and legality rulings before proposal submission

The majority of proposals are not posted on the forum prior to submission, so how will this be accomplished?

Mods acting in the council can participate in legality rulings as much as they like.

So a group of mods could overrule the Council? So a 2-3-1 split could be decided by 2 mods weighing in with the 2? So players have to recuse themselves if their proposals are up for debate, but moderators don't have to recuse themselves if their rulings are up for debate?

GA mods can continue to remove obvious violations while deferring for 'grey area' proposals

What is an "obvious" violation?

Mods wanting to participate.

OK. Here would be my suggestion: allow players to nominate moderators, when nominating the Council members. If no moderators get nominated, then they don't get to participate. If some players actually nominate some of the current WA moderators to sit on the Council, then fair enough.

[Cardoness]

Should we allow dissenting Council members to appeal the Council's own rulings? Say, for example you have a divisive issue where the Council decides 3-2 (or 4-3 or 5-4 whatever) on something, and one of the dissenters wants a higher opinion.

I would yes. If an issue is gray to the point that the experts are so divided, then it makes sense that a higher ruling should be sought. My understanding is that this council will not eliminate the need to the mods to weigh in, but rather limit the frequency they have to. If the council as a whole is in agreement, or mostly so, then no further action would be required. This also goes to the issue of a tie in an even numbered council. If the 6 councilors can't agree, than it should be elevated to the mods.

It also seems to me that the wider issue is being overlooked. The purpose of this council is not only to sit in judgement of proposals, but also to guide newer members and assist them in being successful. I have too often had my fill of the members who suck all the fun out of this game to the point I just stop logging in for a while. Experienced members seem to compete with each other as to who can more throughly trash a proposed resolution. Yes, often times they are bad, but there is a difference between showing a new person their error and encouraging them to try again, and so destroying them that they leave and never darken our halls again. What's worse, that is the goal of many members. They don't want the new people to clutter up their space so they drive them away. This council, and its members, but work to counteract that negativity and edify new members. I see that as being the main role of the council, with questions of legality being secondary.

[Sciongrad]

Should we allow dissenting Council members to appeal the Council's own rulings? Say, for example you have a divisive issue where the Council decides 3-2 (or 4-3 or 5-4 whatever) on something, and one of the dissenters wants a higher opinion.

No, then we're giving the council too much power. It should be a purely passive body whose role is to interpret the rules. If we let council members appeal the majority's rulings, that 1. will give the council greater agency in changing the rules beyond what is necessary, and 2. almost certainly promote factionalism. If the party that brought the legality question to the council wants to appeal, let them. Giving the council independent power to have something appealed is a bad idea, in my opinion.

[Flanderlion]

[*]No on elections for now. However, could be open to future council discussion.

So no elections ever. Good luck to the Council's future, I'm not sure if I can pretend the council can fix any of what I regard the main GA's problem, the culture for newer players, but hopefully it'll ease the work load for the mods.

[Kryozerkia]

Discuss and process legality challenges and appeals to old rulings

Just so long as we are unambiguously clear that they can indeed overturn previous moderator rulings?

As long as it is done with consensus and reasoned debate.

Provide a second opinion on proposals falling into a grey area not yet subject to a legal challenge

If they haven't been subject to a challenge, what was the "first opinion"?

A "first opinion" is a GA mod reading a proposal in queue and thinking, "this feels illegal... but I can't place my finger on it." This is where a second pair of fresh eyes is good.

Encourage newer authors to seek drafting assistance and legality rulings before proposal submission

The majority of proposals are not posted on the forum prior to submission, so how will this be accomplished?

This is something that will be determined by the council and mods. It's an area targeted for outreach. Improvement would be ideal. The objective would be to get new authors to become regular participants and make contributions.

Mods acting in the council can participate in legality rulings as much as they like.

So a group of mods could overrule the Council? So a 2-3-1 split could be decided by 2 mods weighing in with the 2? So players have to recuse themselves if their proposals are up for debate, but moderators don't have to recuse themselves if their rulings are up for debate?

Overruling is not allowed. It is one vote one member. The mods are subject to the same standard. As for the ruling, we'd have to check because we don't always participate in a ruling. I know I've posted one or two because it was requested.

GA mods can continue to remove obvious violations while deferring for 'grey area' proposals

What is an "obvious" violation?

This will be detailed out in a document for council members. Take a look at the Illegal Proposal thread. The ones that jump out to you - for example - would qualify as "obvious". Proposals that look legal on the surface would fall into the "grey" area.

Mods wanting to participate.

OK. Here would be my suggestion: allow players to nominate moderators, when nominating the Council members. If no moderators get nominated, then they don't get to participate. If some players actually nominate some of the current WA moderators to sit on the Council, then fair enough.

This standards do not exist anywhere else on this site. Mods are able to freely participate with IEs and Mentors. I see little reason for this to be different.

[*]No on elections for now. However, could be open to future council discussion.

So no elections ever. Good luck to the Council's future, I'm not sure if I can pretend the council can fix any of what I regard the main GA's problem, the culture for newer players, but hopefully it'll ease the work load for the mods.

That's a bit of a leap. A lot of this stuff, notably procedural stuff, is going to be decided with the council. Nothing is written in stone. Having elections immediately would create its own set of challenges. Guaranteeing elections is also something we don't want to do. We're going to trust the council to work with Moderation to decide on workable method for replacement of members.

[Excidium Planetis]

If the party that brought the legality question to the council wants to appeal, let them.

Some people (like SP) do not believe that the party which brought the question should be allowed to appeal.

So basically, we would have divisive 3-2 decisions being made final, with no opportunity to appeal.

[Separatist Peoples]

If the party that brought the legality question to the council wants to appeal, let them.

Some people (like SP) do not believe that the party which brought the question should be allowed to appeal.

So basically, we would have divisive 3-2 decisions being made final, with no opportunity to appeal.

I think appeals to the council on matters of law would be pointless (why would the opinions change immediately after? What benefit is there beyond trying to overwhelm the system or the council-members? An appeal should only be grounds if the law changes, or the rulings change, such that the answer to the legal question is materially different), and appeal to the mods to overrule the council would neuter the authority of the council.

There was a valid point made regarding gross misbehavior by the council, but that should be as limited as possible to prevent overuse.

[Gruenberg]

As long as it is done with consensus and reasoned debate.

This sounds like, if the Council decides to overrule the moderator, the moderator can throw this out if he - or, perhaps, she - doesn't feel they have had a "reasoned debate".

A "first opinion" is a GA mod reading a proposal in queue and thinking, "this feels illegal... but I can't place my finger on it." This is where a second pair of fresh eyes is good.

*snort* Your comedic timing remains as adroit as ever.

This is something that will be determined by the council and mods. It's an area targeted for outreach. Improvement would be ideal. The objective would be to get new authors to become regular participants and make contributions.

It's a fairly massive issue that so far as I can see hasn't previously been discussed at all in the course of this thread. I'd go so far as to say that if this is the aim of the Council, we need to start all over again from square one, because reaching proposal submitters who bypass the forum isn't something any forum regulars are going to have any experience at. Where did the idea that this was going to be a major council responsibility come from?

Overruling is not allowed. It is one vote one member. The mods are subject to the same standard.

Yes, and there are many more mods than council members. As for the 2-3-1 ruling, as I pointed out the 2 mods could thereby overrule the council. And yes, let's say you were involved in a previous ruling, obviously. Having had answered absolutely none of my questions, I'll ask them again:

So a group of mods could overrule the Council? So a 2-3-1 split could be decided by 2 mods weighing in with the 2? So players have to recuse themselves if their proposals are up for debate, but moderators don't have to recuse themselves if their rulings are up for debate?

This will be detailed out in a document for council members. Take a look at the Illegal Proposal thread. The ones that jump out to you - for example - would qualify as "obvious". Proposals that look legal on the surface would fall into the "grey" area.

What? That's a completely nonsense standard. Many of the proposals that "jump out" to moderators as being illegal are not, or are not illegal for the reasons they claim. Bananaistan once spent five months drafting a resolution which you then deleted after five hours, wrongly as it almost immediately turned out - presumably it "jumped out" to you at the time. If the moderators are still removing all of these resolutions, the Council appears to have no value.

This standards [sic] do not exist anywhere else on this site. Mods are able to freely participate with IEs and Mentors. I see little reason for this to be different.

Yes, it is quite a departure, isn't it? As for seeing no reason, I pointed it out in my post. You also "saw no reason" for the ruling you just had overturned, incidentally, so maybe your inability to see reason is the bigger issue here.