Discussion Thread for The Rulings Repository

[The Dourian Embassy]

This is for discussing the Rulings and Interpretation thread here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=292463

I think it's obvious that some of the rulings I've referenced in the other thread are not likely to make the cut if we're only considering "major" rulings. But any suggested rulings to go into the list should be made here. What I've collected is a good starting point, and we can and should prune it down. Ard asked for this thread, and I tend to agree. I'll also paste in this request of hers:

In the "comments" thread, please ask people to link to the collected mod-post they're commenting on, suggest alternatives, and say whether they think it should be in the permanent reference list. I can say this confidently even though I haven't been through your collection: some of those are not going to make the cut, and some are going to need editing (for example, if any refer to "citizens" in CoCR, which is a slip that's dead easy to make, they need fixing: it's deliberately the much broader term "inhabitants").

[Sciongrad]

This is for discussing the Rulings and Interpretation thread here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=292463

I think it's obvious that some of the rulings I've referenced in the other thread are not likely to make the cut if we're only considering "major" rulings. But any suggested rulings to go into the list should be made here. What I've collected is a good starting point, and we can and should prune it down. Ard asked for this thread, and I tend to agree. I'll also paste in this request of hers:

In the "comments" thread, please ask people to link to the collected mod-post they're commenting on, suggest alternatives, and say whether they think it should be in the permanent reference list. I can say this confidently even though I haven't been through your collection: some of those are not going to make the cut, and some are going to need editing (for example, if any refer to "citizens" in CoCR, which is a slip that's dead easy to make, they need fixing: it's deliberately the much broader term "inhabitants").

I'd definitely like to help out with this, as I think it could save us all a few headaches in the long run. I think sorting out the rulings into categories might be helpful though, because it currently might be very difficult to find a specific ruling among what will become a list of perhaps hundreds of links. If the intention of this list is to hold the secretariat accountable to some doctrine of stare decisis, then I also think only rulings with precedential value should be included.

[Cardoness]

Very good idea! I agree that it should be sorted by category and cross referenced when a ruling touches on a number of issues. Also, I see that you have gotten the rulings that I would have submitted already.

[Snefaldia]

Sciongrad's bureaucracy list made me remember a ruling about the use of WA committees in multiple resolutions- i.e. I could use Committee A is set up in Resolution A, and then given new responsibilities in Resolution B, even if Resolution A is later repealed. I can't remember if the ruling was on Jolt or here- I'll try to dig for it but if anyone knows off the top of their head, sound off!

[Defwa]

Sciongrad's bureaucracy list made me remember a ruling about the use of WA committees in multiple resolutions- i.e. I could use Committee A is set up in Resolution A, and then given new responsibilities in Resolution B, even if Resolution A is later repealed. I can't remember if the ruling was on Jolt or here- I'll try to dig for it but if anyone knows off the top of their head, sound off!

Its in the rules sticky under house of cards

[Snefaldia]

That would be have been a good place to look first. Thanks!

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'd definitely like to help out with this, as I think it could save us all a few headaches in the long run. I think sorting out the rulings into categories might be helpful though, because it currently might be very difficult to find a specific ruling among what will become a list of perhaps hundreds of links. If the intention of this list is to hold the secretariat accountable to some doctrine of stare decisis, then I also think only rulings with precedential value should be included.

The basic problem with this approach is that the mods consistently deny that this is how they work. For example:

While I have encouraged players to attempt to write [a WA military blocker] in the past, you cannot assume that the other (and more active) WA mods would agree that it's allowed under the rules.

So let's say we "archive" Frisbeeteria's ruling. Yet, as he subsequently said, that doesn't mean other mods are going to follow that.

[Sciongrad]

While I have encouraged players to attempt to write [a WA military blocker] in the past, you cannot assume that the other (and more active) WA mods would agree that it's allowed under the rules.

So let's say we "archive" Frisbeeteria's ruling. Yet, as he subsequently said, that doesn't mean other mods are going to follow that.

I'm going to go ahead and take that statement by Fris with a grain of salt, because historically, the mods have tried to defer to precedent. If Fris was correct, and individual moderators could make conflicting decisions at any time, then this game would be fundamentally broken as there would be no way of knowing whether or not a player - who may otherwise be versed in past moderator rulings - is behaving according the the ruleset. My hopes are that this list would force moderators to act in a manner consistent with precedent, or at the very least, force them to explain their rulings in a way that reconciles any conflicts with past rulings.

If Fris's interpretation is correct, of course, I have no idea how he expects anyone to take this game seriously anymore, because I can't see any fun in trying to guess how a moderator will rule.

[The Dourian Embassy]

My hopes are that this list would force moderators to act in a manner consistent with precedent, or at the very least, force them to explain their rulings in a way that reconciles any conflicts with past rulings.

Pretty much exactly this. Much that once was, is lost. For none now play who remember it.

This will literally make their job easier, and allow for more consistency in rulings. So no matter what side of the debate you fall on with regards to how good of a job you think the mods do, you should help with this project if you're passionate about that opinion.

[The Dark Star Republic]

If Fris was correct, and individual moderators could make conflicting decisions at any time, then this game would be fundamentally broken as there would be no way of knowing whether or not a player - who may otherwise be versed in past moderator rulings - is behaving according the the ruleset.

I agree - I just think that's the situation we already have.

My hopes are that this list would force moderators to act in a manner consistent with precedent, or at the very least, force them to explain their rulings in a way that reconciles any conflicts with past rulings.

Hahahahahah-ahem.

Alright. I certainly can't fault your optimism.

[Sciongrad]

Hahahahahah-ahem.

Alright. I certainly can't fault your optimism.

I may be a little bit optimistic, but it will undoubtedly prove to be a useful tool in at least calling moderators out for poor decisions. This will at least allow players to organize themselves and prove to moderators that their decisions are sometimes demonstrably incorrect. Moderators might make mistakes sometimes, but I don't think they intentionally make incorrect rulings and then refuse to listen to reason. I mean, I think we all need to cut Ard a little bit of slack - she's got quite the work load, and seems to be the only GA mod that makes rulings regularly. Although I'll be frank, I've had very few run ins with the moderators compared to you, so I'm really just basing this on past experience and assumptions.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I may be a little bit optimistic, but it will undoubtedly prove to be a useful tool in at least calling moderators out for poor decisions. This will at least allow players to organize themselves and prove to moderators that their decisions are sometimes demonstrably incorrect.

But that's only of any value if it ever actually receives a response. Four months after 'calling them out', I'm still yet to receive a response on the interpretation of National Economic Freedoms. Whether we copy over those arguments to this thread, or another one, it doesn't seem to make much difference if it never goes anywhere.

Moderators might make mistakes sometimes, but I don't think they intentionally make incorrect rulings and then refuse to listen to reason.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that they 'intentionally' make incorrect rulings. But I am absolutely suggesting that there is a stubborn tendency - or maybe more charitably, a degree of institutional inertia - that leads to rulings becoming precedent even when they seem extremely questionable. I would use the 'all nations' ruling as an example. Once they made the decision they showed very little willingness to discuss it, consistently trying to either divert to other issues or simply locking the thread, and now that ruling has become so entrenched that players have started quoting it as gospel.

And lest this seem like idle whining, it has a practical impact, which I thought Unibot (!) expressed well in another thread:

I'm just saying - it was nice when I was an author to be able to talk to a moderator back and forth about my proposal. Nowadays it appears to be a +5 month waiting list to get a review and not much feedback elsewhere.

For something like say, the "Multilateral Persecution Act" or "Ethics in International Trade" it probably would have taken me a year to get it submission-ready at that pace.

[Sciongrad]

But that's only of any value if it ever actually receives a response. Four months after 'calling them out', I'm still yet to receive a response on the interpretation of National Economic Freedoms. Whether we copy over those arguments to this thread, or another one, it doesn't seem to make much difference if it never goes anywhere.

Their unwillingness to discuss rulings, or even to post basic answers, like how they'll use the discard function, has already garnered considerable criticism. If anything, they'll eventually acquiesce to popular unrest - their prestige and the respect we have for their decisions is directly proportional to their willingness to engage in meaningful discussion with us, and while I'm not sure how useful codifying their rulings will be, it has, at the very least, galvanized the regulars to start questioning the moderators at a larger scale.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that they 'intentionally' make incorrect rulings. But I am absolutely suggesting that there is a stubborn tendency - or maybe more charitably, a degree of institutional inertia - that leads to rulings becoming precedent even when they seem extremely questionable. I would use the 'all nations' ruling as an example. Once they made the decision they showed very little willingness to discuss it, consistently trying to either divert to other issues or simply locking the thread, and now that ruling has become so entrenched that players have started quoting it as gospel.

I don't disagree - I definitely see this type of behavior, especially recently. And perhaps I was incorrect to so quickly jump to their defense, as their obstinacy is definitely having a negative impact on the atmosphere around here. I don't know anything about the internal issues that the GA mods are facing, but if workload is impairing efficiency or their ability to make coherent rulings, perhaps adding new GA mods or transferring preexisting mods to the GA will have some impact.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I can't help but think this discussion isn't really suitable for this thread. It's a good one, but there is a thread on this topic already, in moderation I think? What we should be focused on here are actual rulings(preferably big ones).

[Frisbeeteria]

[

While I have encouraged players to attempt to write [a WA military blocker] in the past, you cannot assume that the other (and more active) WA mods would agree that it's allowed under the rules.

So let's say we "archive" Frisbeeteria's ruling. Yet, as he subsequently said, that doesn't mean other mods are going to follow that.

I have never made a ruling on the WA military question. I've made suggestions that perhaps the question could be raised if it were phrased properly. It's the same way illegal blockers became legal blockers - it's all in the phrasing. I'm also on the fence about whether the WA Army rule is still necessary. There are players and mods on both sides of that fence.

If Fris's interpretation is correct, of course, I have no idea how he expects anyone to take this game seriously anymore, because I can't see any fun in trying to guess how a moderator will rule.

I guess I'd better scan that rulings thread for any "rulings" that were not intended as such. I haven't been particularly active in the WA in several years, and my rare posts here are usually intended as player opinion or occasionally obvious moderation post (i.e. "stop spamming" or "back on topic")

[The Dark Star Republic]

[
So let's say we "archive" Frisbeeteria's ruling. Yet, as he subsequently said, that doesn't mean other mods are going to follow that.

I have never made a ruling on the WA military question. I've made suggestions that perhaps the question could be raised if it were phrased properly. It's the same way illegal blockers became legal blockers - it's all in the phrasing. I'm also on the fence about whether the WA Army rule is still necessary. There are players and mods on both sides of that fence.

At the risk of getting really silly, then, maybe we need to ask what the word "ruling" means? Nevermind, that was dumb.

You asked for what became Prohibition of UN Military:

Can somebody put together a decent proposal with in-character rationale for prohibiting the formation of a UN Army? I'm fully aware of the OOC rules prohibiting it, but other resolutions (see Rights and Duties of UN States) have codified OOC rules into IC guidelines.

When Omigodtheykilledkenny then posted his draft, you declared:

This proposal is legal, desirable (from the mods' perspective of reducing the constant stream of illegal UN Army proposals), desireable from the perspective of reducing unnecessary warning on newbie UN nations, and desireable from the perspective of having IC legislation to back up the OOC rules (as did Rights and Duties of UN States). It's also well-written, concise, and strongly supported by both mods and UN regulars.

That idea failed, but the WA reboot gave the opportunity to revisit, which you did with your resubmission of Rights & Duties:

Article 10 is entirely new, and is the one article that I'd most like input on. In this Article I've attempted to definitively deny the ability to create a UN Army, which as you know is forbidden under game rules. This turns the OOC prohibition into an IC prohibition.

All of that seems to add up to a clear "ruling".

I guess I'd better scan that rulings thread for any "rulings" that were not intended as such. I haven't been particularly active in the WA in several years, and my rare posts here are usually intended as player opinion or occasionally obvious moderation post (i.e. "stop spamming" or "back on topic")

True. But the concept players are stressing here is "precedent". That means it doesn't really matter if your rulings were made years ago: until there's a ruling explicitly overturning them, they should still be precedent. I accept that I am more stuck-in-the-past than most, and I understand the norms of the game will change, but it would be nice to have an actual acknowledgement when the rulings change, rather than just assuming everything is in a constant state of flux.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I've added in some more rulings and have categorized the rulings as well. I've tried to keep most of the link texts(at least in the categorized sections) "descriptive" but some of the rulings can be summed up, and I've done so in a few cases. If the mods could look over the thread when they have the time... we can start pruning out rulings that are no longer valid. And of course folks, if you have something you don't see in the lists... let me know here.

Oh and also there may be some redundancy, since some rulings crossed categories. That's fine as far as I can see.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I would just collect all rulings ever made. It's going to be a lot and it's going to be difficult to organize. But literally any ruling can be considered precedent. There's no magical "precedent" category. All rulings have equal weight.

When it comes to organization, you guys should consider using a keywords system. Include the rule being enforced, the subject of the resolution, and other keywords that an author might use to seek out the ruling. The whole point of this is to make it easier for authors. Organizing solely by the type of rule being enforced isn't going to be totally useful, because that presumes the author knows what rule he or she might be breaking.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I would just collect all rulings ever made. It's going to be a lot and it's going to be difficult to organize. But literally any ruling can be considered precedent. There's no magical "precedent" category. All rulings have equal weight.

When it comes to organization, you guys should consider using a keywords system. Include the rule being enforced, the subject of the resolution, and other keywords that an author might use to seek out the ruling. The whole point of this is to make it easier for authors. Organizing solely by the type of rule being enforced isn't going to be totally useful, because that presumes the author knows what rule he or she might be breaking.

Actually, ideally once the list is "complete and up to date"... we could have a distilled listing of rulings on the major points as a primer for new authors. Along with a complete listing for the more established ones. I've pretty much cataloged most of the rulings I could find by Ard or Kryo from this or the archives forum. If a ruling didn't get copied over to the actual proposal/voting thread, and is only in Moderation... I probably missed it. There are a few rulings directly out of the moderation forum, but that was from me following links.

Fris's rulings are harder to track down because he posts with Fris a lot without making rulings. In fact after the third or fourth time of reading a post of Fris's clarifying that he wasn't ruling in a previous post after someone thought he was... I gave up on that for the time being. I'll look into the other mods(including Fris) the next time I update this though.

[Ardchoille]

The "humans" rulings look contradictory at first glance. If we actually intended to rule that CoCR covers only humans, I'd like some more of whatever we were on. Possibly it was proposal-specific, intended to convey only that, because CoCR doesn't specifically mention humans, Bears' proposal was not duplication. Or we may have been harking back to the underlying humano-centric makeup of the GA, which exists to the extent that it's humans who set the game up. I haven't yet had a chance to read back through that thread and our discussion in the sekrit forum. (Douria, I'm adding Official Nagger to the duties of the OP, but give us a week to get over the chocolate. )

I know I've repeated a couple of times recently that CoCR just says "inhabitants". That can apply to humans and non-humans, while not forcing RP (including the RP that sapient non-humans exist) on anyone who doesn't want to recognise non-humans. I definitely think at least one of Urgench's explanatory posts about CoCR should be included in a CoCR entry -- we may not have the original debate, but he's commented on it several times subsequently. I'm not saying that we must read Resolutions only the way the authors wanted them read, but I think sometimes their comments would help clarify the intent of a phrase or clause.

I also think player posts are in some cases better than formal mod rulings for getting to the heart of what a new player wants to know. Rulings tend to be legality-laden analysis based on specific forms of words. The player posts that I think would be better are the simple, non-ranty, non-condescending ones that just explain stuff. Rules, yes, but also long-standing GA/NSUN tropes and etiquette (eg, you may be able to unearth someone holding forth on the difference between "rogue" nations and "rouge" nations). If they're posted here first it should be possible to either avoid unduly controversial entries, or at least give both sides.)

[The Dourian Embassy]

The "humans" rulings look contradictory at first glance. If we actually intended to rule that CoCR covers only humans, I'd like some more of whatever we were on. Possibly it was proposal-specific, intended to convey only that, because CoCR doesn't specifically mention humans, Bears' proposal was not duplication. Or we may have been harking back to the underlying humano-centric makeup of the GA, which exists to the extent that it's humans who set the game up. I haven't yet had a chance to read back through that thread and our discussion in the sekrit forum. (Douria, I'm adding Official Nagger to the duties of the OP, but give us a week to get over the chocolate. )

The humans' ruling(s) may be a bit contradictory... and probably needs clarification. There's a reason it has its own category to be quite honest. Would be a good use of this thread once y'all get a consensus on that topic. As for using player posts in the place of formal mod rulings... really only you can do that. We can suggest them here and ask for your "approval" for the official thread, but you're going to be much better suited to finding them than we are.

By the by. Would it be at all possible for the main thread to get stickied?

[The Dark Star Republic]

The player posts that I think would be better are the simple, non-ranty, non-condescending ones that just explain stuff. Rules, yes, but also long-standing GA/NSUN tropes and etiquette (eg, you may be able to unearth someone holding forth on the difference between "rogue" nations and "rouge" nations). If they're posted here first it should be possible to either avoid unduly controversial entries, or at least give both sides.)

You mean, all the stuff that used to be in the Reference Guide?

Besides, whether or not a new player is up on all the in-jokes doesn't really matter. Writing an illegal proposal leads to warnings, even to ejection: it has serious consequences. Failing to refer to the Vastiva Memorial Reflecting Pool by its proper name does not.

[Bears Armed]

The "humans" rulings look contradictory at first glance. If we actually intended to rule that CoCR covers only humans, I'd like some more of whatever we were on. Possibly it was proposal-specific, intended to convey only that, because CoCR doesn't specifically mention humans, Bears' proposal was not duplication. Or we may have been harking back to the underlying humano-centric makeup of the GA, which exists to the extent that it's humans who set the game up. I haven't yet had a chance to read back through that thread and our discussion in the sekrit forum. (Douria, I'm adding Official Nagger to the duties of the OP, but give us a week to get over the chocolate. )

I was told at one point, although I can't now remember where, that "humans" can be read as "sapient beings", and that ideally it should be read thus, but that as it has the more specific meaning too -- and as the category is officially called 'Human Rights' rather than 'Sapient Rights' -- biased governments can "reasonably" use the "It only says 'humans', so it only applies to humans" argument to deny rights to non-human sapients... and so my proposal was legal because it would have closed off that loophole.

[Ardchoille]

Thanks, Bears. I think that's clearer than Nerv or I have said it in that thread.

While we're collecting rulings, here's one from Hack on why a Repeal can't be pure NatSov (second par).

[The Dourian Embassy]

Thanks, Bears. I think that's clearer than Nerv or I have said it in that thread.

While we're collecting rulings, here's one from Hack on why a Repeal can't be pure NatSov (second par).

Added.