The regular GA forum. I think it would be best player-started, as I'm not aware of any mods advocating it at the moment (not to say that none would support it, but I don't think any are pushing the idea).
Advertisement
by Sedgistan » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:27 am
by Sciongrad » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:30 am
Sedgistan wrote:Sciongrad wrote:The WA and the NSUN got along fine for years with an honest mistake rule that was actually enforced. You guys have detected a fundamental problem - bad moderator rulings - and instead of solving that issue, you have chosen to cover it up. Unfortunately, in the process, you've opened up another, equally detrimental problem. I also don't appreciate your obviously biased characterization of enforcement of the honest mistake rule. I don't think anyone would describe the previous way the honest mistake rule was enforced (before you guys changed it about a year or so ago) as "heavy handed." Moderators actually moderating and an even-handed approach are not mutually exclusive.
I wouldn't say it's covering it up - the problem exists, it's acknowledged, and a solution has been implemented. It's not the solution that you, ormanyany others have posted here, want - but it's still a "solution" of sorts rather than a cover-up. You've also misunderstood what you think is my characterisation of previous enforcement. I was describing two extremes of a scale rather than previous enforcement.
Sedgistan wrote:There's two lines of reasoning for it. The first is that "politicking", including dishonesty, is a desirable aspect of what is essentially a UN-esque body.
by Araraukar » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:31 am
Sedgistan wrote:The regular GA forum. I think it would be best player-started, as I'm not aware of any mods advocating it at the moment (not to say that none would support it, but I don't think any are pushing the idea).
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Sandaoguo » Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:32 am
Sandaoguo wrote:One small (but also large) issue I notice:However, 'Blockers' themselves are not illegal provided there is additional action (eg. GAR#10: Nuclear Arms Possession Act).
In the same way that a mere 'encouragement' clause can make a committee-only resolution legal, can having a token 'additional action' make a pure blocker legal? In other words, can I completely write off the whole environmental category if I just include some token clause about supporting biodiversity or something?
by Kryozerkia » Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:54 pm
Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, stating the inverse,or content that doesn't address the resolution.
Railana wrote:Technical question: to what extent does existing precedent continue to apply after these changes? Are we starting with a blank slate?
Sandaoguo wrote:Sandaoguo wrote:One small (but also large) issue I notice:
In the same way that a mere 'encouragement' clause can make a committee-only resolution legal, can having a token 'additional action' make a pure blocker legal? In other words, can I completely write off the whole environmental category if I just include some token clause about supporting biodiversity or something?
Don't know if this has been answered yet?
by The Candy Of Bottles » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:29 pm
Do not use these categories to establish a WA military force. These are resolutions to change the level of national government spending. The WA cannot maintain its own standing military under any circumstances.
by Sciongrad » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:30 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:With regard to 'Honest Mistake' - it's a tricky rule because proposals are not black and white. If all proposals were black and white, this would be an easy rule to enforce.
It also isn't viable to assume that only one interpretation is valid. Like in all moderator matters, we use neutrality, which may mean an unfavorable ruling for the players. Because of the pushback against this, we've opted to put it more in the hands of the players. Which for some doesn't sit well.
A rewording:Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, stating the inverse,or content that doesn't address the resolution.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:37 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:Players do need to make a greater effort to resolve issues of interpretation, and not immediately turn to us to resolve it. That said, if you're willing to do that, then we're willing to offer a compromise.
A rewording:Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, stating the inverse,or content that doesn't address the resolution.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:38 pm
Sciongrad wrote:A rewording:Repeals should address the contents of the resolution it's targeting, and not just state the reverse of the arguments given in the resolution. Embellishment, exaggeration, deceptive/weaselly-words do not constitute an 'honest mistake'. An 'honest mistake' is factual inaccuracies, stating the inverse,or content that doesn't address the resolution.
Regarding the reword: this is infinitely more palatable to me. Embellishment and exaggeration are rhetorical tools that should absolutely be at the disposal of repeal authors (and always have been). I don't know that anyone has ever protested exaggeration in repeals. Of course, drawing the line between exaggeration and lying will be difficult, but I trust we can hash that out going forward. Lying, misrepresentation, and factual inaccuracies, on the other hand, have no place in repeals. Removing that aspect of the new honest mistake rule would be a dramatic improvement and would be in line with what the players want.
I would caution against permitting "deceptive words" though. The main issue with permitting lying in repeals is that voters don't have the GA knowledge or desire to compare the repeal arguments with the original. Embellishment is fine - downright deception, not so much.
by Wallenburg » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:32 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Sciongrad wrote:
Regarding the reword: this is infinitely more palatable to me. Embellishment and exaggeration are rhetorical tools that should absolutely be at the disposal of repeal authors (and always have been). I don't know that anyone has ever protested exaggeration in repeals. Of course, drawing the line between exaggeration and lying will be difficult, but I trust we can hash that out going forward. Lying, misrepresentation, and factual inaccuracies, on the other hand, have no place in repeals. Removing that aspect of the new honest mistake rule would be a dramatic improvement and would be in line with what the players want.
I would caution against permitting "deceptive words" though. The main issue with permitting lying in repeals is that voters don't have the GA knowledge or desire to compare the repeal arguments with the original. Embellishment is fine - downright deception, not so much.
I am fully in agreement here.
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:51 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Thu Apr 28, 2016 3:51 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Sciongrad wrote:
Regarding the reword: this is infinitely more palatable to me. Embellishment and exaggeration are rhetorical tools that should absolutely be at the disposal of repeal authors (and always have been). I don't know that anyone has ever protested exaggeration in repeals. Of course, drawing the line between exaggeration and lying will be difficult, but I trust we can hash that out going forward. Lying, misrepresentation, and factual inaccuracies, on the other hand, have no place in repeals. Removing that aspect of the new honest mistake rule would be a dramatic improvement and would be in line with what the players want.
I would caution against permitting "deceptive words" though. The main issue with permitting lying in repeals is that voters don't have the GA knowledge or desire to compare the repeal arguments with the original. Embellishment is fine - downright deception, not so much.
I am fully in agreement here.
by Excidium Planetis » Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:19 pm
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Mirarea » Thu Apr 28, 2016 10:27 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Apr 29, 2016 5:09 am
Mirarea wrote:Should discussions be started regarding the supposed "pay-to-win" aspect of the WA?
I'm not new here (I've restarted to this nation for disclosure) but I've seen mentions of "*insert player here* amounts of money" here just to telegram stamp campaign to attempt to guarantee passage or (in the case of lying in repeals being 100% legal now being politics) forcing resolution authors to do the same to try to keep their resolutions from repeal.
If anything, that's probably more of an important question to ask than "Why is lying in repeals legal now?"
by Excidium Planetis » Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:11 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Mirarea wrote:Should discussions be started regarding the supposed "pay-to-win" aspect of the WA?
I'm not new here (I've restarted to this nation for disclosure) but I've seen mentions of "*insert player here* amounts of money" here just to telegram stamp campaign to attempt to guarantee passage or (in the case of lying in repeals being 100% legal now being politics) forcing resolution authors to do the same to try to keep their resolutions from repeal.
If anything, that's probably more of an important question to ask than "Why is lying in repeals legal now?"
How on earth would we address this? The mods aren't about to remove the mass TG system.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Araraukar » Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:26 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Ditto. Reading this dropped my blood pressure a few points. Oh, dear mods, wouldn't you please think of my blood pressure?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:39 am
by Excidium Planetis » Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:43 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I still feel that interpretation issues which are not raised before submission should not be penalised.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:49 am
by Kryozerkia » Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:51 am
Sciongrad wrote:Regarding the reword: this is infinitely more palatable to me. Embellishment and exaggeration are rhetorical tools that should absolutely be at the disposal of repeal authors (and always have been). I don't know that anyone has ever protested exaggeration in repeals. Of course, drawing the line between exaggeration and lying will be difficult, but I trust we can hash that out going forward. Lying, misrepresentation, and factual inaccuracies, on the other hand, have no place in repeals. Removing that aspect of the new honest mistake rule would be a dramatic improvement and would be in line with what the players want. A clarifying question: would this include any factual inaccuracy? Or do you guys plan on going with Mouse's bizarre "some lying is okay" rule?
Another question: why is the NatSov rule still in place? And why is the rule against committee-only resolutions still in place?
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Stating the inverse would be a Format violation, not honest misinterpretation of a resolution's intent. Honest Mistake has purely to do with how the resolution is interpreted, not any repeal arguments that could be construed as invalid.
Separatist Peoples wrote:How on earth would we address this? The mods aren't about to remove the mass TG system.
Excidium Planetis wrote:Well, we could request a stamp refund if your proposal gets unjustly removed by the mods.
by Araraukar » Fri Apr 29, 2016 9:55 am
Kryozerkia wrote:Would a "Proposal Hold" function be of value? It would essentially freeze a quorate proposal for a fix period of time - say, 24-36 hours - and be used if there was a last minute legality challenge. The proposal would not be deleted. It would simply remain in queue for extra time.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Excidium Planetis » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:02 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:So we should encourage people to submit without drafting?
That would only be a consequence if I proposed ignoring the submission under such circumstances. This is something different. Authors should not be able to be silent and then pop up with an invisible GHR that was entirely unmentioned — but ignoring raises the issue you raised. This compromise solves the incentives question on both sides.
Kryozerkia wrote:Would a "Proposal Hold" function be of value? It would essentially freeze a quorate proposal for a fix period of time - say, 24-36 hours - and be used if there was a last minute legality challenge. The proposal would not be deleted. It would simply remain in queue for extra time.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:10 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:Would a "Proposal Hold" function be of value? It would essentially freeze a quorate proposal for a fix period of time - say, 24-36 hours - and be used if there was a last minute legality challenge. The proposal would not be deleted. It would simply remain in queue for extra time.
by Araraukar » Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:23 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Kryozerkia wrote:Would a "Proposal Hold" function be of value? It would essentially freeze a quorate proposal for a fix period of time - say, 24-36 hours - and be used if there was a last minute legality challenge. The proposal would not be deleted. It would simply remain in queue for extra time.
Could the same be done with at-vote proposals? Because, if anything, that is where the Discard hurts. One can always resubmit, but getting to voters to jump a particular way isn't always repeatable.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Alinek, Comfed, The Galactic Supremacy
Advertisement