[SUBMITTED]Repeal "Reproductive Education Act" (John Turner)

[Excidium Planetis]

I have filed a GHR for Honest Mistake violations, specifically claiming that the definition of general education services allows nations to ban history classes, which is false because GA#369 defines it "for the purposes of this resolution", and thus does not allow further resolutions to exploit a "loophole".

I don't agree with that interpretation. I would say that the interpretation remains within the 'for the purposes of this resolution' thing. However, he's actually arguing that if we have (1) an definition that is a certain way and (2) nations will use that definition then it is possible to have a well-defined ability to do ban it. Fundamentally, it's an argument that the resolution does not do enough and by not doing enough, creates that loophole.

JT disagrees with you:

It's not an honest mistake. It is a flat out lie, which is now totally legal within the rules. If this is pulled because of it, it will prove conclusively that the mods are totally incapable of making a consistent ruling.

Best of luck.

(EDIT: Not posted on JT's behalf, merely reproduced here to argue my point)

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't agree with that interpretation. I would say that the interpretation remains within the 'for the purposes of this resolution' thing. However, he's actually arguing that if we have (1) an definition that is a certain way and (2) nations will use that definition then it is possible to have a well-defined ability to do ban it. Fundamentally, it's an argument that the resolution does not do enough and by not doing enough, creates that loophole.

JT disagrees with you:

It's not an honest mistake. It is a flat out lie, which is now totally legal within the rules. If this is pulled because of it, it will prove conclusively that the mods are totally incapable of making a consistent ruling.

Best of luck.

JT always disagrees with me.

[Excidium Planetis]

JT disagrees with you:

JT always disagrees with me.

Therefore, we should make him a mod, and we'd always get consistent rulings!

Anyways, since the author has admitted it is a lie, my GHR for an Honest Mistake violation is therefore justified, is it not?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Anyways, since the author has admitted it is a lie, my GHR for an Honest Mistake violation is therefore justified, is it not?

I would say no. Once something is submitted, the authorial intent does not matter. This is the source of my belief that whomever wrote a law should not have some kind of overriding interpretation of that law. Because I should not apply this differently to one side or the other, it ought be applied equally. Doing so requires me to ignore some kind of stated authorial intent. Unless the proposal states that it is itself lying, I would disagree. However that is, my interpretation of his 'lies' is a valid interpretation, I would say (and I will, until some mod tells me it isn't).

[Wrapper]

Guys, wouldn't it be easier to make a thread for his proposal to argue this in, rather than spamming this thread with it?

Would that not be posting for a banned person or something like that?

If you're doing it on behalf of the banned player (e.g. by their request), then, yes. If you just want to discuss the proposal that's been submitted, then, no, and you should probably make that clear in the OP.

Publicly responding to a properly marked campaign telegram from a banned player, in order to discuss pros and cons of the campaign and/or the proposal, is perfectly fine. That said, relaying TGs on behalf of a forum-banned player is against the rules. Do not do it.

I'll split out these posts shortly, so please be patient.

[Araraukar]

Publicly responding to a properly marked campaign telegram from a banned player, in order to discuss pros and cons of the campaign and/or the proposal, is perfectly fine. That said, relaying TGs on behalf of a forum-banned player is against the rules. Do not do it.

OOC: Um, is someone allowed to give us non-delegates the general idea of what the campaign TG said, if they don't copy-paste the text?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Would that not be posting for a banned person or something like that?

If you're doing it on behalf of the banned player (e.g. by their request), then, yes. If you just want to discuss the proposal that's been submitted, then, no, and you should probably make that clear in the OP.

Publicly responding to a properly marked campaign telegram from a banned player, in order to discuss pros and cons of the campaign and/or the proposal, is perfectly fine. That said, relaying TGs on behalf of a forum-banned player is against the rules. Do not do it.

I'll split out these posts shortly, so please be patient.

Could we have a change in the original post's author. It is quite the conflict of interest to have the author of that post also be the author of the resolution which the proposal is attempting to repeal.

---

Publicly responding to a properly marked campaign telegram from a banned player, in order to discuss pros and cons of the campaign and/or the proposal, is perfectly fine. That said, relaying TGs on behalf of a forum-banned player is against the rules. Do not do it.

OOC: Um, is someone allowed to give us non-delegates the general idea of what the campaign TG said, if they don't copy-paste the text?

Similarly, I feel that the contents of that campaign telegram should not be prevented from being posted.

[Wrapper]

What are the honest mistakes you spotted, by the way? He TG'd me to say that the repeal is not a joke (beyond the lettering) and that he intends to campaign for it. (If posting this info counts as posting on behalf of a forum-banned person, I'm sorry.)

Yes, you're relaying information from a banned player, specifically, what his intentions are. That's against the rules. Given your impeccable, spotless record, a very stern don't do it again should suffice.

OOC: Um, is someone allowed to give us non-delegates the general idea of what the campaign TG said, if they don't copy-paste the text?

Similarly, I feel that the contents of that campaign telegram should not be prevented from being posted.

You know, I don't think this has come up before. I'm inclined to agree that marked campaign TGs can be shared, but just to be sure let me run it by the team.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: it's not like telegrams have any expectation of privacy these days, and campaigns are designed to be as public as the TG system allows them to be.

Greetings Delegate Separatist Peoples,
I come before you with a request. I know you get a lot of these SPAM-O-GRAMS, so I will keep it short.
Wallenburg recently passed a resolution which requires nations to educate their students in the aspects of sexual education. While this is all fine and dandy, it also put a clause in which defines what are essential educational services, opening the door to a resolution which would outlaw the teaching of the history of your nations, as well as the teaching of economics in general. While I am sure this was a small oversight on their part, it is a grave mistake. We are seeking to repeal "Reproductive Education Act" so that loophole can be rectified, and we are imploring you to support our endeavour.
Please approve and support our proposal.
Thank you for your time.
Link to repeal: page=UN_view_proposal/id=john_turner_1462739753

[Araraukar]

Yes, you're relaying information from a banned player, specifically, what his intentions are. That's against the rules. Given your impeccable, spotless record, a very stern don't do it again should suffice.

Eeep.

Also, I notice that JT is not just forum-banned but... DEATed? I'm not asking you to talk about moderation actions on other people's accounts, but since the nation is no more, what happens to the submitted proposal? And the MODEDIT in the first post should be updated.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yes, you're relaying information from a banned player, specifically, what his intentions are. That's against the rules. Given your impeccable, spotless record, a very stern don't do it again should suffice.

Eeep.

Also, I notice that JT is not just forum-banned but... DEATed? I'm not asking you to talk about moderation actions on other people's accounts, but since the nation is no more, what happens to the submitted proposal? And the MODEDIT in the first post should be updated.

United Federation of Canada no longer exists. Nor does the Silver Sentinel. However, the Golden Sentinel does exist.

[Floor 448]

Yes, you're relaying information from a banned player, specifically, what his intentions are. That's against the rules. Given your impeccable, spotless record, a very stern don't do it again should suffice.

Eeep.

Also, I notice that JT is not just forum-banned but... DEATed? I'm not asking you to talk about moderation actions on other people's accounts, but since the nation is no more, what happens to the submitted proposal? And the MODEDIT in the first post should be updated.

And puppetswept, apparently at the same time as The Silver Sentinel. (Less than an hour ago at the time of this post.)

[Kaboomlandia]

Yes, you're relaying information from a banned player, specifically, what his intentions are. That's against the rules. Given your impeccable, spotless record, a very stern don't do it again should suffice.

Eeep.

Also, I notice that JT is not just forum-banned but... DEATed? I'm not asking you to talk about moderation actions on other people's accounts, but since the nation is no more, what happens to the submitted proposal? And the MODEDIT in the first post should be updated.

Dafuq?

[Louisistan]

Yes, you're relaying information from a banned player, specifically, what his intentions are. That's against the rules. Given your impeccable, spotless record, a very stern don't do it again should suffice.

Eeep.

Also, I notice that JT is not just forum-banned but... DEATed? I'm not asking you to talk about moderation actions on other people's accounts, but since the nation is no more, what happens to the submitted proposal? And the MODEDIT in the first post should be updated.

OOC: As it stands now, the proposal is still in queue with the author not hyperlinked (just like with resolutions with CTE'd authors). Whether this was deliberate or an oversight on behalf of the mods remains to be seen (and probably depends on what punishment was actually handed down on him).

[Wrapper]

OOC: it's not like telegrams have any expectation of privacy these days, and campaigns are designed to be as public as the TG system allows them to be.

Greetings Delegate Separatist Peoples [...snipped details...]

For the record, reposting a campaign TG like this is fine, as long as it is not by the banned player's request.

And puppetswept, apparently at the same time as The Silver Sentinel. (Less than an hour ago at the time of this post.)

His recent 7 day ban was upgraded on review to include a puppetsweep. Note that the player is still serving a forumban so any new nation still cannot post here for a few more days, nor can TGs or other messages be relayed on that player's behalf/request.

OOC: As it stands now, the proposal is still in queue with the author not hyperlinked (just like with resolutions with CTE'd authors). Whether this was deliberate or an oversight on behalf of the mods remains to be seen (and probably depends on what punishment was actually handed down on him).

This was deliberate. The proposal stays in the submission queue since it was legally submitted and the player is not Delete-on-Sight.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: it's not like telegrams have any expectation of privacy these days, and campaigns are designed to be as public as the TG system allows them to be.

Greetings Delegate Separatist Peoples [...snipped details...]

For the record, reposting a campaign TG like this is fine, as long as it is not by the banned player's request.

And puppetswept, apparently at the same time as The Silver Sentinel. (Less than an hour ago at the time of this post.)

His recent 7 day ban was upgraded on review to include a puppetsweep. Note that the player is still serving a forumban so any new nation still cannot post here for a few more days, nor can TGs or other messages be relayed on that player's behalf/request.

OOC: As it stands now, the proposal is still in queue with the author not hyperlinked (just like with resolutions with CTE'd authors). Whether this was deliberate or an oversight on behalf of the mods remains to be seen (and probably depends on what punishment was actually handed down on him).

This was deliberate. The proposal stays in the submission queue since it was legally submitted and the player is not Delete-on-Sight.

Can we change the OP from Wallenburg to Wrapper or anyone else? It is a massive conflict of interest to have it this way. After it gets to vote, big 'VOTE NAY' signs pop up everywhere (Repeal 2 GA... attempt two) along with 'THIS IS ACTUALLY ILLEGAL' scare-o-grams (like that telegram I got during some earlier repeal).

Especially right now, where it has anti-proposal commentary in it. That commentary should not be in the original post, which should always be neutral and explanatory.

[Wrapper]

While we're still sorting this all out, how about addressing the arguments themselves in the repeal text?

[Wallenburg]

While we're still sorting this all out, how about addressing the arguments themselves in the repeal text?

Would you be referring to the ones that lie, the ones that don't, or the entire proposal? Besides, JT already submitted it. Debate will change nothing about it.

[Excidium Planetis]

While we're still sorting this all out, how about addressing the arguments themselves in the repeal text?

Well, John Turner admitted that the Perplexed clause was a flat out lie, the Exasperated clause uses the religion argument which has already been discussed way too much, I personally answered the Asking clause's argument in the first thread (existing legislation does not mandate teaching sex ed nor prevent the spread of STIs), and Wallenburg and IA have both argued here about the Lost clause, which I honestly can't make a decision about.

So, there's nothing really I feel to add.

[Wrapper]

While we're still sorting this all out, how about addressing the arguments themselves in the repeal text?

Would you be referring to the ones that lie, the ones that don't, or the entire proposal?

Yes.

OP has been changed to me (promise I won't engage in any "VOTE NAY" shenanigans, IA), and I turned Wallenburg's brief input into a quote at the end of the post.

[Wallenburg]

So, can we expect a legality ruling, or will the mods let this disaster go to vote? I've filed a GHR, as has Excidium, and I also filed a GHR against the first repeal proposal, which amounts to an undeniably illegal bloggette. Neither have been addressed.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: it's not like telegrams have any expectation of privacy these days, and campaigns are designed to be as public as the TG system allows them to be.

Greetings Delegate Separatist Peoples [...snipped details...]

For the record, reposting a campaign TG like this is fine, as long as it is not by the banned player's request.

OOC: Understood. I haven't heard anything from UFoC, though I did just get a TG notification. No clue if its from him or not, though. I generally don't post things on anybody's behalf, banned or not.

[Araraukar]

JT disagrees with you:

It's not an honest mistake. It is a flat out lie, which is now totally legal within the rules. If this is pulled because of it, it will prove conclusively that the mods are totally incapable of making a consistent ruling.

Best of luck.

(EDIT: Not posted on JT's behalf, merely reproduced here to argue my point)

OOC: Hey, I didn't even quote the exact text of the TG I got, and I got Stern Mod Voice^TM.

[Wrapper]

(EDIT: Not posted on JT's behalf, merely reproduced here to argue my point)

OOC: Hey, I didn't even quote the exact text of the TG I got, and I got Stern Mod Voice^TM.

Just to clarify for everyone, this was just a finger-wag, there's nothing official on Ara's record. He posted information on JT's intentions, which is, even if unintentional, posting on his behalf. EP's post is more of a "here's what he said, but this is why he's wrong," which is not at all on his behalf. Same with posting a campaign telegram, which can debated against here or can be used as the basis for a counter-campaign by a non-delegate, so that's not on his behalf either.

Again, note that, if a banned player asks to have something posted, even if it's a campaign telegram, that's not allowed.

I know this doesn't happen much in the GA, so, I hope this clears things up considerably.

[Bears Armed]

OOC: As it stands now, the proposal is still in queue with the author not hyperlinked (just like with resolutions with CTE'd authors). Whether this was deliberate or an oversight on behalf of the mods remains to be seen (and probably depends on what punishment was actually handed down on him).

This was deliberate. The proposal stays in the submission queue since it was legally submitted and the player is not Delete-on-Sight.

That's already happened at least once before, anyhows.