[Legality Challenge] Compliance thingy

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Let me take a stab at this:
Glen-Rhodes believes it is legal.
Separatist Peoples believes it is legal.
Sciongrad believes it is legal.
Christian Democrats believes it is illegal but for a different reason.
Bears Armed believes it is illegal for Metagaming
Sierra Lyricalia believes it is illegal for Metagaming.

With the exception of SL being on the side of legality, I called it. Was SL the one who was persuaded to switch sides?

When you made this list I hadn't actually expressed an opinion yet. I'm not sure it's actually "someone was persuaded" so much as "we made up our minds."

[Excidium Planetis]

With the exception of SL being on the side of legality, I called it. Was SL the one who was persuaded to switch sides?

When you made this list I hadn't actually expressed an opinion yet. I'm not sure it's actually "someone was persuaded" so much as "we made up our minds."

This is what we were told earlier:

We currently don't have a majority opinion, and I'm not sure when we will, to be honest. 2 of us believe it's legal and that noncompliance is fine to acknowledge. 2 do not, and wish to reinstate the ban on acknowledging noncompliance. 1 believes it's illegal for other reasons and hasn't commented on the metagaming/noncompliance question. And the other believes it's legal, but hasn't been able to comment beyond that for RL reasons.

That's 3 people Glen-Rhodes said had decided it was illegal. We now have only 2.

[Separatist Peoples]

When you made this list I hadn't actually expressed an opinion yet. I'm not sure it's actually "someone was persuaded" so much as "we made up our minds."

This is what we were told earlier:

We currently don't have a majority opinion, and I'm not sure when we will, to be honest. 2 of us believe it's legal and that noncompliance is fine to acknowledge. 2 do not, and wish to reinstate the ban on acknowledging noncompliance. 1 believes it's illegal for other reasons and hasn't commented on the metagaming/noncompliance question. And the other believes it's legal, but hasn't been able to comment beyond that for RL reasons.

That's 3 people Glen-Rhodes said had decided it was illegal. We now have only 2.

Does it actually matter? A final decision was rendered. At best, what you were told was a status update of an incomplete process, not a predictive ruling.

[Araraukar]

That's 3 people Glen-Rhodes said had decided it was illegal. We now have only 2.

Does it actually matter? A final decision was rendered. At best, what you were told was a status update of an incomplete process, not a predictive ruling.

And in times past if a mod had said that it was 3-2 illegal but they were waiting for one more vote, wouldn't you be curious how 3 suddenly became 2?

[Separatist Peoples]

Does it actually matter? A final decision was rendered. At best, what you were told was a status update of an incomplete process, not a predictive ruling.

And in times past if a mod had said that it was 3-2 illegal but they were waiting for one more vote, wouldn't you be curious how 3 suddenly became 2?

Not really. Minds change. All that matters is the number at the time of decision. I went back and forth on this one several times in my head.

[Araraukar]

Not really. Minds change. All that matters is the number at the time of decision. I went back and forth on this one several times in my head.

Yeah, how dare you be human.

Heh, I can disagree with you guys without hating your guts. You're just doing your best.

[Excidium Planetis]

And in times past if a mod had said that it was 3-2 illegal but they were waiting for one more vote, wouldn't you be curious how 3 suddenly became 2?

Not really. Minds change. All that matters is the number at the time of decision. I went back and forth on this one several times in my head.

What does matter is that Glen-Rhodes made it seem as if all opinions were in, and SL is saying that one opinion at least was not in. Both of them can't be right, so we either have one Council member deciding the public opinions of others even when they don't have one, or one Council member saying they hadn't made up their mind when really they had. Both of these are slightly concerning, but the first more so.

[Glen-Rhodes]

The debate thread in the GenSec forum will eventually be moved to the decision archives, illuminating just how the decision was made. You could just wait

[Separatist Peoples]

Not really. Minds change. All that matters is the number at the time of decision. I went back and forth on this one several times in my head.

What does matter is that Glen-Rhodes made it seem as if all opinions were in, and SL is saying that one opinion at least was not in. Both of them can't be right, so we either have one Council member deciding the public opinions of others even when they don't have one, or one Council member saying they hadn't made up their mind when really they had. Both of these are slightly concerning, but the first more so.

Simple solution: wait until the greentext is in before banking on speculation on a ruling. GR was commenting on what it looked like, not on what it is. I'm sincerely puzzled as to why that wasn't how people were thinking already. You know we debate the issue. It isn't unforeseeable that mind will be changed, and it isn't unreasonable to expect that minds will be changed or officially made up closer to the last minute than not.

What matters is literally just what comes with the greentext, right?

[Araraukar]

What matters is literally just what comes with the greentext, right?

Yes, but I think the complaint here is giving any information about who's for and who's against, before greentext. (And it annoys me that you've taken my word for PPU's green speech text... XD)

[Excidium Planetis]

[ You know we debate the issue. It isn't unforeseeable that mind will be changed, and it isn't unreasonable to expect that minds will be changed or officially made up closer to the last minute than not.

I'm not saying it's unreasonable to change minds. In fact, according to SL, no minds were changed.

I'm saying it is unreasonable for one member to say that another member declared it illegal, and that member to say that they hadn't commented either way. One of them has to be incorrect. That doesn't have anything to do with changing minds.

What matters is literally just what comes with the greentext, right?

Yes, but I think the complaint here is giving any information about who's for and who's against, before greentext. (And it annoys me that you've taken my word for PPU's green speech text... XD)

Exactly. Even the part about greentext.

[Separatist Peoples]

What matters is literally just what comes with the greentext, right?

Yes, but I think the complaint here is giving any information about who's for and who's against, before greentext. (And it annoys me that you've taken my word for PPU's green speech text... XD)

I'm not saying it's unreasonable to change minds. In fact, according to SL, no minds were changed.

I'm saying it is unreasonable for one member to say that another member declared it illegal, and that member to say that they hadn't commented either way. One of them has to be incorrect. That doesn't have anything to do with changing minds.

If you (all) would prefer, we can stop discussing pending decision outcomes entirely.

[Araraukar]

If you (all) would prefer, we can stop discussing pending decision outcomes entirely.

Yes please.

[Excidium Planetis]

If you (all) would prefer, we can stop discussing pending decision outcomes entirely.

Yes please.

Seconded.

[Sciongrad]

Yes please.

Seconded.

Gladly. But you do realize that if it takes us some time to get our rulings out, as has been the case so far, our response to your questions will simply be "wait." Just to be clear, you find that preferable?

[Excidium Planetis]

Seconded.

Gladly. But you do realize that if it takes us some time to get our rulings out, as has been the case so far, our response to your questions will simply be "wait." Just to be clear, you find that preferable?

Yes. It makes it exciting. You never know how the ruling will turn out until the end.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Seconded.

Gladly. But you do realize that if it takes us some time to get our rulings out, as has been the case so far, our response to your questions will simply be "wait." Just to be clear, you find that preferable?

I would much rather have decisions told to people once people have made up their minds. Once a majority has been found one way or the other, then issue the ruling, pending further documentation.

[Araraukar]

If a decision drags on, it would be ok to get to know like "two haven't yet made up their mind", so we'll know you're at least discussing it, but other than that, numbers with ruling, please.

[Gruenberg]

While I'm satisfied by the ruling - what really matters is how consistently the metagaming rules will be enforced from now on, something I have to admit to still being wildly pessimistic about - the logic underpinning it is jaw-dropping levels of stupidity. Even the Council overseeing the WA rules seems to equate mandatory compliance with magical compliance!

Welcome to Hell. There's a reason there's high turnover in GA mods.

There certainly is. The reason is that you pick rank sycophants, and these people are therefore not well positioned to deal with the realization that there might be people who actually disagree with them.

[Excidium Planetis]

Even the Council overseeing the WA rules seems to equate mandatory compliance with magical compliance!

You have failed to adequately explain the difference in positions, or why such a distinction is relevant to the ruling. If non-compliance is impossible, I would call that magical compliance. If non-compliance is possible, why can it not be mentioned?

[Araraukar]

*snip*

Actually I think the main reason the GA mods keep vanishing is because of people like you and me...

[Glen-Rhodes]

EP is right. Nobody has ever offered an explanation of mandatory compliance that did not rely on magical Metagaming to enforce it. I've sought out that explanation for years. The majority opinion sums it up nicely:

"In the end, what is more reasonable? That a government can’t cover up a war crime, because a resolution says it can’t, and for some reason we can’t explain in in-world terms, it’s just an impossibility? Or that a government can indeed flout the terms of resolutions with impunity, especially if there’s no enforcement mechanism in a resolution?"

[Sedgistan]

That would be covered under site rules enforced by Moderators, which are separate to the GA proposal rules the Secretariat has jurisdiction over.

Is "GA Secretariat" covered by those? Or just "Secretariat"?

We haven't had cause to rule on that yet, so I don't have an answer for that.

By the way, Sedge, now that I have your attention (no matter how much just that thought makes me want to go hide), do the mods do proposal list sweeps anymore? Or have all the GA-savvy mods just gone MIA all at once?

The latter - Kryo, Mouse and Wrapper all have RL stuff occupying most their time at the moment. It's not that they're avoiding the GA, before anyone suggests that; they don't have time for anything else on the site either. Mouse did manage to remove some proposals last night, but aside from that, it's Fris / myself who are the most GA-ish mods around. I don't think either of us particularly wants to be sweeping the queue, but we're keeping an eye on Secretariat business.

[Araraukar]

it's Fris / myself who are the most GA-ish mods around.

I'm torn between going "Yeay, at least someone's around!" and "Oh I feel so sorry for you already..."

[Gruenberg]

The latter - Kryo, Mouse and Wrapper all have RL stuff occupying most their time at the moment. It's not that they're avoiding the GA, before anyone suggests that

Too late. Your post does rather demonstrate why that's bollocks, though.