Technical illegality in At Vote proposal

[Elke and Elba]

Then KISS, don't spend money and use manual TGs. You probably will never run into trouble using your own name + if there is an illegality in the text - then that's cursed upon you for not reading through rules and checking the relevant resolutions.

Anyway, you do have a point: Mods, can we have the stuff up in the Compendium, please?

Are you confusing me with Auralia? If so please stop.

I am merely debating a shitty ruling is all.

As you have mentioned yourself, you /do look/ like you are defending Auralia.

Apologies if my arguments made sounds like a confusion with Auralia - seeing that the same argument almost do apply. But it is true: if you don't want any form of emotional attachment or that given the scatteredness of rulings, keeping it simple, not spending money, using manual TGs and using your own name makes any surprise blow a lot palatable to deal with.

[Ardchoille]

Locking this briefly so I can split it to create a new thread. Please bear with me for about 10 minutes.

[Hakio]

I say discard it. I knew this couldn't be legal.

[Chester Pearson]

I say discard it. I knew this couldn't be legal.

How exactly was that helpful to this conversation? If you knew it was illegal why did you not point that put before it was submitted, or file a GHR on the matter?

[Ardchoille]

<snip>
But, I do have a different concern.

In the case of an illegal proposal becoming a legal Resolution, the matter could be simply dealt with by a speedy repeal.

However, as this is a Repeal, it would remove a Resolution that is already legal. I will ask my colleagues for permission to use the "Disallow" mechanism.

When I asked for clarification about the Discard feature and was told there was nothing additional to worry about that, the fact that it would have different standards for substantive proposals and repeals was never mentioned. I really wish it had been: it's exactly the kind of thing players would appreciate knowing about this new feature.

That's entirely understandable, and the truth is simple enough: I simply hadn't thought about Repeals. I dislike the Discard feature, regarding its use as something of a black mark on the active WA community. If we -- players and mods -- were all doing our jobs, there would be no need for it. So my reply reflected my holier-than-thou attitude that there wouldn't be much need for it anyway, and I responded in accordance with what I thought was the case.

However, when I looked at this today and had my attention directed to Repeals, I saw the difference. A proposal that is technically illegal, if passed, becomes a legal Resolution. Mods simply have to keep explaining that it must not be taken as a precedent, and why it cannot be. If this becomes annoying, well, serve us all right.

But you can't repeal a Repeal. It sits there on the books with its illegality intact, and another Resolution -- flawed, in some cases, but legal even when it was a proposal, because both the author and the then mods were on top of it -- is removed. This is unfair to the author and unfair to the GA: it actively rewards the illegality.

tl;dr: I would have if I'd thought of it, but it didn't occur to me then.

[Hakio]

Is it possible for you to discard it?

[Chester Pearson]

<snip>
But, I do have a different concern.

When I asked for clarification about the Discard feature and was told there was nothing additional to worry about that, the fact that it would have different standards for substantive proposals and repeals was never mentioned. I really wish it had been: it's exactly the kind of thing players would appreciate knowing about this new feature.

That's entirely understandable, and the truth is simple enough: I simply hadn't thought about Repeals. I dislike the Discard feature, regarding its use as something of a black mark on the active WA community. If we -- players and mods -- were all doing our jobs, there would be no need for it. So my reply reflected my holier-than-thou attitude that there wouldn't be much need for it anyway, and I responded in accordance with what I thought was the case.

However, when I looked at this today and had my attention directed to Repeals, I saw the difference. A proposal that is technically illegal, if passed, becomes a legal Resolution. Mods simply have to keep explaining that it must not be taken as a precedent, and why it cannot be. If this becomes annoying, well, serve us all right.

But you can't repeal a Repeal. It sits there on the books with its illegality intact, and another Resolution -- flawed, in some cases, but legal even when it was a proposal, because both the author and the then mods were on top of it -- is removed. This is unfair to the author and unfair to the GA: it actively rewards the illegality.

tl;dr: I would have if I'd thought of it, but it didn't occur to me then.

So if someone were to create a nation named TITO, and were to attempt to repeal a resolution, would the same such ruling apply? Or how about the fact I control the Chemical Weapons Commission. If I were to try and repeal the CWA with that nation, would it be branding?

I personally don't think this decision is being thought through. Like it or not this WILL set precedent, that other players will use to challenge.

If any decision is made to throw this out I would heavily request that Violet make that announcement, to assuage any concerns of a conspiracy.

Ard: I am not going after you on this, I understand your position. That being said, the fact that #2 is metagaming in itself, and was authored by Fris does raise certain concerns, and I am reasonably certain that I am not the only one that has this feeling.

[Chester Pearson]

Is it possible for you to discard it?

Have you not read the last two pages? If you have then you would have your answer.

[Hakio]

Is it possible for you to discard it?

Have you not read the last two pages? If you have then you would have your answer.

I don't speak mod.. I'll read it again though.

[Shadow Afforess]

On "Charter Working Group": it was my understanding that, earlier in the thread, it had been established that the "group" was, indeed, Auralia alone. However, the pre-title (The Collaborative Initiative of) and the operative name (World Assembly Charter Working Group) both proclaim that it is a group, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I should have ruled on that basis. (Clarifying further: it was established that DEFCON and ACCEL did exist offsite as groups, and thus it does matter what the situation is offsite. My statement to the contrary was incorrect.)

I'd like to challenge this. Group could technically include Auralia, and myself. I was the one who made the original draft of Repeal GAR #2, months ago. Auralia agreed such a proposal was needed at that time, and worked to draft a better version.

There - so Group now has 2 people, legal again?

My earlier repeal draft: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=262442

[Chester Pearson]

On "Charter Working Group": it was my understanding that, earlier in the thread, it had been established that the "group" was, indeed, Auralia alone. However, the pre-title (The Collaborative Initiative of) and the operative name (World Assembly Charter Working Group) both proclaim that it is a group, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I should have ruled on that basis. (Clarifying further: it was established that DEFCON and ACCEL did exist offsite as groups, and thus it does matter what the situation is offsite. My statement to the contrary was incorrect.)

I'd like to challenge this. Group could technically include Auralia, and myself. I was the one who made the original draft of Repeal GAR #2, months ago. Auralia agreed such a proposal was needed at that time, and worked to draft a better version.

There - so Group now has 2 people, legal again?

My earlier repeal draft: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... 9&t=262442

I didn't want to mention it, but I highly suspect Glen-Rhodes is part of that group as well.

[Wrapper]

On "Charter Working Group": it was my understanding that, earlier in the thread, it had been established that the "group" was, indeed, Auralia alone. However, the pre-title (The Collaborative Initiative of) and the operative name (World Assembly Charter Working Group) both proclaim that it is a group, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I should have ruled on that basis. (Clarifying further: it was established that DEFCON and ACCEL did exist offsite as groups, and thus it does matter what the situation is offsite. My statement to the contrary was incorrect.)

I'd like to challenge this. Group could technically include Auralia, and myself. I was the one who made the original draft of Repeal GAR #2, months ago. Auralia agreed such a proposal was needed at that time, and worked to draft a better version.

There - so Group now has 2 people, legal again?

My earlier repeal draft: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... 9&t=262442

Don't you realize that you're supporting the mod's argument that it's illegal?

[Ardchoille]

So if someone were to create a nation named TITO, and were to attempt to repeal a resolution, would the same such ruling apply? Or how about the fact I control the Chemical Weapons Commission. If I were to try and repeal the CWA with that nation, would it be branding?

Yes, it would. Chester, you're conflating a number of questions.
Is a proposal authored by a "nation" that advertises a region or group's name illegal? Yes, it is; that's in the rules that were written pre-this board. (I think they were posted first on Jolt, but since they were based on Enodia's rules, perhaps on the original board.) That's not at issue here.
What's at issue is the fact that I have reversed my ruling on a proposal that is now at vote, and asked for a Discard.
Because I will link the other mods to this thread so they can see what the various questions entail, I would appreciate it if posters confined themselves to

(a) was the reversal warranted?
(b) should the Discard be applied?

Objections to or support of the content of the proposal should be confined to the At Vote thread.

I personally don't think this decision is being thought through. Like it or not this WILL set precedent, that other players will use to challenge.

The need to not set a precedent of allowing an illegality to be rewarded is why I have reversed my ruling and asked for the Discard.

If any decision is made to throw this out I would heavily request that Violet make that announcement, to assuage any concerns of a conspiracy.

Believe me, the Admins would be strikingly unhappy to be called on to give a ruling on the esoteric minutiae of WA proposals, which is all this is at the moment.

Ard: I am not going after you on this, I understand your position. That being said, the fact that #2 is metagaming in itself, and was authored by Fris does raise certain concerns, and I am reasonably certain that I am not the only one that has this feeling.

Chester, there was a WA before you arrived. Some of the rulings Dark Star refers to go back to Jolt, and there's no hope of retrieving them. If we added every ruling to the Rules, they'd be so weighty they'd be useful only as a doorstop. Rulings are given to respond to specific cases, and recalled when players see a relevance to a new situation. Players have shown themselves quite capable of doing that when they feel it's warranted.

There are Resolutions on the books that might now be ruled illegal, and rulings that I would reverse. The fact that in the seven years since I was modded I have deepened my understanding of how proposals and the game interface does not mean that those Resolutions went on the books because of some conspiracy. (BTW, I'm not entirely convinced that Fris was right when he commented recently that GA#2 might be illegal now, if it had just been proposed. It's NS UN predecessor certainly would, so he may have been thinking of that. But the legality of GA#2, or its strengths or weaknesses, is not the issue here.)

I'm now two hours late for a pleasant little afternoon with friends watching Next Gen episodes. It wouldn't have been polite for me to run out on this storm, so I stuck around, but it's not polite for me to give them the complete brush-off, either. So I won't reply to several other points people have raised at this stage. But I'll be back, so keep 'em coming, just try to stick to the topic and be excellent to each other.

[Abacathea]

Given that Douria had a piece pulled not too long ago for attempting to use the Osiris WA Office as a submitting nation, this isn't altogether surprising. The precedent for this was actually set some time before now in that regard, I just wish I'd seen it sooner.

[Auralia]

I don't think the region/group rule is being correctly applied here. It is my understanding that the purpose of the rule is to prevent nations from using the Proposed By field to advertise a particular region or a particular group. However, in this case, the World Assembly Charter Working Group nation does not advertise a particular region or a particular group, since the group is not open for general membership and was only established for the express purpose of passing two specific resolutions. This stands in contrast to the Osiris WA Office nation, which is clearly intended to advertise Osiris and to encourage nations to join that region.

Even if the resolution is illegal for violating that rule, I question whether discarding the resolution is appropriate. Wasn't it agreed that there would be different criteria for deleting a proposal versus discarding an at vote resolution, and that the latter would only be used in the case of egregious rule violations, which I don't think this is?

Finally, there's the fact that the resolution was technically legal when it went to vote, since Ardchoille had definitively ruled that it was, in fact, legal. Yes, Ardchoille now says that ruling was a mistake, but is it really fair to punish me (and to effectively fine me $17 in stamps) for that mistake?

[Sovreignry]

I don't think the region/group rule is being correctly applied here. It is my understanding that the purpose of the rule is to prevent nations from using the Proposed By field to advertise a particular region or a particular group. However, in this case, the World Assembly Charter Working Group nation does not advertise a particular region or a particular group, since the group is not open for general membership and was only established for the express purpose of passing two specific resolutions. This stands in contrast to the Osiris WA Office nation, which is clearly intended to advertise Osiris and to encourage nations to join that region.

Even if the resolution is illegal for violating that rule, I question whether discarding the resolution is appropriate. Wasn't it agreed that there would be different criteria for deleting a proposal versus discarding an at vote resolution, and that the latter would only be used in the case of egregious rule violations, which I don't think this is?

Finally, there's the fact that the resolution was technically legal when it went to vote, since Ardchoille had definitively ruled that it was, in fact, legal. Yes, Ardchoille now says that ruling was a mistake, but is it really fair to punish me (and to effectively fine me $17 in stamps) for that mistake?

Your purchase of stamps is irrelevant to this discussion. Spending money doesn't place you above the rules. Spending money may make you feel entitled to be above the rules, but it doesn't. Additionally, if this truly is a group, then it is a violation of the "one author and one co-author" rule here in the GA. By submitting it as a group, you're subverting that rule.

All in all, I feel the discard is warranted in this case.

[Shadow Afforess]

Your purchase of stamps is irrelevant to this discussion. Spending money doesn't place you above the rules. Spending money may make you feel entitled to be above the rules, but it doesn't. Additionally, if this truly is a group, then it is a violation of the "one author and one co-author" rule here in the GA. By submitting it as a group, you're subverting that rule.

All in all, I feel the discard is warranted in this case.

One can be a member of the group without necessarily being a co-author. There is a wide chasm between suggesting or approving ideas and actual authorship. Surely it is understood that co-authorship implies that the co-author actually wrote some part of the legislation. The group might be better considered a form of lobbying rather than co-authorship.

IMO you are looking for reasons to discard the legislation rather than reconsider.

[Rotwood]

Your purchase of stamps is irrelevant to this discussion. Spending money doesn't place you above the rules. Spending money may make you feel entitled to be above the rules, but it doesn't. Additionally, if this truly is a group, then it is a violation of the "one author and one co-author" rule here in the GA. By submitting it as a group, you're subverting that rule.

All in all, I feel the discard is warranted in this case.

One can be a member of the group without necessarily being a co-author. There is a wide chasm between suggesting or approving ideas and actual authorship. Surely it is understood that co-authorship implies that the co-author actually wrote some part of the legislation. The group might be better considered a form of lobbying rather than co-authorship.

IMO you are looking for reasons to discard the legislation rather than reconsider.

But Auralia has already stated that while they were controlling the puppet, it was representing a group, which I'm pretty sure is a no-no.

That isn't even mentioning the use of the WA name and imagery together, which has the potential to cause confusion

[Starkmoor]

I don't think the region/group rule is being correctly applied here. It is my understanding that the purpose of the rule is to prevent nations from using the Proposed By field to advertise a particular region or a particular group. However, in this case, the World Assembly Charter Working Group nation does not advertise a particular region or a particular group, since the group is not open for general membership and was only established for the express purpose of passing two specific resolutions. This stands in contrast to the Osiris WA Office nation, which is clearly intended to advertise Osiris and to encourage nations to join that region.

Agreed. I oppose the discard.

[Elke and Elba]

I don't think the region/group rule is being correctly applied here. It is my understanding that the purpose of the rule is to prevent nations from using the Proposed By field to advertise a particular region or a particular group. However, in this case, the World Assembly Charter Working Group nation does not advertise a particular region or a particular group, since the group is not open for general membership and was only established for the express purpose of passing two specific resolutions. This stands in contrast to the Osiris WA Office nation, which is clearly intended to advertise Osiris and to encourage nations to join that region

.

Agreed. I oppose the discard.

Don't comment if you don't have any point to note.

---

So Ard - this being just a question: since when was proposing to the World Assembly in the name and capactiy of the World Assembly legal? How is it not metagaming?

And since when did our dear WA have "working groups"? Isn't that metagaming?

On a more serious note: I think all policies across the board do apply to the WA forums too - here are a few points of consideration:

1) Admins have enforced a one-nation, one-player rule. With stuff like Osiris WA Office and WA Charter Working Group, it gives the false sense that these 'countries' are controlled by more than one player. Legitimatizing such actions just put not only the WA, but gives out a signal that admin rules can be flagrantly flouted.

2) Said nation should not only have its proposal removed, but DEAT'd for very simple reasons: impersonation, plagiarism and usage without permission. I'm rather surprised mods have allowed the nation to live, since the usage of the WA flag and name - connoting this has been condoned by WA - and without permission too. It tries to impersonate the WA through the use of the flag without permission (illegal) and the use of the WA name.

3) Afforess has admitted he is also in the group earlier today. Rather silly move - since that shows clearly that this is submitted by a "group" and not just a nation. Like the Osiris or ACCEL or DEFCON ones.

You might ask why I wouldn't argue this way for "Unibotian WA Mission" or "Mahaj WA Seat" - because in this case, the WA name is used in bad faith, and with the intent to fool voters.

And these, are just points made to what has already been made above as to why I feel this is exceedingly illegal.

[The Dark Star Republic]

That's entirely understandable, and the truth is simple enough: I simply hadn't thought about Repeals. I dislike the Discard feature, regarding its use as something of a black mark on the active WA community. If we -- players and mods -- were all doing our jobs, there would be no need for it. So my reply reflected my holier-than-thou attitude that there wouldn't be much need for it anyway, and I responded in accordance with what I thought was the case.

However, when I looked at this today and had my attention directed to Repeals, I saw the difference. A proposal that is technically illegal, if passed, becomes a legal Resolution. Mods simply have to keep explaining that it must not be taken as a precedent, and why it cannot be. If this becomes annoying, well, serve us all right.

I don't really care whether you are at fault or not; I'm not interested in that. I would just like some clear rules on the Discard feature. This is another example of a case where it seems there is a distinction in how proposals would be interpreted relative to a Discard that was not known to players.

But you can't repeal a Repeal. It sits there on the books with its illegality intact, and another Resolution -- flawed, in some cases, but legal even when it was a proposal, because both the author and the then mods were on top of it -- is removed. This is unfair to the author and unfair to the GA: it actively rewards the illegality.

tl;dr: I would have if I'd thought of it, but it didn't occur to me then.

This argument doesn't make any sense. If anything, the converse should be true.

A resolution cannot be repealed for being illegal. That is one of the more consistently enforced proposal rules: that every extant resolution is 'presumed legal' and that a repeal argument must be substantive. That means if an illegal resolution did pass, repealing it would present a problem.

But, by contrast, if an illegal repeal passed, it wouldn't really matter. Repeals can by law only have one effect: striking out an existing law. That means an illegal repeal could easily be redressed by simply resubmitting the original legal resolution!

Of course, in this case, I don't think that's an option, because I don't think the original resolution is legal. Category, plagiarism, metagaming - not to mention that last time it went to vote, Frisbeeteria didn't even attempt to defend the proposal's legality anyway, saying that such arguments were 'sophistry':

I'm using my status as the original author and position as a Game Mod to push through a one-time-only acknowledgment of an existing metagame rule.

I don't think the region/group rule is being correctly applied here. It is my understanding that the purpose of the rule is to prevent nations from using the Proposed By field to advertise a particular region or a particular group. However, in this case, the World Assembly Charter Working Group nation does not advertise a particular region or a particular group, since the group is not open for general membership and was only established for the express purpose of passing two specific resolutions. This stands in contrast to the Osiris WA Office nation, which is clearly intended to advertise Osiris and to encourage nations to join that region.

The rules don't make any allowance for how few resolutions a group is sponsoring. DEFCON was largely founded to assure passage of a single resolution, on terrorism. Your proposal still gives free advertising to the WA Charter Working Group, and it's perfectly consistent with years of precedent. In this case, many people may want to submit replacements for Rights & Duties should the repeal pass, but your own Charter has already gained four days of exposure before any of them thanks to the name of the puppet.

Even if the resolution is illegal for violating that rule, I question whether discarding the resolution is appropriate. Wasn't it agreed that there would be different criteria for deleting a proposal versus discarding an at vote resolution, and that the latter would only be used in the case of egregious rule violations, which I don't think this is?

Finally, there's the fact that the resolution was technically legal when it went to vote, since Ardchoille had definitively ruled that it was, in fact, legal. Yes, Ardchoille now says that ruling was a mistake, but is it really fair to punish me (and to effectively fine me $17 in stamps) for that mistake?

I'm not arguing it should be Discarded, for the record, just that it should have been deleted originally. Ardchoille told us last time that the Discard was only for extreme illegalities, and this absolutely does not seem that way at all.

[Elke and Elba]

DSR: I believe that's not the case.

Right to Adequate Sanitation proved that Ard was wrong. Ard said it couldn't be removed for category violations - but I think Sedge said otherwise.

Right to Adequate Sanitation will have been equally discarded if it was in the wrong category.

[The Dark Star Republic]

DSR: I believe that's not the case.

Right to Adequate Sanitation proved that Ard was wrong. Ard said it couldn't be removed for category violations - but I think Sedge said otherwise.

Right to Adequate Sanitation will have been equally discarded if it was in the wrong category.

My statement is entirely correct:

...Ardchoille told us last time that the Discard was only for extreme illegalities...

Re Discard: As far as I know, the Discard function is for mods to implement, not for players to request -- and only then after consultation*. It's for egregious, really bad, terrible, awful, violations. Think Max Barry Day, previously undiscovered plagisarism, or saying NS is a game in the text of a Resolution.

A category violation is a technical glitch. If something escapes the author, he takes his lumps. If it escapes the players, they take theirs. If it escapes the mods, we take ours*². For the most part, category is arguable. Arguable Resolutions get repealed, not dumped.

There is no subsequent post by Sedgistan on the subject that I can find.

[Elke and Elba]

DSR: I believe that's not the case.

Right to Adequate Sanitation proved that Ard was wrong. Ard said it couldn't be removed for category violations - but I think Sedge said otherwise.

Right to Adequate Sanitation will have been equally discarded if it was in the wrong category.

My statement is entirely correct:

...Ardchoille told us last time that the Discard was only for extreme illegalities...

Re Discard: As far as I know, the Discard function is for mods to implement, not for players to request -- and only then after consultation*. It's for egregious, really bad, terrible, awful, violations. Think Max Barry Day, previously undiscovered plagisarism, or saying NS is a game in the text of a Resolution.

A category violation is a technical glitch. If something escapes the author, he takes his lumps. If it escapes the players, they take theirs. If it escapes the mods, we take ours*². For the most part, category is arguable. Arguable Resolutions get repealed, not dumped.

There is no subsequent post by Sedgistan on the subject that I can find.

Apologies: Kryo.

viewtopic.php?p=19194061#p19194061

Given that mods have to give a ruling based on category violation despite it being At Vote (then) - it signals to us that mods are willing to use the tool for any violation.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Apologies: Kryo.

viewtopic.php?p=19194061#p19194061

Given that mods have to give a ruling based on category violation despite it being At Vote (then) - it signals to us that mods are willing to use the tool for any violation.

There is nothing in Kryo's ruling even mentioning the Discard feature, let alone indicating that the category would have been enough for it to be used. My statement stands, and I think you need to be more careful in attributing opinions to the gamestaff.