Ruling Discussion [moved from General Assembly]

[The Dark Star Republic]

This ruling contains some more rulings to add:

• Rules violations are permitted in repeals so long as they are not "central" to the argument
• The WA Counterterrorism Act prohibits state terrorism
• It is legal to argue the WA has banned a number of things it has not, and this does not constitute an Honest Mistake

I genuinely don't understand the part about Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws, but maybe someone can interpret what that ruling means for interpreting that resolution.

[Mallorea and Riva]

This ruling contains some more rulings to add:

• Rules violations are permitted in repeals so long as they are not "central" to the argument
• The WA Counterterrorism Act prohibits state terrorism
• It is legal to argue the WA has banned a number of things it has not, and this does not constitute an Honest Mistake

I genuinely don't understand the part about Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws, but maybe someone can interpret what that ruling means for interpreting that resolution.

Just to clarify your first and second points, no new ruling has been given in regards to those. They fall under the banner of Ard's prior ruling.

If a proposal makes a definitive statement about the contents of a resolution, and that definitive statement is not borne out by the actual contents of the resolution, there could be grounds to declare the proposal illegal.

Note that Ard did not declare that such resolutions are automatically illegal. The centrality aspect is a clarification of this, along with the scope for potential debate of the points in question (how obviously false they are/are not).

[The Dourian Embassy]

Also, for the record there is no need to "interpret" new rulings for me Gruen. If I have any questions about one you link I can always ask a moderator about it.

[The Dark Star Republic]

This ruling contains some more rulings to add:

• Rules violations are permitted in repeals so long as they are not "central" to the argument
• The WA Counterterrorism Act prohibits state terrorism
• It is legal to argue the WA has banned a number of things it has not, and this does not constitute an Honest Mistake

I genuinely don't understand the part about Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws, but maybe someone can interpret what that ruling means for interpreting that resolution.

Just to clarify your first and second points, no new ruling has been given in regards to those.

It most assuredly is a new ruling. I have never seen a moderator say before that a repeal can contain rules violations so long as they are not "central" to the argument. Repeals are quite commonly deleted for the most incidentally minor violations.

along with the scope for potential debate of the points in question (how obviously false they are/are not).

Not that it's part of the legality query, but I have to question how that debate is possible when the author expressed before even rushing the proposal to quorum that they were absolutely not prepared to debate the proposal. Some conduct for someone who's meant to be an example to others.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Just to clarify your first and second points, no new ruling has been given in regards to those.

It most assuredly is a new ruling. I have never seen a moderator say before that a repeal can contain rules violations so long as they are not "central" to the argument. Repeals are quite commonly deleted for the most incidentally minor violations.

You're missing the point. We aren't considering it to *be* a violation if it is as minor as it was in this case. Consider it to be similar to the duplication rule, where it is a matter of degree rather than obviously being black and white, legal or illegal.

along with the scope for potential debate of the points in question (how obviously false they are/are not).

Not that it's part of the legality query, but I have to question how that debate is possible when the author expressed before even rushing the proposal to quorum that they were absolutely not prepared to debate the proposal. Some conduct for someone who's meant to be an example to others.

Again take it to the voters. The fact that you disagree with Mouse's strategy for this proposal is completely irrelevant to the purpose of this thread.

[Araraukar]

The fact that you disagree with Mouse's strategy for this proposal is completely irrelevant to the purpose of this thread.

I disagree with a forum mod bent on repealing half the resolutions. There's no denying that moderator status on the author of a proposal will lend it a false aura of authority. If the legality challenge on false representation of the facts of the target proposal - which would have been called "Honest Mistake" usually - was turned down because "it wasn't significant to the argument" and the appeal to that turned down because "there weren't any uninvolved mods left to appeal to", because the author belongs into the mod team, then I can't help but feel that there's something wrong in that system.

EDIT: And like DSR, I too feel that it is a significant change in Secretariat guidelines that falsifying facts of the target resolution is not called out because it's not central to the argument.

[Sciongrad]

You're missing the point. We aren't considering it to *be* a violation if it is as minor as it was in this case. Consider it to be similar to the duplication rule, where it is a matter of degree rather than obviously being black and white, legal or illegal.

What utter piffle. The duplication rule allows room for minor overlap because some policy issues are very similar and may be very difficult, or even impossible, to cover without legislating or clarifying issues partially covered by previous resolutions. It has a purpose and that is to make sure that certain policy areas are not permanently closed off to players. This new - and it is new, as far as I can tell, because I have seen repeals get deleted for less and the rules compendium makes no reference to this "minor violations are okay" concept - serves no purpose at all. Why is it okay for repeals to be a little bit wrong? What's the justification? Rules exist for a reason, and allowing repeals to mislead voters a little bit instead of downright lying throughout makes no sense.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

I disagree with a forum mod bent on repealing half the resolutions. There's no denying that moderator status on the author of a proposal will lend it a false aura of authority.

What, is form moderator status tattooed on the backs of their necks? The fact is that few of the people who vote on WA resolutions ever see the forums. They don't know who is or who is not a "forum mod" and they don't even care. They may like a person's name or not, but that's more of seeing it often, more often than not. I'm sorry, but when you effectively start asking non paid volunteers to shut up, this non paid non volunteer gets very angry!

[The Dourian Embassy]

Hey guys. Guess where this argument doesn't belong?

[Kryozerkia]

I disagree with a forum mod bent on repealing half the resolutions. There's no denying that moderator status on the author of a proposal will lend it a false aura of authority. If the legality challenge on false representation of the facts of the target proposal - which would have been called "Honest Mistake" usually - was turned down because "it wasn't significant to the argument" and the appeal to that turned down because "there weren't any uninvolved mods left to appeal to", because the author belongs into the mod team, then I can't help but feel that there's something wrong in that system.

EDIT: And like DSR, I too feel that it is a significant change in Secretariat guidelines that falsifying facts of the target resolution is not called out because it's not central to the argument.

It wouldn't have been called honest mistake "usually". The appeal was turned down because 1) That's just not how the Secretariat operates. We utilized every available resource to make the decision, unless you want us to turn to mods completely unfamiliar with the GA then you're asking the same mods to look back at it. For what it's worth, the available, uninvolved GA mods read with TDSR wrote, and it didn't sway us. 2) Mousebumples would presumably have agreed with the ruling that was given considering the fact that she wrote the proposal. Mousebumples being a moderator did not complicate the ruling.

Additionally I don't know whether Mousebumples is "bent on repealing half the resolutions", but this is not the first (or second) time that a moderator has submitted a GA proposal (or SC, or UN proposal), nor the first (or second) time that the mod has done so with their main nation.

What utter piffle. The duplication rule allows room for minor overlap because some policy issues are very similar and may be very difficult, or even impossible, to cover without legislating or clarifying issues partially covered by previous resolutions. It has a purpose and that is to make sure that certain policy areas are not permanently closed off to players. This new - and it is new, as far as I can tell, because I have seen repeals get deleted for less and the rules compendium makes no reference to this "minor violations are okay" concept - serves no purpose at all. Why is it okay for repeals to be a little bit wrong? What's the justification? Rules exist for a reason, and allowing repeals to mislead voters a little bit instead of downright lying throughout makes no sense.

The moderators are not here to decide whether repeals are right or wrong in their entirety. Arguments with regards to interpretation are intentionally left for the voters to decide. We intervene in situations where it is patently obvious that the repeal is based around a complete misrepresentation of what the targeted resolution actually does. Moderation cannot intervene in routine WA matters where there are no rules being broken.

Mousebumples is in no way breaking the rules by submitting a legal proposal and using the powers of persuasion via the available campaign mechanisms to accumulate sufficient approvals to get the repeal to a vote and to persuade the voters to vote in favor of the repeal. There is nothing to indicate Mousebumples is cheating to gain votes or support, and there have been no indications or reports of her using her moderator status improperly. As always, if you believe Mousebumples (or any other moderator) is acting improperly, please file a GHR so the appropriate investigation can be conducted.

She's playing at politics. That's a rather big part of what the game is about; her opponents will need to use politics to convince people to stop supporting her proposals, rather than try to wield the moderators as weapons against a player working to repeal convince the Moderators to prevent the repeal of resolutions that other players don't want to see repealed.

MODEDIT: Edited to clarify after query. See also clarification.

[Sciongrad]

Mousebumples is in no way breaking the rules by submitting a legal proposal and using the powers of persuasion via the available campaign mechanisms to accumulate sufficient approvals to get the repeal to a vote and to persuade the voters to vote in favor of the repeal. There is nothing to indicate Mousebumples is cheating to gain votes or support, and there have been no indications or reports of her using her moderator status improperly. As always, if you believe Mousebumples (or any other moderator) is acting improperly, please file a GHR so the appropriate investigation can be conducted.

She's playing at politics. That's a rather big part of what the game is about; her opponents will need to use politics to convince people to stop supporting her proposals, rather than try to wield the moderators as weapons against a player working to repeal resolutions that other players don't want to see repealed.

Well I guess I'll have to keep these new rules regarding the honest mistake clause in mind for the future. That is, as long as my "persuasion" is only "minor." Granted, you didn't respond to a single item in my argument, but I don't really know what I was expecting.

[Chester Pearson]

I disagree with a forum mod bent on repealing half the resolutions. There's no denying that moderator status on the author of a proposal will lend it a false aura of authority. If the legality challenge on false representation of the facts of the target proposal - which would have been called "Honest Mistake" usually - was turned down because "it wasn't significant to the argument" and the appeal to that turned down because "there weren't any uninvolved mods left to appeal to", because the author belongs into the mod team, then I can't help but feel that there's something wrong in that system.

EDIT: And like DSR, I too feel that it is a significant change in Secretariat guidelines that falsifying facts of the target resolution is not called out because it's not central to the argument.

It wouldn't have been called honest mistake "usually". The appeal was turned down because 1) That's just not how the Secretariat operates. We utilized every available resource to make the decision, unless you want us to turn to mods completely unfamiliar with the GA then you're asking the same mods to look back at it. For what it's worth, the available, uninvolved GA mods read with TDSR wrote, and it didn't sway us. 2) Mousebumples would presumably have agreed with the ruling that was given considering the fact that she wrote the proposal. Mousebumples being a moderator did not complicate the ruling.

Additionally I don't know whether Mousebumples is "bent on repealing half the resolutions", but this is not the first (or second) time that a moderator has submitted a GA proposal (or SC, or UN proposal), nor the first (or second) time that the mod has done so with their main nation.

What utter piffle. The duplication rule allows room for minor overlap because some policy issues are very similar and may be very difficult, or even impossible, to cover without legislating or clarifying issues partially covered by previous resolutions. It has a purpose and that is to make sure that certain policy areas are not permanently closed off to players. This new - and it is new, as far as I can tell, because I have seen repeals get deleted for less and the rules compendium makes no reference to this "minor violations are okay" concept - serves no purpose at all. Why is it okay for repeals to be a little bit wrong? What's the justification? Rules exist for a reason, and allowing repeals to mislead voters a little bit instead of downright lying throughout makes no sense.

The moderators are not here to decide whether repeals are right or wrong in their entirety. Arguments with regards to interpretation are intentionally left for the voters to decide. We intervene in situations where it is patently obvious that the repeal is based around a complete misrepresentation of what the targeted resolution actually does. Moderation cannot intervene in routine WA matters where there are no rules being broken.

Mousebumples is in no way breaking the rules by submitting a legal proposal and using the powers of persuasion via the available campaign mechanisms to accumulate sufficient approvals to get the repeal to a vote and to persuade the voters to vote in favor of the repeal. There is nothing to indicate Mousebumples is cheating to gain votes or support, and there have been no indications or reports of her using her moderator status improperly. As always, if you believe Mousebumples (or any other moderator) is acting improperly, please file a GHR so the appropriate investigation can be conducted.

She's playing at politics. That's a rather big part of what the game is about; her opponents will need to use politics to convince people to stop supporting her proposals, rather than try to wield the moderators as weapons against a player working to repeal resolutions that other players don't want to see repealed.

You sure her "moderator" status might not be 'influencing" the vote? I remember the same argument being made against Auralia with his Working Group, that people were voting in favor only because they thought it was an official repeal from a site official.

I am not taking a shot at Mouse here, and I deeply respect her as a player. But I also believe in calling a spade a spade...

[The Dark Star Republic]

The moderators are not here to decide whether repeals are right or wrong in their entirety. Arguments with regards to interpretation are intentionally left for the voters to decide. We intervene in situations where it is patently obvious that the repeal is based around a complete misrepresentation of what the targeted resolution actually does.

Very interesting. I had not seen that distinction made before. It was my understanding that Honest Mistake applied to all resolutions, not just the target one: I've certainly seens repeals of things like the Freedom of Marriage Act that misinterpreted Rights & Duties removed, for example.

This discussion seems to have determined that the Honest Mistake is now interpreted much more narrowly. So perhaps it was a worthwhile discussion over all. :)

She's playing at politics. That's a rather big part of what the game is about; her opponents will need to use politics to convince people to stop supporting her proposals, rather than try to wield the moderators as weapons against a player working to repeal resolutions that other players don't want to see repealed.

If you believe that people - including me? - are using mods as weapons, give them warnings. If not, slinging around the accusation that we are just doing this because we don't want to see the ICC resolution repealed (can't speak for anyone else, but I do!) seems a pretty cheap way of besmirching our motives. You don't understand why people are making claims of partiality. Perhaps because submitting a legality query has never before been dismissed as "mods as weapons"?

[Mallorea and Riva]

She's playing at politics. That's a rather big part of what the game is about; her opponents will need to use politics to convince people to stop supporting her proposals, rather than try to wield the moderators as weapons against a player working to repeal resolutions that other players don't want to see repealed.

If you believe that people - including me? - are using mods as weapons, give them warnings. If not, slinging around the accusation that we are just doing this because we don't want to see the ICC resolution repealed (can't speak for anyone else, but I do!) seems a pretty cheap way of besmirching our motives. You don't understand why people are making claims of partiality. Perhaps because submitting a legality query has never before been dismissed as "mods as weapons"?

It wasn't dismissed as mods as weapons, but the subsequent discussion of her role as a moderator along with how it impacted the vote has taken that turn (not to say that you are necessarily involved in this aspect).

To Chester: This isn't the place for that discussion, but no I really don't think her moderator status is influencing anything. Auralia's proposal violated the branding rule, that was the reason for its removal. Mouse was already an extremely prolific author with an extremely high rate of success, if anything this proposal is passing by less than the usual margin.

[Araraukar]

Just to clarify then...

Repeals can legally include lies about resolutions as long as the lies are not the main content of the repeal argument?

[Glen-Rhodes]

If you believe that people - including me? - are using mods as weapons, give them warnings. If not, slinging around the accusation that we are just doing this because we don't want to see the ICC resolution repealed (can't speak for anyone else, but I do!) seems a pretty cheap way of besmirching our motives. You don't understand why people are making claims of partiality. Perhaps because submitting a legality query has never before been dismissed as "mods as weapons"?

It wasn't dismissed as mods as weapons, but the subsequent discussion of her role as a moderator along with how it impacted the vote has taken that turn (not to say that you are necessarily involved in this aspect).

Moderators are not immune to criticism and still must follow ethical guidelines. Mousebumples should not be using her mod account to author resolutions, plain and simple. That is a clear conflict of interests. There's enough question about the partiality of the mod team as it is, given that there is no transparency whatsoever in how mods are chosen, and no review period for players to have input. To use your mod nation is just dumb. Everything you say with it is automatically preceded by, "As a mod...", no matter how many disclaimers you stick in the post. The least you guys can do is use a different nation, so we can all pretend that there's not a glaring conflict of interest whenever a legality review is submitted against a mod proposal.

Questioning the partiality of the mod team is not using mods as a weapon. You guys are one of the most opaque and secretive groups in NS administration. With the stroke of a keyboard, you guys get to dictate terms on an entire chunk of the game, and are pretty much immune to questioning and review, unlike Gameplay moderators who have to go up against the large and influential gameplayer community. Oh, and who also hold public discussions and debates about their decisions, instead of keeping everything in a secret sub-forum.

Dismissing valid questions about partiality by saying a moderator is just "playing politics" doesn't give us any more faith in you guys at all. If mods aren't held to the same standard as players, that's pretty telling of how terrible the WA mod team is. You guys drove Auralia out of the game on the flimsiest of grounds that the nation name he was using was improperly manipulating people into thinking the resolution was "official." But now that it's one your own, it's just "playing politics."

[Scolopendra]

Mousebumples should not be using her mod account to author resolutions, plain and simple.

I'm a game mod and I still play the NS roleplay game. CG and Sedge are not uninvolved in Gameplay. Generalite Mods don't leave General. Mods don't suddenly become not-players; the fact that they are players is part of the point, as they know the context that the subforums and subgames have developed.

Since we're now reached the "bias, conspiracy, and ethics" versus "we let the voters decide" point and there will be no resolution to this,

Bike, activate crowd control.

~Scolo der Mod