Legality check

[Connopolis]

A quick question about a clause in GAR#112:

7. Declares that this resolution shall not be construed to deny additional regulations on execution, where seen necessary and proper by the World Assembly to prevent miscarriages of justice.

The resolution does not make any reference to vesting the power to determine the use of execution to member-states, aside from this clause -

2. Grants the right of member nations to allow the use of execution in accordance with the regulations of this act, with deference to active regulations in previously passed resolutions,

- and if the interpretation of clause 7 allows for someone to acknowledge execution as a miscarriage of justice, would it not be reasonable to further legislate on the topic to the point where a resolution may ban it? Clearly, the wording is emotionally charged, but could noble intentions alter the interpretation of the clause?

*Leaves offerings*

[Frisbeeteria]

Connopolis, out of all of the 18 or so active mods, only 4 or 5 actively pay attention to the WA forums. ALL of them are regular posters in the WA forums, and will typically read most threads and comment on most controversies. The other 13 or 14 of us generally ignore these threads.

Rather than coming in here for pre-emptive rulings, PLEASE pose your questions in the GA or SC forums FIRST. GA non-mod regulars may be equally as familiar with legality interpretation of existing case law, and can offer their own answers to your questions. We'll be happy to step in as arbiters of disputes if no consensus can be reached. In most of those cases, we'll post OOC with rulings in the appropriate thread, rather than having the discussion span two forums.

[Connopolis]

Connopolis, out of all of the 18 or so active mods, only 4 or 5 actively pay attention to the WA forums. ALL of them are regular posters in the WA forums, and will typically read most threads and comment on most controversies. The other 13 or 14 of us generally ignore these threads.

Rather than coming in here for pre-emptive rulings, PLEASE pose your questions in the GA or SC forums FIRST. GA non-mod regulars may be equally as familiar with legality interpretation of existing case law, and can offer their own answers to your questions. We'll be happy to step in as arbiters of disputes if no consensus can be reached. In most of those cases, we'll post OOC with rulings in the appropriate thread, rather than having the discussion span two forums.

Forgive me if I sound disobedient, but in all of my time in NS (albeit, short), all my binding legality checks have been made here, as the GA forum is assumed to be IC; creating a seperate thread for it is also very wasteful, and is considered to be in poor taste. I realize that for a period of time, you'd CTE'd, which was for the majority of my time here on NS, so perhaps the procedure has changed since. Regardless, to my knowledge, posting legality rulings on the moderation forums is the accepted style of requesting legality rulings.

Furthermore, as creating a seperate thread would definitely attract others as opposed to the intended audience of GA mods, I feel that this is the appropriate place to post a legality question; a thread dedicated solely to legality rulings on the GA forums would, as I stated prior, rather spammish. As far as I know, I've yet to see a binding legality question lodged on the GA/SC forums.

Past legality checks in moderation:

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5],

[Frisbeeteria]

Nobody is asking you for a separate thread. If other players think it's illegal, they most certainly do address their concerns in thread, and often in-character. That fact that it's IC and not OOC is irrelevant to the facts being presented. If Bob Flibble says "this is illegal because ..." I've always taken that as a moderator ruling. I guarantee that he and others will take down a posted submission of such a proposal.

I notice that none of the links you provided has a posted resolution, which presumably means they were addressed in thread. I haven't bothered to chase those down, but I'm willing to bet that at least some of them were requested only after a protracted debate. I further note that your second link devolved into exactly the sort of player-to-player rules quibbling that's entirely appropriate for the GA forum, and totally inappropriate here.

Yes, this is the appropriate place to settle a dispute, but how about allowing the dispute in the first place? We all have other duties, and it's much easier to make a ruling after all interested parties have had their say.

In response to the additional links posted:

Yeah. Look, I get what the prop says and a fair share of the people who read Moderation don't want to. So could you please take the argument to the thread? It'll be read.

[Connopolis]

Nobody is asking you for a separate thread. If other players think it's illegal, they most certainly do address their concerns in thread, and often in-character. That fact that it's IC and not OOC is irrelevant to the facts being presented. If Bob Flibble says "this is illegal because ..." I've always taken that as a moderator ruling. I guarantee that he and others will take down a posted submission of such a proposal.

I notice that none of the links you provided has a posted resolution, which presumably means they were addressed in thread. I haven't bothered to chase those down, but I'm willing to bet that at least some of them were requested only after a protracted debate. I further note that your second link devolved into exactly the sort of player-to-player rules quibbling that's entirely appropriate for the GA forum, and totally inappropriate here.

Yes, this is the appropriate place to settle a dispute, but how about allowing the dispute in the first place? We all have other duties, and it's much easier to make a ruling after all interested parties have had their say.

Flib has made it a point that his IC interpretations are not modly decisions; rather, two entirely, seperate, and sometimes opposite things. Granted, considering I have no resolution to refer, nor do is it practical to submit a question to the GA forums, this seems to be the only place to find a binding ruling. Among those I've talked to, the OP seems to be a valid point, although I'm sure others would disagree. As you stated yourself that I should not create a seperate thread, might I ask what it is you're asking me to do?

Yeah. Look, I get what the prop says and a fair share of the people who read Moderation don't want to. So could you please take the argument to the thread? It'll be read.

EDIT: There is no thread to refer to in this situation, as this concerns a decision about a theoretical interpretation, not a resolution. Ard's post explicitly says "[s]o could you please take the argument to the thread?"

Thanks for your time.

[Frisbeeteria]

You're asking for a ruling on something that hasn't even been written yet? Wouldn't it make sense to flesh out your core idea before making us jump through hoops on your behalf?

I give up. If one of the active WA mods wants to respond, so be it.

[Connopolis]

You're asking for a ruling on something that hasn't even been written yet? Wouldn't it make sense to flesh out your core idea before making us jump through hoops on your behalf?

The entire proposal rests on that interpretation, therefore, I figured I may as well ask for this specific ruling prior to taking action.

Thanks for your time, though!

*Leaves more offerings*

[Ardchoille]

You're both right. I'll have to get back to this later, though, as I'm on my way out the door.

[Flibbleites]

You're asking for a ruling on something that hasn't even been written yet? Wouldn't it make sense to flesh out your core idea before making us jump through hoops on your behalf?

The entire proposal rests on that interpretation, therefore, I figured I may as well ask for this specific ruling prior to taking action.

Thanks for your time, though!

*Leaves more offerings*

You know, if you're unsure if your proposal's concept is legal, maybe the best idea is to just drop it. Because I agree with Fris. How do you expect us to judge the legality of something that hasn't even been written yet?

[Connopolis]

The entire proposal rests on that interpretation, therefore, I figured I may as well ask for this specific ruling prior to taking action.

Thanks for your time, though!

*Leaves more offerings*

You know, if you're unsure if your proposal's concept is legal, maybe the best idea is to just drop it. Because I agree with Fris. How do you expect us to judge the legality of something that hasn't even been written yet?

I see where you're coming from, but I think the concept is straightforward enough for someone to ask if it's legal. So, succinctly, I ask: is banning execution illegal due to GAR#112?

EDIT: Sorry if I seem to be antagonizing you all; that was not my intention.

[The Most Glorious Hack]

And, succinctly, we reply: we are not going to rule on a Proposal that doesn't even exist.