by Kryozerkia » Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:10 pm
by Sciongrad » Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:38 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:The 'Honest Mistake' rule has been tightened. It only be enforced in limited circumstances, where there is a genuine honest mistake. Moderation will not determine whether one player's interpretation is more more correct than another's. Lying (including deception, etc) for political advantage is not against the rules. Rulings have made this change necessary. This only applies to 'honest mistakes' in repeals.
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Honest Mistakes
This usually happens with Repeals. Someone will misread the resolution and submit a repeal that supports the resolution, or tries to undo a resolution because they think it does something it doesn't. Any factual inaccuracy will result in a proposal being pulled.
Branding, has been loosened to allow up to three co-authors. One co-author has proven not be in the interests of collaborative efforts. Until there is a built-in option to list co-authors, the rule remains.
National sovereignty has been clarified to include the previously unwritten rule that it could be used in a repeal but not as the sole argument.
by Tinfect » Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:42 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Kryozerkia wrote:The 'Honest Mistake' rule has been tightened. It only be enforced in limited circumstances, where there is a genuine honest mistake. Moderation will not determine whether one player's interpretation is more more correct than another's. Lying (including deception, etc) for political advantage is not against the rules. Rulings have made this change necessary. This only applies to 'honest mistakes' in repeals.
???
This is contrary to what every single regular wanted? Why did you guys even hold a rules summit if you weren't going to take our opinions into consideration??
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Sciongrad » Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:45 pm
Tinfect wrote:Sciongrad wrote:
???
This is contrary to what every single regular wanted? Why did you guys even hold a rules summit if you weren't going to take our opinions into consideration??
As far as I can tell, they'd made the decision before the backlash, they're just doubling down in some attempt to save face.
It's like when News stations report completely fake stories and maintain that they are true despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If they back down, they outrage their viewers.
Of course, what the Mods are missing here is that they are not a news station, and that the 'viewers', the GA regulars, didn't agree with them to begin with.
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Apr 26, 2016 5:52 pm
by Wallenburg » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:25 pm
Kryozerkia wrote:The 'Honest Mistake' rule has been tightened. It only be enforced in limited circumstances, where there is a genuine honest mistake. Moderation will not determine whether one player's interpretation is more more correct than another's. Lying (including deception, etc) for political advantage is not against the rules. Rulings have made this change necessary. This only applies to 'honest mistakes' in repeals.
by Glen-Rhodes » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:40 pm
by Railana » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:51 pm
by Sciongrad » Tue Apr 26, 2016 6:53 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:Pleasantly surprised that after many years of advocating, the No Army Rule has finally been removed! There are good and bad parts to these revisions, but that is certainly a silver lining.
by Wrapper » Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:42 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Kryozerkia wrote:The 'Honest Mistake' rule has been tightened. It only be enforced in limited circumstances, where there is a genuine honest mistake. Moderation will not determine whether one player's interpretation is more more correct than another's. Lying (including deception, etc) for political advantage is not against the rules. Rulings have made this change necessary. This only applies to 'honest mistakes' in repeals.
???
This is contrary to what every single regular wanted!
by Sciongrad » Tue Apr 26, 2016 7:47 pm
Wrapper wrote:
That is not true. A majority of players who expressed an opinion wanted to keep this rule -- which we have done -- and there were a couple of suggestions to make changes to how it is enforced. For example, CD argued for looser enforcement here:
viewtopic.php?p=24768268#p24768268 and
viewtopic.php?p=24801173#p24801173
Ultimately, we went with Ainocra's and JT's suggestions here:
viewtopic.php?p=24794571#p24794571 and
viewtopic.php?p=24801085#p24801085
putting more power into the hands of the voters and less into the hands of Moderation.
by The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:01 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Please, have the decency not to lie just to justify this absurdity.
by Sciongrad » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:07 pm
The Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper wrote:Sciongrad wrote:Please, have the decency not to lie just to justify this absurdity.
Okay, my mod hat is off. And so are the gloves. You're crossing the line by accusing me of lying, particularly after your, ahem, "exaggeration", that "This is contrary to what every single regular wanted!" which I've proven wrong.
Stop making this personal. It isn't. And, I may make mistakes, I frequently do, but do not question my integrity. I do not take kindly to that at all.
by Sandaoguo » Tue Apr 26, 2016 8:49 pm
However, 'Blockers' themselves are not illegal provided there is additional action (eg. GAR#10: Nuclear Arms Possession Act).
by Abacathea » Tue Apr 26, 2016 10:11 pm
Sandaoguo wrote:One small (but also large) issue I notice:However, 'Blockers' themselves are not illegal provided there is additional action (eg. GAR#10: Nuclear Arms Possession Act).
In the same way that a mere 'encouragement' clause can make a committee-only resolution legal, can having a token 'additional action' make a pure blocker legal? In other words, can I completely write off the whole environmental category if I just include some token clause about supporting biodiversity or something?
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Apr 26, 2016 10:20 pm
Sciongrad wrote:You reference JTP, yet even he disagrees with this change and the ruling made in the repeal of "Stopping Suicide Seeds"!
The new rules wrote:House of Cards: Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent. However, repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal.
by Sciongrad » Tue Apr 26, 2016 10:29 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Sciongrad wrote:You reference JTP, yet even he disagrees with this change and the ruling made in the repeal of "Stopping Suicide Seeds"!
Of course he did. It was my proposal. And, I would support the creation of a no-lying-in-repeals rule — so far as differences in interpretation have no consequences for player status in the World Assembly. Interpretation is so varied and different that imposing consequences for having such differences is ridiculous. However, I buy the argumentation presented by many people on the nature of politics and the fact that nobody knows what they're voting for or against.
by John Turner » Tue Apr 26, 2016 10:48 pm
Wrapper wrote:Ultimately, we went with Ainocra's and JT's suggestions here:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p24794571 and
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p24801085
putting more power into the hands of the voters and less into the hands of Moderation.
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Sciongrad wrote:You reference JTP, yet even he disagrees with this change and the ruling made in the repeal of "Stopping Suicide Seeds"!
Of course he did. It was my proposal. And, I would support the creation of a no-lying-in-repeals rule — so far as differences in interpretation have no consequences for player status in the World Assembly. Interpretation is so varied and different that imposing consequences for having such differences is ridiculous. However, I buy the argumentation presented by many people on the nature of politics and the fact that nobody knows what they're voting for or against.
John Turner wrote:Oh.... And it wasn't drafted on the forums. That makes it automatically illegal, doesn't it?
by Bananaistan » Tue Apr 26, 2016 11:06 pm
Railana wrote:Technical question: to what extent does existing precedent continue to apply after these changes? Are we starting with a blank slate?
by Louisistan » Wed Apr 27, 2016 2:17 am
Kryozerkia wrote:Lying (including deception, etc) for political advantage is not against the rules. Rulings have made this change necessary
by Bananaistan » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:40 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:59 am
Louisistan wrote:I don't even ... WHAT?!Kryozerkia wrote:Lying (including deception, etc) for political advantage is not against the rules. Rulings have made this change necessary
This right here is art.
So your (i.e. Moderation's) flawed interpretation of the Honest Mistake rule made it necessary to adapt the rule to match your flawed rulings? That's the wrong way round, people.
Also, I am veryinterested in how you will be enforcing this nonsense. Any author who has his repeal pulled because of "Hoenst Mistakes" can just say "No that wasn't an honest mistake, I was just lying" and thus the proposal becomes magically legal.
It's unenforceable because you simply cannot see the motivation behind the proposal. The only thing you can base your ruling on is the proposal itself.
N00bland misunderstands NAPA, submits repeal because "NAPA wants us to sell nuke to little children" - illegal, because Honest Mistake
Paffnia submits NAPA repeal because "NAPA wants us to sell nuke to little children" - legal, because he's just lying
So depending on the experience of the author the same proposal becomes magically legal or illegal. You're not going to be able to enforce this and we're just going to end up with a clusterfuck of incoherent rulings.
I like the new layout.
by Louisistan » Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:36 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:41 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Louisistan wrote:I don't even ... WHAT?!
This right here is art.
So your (i.e. Moderation's) flawed interpretation of the Honest Mistake rule made it necessary to adapt the rule to match your flawed rulings? That's the wrong way round, people.
Also, I am veryinterested in how you will be enforcing this nonsense. Any author who has his repeal pulled because of "Hoenst Mistakes" can just say "No that wasn't an honest mistake, I was just lying" and thus the proposal becomes magically legal.
It's unenforceable because you simply cannot see the motivation behind the proposal. The only thing you can base your ruling on is the proposal itself.
N00bland misunderstands NAPA, submits repeal because "NAPA wants us to sell nuke to little children" - illegal, because Honest Mistake
Paffnia submits NAPA repeal because "NAPA wants us to sell nuke to little children" - legal, because he's just lying
So depending on the experience of the author the same proposal becomes magically legal or illegal. You're not going to be able to enforce this and we're just going to end up with a clusterfuck of incoherent rulings.
I like the new layout.
I can see where the mods are coming from on this one. 'Honest mistake' is derived from the fact that one can submit a proposal to repeal 2 GA and accidentally click 3 GA. That's how I saw it in this post from last August.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Antropixsa
Advertisement