[PASSED] Repeal "Stopping Suicide Seeds"

[Wrapper]

Emphasis added, and although it was not explicitly referenced in the ruling, the fact that IA may have "flat out lied" was a factor in our decision. Like it or not, obfuscation, exaggeration and straight-up dishonesty are frequently a part of politics. So, what rule do those break? Before you say "Honest Mistake", keep something in mind: If someone is intentionally being dishonest, it certainly can't be an "Honest Mistake".

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=340134

Please don't try to lawyer the rules, or twist words. You were never known for doing that before you became a mod, so please don't start now. Lying in repeals has always been illegal, and you know it.

You said he "flat out lied". I said he may have lied, but I also said I thought "his intent was to purposely exaggerate the effect" -- which according to precedent is not against the rules.

[John Turner]

viewtopic.php?f=36&t=340134

Please don't try to lawyer the rules, or twist words. You were never known for doing that before you became a mod, so please don't start now. Lying in repeals has always been illegal, and you know it.

You said he "flat out lied". I said he may have lied, but I also said I thought "his intent was to purposely exaggerate the effect" -- which according to precedent is not against the rules.

If that's the call, then that's the call. When I decide to start up the Repealinator™ yet again, and I start lying through my teeth in repeals, not one of them better be removed for that particular reason, or the mods are going to have even more egg on their faces. (Not that it seems to matter anyway. You have a better chance of winning the lottery than getting a consistent ruling any more. Kinda sucks that Fris and Ard bailed.... )

'Sure becoming a mod was the wisest decision Wrapper?

You just linked to the draft of the Honest Mistake rule that hasn't been implemented.

No.... I linked to a particular discussion on whether we should KEEP that rule or not. The rule is already in force, it just seems the mods don't want to enforce it any longer. Must not be worth enough points....

[Separatist Peoples]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... 6&t=340134

Please don't try to lawyer the rules, or twist words. You were never known for doing that before you became a mod, so please don't start now. Lying in repeals has always been illegal, and you know it.

You said he "flat out lied". I said he may have lied, but I also said I thought "his intent was to purposely exaggerate the effect" -- which according to precedent is not against the rules.

Emphasis added, and although it was not explicitly referenced in the ruling, the fact that IA may have "flat out lied" was a factor in our decision. Like it or not, obfuscation, exaggeration and straight-up dishonesty are frequently a part of politics. So, what rule do those break? Before you say "Honest Mistake", keep something in mind: If someone is intentionally being dishonest, it certainly can't be an "Honest Mistake".

OOC: If he may have lied, as you defend, then it was not necessarily a deliberately Dishonest Mistake, and therefore can logically fall under Honest Mistake.

[John Turner]

You said he "flat out lied". I said he may have lied, but I also said I thought "his intent was to purposely exaggerate the effect" -- which according to precedent is not against the rules.

You said he "flat out lied". I said he may have lied, but I also said I thought "his intent was to purposely exaggerate the effect" -- which according to precedent is not against the rules.

OOC: If he may have lied, as you defend, then it was not necessarily a deliberately Dishonest Mistake, and therefore can logically fall under Honest Mistake.

You know, I hate to say this, I really do, but you are likely to more on a logical answer out a brick wall at the moment. Once again, faith in moderation is completely smashed, because they have to be right. And people wonder why we have a hard time generating any activity in the GA any longer......

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: If he may have lied, as you defend, then it was not necessarily a deliberately Dishonest Mistake, and therefore can logically fall under Honest Mistake.

You know, I hate to say this, I really do, but you are likely to more on a logical answer out a brick wall at the moment. Once again, faith in moderation is completely smashed, because they have to be right. And people wonder why we have a hard time generating any activity in the GA any longer......

OOC: Bloody hell, I can't edit a quote tonight to save my life, let alone make a point. It really seems like moderation is unwilling to use the Discard function unless they are against a wall, which has questionably legal proposals making it through. This song and dance of ducking it leads to really questionable rulings. At least, that is how I see it.

[Christian Democrats]

You said he "flat out lied". I said he may have lied, but I also said I thought "his intent was to purposely exaggerate the effect" -- which according to precedent is not against the rules.

Emphasis added, and although it was not explicitly referenced in the ruling, the fact that IA may have "flat out lied" was a factor in our decision. Like it or not, obfuscation, exaggeration and straight-up dishonesty are frequently a part of politics. So, what rule do those break? Before you say "Honest Mistake", keep something in mind: If someone is intentionally being dishonest, it certainly can't be an "Honest Mistake".

OOC: If he may have lied, as you defend, then it was not necessarily a deliberately Dishonest Mistake, and therefore can logically fall under Honest Mistake.

If "honest mistakes" are prohibited, then "straight-up dishonesty" is illegal a fortiori.

For the first time in my seven years on this game, I'm invoking my right to a final appeal.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=375432

I've requested external review of the GA moderators' gross misconduct.

I don't have any objections if anybody from this topic wishes to post in my appeal thread.

[Sciongrad]

Before you say "Honest Mistake", keep something in mind: If someone is intentionally being dishonest, it certainly can't be an "Honest Mistake".

OOC: Is this an official interpretation of the honest mistake rule? Are we to understand this as definitively permitting outright, flagrant lying in repeals so long as it's deliberate? Would it be legal to repeal GAR#38 by arguing that it actually promotes genocide? If I make my intentions on the forum clear, then, by your logic, that couldn't possibly be an honest mistake violation. I'm not being facetious, that is honestly how I understand your argument. This would, of course, break with precedent.

[Normlpeople]

OOC: Wrappers a forum mod, I don't think he has much input. I hope outright.lying isn't the new normal though. The decison doesn't make sense to me either, for what its worth.

Either it was an error in judgement, a shift in policy, or perhaps an indication of complete hands-off resolutions at vote. All are not a good sign...

[Christian Democrats]

OOC: Wrappers a forum mod, I don't think he has much input. I hope outright.lying isn't the new normal though. The decison doesn't make sense to me either, for what its worth.

Either it was an error in judgement, a shift in policy, or perhaps an indication of complete hands-off resolutions at vote. All are not a good sign...

If outright lying is the new norm, then the moderators are complicit in maligning players by virtue of their official inaction. By definition, they're engaged in abuse ("unjust or corrupt practice" [OED]) of this forum's regulars. Not to enforce rules (after a week of delay I might add) when they have clearly been transgressed is just as bad, if not worse, than violating the rules themselves. If this proposal does not violate the Honest Mistakes rule, then the GA rules are dead. This forum is a free-for-all where anyone has license to harm his fellow players.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Sorry, I missed this post.

You said he "flat out lied". I said he may have lied, but I also said I thought "his intent was to purposely exaggerate the effect"

The text of the repeal is objectively incorrect. Call it what you'd like - a lie, a mistake, a misrepresentation, whatever - but it is most certainly indisputably incorrect.

which according to precedent is not against the rules.

That is an interesting ruling to cite considering that it was not only widely scorned by regulars at the time but it was one of the several immediate catalyst for the GA rules summit, which was established specifically to prevent awful interpretations of the rules just like this one. In other words, you are citing one of the rulings that caused the rules summit to justify a functionally identical ruling.

[John Turner]

Considering IA has gotten away with this crap not once, not twice, not three times, but FOUR times!!!! I am not confident the mods are going to rule against him on this one.

So it seems precedent is now firmly established that lying in repeals, as long as it is 100% deliberate, and completely malicious it is perfectly acceptable. If on the other hand it was a completely honest mistake, and was in no way malicious you will be punished for it by receiving a strike. Makes complete sense to me I guess.

So in effect, with this one cobbled together ruling, the mods have effectively made the GA unplayable, because no matter how good of a resolution you write, all someone has to do is lie through their teeth, and it will be repealed. Congratulations to the team on this one. You have really outdone yourselves.

If your intent was to destroy the GA?

[Louisistan]

If someone is intentionally being dishonest, it certainly can't be an "Honest Mistake".

And you're fine with that?

Just ... wow. I have no words.

[Cerematia]

Keep capitalism alive!

[Separatist Peoples]

Keep capitalism alive!

OOC: that was about as disconnected from the point as one can be.

[Losthaven]

I wish there was a way to undo repeals, or that the Secretariat would strengthen the Honest Mistake rule in cases of repeals. It's all well and good to allow folks to make spotty, bad or even blatantly wrong arguments in a proposal. That's what repeals are for. But repeals themselves cannot be repealed. So if the electorate supports them at one time (as the electorate is wont to do for all sorts of proposals) they can't look back later and, say, notice that they were mislead. The result is a permanent deletion of a previous act, as well as the permanent installation of a repeal which cannot itself ever be struck out and rendered void. We have tons of repeals with wrong information in them that cannot be undone purely because that's the way the system works (OOC: that's the way the game is coded). Knowing this, it would probably be appropriate for the Secretariat to consider weighing the Honest Mistake rule a little heavier in favor of the underlying proposal in the case of repeals. Repeals can always be re-written to be more accurate, but a proposal, once repealed, can never be resuscitated.

As someone who has come and gone from the game several times, I do feel this is a problem with the way the game works. Though every once in a while I come back on and dink around, I'm not sure I'll ever really pursue legislation drafting like I once did ever since IA repealed one of my laws by making factually incorrect statements about biology and convincing voters that the law was unworkable because he doesn't understand science. It really took the desire to play out of me, and I can see this is not an isolated incident and is happening to more and more. I still enjoy other parts of the game (i.e. NS Sports, Forum 7), but this part has lost a lot of its draw because the community is not nearly as strong, vibrant, and (dare I say) friendly as it once was and I think the rise in repeals like this one is partly to blame.

Commiserations to CD; we go way back and while we certainly haven't always agreed on things, I'm really sorry to see his good work repealed with such tactics.

[Sadaon]

Greetings, from the republic of Sadaon,I Addolis Cartalas support this repeal . The benifits of this resolution will benifit all nations, and we look forward to taking a further part in the WA!

Support! Support! Support! *takes shoe off and bangs it on desk* SUPPORT!

[Sciongrad]

Knowing this, it would probably be appropriate for the Secretariat to consider weighing the Honest Mistake rule a little heavier in favor of the underlying proposal in the case of repeals. Repeals can always be re-written to be more accurate, but a proposal, once repealed, can never be resuscitated.

OOC: I agree with this wholeheartedly and have been making a similar argument for more than a year. Any factual inaccuracy in a repeal should be grounds for removal. Period. Voters do not have enough interest in the GA to conduct an in-depth analysis of the arguments and to verify whether they square with the original. Some may do that. The many, many more do not. The moderators should disabuse themselves of any notion that the overwhelming majority of players that are not directly involved in the GA care enough about it to do research. That is not why they play the game.

[Sandaoguo]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... 6&t=340134

Please don't try to lawyer the rules, or twist words. You were never known for doing that before you became a mod, so please don't start now. Lying in repeals has always been illegal, and you know it.

You said he "flat out lied". I said he may have lied, but I also said I thought "his intent was to purposely exaggerate the effect" -- which according to precedent is not against the rules.

That post of Ardchoille's you linked too also pointed out that mods look at the original resolution, look at the repeal arguments, and weigh one against the other. So if you think he "may have lied," then it's kind of on you to figure out if something is actually a lie. Because it is, after all, objectively possible to determine if an argument is a straight up lie. I think Ardchoille's post is supposed to be read as saying you can bend the truth, but if something's an obvious lie, mods aren't just going to pretend like they can't read.

Saying that "flat out lying" is just "part of politics" is pretty dumb, you guys. This is a game, and it's your collective responsibility to make sure it doesn't crash and burn. What point is there in having any of you around if you're just going to go ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and let people "flat out" lie in repeals? That kind of BS is what kills games based on at least a minimal level of good faith gamesmanship. Y'all are derelict in your duties if you don't realize that. What's the point of any of this resolution business if your opponent can just make up whatever they want in a repeal?

[The elemental republic]

It seems to me like an unjust act, to exploit and ruin the lives of innocent farmers to fuel the luxury of others. Instead, we should be working on MORE EFFICIENT food sources and technologies.

[John Turner]

It seems to me like an unjust act, to exploit and ruin the lives of innocent farmers to fuel the luxury of others. Instead, we should be working on MORE EFFICIENT food sources and technologies.

It's not an act. It's a repeal.

[Arpak]

OPPOSED

Even though the Glorious Democratic Republic of Arpak believes this resolution was not ill-meant, it's vagueness, poor writing and LACK of suggestion of a viable alternative to the GA #249 resolution provides the basis for the horrible exploitation of small farmers, the rise of uncontrollable capitalism in agriculture ruled by shadowy almighty biotechnological MNCs as well as disappearance of biodiversity, which of course leads to the generation of a thousand environmental problems and exacerbates World Hunger.

Imperium Anglorum HOPES for a better resolution to be proposed, but HOPE doesn't get us anywhere. We don't see the reason why an indeed costly, yet effective resolution should be repealed when a more effective alternative for it doesn't yet exist. The Patriotic Socialist Party of Arpak accuses Imperium Anglorum as well as any WA member who supports this resolution of irresponsibility and short-sightedness. We consider them accomplices in the crime of exacerbation of World Hunger, as well as the exploitation of small farmers, the empowering of MNCs and environmental damage, and plead with them to reconsider the consequences of their decisions on our World. It is at times like these, that the World's nations should join forces and protect the environment, the hard-working farmers and the least-fortunate citizens of the World against the all-consuming fiery whirlwind of capitalism.

We plead with any other respected and honorable nation with its sights set on progress, prosperity and development to oppose this repeal.

WA Ambassador of the Arpakian People,
Hans Dortman

[Wallenburg]

Wallenburgian Cabinet of War
Message from Representative Mikael Ogenbond

---

My office has struggled over the merits of this resolution, and the one that it seeks to repeal, for a long while. After careful consideration, I have decided that both pieces of legislation are highly irrelevant to Wallenburg and her agricultural industry. "Multinational corporations" do not exist in Wallenburg, nor does the technology "Stopping Suicide Seeds" seeks to restrict. From a position of almost irritating neutrality, I can only cast a vote based on the effects to nations other than my own, and the quality of the repeal and its target.

The target resolution may not be the greatest law in effect, but its aims are benevolent, and I am quite certain it has had a positive effect on the people of those nations that permit corporations to form and operate. The severity of its limitations, however, leaves me hesitant to accept it as a reasonable requirement of all member nations.

This repeal offers a very compelling argument, with several well-reasoned points that further call the target's high expectations into doubt. Nevertheless, two clauses of this repeal resolution claim that the target bans certain technologies entirely, when even a cursory review of the target reveals that it requires member states to "ban or strictly regulate" those technologies. I stand with several of my colleagues in rejecting this claim as a violation of the "Honest Mistake" rule for General Assembly proposals. I cannot in good conscience support any legislation that unabashedly lies to voters and ambassadors, many of whom have far too busy schedules to read and review both this repeal and its target. Therefore, I cast my vote against this resolution, and demand that the office of the Secretariat perform its duty by officially discarding this illegal resolution.

[John Turner]

So the voting on this resolution coming to a close at the start of tonight's major. There is still no word from the Secretariat, except for them defending the position that outright maliciously lying in repeals is just hunkydorey.

I guess I had better get busy and start writing repeals, that don't even deal with the resolution they are trying to repeal, as that must be legal too?

How about a legalize weed proposal in the mining category? If the rules don't matter any longer, then why not?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I heard NAPA actually forces you to build nukes and store nuclear waste near elementary schools...

[John Turner]

I heard NAPA actually forces you to build nukes and store nuclear waste near elementary schools...

All good points. I will be sure to include those gospel truth facts in my next repeal attempt. Thank you for pointing that out to me Glen....