[DEFEATED] Repeal: Commend Imperium Anglorum

[Jocospor]

I personally marked the proposal as a 2(c) violation for this clause:

"Reminding this Security Council that the lauded Communiqué detailed in SCR#223 is fundamentally of a misleading nature, that being that telegram recipients’ identities are hidden from one another, and has been used by I.A. maliciously."

It appears to argue that Communiqué performs tasks that are illegal, which would fall under a 2c violation.

As far as we can see, it argues that the Communiqué hides the identities of recipients. That doesn't seem illegal, more an actual fact of the system - of any API system, furthermore.

[Jakker]

I personally marked the proposal as a 2(c) violation for this clause:

"Reminding this Security Council that the lauded Communiqué detailed in SCR#223 is fundamentally of a misleading nature, that being that telegram recipients’ identities are hidden from one another, and has been used by I.A. maliciously."

It appears to argue that Communiqué performs tasks that are illegal, which would fall under a 2c violation.

As far as we can see, it argues that the Communiqué hides the identities of recipients. That doesn't seem illegal, more an actual fact of the system - of any API system, furthermore.

For me, it is more the use of the phrasing "maliciously" in conjunction with the discussion of Communiqué (so specifically the phrasing within context). In our forum rules (viewtopic.php?f=16&t=260044), we regard malicious content or behavior to be illegal. Because the phrasing of the clause is vague, it is hard to determine whether it is IC or OOC, and at least, in my mind, can be read as you arguing for a policy violation. Again, this is just my interpretation, but that is how I am ruling.

[Wrapper]

After some backstage discussions, I have to concur with Jakker. The implication here is that IA has “maliciously” done something illegal and/or against site rules. That may or may not be the case, but if that is part of your argument, that belongs in a GHR, and not in a condemnation.

[United Republic Empire]

General Question - so they should remove "maliciously" - since that would make it a plain statement

and to file a GHR if they feel the need to

[Jocospor]

After some backstage discussions, I have to concur with Jakker. The implication here is that IA has “maliciously” done something illegal and/or against site rules. That may or may not be the case, but if that is part of your argument, that belongs in a GHR, and not in a condemnation.

This is, to say the least, incredibly frustrating. This is the second time this has happened. Why has this not come up in forum drafting?

We will alter the clause and remove the word maliciously. This shall be resubmitted within the week. We dearly hope another illegality is not found conveniently during some "backstage discussions".

[Lyrical International Brigade]

After some backstage discussions, I have to concur with Jakker. The implication here is that IA has “maliciously” done something illegal and/or against site rules. That may or may not be the case, but if that is part of your argument, that belongs in a GHR, and not in a condemnation.

This is, to say the least, incredibly frustrating. This is the second time this has happened. Why has this not come up in forum drafting?

If this were the GA, I'd say it's because you had it public for a total of two whole days before submitting it. A rush to get it in is what trips most people up. But don't mind me, I don't know how the SC works.

[The Church of Satan]

We will alter the clause and remove the word maliciously. This shall be resubmitted within the week. We dearly hope another illegality is not found conveniently during some "backstage discussions".

You do realize what you're implying, right?

[Jakker]

After some backstage discussions, I have to concur with Jakker. The implication here is that IA has “maliciously” done something illegal and/or against site rules. That may or may not be the case, but if that is part of your argument, that belongs in a GHR, and not in a condemnation.

This is, to say the least, incredibly frustrating. This is the second time this has happened. Why has this not come up in forum drafting?

We will alter the clause and remove the word maliciously. This shall be resubmitted within the week. We dearly hope another illegality is not found conveniently during some "backstage discussions".

As far as I can see, you submitted the proposal 18ish hours after posting it here. I get your frustration, but mods can't always get to reviewing proposals super quickly. Most players take much more time having their proposal reviewed on the forum before submission.

[Jocospor]

This is, to say the least, incredibly frustrating. This is the second time this has happened. Why has this not come up in forum drafting?

We will alter the clause and remove the word maliciously. This shall be resubmitted within the week. We dearly hope another illegality is not found conveniently during some "backstage discussions".

As far as I can see, you submitted the proposal 18 hours after posting it here. I get your frustration, but mods can't always get to reviewing proposals super quickly. Most players take much more time having their proposal reviewed on the forum before submission.

Fine, we get that. Don't worry, though, in 18 hours we received plenty of insults - and not one suggested edit, either.

Well, this proposal does seem to have your attention now, so, we must ask you bluntly: other than the clause in question about Communique, is this proposal legal? (We will fix the typo #SC233 to #SC223 as well).

[Jakker]

As far as I can see, you submitted the proposal 18 hours after posting it here. I get your frustration, but mods can't always get to reviewing proposals super quickly. Most players take much more time having their proposal reviewed on the forum before submission.

Fine, we get that. Don't worry, though, in 18 hours we received plenty of insults - and not one suggested edit, either.

Well, this proposal does seem to have your attention now, so, we must ask you bluntly: other than the clause in question about Communique, is this proposal legal? (We will fix the typo #SC233 to #SC223 as well).

Hard to give a definite ruling without seeing the updated version. Based on your current draft, the only other clause that leans towards a potential violation in my eyes:

"Exposing the author of SCR#233 to be, during their time and at the time of this resolution's writing, a crony of I.A., with the latter assisting very much in the running of the author’s region, the now-terminated The Honorary Allied Nation States."

If you write that to convey more about nations allied together rather than players, it will be a safer bet. "Crony" feels more like describing players.

That is just my own view about it. We have several mods who check out SC proposals so someone may have a different view than myself or see something that I don't.

[Kaboomlandia]

After some backstage discussions, I have to concur with Jakker. The implication here is that IA has “maliciously” done something illegal and/or against site rules. That may or may not be the case, but if that is part of your argument, that belongs in a GHR, and not in a condemnation.

This is, to say the least, incredibly frustrating. This is the second time this has happened. Why has this not come up in forum drafting?

We will alter the clause and remove the word maliciously. This shall be resubmitted within the week. We dearly hope another illegality is not found conveniently during some "backstage discussions".

My two cents - it isn’t the community’s job to know the rules for you. More drafting time would have caught it. This project isn’t time-sensitive.

[Wrapper]

Jocospor, I understand your frustration, but it’s not like we abruptly changed our minds here arbitrarily. We responded to a GHR that called our attention to the illegality, and regardless of when or why any of us initially ruled it legal, we had to act on what a majority of us thought was a fair challenge.

If this were the GA, I'd say it's because you had it public for a total of two whole days before submitting it. A rush to get it in is what trips most people up. But don't mind me, I don't know how the SC works.

That’s excellent advice for the SC as well. While some liberations may require a bit of haste, there’s never a time crunch on passing commendations/condemnations.

Well, this proposal does seem to have your attention now, so, we must ask you bluntly: other than the clause in question about Communique, is this proposal legal? (We will fix the typo #SC233 to #SC223 as well).

Post a draft and I’ll give you an opinion, but I’ll echo Jakker’s disclaimer.

[DACOROMANIA]

Hey, your draft as resolution proposed here won't work and you'll get disappointed.
You use too much words in a confusing manner.
And, I could advice you to not make references to other resolutions in W.A. or at least not so many.
Also, bring clear reasons mostly about the person mentioned and why everyone should repeal that one.
You write here about more things than just that.

Hope you'll consider my advice. I was a WA Delegate in the past. Maybe you don't know me, but I approved few of your resolutions to go next to the votes. Not all. And I won't say what I voted.

[Jocospor]

Jocospor, I understand your frustration, but it’s not like we abruptly changed our minds here arbitrarily. We responded to a GHR that called our attention to the illegality, and regardless of when or why any of us initially ruled it legal, we had to act on what a majority of us thought was a fair challenge.

If this were the GA, I'd say it's because you had it public for a total of two whole days before submitting it. A rush to get it in is what trips most people up. But don't mind me, I don't know how the SC works.

That’s excellent advice for the SC as well. While some liberations may require a bit of haste, there’s never a time crunch on passing commendations/condemnations.

Well, this proposal does seem to have your attention now, so, we must ask you bluntly: other than the clause in question about Communique, is this proposal legal? (We will fix the typo #SC233 to #SC223 as well).

Post a draft and I’ll give you an opinion, but I’ll echo Jakker’s disclaimer.

OOC: @Wrapper @Jakker I appreciate your polite responses and thank you for offering to have a look over the new draft. I've made changes to the areas that you both pointed out, so hopefully they're better. New draft is at the beginning of the thread.

[Jocospor]

Is this under the word limit?

Against regardless.

OOC: I'm not sure. What's the word limit?

This also went unanswered so if we could get a response that too, that'd be great.

[Lord Dominator]

The character limit is 5000, including BBCode

[Kaboomlandia]

Hey, your draft as resolution proposed here won't work and you'll get disappointed.
You use too much words in a confusing manner.
And, I could advice you to not make references to other resolutions in W.A. or at least not so many.
Also, bring clear reasons mostly about the person mentioned and why everyone should repeal that one.
You write here about more things than just that.

Hope you'll consider my advice. I was a WA Delegate in the past. Maybe you don't know me, but I approved few of your resolutions to go next to the votes. Not all. And I won't say what I voted.

Welcome to the SC!

In repeals like this, it’s actualy pretty much needed to reference those other resolutions so that poking holes in the argument is possible. It’s a different style than the GA.

And more words are generally better in repeals. Gotta have a comprehensive counter-argument.

[South Odreria]

OP's attacks on the mods are pretty lame, but I support the repeal - tired of the WA elite.

[Jocospor]

The character limit is 5000, including BBCode

The character limit of this is 3,514, including spaces and BBCode.

[Lord Dominator]

The character limit is 5000, including BBCode

The character limit of this is 3,514, including spaces and BBCode.

You mean the count of yours is that, yes?
Also length is a game-enforced rule, not a mod so you wouldn't be able to submit if it does go over.

[Jocospor]

The character limit of this is 3,514, including spaces and BBCode.

You mean the count of yours is that, yes?
Also length is a game-enforced rule, not a mod so you wouldn't be able to submit if it does go over.

Ours is, yes. Right, that's a moot point then. Obviously it's been submitted.

[Yokiria]

Imperium Anglorum is the WA Delegate of a region that has consistently opposed the author's more ludicrous proposals in the past, and the author has an admitted tendency to target individuals based on personal grudges.

I will not be supporting this repeal, based on suspicion that this is just another attempt to launch the "Voted against Jocospor" revenge tour.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I'll be honest and say I wasn't inclined to vote for this anyway.

But that said, the fact I've received three mass telegrams about this proposal because you couldn't take a week to leave it here for feedback and get it right before submitting it, then turned around and blamed Moderation for that, put me into the "I'll vote for this when hell freezes over" camp. Congrats.

[Jocospor]

Imperium Anglorum is the WA Delegate of a region that has consistently opposed the author's more ludicrous proposals in the past, and the author has an admitted tendency to target individuals based on personal grudges.

I will not be supporting this repeal, based on suspicion that this is just another attempt to launch the "Voted against Jocospor" revenge tour.

That's a very reasonable assumption. We responded to it in our initial telegram to delegates. Here's what we said on the matter:

"Another issue is that many will accuse this proposal as being along the lines of an eye for any eye. We will speak honestly. Certainly, if we hadn't have had a history with I.A., we probably wouldn't find ourselves writing this proposal. That said, most authors commending and condemning have a history with their subjects, and we also hope that the points raised within the proposal can be seen as going beyond some sort of protracted feud."

[Yokiria]

Imperium Anglorum is the WA Delegate of a region that has consistently opposed the author's more ludicrous proposals in the past, and the author has an admitted tendency to target individuals based on personal grudges.

I will not be supporting this repeal, based on suspicion that this is just another attempt to launch the "Voted against Jocospor" revenge tour.

That's a very reasonable assumption. We responded to it in our initial telegram to delegates. Here's what we said on the matter:

"Another issue is that many will accuse this proposal as being along the lines of an eye for any eye. We will speak honestly. Certainly, if we hadn't have had a history with I.A., we probably wouldn't find ourselves writing this proposal. That said, most authors commending and condemning have a history with their subjects, and we also hope that the points raised within the proposal can be seen as going beyond some sort of protracted feud."

An apt response overall, with an exception I'll get to later. The points raised within the proposal are hit-and-miss, in my opinion. Some are objectively good rebukes of the material in the Commendation, others are questionable. With a well-written proposal overall, that houses a few questionable rebukes of key materials in Commendation, outside factors are what will push me off the fence and into a stronger stance.

Now-confirmed suspicion that you came up with this repeal idea based on a personal grudge, and the failure of your "most authors have a history with their subjects" line to convince me of the harmlessness of such intentions, pushes me off the fence and against this proposal.

If these other authors that commend and condemn based on personal animosity were also as obvious about it as you are, Jocospor, I would not support their bills either.
_{Unless we had similar motives, of course. IA has never crossed me, though, so that doesn't apply here.}