Wallenburg wrote:Unibot III wrote:
Respectively I disagree, I'm not suggesting anyone opt out of Rule 1, I'm suggesting they're acknowledging the scope of the resolution; this is not an "opt out" because Rule 1 is not a ban on mentioning site contributions, it is a ban on commending or condemning a nominee for site contributions.
As much as I'm being tongue in cheek, I'm also serious here.
I think Rule 1's interpretation has ballooned over the years from moderators hazily applying more and more scope to Rule 1 beyond its general and written intent -- and Northrop-Grumman is the worst victim of that moderation overreach.
Rule 1 was never a ban on mentioning site contributions, it was a ban on commending/condemning site staff for being site staff. Now we have a case where the rule is being expanded beyond site staff, and being expanded to any mere mention, even in a negative sense, to a nominee's site contributions.
To pretend that "mentions" of activity performed as site staff just fell out of the sky and into the text of a C&C is the height of disingenuity. Authors are not in the habit of adding random fact statements into their resolutions without intending them as arguments in favor of their bill, and voters are not in the habit of reading such statements as independent of the act of commendation or condemnation. C&Cs are passed on the basis of the acts detailed therein. You cannot separate any statement within a C&C from the act of awarding the nominee its categorical distinction.
There is no "overreach" going on here. Site staff contributions are site staff contributions are site staff contributions. Quite frankly, this would also more likely than not violate Rule 4 as well, since I don't see how you can refer to a theme without admitting NS is a game.
I don't know if you just want attention or if you actually want to establish some tortured legal argument for disregarding Rule 1 entirely, but in either case you are actively harming this community by maintaining this argument. I encourage you to stop digging.
"Actively harming this community"? Good grief. Who are you?
"To pretend that "mentions" of activity performed as site staff just fell out of the sky and into the text of a C&C is the height of disingenuity."
It is not for you or anyone to interpret my capacity for disingenuity (- and you're deeply underestimating the height of disingenuity). Never before in the SC has it tried to interpret legality through author's intent. And I think that is a major failing here in your reasoning. The SC's legal interpretations are typically conducted in an approach blind to the question of authenticity. It doesn't matter if what is stated is true or false. It doesn't matter if the language used is deliberately equivocal and misleading to circumvent Rule 4. These are all common, perfectly acceptable, and legal modus operandi in the Security Council. It doesn't matter if something is 'mentioned' to 'get around' a rule - if you can get around a rule, you haven't violated it and if you haven't violated the rule, you have not done anything impermissible.
Voluntary technical contributions to NS do not necessarily equal site staff contributions, because site staff contributions are contributed not surprisingly by site staff. It's not tortured logic: it's common sense that site staff are site staff and everyone else is not site staff. Rule 1 has absolutely suffered over the years from overreach: growing in its application well beyond its original intent, from site staff to non-site staff, and now you're suggesting Rule 1 should also encompass any language that mentions contributions to the site, even if the proposal is not commending/condemning a nominee for those contributions.
You're pointing at a rule which nakedly does not prohibit what you insist it prohibits, you've failed to demonstrate how the text should be twisted into being interpreted as applying to this circumstance, and instead of just relenting, you're relying now on pure histronics and accusations of "actively harming" people to overcome the weakness of your defense. The reality is this is not what Rule 1 was written to ban, it's not what it is for, and I'm perfectly comfortable making that case because frankly I'm tired of seeing this rule balloon in its scope arbitrarily.