Current SC Resolution - Illegal?

[Sedgistan]

the Secretariat in the past has shown deference towards any possible interpretation that is consistent with the rules, particularly in regards to potential Rule IV violations.

I'd correct that to "plausible interpretation". "In the game" is clear and blatant violation of Rule 4, and cannot reasonably be read the way you suggested. Reference to "the game" is expressly defined in the rules as prohibited, and that is not going to change.

[Ramaeus]

When the proposal is discarded, could the automated TG alerting nations to its passage be amended to explain the situation?
Edit: Baden-Wuerttemberg's idea.
Edit 2: Something like this, perhaps? 'Unfortunately, the resolution Commend Anime Daisuki could not be implemented due to an error in the wording, which was only discovered after the resolution had come to vote. The authors have the ability to resubmit an edited proposal.'

[Mitheldalond]

I'm not in the WA, so maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't you just add an "edit" function to supplement the "discard" function? It certainly seems like that would be more expedient in cases like this, where it appears the entire problem could be solved by changing the word "game" to "world" or something similar. Obviously there would have to be some kind of record of such edits, to prevent accusations of Mods tampering with proposals.

[Sedgistan]

I'm not in the WA, so maybe I'm missing something, but couldn't you just add an "edit" function to supplement the "discard" function? It certainly seems like that would be more expedient in cases like this, where it appears the entire problem could be solved by changing the word "game" to "world" or something similar. Obviously there would have to be some kind of record of such edits, to prevent accusations of Mods tampering with proposals.

"Edit" isn't viable for the same reasons that removing it while at vote isn't. Additionally, it's not the job of the moderator team to fix the authors' wording. As has been pointed out, they're more than welcome to re-submit the proposal at a later date.

When the proposal is discarded, could the automated TG alerting nations to its passage be amended to explain the situation?
Edit: Baden-Wuerttemberg's idea.

I can't guarantee that, but I have raised it with the admins to make sure that at least the standard "passage of a resolution" TG doesn't get sent.

[Eist]

Thanks for looking into this, Sedge. It would be mightily confusing for nations if that telegram was sent as is.

[Eoghania]

When the proposal is discarded, could the automated TG alerting nations to its passage be amended to explain the situation?
Edit: Baden-Wuerttemberg's idea.

I can't guarantee that, but I have raised it with the admins to make sure that at least the standard "passage of a resolution" TG doesn't get sent.

Thank you. At this point, I image we would be best to take any further discussion on discard warnings and other such things to Technical, yes?

[Shadow Afforess]

For clarity: this mechanism is also there to allow debate between the mods on whether or not the at-vote should be discarded. This isn't something we want a single mod to decide quickly, as it has high impact on the flow of the game. *DISCUSSION IS STILL ONGOING*

Imagine having your resolution in the queue, you're not expecting it to go to vote for another 3 days, you come back after the weekend and notice that the prior resolution at vote was discarded and yours is up for vote for days already with your opponents already having campaigned it into the ground.

So, yeah, I know it's annoying that the vote is going to be discarded. Feel free to make suggestions in technical for a less intrusive mechanism.

Ballotonia

IMO, if you don't want to interrupt the flow of resolutions, you should create a special "AT RECESS" resolution, which does not allow voting and just consumes the time until the next scheduled resolution. Then when a resolution, which like the current one, violates the rules, it can be taken down and replaced with the special RECESS resolution.

I'm amazed and slightly terrified that a similar tool does not already exist for the staff. The WA is not exactly new.

[Guy]

the Secretariat in the past has shown deference towards any possible interpretation that is consistent with the rules, particularly in regards to potential Rule IV violations.

I'd correct that to "plausible interpretation". "In the game" is clear and blatant violation of Rule 4, and cannot reasonably be read the way you suggested. Reference to "the game" is expressly defined in the rules as prohibited, and that is not going to change.

Thanks for the clarification, sedge. To me that interpretation reads plausibly, but I understand why there is a special sensitivity to the usage of the word 'game'.