SUBMITTED: Repeal Liberate Free Thought

[Burchadinger]

Description: WA Security Council Resolution #14: Liberate Free Thought shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The Security Council,

NOTES that Security Council Resolution #14 had the aim of Liberating Free Thought.

ALSO notes that the last WA resolution was passed by the slimmest margin in NS history. 50.5%

THE Security Council, and The World Assembly as a whole, realizes the resolution ended with a reported time frame of eleven hours left, giving voters a sort of false impression that there was time to spare for a vote to be cast and have a great potential to influence the final say.

NOTES that many regions and WA Members were affected by the above.

HEREBY repeals Liberate Free Thought, as it was a complete breech of democracy.

---

[Enn]

Quite aside from anything else (because I don't like to get involved in raider/defender arguments), the word is 'breach'. 'Breech' refers to a bum. Or butt, in American English.

[Cinistra]

No. Let it be. A victory by a narrow margin is a victory none the less. People must learn to admit defeat.

[Oh my Days]

I approved this but because I didn't support the original resolution, it did go through the democratic process and doesn't need a re-vote.

[A mean old man]

Prepare yourself for another amazingly bad...

[Unibotian WA Mission]

Ha, awesome pic, Old Man Eloquence.

[Ardchoille]

I've deleted the submitted proposal on the grounds that a repeal must be based on the proposal repealed. (Edited for clarity]

The wording of this repeal suggests that the original proposal could have been rejected -- not would have, could have -- if voting had continued longer. The same could be said of any successful proposal. The mechanics of the vote are not sufficient basis for a repeal.

I've TGd Burchadinger a list of the 10 delegates who had already approved the proposal, on the assumption that he or others will eventually submit a valid repeal.

Another thought on wording: it's usually best to keep the final clause of any repeal clear of clutter -- "Hereby repeals @@name of proposal@@". Following that practice saves writers from inadvertently including new legislation. Commentary is better confined to the clauses before the "repeals" clause.

Oh, and please -- "breach", not "breech".

[Sedgistan]

Not to mention that Liberate Free Thought wouldn't have been the 'last WA resolution' by the time this proposal got to vote.

ALSO notes that the last WA resolution was passed by the slimmest margin in NS history. 50.5%

Of course, I was planning on waiting until this passed before complaining about it. (jk)

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

Not only that, but its not entirely truthful (untruth isn't illegal). 50.5% isn't the slimmest margin in NS history, 64 votes is. The 40 Hour Workweek had an approval rate of 50.3%.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I've deleted the submitted proposal on the grounds that a repeal must be based on the proposal repealed. (Edited for clarity]

See Unibot?

Though, I may speak too soon. Ardchoille, is it illegal to submit a proposal that's argument simply is, "We believe the voting was flawed, due to a bug that prevented people from voting late, because the timestamp was incorrect. This would have changed the outcome. The validity of the vote is in question, thus the resolution should be repealed."? Or does a repeal have to argue about specific things within the resolution itself? I'm unsure how to read your quote.

[Unibotian WASC Mission]

I've deleted the submitted proposal on the grounds that a repeal must be based on the proposal repealed. (Edited for clarity]

See Unibot?

Though, I may speak too soon. Ardchoille, is it illegal to submit a proposal that's argument simply is, "We believe the voting was flawed, due to a bug that prevented people from voting late, because the timestamp was incorrect. This would have changed the outcome. The validity of the vote is in question, thus the resolution should be repealed."? Or does a repeal have to argue about specific things within the resolution itself? I'm unsure how to read your quote.

The resolution says it could have changed the outcome.

A resolution needs facts. Did it change the outcome of the resolution? And who was affected by this bug then. You need to provide facts to create a sound argument -- and what is those who are complaining about this bug's argument against the resolution, anyway?

I read Ard's legality violation as asking, what is wrong with the resolution? Not what could be wrong with the resolution. But hey, I'm not Ard, and I have a knack for misinterpreting people, so ....

[The Rich Port]

THE Security Council, and The World Assembly as a whole, realizes the resolution ended with a reported time frame of eleven hours left, giving voters a sort of false impression that there was time to spare for a vote to be cast and have a great potential to influence the final say.

So... you want to repeal this resolution... because people procrastinate?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I read Ard's legality violation as asking, what is wrong with the resolution? Not what could be wrong with the resolution. But hey, I'm not Ard, and I have a knack for misinterpreting people, so ....

Yeah, that's why I said I may have spoke too soon. I'm not sure how to read her decision. :\

[Takaram]

This proposal is utterly flawed. First off, 50.5%, while close, is a majority. And as for the part about the time bug, how many people vote in the very last hours of three days* of open voting?

*May be more, may be less, I don't really remember.

[Kalibarr]

Obvious Troll is Obvious.

Just putting that out there.

[A mean old man]

Or just plain spam...

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

What do you suppose causes people to just suddenly go berzerk like that? He's spamming every thread on the forums.

[Unibotian WA Mission]

What do you suppose causes people to just suddenly go berzerk like that? He's spamming every thread on the forums.

I dunno. Its like people who multi. I mean, like, who does that?

[A mean old man]

A severe case of boredom, or perhaps someone hit him in the head with a brick.

[Mad Sheep Railgun]

What do you suppose causes people to just suddenly go berzerk like that? He's spamming every thread on the forums.

I dunno. Its like people who multi. I mean, like, who does that?

He's incredibly fast too.

[Kalibarr]

probably a DOS again.

[Ardchoille]

I'm guessing this thread was treated to a visit by one of the passing trolls? Melkor got the nation, and Pyth killed all of his posts at one fell swoop (except the ones saved for evidence). Like a sort of ballet, it was. Awesome.

Now, as to the repeal: it has to refer to what's written in the original resolution, not what happened outside it. Things like unclear wording, unexpected effects, previously unrevealed flaws, unnoticed contradictions.

Your first repeal attempt didn't, and that's why I deleted it.

As a secondary consideration, referring to the voting mechanism may also be metagaming, which until now I'd thought was impossible in an SC proposal.

Like, in the SC you're allowed to refer to Regions, Delegates, passwords, Founders, raiders and defenders, all of which are things individual citizens in your nations can't "see". That pushes the fourth wall right back to the borders of NS.

But it seems to me talking about the mechanisms that count the votes and time their closure and so on is like talking about the actual coding of the game, which even you-the-player can't see (though you can see its effects). So, metagaming.

Still, I didn't delete on those grounds. It was strictly the fact that what you're repealing is the legislation, therefore your reasons for repeal also have to be grounded in the legislation.

So yes, Glen-Rhodes, it is illegal to repeal the resolution on the grounds you list. A repeal wipes out the words and effects of the resolution; so you have to refer to those words and effects to show why they should be wiped out. The list you've got there would be grounds for an appeal, not a repeal.

[Slaytesics]

Prepare yourself for another amazingly bad...

Agreed, please stop the Liberations and repealing