[Defeated] Commend Northrop-Grumman

[Crazy girl]

Northrop-Grumman has made clear and unique contributions to nationstates, and I think they're overdue for recognition. All advice appreciated, of course.

Also, can I request a mod ruling on a specific line, or do I need to submit it to test legality?

The Security Council,

Darkly noting the great importance that knowledge of the world’s nations plays in facilitating foreign affairs, and that the significance of this information being readily available and effectively collated cannot be overstated, for without it relations cannot feasibly be conducted in any reasonable manner; the ramifications for such mismanaged relations would surely be dark,

Applauding Northrop-Grumman and their shadowy archivists for their commitment to the arcane task of maintaining well organized and frequently updated indexes of both nation’s capitals and leaders, which are truly ancient, having been maintained by Northrop-Grumman for fifteen and sixteen long years respectively,

Remarking that the two mysterious indexes believed to have originated somewhere within the dark realm of Northrop-Grumman possess the following merits compared to the regular procedure of finding and viewing a nation’s information panel:

• The indexes of Northrop-Grumman contain useful references to information nation’s have chosen to provide that is relevant to their capital or biographical of their leader, which is both utile and edifying,
• Nations newly founded are not able to display their capital or leader, so Northrop-Grumman’s indexes can be the only way to discover them,
• The indexes allow for the quick finding of information on multiple nations, since they are all held in one place,

Knowledgeable also of the fact that Northrop-Grumman’s indexes have additionally inspired a separate catalog of national sports that employs the same methodology and layout, and cognizant that there is no standard display for national sports, so without the index foreign nations are left completely in the dark,

Intimidated by the extensive work of Northrop-Grumman in creating the Universal Network for the Integrated Transactional Economy (UNITE), a national and transgalactic computer system that registers all citizens, organizations of citizens, and foreign visitors through the use of a personal identification card, and which provides numerous advantages by providing easy and efficient flow of information and government services,

Astounded by Northrop-Grumman’s labor in chronicling countless collections of invaluable accounts of historic events that would otherwise have been lost after a shift in record keeping abandoned all previous years’ knowledge, a vast swathe of which Northrop-Grumman’s archivist managed to preserve and are still available for all of NationStates today,

Confident that in light (or as the case may be, darkness) of these contributions, which exemplify both long lasting commitment and frightening technical prowess, there can be no question that Northrop-Grumman is overly deserving of recognition,

Hereby commends the most dark nation of Northrop-Grumman.

The Security Council,

Deeply aware of the great importance that knowledge of the world’s nations plays in facilitating foreign affairs, and that the significance of this information being readily available and effectively collated cannot be overstated, for without it relations cannot feasibly be conducted in any reasonable manner, and the ramifications for such mismanaged relations could surely be dark,

Applauding Northrop-Grumman and their archivists for their commitment to maintaining well organized and frequently updated indexes of both nation’s capitals and leaders, for fifteen and sixteen years respectively,

Remarking that the two indexes made by Northrop-Grumman possess the following merits compared to the regular procedure of finding and viewing a nation’s information panel:

• The indexes of Northrop-Grumman contain useful references to information nation’s have chosen to provide that is relevant to their capital or biographical of their leader, which is both useful and edifying,
• Nations newly founded are not able to display their capital or leader, so Northrop-Grumman’s indexes can be the only way to discover them,
• The indexes allow for the quick finding of information on multiple nations, since they are all held in one place

Knowledgeable also of the fact that Northrop-Grumman’s indexes have additionally inspired a separate catalog of national sports that employs the same methodology and layout, and cognizant that there is no standard display for national sports, so without the index foreign nations are left in the dark,

Impressed with the work of Northrop-Grumman in creating the Universal Network for the Integrated Transactional Economy (UNITE), a national and transgalactic computer system that registers all citizens, organizations of citizens, and foreign visitors through the use of a personal identification card, and which provides numerous advantages by providing easy and efficient flow of information and government services,

Astounded by Northrop-Grumman’s labor in chronicling countless collections of invaluable accounts of historic events that would otherwise have been lost after a shift in record keeping abandoned all previous years’ knowledge, a vast swathe of which Northrop-Grumman’s archivist managed to preserve and are still available for all of NationStates today,

Confident that in light (or as the case may be, darkness) of these contributions, which exemplify both long lasting commitment and technical prowess, there can be no question that Northrop-Grumman is overly deserving of recognition,

Hereby commends Northrop-Grumman.

The Security Council,

Deeply aware of the great importance that knowledge of the world’s nations plays in facilitating foreign affairs, and that the significance of this information being readily available and effectively collated cannot be overstated, for without it relations cannot feasibly be conducted in any reasonable manner, and the ramifications for such mismanaged relations could surely be dark,

Applauding Northrop-Grumman and their archivists for their commitment to maintaining well organized and frequently updated indexes of both nation’s capitals and leaders, for fifteen and sixteen years respectively, which have additionally inspired a separate catalog of national sports that employs the same methodology and layout,

Remarking that the three indexes, two made by Northrop-Grumman and one inspired by them, possess the following merits compared to the regular procedure of finding and viewing a nation’s information panel:

• The indexes of Northrop-Grumman contain useful references to information nation’s have chosen to provide that is relevant to their capital or biographical of their leader, which is both useful and edifying,
• Nations newly founded are not able to display their capital or leader, so Northrop-Grumman’s indexes can be the only way to discover them,
• The indexes allow for the quick finding of information on multiple nations, since they are all held in one place,
• In the case of the national sports index, there is no standard display for national sports, so without the index foreign nations are left in the dark,

Impressed with the work of Northrop-Grumman in creating the Universal Network for the Integrated Transactional Economy (UNITE), a national and transgalactic computer system that registers all citizens, organizations of citizens, and foreign visitors through the use of a personal identification card, and which provides numerous advantages by providing easy and efficient flow of information and government services,

Astounded by Northrop-Grumman’s labor in chronicling countless collections of invaluable accounts of historic events that would otherwise have been lost after a shift in record keeping abandoned all previous years’ knowledge, a vast swathe of which Northrop-Grumman’s archivist managed to preserve and are still available for all of NationStates today,

Confident that in light (or as the case may be, darkness) of these contributions, which exemplify both long lasting commitment and technical prowess, there can be no question that Northrop-Grumman is overly deserving of recognition,

Hereby commends Northrop-Grumman.

The Security Council,

Deeply aware of the great importance that knowledge of the world’s nations plays in facilitating foreign affairs, and that the significance of this information being readily available and effectively collated cannot be overstated, for without it relations cannot feasibly be conducted in any reasonable manner, and the ramifications for such mismanaged relations could surely be dark,

Applauding Northrop-Grumman and their archivists for their commitment to maintaining well organized and frequently updated indexes of both nation’s capitals and leaders, for fifteen and sixteen years respectively, which have additionally inspired a separate catalog of national sports that employs the same methodology and layout,

Remarking that the three indexes, two made by Northrop-Grumman and one inspired by them, possess the following merits compared to the regular procedure of finding and viewing a nation’s information panel:

• The indexes of Northrop-Grumman contain useful references to information nation’s have chosen to provide that is relevant to their capital or biographical of their leader, which is both useful and edifying,
• Nations newly founded are not able to display their capital or leader, so Northrop-Grumman’s indexes can be the only way to discover them,
• The indexes allow for the quick finding of information on multiple nations, since they are all held in one place,
• In the case of the national sports index, there is no standard display for national sports, so without the index foreign nations are left in the dark,

Knowledgeable, furthermore, of the potentially dark consequences that the aesthetics and decoration (commonly and henceforth referred to as themes) of the agencies and embassies through which a nation’s government is run and interacts with the NationStates community have, and the benefits bestowed upon nations by a well designed, pleasing, and functional theme, and cognizant of the no doubt arduous labor that designing and donating highly accessible and pleasant themes for nations’ use would take, which could afforded nations even more options and room for personal preference as well as allowing many nations’ leaders’ and bureaucrats’ eyes a well needed break and some much needed darkness

Impressed with the work of Northrop-Grumman in creating the Universal Network for the Integrated Transactional Economy (UNITE), a national and transgalactic computer system that registers all citizens, organizations of citizens, and foreign visitors through the use of a personal identification card, and which provides numerous advantages by providing easy and efficient flow of information and government services,

Astounded by Northrop-Grumman’s labor in chronicling countless collections of invaluable accounts of historic events that would otherwise have been lost after a shift in record keeping abandoned all previous years’ knowledge, a vast swathe of which Northrop-Grumman’s archivist managed to preserve and are still available for all of NationStates today,

Confident that in light (or as the case may be, darkness) of these contributions, which exemplify both long lasting commitment and technical prowess, there can be no question that Northrop-Grumman is overly deserving of recognition,

Hereby commends Northrop-Grumman.

The Security Council,

Aware of the deep importance that knowledge of the world’s nations plays in facilitating foreign affairs, and that the significance of this information being readily available and effectively collated cannot be overstated, for without it relations cannot feasibly be conducted in any reasonable manner, and the ramifications for such mismanaged relations could surely be dark,

Applauding Northrop-Grumman for their commitment to maintaining well organized and frequently updated indexes of both nation’s capitals and leaders, for fifteen and sixteen years respectively, which have additionally inspired a separate catalog of national sports that employs the same methodology and layout,

Impressed that the three indexes, two made by Northrop-Grumman and one inspired by them, possess the following merits compared to the regular procedure of finding and viewing a nation’s information panel:

1. The indexes of Northrop-Grumman contain useful references to information nation’s have chosen to provide that is relevant to their capital or biographical of their leader, which is both useful and edifying,
2. Nations newly founded are not able to display their capital or leader, so Northrop-Grumman’s indexes can be the only way to discover them,
3. The indexes allow for the quick finding of information on multiple nations, since they are all held in one place,
4. In the case of the national sports index, there is no standard display for national sports, so without the index foreign nations are left in the dark,

Furthermore familiar with the potentially dark consequences that the aesthetics and decoration (commonly and henceforth referred to as themes) of the agencies and embassies through which a nation’s government is run and interacts with the NationStates community have, and the benefits bestowed upon nations by a well designed, pleasing, and functional theme,

Lauding Northrop-Grumman's no doubt arduous labor in designing and donating two highly accessible and pleasant themes for nations' use, which afforded nations even more options and room for personal preference, that integrated easily with already existing government offices and allowed many nations’ leaders’ and bureaucrats’ eyes a well needed break and some much needed darkness, and which Northrop-Grumman selflessly furnished the NationStates community with and would freely provide to all nations,

Noting that both themes developed by Northrop-Grumman were later incorporated throughout NationStates, becoming more easily available for all nations to use, and that their interior designers have continued to maintain, update, fix, and respond to feedback on keeping both themes dark,

Impressed with the work of Northrop-Grumman in creating the Universal Network for the Integrated Transactional Economy (UNITE), a national and transgalactic computer system that registers all citizens, organizations of citizens, and foreign visitors through the use of a personal identification card, and which provides numerous advantages by providing easy and efficient flow of information and government services,

Confident that in light (or as the case may be, darkness) of these contributions, which exemplify both long lasting commitment and technical prowess, there can be no question that Northrop-Grumman is overly deserving of recognition,

Hereby commends Northrop-Grumman.

Sources:

• National capitals - viewtopic.php?f=23&t=191905
• National leaders - viewtopic.php?f=23&t=96
• National sports (not done by NG, but it uses his method) - viewtopic.php?f=23&t=277620
• Dark theme - viewtopic.php?f=15&t=129693
• UNITE - https://www.nationstates.net/nation=nor ... /id=418151

[Aeisonia]

Resolutions cannot mention the game. Sorry.

[Makdon]

Resolutions cannot mention the game. Sorry.

What do you mean by mention the game? If you're referring to the term "NationStates", that's actually completely legal. Besides that, I'm not sure how this references nationstates as game, the rule I'm worried about is 1

[Honeydewistania]

The noting line seems superfluous and is the one causing legality problems, best to remove it. Also in the Lauding line it should be nations' not nation's.

[Tinhampton]

National leaders - viewtopic.php?f=23&t=96
National sports (not done by NG, but it uses his method) - viewtopic.php?f=23&t=96

The same thread? That's impressive =P

Provisional support (pending on what the Mods have to say about this)

[Cretox State]

The noting line seems superfluous and is the one causing legality problems, best to remove it. Also in the Lauding line it should be nations' not nation's.

Just say "throughout the multiverse" if you're concerned about it, Makdon.

Edit: Support.

Edit 2: Light/dark themes are against R1 to my knowledge, but I don't know about them initially designing them.

[SherpDaWerp]

Furthermore familiar with the potentially dark consequences that the aesthetics and decoration (commonly and henceforth referred to as themes) of the agencies and embassies through which a nation’s government is run and interacts with the NationStates community have, and the benefits bestowed upon nations by a well designed, pleasing, and functional theme,

Lauding Northrop-Grumman's no doubt arduous labor in designing and donating two highly accessible and pleasant themes for nation’s use, which afforded nations even more options and room for personal preference, that integrated easily with already existing government offices and allowed many nations’ leaders’ and bureaucrats’ eyes a well needed break and some much needed darkness, and which Northrop-Grumman selflessly furnished the NationStates community with and would freely provide to all nations,

Noting that both themes developed by Northrop-Grumman were later incorporated throughout NationStates, becoming more easily available for all nations to use, and that their interior designers have continued to maintain, update, fix, and respond to feedback on keeping both themes dark,

I definitely think this section is illegal, and here's some rulings that back that up.

any contributions to the site appearance aside from the creation/editing of flags are considered 'site staff' functions

Commend Northrop-Grumman is illegal.
...
The creation of a theme is different - they're an OOC thing you select on the settings page, and they aren't an attribute of nations - they're part of the site. For that reason, we consider any kind of contribution to the site appearance (aside from flags) to be something that cannot be cited in proposals, as it violates Rule 1.

Proposals cannot Commend or Condemn members of the site staff for actions taken as part of their role.
...
Note that there are some "niche" staff roles such as Northrop-Grumman's work on the Dark Theme that are still covered by this rule.

[Makdon]

The noting line seems superfluous and is the one causing legality problems, best to remove it. Also in the Lauding line it should be nations' not nation's.

After discussion over the rules, I'm going to remove the noting clause as it's probably a R1 violation.

National leaders - viewtopic.php?f=23&t=96
National sports (not done by NG, but it uses his method) - viewtopic.php?f=23&t=96

The same thread? That's impressive =P

Provisional support (pending on what the Mods have to say about this)

oops lol

The noting line seems superfluous and is the one causing legality problems, best to remove it. Also in the Lauding line it should be nations' not nation's.

Just say "throughout the multiverse" if you're concerned about it, Makdon.

Edit: Support.

Edit 2: Light/dark themes are against R1 to my knowledge, but I don't know about them initially designing them.

I'm not worried about saying NationStates, I know that's legal. I'm worried about R1, as you mention. However, I don't see how referencing the themes Northrop-Gurmman developed without any knowledge, access, or abilities besides those of a regular player. Once the themes were added to the game - which was a bit after NG made them publicly available - NG was given special abilities, but I can't see how their work before then could violate R1.

Furthermore familiar with the potentially dark consequences that the aesthetics and decoration (commonly and henceforth referred to as themes) of the agencies and embassies through which a nation’s government is run and interacts with the NationStates community have, and the benefits bestowed upon nations by a well designed, pleasing, and functional theme,

Lauding Northrop-Grumman's no doubt arduous labor in designing and donating two highly accessible and pleasant themes for nation’s use, which afforded nations even more options and room for personal preference, that integrated easily with already existing government offices and allowed many nations’ leaders’ and bureaucrats’ eyes a well needed break and some much needed darkness, and which Northrop-Grumman selflessly furnished the NationStates community with and would freely provide to all nations,

Noting that both themes developed by Northrop-Grumman were later incorporated throughout NationStates, becoming more easily available for all nations to use, and that their interior designers have continued to maintain, update, fix, and respond to feedback on keeping both themes dark,

I definitely think this section is illegal, and here's some rulings that back that up.

any contributions to the site appearance aside from the creation/editing of flags are considered 'site staff' functions

Commend Northrop-Grumman is illegal.
...
The creation of a theme is different - they're an OOC thing you select on the settings page, and they aren't an attribute of nations - they're part of the site. For that reason, we consider any kind of contribution to the site appearance (aside from flags) to be something that cannot be cited in proposals, as it violates Rule 1.

Proposals cannot Commend or Condemn members of the site staff for actions taken as part of their role.
...
Note that there are some "niche" staff roles such as Northrop-Grumman's work on the Dark Theme that are still covered by this rule.

I see what you're saying, but I really think that only affects the noting clause. NG wasn't adding a theme to the setting pages in the other clauses, they were just coding a style sheet and giving instructions for adding it to your internet browser, something that they required no special access to do. And I think I've worded it well enough that it's not a R4 violation, so besides the noting clause I think this should be legal. We'll just have to see whether it actually is or not

Thanks to all for feedback

[Sedgistan]

That's some Cretoxian logic there. I'm afraid mention of the dark theme isn't going to pass Rule 1. It doesn't matter that the initial part of it (a mere 2 months of its existence) was done unofficially, the end result was that the theme became an official part of the site, and you can't C/C for that.

[Makdon]

That's some Cretoxian logic there. I'm afraid mention of the dark theme isn't going to pass Rule 1. It doesn't matter that the initial part of it (a mere 2 months of its existence) was done unofficially, the end result was that the theme became an official part of the site, and you can't C/C for that.

I find it odd that recognizing work done without any abilities outside those of a regular player's would be illegal, especially if I were to make it explicitly clear that I'm referencing solely that, but ah well, back to the drawing board I guess. I'll take out the clauses on the dark theme, work in more rp stuff and make as many punny hints to the themes as possible, and see if it still works as a draft.

Edit: To make my reasoning more clear, here is rule 1: "1. You cannot commend or condemn members of the site staff (Moderators, Administrators, Issues Editors, Roleplay Mentors etc.) for actions taken as part of their role". NG was not, without a shadow of a doubt, taking actions as part of their role as a member of site staff when they initially developed the dark themes. Whether it was added afterwards or they did more as a member of site staff is irrelevant, because what the proposal commends them for (excluding the noting clause) is creating the themes, which they did while not a member of site staff. Thus, it is entirely impossible that commending them for creating the dark themes could be in violation of the actual text of rule 1.

[NationStates Dark Theme]

That's some Cretoxian logic there. I'm afraid mention of the dark theme isn't going to pass Rule 1. It doesn't matter that the initial part of it (a mere 2 months of its existence) was done unofficially, the end result was that the theme became an official part of the site, and you can't C/C for that.

How dare you suggest that Northrop-Grumman cannot be attributed for playing a foundational role in our nation’s creation!! This is censorship — NAY! Political correctness gone mad!!

[Unibot III]

One thing I wonder is how R1 handles cases where descriptively, a nominee’s site contribution is acknowledged, but that it is explicitly disclaimed that this is not a consideration of the resolution.

R1 prohibits commending a nominee for a site contribution, but if you can distinguish between acknowledging facts and actually using it as a part of the resolution’s argument, then you would not be conflicting with Rule 1 in theory because you wouldn’t be commending the nominee for a site contribution — you would be politely ruling it out of consideration, but effectively reading it into the record regardless.

[Wallenburg]

One thing I wonder is how R1 handles cases where descriptively, a nominee’s site contribution is acknowledged, but that it is explicitly disclaimed that this is not a consideration of the resolution.

R1 prohibits commending a nominee for a site contribution, but if you can distinguish between acknowledging facts and actually using it as a part of the resolution’s argument, then you would not be conflicting with Rule 1 in theory because you wouldn’t be commending the nominee for a site contribution — you would be politely ruling it out of consideration, but effectively reading it into the record regardless.

All content of a commendation is its argument, save "The World Assembly hereby commends So-and-So". This question is nonsensical.

[Sedgistan]

What Wallenburg said.

[Sedgistan]

That's some Cretoxian logic there. I'm afraid mention of the dark theme isn't going to pass Rule 1. It doesn't matter that the initial part of it (a mere 2 months of its existence) was done unofficially, the end result was that the theme became an official part of the site, and you can't C/C for that.

I find it odd that recognizing work done without any abilities outside those of a regular player's would be illegal, especially if I were to make it explicitly clear that I'm referencing solely that, but ah well, back to the drawing board I guess. I'll take out the clauses on the dark theme, work in more rp stuff and make as many punny hints to the themes as possible, and see if it still works as a draft.

Edit: To make my reasoning more clear, here is rule 1: "1. You cannot commend or condemn members of the site staff (Moderators, Administrators, Issues Editors, Roleplay Mentors etc.) for actions taken as part of their role". NG was not, without a shadow of a doubt, taking actions as part of their role as a member of site staff when they initially developed the dark themes. Whether it was added afterwards or they did more as a member of site staff is irrelevant, because what the proposal commends them for (excluding the noting clause) is creating the themes, which they did while not a member of site staff. Thus, it is entirely impossible that commending them for creating the dark themes could be in violation of the actual text of rule 1.

I don't think you can separate the dark theme add-on that existed for 2 months from the many years that the NationStates official dark theme has existed. Any attempt at recognising the former would very evidently be a recognition of the latter, even more blatant than some of the R1 dodging attempts we've seen lately. The work on the former led directly to the latter.

No objections to "dark" related puns around the proposal (I'd do the same), and you could probably even get away with acrostic silliness if you really wanted.

[Makdon]

I don't think you can separate the dark theme add-on that existed for 2 months from the many years that the NationStates official dark theme has existed. Any attempt at recognising the former would very evidently be a recognition of the latter, even more blatant than some of the R1 dodging attempts we've seen lately. The work on the former led directly to the latter.

No objections to "dark" related puns around the proposal (I'd do the same), and you could probably even get away with acrostic silliness if you really wanted.

I think that I would be pretty clearly separating them if I, for example, used only verbs like create to describe what they did and added something like the caveat that it was "done without any abilities beyond that of all nations, further highlighting the immense expertise of Northrop-Grumman's interior designers", but I can see the writing on the wall

[Unibot III]

One thing I wonder is how R1 handles cases where descriptively, a nominee’s site contribution is acknowledged, but that it is explicitly disclaimed that this is not a consideration of the resolution.

R1 prohibits commending a nominee for a site contribution, but if you can distinguish between acknowledging facts and actually using it as a part of the resolution’s argument, then you would not be conflicting with Rule 1 in theory because you wouldn’t be commending the nominee for a site contribution — you would be politely ruling it out of consideration, but effectively reading it into the record regardless.

All content of a commendation is its argument, save "The World Assembly hereby commends So-and-So". This question is nonsensical.

Nonsense, if you disclaim that a fact isn’t under consideration as an argument, then it is not a part of the argument. Only the disclaimer that the premise is not under consideration is a part of the argument, rather than the fact itself.

What you’re suggesting is that R1 is a wider ban on *mentioning* a nominee’s site contribution, in spite of it saying as such. R1 only prohibits using a nominee’s site contribution as justification or partial justification for a commendation/condemnation. Conflating these two is irrational. If you explicitly reject the application of a fact as valid for consideration in a proposal’s argument, you are not incorporating that fact into the proposal’s reasoning — you’re rejecting it!

If you or Sedge want to go ahead and rewrite Rule 1, go ahead. But the rule is the rule. You cannot commend someone for a site contribution, but I cannot see how that contradicts anyone from mentioning that they’re *not* commending someone for a site contribution.

What you’re suggesting effectively rewrites Rule 1 as a blanket ban on mentioning site contributions, but that’s not how the rule is written. The rule only prohibits commending someone for a site contribution.

[Cretox State]

Nonsense, if you disclaim that a fact isn’t under consideration as an argument, then it is not a part of the argument. Only the disclaimer that the premise is not under consideration is a part of the argument, rather than the fact itself.

What you’re suggesting is that R1 is a wider ban on *mentioning* a nominee’s site contribution, in spite of it saying as such. R1 only prohibits using a nominee’s site contribution as justification or partial justification for a commendation/condemnation. Conflating these two is irrational. If you explicitly reject the application of a fact as valid for consideration in a proposal’s argument, you are not incorporating that fact into the proposal’s reasoning — you’re rejecting it!

If you want to go ahead a rewrite Rule 1, go ahead. But the rule is the rule. You cannot commend someone for a site contribution, but I cannot see how that contradicts anyone from mentioning that they’re *not* commending someone for a site contribution.

Furiously scribbles notes onto a legal pad.

[Wallenburg]

All content of a commendation is its argument, save "The World Assembly hereby commends So-and-So". This question is nonsensical.

Nonsense, if you disclaim that a fact isn’t under consideration as an argument, then it is not a part of the argument. Only the disclaimer that the premise is not under consideration is a part of the argument, rather than the fact itself.

What you’re suggesting is that R1 is a wider ban on *mentioning* a nominee’s site contribution, in spite of it saying as such. R1 only prohibits using a nominee’s site contribution as justification or partial justification for a commendation/condemnation. Conflating these two is irrational. If you explicitly reject the application of a fact as valid for consideration in a proposal’s argument, you are not incorporating that fact into the proposal’s reasoning — you’re rejecting it!

If you or Sedge want to go ahead and rewrite Rule 1, go ahead. But the rule is the rule. You cannot commend someone for a site contribution, but I cannot see how that contradicts anyone from mentioning that they’re *not* commending someone for a site contribution.

What you’re suggesting effectively rewrites Rule 1 as a blanket ban on mentioning site contributions, but that’s not how the rule is written. The rule only prohibits commending someone for a site contribution.

Sorry, but no, you don't get to opt out of Rule 1 because you insist it doesn't apply to your arguments.

[Praeceps]

Nonsense, if you disclaim that a fact isn’t under consideration as an argument, then it is not a part of the argument. Only the disclaimer that the premise is not under consideration is a part of the argument, rather than the fact itself.

What you’re suggesting is that R1 is a wider ban on *mentioning* a nominee’s site contribution, in spite of it saying as such. R1 only prohibits using a nominee’s site contribution as justification or partial justification for a commendation/condemnation. Conflating these two is irrational. If you explicitly reject the application of a fact as valid for consideration in a proposal’s argument, you are not incorporating that fact into the proposal’s reasoning — you’re rejecting it!

If you or Sedge want to go ahead and rewrite Rule 1, go ahead. But the rule is the rule. You cannot commend someone for a site contribution, but I cannot see how that contradicts anyone from mentioning that they’re *not* commending someone for a site contribution.

What you’re suggesting effectively rewrites Rule 1 as a blanket ban on mentioning site contributions, but that’s not how the rule is written. The rule only prohibits commending someone for a site contribution.

Sorry, but no, you don't get to opt out of Rule 1 because you insist it doesn't apply to your arguments.

First, there was non-compliance in the GA, now, we have non-compliance in the SC.

[Unibot III]

Nonsense, if you disclaim that a fact isn’t under consideration as an argument, then it is not a part of the argument. Only the disclaimer that the premise is not under consideration is a part of the argument, rather than the fact itself.

What you’re suggesting is that R1 is a wider ban on *mentioning* a nominee’s site contribution, in spite of it saying as such. R1 only prohibits using a nominee’s site contribution as justification or partial justification for a commendation/condemnation. Conflating these two is irrational. If you explicitly reject the application of a fact as valid for consideration in a proposal’s argument, you are not incorporating that fact into the proposal’s reasoning — you’re rejecting it!

If you or Sedge want to go ahead and rewrite Rule 1, go ahead. But the rule is the rule. You cannot commend someone for a site contribution, but I cannot see how that contradicts anyone from mentioning that they’re *not* commending someone for a site contribution.

What you’re suggesting effectively rewrites Rule 1 as a blanket ban on mentioning site contributions, but that’s not how the rule is written. The rule only prohibits commending someone for a site contribution.

Sorry, but no, you don't get to opt out of Rule 1 because you insist it doesn't apply to your arguments.

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.

[Wallenburg]

Sorry, but no, you don't get to opt out of Rule 1 because you insist it doesn't apply to your arguments.

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.

[SherpDaWerp]

So we had an argument that was clearly illegal, by 2 sets of rules (one of which explicitly mentions this case), and by someone trying to use that exact argument in the past, and yet somehow, some way, we still ended up with a lengthy debate about its illegality?

[Honeydewistania]

So we had an argument that was clearly illegal, by 2 sets of rules (one of which explicitly mentions this case), and by someone trying to use that exact argument in the past, and yet somehow, some way, we still ended up with a lengthy debate about its illegality?
(Image)

I like how you went back in time just to get the facepalm smiley back

[SherpDaWerp]

So we had an argument that was clearly illegal, by 2 sets of rules (one of which explicitly mentions this case), and by someone trying to use that exact argument in the past, and yet somehow, some way, we still ended up with a lengthy debate about its illegality?
(Image)

I like how you went back in time just to get the facepalm smiley back

The image is still on the NS servers - might as well use it. Unfortunately, there aren't any other secret smilies hosted in that folder...