Discussion of SC Compendium

[Sedgistan]

EDIT: This thread is for discussion of the Compendium of Mod Rulings & General Advice within the SC.

[Sedgistan]

I think I'm finished with the content of this. I'll read over it tomorrow to fix any formatting/spelling errors I find. I might then (depending on suggestions) look at re-organising some of it to make it easier to find information you're looking for. I will be adding an index regardless, but I'd like to know if further re-organisation is needed before I ages on that.

There were one other question that arose while compiling this, other than the one about repealing pre-Rule 4 resolutions.

Does a resolution have to say at some point either "The World Assembly" or "The Security Council" (either at the start, or in the operative clause)? I think I came across a post which suggested so, but I noticed some of the early resolutions failed to do so, and it's never really been mentioned as a requirement.

Anyhow, comments are now welcome.......

[Unibot]

Does a resolution have to say at some point either "The World Assembly" or "The Security Council" (either at the start, or in the operative clause)? I think I came across a post which suggested so, but I noticed some of the early resolutions failed to do so, and it's never really been mentioned as a requirement.

I wasn't allowed to say, ... "The World Assembly Intelligence Committee," .. so I don't think you'd be able to write anything other than "The World Assembly," or "The Security Council," or some other variation that doesn't extend beyond the bounds of who is passing this resolution.

[Sedgistan]

The question is really about whether it's required to say The World Assembly/The Security Council, or whether one can entirely omit to mention them (like Condemn Macedon does).

[Unibot]

When I'm declared a mod shortly, I'll give you a ruling.

[Ardchoille]

Whew! I'd seen this a-brewing, but I didn't know what an undertaking you were going to make of it. Sterling stuff!

I haven't done any fine-tooth combing of it, but will. On the question about whether it needs The World Assembly/The Security Council, yes, it does. We were all coming to terms with the existence of the SC when #1 was written, but I think people realised early on that grammar was sorta necessary. Someone has to do the condemning.

On whether it should be "The WA" or "The SC", make it "The WA" because SC and GA statements are made with all the authority of the world body. For consistency, both chambers should be seen as acting on behalf of the WA.

EDIT: When you get it fully sorted, I'll split off commentary to a linked thread.

[NERVUN]

Whew! I'd seen this a-brewing, but I didn't know what an undertaking you were going to make of it. Sterling stuff!

I think Ard likes it just because she's quoted everywhere. (Ducks)

Naw, this is a Good Thing. When it's done, please let us know and we'll sticky and add it to the OSRS.

[Sedgistan]

I haven't done any fine-tooth combing of it, but will. On the question about whether it needs The World Assembly/The Security Council, yes, it does. We were all coming to terms with the existence of the SC when #1 was written, but I think people realised early on that grammar was sorta necessary. Someone has to do the condemning.

On whether it should be "The WA" or "The SC", make it "The WA" because SC and GA statements are made with all the authority of the world body. For consistency, both chambers should be seen as acting on behalf of the WA.

Thanks - edited that in now.

I think Ard likes it just because she's quoted everywhere.

You should like it too - you were the only other mod to get cited. It may only have been once, but in the league table of SC mods, it puts you second

[Ardchoille]

Astarial out-argued me on "multiverse", Sedge, so I backed off.

If, as seems to be the case, it's acceptable to all parts of the game, great. I've tried to avoid terms which would give credence to the all too evident notion that Rule 4 attempts to enforce one style of play above another, and that's why I was leery of "multiverse".

[Sedgistan]

Thanks, fixed.

[Unibot]

On whether it should be "The WA" or "The SC", make it "The WA" because SC and GA statements are made with all the authority of the world body. For consistency, both chambers should be seen as acting on behalf of the WA.

Err.. I disagree. Here me out... the Security Council and the General Assembly don't necessarily work on behalf of each other, it is totally possible for the two to be in conflict.. let's say we commend a nation of pirates... that's in direct conflict with GA legislation, so only the Security Council should be cited.. as the two bodies have differing views on the subject.

Also.. that's how the United Nations cites things. But they're not important.

[Ardchoille]

*shrugs* Looks like that cat is well and truly out of the bag: of 35 resolutions, we've got 15 being performed by the Security Council in various forms, 16 being done by the World Assembly in various forms, three that "HEREBY condemn (or commend)" without saying who's doing it, and one (SC#1) that doesn't firmly do anything, but has (undefined) in the act of commending.

Interestingly, Liberations are slightly more likely (five to three) to be done by the Security Council; I suppose because it's clearly "by force if necessary". The "various forms" include The Peoples of the World Assembled, the Peoples of the Security Council, and The World Assembly Security Council.

We'll leave this one with the proposal writer, then. So long as there's a recognisable authority doing it, it's OK.

(I do feel that having the action done on the authority of only one chamber is a bit Resolution Diet Lite, whereas the GA ones, being always performed -- according to the text -- under the whole authority of the WA, are full strength; but in terms of enforcement, that's probably accurate.)

I don't see any real problem with SC and GA resolutions conflicting. If the GA has a law against slavery, and a slaver nation gets commended for something other than its slavery, obviously there's no clash.

If a slaver nation gets commended for the way it performs its slavery ... well, it makes my mind boggle, but there'd be no denying it was an "outstanding contribution by a nation or region” if it were so good it could persuade the WA to praise a nation for doing something the WA forbade.

(Heh. Classic large-organisation snafu; never letting the left hand know what the right's doing.)

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

WHEREAS Artichokeville poses a grave threat to non-magical nations,

WHEREAS other stuff,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, Artichokeville is condemned.

The above follows is a common template for resolutions passed by various bodies. Are you trying to say that it would now be illegal, because it doesn't say "World Assembly"? There have also been resolutions in the past that have mistakenly omitted "World Assembly" while saying it was "DECLARING" and "MANDATING" things; is there a new convention in place that proposals like these be deleted, on a technicality?

[Unibot]

We'll leave this one with the proposal writer, then. So long as there's a recognisable authority doing it, it's OK.

I'm assuming you a mean a possible recognizable authority -- it would be impossible for a Security Council resolution to speak for any other authority than the specific body (the SC) or more generally the over-residing body (the WA).

For example it would be totally improper for me to begin an SC resolution like "The General Assembly," or "The World Assembly Intelligence Committee," .. it would have to be some variation of the Security Council or the World Assembly -- which are both correct.

[Ardchoille]

Riiight ... so long as there's an appropriate authority. (And if there's any dispute about which one's appropriate, whichever mod's then awake can stop carousing long enough to emerge from the ModCave and deign to hand down a decision. I'm not specifying which authorities are "appropriate" because who knows what Max might get up to in the coming years.)

<snip> ... is there a new convention in place that proposals like these be deleted, on a technicality?

Nope. We've got three already that just go "Hereby condemns". In the "Hereby condemns" formulation, the body acting is implied, but not stated -- I don't think any but a truly Bastard Mod would delete on the grounds that the implied body was an incorrect, impossible or otherwise inappropriate body.*

So: there has to be an action -- condemns, commends, liberates -- and the proposal in which the action is described must, by statement or implication, ascribe that action to an appropriate body ... or, if you'd prefer that in sane terms, just keep on doing what we've been doing.



*Artichokeville tucks that idea away for later examination*

[Unibot]

Riiight ... so long as there's an appropriate authority. (And if there's any dispute about which one's appropriate, whichever mod's then awake can stop carousing long enough to emerge from the ModCave and deign to hand down a decision. I'm not specifying which authorities are "appropriate" because who knows what Max might get up to in the coming years.)

<snip> ... is there a new convention in place that proposals like these be deleted, on a technicality?

Nope. We've got three already that just go "Hereby condemns". In the "Hereby condemns" formulation, the body acting is implied, but not stated -- I don't think any but a truly Bastard Mod would delete on the grounds that the implied body was an incorrect, impossible or otherwise inappropriate body.*

So: there has to be an action -- condemns, commends, liberates -- and the proposal in which the action is described must, by statement or implication, ascribe that action to an appropriate body ... or, if you'd prefer that in sane terms, just keep on doing what we've been doing.



*Artichokeville tucks that idea away for later examination*

Right, so.. if someone decides to ascribe the thoughts and actions of a proposal to something, it must be an appropriate authority.. but otherwise the ascription is inferred -- so if one leaves out the appropriate authority from the masterhead, it's a sort of an acceptable form of legalistic shorthand? And thus, not actionable?

[NERVUN]

Riiight ... so long as there's an appropriate authority. (And if there's any dispute about which one's appropriate, whichever mod's then awake can stop carousing long enough to emerge from the ModCave and deign to hand down a decision. I'm not specifying which authorities are "appropriate" because who knows what Max might get up to in the coming years.)



Nope. We've got three already that just go "Hereby condemns". In the "Hereby condemns" formulation, the body acting is implied, but not stated -- I don't think any but a truly Bastard Mod would delete on the grounds that the implied body was an incorrect, impossible or otherwise inappropriate body.*

So: there has to be an action -- condemns, commends, liberates -- and the proposal in which the action is described must, by statement or implication, ascribe that action to an appropriate body ... or, if you'd prefer that in sane terms, just keep on doing what we've been doing.



*Artichokeville tucks that idea away for later examination*

Right, so.. if someone decides to ascribe the thoughts and actions of a proposal to something, it must be an appropriate authority.. but otherwise the ascription is inferred -- so if one leaves out the appropriate authority from the masterhead, it's a sort of acceptable form of legalistic shorthand? And thus, not actionable?

From what I understand, correct, as long as the body leads to the appropriate authority. Which is NOT to say it needs to be mentioning said authority, but it cannot be read as coming from a non-appropriate authority (For example, the Mods, Max, The White House, my left sock. etc.), but I think you'd REALLY have to work at it to do it that way.*



*No, that was not a challenge to try it, step away from the keyboard.

[Ardchoille]

Right, so.. if someone decides to ascribe the thoughts and actions of a proposal to something, it must be an appropriate authority.. but otherwise the ascription is inferred -- so if one leaves out the appropriate authority from the masterhead, it's a sort of an acceptable form of legalistic shorthand? And thus, not actionable?

Yes, writers can leave out the authority from the masthead, depending on how they do it. If it's left out the way the "Hereby condemns..." ones leave it out, if it makes sense, fine. (EDIT: ie, what Nerv said.)

A general comment: this amount of detailed nitpicking is really useful, but we're not going to get all the hypothetical i's dotted and the t's crossed right now. Somewhere in the future lurks MegaRulesLawyer who's going to come up with something obviously illegal but not specifically forbidden (because we didn't think of it), so don't worry too much if there's still a bit of wriggle room.

Let it flow, man, smell the roses, cool ... *exits with goofy smile, humming something 60s*

[Unibot]

A general comment: this amount of detailed nitpicking is really useful, but we're not going to get all the hypothetical i's dotted and the t's crossed right now. Somewhere in the future lurks MegaRulesLawyer who's going to come up with something obviously illegal but not specifically forbidden (because we didn't think of it), so don't worry too much if there's still a bit of wriggle room.

MegaRulesLawyer? Can I get that stamped on my file in the modly hideout?

[Ardchoille]

Nope. We'd have to put that stamp on 90% of the WA membership (me included).

I mean, it's a comfortably warm, sunny day in Australia, I live right near one of the best surfing beaches, I've got a couple of hours before I start work, and I'm sitting here arguing (for no pay) about things that don't actually exist, but are implied.

Possibly the stamp should just say, "Nuts".

[Unibot]

Possibly the stamp should just say, "Nuts".

Once again though, we're looking for a particularly unique characteristic.

[Ardchoille]

*snicker* I was about to promise Sedge that I'd clean out all this spammy chat. But now, of course, he can just do it himself.

[Unibot]

*snicker* I was about to promise Sedge that I'd clean out all this spammy chat. But now, of course, he can just do it himself.

Yes! I knew it! Whoo Sedge!

But how could you join the Dark Side? Who will I complain to about the mod tyranny now?

[NERVUN]

But how could you join the Dark Side?

We have excellent cookies...

[Unibot]

But how could you join the Dark Side?

We have excellent cookies...

Oh, you haven't tasted mine.



I've passed entire liberations on cookie bribes alone!