The Dark Star Republic wrote:Something you bitterly complained about at the time!!
Something I later realized made a lot of sense.
Advertisement
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:43 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Something you bitterly complained about at the time!!
by John Turner » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:37 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:And the fact that every resolution forces nations to change their laws and exacts unexpected stats changes on them, thereby violating their sovereignty? That's why the rule was put in place, by the way.
No - the rule was put in place to cover for GMC, who had begun deleting repeals with national sovereignty arguments without realizing that they weren't - at the time - illegal. Something you bitterly complained about at the time!!
John Turner wrote:Oh.... And it wasn't drafted on the forums. That makes it automatically illegal, doesn't it?
by The Dark Star Republic » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:42 am
John Turner wrote:The Dark Star Republic wrote:No - the rule was put in place to cover for GMC, who had begun deleting repeals with national sovereignty arguments without realizing that they weren't - at the time - illegal. Something you bitterly complained about at the time!!
I can understand why Kenny would have been upset. If something wasn't illegal at the time, why should the contributor be punished for it. It is illegal now, and GMC had good reasons for making it illegal.
by John Turner » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:54 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:John Turner wrote:
I can understand why Kenny would have been upset. If something wasn't illegal at the time, why should the contributor be punished for it. It is illegal now, and GMC had good reasons for making it illegal.
His reason was that he didn't like PC. That was it. That's not a very good reason.
John Turner wrote:Oh.... And it wasn't drafted on the forums. That makes it automatically illegal, doesn't it?
by The Dark Star Republic » Wed Sep 02, 2015 12:30 pm
You have been around a lot longer than most and have passed an extraordinary number of both U.N. and W.A. resolutions so your opinion would may shed some better insight.
by Syrth » Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:07 am
The Dark Star Republic wrote:I don't think that should matter, but I can say that I (and others) can remember a time before the NatSov rule existed. And though that meant NatSov repeals were more common, they were (a) not so excessively common that it was particularly annoying and (b) mostly unsuccessful. The histrionic fears that the moment the rule is removed the walls will come tumbling down seem overblown.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Sep 04, 2015 7:54 pm
by Frisbeeteria » Fri Sep 04, 2015 10:21 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:why can't they be implemented immediately?
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:28 pm
by Sciongrad » Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:39 pm
by Bananaistan » Fri Apr 22, 2016 1:44 am
It has been heading that way for a while. Bonkers rulings based on magic invisible clauses, inconsistent interpretation of the rules, inconsistent application of the tools available to moderators, occasional bursts of activity after each latest snafu, the rules consortium starting off with a fanfare and its protracted death with hardly a whimper a year later. I wouldn't bother with any serious effort at a resolution in the current "regulatory environment" and I find it hard to see how anyone does considering we are never too far away from the next moderator curve ball to wreck players' work in the GA.
by Mousebumples » Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:38 am
Bananaistan wrote:It has been heading that way for a while. Bonkers rulings based on magic invisible clauses, inconsistent interpretation of the rules, inconsistent application of the tools available to moderators, occasional bursts of activity after each latest snafu, the rules consortium starting off with a fanfare and its protracted death with hardly a whimper a year later. I wouldn't bother with any serious effort at a resolution in the current "regulatory environment" and I find it hard to see how anyone does considering we are never too far away from the next moderator curve ball to wreck players' work in the GA.
I posted the above in the now archived Repeal "Stopping Suicide Seeds". It's all well and good for Reploid Productions to point people to make succinct reports regarding moderator corruption while at the same time warning against doing so on the basis that CD's compliant was just dismissed out of hand. The greater issue of moderator incompetence, negligence and inactivity can then be ignored while any serious GA player will just get more and more frustrated.
This rules consortium is an excellent example. There is nothing here reportable to the admins but it is still a huge issue that we've had a huge hooha about the rules with no end result. In my two and a half years as a GA regular we've had the same thing a few times now: there's some major controversy, followed by a major discussion about rules, interpretation, discards etc, followed by a spike in moderator activity, followed by .... nothing. The major issue IMO boils down to moderator inactivity. It would be my recommendation that we need a number of active mods to see through any overhaul of the rules and practices. While the same is achievable with the current moderators in place, it would be insane to expect different results while continuing to leave things as they are.
by Sciongrad » Fri Apr 22, 2016 6:46 am
Mousebumples wrote:As always, if you have suggestions for new WA mods, please submit your nominations through the designated process in the Moderation forum.
Additionally, to touch on what Sedge says there, there seems to be a complete misunderstanding amongst the player base about what the Honest Mistake rule means. Heck, before I was modded, I was sure I was going to have a proposal pulled for a legit "honest mistake" - when I made a math error when trying to repeal one of Quelesh's proposals. (I was told that the repeal was legal and I was incorrect in my understanding.)
As Sedge alluded to here, we have been finalizing some wording changes to the rules in our Seekrit Mod Lair and those should be dropping shortly.
GA mods do not rule on "interpretation." There are lots of way to interpret and read resolutions, and while the author may have intended [X], [Y] can also be a viable reading. If the scenario outlined in the repeal is possible, we let the voters decide.
by Mousebumples » Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:08 am
Sciongrad wrote:Mousebumples wrote:As always, if you have suggestions for new WA mods, please submit your nominations through the designated process in the Moderation forum.
If I recall correctly, there was an entire thread dedicated to this issue where several players made several suggestions. Don't deflect this issue by assigning blame to us for not recommending anyone through the proper channel.Additionally, to touch on what Sedge says there, there seems to be a complete misunderstanding amongst the player base about what the Honest Mistake rule means. Heck, before I was modded, I was sure I was going to have a proposal pulled for a legit "honest mistake" - when I made a math error when trying to repeal one of Quelesh's proposals. (I was told that the repeal was legal and I was incorrect in my understanding.)
We understand the rule. Evidently, you guys do not. It has never, ever been interprpreted as permitting deliberate lies. That is a new interpretation, presumably a post hoc fix to prevent having to remove the most recent resolution. But let's assume you're right. Can we get a clarification as to what it is then? Because I was under the assumption, as was every other player except apparently IA, that the GA rule prohibited mistakes in proposals. Even previous awful rulings that argued resolutions weren't quite wrong enough at least acknowledged that much.
Convinced that regulation to prevent the exploitation of farmers is preferable to an outright ban of a technology which has considerable utility in limiting the spread of transgenic crops,
Sciongrad wrote:No on is asking that GA Mods rule on interpretation. We are asking that you remove things that are objectively wrong. GA regulars unanimously agreed that the recent repeal of CD's resolution was incorrect. That is not a matter of interpretation. Saying that relentlessly does not make it true.
by Sciongrad » Fri Apr 22, 2016 7:26 am
Mousebumples wrote:I evaluated the repeal text, and the original, and while the crowd of GA regulars may disagree with the assessment made by myself and the other mods, that doesn't mean that it's inherently wrong. I can't speak for other mods, but I view the Honest Mistake rule similarly to the NatSov rule. Your entire repeal text cannot be an Honest Mistake, but a a bit of hyperbole or political speak isn't enough to get it nuked.
The biggest "concern" comes over the first clause of the repeal, I believe, but do you deny that the rest of the repeal text is 100% on-target?
I view that as preamble. That's a statement that regulation is preferable to a ban. The explicit "this is why the resolution is so bad" is all in the Items number 1-3. Are you disputing that the items in 1-3 are 100% on target?
Believing that 249 GA's ban on a 'genetic modification technique that renders the seeds of a plant sterile' would make it significantly harder to protect native species from the accidental spread of transgenic organisms without prohibitively expensive administrative protocols,
We disagree on this, but we've had multiple GA mods weigh in on this one, and not a single GA mod felt that Honest Mistake rule should be invoked about this repeal. GA regulars may be unanimous, but so were GA mods. To me, that says perhaps GA regulars don't understand the rule or how it's interpreted or enforced. That's what my responses in this thread have been about.
by Bananaistan » Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:53 am
Mousebumples wrote:As always, if you have suggestions for new WA mods, please submit your nominations through the designated process in the Moderation forum.
As Sedge alluded to here, we have been finalizing some wording changes to the rules in our Seekrit Mod Lair and those should be dropping shortly.
Additionally, to touch on what Sedge says there, there seems to be a complete misunderstanding amongst the player base about what the Honest Mistake rule means. Heck, before I was modded, I was sure I was going to have a proposal pulled for a legit "honest mistake" - when I made a math error when trying to repeal one of Quelesh's proposals. (I was told that the repeal was legal and I was incorrect in my understanding.)
GA mods do not rule on "interpretation." There are lots of way to interpret and read resolutions, and while the author may have intended [X], [Y] can also be a viable reading. If the scenario outlined in the repeal is possible, we let the voters decide.
by Sandaoguo » Fri Apr 22, 2016 10:29 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:25 am
Mousebumples wrote:I evaluated the repeal text, and the original, and while the crowd of GA regulars may disagree with the assessment made by myself and the other mods, that doesn't mean that it's inherently wrong. I can't speak for other mods, but I view the Honest Mistake rule similarly to the NatSov rule. Your entire repeal text cannot be an Honest Mistake, but a a bit of hyperbole or political speak isn't enough to get it nuked.
The biggest "concern" comes over the first clause of the repeal, I believe, but do you deny that the rest of the repeal text is 100% on-target?Convinced that regulation to prevent the exploitation of farmers is preferable to an outright ban of a technology which has considerable utility in limiting the spread of transgenic crops,
I view that as preamble. That's a statement that regulation is preferable to a ban. The explicit "this is why the resolution is so bad" is all in the Items number 1-3. Are you disputing that the items in 1-3 are 100% on target?
From my previous review:
1 - explicit use of "ban" in the original
2 - explicit use of "mandate" in the original
3 - explicit use of "prohibit" in the originalSciongrad wrote:No on is asking that GA Mods rule on interpretation. We are asking that you remove things that are objectively wrong. GA regulars unanimously agreed that the recent repeal of CD's resolution was incorrect. That is not a matter of interpretation. Saying that relentlessly does not make it true.
We disagree on this, but we've had multiple GA mods weigh in on this one, and not a single GA mod felt that Honest Mistake rule should be invoked about this repeal. GA regulars may be unanimous, but so were GA mods. To me, that says perhaps GA regulars don't understand the rule or how it's interpreted or enforced. That's what my responses in this thread have been about.
by Christian Democrats » Fri Apr 22, 2016 11:47 am
Mousebumples wrote:GA mods do not rule on "interpretation." There are lots of way to interpret and read resolutions.
Sciongrad wrote:We understand the rule. Evidently, you guys do not. It has never, ever been interprpreted as permitting deliberate lies. That is a new interpretation, presumably a post hoc fix to prevent having to remove the most recent resolution. But let's assume you're right. Can we get a clarification as to what it is then? Because I was under the assumption, as was every other player except apparently IA, that the GA rule prohibited mistakes in proposals. Even previous awful rulings that argued resolutions weren't quite wrong enough at least acknowledged that much.
Mousebumples wrote:I can't speak for other mods, but I view the Honest Mistake rule similarly to the NatSov rule. Your entire repeal text cannot be an Honest Mistake, but a a bit of hyperbole or political speak isn't enough to get it nuked.
Mousebumples wrote:The biggest "concern" comes over the first clause of the repeal, I believe, but do you deny that the rest of the repeal text is 100% on-target?
Mousebumples wrote:Convinced that regulation to prevent the exploitation of farmers is preferable to an outright ban of a technology which has considerable utility in limiting the spread of transgenic crops,
I view that as preamble. That's a statement that regulation is preferable to a ban.
Mousebumples wrote:We disagree on this, but we've had multiple GA mods weigh in on this one, and not a single GA mod felt that Honest Mistake rule should be invoked about this repeal. GA regulars may be unanimous, but so were GA mods. To me, that says perhaps GA regulars don't understand the rule or how it's interpreted or enforced.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Sandaoguo » Fri Apr 22, 2016 12:22 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:A quick glance at occurrences of the phrase "honest mistake" in the GA Silly/Illegal thread appears to show not that players have a poor understanding of the meaning of the rule; rather Moderation's understanding of the rule has "evolved" in some fashion.
Advertisement
Return to General Assembly Rules Consortium
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement