Proposal: Ruling Process and Appeals

[Christian Democrats]

Not even the US Constitution allows such tomfoolery.

It does, but that's a distraction.

It is a distraction, but Kenny is right. In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that a person may not sue, unless he has suffered or is in danger of suffering a "concrete and particularized" harm. "By particularized, we mean that the injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way." A general complaint that virtually any person could make is not permitted.

This position is the one that Kenny and I take. A generalized grievance is not a good ground for appealing a moderator's decision. Nobody is harmed by a bad decision to keep a proposal up, except possibly the author of the original resolution in the case of a repeal.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Yeah, this isn't a country, this is a game. If you're going to go advocate standing requirements derived from the real world, then you better be arguing that a player can't lodge a legality complaint against a proposal unless they have a competing proposal of their own that would be blocked by the other. Because there's nothing other than a "generalized grievance" when any old player files a legality complaint on a proposal.

That would be a dumb idea, though. Why? Because half of this game is arguing about and interpreting the rules as they apply to proposal drafts. We rely on players' "generalized grievances" with a proposal to find and deal with violations of the rules. We rely on the arguments of players who hold no stake other than personal or political in finding a proposal legal or illegal, to develop a rich understanding of how the rules can and should be interpreted. It is an incredibly important part of the game that moderators have time and time again underscored: players are a vital part of the WA moderation process.

Ultimately, it is up to the mods to decide who should be able to appeal. I hope, though, that they look at arguments attempting to say somebody needs to be "harmed" in order to appeal, and realize that's simply not how WA rules moderation has ever worked or should ever work.

[Christian Democrats]

half of this game is arguing about and interpreting the rules as they apply to proposal drafts

I think you think that the rules should be half of the GA. I believe, along with many other players, that the rules should be in the background and that discussing the merits of proposals and campaigning for and against them should be in the forefront.

My primary purpose at this summit has been advocacy for a ruleset that would increase the legislative opportunities open to players: from the elimination of rules that are overbearing to the addition of rules that would prevent overbroad proposals.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Arguing over rules interpretation will be an integral part of the game as long as there are rules to interpret.

[Euroslavia]

We've been asking for a rulings archive for a while now. It doesn't seem that it'll happen, because mods think it's too arduous of a task.

The mods are right. Mystifyingly, they went to the bother of setting it up - but then don't appear to have made any use of it since.

That would also require that all rulings be posted on the forums.

This has always been the single biggest problem with WA moderation. There would be no need for any formal archive if the rulings were just consistently given in public.

I've taken a leave of absence from moderating since that was posted, which is why further editing hasn't been completed. That, I have no problem taking the blame for.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The mods are right. Mystifyingly, they went to the bother of setting it up - but then don't appear to have made any use of it since.

This has always been the single biggest problem with WA moderation. There would be no need for any formal archive if the rulings were just consistently given in public.

I've taken a leave of absence from moderating since that was posted, which is why further editing hasn't been completed. That, I have no problem taking the blame for.

I have a problem assigning the blame to you, though. :) Any moderator can edit that thread.

Anyway, this is a bit off topic: suffice it to say that some particularly expansive appeals process would be unnecessary were rulings clearer in the first place.