Secretariat's Council (MEMBERS ANNOUNCED)

[Sciongrad]

Don't know what Ara is referring to, but I advised a player to do that, and then SP said not to do that because it would put you guys in a bind. But SP also said it was easier that way, so I was getting conflicting messages.

^That.

And while we're on the subject, what exactly are the council's parametres for bothering to deal with proposal legalities? Obviously just submitting isn't enough, and while my memory can be very faulty, I remember a council member saying something to the effect of them wanting to make rulings only on proposals likely to get to vote. If the council really has such predictive powers, there's something very weird going on behind the scenes.

If there's a solid proposal and it presents an actual question, we'll probably hear it. But the question is really narrow and specific to that particular proposal, and the proposal doesn't seem like it'll make it to vote, we probably won't hear it, only to save us time. You might have gotten conflicting signals from our attitude towards this in the past, and you're justified in being confused, but we want to balance answering actual legality questions with efficiency. This means we can't answer every single question, but we will answer the ones that 1. involve rules that are truly unclear or 2. present narrow questions but will likely be voted on.

[Araraukar]

but we will answer the ones that 1. involve rules that are truly unclear

Such as whether using "I" is branding?

[Excidium Planetis]

Don't know what Ara is referring to, but I advised a player to do that, and then SP said not to do that because it would put you guys in a bind. But SP also said it was easier that way, so I was getting conflicting messages.

I asked a player not to post a legality challenge on a repeal to clarify a point on a different proposal. We do not like weighing in on hypothetical. I asked Canton Empire not to create a repeal solely to force a legality response.

If Caton wants to file a legality challenge on his own proposal, great. No work-arounds, please.

Canton Empire at the time had already approached me about a repeal. It was my understanding that a repeal was going to be written anyways.

[Sciongrad]

but we will answer the ones that 1. involve rules that are truly unclear

Such as whether using "I" is branding?

That is not really a question that you need us to answer... In my opinion, using the first person is so obviously against the rules (branding, maybe metagaming, etc.). Nor is that something that will really ever come up in a serious proposal.

[Bears Armed]

Such as whether using "I" is branding?

That is not really a question that you need us to answer... In my opinion, using the first person is so obviously against the rules. Nor is that something that will really ever come up in a serious proposal.

In my opinion, too. The rules say that proposals are to be written as laws, but laws are (AFAIK) only in the first person singular if they are being enacted by an individual (such as an absolute monarch, or a dictator) -- and one who chooses not to use the royal "We", at that -- whereas the WA (and GA) is an assemblage of nations rather than an individual.
Also, presumably the "I" referred to would be either the holder of an official position within the originating nation [looking at the situation IC] which would be a case of Branding or the player responsible for running that nation [OOC] which would be a RL reference.

[Araraukar]

In my opinion, using the first person is so obviously against the rules (branding, maybe metagaming, etc.).

Well, except it obviously isn't that obvious as it's not in the rules and the "must be written from WA's perspective" isn't same as "must be written like laws" (to include Bears's argument too). This is really why I was hoping for you guys to make it an actual ruling. I think all of you agreed to it being like that, but for some reason couldn't bother to make it official.

Nor is that something that will really ever come up in a serious proposal.

...you realize that statements like that lead to the proposals that aren't jokes only because they adhere to all the other rules?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Well, except it obviously isn't that obvious as it's not in the rules and the "must be written from WA's perspective" isn't same as "must be written like laws" (to include Bears's argument too). This is really why I was hoping for you guys to make it an actual ruling. I think all of you agreed to it being like that, but for some reason couldn't bother to make it official.

This is why I proposed a perspective rule.

[Tzorsland]

but we will answer the ones that 1. involve rules that are truly unclear

Such as whether using "I" is branding?

Obviously not, but it's better than telling someone you wrote a blog post.

There are some common sense rules of writing legislation and resolutions and one of them is that they are never in the first person singular.

[Separatist Peoples]

I asked a player not to post a legality challenge on a repeal to clarify a point on a different proposal. We do not like weighing in on hypothetical. I asked Canton Empire not to create a repeal solely to force a legality response.

If Caton wants to file a legality challenge on his own proposal, great. No work-arounds, please.

Canton Empire at the time had already approached me about a repeal. It was my understanding that a repeal was going to be written anyways.

Ok. That was not information I was privy to. I operated under the assumption it would be a repeat of Repeal: NAPA, and I was warning against that. A genuine attempt at a repeal would be worth looking at. A repeal crafted specifically to twist an answer out of us with no (real) intent of passing it wouldn't. Does that clarify my statement about the repeal?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Such as whether using "I" is branding?

That is not really a question that you need us to answer... In my opinion, using the first person is so obviously against the rules (branding, maybe metagaming, etc.). Nor is that something that will really ever come up in a serious proposal.

Not so obvious, considering that there was an actual argument about it over in the Illegal Proposals thread.

Obviously not, but it's better than telling someone you wrote a blog post.

You know, I see the word 'blogposal' all the time in the Illegal Proposals thread, but to my understanding, a "blogposal" isn't actually illegal.

[Sciongrad]

That is not really a question that you need us to answer... In my opinion, using the first person is so obviously against the rules (branding, maybe metagaming, etc.). Nor is that something that will really ever come up in a serious proposal.

Not so obvious, considering that there was an actual argument about it over in the Illegal Proposals thread.

Link?

[Araraukar]

Not so obvious, considering that there was an actual argument about it over in the Illegal Proposals thread.

Link?

Most of the argument was quoted in the challenge post I made on the issue: viewtopic.php?p=30493899#p30493899

The quote posts have the links to the Illegals thread so you can verify I haven't maliciously edited anything.

Makes me wonder if you actually read the challenge post or not...

EDIT: In case these was overlooked as well, additional arguments on behalf of "not branding", though from the challenge thread instead:
Gruen: viewtopic.php?p=30499704#p30499704
SP: viewtopic.php?p=30500012#p30500012

Also, apologies to SP for my faulty memory claiming you wanted to outright dismiss the challenge as well.

[Sciongrad]

Link?

Most of the argument was quoted in the challenge post I made on the issue: viewtopic.php?p=30493899#p30493899

The quote posts have the links to the Illegals thread so you can verify I haven't maliciously edited anything.

Makes me wonder if you actually read the challenge post or not...

I read that thread and even posted in it. States of Glory referred to a debate in the illegal thread, which I have not seen.

[Araraukar]

I read that thread and even posted in it. States of Glory referred to a debate in the illegal thread, which I have not seen.

From the challenge thread, the very first post, the one that contained the challenge itself:

Note: I'm making this thread on behalf of Tretrid and IA (who argue this proposal is illegal for Branding), and in the hopes of settling this issue of Branding with a council precedence. If the council decides to dodge out of making that precedence with the expiration of this one, I'm sure more will be submitted soon and we can have the argument again. (Pleasepleasepleaseplease settle this one way or another.)

Link: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1480023094

Text: Repeal: “Reproductive Freedoms”

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#286

Proposed by: Divadland

General Assembly Resolution #286 “Reproductive Freedoms” (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

I believe abortion is an evil practice it kills innocent lives who have done nothing to you.
Therefore repeals Reproductice freedoms

Rule (supposedly) broken: Branding

Arguments:

Yes, but repeals must also follow the rules about Format and perspective. Thus, the 'I believe' makes it illegal.

Exactly where in the Format rule - or indeed anywhere in the rules - do you see anything about perspective? SP just pointed this out in one of the drafting threads (or a challenge thread, most likely).

Using the word "I" in proposals has always been illegal and you know that very well.

I agree! But it's not in the rules anymore!

Hmm. If 'I' is a real-world person, then it could be a real-world reference.

Yeah, but if it's not...

How could I possibly not be a real world person?

Considering how many of the ones that use "I", also actually brand it by signing as their nation or national leader, it's not a clear-cut case every time.

The rule is:
Branding: Proposal authors cannot list their names or use acronyms to circumvent this. However, they can and should credit their co-author(s), where contribution is notable or significant. Authors may list up to three co-authors
"I" is a pronoun that refers to oneself, and therefore implies a name. Therefore it is illegal.

There. Emphasized them. And had to fiddle with the coding and emphasis a bit as quotes in quotes in quotes and boxes in boxes didn't want to work.

[Excidium Planetis]

Since this is a sticky, can we get the OP edited to have an explanation of what the Secretariat is, for new players?

I can write one up, if necessary.

[Araraukar]

Since this is a sticky, can we get the OP edited to have an explanation of what the Secretariat is, for new players?

I can write one up, if necessary.

Probably best to write one up and get Mod stamp on it, rather than try to wait out the Mods' Season of Joy Stress.

[Frisbeeteria]

I can write one up, if necessary.

Probably best to write one up and get Mod stamp on it, rather than try to wait out the Mods' Season of Joy Stress.

Go ahead and write something. Post it here, and post a link in Moderation with a short explanation. Wrapper has more going on than just the holidays, so someone else (me or Sedge, probably) can review it and post it.

[Araraukar]

What's this? It shows up on the forum list and also in the GA subforum. Does this mean the council peeps are now actual moderators on this forum?

Moderator: GA Secretariat

[Tinhampton]

What's this? It shows up on the forum list and also in the GA subforum. Does this mean the council peeps are now actual moderators on this forum?

Moderator: GA Secretariat

Just moving and stickying for now.

[Araraukar]

What's this? It shows up on the forum list and also in the GA subforum. Does this mean the council peeps are now actual moderators on this forum?

Moderator: GA Secretariat

Just moving and stickying for now.

Cue paranoia in 3... 2... 1...

[Bananaistan]

This is DISGRACEFUL!!1!11!!! A naked and obvious powergrab, ***cough*** ***outrage*** ***splutter*** ****monocle smashed*** ... etc.


Although I had genuinely thought that we did not want the council becoming mini-mods.

Edit: Any chance of this happening now:

Also, perhaps we could get a closed and stickied thread outlining the current procedures. An index of rulings would also be handy!

[Mallorea and Riva]

Although I had genuinely thought that we did not want the council becoming mini-mods.

viewtopic.php?p=30857763#p30857763

[Araraukar]

Although I had genuinely thought that we did not want the council becoming mini-mods.

viewtopic.php?p=30857763#p30857763

That was already linked to. But being given any forum mod powers makes them in essence "mini-mods".

[Kaboomlandia]

I don't mind it - since they can't warn or anything the stickying powerful should mean better efficiency at proposal transition times.

[Separatist Peoples]

viewtopic.php?p=30857763#p30857763

That was already linked to. But being given any forum mod powers makes them in essence "mini-mods".

We have the ability to move threads too and from the private forum and to staple them up. We have all the powers of a bulletin board. That hardly a mini mod makes. We don't have, and don't want, punitive powers, and we sure ain't gonna get any. I wouldn't worry.