NationStates

1. Player-initiated challenges

a. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organised legal argument. This argument should list the rules broken and why. To be more helpful, if a player is able to find a past ruling on the issue, they should consider citing it in their argument.

b. The filing player must create a new thread with the [CHALLENGE] tag, with their full argument, the challenged proposal's text, and a link to the proposal's drafting/debate thread. This helps to keep the process organized and aids GenSec in noticing when a challenge has been lodged.

GenSec will allow the author and other interested parties a reasonable amount of time to post briefs in support of or opposition to the challenge. Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses.

These threads should be treated like a courtroom, avoiding off-topic discussion, personal fighting, peanut-gallery comments, etc. In other words, if you do not have anything substantive to add to the legal issues at hand, refrain from posting in challenge threads.

c. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. After reaching a majority, GenSec will post a ruling and take action in the control panel or otherwise notify the moderators for discard. Rulings will be recorded in a public compendium.

d. A full opinion will be released after the ruling. The controlling opinion will be released promptly after a majority of members exists and a reasonable effort to secure members' participation has been made. Concurring or dissenting opinions will be released and added to the official record as they are completed.

2. Sua sponte review

a. GenSec may initiate its own reviews of submitted proposals. GenSec will not initiate a sua sponte review against any proposal before it is submitted for delegate approval.

b. Upon making decision to review, GenSec will notify the author in their drafting thread (if one exists). GenSec will create a separate [CHALLENGE] thread, where the reason for review is given and where the author and players can participate in debate about the proposal’s legality.

c. The deliberations of sua sponte reviews follow the same process as player-initiated challenges.

3. Recusal

a. GenSec members may not participate in GenSec deliberations on proposals that implicate any other proposals or resolutions with which the member may be reasonably tied. This includes repeals of a member's resolutions, directly competing proposals, their own proposals, and proposals and resolutions they have co-authored.

b. Members of GenSec will recuse themselves if they have a real or strongly perceived bias against a proposal that prevents them from ruling objectively. Past expressed opinions on rule interpretations do not create a bias that makes recusal necessary. Bias is against the proposal itself, not the rules implicated in the challenge.

4. Ties

In the event of a tie of those voting, GenSec must attempt to secure the participation of any member that has not yet voted. If the tie persists for more than three days, the proposal will be ruled legal without a precedential opinion. Concurring and dissenting opinions may be released.

5. Internal and administrative procedure

a. In all internal/administrative discussions, e.g. with how GenSec itself works, GenSec members will debate the issue thoroughly. Any member may make a motion, and upon that motion receiving a second, GenSec will vote for 4 days (or until a majority is reached). A majority of those voting is required for a motion to be carried.

b. All carried motions will be recorded in a special thread for posterity and administrator/moderator notice.

6. Discarding proposals in queue

This section applies to proposals in the queue and not to resolutions at vote on the floor.

a. GenSec will discard a proposal if and only if one or more of the following circumstances exists:

1. The proposal is obviously illegal and the proposal cannot be transformed in a straightforward manner into a legal proposal or
2. A majority of GenSec has determined that the proposal is illegal and it has published a ruling on the General Assembly forum to that effect.

b. If a GenSec member discards a proposal in contravention of subsection (a), other GenSec members shall take remedial action, by voting Legal, to restore the proposal to public visibility as soon as possible.

7. Discretion over the docket

The General Secretariat shall have discretion over which questions it hears. The General Secretariat shall grant a question a review with the approval of at least two members.

8. GA rule changes

GenSec is responsible for making changes to the General Assembly Rules for Proposals. GenSec will draft the wording of the new or altered rule. The draft will be published in the GA forum for a two-week public comment period after which GenSec will finalise the rules change and request the moderators to update the General Assembly Rules for Proposals.

This thread is subject to change following modifications to our rules and procedure, and all changes will be dated.

Section 1 subsection d added on 17 February 2017.
Section 1 subsection d revised on 1 March 2017.
Section 6 added on 14 May 2017.
Section 6 header bolded on 23 June 2017.
Section 7 added on 29 June 2017.
Section 8 added on 4 March 2018.
Section 8 corrected for style on 15 March 2018.
Reworking of §§ 1–7. 12 December 2023.

If comments are permitted, publication thereof is certainly a good thing for confidence in this institution!

Sciongrad wrote:

1. Player-Initiated Challenges

a. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized legal argument. This argument should list the rules broken and why. To be more helpful, if a player is able to find a past ruling on the issue, they should consider citing it in their argument.

b. The filing player must create a new thread with the [Legality Challenge] tag, with their full argument, the challenged proposal's text, and a link to the proposal's drafting/debate thread. This helps to keep the process organized and aids GenSec in noticing when a challenge has been lodged. GenSec will allow the author and other interested parties a reasonable amount of time to post briefs in support of or opposition to the challenge. Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses. These threads should be treated like a courtroom, avoiding off-topic discussion, personal fighting, peanut-gallery comments, etc. In other words, if you don't have anything substantive to add to the legal issues at hand, refrain from posting in Legality Challenge threads.

c. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions. Precedent-setting rulings will be recorded in a public compendium.

2. Sua Sponte Reviews

a. GenSec may initiate its own reviews of submitted proposals. Proposals not submitted for Delegate approval will not be reviewed sua sponte by GenSec, and instead are reviewed only when another player initiates a challenge. This helps ensure that GenSec is only reviewing final proposals, and not creating a perception of bias by preventing authors from submitting their proposals at all.

b. Upon making decision to review, GenSec will notify the author in their drafting thread (if one exists). Additionally, GenSec will create a separate [Legality Challenge] thread, where the reason for review is given and where the author and players can participate in debate about the proposal’s legality.

c. The deliberations of sua sponte reviews follow the same process as player-initiated challenges.

3. Recusal Guidelines

a. Members of GenSec may not participate in deliberations of any proposals that implicate any other proposals or resolutions with which the member may be reasonably tied. This includes, but is not limited to, repeals of a member’s resolutions, directly competing proposals, their own proposals, and proposals and resolutions they have co-authored.

b. Members of GenSec will recuse themselves if they have a real or strongly perceived bias against the proposal that prevents them from ruling objectively. To be abundantly clear, past expressed opinions on interpretations of the rules do not create a bias that makes recusal necessary. Bias is against the proposal itself, not the rules implicated in the challenge.

4. Ties

a. A tie happens when the number of GenSec members who believe a proposal is legal and the number who believes a proposal is illegal are equal.

b. In the event of a tie, the Moderation Team will cast a tiebreaking vote among the draft opinions presented to them. The Moderation Team cannot write their own opinion when acting as the tiebreaker.

5. Internal/Administrative Procedure

a. In all internal/administrative discussions, e.g. with how GenSec itself works, GenSec members will debate the issue thoroughly. Any member may make a motion, and upon that motion receiving a second, GenSec will vote for 4 days (or until a majority is reached). A majority of those voting is required for a motion to be carried.

b. All carried motions will be recorded in a special thread for posterity and administrator/moderator notice.

This thread is subject to change following modifications to our rules and procedure, and all changes will be dated.

1. Player-Initiated Challenges

a. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized legal argument. This argument should list the rules broken and why. To be more helpful, if a player is able to find a past ruling on the issue, they should consider citing it in their argument.

b. The filing player must create a new thread with the [Legality Challenge] tag, with their full argument, the challenged proposal's text, and a link to the proposal's drafting/debate thread. This helps to keep the process organized and aids GenSec in noticing when a challenge has been lodged. GenSec will allow the author and other interested parties a reasonable amount of time to post briefs in support of or opposition to the challenge. Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses. These threads should be treated like a courtroom, avoiding off-topic discussion, personal fighting, peanut-gallery comments, etc. In other words, if you don't have anything substantive to add to the legal issues at hand, refrain from posting in Legality Challenge threads.

c. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions. Precedent-setting rulings will be recorded in a public compendium.

d. The controlling opinion shall be released immediately after a majority of those voting agree to it; concurring or dissenting opinions may be released and added to the official record as they are completed.

2. Sua Sponte Reviews

a. GenSec may initiate its own reviews of submitted proposals. Proposals not submitted for Delegate approval will not be reviewed sua sponte by GenSec, and instead are reviewed only when another player initiates a challenge. This helps ensure that GenSec is only reviewing final proposals, and not creating a perception of bias by preventing authors from submitting their proposals at all.

b. Upon making decision to review, GenSec will notify the author in their drafting thread (if one exists). Additionally, GenSec will create a separate [Legality Challenge] thread, where the reason for review is given and where the author and players can participate in debate about the proposal’s legality.

c. The deliberations of sua sponte reviews follow the same process as player-initiated challenges.

3. Recusal Guidelines

a. Members of GenSec may not participate in deliberations of any proposals that implicate any other proposals or resolutions with which the member may be reasonably tied. This includes, but is not limited to, repeals of a member’s resolutions, directly competing proposals, their own proposals, and proposals and resolutions they have co-authored.

b. Members of GenSec will recuse themselves if they have a real or strongly perceived bias against the proposal that prevents them from ruling objectively. To be abundantly clear, past expressed opinions on interpretations of the rules do not create a bias that makes recusal necessary. Bias is against the proposal itself, not the rules implicated in the challenge.

4. Ties

a. A tie happens when the number of GenSec members who believe a proposal is legal and the number who believes a proposal is illegal are equal.

b. In the event of a tie, the Moderation Team will cast a tiebreaking vote among the draft opinions presented to them. The Moderation Team cannot write their own opinion when acting as the tiebreaker.

5. Internal/Administrative Procedure

a. In all internal/administrative discussions, e.g. with how GenSec itself works, GenSec members will debate the issue thoroughly. Any member may make a motion, and upon that motion receiving a second, GenSec will vote for 4 days (or until a majority is reached). A majority of those voting is required for a motion to be carried.

b. All carried motions will be recorded in a special thread for posterity and administrator/moderator notice.

6. Discarding Proposals[/b]

a. GenSec will discard a proposal if and only if one of the following circumstances exists:

1. The proposal is obviously illegal such that no reasonable nation could doubt that it violates the Rules;
2. The author (or a listed coauthor) of the proposal has made an explicit and public request in the General Assembly forum that the proposal be removed; or
3. A majority of GenSec has determined that the proposal is illegal, and it has issued either a memorandum or a full decision in the General Assembly forum that outlines the reasons for illegality.

b. If a GenSec member discards a proposal in contravention of subsection (a), other GenSec members shall take remedial action, by voting Legal, to restore the proposal to public visibility as soon as possible.

This thread is subject to change following modifications to our rules and procedure, and all changes will be dated.

Section 1 subsection d added on February 17, 2017.
Section 1 subsection d revised on March 1, 2017.
Section 6 added on May 14, 2017.

Comprehensive List of GenSec Decisions

1. Player-Initiated Challenges

a. If a player wishes to file a challenge against a fully drafted or submitted proposal, they must prepare a coherent and organized legal argument. This argument should list the rules broken and why. To be more helpful, if a player is able to find a past ruling on the issue, they should consider citing it in their argument.

b. The filing player must create a new thread with the [Legality Challenge] tag, with their full argument, the challenged proposal's text, and a link to the proposal's drafting/debate thread. This helps to keep the process organized and aids GenSec in noticing when a challenge has been lodged. GenSec will allow the author and other interested parties a reasonable amount of time to post briefs in support of or opposition to the challenge. Players should avoid getting into tit-for-tat quote battles, and instead address competing arguments with organized responses. These threads should be treated like a courtroom, avoiding off-topic discussion, personal fighting, peanut-gallery comments, etc. In other words, if you don't have anything substantive to add to the legal issues at hand, refrain from posting in Legality Challenge threads.

c. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions. Precedent-setting rulings will be recorded in a public compendium.

d. The controlling opinion shall be released immediately after a majority of those voting agree to it; concurring or dissenting opinions may be released and added to the official record as they are completed.

2. Sua Sponte Reviews

a. GenSec may initiate its own reviews of submitted proposals. Proposals not submitted for Delegate approval will not be reviewed sua sponte by GenSec, and instead are reviewed only when another player initiates a challenge. This helps ensure that GenSec is only reviewing final proposals, and not creating a perception of bias by preventing authors from submitting their proposals at all.

b. Upon making decision to review, GenSec will notify the author in their drafting thread (if one exists). Additionally, GenSec will create a separate [Legality Challenge] thread, where the reason for review is given and where the author and players can participate in debate about the proposal’s legality.

c. The deliberations of sua sponte reviews follow the same process as player-initiated challenges.

3. Recusal Guidelines

a. Members of GenSec may not participate in deliberations of any proposals that implicate any other proposals or resolutions with which the member may be reasonably tied. This includes, but is not limited to, repeals of a member’s resolutions, directly competing proposals, their own proposals, and proposals and resolutions they have co-authored.

b. Members of GenSec will recuse themselves if they have a real or strongly perceived bias against the proposal that prevents them from ruling objectively. To be abundantly clear, past expressed opinions on interpretations of the rules do not create a bias that makes recusal necessary. Bias is against the proposal itself, not the rules implicated in the challenge.

4. Ties

a. A tie happens when the number of GenSec members who believe a proposal is legal and the number who believes a proposal is illegal are equal.

b. In the event of a tie, the Moderation Team will cast a tiebreaking vote among the draft opinions presented to them. The Moderation Team cannot write their own opinion when acting as the tiebreaker.

5. Internal/Administrative Procedure

a. In all internal/administrative discussions, e.g. with how GenSec itself works, GenSec members will debate the issue thoroughly. Any member may make a motion, and upon that motion receiving a second, GenSec will vote for 4 days (or until a majority is reached). A majority of those voting is required for a motion to be carried.

b. All carried motions will be recorded in a special thread for posterity and administrator/moderator notice.

6. Discarding Proposals

a. GenSec will discard a proposal if and only if one of the following circumstances exists:

1. The proposal is obviously illegal such that no reasonable nation could doubt that it violates the Rules;
2. The author (or a listed coauthor) of the proposal has made an explicit and public request in the General Assembly forum that the proposal be removed; or
3. A majority of GenSec has determined that the proposal is illegal, and it has issued either a memorandum or a full decision in the General Assembly forum that outlines the reasons for illegality.

b. If a GenSec member discards a proposal in contravention of subsection (a), other GenSec members shall take remedial action, by voting Legal, to restore the proposal to public visibility as soon as possible.

7. Discretion over the Docket

The General Secretariat shall have discretion over which questions it hears. The General Secretariat shall grant a question a review with the approval of at least two members. If the General Secretariat decline to grant a question a review, each member that voted not to grant the question a review shall provide their reasoning publicly and promptly.

This thread is subject to change following modifications to our rules and procedure, and all changes will be dated.

Section 1 subsection d added on February 17, 2017.
Section 1 subsection d revised on March 1, 2017.
Section 6 added on May 14, 2017.
Section 6 header bolded on June 23, 2017.
Section 7 added on June 29, 2017.

It's interesting how you were commended for anti-beurocracy yet the mods picked you for their "more unnecessary beurocracy".-_-

The Grand Puffle Republic wrote:It's interesting how you were commended for anti-beurocracy yet the mods picked you for their "more unnecessary beurocracy".-_-

Not trying to be rude, just pointing out the contradiction.

The Grand Puffle Republic wrote:

The Grand Puffle Republic wrote:It's interesting how you were commended for anti-beurocracy yet the mods picked you for their "more unnecessary beurocracy".-_-

Not trying to be rude, just pointing out the contradiction.

Except this is the opposite of unnecessary bureaucracy. Finally blatantly idiotic proposals will be removed swiftly.

I do hope this is the right place to suggest it, but maybe the legality challenges that are player initiated should have a subforum, much as the rulings do. That way they can be kept as a record of what issues have been seen and people can get guidance from those debates. Would also be helpful to know which challenges are active and make it easier to provide public comment for or against the challenge. And if a ruling as been issued then the thread could be locked once the ruling and dissent(if any) are posted so people can't just add on. It would keep the GA forum a bit tidier too.

The United Royal Islands of Euramathania wrote:I do hope this is the right place to suggest it, but maybe the legality challenges that are player initiated should have a subforum, much as the rulings do. That way they can be kept as a record of what issues have been seen and people can get guidance from those debates. Would also be helpful to know which challenges are active and make it easier to provide public comment for or against the challenge. And if a ruling as been issued then the thread could be locked once the ruling and dissent(if any) are posted so people can't just add on. It would keep the GA forum a bit tidier too.

I have no idea if this was addressed elsewhere, but I was reading through this again and wanted to make a note.

Subforums were considered, but viewed as unnecessarily complicated and prone to creating confusion. Right now, we have the GenSec forum (invisible) and the Archive forum. If Legality Challenges start to gum up the forum, we can revisit it, but until then, we're sticking to the regular forum.

Somebody correct me if I'm off on that.

On a 5-1 vote, GenSec has approved the following procedure for discarding proposals.

Christian Democrats wrote:On a 5-1 vote, GenSec has approved the following procedure for discarding proposals.

5. Discarding Proposals

a. GenSec will discard a proposal if and only if one of the following circumstances exists:

1. The proposal is obviously illegal such that no reasonable nation could doubt that it violates the Rules;
2. The author (or a listed coauthor) of the proposal has made an explicit and public request in the General Assembly forum that the proposal be removed; or
3. A majority of GenSec has determined that the proposal is illegal, and it has issued either a memorandum or a full decision in the General Assembly forum that outlines the reasons for illegality.

b. If a GenSec member discards a proposal in contravention of subsection (a), other GenSec members shall take remedial action, by voting Legal, to restore the proposal to public visibility as soon as possible.

What about resolutions?

Wallenburg wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:On a 5-1 vote, GenSec has approved the following procedure for discarding proposals.

5. Discarding Proposals

a. GenSec will discard a proposal if and only if one of the following circumstances exists:

1. The proposal is obviously illegal such that no reasonable nation could doubt that it violates the Rules;
2. The author (or a listed coauthor) of the proposal has made an explicit and public request in the General Assembly forum that the proposal be removed; or
3. A majority of GenSec has determined that the proposal is illegal, and it has issued either a memorandum or a full decision in the General Assembly forum that outlines the reasons for illegality.

b. If a GenSec member discards a proposal in contravention of subsection (a), other GenSec members shall take remedial action, by voting Legal, to restore the proposal to public visibility as soon as possible.

What about resolutions?

Resolutions are passed proposals. We csnt affect those.

Separatist Peoples wrote:Resolutions are passed proposals. We csnt affect those.

Anything that gets to a vote is a resolution. https://www.nationstates.net/page=ga
At the top, it says "General Assembly Resolution At Vote".

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Anything that gets to a vote is a resolution

You're being pedantic. It doesn't officially become a resolution until the vote passes. Otherwise we'd have to call all DEFEATED proposals "resolutions"

"General Assembly Resolution At Vote" is still the purview of the moderators. GenSec has no tools to affect those. If there is a failed Legality Challenge for a resolution at vote, the mods can and will use our "Discard at the end of voting" button.

Passed resolutions cannot be affected by either the mods or GenSec. Admin technically has the power to remove them (exercised on a few horrid resolutions when our original server died and we moved to Jolt), but it's extremely unlikely that will ever happen again.

Frisbeeteria wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Anything that gets to a vote is a resolution

You're being pedantic. It doesn't officially become a resolution until the vote passes. Otherwise we'd have to call all DEFEATED proposals "resolutions"

We're not being pedantic, we're being right. All defeated resolutions are resolutions. That's the plain, simple truth. By your logic, the title "Passed General Assembly Resolutions" is redundant, and "A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts" is actually a boldfaced lie coded into the game.

"General Assembly Resolution At Vote" is still the purview of the moderators. GenSec has no tools to affect those. If there is a failed Legality Challenge for a resolution at vote, the mods can and will use our "Discard at the end of voting" button.

What counts as a successful legality challenge on a resolution at vote then? I ask because a majority of GenSec ruled Open Internet Order illegal, but the resolution was allowed to pass.

Wallenburg wrote:

Frisbeeteria wrote:You're being pedantic. It doesn't officially become a resolution until the vote passes. Otherwise we'd have to call all DEFEATED proposals "resolutions"

We're not being pedantic, we're being right. All defeated resolutions are resolutions. That's the plain, simple truth. By your logic, the title "Passed General Assembly Resolutions" is redundant, and "A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts" is actually a boldfaced lie coded into the game.

"General Assembly Resolution At Vote" is still the purview of the moderators. GenSec has no tools to affect those. If there is a failed Legality Challenge for a resolution at vote, the mods can and will use our "Discard at the end of voting" button.

What counts as a successful legality challenge on a resolution at vote then? I ask because a majority of GenSec ruled Open Internet Order illegal, but the resolution was allowed to pass.

Your last point wikkbe addressed when the ruling is published.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:We're not being pedantic, we're being right. All defeated resolutions are resolutions. That's the plain, simple truth. By your logic, the title "Passed General Assembly Resolutions" is redundant, and "A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts" is actually a boldfaced lie coded into the game.

What counts as a successful legality challenge on a resolution at vote then? I ask because a majority of GenSec ruled Open Internet Order illegal, but the resolution was allowed to pass.

Your last point wikkbe addressed when the ruling is published.

Will it though? To get back to my original question, will GenSec treat at-vote resolutions just like proposals?

Wallenburg wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Your last point wikkbe addressed when the ruling is published.

Will it though? To get back to my original question, will GenSec treat at-vote resolutions just like proposals?

We consider anything not Passed a proposal. The redundancy isn't really a big deal.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Will it though? To get back to my original question, will GenSec treat at-vote resolutions just like proposals?

We consider anything not Passed a proposal. The redundancy isn't really a big deal.

All right, thank you. The change in procedure is appreciated.

Wallenburg wrote:We're not being pedantic, we're being right. All defeated resolutions are resolutions. That's the plain, simple truth.

Only in the sense that their at-vote threads get archived in the right place. If you're talking about ones that have been repealed (referring to the Passed Resolutions thread makes it look that way), then that's true, but repealed ones are no longer considered valid as arguments for new ones, as far as I know.

Separatist Peoples wrote:We consider anything not Passed a proposal. The redundancy isn't really a big deal.

Not the way I was taught it; anything that gets to a vote is a resolution. If it passes, it becomes a passed resolution, but if it's defeated, it's basically thrown into the bin and never spoken of again.

Can GenSec be asked to rule on/explain the interpretation of the rules, without there being an underlying legality challenge? I ask because I've come across a proposal (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=409593) that I like, and I don't want to challenge, but I disagree with the author over the interpretation and applicability of the RL rule.

Thyerata wrote:Can GenSec be asked to rule on/explain the interpretation of the rules, without there being an underlying legality challenge? I ask because I've come across a proposal (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=409593) that I like, and I don't want to challenge, but I disagree with the author over the interpretation and applicability of the RL rule.

You can ask, but we will not speak as a unit, merely as individuals. Furthermore, without a legality challenge nothing is precedential, merely advisory.

Questions to the Prime Minister! (Bercow, yelling) Mr Imperium Anglorum! Okay. Joke over, but the actual question: Is there or will there be a policy to actually release the discussions to the Secretariat Archive forum, as various persons agitated for in the original threads concerning the formation of this council?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Questions to the Prime Minister! (Bercow, yelling) Mr Imperium Anglorum! Okay. Joke over, but the actual question: Is there or will there be a policy to actually release the discussions to the Secretariat Archive forum, as various persons agitated for in the original threads concerning the formation of this council?

The current policy is one month. Are there any particular discussions on which you're waiting?

Christian Democrats wrote:The current policy is one month. Are there any particular discussions on which you're waiting?

This perhaps?
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=410614

The ruling was given May 7th.

We're also waiting on this one from May 5th or so:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=410699

Is GenSec still struggling to get opinions on these? The members have been rather active.

Christian Democrats wrote:The current policy is one month. Are there any particular discussions on which you're waiting?

Thank you for confirming this. If that is the case, there are various different discussion threads which should have been released. I'm unclear on exactly which ones they are, but I am confident that there are more than three or so (unfortunately, I haven't made an exhaustive search of the relevant data when the ruling are issued).

It would also be fantastic if, when rulings were issued, they were also tagged with a specific ruling tag, perhaps something like #ruling-lc-XYZ, to make them accessible via the phpBB's searching mechanism, which is admittedly rather crude.