[DRAFT] Ban on Abortion

[Thyerata]

We have discretion to do so or not. Stop barking orders.

OOC: What grounds does GenSec have to refuse to issue a ruling on this draft? It concerns a legitimate question that has been brought up before and I do not see how my actions could be interpreted to be in bad faith.

I'm just waiting for CD to come in screaming about a lack of "standing" or whatever...

[A m e n r i a]

Abortion is indeed a terrible thing, but simply banning it is not effective. Abortion should be allowed if the woman was raped or if her life is in danger. Otherwise, I agree with your proposal.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Well, you weren't around to demand one. Was there a legality challenge thread? You probably should bump that instead.

OOC: I'm pretty sure this entire thread is meant to be, in a way, a legality challenge against his own proposal. However, it seems that GenSec has decided not to rule on joke proposals, since we haven't heard anything about these in the last three months. This situation satisfies me.

OOC: I'd question the basis on which GenSec has decided to reject my Legality Challenge while accepting similar Legality Challenges, provided that they have indeed rejected this Challenge, of course.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: I'm pretty sure this entire thread is meant to be, in a way, a legality challenge against his own proposal. However, it seems that GenSec has decided not to rule on joke proposals, since we haven't heard anything about these in the last three months. This situation satisfies me.

OOC: I'd question the basis on which GenSec has decided to reject my Legality Challenge while accepting similar Legality Challenges, provided that they have indeed rejected this Challenge, of course.

OOC: What similar legality challenges have they accepted?

[Thyerata]

OOC: I'd question the basis on which GenSec has decided to reject my Legality Challenge while accepting similar Legality Challenges, provided that they have indeed rejected this Challenge, of course.

OOC: What similar legality challenges have they accepted?

Didn't Gruen do something similar?

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I'd question the basis on which GenSec has decided to reject my Legality Challenge while accepting similar Legality Challenges, provided that they have indeed rejected this Challenge, of course.

OOC: What similar legality challenges have they accepted?

OOC: In addition to what Thyerata said (Gruen's attempts are well-documented), you made the same point yourself in this very thread:

We have discretion to do so or not.

And we, as a community, have a right to demand some minimum standards from GenSec, such as consistency. After all, the entire argument for hearing IA's challenges is precedent. Or are you saying that IA gets special exceptions to GenSec policy that other players do not?

Stop barking orders.

GenSec exists purely at the demand of the GA community. If GenSec is going to assert precedent for one challenge and then ignore it for another, we will demand an explanation. If GenSec is just going to pick and choose who gets to have their challenges heard, we will demand that you (GenSec) adopt some damn integrity. I'll bark orders all day if I have to. Honestly, SP, you should know better. You yourself said:

We also recognize a legitimate interest in just settling a few points. IA has a question that he wants settled and he's perfectly open about what it is and why.

Switch out "IA" with "SoG", and apparently that all changes. I honestly thought GenSec was far more dependable than this.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: I'm pretty sure this entire thread is meant to be, in a way, a legality challenge against his own proposal. However, it seems that GenSec has decided not to rule on joke proposals, since we haven't heard anything about these in the last three months. This situation satisfies me.

OOC: I'd question the basis on which GenSec has decided to reject my Legality Challenge while accepting similar Legality Challenges, provided that they have indeed rejected this Challenge, of course.

GenSec can reject any challenge for any reason. We have ultimate discretion. Of course, as we all know, we will basically hear any good faith attempt at legislation or any test case that gets at a very serious source of uncertainty. But there is nothing obligating us to hear any case we don't want to hear. Demanding that we hear your case if we ultimately decide not to will do nothing. We're six actual people with actual responsibilities and lives. We cannot and will not render an official ruling on every single question presented to us.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I'd question the basis on which GenSec has decided to reject my Legality Challenge while accepting similar Legality Challenges, provided that they have indeed rejected this Challenge, of course.

GenSec can reject any challenge for any reason. We have ultimate discretion. Of course, as we all know, we will basically hear any good faith attempt at legislation or any test case that gets at a very serious source of uncertainty. But there is nothing obligating us to hear any case we don't want to hear. Demanding that we hear your case if we ultimately decide not to will do nothing. We're six actual people with actual responsibilities and lives. We cannot and will not render an official ruling on every single question presented to us.

OOC: Where have I made any demands, either on this thread or on the Legality Challenge thread? My concern is not GenSec rejecting the challenge per se; of course you guys have ultimate discretion on that matter. My concern is the reasoning behind such a rejection as if this is not provided, how is accountability to be ensured?

I mean, I may trust that whatever reason GenSec has to reject this is a good one, but that does not mean that everyone will feel the same way. Even the Mods provide reasons why someone may receive a warning or a ban; is it not sensible that GenSec be held to a similar standard?

[Wallenburg]

OOC: What similar legality challenges have they accepted?

OOC: In addition to what Thyerata said (Gruen's attempts are well-documented), you made the same point yourself in this very thread:

And we, as a community, have a right to demand some minimum standards from GenSec, such as consistency. After all, the entire argument for hearing IA's challenges is precedent. Or are you saying that IA gets special exceptions to GenSec policy that other players do not?

GenSec exists purely at the demand of the GA community. If GenSec is going to assert precedent for one challenge and then ignore it for another, we will demand an explanation. If GenSec is just going to pick and choose who gets to have their challenges heard, we will demand that you (GenSec) adopt some damn integrity. I'll bark orders all day if I have to. Honestly, SP, you should know better. You yourself said:

Switch out "IA" with "SoG", and apparently that all changes. I honestly thought GenSec was far more dependable than this.

My previous defense of this challenge was based upon the belief that GenSec intended to answer IA's legality challenges. However, they have gone three months without doing so, so now that belief doesn't have solid ground. I never supported your challenge because I thought it was appropriate. I supported it because I wanted to see equal treatment of players.

So, I ask again, what similar challenges have they accepted? I can't find anything similar. Yes, others have tried to get rulings from GenSec on joke proposals, but that doesn't mean GenSec gave them any.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: In addition to what Thyerata said (Gruen's attempts are well-documented), you made the same point yourself in this very thread:

My previous defense of this challenge was based upon the belief that GenSec intended to answer IA's legality challenges. However, they have gone three months without doing so, so now that belief doesn't have solid ground. I never supported your challenge because I thought it was appropriate. I supported it because I wanted to see equal treatment of players.

So, I ask again, what similar challenges have they accepted? I can't find anything similar. Yes, others have tried to get rulings from GenSec on joke proposals, but that doesn't mean GenSec gave them any.

OOC: Gruen vs. Repeal NAPA? Surely, you remember that whole debacle?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Gruen vs. Repeal NAPA? Surely, you remember that whole debacle?

OOC: Hence people asking why Gruen gets special treatment.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Gruen vs. Repeal NAPA? Surely, you remember that whole debacle?

OOC: Hence people asking why Gruen gets special treatment.

Gruen was our first review. We didn't have any established procedure for how to choose cases yet, and you can see internal confusion on the very issue in the publicly archived thread. We weren't giving Gruen any preference, we literally didn't have any policies yet that would guide us on how to hear cases like his.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Hence people asking why Gruen gets special treatment.

Gruen was our first review. We didn't have any established procedure for how to choose cases yet, and you can see internal confusion on the very issue in the publicly archived thread. We weren't giving Gruen any preference, we literally didn't have any policies yet that would guide us on how to hear cases like his.

OOC: Perhaps, but weren't you the one who cited it as precedent?

Personal thoughts do not carry the weight of precedent. GenSec has already established that we will hear legality questions on proposals that won't be submitted so long as the question is legitimate and made in good faith. In other words, we'll hear a question to resolve the strength of the verb "requests" but not a Frankenstein's monster of a dozen clear violations. Our ability to hear this type of question is grounded in precedent.

(emphasis mine)

[Sciongrad]

Gruen was our first review. We didn't have any established procedure for how to choose cases yet, and you can see internal confusion on the very issue in the publicly archived thread. We weren't giving Gruen any preference, we literally didn't have any policies yet that would guide us on how to hear cases like his.

OOC: Perhaps, but weren't you the one who cited it as precedent?

Personal thoughts do not carry the weight of precedent. GenSec has already established that we will hear legality questions on proposals that won't be submitted so long as the question is legitimate and made in good faith. In other words, we'll hear a question to resolve the strength of the verb "requests" but not a Frankenstein's monster of a dozen clear violations. Our ability to hear this type of question is grounded in precedent.

(emphasis mine)

That wasn't my point. We do have discretion to hear whichever cases we want, and that case is an example of us choosing to hear a case we wouldn't typically hear. That serves as precedent in supporting our discretion in choosing cases like that one, but the reason we chose it wasn't because we preferred Gruen over you and IA, but because we didn't have any procedure then. Citing that case as precedent in allowing us to exercise discretion in the cases we do choose to hear is not that same thing as saying we must hear all those cases or that we chose that case because we had some sort of preference for Gruen.