CHALLENGE: Repeal Freedom to Seek Medical Care

[Fauxia]

3-2? Does that mean SP voted on his own proposal? Surely Christian Democrats didn’t return just in time?

SP is not allowed to vote

Then how can it be 3-2? If CDs wasn’t there and neither was SP, then that leaves only SL, BA, Banana, and Scion

[Flying Eagles]

SP is not allowed to vote

Then how can it be 3-2? If CDs wasn’t there and neither was SP, then that leaves only SL, BA, Banana, and Scion

It’s possible that they split 2-2 and the forum moderators had to tiebreak

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Then how can it be 3-2? If CDs wasn’t there and neither was SP, then that leaves only SL, BA, Banana, and Scion

It’s possible that they split 2-2 and the forum moderators had to tiebreak

^ This. Post edited.

[Imperium Anglorum]

By a vote of 3-2 we find that the challenged repeal is legal. Separatist Peoples recused, and in the absence of Christian Democrats the vote to break the initial 2-2 tie was cast by Moderation, as per the posted GenSec procedures.

As normal, the Moderators always end up voting that proposals are legal. I am not surprised and would also like to commend them on their prescience and prudence on the effects of a broad and restrictive ruleset on the General Assembly as a legislative body.

[Bears Armed]

CD actually returned several days ago, you just hadn't seen any activity from then in the intervening time...

EDIT: Although apparently they did miss this vote, and it was a Modly casting vote.

[Wrapper]

As normal, the Moderators always end up voting that proposals are legal.

Yes. Yes, I always vote that everything is legal. Especially Honest Mistakes.

Give me some credit. It took me two hours last night to delve into this and make what I think was the proper decision. The downtime yesterday didn’t help, but I had a GM or two standing by, ready to yank it if necessary.

[Flying Eagles]

By a vote of 3-2 we find that the challenged repeal is legal. Separatist Peoples recused, and in the absence of Christian Democrats the vote to break the initial 2-2 tie was cast by Moderation, as per the posted GenSec procedures.

As normal, the Moderators always end up voting that proposals are legal. I am not surprised and would also like to commend them on their prescience and prudence on the effects of a broad and restrictive ruleset on the General Assembly as a legislative body.

NOTING That at least the mods have the excuse that if they weren’t a part of the ruling process, that the resolution would be legal. See example of all GA proposals.

REALIZING That Imperium Anglorium’s arguments make sense.

BELIEVING It may be simpler to exclude the Mods from the process and declare all tied resolutions legal

Formally Supports IA’s viewpoint

[Wrapper]

Did you even read my post?

[Flying Eagles]

Did you even read my post?

I must still believe IA over you. Just a matter of opinion, end of conversation

[Wrapper]

Did you even read my post?

I must still believe IA over you. Just a matter of opinion, end of conversation

End of conversation, my left... eye. *drops the mic*

[Flying Eagles]

Statement by President of Flying Eagles

The government of Flying Eagles is concerned that it seems as if based on many previous comments by GenSec members in this thread that GenSec is trying not to rule on the repeal’s legality but based on what seems to be the target resolution’s legality which in this case is outside of GenSec’s mandate. In brief, An illegal repeal can not become legal because it repeals an illegal resolution.

Statement targeted to GenSec members

If you believe that the target resolution is illegal, execute a Sua Sponte review, which can automatically discard of the repeal

Note to all:

Resolution in these statements = GA#414 by New Waldensia

Repeal in these statements = The proposal challenged; by Separatist Peoples

[Wrapper]

Statement by President of Flying Eagles

Challenge threads are OOC.

If you believe that the target resolution is illegal, execute a Sua Sponte review, which can automatically discard of the repeal

Once a resolution has been passed, there is no way to discard it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Statement by President of Flying Eagles

The rules are not an IC construct.

An illegal repeal can not become legal because it repeals an illegal resolution.

True. But this, however, is was not an illegal repeal.

[New Waldensia]

If you believe that the target resolution is illegal, execute a Sua Sponte review, which can automatically discard of the repeal

Once a resolution has been passed, there is no way to discard it.

I refer you to Freedom to Seek Care, first attempt, which garnered 77% of the vote but was discarded upon conclusion of the vote.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Once a resolution has been passed, there is no way to discard it.

I refer you to Freedom to Seek Care, first attempt, which garnered 77% of the vote but was discarded upon conclusion of the vote.

In that case, we caught the illegality before the resolution passed. In the case of GAR #414, we did not. You'll recall that one part of the challenge against this repeal was the allegation that it accused the target (414) of being illegal. Had the repeal actually said that, the repeal would indeed have been illegal, as the (il)legality of the target is not a legitimate argument for repeal under the GA rules. Proposal discards are only used where the illegality is demonstrated prior to passage. Where it isn't caught, it's left to voters, and there is no administrative repeal or discard once the resolution passes. At that point it must be repealed by vote.

---

The government of Flying Eagles is concerned that it seems as if based on many previous comments by GenSec members in this thread that GenSec is trying not to rule on the repeal’s legality but based on what seems to be the target resolution’s legality which in this case is outside of GenSec’s mandate. In brief, An illegal repeal can not become legal because it repeals an illegal resolution.

This is false. Yes, one allegation against the repeal was (I believe unanimously; that will air when we publish our opinions) ruled non-actionable based on a piece of the target that is questionable at best; but we judged the repeal on its own legality, not its target's.

Statement targeted to GenSec members

If you believe that the target resolution is illegal, execute a Sua Sponte review, which can automatically discard of the repeal

No, it can't. Now that the repeal has passed, it has passed. Prior to its passage, however, we could only have asked Moderation to discard it during the voting process if we had agreed it was illegal. Since we found it legal, we didn't.

[Flying Eagles]

Okay, so what I’m getting is that GA#414 is illegal so we must allow GA#415, also arguably illegal, (if it had be dealing with the perfect resolution) to pass to dispose of GA#414?

[Wrapper]

Okay, so what I’m getting is that GA#414 is illegal so we must allow GA#415, also arguably illegal, (if it had be dealing with the perfect resolution) to pass to dispose of GA#414?

No. If this proposal (now GAR#415) were actually illegal for any reason whatsoever, it would have been deemed illegal by a majority of GenSec, and discarded by moderation prior to the end of voting.

[Flying Eagles]

Okay, so what I’m getting is that GA#414 is illegal so we must allow GA#415, also arguably illegal, (if it had be dealing with the perfect resolution) to pass to dispose of GA#414?

No. If this proposal (now GAR#415) were actually illegal for any reason whatsoever, it would have been deemed illegal by a majority of GenSec, and discarded by moderation prior to the end of voting.

You know what, I’ll judge when I hear the formal statements from GenSec.

[Separatist Peoples]

No. If this proposal (now GAR#415) were actually illegal for any reason whatsoever, it would have been deemed illegal by a majority of GenSec, and discarded by moderation prior to the end of voting.

You know what, I’ll judge when I hear the formal statements from GenSec.

That's rather silly, since the formal statement's bottom line is that this is legal.

[The United Universe]

You know what, I’ll judge when I hear the formal statements from GenSec.

That's rather silly, since the formal statement's bottom line is that this is legal.

I want to know why it’s legal before I decide if I agree with the ruling

BTW, How long does it usually take for formal statements to be released

[Flying Eagles]

Bumped

Concerned that GenSec is violating their rule; 1d (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.)

Immediately is defined as
1.
at once; instantly.

2.
without any intervening time or space.
"she was sitting immediately behind me"

It’s been 3 days since the ruling, 3 days does not equal immediately.

[Tinfect]

It’s been 3 days since the ruling, 3 days does not equal immediately.

OOC:
Calm down, if you think GenSec is running slow about getting the opinion out, send one of them a TG, or post a reminder in the thread. There is no need to make absurd claims like that.

[Separatist Peoples]

Bumped

Concerned that GenSec is violating their rule; 1d (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.)

Immediately is defined as
1.
at once; instantly.

2.
without any intervening time or space.
"she was sitting immediately behind me"

It’s been 3 days since the ruling, 3 days does not equal immediately.

GenSec will release the controlling opinion after the majority of those voting agree. There is not yet a controlling opinion written for those who so voted to agree. You're conflating the opinion with the rule.

Now, I'm not participating in this, so I can't tell you squat. What I can tell you is that GenSec doesn't take orders from you, and complaining won't speed up the process. Cool your jets.

[New Waldensia]

It’s been 3 days since the ruling, 3 days does not equal immediately.

OOC:
Calm down, if you think GenSec is running slow about getting the opinion out, send one of them a TG, or post a reminder in the thread. There is no need to make absurd claims like that.

I don't think it's out of the ordinary for it to take several days to get the full opinion. Happened when my first version of this measure was struck down.

[Araraukar]

I don't think it's out of the ordinary for it to take several days to get the full opinion.

Sometimes it's taken more than a month...