[ABANDONED] Civilian Air Safety

[Erithaca]

"Paraphrasings a few lines should be fine, but direct copying or paraphrasing of a whole section will be agains the rules. Also, there is no punctuation on clause 2j."

Paraphrasing is still plagiarism, and it doesn't matter how much you paraphrase.

I will re-write the articles in my own style. I will add punctuation to 2j.

[Kenmoria]

"Clause 16a and 16b should end with commas rather than semicolons to standardise them with the rest of the proposal."

[Erithaca]

"Clause 16a and 16b should end with commas rather than semicolons to standardise them with the rest of the proposal."

I will change them.

[Masurbia]

I am very confused...it seems you have a repeal and then a replacement proposal in the same thread?

[The Sheika]

I am very confused...it seems you have a repeal and then a replacement proposal in the same thread?

The Representative from Masurbia brings up a valid point. It is usually custom to have one thread per proposal, even if you intend to repeal and replace. I could be mistaken, which if that is the case it is not the first and more than likely not the last, but I am fairly certain that is the case.

[Erithaca]

I am very confused...it seems you have a repeal and then a replacement proposal in the same thread?

Does that cause trouble?

[Wallenburg]

I am very confused...it seems you have a repeal and then a replacement proposal in the same thread?

Does that cause trouble?

Not at the moment. However, if this repeal goes to vote, you will need to make a separate thread for the replacement, as these threads are archived for each resolution voted on.

[New Keam]

"I would vote in favor of this proposal."

OOC: In my opinion, formalities only matter when things are proposed. For a general discussion on the issue, I don't see where there's a problem. Right now we are forming a game plan, not trying to implement the game plan yet. Once things are ready to move, then it needs to be split up.

[Kenmoria]

"There is too big a space between clause 2j and 3."

[Erithaca]

"There is too big a space between clause 2j and 3."

I will shorten it.

[Masurbia]

I am very confused...it seems you have a repeal and then a replacement proposal in the same thread?

Does that cause trouble?

No trouble, it's just that I almost thought you were legislating in a repeal.

[Kenmoria]

"I would decapitalise “Member States” in clause 24."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Paraphrasing is still plagiarism, and it doesn't matter how much you paraphrase.

Really?

Ard said you should paraphrase, "Don't copy the original author's description of a committee's tasks; if necessary, paraphrase". viewtopic.php?p=21206261#p21206261

She also ruled, "We will therefore accept definitions that, while obviously based on a dictionary definition, have been paraphrased by the proposal author". viewtopic.php?p=16888932#p16888932

She quoted the old rules which said "Using dictionary definitions: PARAPHRASE!" viewtopic.php?p=24021057#p24021057 And before you tell me about how dictionaries are so different from proposal requirements, give some warrants why they should be treated differently. And why committee tasks are so different from legislative requirements as to justify disparate treatment. And perhaps some justification for why a strict view is good for the game.

Kryo also says to paraphrase in response to Ara asking a question about some edge case with Oxford Dictionaries and Wikipedia. viewtopic.php?p=16891043#p16891043

Banana also expressed a similar opinion two years ago (I see no reason why he'd rule differently now, although I'll put up a conditional depending on who is original jurisdiction), "Paraphrase =/= plagiarise". viewtopic.php?p=28288432#p28288432

---

EDIT: Fris says 'Copying the exact words is plagiarism and may be actionable. Copy the ideas is "fair use" and not actionable'. viewtopic.php?p=33901851#p33901851 . He also said something similar when Ara accused me of plagiarism here, talking explicitly about "rephrasing". viewtopic.php?p=32389369#p32389369

He also spoke about what someone needed to do to avoid plagiarism in a roleplay scenario, which is very similar to what we're doing here (roleplaying the writing of legislation), saying "If the other nation wrote it, you'll have to rewrite and rephrase". viewtopic.php?p=31394473#p31394473

[Wallenburg]

Paraphrasing is still plagiarism, and it doesn't matter how much you paraphrase.

Really?

Ard said you should paraphrase, "Don't copy the original author's description of a committee's tasks; if necessary, paraphrase". viewtopic.php?p=21206261#p21206261

She also ruled, "We will therefore accept definitions that, while obviously based on a dictionary definition, have been paraphrased by the proposal author". viewtopic.php?p=16888932#p16888932

She quoted the old rules which said "Using dictionary definitions: PARAPHRASE!" viewtopic.php?p=24021057#p24021057 And before you tell me about how dictionaries are so different from proposal requirements, give some warrants why they should be treated differently. And why committee tasks are so different from legislative requirements as to justify disparate treatment. And perhaps some justification for why a strict view is good for the game.

Kryo also says to paraphrase in response to Ara asking a question about some edge case with Oxford Dictionaries and Wikipedia. viewtopic.php?p=16891043#p16891043

It is quite telling that you have to go back 3-6 years ago--well before GenSec existed, mind you--to find statements supporting your own opinion.

Banana also expressed a similar opinion two years ago (I see no reason why he'd rule differently now, although I'll put up a conditional depending on who is original jurisdiction), "Paraphrase =/= plagiarise". viewtopic.php?p=28288432#p28288432

And I would disagree with him there. Multiple old resolutions, including GAR#2 and GAR#38, are heavily plagiarized from RL United Nations documents. Were they to be submitted today, they would be ruled illegal for plagiarism.

EDIT: Fris says 'Copying the exact words is plagiarism and may be actionable. Copy the ideas is "fair use" and not actionable'. viewtopic.php?p=33901851#p33901851 . He also said something similar when Ara accused me of plagiarism here, talking explicitly about "rephrasing". viewtopic.php?p=32389369#p32389369

Come now, you are far too educated to actually believe that this has any relevance to this proposal. I should not have to explain the difference between replicating the general ideas of another work and copypasting that work with a few tweaks to the wording.

He also spoke about what someone needed to do to avoid plagiarism in a roleplay scenario, which is very similar to what we're doing here (roleplaying the writing of legislation), saying "If the other nation wrote it, you'll have to rewrite and rephrase". viewtopic.php?p=31394473#p31394473

Actually, no, that situation is quite dissimilar to what we are doing here. That Moderation thread discusses a case of erasing a member of their RP alliance from their documents. That is indeed a question of how to properly credit contributors, but it has nothing to do with replicating one work and passing it off as your own original work.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The current rules adjudication scheme has nothing to do with the plagiarism allegation. Moderators adjudicate plagiarism, not GenSec. The applicability of moderator precedent is in full. I do not believe that there has ever been a case where paraphrasing has been ruled illegal. If you have one, I will happily change my opinion.

Similarly, if you’re going to make criticisms of actual sources here, then you should remember all discussions on these kinds of fact matters are comparative. My evidence comes from times when I happen to remember plagiarism allegations. The dearth of recent plagiarism rulings has a lot to do with the movement away from forum adjudication to GHRs which are necessarily not public and the primary forum for their resolution being the queue itself. I criticised this at length shortly before the creation of the Secretariat’s Council.

But that’s besides the point. You don’t provide any evidence at all. Why prefer your claims when you don’t back them up with anything at all? Perhaps it’s ‘telling’ that you don’t have sources of any sort.

[The First German Order]

"Does the part about weapons and ammunition on aircraft apply to military aircraft?" Amelia asks while looking over the draft with a look of intense concentration on her face.

[Bananaistan]

<snip re: plagiarism>

<snip re: plagiarism>

OOC: It is still the case that paraphrasing is not plagiarism. All the precedent that IA quoted still applies.

While the moderators remain responsible for enforcing the plagiarism rule and expulsion of offenders, more often than not, the "reserve powers" of the moderators are exercised after a member of GenSec sweeps the queue, removes the offending proposal and sends up a flare for a OSRS/plagiarism violation. Other times, a moderator may spot such violations before any GenSec member sweeps the queue and will take the appropriate action. Particularly so with offensive materials.

Though YMMV (as could the other GenSec members or moderators) I would not mark this proposal illegal for plagiarism were the two clauses in question to remain as currently worded. Usually plagiarism is obvious and complete (and easily confirmed by selecting extracts, right clicking and googling). This is not so obvious nor complete.

[Erithaca]

<snip re: plagiarism>

<snip re: plagiarism>

OOC: It is still the case that paraphrasing is not plagiarism. All the precedent that IA quoted still applies.

While the moderators remain responsible for enforcing the plagiarism rule and expulsion of offenders, more often than not, the "reserve powers" of the moderators are exercised after a member of GenSec sweeps the queue, removes the offending proposal and sends up a flare for a OSRS/plagiarism violation. Other times, a moderator may spot such violations before any GenSec member sweeps the queue and will take the appropriate action.

Though YMMV (as could the other GenSec members or moderators) I would not mark this proposal illegal for plagiarism were the two clauses in question to remain as currently worded. Usually plagiarism is obvious and complete (and easily confirmed by selecting extracts, right clicking and googling). This is not so obvious nor complete.

Thanks for clearing that up! I wanted to paraphrase the parts of GA342 that I thought were good and should not disappear with the rest of the resolution.

[Kenmoria]

"I would add the word "only" after "may" in clause 7, to allow for what I think is the intended meaning."

[Wallenburg]

OOC: It is still the case that paraphrasing is not plagiarism. All the precedent that IA quoted still applies.

While the moderators remain responsible for enforcing the plagiarism rule and expulsion of offenders, more often than not, the "reserve powers" of the moderators are exercised after a member of GenSec sweeps the queue, removes the offending proposal and sends up a flare for a OSRS/plagiarism violation. Other times, a moderator may spot such violations before any GenSec member sweeps the queue and will take the appropriate action. Particularly so with offensive materials.

Though YMMV (as could the other GenSec members or moderators) I would not mark this proposal illegal for plagiarism were the two clauses in question to remain as currently worded. Usually plagiarism is obvious and complete (and easily confirmed by selecting extracts, right clicking and googling). This is not so obvious nor complete.

Well, I guess I was wrong. According to GenSec, plagiarism is not plagiarism. Why I expected people to understand concepts taught as early as 6th grade is beyond me.

[Erithaca]

Can people stop arguing about plagiarism and get on with some meaningful drafting? If you want to debate with Bananaistan, do it somewhere else, over telegram for example.

[Wallenburg]

Can people stop arguing about plagiarism and get on with some meaningful drafting? If you want to debate with Bananaistan, do it somewhere else, over telegram for example.

In that case, my original question stands. How on Earth do you have 29 active clauses? This is way too long to even be submitted.

[Kenmoria]

"What is the category and strength of “Civilian Air Safety”? They need to be included somewhere in the draft."

[Bananaistan]

Well, I guess I was wrong. According to GenSec, plagiarism is not plagiarism. Why I expected people to understand concepts taught as early as 6th grade is beyond me.

Well it's not quite "according to GenSec" so much as according to the long established rules, procedures and culture of the GA but sure if you want to blame us for a perfectly acceptable standard predating GenSec's existence by a good number of years, I'm more than happy to take the credit for it.

[Kenmoria]

"In clause 8, surely it is better for someone with extremely limited knowledge to fly an aircraft in the event that all qualified people are unconscious than for nobody to do so?"