Advertisement
by Ledaj » Wed Jun 14, 2017 4:36 pm
by Araraukar » Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:39 pm
Ledaj wrote:Would it be correct to assume this thread is entirely OOC?
[GenSec ruling question]
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Ledaj » Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:37 pm
Araraukar wrote:You probably should be asking this on the GenSec's own thread over here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=401599
An interesting example is once again found in the 'National Control' ruling. The median opinion refers to the 'majority' and 'minority' opinions. This is somewhat confusing considering that all opinions have two signatories, but is bearable. (intended). However this does make it a bit of a house of cards. Yes, it isn't a resolution, but then one would have to establish an order in which the opinions are written... In short, I also agree that it's unclear and I hope a Secretariat could help.EDIT: If it helps, I usually haven't got the foggiest idea as to what the opinion essays say, what with the language being so convoluted, so I tend to not pay them much attention (though I do read them) and just see who voted what. They really should tag a "tl;dr" at the end with the simple reasons.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:59 pm
Ledaj wrote:An interesting example is once again found in the 'National Control' ruling. The median opinion refers to the 'majority' and 'minority' opinions. This is somewhat confusing considering that all opinions have two signatories, but is bearable. (intended). However this does make it a bit of a house of cards. Yes, it isn't a resolution, but then one would have to establish an order in which the opinions are written... In short, I also agree that it's unclear and I hope a Secretariat could help.
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:23 pm
by Ledaj » Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:39 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:The majority opinion was signed:
Sciongrad joined by Separatist Peoples and joined in part by Sierra Lyricalia and Bears Armed
There was a concurrence with two signatories;
The minority opinion was signed:
Glen-Rhodes joined by Christian Democrats, dissenting
I'm not really sure what is confusing about that. There is a majority who felt the resolution was not a pure blocker, and a minority who disagreed. Pretty straightforward, except for the one issue that led to my concurrence.
by Bears Armed » Thu Jun 15, 2017 9:53 am
Araraukar wrote:Are we now allowed to use dictionary/Wikipedia definitions of concepts, as long as specific real life references are not used?
It used to be a no-no, but I'm not sure what the current stance is on it.
by Araraukar » Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:57 am
Bears Armed wrote:I think that using exactly the dictionary/wikipedia definition would fall under the rule against plagiarism.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Tzorsland » Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:23 am
Bears Armed wrote:I think that using exactly the dictionary/wikipedia definition would fall under the rule against plagiarism.
by Ledaj » Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:40 am
Tzorsland wrote:Bears Armed wrote:I think that using exactly the dictionary/wikipedia definition would fall under the rule against plagiarism.
While Wikipedia isn't as bad as the Catholic Encyclopedia (never write a simple sentence when three paragraphs of run on sentences can do) I think that any short reference, for the purposes of a resolution, probably falls under "Fair Use." However using that fair use clause I refer to the bottom of Wikipedia's pages "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" which has no problems with sharing, but the attribution requirement might result in a real world reference infraction.
by Araraukar » Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:07 pm
Ledaj wrote:but also express consent from the author are required
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:36 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Araraukar » Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:54 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Christian Democrats » Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:16 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Ledaj » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:09 pm
GA#235 wrote:DEFINES a "child" for the purposes of this Act as "any individual under the national threshold of majority, or equivalent;
GA#222 wrote:DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:
A child as any individual under the national threshold of majority, or equivalent,
by Wallenburg » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:35 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:37 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:39 pm
by Wallenburg » Tue Jun 20, 2017 1:51 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Has it been established that the original author did not give permission to use that wording?
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Regarding the allegations of plagiarism, viewtopic.php?p=11787384#p11787384
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:08 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:Has it been established that the original author did not give permission to use that wording?
That's not really how it works. Evidence must be rendered that the original author did give permission.Imperium Anglorum wrote:Regarding the allegations of plagiarism, viewtopic.php?p=11787384#p11787384
Evidence such as this. I did not catch this in my trawl through through the thread. I retract my original statement. This is not plagiarism.
by Wallenburg » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:14 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Wallenburg wrote:That's not really how it works. Evidence must be rendered that the original author did give permission.
Evidence such as this. I did not catch this in my trawl through through the thread. I retract my original statement. This is not plagiarism.
Had already found that. Which is why I was asking for contrary evidence. Sorry for the confusion.
by Imperium Anglorum » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:21 pm
Tzorsland wrote:While Wikipedia isn't as bad as the Catholic Encyclopedia (never write a simple sentence when three paragraphs of run on sentences can do) I think that any short reference, for the purposes of a resolution, probably falls under "Fair Use." However using that fair use clause I refer to the bottom of Wikipedia's pages "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" which has no problems with sharing, but the attribution requirement might result in a real world reference infraction.
by Eriaroon World Assembly Experiment » Sat Jun 24, 2017 5:07 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sat Jun 24, 2017 7:04 am
Eriaroon World Assembly Experiment wrote:As you may be able to tell from my nation name, I am indeed a puppet nation of Eriaroon Eugenic Republic. Is it acceptable for someone to portray their WA nation as effectively their primary nation, in this manner, via which World Assembly legislation does not affect the primary nation?
Also, are comments on proposals supposed to be IC, OOC, or either?
by Tzorsland » Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:24 am
Wallenburg wrote:That is, indeed, plagiarism. I'm surprised no one caught it back then. It can't be removed by Moderation for that, and no one can argue it is illegal (since it has passed into law), but we can see already its use as a repeal hook.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: The Ice States
Advertisement