General Assembly Q&A

[Ledaj]

Would it be correct to assume this thread is entirely OOC?
My questions/ query comes with the following possibly helpful and possibly tangential prelude:
I was looking through rules, past rules, debates on what the rules should be, debates on what are rules and what are just guidelines etc. and I emerged both tired and confused. This is just a general impression.
My specific question is:
When the GenSec makes rulings, how is one to know what the precedent is? For example, the LEGAL ruling on 'National Control of Elections'
viewtopic.php?p=30341749#p30341749
I did eventually determine that the ruling in this case was 'non-precedential' because no majority of secretariats (?) signed on fully to one opinion. However this was extremely difficult to find, and was called into doubt by the fact that CD says this:
viewtopic.php?p=30402463#p30402463
which means I cant tell whether the ruling in 'National Control" comes without precedent or whether the median opinion is the precedent.
What am I missing?
Or if I am not missing anything, what is the GA missing?
Thank you

[Araraukar]

Would it be correct to assume this thread is entirely OOC?

Yes.

[GenSec ruling question]

You probably should be asking this on the GenSec's own thread over here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=401599

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.

2nd EDIT: Precedent in general basically is a past ruling/rulings. We have several from the era of mod-rule (we've only had the GenSec council for like 7 or 8 months now), but to my knowledge GenSec is allowed to ignore mod-precedents and create their own. (And whether they consider them precedents or not, most people will...)

[Ledaj]

You probably should be asking this on the GenSec's own thread over here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=401599

I will leave it here until I figure out how to ask my question better, but I absolutely agree.

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.

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.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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.

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.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Also, after making some kind of decision, could Secretariat members then post a link to the decision itself in the Secretariat discussion thread?

[Ledaj]

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.

Yes, it's not that bad, just something that takes reading over a second time for me. My query really is about how to tell what ruling is precedent. Obviously when there's an opinion that is fully supported by a majority that becomes legal precedent.

[Bears Armed]

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.

I think that using exactly the dictionary/wikipedia definition would fall under the rule against plagiarism.

[Araraukar]

I think that using exactly the dictionary/wikipedia definition would fall under the rule against plagiarism.

So no change then.

[Tzorsland]

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.

[Ledaj]

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.

I believe the GA restrictions on plagiarism go further than that however, not only attribution but also express consent from the author are required. I would think that between that requirement and the RL violation you mentioned it would be impossible to quote exactly most RL things.

[Araraukar]

but also express consent from the author are required

To my knowledge that's only required for a non-repeal proposal when you're directly lifting it off of someone else's resolution/proposal. Dictionary definition ban was from a few years back when we had what were called "dictionary wars", but I wasn't sure if it was still in place. Based on what Bears said, it is.

[Christian Democrats]

A forum moderator should archive this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=385697

[Araraukar]

A forum moderator should archive this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=385697

The megathread on Moderation forum works: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=51860

[Christian Democrats]

A forum moderator should archive this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=385697

The megathread on Moderation forum works: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=51860

Thanks.

[Ledaj]

Is the copied portion of GA#235

DEFINES a "child" for the purposes of this Act as "any individual under the national threshold of majority, or equivalent;

plagiarism since it is the same wording as used in GA#222?

DEFINES the following for the purpose of this resolution:

A child as any individual under the national threshold of majority, or equivalent,

If yes, what consequences does that pose.
If no, are current authors allowed to use this exact same definition of a 'child' in new resolutions without committing plagiarism?

[Wallenburg]

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.

[Separatist Peoples]

Has it been established that the original author did not give permission to use that wording?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Regarding the allegations of plagiarism, viewtopic.php?p=11787384#p11787384

[Wallenburg]

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.

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.

[Separatist Peoples]

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.

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.

Had already found that. Which is why I was asking for contrary evidence. Sorry for the confusion.

[Wallenburg]

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.

Ah, I understand. If the original author had retracted their consent later on, then the question of plagiarism would again arise.

[Imperium Anglorum]

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.

Hmm... do you think that attribution via the forum thread attached to the proposal be acceptable? Certainly, however, use of definitions from century-old dictionaries, I think, would be acceptable.

However it is, the rule about plagiarism speaks about the theft of text, since that text is covered by copyright. Anything out of copyright, released to the public domain, under an MIT licence, etc. would therefore, necessarily not be theft.

Remove the space preceding the ae ligature, copy, and paste into the address bar.
E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopædia_Britannica_Eleventh_Edition#Free.2C_public-domain_sources_for_1911_Encyclop.C3.A6dia_Britannica_text
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Public_domain_sources

[Eriaroon World Assembly Experiment]

Relatively simple question from a newcomer to the World Assmebly.

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?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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?

This happens all the time. "Fooian WA Mission" or "Baristani Diplomatic Office" are fairly common templates for a player's WA seat. Very few people will bat an eye, so have at it!

Also, are comments on proposals supposed to be IC, OOC, or either?

We strive for IC; sometimes things degenerate faster, sometimes slower. This thread is obviously OOC, but proposal drafting threads are RP'd as ambassadors bickering over legislation. At times these become hard to argue without resorting to OOC, but we do what we can. Legality challenge threads are of necessity OOC.

Have fun!

[Tzorsland]

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.

So let me get this straight. If someone makes a proposal that defines the meaning of a word, no one can ever write a proposal based on that word? Because to not define the word because a previous resolution defined it would be a HOC violation and defining it again, apparently is plagiarism. Thus every definition is by its nature a topic blocker?