General Assembly Q&A

[Intellect and the Arts]

If this has already been addressed, I apologize, but my brain is starting to fry, which makes reading through the discussion thus far exceptionally difficult.

Does it count as plagiarism if a proposal writer lifts entire phrases verbatim from your posts in their drafting thread, inserts them into their proposal, and doesn't credit you? I know people have their own choice in deciding whether to include a co-author or not, but when one person's contribution in a drafting thread constitutes about half of the final version, including direct copypasta, it makes me curious as to where the line exists.

[Quelesh]

If this has already been addressed, I apologize, but my brain is starting to fry, which makes reading through the discussion thus far exceptionally difficult.

Does it count as plagiarism if a proposal writer lifts entire phrases verbatim from your posts in their drafting thread, inserts them into their proposal, and doesn't credit you? I know people have their own choice in deciding whether to include a co-author or not, but when one person's contribution in a drafting thread constitutes about half of the final version, including direct copypasta, it makes me curious as to where the line exists.

Only speaking for myself, whenever I suggest wording in someone's drafting thread, I don't mind if the author uses it word for word; that's why I suggested it.

[Intellect and the Arts]

If this has already been addressed, I apologize, but my brain is starting to fry, which makes reading through the discussion thus far exceptionally difficult.

Does it count as plagiarism if a proposal writer lifts entire phrases verbatim from your posts in their drafting thread, inserts them into their proposal, and doesn't credit you? I know people have their own choice in deciding whether to include a co-author or not, but when one person's contribution in a drafting thread constitutes about half of the final version, including direct copypasta, it makes me curious as to where the line exists.

Only speaking for myself, whenever I suggest wording in someone's drafting thread, I don't mind if the author uses it word for word; that's why I suggested it.

Oh I don't mind, necessarily, but I would like to know where the Official line is, for future reference if nothing else.

[Mousebumples]

Oh I don't mind, necessarily, but I would like to know where the Official line is, for future reference if nothing else.

I guess the biggest possible problem arises if a given author takes suggested lines from multiple fellow ambassadors. There's a one co-author limit on GA proposals (*cough* unlike in some other chambers *cough*), so that could be a possible issue.

I would expect that the issue could be raised with the author if you feel that co-author credit (or paraphrasing) is needed. However, I'm not sure that such a line can reasonably be drawn.

Mind you, I'd have a different personal interpretation if you had asked about quoting from a historic resolution. After all, those authors did not offer up their text for inclusion in a new proposal in the WA.

[Unibot]

(*cough* unlike in some other chambers *cough*)

*cough* the reasonable chamber *cough*

[Ardchoille]

If an alternative phrasing of a proposal is suggested in a drafting thread, the implication is that the poster is freely giving it to the author. If an individual's contributions are substantial, the author should give co-author credit, but that's a matter of honesty, not rules. I don't think mods could legally delete such a proposal as plagiarised, because of the implied permission of posts in a drafting thread.

Plus, plagiarism usually suggests an attempt to conceal the original source and claim it as a writer's own. Since the copying isn't concealed in a drafting thread, it would seem to be done in good faith and so be unlikely to result in the expulsion of the author's nation.

These comments are just to give you the general drift, though. I think the game mods would have to decide case-by-case.

The point Mousebumples raised about historic resolutions is spot on. I've even had doubts about letting the original author copy his own resolution, though fortunately I had an attack of common sense and backed off.

[Intellect and the Arts]

That makes sense. Drafting just kind of felt like a gray area in that regard, so I appreciate the clarification.

[Unibot II]

Hhmm, I recently came across GA#16 Article 1.b... it seems to be the same cut as a clause that was recently ruled illegal during discussion for that Beginning of Life act. I suppose the possible distinction could be that GA#16's article is more inclusive (e.g., is applies to humans, it doesn't necessarily not apply to bears) as opposed to CD's more exclusive article.

This seems to set the precedent that it is legal to affirm, "This resolution applies to Humans", but illegal to affirm, "This resolution only applies to Humans".

Is this a correct interpretation?

[Urgench]

There's a one co-author limit on GA proposals (*cough* unlike in some other chambers *cough*), so that could be a possible issue.

Yes *Cough* *Cough*, what's up with that?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This seems to set the precedent that it is legal to affirm, "This resolution applies to Humans", but illegal to affirm, "This resolution only applies to Humans".

Is this a correct interpretation?

It's probably safer not to specify "Humans."

The way I read the recent ruling, however, Ard is saying that it's perfectly fine to specify, for example, "This resolution forbids any procedure involving the clipping of the foreskin from the penis," even though not all species have penises, not all genders have penises, and not all penises have foreskins. Or something like that.

[Unibot II]

This seems to set the precedent that it is legal to affirm, "This resolution applies to Humans", but illegal to affirm, "This resolution only applies to Humans".

Is this a correct interpretation?

It's probably safer not to specify "Humans."

The way I read the recent ruling, however, Ard is saying that it's perfectly fine to specify, for example, "This resolution forbids any procedure involving the clipping of the foreskin from the penis," even though not all species have penises, not all genders have penises, and not all penises have foreskins. Or something like that.

Oh, I agree. But Ard was also saying that it is not legal to say this "Only applies to Humans" because that would make the resolution discriminate against species that could reasonably comply with the resolution. I've found a resolution with "Applies to Humans", so is this being treated by law as inclusive or is it merely grandfathered and de facto legal, but for all other purposes, an illegal practice?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

That's obviously not for me to say; what I was saying is that it's better not to specify humans in any case, especially since passed resolutions do not constitute moderation precedent in any way, shape or form.

[Unibot II]

That's obviously not for me to say; what I was saying is that it's better not to specify humans in any case, especially since passed resolutions do not constitute moderation precedent in any way, shape or form.

I probably wouldn't.. but I may catch someone doing it in the future, and an answer on if the exception for GA#16 still applies, would be helpful. But thanks anyway, Kenny.

[Darenjo]

For a proposal on gun rights, if the rules wouldn't apply to all sapients (mine only applies to "mentally incompetent" beings), what would be the appropriate strength?

[Unibot II]

Fairly sure that it would still be in the Gun Control/Tighten category. The only other category that may be appropriate is 'Moral Decency'.. but that doesn't seem to fit well.

[Darenjo]

Fairly sure that it would still be in the Gun Control/Tighten category. The only other category that may be appropriate is 'Moral Decency'.. but that doesn't seem to fit well.

Strength. Not category.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Gun Control doesn't have a Strength; just an emphasis on whether to "Tighten" or "Relax" gun laws.

[Darenjo]

Gun Control doesn't have a Strength; just an emphasis on whether to "Tighten" or "Relax" gun laws.

Oh. Thanks then.

[Mousebumples]

That's obviously not for me to say; what I was saying is that it's better not to specify humans in any case, especially since passed resolutions do not constitute moderation precedent in any way, shape or form.

I probably wouldn't.. but I may catch someone doing it in the future, and an answer on if the exception for GA#16 still applies, would be helpful. But thanks anyway, Kenny.

Past precedent was that newly established rules were "grandfathered" in - i.e. UN resolutions were passed before the Enodian and/or Hackian laws came into effect, but the prior resolutions were "grandfathered" in.

Of course, as determined/stated by mods in the past, any resolution that is passed (even if it does technically break some of the rules) is automatically "legal" by nature of being a passed resolution. So I'm not sure how much the "precedent" of GA#16 really matters going forward. If The Secretariat has made a ruling with regards to specifying "Humans Only" (or whatever), that's in effect going forward.

[Darenjo]

Can gun rights proposals be illegal for strength violations? I wouldn't think so, but you never know.

[Ardchoille]

Can gun rights proposals be illegal for strength violations? I wouldn't think so, but you never know.

All the Yes/No categories should be treated as " strong", since what they do is both comprehensive "(all guns, drugs, whatever) and absolute (completely ban/tighten or completely legalise/relax). Though I don't think I've ever killed a Yes/No prop on this basis, in theory it should mean that "RECOMMENDS that guns be banned" or "URGES the legalisation of marijuana" would make the proposal illegal as being too mild.

[Unibot II]

Um, Ard, the description doesn't anything about all guns.. "A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws."

And 'tighten' is fairly vague, how 'much' is tightening regulation?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

For once I agree with Unibot. While I concur with "either/or" proposals needing to have fairly noticeable force, I don't see why we need to adopt such an absolutist thread on categories that are rarely used anyway.

[Darenjo]

Kryozerkia said my proposal "looked good" which I took as "legal", but others keep raising issues over the strength.

[Mousebumples]

Kryozerkia said my proposal "looked good" which I took as "legal", but others keep raising issues over the strength.

*raises hand* Others being me, probably, mostly (only?) in this situation.

I know that when I wrote the Essential Medication Act, that post of Ard's in Knoot's Gambling thread was brought to my attention. I even made an entire post in my draft thread justifying the Significant/Strong strength, as I felt it qualified for that and I wanted to head off any Secretariat "deleting" of a submitted proposal.

I don't know how the proposals are coded in that category, but it appears that the strength of the impact they have on stats is similar to that of the Significant/Strong levels of other categories, which is why Ard made the comment she did a month or so ago.