Need a mod Ruling for the WASC!!

[Topid]

If this needs to be in the SC forum, SORRY, please move...

There is a proposal being drafted in The Security Council, Commend Todd McCloud.

Originally one clause said:

RECALLING Todd McCloud has been an active member of The World Assembly Security Council since its inception, authoring SC #1 Condemn Macedon, SC #2 Commend Kandarin, SC# 10 Commend Goobergunchia, and also authoring failed SC Resolution Commend Equilism,

I realized I was getting close to a house of cards violation, but in my oppinion, even if they are repealed his name will always be attached to SC1,2, and 10 (Even if there is a line through it). And they will still show his activity in the SC. I'm not mentioning the content or anything effected by a repeal.

Secondly, I want to credit The Security Council for writing and editing the resolution, rather than any nation in particular (a co-author) because we have all worked on this. Is that okay?

Thank you.

[Ardchoille]

Rulled this way a few days ago, and see no reason to change it:

Saying that the SC previously condemned a nation is not the same as citing the resolution in which it happened. If you cite the resolution by name it is a House of Cards violation, because resolutions can be repealed. But if you say the region was condemned, that remains true even if the condemnation is later withdrawn.

I know there are plenty of things you can do in SC resolutions that you can't do in the GA: metagame, brand, and even (in Liberations) fiddle with game mechanics. Still, a player crossing from the SC to the GA should be able to avoid those mistakes in any GA proposals he writes simply by adjusting his writing style.

But adjusting your writing style won't help with niggly details, so I'd like to keep them uniform across the chambers as far as possible.

I've already okayed increasing the number of authors you can credit in the SC because the SC proposals often need several people to verify details of events. But there's no practical reason to change the "specific citation" rule, so it's easier all round if it stays common to both.

EDIT: re "crediting The Security Council": I really should have clicked that link first. I thought you meant the entire forum, not the region.

An authorship credit is for doing almost as much work on the proposal as the author -- a complete re-write, for example. It's not for collective critiquing, whether done by a forum or by region members.

Plus, given the name of your region, it could be misleading. New players might think it signified some sort of official SC endorsement of the proposal. That would give it an unfair advantage in collecting delegate endorsements.

[Topid]

Okay, well how do I write that so that it won't be "knocked down" (as in house of cards) by a repeal?

[Ardchoille]

The version your regionmate TC suggested in your drafting thread should cover it. BTW, that ruling of mine should include resolution numbers as well as names.

[Topid]

The version your regionmate TC suggested in your drafting thread should cover it. BTW, that ruling of mine should include resolution numbers as well as names.

Ard looked at our forum. Pretty, huh?

Okay, will do. Thanks for the help.