SC Ruling needed

[Sedgistan]

Not complaining about anyone this time, just wanting a ruling on the legality of this:

Regarding this proposal, and this one, is it OK for the proposer to announce themselves at the start of the resolution? Particularly with the second one, it looks like it is the proposer who is "Asserting, Believing, and Hereby commending A Mean Old Man" rather than the World Assembly or The Security Council.

Also, AMON thinks that the ruling here means that if Liberate The Security Council "was proposed nowadays, it would be deemed illegal" - is that interpretation correct? I thought that if you're directing a resolution at a concept via a region/nation, you just had to demonstrate that the designated region/nation had to support that concept - as The Security Council (region) originally did when its WFE claimed it was being oppressed by the General Assembly. The problem that his proposal then (Condemn Shitty Proposal Writing) had was that its WFE was also condemning shitty proposal writing, rather than showing evidence it supported it.

[Linux and the X]

Not complaining about anyone this time, just wanting a ruling on the legality of this:

Regarding this proposal, and this one, is it OK for the proposer to announce themselves at the start of the resolution? Particularly with the second one, it looks like it is the proposer who is "Asserting, Believing, and Hereby commending A Mean Old Man" rather than the World Assembly or The Security Council.

The clear solution is to abolish the Security Council.

It's branding, and therefore illegal.

[Kalibarr]

Not complaining about anyone this time, just wanting a ruling on the legality of this:

Regarding this proposal, and this one, is it OK for the proposer to announce themselves at the start of the resolution? Particularly with the second one, it looks like it is the proposer who is "Asserting, Believing, and Hereby commending A Mean Old Man" rather than the World Assembly or The Security Council.

The clear solution is to abolish the Security Council.

It's branding, and therefore illegal.

Not in the SC

[A mean old man]

Actually, I thought this was our ruling, but if you'd like to ingore what Flibb said, Sedge, by all means, do so...

[Sedgistan]

Actually, I thought this was our ruling, but if you'd like to ingore what Flibb said, Sedge, by all means, do so...

And I think Flib was talking about co-authors. In the GA mentioning a nation other than a co-author would be illegal, as its branding.

[A mean old man]

Considering both Flibb and Ardchoille were active in that thread several times (EDIT: and allowed the proposal to remain in the queue), I don't think they found it to be a problem that "A mean old man" happened to be at the top of the description.

All this over a copy/paste error? Maybe you just want to bring this proposal down, and you're simply resorting to trying to create some sort of rule-based problem with it as a petty attempt to do just that.

[Euroslavia]

Considering both Flibb and Ardchoille were active in that thread several times (EDIT: and allowed the proposal to remain in the queue), I don't think they found it to be a problem that "A mean old man" happened to be at the top of the description.

All this over a copy/paste error? Maybe you just want to bring this proposal down, and you're simply resorting to trying to create some sort of rule-based problem with it as a petty attempt to do just that.

Despite the fact that moderators are participating in a thread, doesn't automatically mean that they are aware of every detail of what's going on. I wouldn't automatically assume that everything is kosher. However, if you feel that the proposal is fine, you should have absolutely nothing to worry about when it comes to a report on it.

In the meantime, I'd suggest that everyone lay back until a more suitable moderator can jump into this thread and solve the issue, as I don't feel quite comfortable with passing out a WA ruling solo.

[Ardchoille]

To start off , AMOM, Sedge, dial back the sniping when you bring a subject to Moderation. It's the difference between an argument in a pub and an argument before a judge. Moderation is suits-and-ties-land.

Re the proposals: despite the facepalm intro on the Repeal and the smartypants intro on the Commendation, both correctly ascribe the actual action to the World Assembly. The repeal does it in the line directly below the floating "A Mean Old Man" reference, and the Commendation does it in the final (operative) clause.

A typo or misspelling is not regarded as sufficient reason for mods to delete a GA proposal, provided that it doesn't affect the meaning of the legislation. If it doesn't happen in the GA, where proposal standards are highly formalised, I'm not going to be the one to introduce it in the SC. [violet] has repeatedly emphasised that SC proposals are about opinions, and all one has to do with an opinion is state it (proposal content) and ask the WA members to agree (active clause).

That doesn't mean the author can't ask for its withdrawal himself. For some it would forever be as teeth-on-edge annoying as fingernails scraped down a blackboard. Others won't even notice it. His call.

On whether Liberate the Security Council would still be legal if proposed now: it would, but today I would send the boys round to lean on send a polite TG attempting to persuade the author to make it a C&C. As a Declaration of Independence it was fine, but as a Liberation it was always a bit dodgy. I'm thinking some restrictions may be needed on Liberations in regions with a founder, but that's something to discuss in the SC.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Wondering if Ardchoille ever saw my GHR about the repeal... or if I wasn't specific enough about the proposal I was referring to in it.

[Ardchoille]

Yes, I did notice it; sorry I didn't reply. I've ruled before that a repeal has to be based on the original proposal. All but two of the clauses are based on the original proposal. The two clauses not based on it are opinions, not active clauses, and are therefore rhetorical flourishes that can be disregarded. The motives of the author are not relevant to the legitimacy of the repeal.