Technical illegality in At Vote proposal

[Ardchoille]

This thread has been split from Q&A to allow discussion of the ruling in this post. The two strike-out lines refer to earlier questions.
@ Pio City: Yes. The rules are based on the game, and a proposal -- or a Resolution -- can't change the game.

@ Elke and Elba: Osiris is a region, of which Osiris WA Office is a member. The logic of that ruling stands. It is advertising their region.

---

The rule says,

This includes creating nations that have the same name as your region or group and using them to promote your region or group.

On "Charter Working Group": it was my understanding that, earlier in the thread, it had been established that the "group" was, indeed, Auralia alone. However, the pre-title (The Collaborative Initiative of) and the operative name (World Assembly Charter Working Group) both proclaim that it is a group, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I should have ruled on that basis. (Clarifying further: it was established that DEFCON and ACCEL did exist offsite as groups, and thus it does matter what the situation is offsite. My statement to the contrary was incorrect.)

*** The ruling is hereby RESCINDED. ***

I will post in the thread that the proposal is illegal.

In the case of an illegal proposal becoming a legal Resolution, the matter could be simply dealt with by a speedy repeal.

However, as this is a Repeal, it would remove a Resolution that is already legal. I will ask my colleagues for permission to use the "Disallow" mechanism.

If it's refused, I guess I have some TGing ahead of me.

[Elke and Elba]

Thank you.

I understand all along that Osiris WA Office was illegal, so I used that to make the point that the Charter Working Group by extension should be illegal as it posits that it was submitted by more than a single nation. The 'nation' argument was just to extend the then-inconsistencies in ruling.

We thank you once again.

[Chester Pearson]

On "Charter Working Group": it was my understanding that, earlier in the thread, it had been established that the "group" was, indeed, Auralia alone. However, the pre-title (The Collaborative Initiative of) and the operative name (World Assembly Charter Working Group) both proclaim that it is a group, and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I should have ruled on that basis. (Clarifying further: it was established that DEFCON and ACCEL did exist offsite as groups, and thus it does matter what the situation is offsite. My statement to the contrary was incorrect.)

*** The ruling is hereby RESCINDED. ***

I will post in the thread that the proposal is illegal.

In the case of an illegal proposal becoming a legal Resolution, the matter could be simply dealt with by a speedy repeal.

However, as this is a Repeal, it would remove a Resolution that is already legal. I will ask my colleagues for permission to use the "Disallow" mechanism.

If it's refused, I guess I have some TGing ahead of me.

Really? This is the excuse that is going to be used to throw out the only successful repeal of #2? Seems pretty shitty if you ask me. I am wholly opposed to any repeal of #2 myself, but that is another matter. The real question here, is why this is happening now? Would this ruling have been made if the repeal was failing? Somehow I think not....

[Elke and Elba]

Well Chester, Ard did give the wrong answer in the first place - and the rules are clear - proposals should OOCly be submitted by one and one person only,. Any indication it is by a group, or on behalf of a group, should have their proposals removed.

Ard only took the liberty to correct an unjust ruling he made himself.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Really? This is the excuse that is going to be used to throw out the only successful repeal of #2? Seems pretty shitty if you ask me. I am wholly opposed to any repeal of #2 myself, but that is another matter. The real question here, is why this is happening now? Would this ruling have been made if the repeal was failing? Somehow I think not....

Heh. My position is completely the opposite: I support the repeal, but agree with this ruling. Using "group" branded nations to submit proposals has long been illegal. This is the first consistent ruling the WA mods have made in ages!

But, I do have a different concern.

In the case of an illegal proposal becoming a legal Resolution, the matter could be simply dealt with by a speedy repeal.

However, as this is a Repeal, it would remove a Resolution that is already legal. I will ask my colleagues for permission to use the "Disallow" mechanism.

When I asked for clarification about the Discard feature and was told there was nothing additional to worry about that, the fact that it would have different standards for substantive proposals and repeals was never mentioned. I really wish it had been: it's exactly the kind of thing players would appreciate knowing about this new feature.

Edit: by the way, I completely distance myself from the posts below
|
v

[Elke and Elba]

Another question related to the Repeal GAR#2 debacle:

Is it legal to actually use any flag, symbol or otherwise that possibly allow the misunderstanding by the voters that such a proposal has been endorsed and sanctioned by the World Assembly itself?

I mean well, no one's going to misunderstand "Mahaj WA Seat" or "Unibotian WA Mission".

But with the WA flag and the name "WA Charter Working Group" - it totally tries to trick people into thinking either the entire WA body approves of it/is mod-sanctioned or is supported and drafted by all the long-time dels in the WA (which the last can be ruled as a 'group' and thus illegal case, of course).

[Chester Pearson]

Well Chester, Ard did give the wrong answer in the first place - and the rules are clear - proposals should OOCly be submitted by one and one person only,. Any indication it is by a group, or on behalf of a group, should have their proposals removed.

Ard only took the liberty to correct an unjust ruling he made himself.

And.... If this is thrown out, what is to stop Auralia from submitting this again on a different puppet? It is already passing by a huge margin this time, so what's going to stop it from passing next time? Are Fris or Violet going to intervene next time?

I think we deserve a firm statement from Administration, that this is not wholly based on the fact that #2 is a blatantly illegal resolution, that just HAPPENS to be authored by a senior game moderator.

[Elke and Elba]

Well Chester, Ard did give the wrong answer in the first place - and the rules are clear - proposals should OOCly be submitted by one and one person only,. Any indication it is by a group, or on behalf of a group, should have their proposals removed.

Ard only took the liberty to correct an unjust ruling he made himself.

And.... If this is thrown out, what is to stop Auralia from submitting this again on a different puppet? It is already passing by a huge margin this time, so what's going to stop it from passing next time? Are Fris or Violet going to intervene next time?

I think we deserve a firm statement from Administration, that this is not wholly based on the fact that #2 is a blatantly illegal resolution, that just HAPPENS to be authored by a senior game moderator.

That's the reason why I placed up the above comment. You cannot deny one way or another than riding on the coattails of WA's name has made it succeed.

More people will be wary to vote for an "Auralia II" or "<unknown name>".

As for the last stand - admit it Chester, it's your own bias.

[Auralia]

My understanding is that the discard feature is only to be used in the event of an egregious violation of the rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not such a violation.

Further, I think some leeway should be granted in light of the fact that a ruling was given before the proposal went to vote, and then rescinded after it went to vote. I've already spent $17 on stamps...

[Elke and Elba]

My understanding is that the discard feature is only to be used in the event of an egregious violation of the rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not such a violation.

Further, I think some leeway should be granted in light of the fact that a ruling was given before the proposal went to vote, and then rescinded after it went to vote. I've already spent $17 on stamps...

Oh, too bad for you then. Money doesn't guarantee you should get "this" or "that" here, I'm sorry.

Discard feature has never been clarified as to its usage perimeters as of yet. With the Discard function used on Commend GRO for the word "game", and yourself for blatantly breaking WA multi rules, it kind of shows that Discard has a wide range of use.

Although Ard said that discard shouldn't be used in a category violation (for Right of Adequate Sanitation) - someone overruled him. Discard would have been used if the category was incorrect. But as it stands, the category was correct, and thus not discarded. It shows how miniscule a break in rule to warrant discard can happen.

Not to mention "groups". That's a pretty large one compared to categories.

[Chester Pearson]

My understanding is that the discard feature is only to be used in the event of an egregious violation of the rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not such a violation.

Further, I think some leeway should be granted in light of the fact that a ruling was given before the proposal went to vote, and then rescinded after it went to vote. I've already spent $17 on stamps...

As much as I disagree with Auralia when we are in character, I have to support the player here.

As for the last stand - admit it Chester, it's your own bias.

Maybe so, but it is a valid concern.

Not to mention "groups". That's a pretty large one compared to categories.

Is it really? Seems like a minor technicality that has greater consequences that any of you are seeing or are willing to admit to..

[Elke and Elba]

My understanding is that the discard feature is only to be used in the event of an egregious violation of the rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not such a violation.

Further, I think some leeway should be granted in light of the fact that a ruling was given before the proposal went to vote, and then rescinded after it went to vote. I've already spent $17 on stamps...

As much as I disagree with Auralia when we are in character, I have to support the player here.

As for the last stand - admit it Chester, it's your own bias.

Maybe so, but it is a valid concern.

Not to mention "groups". That's a pretty large one compared to categories.

Is it really? Seems like a minor technicality that has greater consequences that any of you are seeing or are willing to admit to..

Consider the following: if Commend AD had passed: game would have appeared in a SC resolution till the end of time. Not good for having it set precedent too that rules can be broken.

Similar goes to if the Osiris WA Office or this goes through. That name could be seen until the end of time. Not good too as it is a blatant break of rules, and it will set unsavoury precedent.

Rules are rules are rules. Like it or not, if you are going to break them - expect the discard (now since it is implemented) - to come chomping at you.

[Goddess Relief Office]

Fully support the ruling by Ard.

More than a few people have asked Auralia to disclose the names behind his so called "Group" which he refused. In that case we must assume that this "Group" is but a tactic to dupe people into thinking it has the support of a wide variety of authors when it didn't.

The choice of the name "World Assembly Charter Working Group" with the word "World Assembly" in its name, and the choice of the flag is also VERY MISLEADING and gives off the impression that it is something official, when it is not.

If this is allowed to pass, it sets a bad precedent and I can already see people repeat the same tactic on other resolutions.

~GRO~

[Chester Pearson]

Consider the following: if Commend AD had passed: game would have appeared in a SC resolution till the end of time. Not good for having it set precedent too that rules can be broken.

Similar goes to if the Osiris WA Office or this goes through. That name could be seen until the end of time. Not good too as it is a blatant break of rules, and it will set unsavoury precedent.

Rules are rules are rules. Like it or not, if you are going to break them - expect the discard (now since it is implemented) - to come chomping at you.

Further branding will result in the Proposal being deleted. Don't list everyone who posted in the thread for your draft, don't list yourself, don't list your Minister Of Making Proposals, and don't post the 'pre-title' of the co-author (ie: "The Republic Of..."). This includes creating nations that have the same name as your region or group and using them to promote your region or group. It also includes using the name of a nation, region or group as an acronym in a proposal. If you are using the [nation] tag to list your co-author make sure you are using the short version ([nation=short] or [nation=short+noflag]).

This would appear to be the rule in question.

Does the Charter Group represent a region? No.

Is it promoting a region? No.

Has anyone else but Auralia taken credit for being a member of the group? No.

Is the name of the nation part of the proposal? No.

Therefore Ards original ruling seems to have been correct. So why the sudden flip-flop?

Fully support the ruling by Ard.

More than a few people have asked Auralia to disclose the names behind his so called "Group" which he refused. In that case we must assume that this "Group" is but a tactic to dupe people into thinking it has the support of a wide variety of authors when it didn't.

The choice of the name "World Assembly Charter Working Group" with the word "World Assembly" in its name, and the choice of the flag (Image) is also VERY MISLEADING and gives off the impression that it is something official, when it is not.

If this is allowed to pass, it sets a bad precedent and I can already see people repeat the same tactic on other resolutions.

~GRO~

So creativity is a rules violation now? This is not the first time people have been intentionally mislead. Pretty much every repeal does it in some way. What next? Factually inaccurate repeals being declared illegal?

If this riling stands, and this is thrown out, it sets a very bad precedent, that only proposals passing mod scrutiny will be legal.

[Rotwood]

Is it really? Seems like a minor technicality that has greater consequences that any of you are seeing or are willing to admit to..

For me it goes beyond the "group" thing. Given the name "World Assembly Working Group" and use of WA imagery, it would set a precedent and cause potential confusion. If it was <insert nation here> WA Mission (like has been used) and the WA logo was used as an element along with <insert nation here>'s own imagery, it would be one thing, but the use of the name and solely the WA logo (as of the time of this post, and when the mass telegraph was sent out) to me is actually a serious thing. Also, I would feel the same regardless of who was behind the nation.

As for the group thing, it goes beyond the name, because Auralia stated he was representing a group

[Defwa]

My understanding is that the discard feature is only to be used in the event of an egregious violation of the rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not such a violation.

Further, I think some leeway should be granted in light of the fact that a ruling was given before the proposal went to vote, and then rescinded after it went to vote. I've already spent $17 on stamps...

Well stop trying to blatantly rip off the system.
There are political games and there are outright shameful ploys. I think you delve often into the latter and it is ridiculous.

[Chester Pearson]

Is it really? Seems like a minor technicality that has greater consequences that any of you are seeing or are willing to admit to..

For me it goes beyond the "group" thing. Given the name "World Assembly Working Group" and use of WA imagery, it would set a precedent and cause potential confusion. If it was <insert nation here> WA Mission (like has been used) and the WA logo was used as an element along with <insert nation here>'s own imagery, it would be one thing, but the use of the name and solely the WA logo (as of the time of this post, and when the mass telegraph was sent out) to me is actually a serious thing. Also, I would feel the same regardless of who was behind the nation.

As for the group thing, it goes beyond the name, because Auralia stated he was representing a group

So he lied.... Since when is that a rules violation?

I seem to be giving the impression that I am defending this repeal. Nothing could be further from the truth and I will be making an official IC diplomatic post signifying as such, when I have time to type it up. I am merely concerned with this sudden flip-flop of a mod ruling, which has some very serious consequences that go along with it....

[Elke and Elba]

This would appear to be the rule in question.

Does the Charter Group represent a region? No.

Is it promoting a region? No.

Has anyone else but Auralia taken credit for being a member of the group? No.

Is the name of the nation part of the proposal? No.

Therefore Ards original ruling seems to have been correct. So why the sudden flip-flop?

Maybe you weren't reading:

(Clarifying further: it was established that DEFCON and ACCEL did exist offsite as groups, and thus it does matter what the situation is offsite. My statement to the contrary was incorrect.)

There is no flip-flop. Ard has made a wrong ruling on Repeal GAR#2 prior to this new ruling.

As for Auralia's point on $17 - you couldn't have known what the result was of any GHR made against you if it was legal, ja? There's no logic to say that leeway should be given.

[Separatist Peoples]

My understanding is that the discard feature is only to be used in the event of an egregious violation of the rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not such a violation.

Further, I think some leeway should be granted in light of the fact that a ruling was given before the proposal went to vote, and then rescinded after it went to vote. I've already spent $17 on stamps...

Theres a precedent for pulling it for Branding, though. What you spent on stamps is irrelevant if the rules were broken.

[Chester Pearson]

Maybe you weren't reading:

(Clarifying further: it was established that DEFCON and ACCEL did exist offsite as groups, and thus it does matter what the situation is offsite. My statement to the contrary was incorrect.)

Curious no link to that ruling was provided, nor is it in the official rules....

See that is the problem here. When a ruling is made, the rules never seem to be updated reflecting such a change. Players are then forced to search through thousands and thousands of posts looking for any rulings that might make their proposal illegal.

[Chester Pearson]

My understanding is that the discard feature is only to be used in the event of an egregious violation of the rules. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not such a violation.

Further, I think some leeway should be granted in light of the fact that a ruling was given before the proposal went to vote, and then rescinded after it went to vote. I've already spent $17 on stamps...

Theres a precedent for pulling it for Branding, though. What you spent on stamps is irrelevant if the rules were broken.

Where is the branding violation?

[Separatist Peoples]

Theres a precedent for pulling it for Branding, though. What you spent on stamps is irrelevant if the rules were broken.

Where is the branding violation?

WA Charter Group" is an off-site group. This would be advertising, the same as the Osiran Working Group issue that started this process.

[Elke and Elba]

Maybe you weren't reading:

Curious no link to that ruling was provided, nor is it in the official rules....

See that is the problem here. When a ruling is made, the rules never seem to be updated reflecting such a change. Players are then forced to search through thousands and thousands of posts looking for any rulings that might make their proposal illegal.

Then KISS, don't spend money and use manual TGs. You probably will never run into trouble using your own name + if there is an illegality in the text - then that's cursed upon you for not reading through rules and checking the relevant resolutions.

Anyway, you do have a point: Mods, can we have the stuff up in the Compendium, please?

[Chester Pearson]

Curious no link to that ruling was provided, nor is it in the official rules....

See that is the problem here. When a ruling is made, the rules never seem to be updated reflecting such a change. Players are then forced to search through thousands and thousands of posts looking for any rulings that might make their proposal illegal.

Then KISS, don't spend money and use manual TGs. You probably will never run into trouble using your own name + if there is an illegality in the text - then that's cursed upon you for not reading through rules and checking the relevant resolutions.

Anyway, you do have a point: Mods, can we have the stuff up in the Compendium, please?

Are you confusing me with Auralia? If so please stop.

I am merely debating a shitty ruling is all.

[Chester Pearson]

Where is the branding violation?

WA Charter Group" is an off-site group. This would be advertising, the same as the Osiran Working Group issue that started this process.

So their name appears as the proposer. Would that not be the same as commending or condemning oneself? Yes I know branding is not a rule in the SC...

The point is, a name has to appear in the proposer area. Should that really count as branding? I control the nation WA Chemical Weapons Commission. If I were to write a repeal of my own resolution, would it be illegal for branding?