[DISCARDED] Repeal "Rights and Duties of WA States"

[Chester Pearson]

OOC: Frisbeeteria is a senior game mod, and would certainly be able to make such a ruling.

OOC: I would challenge that any such ruling should only be made by Administration. The fact that Fris authored that pile of illegal should preclude him from being involved in any decision regarding it.

Speaking of that.... I am still not convinced this current ruling does not have something to do with the fact this was written by a senior game moderator, and I would really like Violet to confirm that. As it stands my faith in the mods is starting to waver over these recent developments....

[Elke and Elba]

OOC: Frisbeeteria is a senior game mod, and would certainly be able to make such a ruling.

OOC: I would challenge that any such ruling should only be made by Administration. The fact that Fris authored that pile of illegal should preclude him from being involved in any decision regarding it.

Speaking of that.... I am still not convinced this current ruling does not have something to do with the fact this was written by a senior game moderator, and I would really like Violet to confirm that. As it stands my faith in the mods is starting to waver over these recent developments....

Chester, have you got a flying flute how mod works?

If there's a conflict of interest, Fris isn't really allowed to be involved methinks. At least that's the impression Blaat gave me in another one concerning him.

[Chester Pearson]

OOC: I would challenge that any such ruling should only be made by Administration. The fact that Fris authored that pile of illegal should preclude him from being involved in any decision regarding it.

Speaking of that.... I am still not convinced this current ruling does not have something to do with the fact this was written by a senior game moderator, and I would really like Violet to confirm that. As it stands my faith in the mods is starting to waver over these recent developments....

Chester, have you got a flying flute how mod works?

If there's a conflict of interest, Fris isn't really allowed to be involved methinks. At least that's the impression Blaat gave me in another one concerning him.

Henceforth my statement, if you actually read it. I was disagreeing with DSR.

[Elke and Elba]

Chester, have you got a flying flute how mod works?

If there's a conflict of interest, Fris isn't really allowed to be involved methinks. At least that's the impression Blaat gave me in another one concerning him.

Henceforth my statement, if you actually read it. I was disagreeing with DSR.

Apologies, jumped the gun.

Not a surprising action for me to take since you were going "OMG FRIS!!111!!!! MUST BE NOT ILLEGAL!!11!! MUST BE ILLUMINATI!!11!!" in every thread.

[Novus Niciae]

What is next?

Repealing GAR#1?

[Linux and the X]

Alex lets out a rather loud cheer before turning around and lifting her skirt to flash her purple silk panties at ex-Ambassador Russell. "For someone with such a holier-than-thou attitude, you sure do love breakin' the rules, man! I already knew this repeal was bullshit by its bullshit arguments and your bullshit campaign letter. Very few voters apparently caught the whiff in the text and purpose of the repeal, but I'm glad the Secretariat caught the scent of that bullshit shell nation you put up to get this submitted. Celebratin' good times, come on!" With that, the teen sets about breaking up some of her ſinzœ^† for a blunt.

^† The Fae word for 'smelly'. The full name of her home-grown marijuana is ʂœnöſœn-Inſinzœ, "Aromatic Dreams".

I'd like to add that Ambassador— excuse me, Visitor Russell is hereby invited to .

Regards,
Her Lordship Dr Winifred Sheppard

[Chester Pearson]

Henceforth my statement, if you actually read it. I was disagreeing with DSR.

Apologies, jumped the gun.

Not a surprising action for me to take since you were going "OMG FRIS!!111!!!! MUST BE NOT ILLEGAL!!11!! MUST BE ILLUMINATI!!11!!" in every thread.

Excuse me? I think you have me confused with someone else.

[Edlichbury]

Unsurprisingly, the visitor from Auralia has maintained the same level of ethical standards one would expect from someone ejected for rule violations.

I have no faith that this repeal was a sincere attempt to improve the WA and not simply to add another "victory" to his ego, I will continue to be against.

[Chester Pearson]

Unsurprisingly, the visitor from Auralia has maintained the same level of ethical standards one would expect from someone ejected for rule violations.

That would be a personal attack against a player.

[Ardchoille]

Obviously, if the repeal was failing, the proposal containing the illegality would not be about to remove a legal Resolution, so there would be no need to request a "disallow".

In fact, I wrote the reversal of the original ruling -- as far as the red text -- before I'd checked how the vote was going. Clearly, my decision to request a Disallow could not be made until I found out whether it would be needed.

GA#2 is no more special than any other Resolution. If the "repeal" button works, it can be repealed.

If this iteration of the Repeal is disallowed, it can still be resubmitted with the illegality corrected.

I feel ethically obliged to ask for a Disallow because the mistake was mine, in rejecting the GHR, as well as the author's, in submitting as a group. I am in much the same position as Hack and Fris when they saw Max Barry Day too late, but this time a corrective mechanism exists.

I generally would not think a Disallow necessary for a simple proposal. An illegal proposal would go to vote, become legal, and stand until repealed, with the illegality on the books for however long it took that to occur. Mods would simply point out that the illegality was not and could not be a precedent.

However an illegal Repeal cannot be repealed itself. Its effect is to remove another, legal, proposal.

GA#2 is an attempt to give RP flesh to game realities. The complete removal and non-replacement of GA#2 would still make no difference to the workings of the GA or to mod rulings based on them. Mods really have no horse in this race.

My comment that I would be TGing if my colleagues reject the "disallow" request was based on my feeling that I should make reparation for my mistake. I had no intention to campaign against the content of the repeal. If it is generally seen as campaigning against any repeal of GA#2, I will gladly refrain (not a fan of excessive effort).

However, that's now in the lap of the (other) mods. A Disallow request is put open to all mods and admins, not just to the GA mods.

[Ardchoille]

I've locked this briefly so I can make it a separate thead. Please bear with me for about 10 minutes.
EDIT: SOrry, wrong thread.

EDIT 2: Please refer to this thread for discussion of my reasons for requesting permission to invoke the DIscard function on this proposal.

[Genuine]

While I do have problems with the original document stating that another nation state cannot intervene on behalf of humanitarian issues. The replacement document has a few more things that I as a sovereign country find to limit my authority and rights such as "no WA member is able to engage another WA member in war". My argument with this is it limits my ability to act towards an aggressor of an ally who is not a WA member. Also it states that I must use diplomacy as a first contact with a nation that I am at dispute with, that is all fine and well but what if this country has invaded my country? I would be hard pressed to negotiate before I responded militarily. The aggressor nation could use this clause to buy time whilst invading my sovereign borders. This is why I will be voting no to repealing the original document.

[The Dourian Embassy]

After what happened with the Osiris WA Office, I was genuinely surprised to see this made it to vote without removal. Good to see that rule isn't being applied selectively.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: I guess this is what being busy with RL does to you - before you notice it, the WA is overturned. Not sure I want to partake the kerfuffle that's going to follow if and when this passes, so I might just continue ghosting in the background for a while longer. RL is more important right now anyway.

Not interested in putting this into IC mode, so "Utter garbage, sad that it seems to be passing, voted against" will do.

[Chester Pearson]

UNITED FEDERATION OF CANADA



IMPERIAL MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

At the behest of Prime Minister Jack Layston, we are please to cast our vote of NAY. General Assembly resolution #2 forms the backbone of this great Assembly, and its repeal would throw the metaverse into chaos. How our fellow Ambassadors can be voting for the anarchy that will ensue, is beyond our governments comprehension. Rest assured, The Federation will continue to recognize all international law it is currently party to, and is preparing to expel Ambassadors representing the nations that have voted for this from our embassy should this travesty of democracy pass....

Warmest regards,

[Ardchoille]

ANNOUNCEMENT: My colleagues have permitted the application of a Discard to this vote. The author may resubmit with the illegality corrected. My apologies to the GA for the inconvenience.

[The Dark Star Republic]

ANNOUNCEMENT: My colleagues have permitted the application of a Discard to this vote. The author may resubmit with the illegality corrected. My apologies to the GA for the inconvenience.

OOC: Did your colleagues explain why they were willing to use the Discard, which you previously described as limited to: '...egregious, really bad, terrible, awful, violations. Think Max Barry Day, previously undiscovered plagisarism, or saying NS is a game in the text of a Resolution....'?

This isn't an obvious violation like Max Barry Day, it isn't a case of 'plagisarism' [sic] as you can determine that Auralia controls the submitting nation, and it artfully avoids any kind of metagaming violation (doing a much better job of this than its target resolution, actually).

In no way does discarding this square with your explanation of when the Discard function would be used. I am terribly disappointed that having asked for the function to be explained, it is clear that its full ramifications are still being concealed from us. It's for egregious ones - and, apparently, for terribly minor ones. It's not like an illegally branded resolution has never snuck through in the past.

[Chester Pearson]

ANNOUNCEMENT: My colleagues have permitted the application of a Discard to this vote. The author may resubmit with the illegality corrected. My apologies to the GA for the inconvenience.

OOC: Unbelievable. So that's it then? Just a two line announcement for something of this magnitude? No other mods are even going to weigh in? Seems like serious abuse of the discard function if you ask me.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Actually, it occurs to me: would an appeal of this decision be allowed? Traditionally, WA decisions cannot be appealed, because so few mods are actively involved in WA moderating. But Ardchoille has explained that other mods have weighed on in this decision, so that doesn't seem to apply.

[Chester Pearson]

OOC: Actually, it occurs to me: would an appeal of this decision be allowed? Traditionally, WA decisions cannot be appealed, because so few mods are actively involved in WA moderating. But Ardchoille has explained that other mods have weighed on in this decision, so that doesn't seem to apply.

OOC: I think a GHR is in order here. DSR as you are more of a rules lawyer than me would you be so inclined as to file it? I think we have a case of conflicted interest here. Ard made the original ruling, then reversed it, and is the one stating that it will be discarded. As Ard made the original ruling, I personally think another mod should have taken over....

Not a personal shot Ard. Just trying to dot the "I"s and cross the "T"s here.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Well, no...I think that's jumping the gun. We don't even know if an appeal would be allowed, and without knowing more about the Discard function I don't see what argument we could make. And it's my understanding of NS's appeals process that only Auralia would be able to appeal this anyway. I'm sure the mods don't need another GHR for a thread in which they're already active.

[Chester Pearson]

OOC: Well, no...I think that's jumping the gun. We don't even know if an appeal would be allowed, and without knowing more about the Discard function I don't see what argument we could make. And it's my understanding of NS's appeals process that only Auralia would be able to appeal this anyway. I'm sure the mods don't need another GHR for a thread in which they're already active.

OOC: And there lies the problem doesn't it? There doesn't seem to be any official rules on this so called "Discard" function, unless you happen to be a mod, who is privileged enough to access this "classified" information.

[Mallorea and Riva]

OOC: Well, no...I think that's jumping the gun. We don't even know if an appeal would be allowed, and without knowing more about the Discard function I don't see what argument we could make. And it's my understanding of NS's appeals process that only Auralia would be able to appeal this anyway. I'm sure the mods don't need another GHR for a thread in which they're already active.

OOC: And there lies the problem doesn't it? There doesn't seem to be any official rules on this so called "Discard" function, unless you happen to be a mod, who is privileged enough to access this "classified" information.

Ard was actually very clear on this point. A normal illegal resolution can be dealt with via a simple repeal. Since this IS a repeal which the author is presumably going to attempt to replace with his own resolution for his own benefit it warranted a discard.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Ard was actually very clear on this point. A normal illegal resolution can be dealt with via a simple repeal. Since this IS a repeal which the author is presumably going to attempt to replace with his own resolution for his own benefit it warranted a discard.

OOC: That presents a much simpler solution. Simply ban Auralia from submitting future proposals from the "Working Group" nation, and prohibit him from calling his replacement, if submitted, the "WA Charter" or anything similar. That way, he won't have gained any free advertising.

And I will repeat, repealing a resolution by arguing it is illegal is not allowed, so the argument that Discards should be treated differently for repeals and replacements makes no sense in the form Ardchoille presented.

[Chester Pearson]

And I will repeat, repealing a resolution by arguing it is illegal is not allowed, so the argument that Discards should be treated differently for repeals and replacements makes no sense in the form Ardchoille presented.

OOC: At least we are on the same page here. The only error seems to be the name of the submitting nation, and it is a pretty flimsy excuse.