Rules and Procedures of the GA Secretariat

[Araraukar]

If that is the case, there are various different discussion threads which should have been released. I'm unclear on exactly which ones they are, but I am confident that there are more than three or so (unfortunately, I haven't made an exhaustive search of the relevant data when the ruling are issued).

If you mean all legality challenges, there are something like closer to a dozen, but it seems they're only releasing ones that have gotten an actual ruling. (I'd be happily wrong with this, but I don't think I am.)

[Christian Democrats]

IA, in the GenSec forum, GR started a "Rulings Repository" similar to yours on the UNOG board.

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=394297

Unfortunately, he hasn't stuck with it.

I'm sorry for the wait on the private discussions. The GA mods are supposed to move them after one month, but all of the GA mods have basically disappeared. I've made a request for non-GA mods to move Patent Recognition Treaty and Open Internet Order to the public archive. Formal opinions were never written on Open Internet Order, and I doubt that they'll be written almost three months after the fact. And Open Internet Order has been repealed, so the issuance of a formal opinion could be considered a moot point.

I basically disappeared in late March and April. My post on Open Internet Order, however, summarizes what the opinions were going to say:

viewtopic.php?p=31341584#p31341584

(the link won't work until the thread has been moved)

EDIT: You might want to read SL's subsequent post too. On second glance, mine is somewhat incoherent.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Extrajudicial Punishment Ban should also be moved. I'm also confident that there were/are one or two that have been ruled upon that are also more than a month old. As you all have the actual discussion threads, I'm also confident that you have a better idea of what GenSec has been ruling and discussing.

[Wallenburg]

IA, in the GenSec forum, GR started a "Rulings Repository" similar to yours on the UNOG board.

viewtopic.php?f=39&t=394297

Unfortunately, he hasn't stuck with it.

We can't see that, just so you know.

[Luna Amore]

I'm sorry for the wait on the private discussions. The GA mods are supposed to move them after one month, but all of the GA mods have basically disappeared. I've made a request for non-GA mods to move Patent Recognition Treaty and Open Internet Order to the public archive. Formal opinions were never written on Open Internet Order, and I doubt that they'll be written almost three months after the fact. And Open Internet Order has been repealed, so the issuance of a formal opinion could be considered a moot point.

Like you just did, I'd recommend posting a request in your forum when you see something needs to be moved. If there's a request, I (and I assume any mod that sees it) will move it.

I don't imagine any mods are going to scan GenSec for month old threads to move without prodding.

[Ledaj]

1c. GenSec will deliberate, asking players further questions if necessary. Upon reaching a majority opinion, GenSec will post their ruling and notify the mods if the proposal needs to be removed from queue. Rulings will include a majority opinion and any dissenting opinions. Precedent-setting rulings will be recorded in a public compendium.
d. The controlling opinion shall be released immediately after a majority of those voting agree to it; concurring or dissenting opinions may be released and added to the official record as they are completed.

Is the above 'public compendium' the "Secretariat Archives"?
I had assumed not, considering that in the text of a draft 'National Control of Elections' ruling, Christian Democrats asked "Is this appropriate for final publication and for placement in whatever Rulings Archive we create?"
viewtopic.php?p=30341749#p30341749
(yes I keep talking about 'National Control because that's the only one I've read through the whole thing of yet - if you (one of the Secretariat) would rather I read them all before asking annoying questions, I consider that valid, please let me know)
If it is not, (it's not or it isn't??) then where is said 'public compendium'?
If it is, why is there a non precedential ruling in it?
My question comes down to this:
Where are all the precedential decisions posted as specified by the 'Rules and Procedures of the General Assembly Secretariat' 1c. ?
Edit: Fixed an unclear clause and a capitalization error.
Also: 'precedential' I saw Christian Democrats used this so I'm using it too, apologies if it's not a real word

[Christian Democrats]

Where are all the precedential decisions posted as specified by the 'Rules and Procedures of the General Assembly Secretariat' 1c. ?

Glen-Rhodes started a thread in the GenSec forum, and it was going to be moved to this forum . . .

[Ledaj]

Where are all the precedential decisions posted as specified by the 'Rules and Procedures of the General Assembly Secretariat' 1c. ?

Glen-Rhodes started a thread in the GenSec forum, and it was going to be moved to this forum . . .

If possible, could you, in this case, do as Luna Amore suggested for a slightly different case?

Like you just did, I'd recommend posting a request in your forum when you see something needs to be moved. If there's a request, I (and I assume any mod that sees it) will move it.

I don't imagine any mods are going to scan GenSec for month old threads to move without prodding.

[Christian Democrats]

Glen-Rhodes started a thread in the GenSec forum, and it was going to be moved to this forum . . .

If possible, could you, in this case, do as Luna Amore suggested for a slightly different case?

Like you just did, I'd recommend posting a request in your forum when you see something needs to be moved. If there's a request, I (and I assume any mod that sees it) will move it.

I don't imagine any mods are going to scan GenSec for month old threads to move without prodding.

viewtopic.php?p=31931667#p31931667

As I said above, GR didn't stick with it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Also, Scion, you're missing a starting bold tag on section 6.

Extraducial Punishment Ban's discussion thread needs to be released, as it was decided on 03/03/2017.
Repeal "Pesticide Regulations" 's discussion thread needs to be released as well, as it was decided 07/05/2017.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Working on the GA database, I'd like to catalogue dissents, but it appears that some have never been published. For example, BA's dissent on Compliance Commission was never published, nor was his dissent on Repeal "Rights of the Quarantined", though that certainly is new.

Also, the Secretariat threads for the decisions mentioned in the last post should be moved to the public forum.

[Bears Armed]

Working on the GA database, I'd like to catalogue dissents, but it appears that some have never been published. For example, BA's dissent on Compliance Commission was never published, nor was his dissent on Repeal "Rights of the Quarantined", though that certainly is new.

The judgement on 'Compliance Commission' came at a time when unfortunately I was rather busy in RL, and writing my formal opinion got put on hold & then forgotten. I'll try to get back to it soon after next week, when I'll have more time available.
My dissenting opinion on 'Repeal "Rights of the Quarantined" ' is being worked on.

[Sciongrad]

Section 7 has been added. Additionally, I've added a comprehensive list of GenSec decisions created by none other than IA. I hope everyone finds this to be a valuable resource.

[Thyerata]

Section 7 has been added. Additionally, I've added a comprehensive list of GenSec decisions created by none other than IA. I hope everyone finds this to be a valuable resource.

Thanks Scion. While section 7 doesn't contain a definitive list of criteria, I would say that the requirement for members of GenSec to state publicly why they won't hear a case is still a good compromise in favour of GenSec's transparency.

[Separatist Peoples]

Section 7 has been added. Additionally, I've added a comprehensive list of GenSec decisions created by none other than IA. I hope everyone finds this to be a valuable resource.

Thanks Scion. While section 7 doesn't contain a definitive list of criteria, I would say that the requirement for members of GenSec to state publicly why they won't hear a case is still a good compromise in favour of GenSec's transparency.

It's exactly what we've been doing, just codified. Glad that's satisfactory.

[Araraukar]

It's exactly what we've been doing, just codified. Glad that's satisfactory.

So now we'll just have to figure out by trial and error what that unwritten list of criteria contains...

[Separatist Peoples]

It's exactly what we've been doing, just codified. Glad that's satisfactory.

So now we'll just have to figure out by trial and error what that unwritten list of criteria contains...

When something isn't immediately obvious as illegal. Obvious illegalities are why we have gameside tools. Rulings are for ambiguities. And before people start clamoring about what exactly is ambiguous, let me clear that up, too: letting the discussion unfold in the drafting thread is a really good barometer. If everybody is calling something illegal and the author is ignoring that advice, don't challenge it. If genuine discussion has gone on without a consensus or a corresponding edit, consider having a challenge. Just like when the Mods were doing it, we want challenges to be last resorts, used only after the community can't sort it out.

I genuinely don't see how this is suddenly hard (for people in general, not you specifically). Players didn't demand Mod Rulings on every single draft before GenSec because they knew when the legality was questionable and when it was obvious.

[Frisbeeteria]

Players didn't demand Mod Rulings on every single draft before GenSec because they knew when the legality was questionable and when it was obvious.

They kinda did. We had to post this sort of thing all too often.

[Separatist Peoples]

Players didn't demand Mod Rulings on every single draft before GenSec because they knew when the legality was questionable and when it was obvious.

They kinda did. We had to post this sort of thing all too often.

Don't you ruin my happy memories!

[Araraukar]

They kinda did. We had to post this sort of thing all too often.

Don't you ruin my happy memories!

Fris is right, though, people aren't picking on GenSec any more than they/we were during the mod era... Well, maybe a tiny bit more, because the system with you guys in power is still quite new, and we haven't yet found out all the things that make it wobble.

[Wallenburg]

Don't you ruin my happy memories!

Fris is right, though, people aren't picking on GenSec any more than they/we were during the mod era... Well, maybe a tiny bit more, because the system with you guys in power is still quite new, and we haven't yet found out all the things that make it wobble.

Also, the whole reason we have GenSec is that it is supposed to be an improvement on the old system, so criticism over shortcomings greater than those of the old Secretariat can be expected.

[Bears Armed]

Repeals

Decision confirmed by vote in the Secretariat, currently at 4-0 in favour: The 'Description' line that the game automatically adds for any Repeal proposal constitutes enough of an operative clause that the author's doesn't have to include one in their 'Argument' as well for legality.

[Bananaistan]

Under what section of the procedures outlined in the OP was the discussion that lead to this decision held? What other elements of moderator precedent and/or GA custom and practice are you either currently discussing or intending to discuss changes to?

[Araraukar]

Under what section of the procedures outlined in the OP was the discussion that lead to this decision held? What other elements of moderator precedent and/or GA custom and practice are you either currently discussing or intending to discuss changes to?

Also, if the decision of the rule change is made, it should be included in the official proposal rules thread, so everyone can find it easily, and at least at first people shouldn't be punished for redundancy for including the repeal clause as an active clause.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Under what section of the procedures outlined in the OP was the discussion that lead to this decision held? What other elements of moderator precedent and/or GA custom and practice are you either currently discussing or intending to discuss changes to?

Also, if the decision of the rule change is made, it should be included in the official proposal rules thread, so everyone can find it easily, and at least at first people shouldn't be punished for redundancy for including the repeal clause as an active clause.

People shouldn't be punished at all. Redundancy has never been illegal.