Rules and Procedures of the GA Secretariat

[Imperium Anglorum]

They haven't made the inclusion of an active repeals clause to be illegal. Stop peddling untruths.

[Sciongrad]

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.

What are you talking about? Why type if you don't know what you're saying?

[States of Glory WA Office]

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

What are you talking about? Why type if you don't know what you're saying?

I'd appreciate being informed about my errors rather than being snarked at with no explanation. What did I say that was wrong? Was redundancy against the proposal rules at some point?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

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?

We were informed by Moderation that we have the power to effect rule changes. Instead of using this power like an unaccountable oligarchy, we have discussed amongst ourselves and are now presenting our opinion to the community for comment, improvement, or veto. This is one of (I think) the less difficult and/or controversial changes that needs doing. If you'd prefer, we can jump right into re-wording the blocker rule - that is something I think we can all agree needs doing...

[Frisbeeteria]

We were informed by Moderation that we have the power to effect rule changes.

Confirmed. It still takes a mod to edit the rules sticky ... and we do participate in the rule change debates when necessary. So far, they're taking a very measured approach.

[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.

Now 5-0 in favour...
Unless there's strong disagreement on this point from a lot of the GA's other active members?

[Sciongrad]

What are you talking about? Why type if you don't know what you're saying?

I'd appreciate being informed about my errors rather than being snarked at with no explanation. What did I say that was wrong? Was redundancy against the proposal rules at some point?

Redundancy has never been illegal. This change doesn't make it illegal to include an operative repeal clause, it just makes it legal not to.

[States of Glory WA Office]

I'd appreciate being informed about my errors rather than being snarked at with no explanation. What did I say that was wrong? Was redundancy against the proposal rules at some point?

Redundancy has never been illegal. This change doesn't make it illegal to include an operative repeal clause, it just makes it legal not to.

I literally said that redundancy has never been illegal:

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.

What exactly are you arguing about? From what I can see, we're in complete agreement.

[Thyerata]

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?

My understanding is that GenSec has the general power and duty to review and, if necessary, amend its procedures in light of changing practice within the GA at large

[Sciongrad]

Redundancy has never been illegal. This change doesn't make it illegal to include an operative repeal clause, it just makes it legal not to.

I literally said that redundancy has never been illegal:

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

What exactly are you arguing about? From what I can see, we're in complete agreement.

My bad! I misread your initial post as a criticism, implying that the new rule would somehow punish people for redundancy, even though it was never punishable in the past. I missed Ara's initial post, so without context, I wasn't clear on what you meant.

[States of Glory WA Office]

I literally said that redundancy has never been illegal:

What exactly are you arguing about? From what I can see, we're in complete agreement.

My bad! I misread your initial post as a criticism, implying that the new rule would somehow punish people for redundancy, even though it was never punishable in the past. I missed Ara's initial post, so without context, I wasn't clear on what you meant.

I still think that your initial reply to me was unnecessarily snide, but apology accepted.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The Secretariat threads for Extrajudicial Punishment Ban and Repeal "Responsibility In Transferring Arms" should be released per the month-delay policy.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The Secretariat threads for Extrajudicial Punishment Ban and Repeal "Responsibility In Transferring Arms" should be released per the month-delay policy.

The latter's opinion was finished and posted nine days ago, and therefore has not passed the two-week threshold for release. I will ask Moderation to release the former.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The Secretariat threads for Extrajudicial Punishment Ban and Repeal "Responsibility In Transferring Arms" should be released per the month-delay policy.

The latter's opinion was finished and posted nine days ago, and therefore has not passed the two-week threshold for release. I will ask Moderation to release the former.

Yea, you're right about the latter. I accidentally looked at the challenge posting date rather than the decision release date.

[Christian Democrats]

two-week threshold for release

I thought it was four weeks.

[Imperium Anglorum]

two-week threshold for release

I thought it was four weeks.

As did I, well, rather just a one month period.

[Araraukar]

Looks like the nominations for GenSec thread got locked really early... which likely means that a person was selected and agreed to join, already.

Congrats in advance, IA! (If it's not you, I'll be 100% surprised.)

[Wrapper]

No, it means they have a large enough pool of candidates to choose from and will be making a decision soon.

[Araraukar]

No, it means they have a large enough pool of candidates to choose from and will be making a decision soon.

I'll still be 100% surprised if it's not IA.

[Thyerata]

I was thinking. We have quite a large userbase here from across the world and for some of them (looking at you Ara as an example) English may not be a first language. GenSec has traditionally issued lengthy opinions when rendering legality decisions. As a law grad I don't object to this at all, but I know that users who don't have a native command of English (hell, maybe some native English speakers too) might find it difficult to read the opinions. Would it be a good idea if GenSec were to issue a headnote to their opinion - essentially summarising, in one paragraph or less, their decision and the main/key reasons for it?

[Wallenburg]

I was thinking. We have quite a large userbase here from across the world and for some of them (looking at you Ara as an example) English may not be a first language. GenSec has traditionally issued lengthy opinions when rendering legality decisions. As a law grad I don't object to this at all, but I know that users who don't have a native command of English (hell, maybe some native English speakers too) might find it difficult to read the opinions. Would it be a good idea if GenSec were to issue a headnote to their opinion - essentially summarising, in one paragraph or less, their decision and the main/key reasons for it?

I haven't seen any complaints so far from English second language forumgoers, and I find the opinions of GenSec quite concise. If we see some people indicate difficulty in understanding GenSec's formal opinions, I will be more than happy to support this change. However, GenSec already has enough to worry about, and adding a potentially unneeded summary to their opinions may just slow down the ruling process.

[Araraukar]

I haven't seen any complaints so far from English second language forumgoers

Then you haven't looked very closely. I've complained about it on at least 3 different occasions, and probably more often than that.

EDIT: And I find the GenSec opinion essays sometimes very confusing and difficult to follow.

2nd EDIT: I think a summary would be faster to write than one of the opinion essays.

[Wallenburg]

I haven't seen any complaints so far from English second language forumgoers

Then you haven't looked very closely. I've complained about it on at least 3 different occasions, and probably more often than that.

EDIT: And I find the GenSec opinion essays sometimes very confusing and difficult to follow.

2nd EDIT: I think a summary would be faster to write than one of the opinion essays.

Well, I guess I haven't noticed.

In that case, I'd be willing to support a summary or, if it would promote speedy resolution of legality challenges, the reduction of formal opinions to their essential arguments.

[Thyerata]

I haven't seen any complaints so far from English second language forumgoers

Then you haven't looked very closely. I've complained about it on at least 3 different occasions, and probably more often than that.

EDIT: And I find the GenSec opinion essays sometimes very confusing and difficult to follow.

2nd EDIT: I think a summary would be faster to write than one of the opinion essays.

It's primarily because of Ara that I came up with this idea

[Newplacelandia]

These are hypothetical questions, I'm just curious:

Does GenSec have any checks/balance besides the site moderators?
If so, what are they? And can any legislation be passed in the WA that adds/removes checks and balances for GenSec? Or can GenSec be written into a WA proposal at all?