Advertisement
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Jul 02, 2017 5:09 pm
by Sciongrad » Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:42 pm
States of Glory WA Office wrote:Araraukar wrote: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.
by States of Glory WA Office » Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:44 pm
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:50 pm
Bananaistan wrote: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?
by Frisbeeteria » Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:17 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:We were informed by Moderation that we have the power to effect rule changes.
by Bears Armed » Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:47 am
Bears Armed wrote: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.
by Sciongrad » Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:35 am
States of Glory WA Office wrote:Sciongrad wrote: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?
by States of Glory WA Office » Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:50 am
Sciongrad wrote:States of Glory WA Office wrote: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 wrote:Araraukar wrote: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.
by Thyerata » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:45 am
Bananaistan wrote: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?
by Sciongrad » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:14 pm
States of Glory WA Office wrote:Sciongrad wrote: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:States of Glory WA Office wrote: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.
by States of Glory WA Office » Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:07 pm
Sciongrad wrote:States of Glory WA Office wrote: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.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:31 am
by Sierra Lyricalia » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:38 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The Secretariat threads for Extrajudicial Punishment Ban and Repeal "Responsibility In Transferring Arms" should be released per the month-delay policy.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:25 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.
by Christian Democrats » Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:29 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:two-week threshold for release
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:37 pm
by Araraukar » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:06 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Wrapper » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:19 am
by Araraukar » Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:57 pm
Wrapper wrote:No, it means they have a large enough pool of candidates to choose from and will be making a decision soon.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Thyerata » Sat Jul 29, 2017 7:41 am
by Wallenburg » Sat Jul 29, 2017 12:06 pm
Thyerata wrote: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?
by Araraukar » Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:22 pm
Wallenburg wrote:I haven't seen any complaints so far from English second language forumgoers
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Wallenburg » Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:52 pm
Araraukar wrote:Wallenburg wrote: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.
by Thyerata » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:12 am
Araraukar wrote:Wallenburg wrote: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.
by Newplacelandia » Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:51 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Arcaeria, Republics of the Solar Union
Advertisement