[Legality Challenge] Repeal: Freedom of Expression

[Uan aa Boa]

The proposal

Repeal: “Freedom Of Expression”
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#30

Proposed by: Imperium Anglorum

General Assembly Resolution #30 “Freedom of Expression” (Category: Furtherment of Democracy; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Resolving that it is profoundly immoral to permit corporations and legal persons to lie to consumers,

Believing that society as a whole can have justifiable reasons to restrict expression for public safety and to prevent the consumption or publication of materials that would damage public health, social order, or needless antagonisation,

Seeing that society should have the ability to regulate adverts and their means of distribution, eg prohibiting tobacco advertisements from being shown on childrens' television channels or placing limits on where or what can be depicted in such advertising, and

Confident that there will be a scrambling of legislative efforts to replace this resolution with more appropriate legislation that permits society to protect itself, hereby:

Repeals GA c 30 "Freedom of Expression".

Drafting thread here.

Firstly, my apologies for submitting a second challenge. I have done so because the first one is not explained in detail and that although my argument overlaps with the one outlined there it also goes further.

I submit that the proposal is illegal under the honest mistake rule. It implies (though without directly stating) that the target resolution permits legal persons such as corporations to lie to consumers and prevents government regulation of advertising. In fact GA #30 does no such thing because (a) it is not intended to apply to non-natural legal persons (b) it does not protect the right to lie or to advertise.

(a) GA #30 does not apply to non-natural legal persons
The resolutions "affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal." The plural of legal person is legal persons and there is no satisfactory precedent for interpreting the word people to mean the same thing. If I asked how many people there are in the USA a reasonable listener would not understand me to be asking how many human inhabitants there are and are also many corporate entities and other legal persons are headquartered there, as would be the case had I asked how many persons. Neither would such sentences as "Microsoft, Apple and other people" be reasonably considered correct English usage. I submit that the words people and persons are not synonyms and that a reasonable person reading GA 30 would be understand it to be referring only to natural persons i.e. people.

(b) GA #30 does not affirm the right to lie or advertise
The resolution specifically and only affirms the right to express personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views. A lie, which is a factual statement known by the speaker to be untrue, is none of those things because it is not a view and therefore GA #30 is silent on the subject of lying. Similarly, an advertisement for a product is not the same thing as the expression of a view about the product, which would be a review. Advertising very rarely works by simply expressing an opinion. GA #30 is silent on the subject of advertising such as the tobacco advertising mentioned in the proposal.

[Separatist Peoples]

(a) GA #30 does not apply to non-natural legal persons
The resolutions "affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal." The plural of legal person is legal persons and there is no satisfactory precedent for interpreting the word people to mean the same thing. If I asked how many people there are in the USA a reasonable listener would not understand me to be asking how many human inhabitants there are and are also many corporate entities and other legal persons are headquartered there, as would be the case had I asked how many persons. Neither would such sentences as "Microsoft, Apple and other people" be reasonably considered correct English usage. I submit that the words people and persons are not synonyms and that a reasonable person reading GA 30 would be understand it to be referring only to natural persons i.e. people.

If the author had intended this to focus purely on natural persons, they would have said individuals. Like most proposals do. Not buying it.

(b) GA #30 does not affirm the right to lie or advertise
The resolution specifically and only affirms the right to express personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views. A lie, which is a factual statement known by the speaker to be untrue, is none of those things because it is not a view and therefore GA #30 is silent on the subject of lying. Similarly, an advertisement for a product is not the same thing as the expression of a view about the product, which would be a review. Advertising very rarely works by simply expressing an opinion. GA #30 is silent on the subject of advertising such as the tobacco advertising mentioned in the proposal.

IA's repeal has a colorable argument that GAR#30 affects commercial speech. Proposals are presumptively legal when HM is invoked. There is a colorable argument. Proposal legal in my eyes.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I have to agree with SP's interpretations. The guarantee is not afforded to "people solely in their capacity as private citizens" or "voters" or "man of woman born." It's afforded to people generally, which unless specified does not exclude the girl in marketing down the hall working on behalf of her giant faceless corporate overlords.

Similarly, GA Res. #30 wouldn't have to guarantee a right to lie for the repeal's accusations to reach their target. Nobody made a giant stink about the U.S. First Amendment when R.J. Reynolds (facing an unfavorable trial and settling) agreed to stop using Joe Camel to advertise cigarettes [to children]. Under GAR #30 it's reasonable to believe that WA members are forbidden from making regulations prohibiting such relatively subtle advertising campaigns, which the proposed repeal is not wrong or illegal for pointing out.

[Dirty Americans]

If the author had intended this to focus purely on natural persons, they would have said individuals. Like most proposals do. Not buying it.

I can sell it to you wholesale. It really depends on the definition of "all peoples" (human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest) and whether or not "all peoples" is perfectly equivalent to "all persons" (one - such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation - that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties) and thus including the partnerships and corporations. The joy of sloppy resolution writing.

[Bananaistan]

If the author had intended this to focus purely on natural persons, they would have said individuals. Like most proposals do. Not buying it.

I can sell it to you wholesale. It really depends on the definition of "all peoples" (human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest) and whether or not "all peoples" is perfectly equivalent to "all persons" (one - such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation - that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties) and thus including the partnerships and corporations. The joy of sloppy resolution writing.

I think this is a result of moving standards in the GA. I have no doubt that when FoE was passed, nobody thought that corporations were people too. I still don't.

I'd also like to see a bit more discussion here about the lying aspect of the challenge. Even if we accept that corporations are people too, I don't see that lies are a person's views and protected under the affirms clause of the target. I'm leaning illegal on this count but am open to persuasion.

[Liberimery]

I can sell it to you wholesale. It really depends on the definition of "all peoples" (human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest) and whether or not "all peoples" is perfectly equivalent to "all persons" (one - such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation - that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties) and thus including the partnerships and corporations. The joy of sloppy resolution writing.

I think this is a result of moving standards in the GA. I have no doubt that when FoE was passed, nobody thought that corporations were people too. I still don't.

I'd also like to see a bit more discussion here about the lying aspect of the challenge. Even if we accept that corporations are people too, I don't see that lies are a person's views and protected under the affirms clause of the target. I'm leaning illegal on this count but am open to persuasion.

The crux of the argument on the lying aspect stems from this portion of text from the at iss resolution:

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud;

The common read of academic fraud is that one cannot fraudulently misrepresent facts of scientific nature or make claims of fact. Suppose a cereal commercial for Fuity Bitty Boulders used two animated characters Caveman Frank and Caveman Billy to advertise the product. In a typical advertisement would feature Billy creating elaborate dinosaur based contraptions to steal Bitty Boulders from Frank, who the proceeds to chase Billy. Billy explains this is because Bitty Boulders are his favorite cereal and taste great. These would be statements of opinion. However, should Billy explain that Bitty Boulders are made from real fruit, when in fact all flavors are artificial and synthesized the this would count as accademic fraud as it makes statements of facts that we assume a cartoon spokes cavemen should be prevented from saying by the company at some level. Thus the statement could mislead parents into thinking that the cereal is healthier tha Happy-O's or Fortunate Talismans.

This health crisis might cause strain on a nation's heath services or civil court system that would be reasonable enough to merit a government's compelling interest to make laws that would restrict companies from factual claims that have no merit or are out and out lies.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The common read of academic fraud is like the below:



It's cheating, not the statement of false things. There will always be false things reported in science. If your critical value is 0.05, then you will have false positive results (which is not even to talk about false negatives), at best, one twentieth of the time. The crux of the "argument" doesn't make any sense.

[Liberimery]

The common read of academic fraud is like the below:

([url=https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/234787005685432351/458761070786641920/let-me-google-that-for-you-academic-fraud.png]Image)[/url]

It's cheating, not the statement of false things. There will always be false things reported in science. If your critical value is 0.05, then you will have false positive results (which is not even to talk about false negatives), at best, one twentieth of the time. The crux of the "argument" doesn't make any sense.

The fist link includes Deception which links to the general page for Deception and Fabrication of data, which links to the general page of the Fabrication. The language of the GA#30 resolution also implies that items such as defimation, plagerism, copyright and trademark infringement AND other forms of Academic Fraud implies that their are uninmerated reasonable fraudulent acts that can be defined under the banner of Academic Fraud.

Thus GA#30 could reasonably be read as an exemption to allow for strict laws against the publication against factual lies. The intent behind these exceptions is to allow for nations to have a market place of ideas polluted by purveyors of false information with intent to decieve.

That the Member from Anglorum provided the above picture is further evidence to the claim that the member has made an honest mistake. Given the purple coloration of every link in his search, it is clear that the member did read numerous definitions. I admit to only consulting the first link. But even with one link I have found a definition that encompasses far more than merely cheating in a class room setting. I do not attribute malace to the members character in the halls of the world assembly, but I do find his sincere belief is an honest mistake in both the reading of GA#30 and the understanding of the definitions used there within.

Of course, if I am mistaken and the member did not access the pages that I have, than it stands to reason that the member did indeed not read the full definition and I contend that too is nothing more than an honest mistake.

In fact, I stand with the esteemed member on principle. I do believe that commercial speech is not the same as Free Expression. Corporations need to conduct their transactions fairly with their customers. But as is often the case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I believe the repeal of GA#30 to imperil too many people in too many countries to be a tolarable course of actions to join. Not the least of which is an honest mistake on the part of such a respectable member.

[Separatist Peoples]

Irrelevant.

Thus GA#30 could reasonably be read as an exemption to allow for strict laws against the publication against factual lies. The intent behind these exceptions is to allow for nations to have a market place of ideas polluted by purveyors of false information with intent to decieve.

That isn't how HM works. GAR#30 can be reasonably read to support your perspective. It can also reasonably read otherwise. That is all that it takes to survive a HM challenge. You needn't have the More Right interpretation, your interpretation merely needs to be Not Wrong.

That the Member from Anglorum provided the above picture is further evidence to the claim that the member has made an honest mistake. Given the purple coloration of every link in his search, it is clear that the member did read numerous definitions.

Having done additional research is not a good reason to ignore a point.

I admit to only consulting the first link. But even with one link I have found a definition that encompasses far more than merely cheating in a class room setting.

That is one reading. Not the only reading.

I do not attribute malace to the members character in the halls of the world assembly, but I do find his sincere belief is an honest mistake in both the reading of GA#30 and the understanding of the definitions used there within.

you're wrong.

Of course, if I am mistaken and the member did not access the pages that I have, than it stands to reason that the member did indeed not read the full definition and I contend that too is nothing more than an honest mistake.

That is not how Honest Mistake works.

In fact, I stand with the esteemed member on principle. I do believe that commercial speech is not the same as Free Expression. Corporations need to conduct their transactions fairly with their customers. But as is often the case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I believe the repeal of GA#30 to imperil too many people in too many countries to be a tolarable course of actions to join. Not the least of which is an honest mistake on the part of such a respectable member.

This is NOT how Legality Challenges work. Legality challenges are NOT about making good policy. They are about enforcing the forum rules. GenSec will permit legal but bad policy and block good but illegal policy. Quality of policy is utterly irrelevant here. Stop using it as an argument.

If you cannot figure out how Challenges work, please don't post in one.

[Liberimery]

Irrelevant.

Thus GA#30 could reasonably be read as an exemption to allow for strict laws against the publication against factual lies. The intent behind these exceptions is to allow for nations to have a market place of ideas polluted by purveyors of false information with intent to decieve.

That isn't how HM works. GAR#30 can be reasonably read to support your perspective. It can also reasonably read otherwise. That is all that it takes to survive a HM challenge. You needn't have the More Right interpretation, your interpretation merely needs to be Not Wrong.

That the Member from Anglorum provided the above picture is further evidence to the claim that the member has made an honest mistake. Given the purple coloration of every link in his search, it is clear that the member did read numerous definitions.

Having done additional research is not a good reason to ignore a point.

I admit to only consulting the first link. But even with one link I have found a definition that encompasses far more than merely cheating in a class room setting.

That is one reading. Not the only reading.

I do not attribute malace to the members character in the halls of the world assembly, but I do find his sincere belief is an honest mistake in both the reading of GA#30 and the understanding of the definitions used there within.

you're wrong.

Of course, if I am mistaken and the member did not access the pages that I have, than it stands to reason that the member did indeed not read the full definition and I contend that too is nothing more than an honest mistake.

That is not how Honest Mistake works.

In fact, I stand with the esteemed member on principle. I do believe that commercial speech is not the same as Free Expression. Corporations need to conduct their transactions fairly with their customers. But as is often the case, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I believe the repeal of GA#30 to imperil too many people in too many countries to be a tolarable course of actions to join. Not the least of which is an honest mistake on the part of such a respectable member.

This is NOT how Legality Challenges work. Legality challenges are NOT about making good policy. They are about enforcing the forum rules. GenSec will permit legal but bad policy and block good but illegal policy. Quality of policy is utterly irrelevant here. Stop using it as an argument.

If you cannot figure out how Challenges work, please don't post in one.

Apologies. My point was that the research provided does not support the conclusion that the language meant only cheating in an academic setting and as I used the same articles in my research I wish to contend that the member may have misinterpreted the research. As another member of the general secretariat is considering the fact that the type of restrictions concerning the repeal are covered under GA#30.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Given the purple coloration of every link in his search, it is clear that the member did read numerous definitions. I admit to only consulting the first link.

Lolwut? This just the colour that links have. If you have Flux on, turn it off.

—

Also, this is an OOC thread. I'm not an esteemed member. I'm a player that happens to have a WA flag set to 'Member' on this nation (well, some technicalities there, but I'll not get into them). Ambassadors and what-not don't exist.

Moreover, even if what you claim is true, the burden still lies on you to prove that my repeal's reading is not a reasonable reading of the resolution, not that there are better or other readings of the resolution. (That said, I still think Sep and CD's reading is correct here, that academic does not include things that take place outside of academia.)

[Liberimery]

Given the purple coloration of every link in his search, it is clear that the member did read numerous definitions. I admit to only consulting the first link.

Lolwut? This just the colour that links have. If you have Flux on, turn it off.

—

Also, this is an OOC thread. I'm not an esteemed member. I'm a player that happens to have a WA flag set to 'Member' on this nation (well, some technicalities there, but I'll not get into them). Ambassadors and what-not don't exist.

Moreover, even if what you claim is true, the burden still lies on you to prove that my repeal's reading is not a reasonable reading of the resolution, not that there are better or other readings of the resolution. (That said, I still think Sep and CD's reading is correct here, that academic does not include things that take place outside of academia.)

I was under the understanding that this was IC unless noted. In that case than the fact that GA#30 includes defamation, copyright, and trademark infringement under the the subeset of academic fraud in addition to plagerism suggests that the writer was intending protection of government's ability to police speech that are scientificly or demonstrably false in nature.

The language of this statement is indicative of an unenumerated list and mixes both legal concepts and purely academic. Defamation is not a listed part of academic fraud and neither are copyright or trademark abuses. Additionally, plagerism is not insofar as I am aware an illicit act in the eyes of the law but is specifically academic fraud.

This all demonstrates that the law as written under GA#30 would be read to imply that that various types of scientific falsehoods can be read that the mixed nature and the fact that the list implies academic fraud has broader meaning beyond schools. One might find that lying in a scientific paper in a cooperate lab to be academic fraud. Similarly a criminal forensics lab knowingly lying in its findings would release scientific documents with false data. As discussed earlier this along with protections against speech that cause detrimental society as well as anything that relates to commercial speech is not expicitly protected or even mentioned in GA#30.

[Uan aa Boa]

I think this is a result of moving standards in the GA. I have no doubt that when FoE was passed, nobody thought that corporations were people too. I still don't.

I'd also like to see a bit more discussion here about the lying aspect of the challenge. Even if we accept that corporations are people too, I don't see that lies are a person's views and protected under the affirms clause of the target. I'm leaning illegal on this count but am open to persuasion.

The crux of the argument on the lying aspect stems from this portion of text from the at iss resolution:

Allows member states to set reasonable restrictions on expression in order to prevent defamation, as well as plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement, and other forms of academic fraud;

That's nothing to do with the lying aspect, which stems from this portion of text:

Resolving that it is profoundly immoral to permit corporations and legal persons to lie to consumers

Since this is the thread about my challenge I'd like to point out that it makes no mention of academic fraud, leaving whatever debate you and IA might have about the definition of academic fraud irrelevant here.

[First Nightmare]

If someone says a lie they do not believe it, because a lie is something the one who lies knows to be false.
I see no reasonable interpretation of that sentence that doesn't make it a mistake.

[Separatist Peoples]

If someone says a lie they do not believe it, because a lie is something the one who lies knows to be false.
I see no reasonable interpretation of that sentence that doesn't make it a mistake.

But unless they admit it's a lie, it's unfalsifiable. And there is no reasonable evidence opportunity for states take advantage of. It's simply not possible for states to enforce restrictions on lies unless they have a lie detector. Otherwise, you open the door to exactly the kind of suppression that the target resolution seeks to avoid. The repeal argument isn't unreasonable, and is therefore legal.

[Sciongrad]

I was under the understanding that this was IC unless noted.

Challenge threads are OOC.

[Uan aa Boa]

It's simply not possible for states to enforce restrictions on lies unless they have a lie detector.

Yet the repeal proposal is expressly predicated on the intention to enforce restrictions on lies!

[Sierra Lyricalia]

It's simply not possible for states to enforce restrictions on lies unless they have a lie detector.

Yet the repeal proposal is expressly predicated on the intention to enforce restrictions on lies!

When you consider that anti-vaxxers sincerely believe the bullshit that they peddle, and that tobacco companies can advertise to children without ever uttering a word of a lie, and then again when you actually look at the text of the proposed repeal, you find that what you just said is entirely false.

[Separatist Peoples]

It's simply not possible for states to enforce restrictions on lies unless they have a lie detector.

Yet the repeal proposal is expressly predicated on the intention to enforce restrictions on lies!

SL beat me to it.

What the author intends to do after successful repeal is irrelevant to this discussion.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I thought my FAQ covered that argument already in the second or third point.

[Uan aa Boa]

Yet the repeal proposal is expressly predicated on the intention to enforce restrictions on lies!

When you consider that anti-vaxxers sincerely believe the bullshit that they peddle, and that tobacco companies can advertise to children without ever uttering a word of a lie, and then again when you actually look at the text of the proposed repeal, you find that what you just said is entirely false.

So, just to be clear, you're saying that despite the first line of the repeal proposal being "Resolving that it is profoundly immoral to permit corporations and legal persons to lie to consumers" it is entirely false to say that it's predicated on an intention to enforce restrictions on lying?

What the author intends to do after successful repeal is irrelevant to this discussion.

The clear implication is "let's repeal GA #30 so that we can prevent corporations and legal persons from lying." This is not just about what the author intends to do later, it's argument against the target resolution. If, as I contend, GA #30 doesn't protect lying corporations in the first place then this is "factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution," which is the definition of an honest mistake posted in the sticky thread that sets out the rules.

I thought my FAQ covered that argument already in the second or third point.

You wrote "people believe false things." They do indeed, but your repeal proposal is expressly talking about lies, and false beliefs are not lies.

[Separatist Peoples]

What the author intends to do after successful repeal is irrelevant to this discussion.

The clear implication is "let's repeal GA #30 so that we can prevent corporations and legal persons from lying." This is not just about what the author intends to do later, it's argument against the target resolution. If, as I contend, GA #30 doesn't protect lying corporations in the first place then this is "factual inaccuracies, misrepresentation, or content that doesn't address the resolution," which is the definition of an honest mistake posted in the sticky thread that sets out the rules.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Your interpretation is not the only legal interpretation. IA has taken another that is colorable from the text. It needn't be the best interpretation, merely a plausible one. Again, no violation.

[TeMmMiElAnD]

I don't know whats going on but I agree with it.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

When you consider that anti-vaxxers sincerely believe the bullshit that they peddle, and that tobacco companies can advertise to children without ever uttering a word of a lie, and then again when you actually look at the text of the proposed repeal, you find that what you just said is entirely false.

So, just to be clear, you're saying that despite the first line of the repeal proposal being "Resolving that it is profoundly immoral to permit corporations and legal persons to lie to consumers" it is entirely false to say that it's predicated on an intention to enforce restrictions on lying?

I'll admit to a slight brain fart on that (seemingly prefatory) clause, but the entire rest of the repeal rests on the idea that regulating things other than filthy deliberate lies is something member states should be able to do. Yes, very few states (per RNT) are going to try to enforce the gonzo restrictions on lying (i.e. every individual false statement from "No, hon, that dress looks great on you!" to "Sorry, officer, I didn't see who threw that paper airplane at you while you and your pals were beating the shit out of that guy.") that you're contemplating. But there's still no honest mistake in the repeal. The target can be read to protect non-academic, non-defamatory, non-"fire-in-a-crowded-threater"-style lies, even though some of those lies are neither impossible to detect and enforce, nor harmless to the social fabric. But more importantly, the target appears to protect objectively false or misleading statements, innuendoes, implications, associations, and portrayals that nevertheless are not lies. The repeal is legal.

[Uan aa Boa]

The target can be read to protect non-academic, non-defamatory, non-"fire-in-a-crowded-threater"-style lies, even though some of those lies are neither impossible to detect and enforce, nor harmless to the social fabric.

It can only be so read if those lies can be considered the expression of "personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views." Since definitionally one's view is what one believes to be true it is extremely difficult to squeeze intentional lies into that category, although you and Separatist Peoples are clearly insistent on doing so.

But more importantly, the target appears to protect objectively false or misleading statements, innuendoes, implications, associations, and portrayals that nevertheless are not lies. The repeal is legal.

I agree that the target protects the making of certain false statements. The repeal advances 3 arguments.

Firstly, that the GA #30 permits lying. We have addressed this.

Secondly, that GA #30 prevents "restricting expression for public safety and to prevent the consumption or publication of materials that would damage public health, social order, or needless antagonisation." (Let's set aside the point that damaging needless antagonisation might not be a bad thing because we know what IA was trying to say.) This has some overlap with GA #30's provision for "incitements to widespread lawlessness and disorder, or violence against any individual, group or organization." I think public health is the only area that GA #30 doesn't cover. Anti-vaxxer publications could be protected. The implication that it doesn't cover social order when it expressly does should in itself constitute misrepresentation.

Thirdly, that GA #30 denies "the ability to regulate adverts and their means of distribution, eg prohibiting tobacco advertisements from being shown on childrens' television channels or placing limits on where or what can be depicted in such advertising." So we're back to "personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views." A tobacco advert is clearly not any of the latter 5 types of view, so to be protected by GA #30 it would have to be the expression of a personal view. To reiterate, while I have no problem with the concept of legal personhood to say that such entities are to be understood as included under the heading of people and as possessing personal views is bending the English language to breaking point. Even if we ignore this problem, what view is being expressed? The view that that people should buy more of a particular brand of cigarette? Advertising of the Joe Camel variety linked to above doesn't bear much resemblance to the expressing of that view. Indeed advertising is more to do with juxtaposition and connection of ideas and images than expressing any kind of view. It's absurd to claim that GA #30 would prevent legislation against Joe Camel.

So while you may have a point that GA #30 has an issue with protecting objectively false or misleading statements etc that point is not being made in IA's repeal. Perhaps you should write your own. I'm not here to argue that GA #30 is perfect, just that IA's repeal misrepresents it.

As we approach the final hours of voting I appreciate that this challenge isn't going anywhere. I'd like, however, to ask GenSec to consider updating the rules thread to explain the honest mistake rule more clearly. As it stands it doesn't explain that the repeal need only interpret its target in a way supported by a colourable argument and need not address the strongest reading. It doesn't give any idea how much misrepresentation in an appeal proposal is acceptable. Is misrepresentation in any one clause bad, or does every argument advanced have to be invalidated by misrepresentation?

The tone of this thread has been that of an inner circle scoffing that the outsiders and the "drive-bys" don't understand the rules. The solution would be to publish and clearly signpost the rules. This would also protect GenSec from the perception that they're making it up on the hoof.