Araraukar wrote:OOC: If this is a legality discussion thread instead of a repeal thread, please change the thread title and OP to reflect the fact.
Also, not trying to lie in repeals also "would result in fewer, time-consuming calls for the GenSec to wade into disputes about the merits of differing interpretations of a resolution which would be more properly resolved by the WA's democratic voting process".
Why have you chosen this particular hill to die on?
I’m not sure I agree with that characterization but I’m not oblivious to the fact that the deck is a bit stacked against me. I’m vocal for two reasons. First, I don’t like the appearance of impropriety where GenSec members act as rule prosecutors and judges at the same time.
More importantly, I am a firm believer in playing by the rules. The rules explicitly allow exaggeration, embellishment and deceptive language in repeals. I want that language either enforced or removed formally. I don’t like that it’s being applied or ignored on an ad hoc basis.