[DISCARDED] Protections During Territorial Transitions

[Daarwyrth]

Good luck to everyone in the WA, but this place is clearly not for me as I get absolutely no longer any fun out of it.

[Thassala]

What rule was violated? What arguments were made? There's a surprising lack of information here.

[Daarwyrth]

What rule was violated? What arguments were made? There's a surprising lack of information here.

One of the last comments in the challenge thread was this one:

Well if there's no current rule violated, it's hard to call it illegal. Maybe, just maybe, under game mechanics.

I agree that, moving forward, some rule should address this. But it doesn't exist now and seems unfair to enforce it without clear textual support. I hope the author reconsider the clause while we hash it out.

Frankly the rules need an update if only to clarify more modern approaches. I want to rename Honest Mistake real bad.

And yet it was ruled illegal the very last moment before the vote was concluded. So genuinely, I have no idea, but I do know that the WA's dances of intrigue have tired me to the point I just want to get away from it.

[Thassala]

Is the challenge thread not preserved? Or is that only in the case of setting precedent? I've searched and found nothing, though perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place. If not, it seems bizarre to me that no record exists of why decisions are reached, and thus no accountability is established. This was clearly a popular proposal, and as such voting members have a right to understand why decisions are reached.

It was clear from the beginning that the World Assembly is dominated by a relatively small number of people. I accepted that, as a newly returned member. This, however -striking down votes at the very last moment with no accountability- leaves a very sour taste.

I'm sorry that this happened in this manner, Daarwyrth. For whatever my voice is worth, I hope you'll reconsider your decision to step back.

[Daarwyrth]

Is the challenge thread not preserved? Or is that only in the case of setting precedent? I've searched and found nothing, though perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place. If not, it seems bizarre to me that no record exists of why decisions are reached, and thus no accountability is established. This was clearly a popular proposal, and as such voting members have a right to understand why decisions are reached.

It was clear from the beginning that the World Assembly is dominated by a relatively small number of people. I accepted that, as a newly returned member. This, however -striking down votes at the very last moment with no accountability- leaves a very sour taste.

I'm sorry that this happened in this manner, Daarwyrth. For whatever my voice is worth, I hope you'll reconsider your decision to step back.

Thank you for the kind words, but this was simply the last drop in a series of incidents for me. Lately, any project in the WA felt like a tedious chore rather than a fun challenge in a game, so for now I see no reason not to step back. Maybe in the future if the WA changes a little, but I don't find that likely.

As to the challenge thread, I actually did not see an official vote in there, only opinions expressed. You can find the challenge thread here.

[Thassala]

As to the challenge thread, I actually did not see an official vote in there, only opinions expressed. You can find the challenge thread here.

Ah, I appreciate that! I was searching for Legality Challenge as per the FAQ, which is probably why it didn't come up for me. I stand by the rest of what I said, however: Tinhampton's notation regarding the dismissal was useful and I thank them for it, but I would have much more appreciated an update that explained why it was discarded, by those who ruled.

[Bears Armed]

As to the challenge thread, I actually did not see an official vote in there, only opinions expressed. You can find the challenge thread here.

Ah, I appreciate that! I was searching for Legality Challenge as per the FAQ, which is probably why it didn't come up for me. I stand by the rest of what I said, however: Tinhampton's notation regarding the dismissal was useful and I thank them for it, but I would have much more appreciated an update that explained why it was discarded, by those who ruled.

I'll try to get them to produce one.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Apologies for the delay on the formal notification of the decision which is now posted in the challenge thread.

[Separatist Peoples]

What rule was violated? What arguments were made? There's a surprising lack of information here.

One of the last comments in the challenge thread was this one:

Well if there's no current rule violated, it's hard to call it illegal. Maybe, just maybe, under game mechanics.

I agree that, moving forward, some rule should address this. But it doesn't exist now and seems unfair to enforce it without clear textual support. I hope the author reconsider the clause while we hash it out.

Frankly the rules need an update if only to clarify more modern approaches. I want to rename Honest Mistake real bad.

And yet it was ruled illegal the very last moment before the vote was concluded. So genuinely, I have no idea, but I do know that the WA's dances of intrigue have tired me to the point I just want to get away from it.

Internal discussion yielded a consensus that IA's argument relative to game mechanics was essentially correct.

Kindly note that GenSec votes are not held publicly but released later. I am sorry that this was disheartening for you. It was, if it balms you, a novel question that will provide helpful guidance moving forward.

[Separatist Peoples]

Is the challenge thread not preserved? Or is that only in the case of setting precedent? I've searched and found nothing, though perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place. If not, it seems bizarre to me that no record exists of why decisions are reached, and thus no accountability is established. This was clearly a popular proposal, and as such voting members have a right to understand why decisions are reached.

It was clear from the beginning that the World Assembly is dominated by a relatively small number of people. I accepted that, as a newly returned member. This, however -striking down votes at the very last moment with no accountability- leaves a very sour taste.

I'm sorry that this happened in this manner, Daarwyrth. For whatever my voice is worth, I hope you'll reconsider your decision to step back.

The challenge thread is preserved insofar as any thread is preserved. The decision thread will be released after a predetermined period of time.

GenSec is accountable through the transparency given by disclosures of records, opinions, and the mod team.

[CoraSpia]

One of the last comments in the challenge thread was this one:



And yet it was ruled illegal the very last moment before the vote was concluded. So genuinely, I have no idea, but I do know that the WA's dances of intrigue have tired me to the point I just want to get away from it.

Internal discussion yielded a consensus that IA's argument relative to game mechanics was essentially correct.

Kindly note that GenSec votes are not held publicly but released later. I am sorry that this was disheartening for you. It was, if it balms you, a novel question that will provide helpful guidance moving forward.

Sorry if I'm reading this wrong, but is the clause at issue one that a member of gensec (bears armed) suggested?

[Separatist Peoples]

Internal discussion yielded a consensus that IA's argument relative to game mechanics was essentially correct.

Kindly note that GenSec votes are not held publicly but released later. I am sorry that this was disheartening for you. It was, if it balms you, a novel question that will provide helpful guidance moving forward.

Sorry if I'm reading this wrong, but is the clause at issue one that a member of gensec (bears armed) suggested?

Yes.

[CoraSpia]

Sorry if I'm reading this wrong, but is the clause at issue one that a member of gensec (bears armed) suggested?

Yes.

Why is a member of gensic suggesting clauses that are illegal, and was this not brought up with him prior to submission so he could retract his wording?

[Daarwyrth]

It was, if it balms you, a novel question that will provide helpful guidance moving forward.

Then at least some good came out of it

Yes.

Why is a member of gensic suggesting clauses that are illegal, and was this not brought up with him prior to submission so he could retract his wording?

I cannot speak for Bears Armed, yet from the way I understood it, up until Imperium Anglorum brought the point up in the challenge, no one had caught that it was an illegality. Which is why I find it such a pity that it wasn't caught earlier, during the drafting process (which was fairly lengthy, with multiple redrafts and resubmissions), as I might have been able to rectify the wording before submission. Unfortunately, this had not been the case.

[Outer Sparta]

It was, if it balms you, a novel question that will provide helpful guidance moving forward.

Then at least some good came out of it

Why is a member of gensic suggesting clauses that are illegal, and was this not brought up with him prior to submission so he could retract his wording?

I cannot speak for Bears Armed, yet from the way I understood it, up until Imperium Anglorum brought the point up in the challenge, no one had caught that it was an illegality. Which is why I find it such a pity that it wasn't caught earlier, during the drafting process (which was fairly lengthy, with multiple redrafts and resubmissions), as I might have been able to rectify the wording before submission. Unfortunately, this had not been the case.

The one bad thing about challenges is that they normally come far too late when the draft is submitted or even at vote. It's good to catch any sneaky irregularities or illegalities but they normally have a habit of coming at the last second.

[Daarwyrth]

The one bad thing about challenges is that they normally come far too late when the draft is submitted or even at vote. It's good to catch any sneaky irregularities or illegalities but they normally have a habit of coming at the last second.

Yet the draft was resubmitted twice, because Imperium Anglorum caught an issue with Clause 1 the first time (also after submission), so I assumed he had scrutinised the draft at that moment. Which is why I am so surprised that the issue with the clause that caused the challenge was only highlighted and brought up long after the second submission. It almost feels as if it was done so purposefully, but I completely realise I may be wrong about that feeling/assumption.

[Separatist Peoples]

Yes.

Why is a member of gensic suggesting clauses that are illegal, and was this not brought up with him prior to submission so he could retract his wording?

GenSec doesn't police members who are acting in their capacity as players. We're fallible and are capable of giving bad advice. Making that into an official issue is a great way to overextend ourselves.

Also, procedurally, BA wasn't officially wrong until the ruling is made.

[Daarwyrth]

Bears Armed expressed the interest in producing a redraft in the event I would not want to continue this project. At the moment I have no interest in being active in the WA, but if BA sees something in this draft I have absolutely no qualms about him producing a redraft. In fact, I'd be willing to hand over total authorship of this draft to Bears Armed, considering as I have pulled Daarwyrth from the WA.

So, if BA has no problem with it, I am absolutely fine with this project being handed over to him

[Bears Armed]

Bears Armed expressed the interest in producing a redraft in the event I would not want to continue this project. At the moment I have no interest in being active in the WA, but if BA sees something in this draft I have absolutely no qualms about him producing a redraft. In fact, I'd be willing to hand over total authorship of this draft to Bears Armed, considering as I have pulled Daarwyrth from the WA.

So, if BA has no problem with it, I am absolutely fine with this project being handed over to him

Thank you. As I said in the TG, I feel a bit guilty about this bearing in mind that it was a detail I'd advised that resulted in the previous draft being ruled illegal, but I do think that the idea is definitely worth proceeding with. I'll see what I can do and, as I also said in the TG, will hand it back if you decide that you want to continue -- or just to submit my draft, with or without listing me as co-author -- and would be willing to do the campaigning even if you do resume authorial rights. I'll definitely list you at least as 'Co-Author', unless you object, and if my redraft's only significant change is fixing the illegality then I'll actually list you as 'Author' (c.f. G.A.res#20, where I -- as St Edmund -- let somebody else submit one of my drafts so that they could gain experience of the campaigning process before deciding whether to get involved in drafting, so that they got the "Proposed by" place but I was credited at the foot as author rather than just as co-author...) instead.

[Daarwyrth]

Thank you. As I said in the TG, I feel a bit guilty about this bearing in mind that it was a detail I'd advised that resulted in the previous draft being ruled illegal, but I do think that the idea is definitely worth proceeding with. I'll see what I can do and, as I also said in the TG, will hand it back if you decide that you want to continue -- or just to submit my draft, with or without listing me as co-author -- and would be willing to do the campaigning even if you do resume authorial rights. I'll definitely list you at least as 'Co-Author', unless you object, and if my redraft's only significant change is fixing the illegality then I'll actually list you as 'Author' (c.f. G.A.res#20, where I -- as St Edmund -- let somebody else submit one of my drafts so that they could gain experience of the campaigning process before deciding whether to get involved in drafting, so that they got the "Proposed by" place but I was credited at the foot as author rather than just as co-author...) instead.

Please, don't feel guilty, as I absolutely don't blame you for suggesting the clause should I make a request in Moderation to have thread ownership be transferred to you? Or will you make a new thread for the redraft?

I have no problem with you listing me as co-author, but please know that you don't have to, of course! If there is something worthwhile in the proposal, then I don't really mind who the author is or submits, just that it reaches the vote again

[Bears Armed]

[lease, don't feel guilty, as I absolutely don't blame you for suggesting the clause should I make a request in Moderation to have thread ownership be transferred to you? Or will you make a new thread for the redraft?

I'll start a new thread, that's probably easiest.