Advertisement
by Daarwyrth » Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:50 am
by Thassala » Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:14 am
by Daarwyrth » Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:30 am
Thassala wrote:What rule was violated? What arguments were made? There's a surprising lack of information here.
Separatist Peoples wrote: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.
by Thassala » Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:48 am
by Daarwyrth » Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:57 am
Thassala wrote: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.
by Thassala » Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:03 am
by Bears Armed » Tue Sep 07, 2021 3:52 am
Thassala wrote:
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.
by Bananaistan » Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:34 am
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:04 am
Daarwyrth wrote:Thassala wrote: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:Separatist Peoples wrote: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.
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Sep 07, 2021 11:06 am
Thassala wrote: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.
by CoraSpia » Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:13 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Daarwyrth wrote: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.
by Separatist Peoples » Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:32 pm
CoraSpia wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote: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?
by CoraSpia » Tue Sep 07, 2021 12:36 pm
by Daarwyrth » Tue Sep 07, 2021 1:45 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:It was, if it balms you, a novel question that will provide helpful guidance moving forward.
by Outer Sparta » Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:28 pm
Daarwyrth wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:It was, if it balms you, a novel question that will provide helpful guidance moving forward.
Then at least some good came out of itCoraSpia wrote: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.
by Daarwyrth » Tue Sep 07, 2021 2:42 pm
Outer Sparta wrote: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.
by Separatist Peoples » Wed Sep 08, 2021 7:08 am
by Daarwyrth » Wed Sep 08, 2021 3:08 pm
by Bears Armed » Wed Sep 08, 2021 3:23 pm
Daarwyrth wrote: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
by Daarwyrth » Wed Sep 08, 2021 4:47 pm
Bears Armed wrote: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.
by Bears Armed » Wed Sep 08, 2021 5:32 pm
I'll start a new thread, that's probably easiest.Daarwyrth wrote:[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?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement