[DRAFT] Repeal "Commend Ransium"

[The North Polish Union]

Reasonable people ought to align with Interpretation 2 as relates to this draft for the reasons I explained above.

No, reasonable people will understand that it's just a typo and not overreact like some fifth-grade Grammar Nazi.

Signed,

A former fifth- (and sixth-, and seventh-, and eighth-) grade Grammar Nazi who'd irritated more than a couple English teachers in the 1970s.

As much as some people may dislike what they consider quibbling over an interposition of numbers, in the context of legislation the resolutions mean what they say they mean, and not necessarily what the author would like it to mean. This is a persistent issue for the GA; resolutions are regularly repealed and replaced as it is noticed that they don't do what they intended on doing. Imagine a future where all of us have long-since CTEd and a new batch of nations are running the show. Wouldn't they be confused to see this? I can only imagine what it must be like for the WA gnomes, who had to have their memories of Commend Ransium altered the moment 425 passed

Come on there are better reasons! I commended Drasnia and Drasnia then commended me it was clear quid pro quo! I condemned wrapper and Chan island and both nations actually contributed a lot, what up with that? I haven’t been active lately, do I still deserve it? I’m a mod and everyone hates the mods (surely this argument could be made obliquely enough to be legal, call my nation a bully who bosses around others or something). You can have your mockery and make this a half way decent repeal, don’t I at least deserve that?

That would be the sort of approach I would take if I believed you were no longer commendable, which is not the case. I even note in the last clause draft that my hope is that a replacement commendation would be passed. As it is, my draft is narrower in focus as it deals only with the bits that justify a repeal, rather than trying to make the argument that you yourself are not commendable.

[Varanius]

Imagine a future where all of us have ling-since CTEd and a new batch of nations are running the show. Wouldn't they be confused to see this?

Imagine a future where all of us are long-since CTEd and a new bunch of new nations are running the show. Wouldn’t they be confused to see that sentence and have no clue what you meant by “ling-since”?

[The North Polish Union]

Imagine a future where all of us have ling-since CTEd and a new batch of nations are running the show. Wouldn't they be confused to see this?

Imagine a future where all of us are long-since CTEd and a new bunch of new nations are running the show. Wouldn’t they be confused to see that sentence and have no clue what you meant by “ling-since”?

At least I can edit my posts. Can't edit a passed WA resolution

[Luna Amore]

Wouldn't this be an argument for repealing 425 since it is the resolution with the error?

Even if you repealed Commend Ransium, 425 will still erroneously reference the wrong resolution.

[The North Polish Union]

Wouldn't this be an argument for repealing 425 since it is the resolution with the error?

Even if you repealed Commend Ransium, 425 will still erroneously reference the wrong resolution.

425 is a repeal itself so it can't be repealed.

[Luna Amore]

Wouldn't this be an argument for repealing 425 since it is the resolution with the error?

Even if you repealed Commend Ransium, 425 will still erroneously reference the wrong resolution.

425 is a repeal itself so it can't be repealed.

Ah missed that, ok, then this is just silly.

Because it doesn't even do what it says it does. Removing Repeal Ransium doesn't fix the error in 425.

[The North Polish Union]

425 is a repeal itself so it can't be repealed.

Ah missed that, ok, then this is just silly.

Because it doesn't even do what it says it does. Removing Repeal Ransium doesn't fix the error in 425.

It doesn't fix the error in 425, which is there permanently. What a repeal and replace would fix is the WA's official position that 236 makes certain claims that don't appear to be drawn from the actual resolution the WA passed. If 236 is repealed then no such apparent contradiction exists because the WA will be making claims in 425 about a resolution that then later was struck from the WA record and so the veracity of those claims will have become a moot point.

[Team Leo]

Against. And you have not addressed the contents of “Commend Ransium” which would make your draft illegal.

Right. Jit trippin.

[Dawn Denac]

It's a silly mistake but does not make the proposal illegal.

I don't think it's reasonable to read from the "Questioning" clause onwards as referring to SC#236. The typo at most strikes out the "Recognizing that SC#236" clause, and there is still more than sufficient content addressing the original resolution in there for it to satisfy Rule 1b (addressing the contents of the resolution it is repealing).

Just going to reference Sedge's above posts since the meat of this proposal was technically already addressed.

Back to factbooks.

[The Orwell Society]

Nope

[The North Polish Union]

It's a silly mistake but does not make the proposal illegal.

I don't think it's reasonable to read from the "Questioning" clause onwards as referring to SC#236. The typo at most strikes out the "Recognizing that SC#236" clause, and there is still more than sufficient content addressing the original resolution in there for it to satisfy Rule 1b (addressing the contents of the resolution it is repealing).

Just going to reference Sedge's above posts since the meat of this proposal was technically already addressed.

Back to factbooks.

In that case Sedge was referring to the impact that would be had on 425. I don't interpret any of the clauses other than the one that specifically calls out 236 as referring to 236 for the purpose of this repeal.

In any case this hasn't received meaningful feedback aside from encouragement to change the direction of the repeal entirely. Once again, I don't have any desire to argue that Ransium isn't commendable or that 236 itself is otherwise inadequate (aside from the issue expressed in the draft).

Given the lack of feedback, I'd like to request a second opinion on the legality ruling (should that be asked here or in Moderation?); if Sedge's ruling is upheld I'll abandon this, if not I'll try and push on and hope for better advice from the rest of the SC's drafters going forward.

[Goobergunchia]

Given the lack of feedback, I'd like to request a second opinion on the legality ruling (should that be asked here or in Moderation?); if Sedge's ruling is upheld I'll abandon this, if not I'll try and push on and hope for better advice from the rest of the SC's drafters going forward.

Nothing in the proposal draft addresses the contents of SC#236 except for the first paragraph which praises it. The balance of the proposal instead addresses the contents of SC#435, which is not the target.

As such, I would concur in finding the proposal in violation of Rule 1b.

Goobergunchia
Game Moderator

[The North Polish Union]

Given the lack of feedback, I'd like to request a second opinion on the legality ruling (should that be asked here or in Moderation?); if Sedge's ruling is upheld I'll abandon this, if not I'll try and push on and hope for better advice from the rest of the SC's drafters going forward.

Nothing in the proposal draft addresses the contents of SC#236 except for the first paragraph which praises it. The balance of the proposal instead addresses the contents of SC#435, which is not the target.

As such, I would concur in finding the proposal in violation of Rule 1b.

Goobergunchia
Game Moderator

Although I disagree and believe that my draft addresses 236 from the WA's (new-since-425) perspective, its obvious that argument isn't likely to prevail at this time.

Thanks for taking a second look.

I will no longer be actively pursuing this draft.