(Approved) Repeal Warning on WAINN

Yesterday at 9:22 pm I received a warning for OOC conversation in an IC news thread, https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t520p795-wa-international-news-network#27640 . Now this warning was based off of the WA forums act. https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t725-passed-wa-forums-act . As this document states word for word :

Section 3) Any posts or any thread at the WA Forums containing any of the following shall be prohibited:

illegal
spam
defamatory
obscene
threatening
malicious
griefing

And the punishment list follows:

Section 4) The following are the applicable punishments or consequences for any blatant violation of any of the prohibition prescribed on Section 3. On the other hand, any executive or judicial action of the Security Council beyond the scope of this Act shall remain superior.

First Offense - Forum Warning
Second Offense - 1 Day Forum Ban
Third Offense - 3 Day Forum Ban
Fourth Offense - 7 Day Forum Ban
Fifth Offense - Permanent Forum Ban

Section three does not state that OOC posts are illegal in IC threads. And does not state that conversation is against the act.  So here's what I ask, we either clarify section three, and/or repeal the waning that me and Trinity_Sector received.

I'm not asking to remove it but I am asking that we clarify and possibly amend this document to prevent further confusion.

---

Wirbanskia wrote:Yesterday at 9:22 pm I received a warning for OOC conversation in an IC news thread, https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t520p795-wa-international-news-network#27640 . Now this warning was based off of the WA forums act. https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t725-passed-wa-forums-act . As this document states word for word :

Section 3) Any posts or any thread at the WA Forums containing any of the following shall be prohibited:

illegal
spam
defamatory
obscene
threatening
malicious
griefing

And the punishment list follows:

Section 4) The following are the applicable punishments or consequences for any blatant violation of any of the prohibition prescribed on Section 3. On the other hand, any executive or judicial action of the Security Council beyond the scope of this Act shall remain superior.

First Offense - Forum Warning
Second Offense - 1 Day Forum Ban
Third Offense - 3 Day Forum Ban
Fourth Offense - 7 Day Forum Ban
Fifth Offense - Permanent Forum Ban

Section three does not state that OOC posts are illegal in IC threads. And does not state that conversation is against the act.  So here's what I ask, we either clarify section three, and/or repeal the waning that me and Trinity_Sector received.

I'm not asking to remove it but I am asking that we clarify and possibly amend this document to prevent further confusion.

---

Scouting has received your request for an appeal. We will review your case and make a determination soon.

UnitedStatesOfScouting wrote:

Wirbanskia wrote:Yesterday at 9:22 pm I received a warning for OOC conversation in an IC news thread, https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t520p795-wa-international-news-network#27640 . Now this warning was based off of the WA forums act. https://worldalliance.forumotion.co.uk/t725-passed-wa-forums-act . As this document states word for word :

Section 3) Any posts or any thread at the WA Forums containing any of the following shall be prohibited:

illegal
spam
defamatory
obscene
threatening
malicious
griefing

And the punishment list follows:

Section 4) The following are the applicable punishments or consequences for any blatant violation of any of the prohibition prescribed on Section 3. On the other hand, any executive or judicial action of the Security Council beyond the scope of this Act shall remain superior.

First Offense - Forum Warning
Second Offense - 1 Day Forum Ban
Third Offense - 3 Day Forum Ban
Fourth Offense - 7 Day Forum Ban
Fifth Offense - Permanent Forum Ban

Section three does not state that OOC posts are illegal in IC threads. And does not state that conversation is against the act.  So here's what I ask, we either clarify section three, and/or repeal the waning that me and Trinity_Sector received.

I'm not asking to remove it but I am asking that we clarify and possibly amend this document to prevent further confusion.

---

Scouting has received your request for an appeal. We will review your case and make a determination soon.

Thank you, I will acknowledge any decision made.

Wirbanskia wrote:
I'm not asking to remove it but I am asking that we clarify and possibly amend this document to prevent further confusion.

---

That is so contradicting. You name the topic "Repeal WAINN Warning" but you say you're not asking us to remove it?

Empire of Russia wrote:

Wirbanskia wrote:
I'm not asking to remove it but I am asking that we clarify and possibly amend this document to prevent further confusion.

---

That is so contradicting. You name the topic "Repeal WAINN Warning" but you say you're not asking us to remove it?

Ok, what I meant was that if you can/will not remove the warning then I suggest amending this document for clarifications.

We are still making evaluations...


OOC: out of town, will be back tomorrow.

FACTS:

The statement below was made by Great Eurussia on Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:22 pm (EDT)

Great Eurussia wrote:

WARNING: Conversations are not tolerated in the News Network. Please do note that a WARNING has been issued to everyone, by virtue of the WA Forums Act.

This appeal was created on Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:14 pm (EDT)

Since the appeal was made within the 24 hour timeframe of the warning being issued, this appeal is eligible for reversal.

The "Regional Diplomacy" Category, in which the post was made, states: "The place for major and minor local and gobal events. [In-character only]"

Statements:

1. Wirbanskia is in violation of the "WA Forums Act" for making an "Illegal" post.
   
2. The post made by Wirbanskia is defined as "Illegal" because of the rule set forth by the Category description as stated above.
   
3. Wirbanskia is in violation of the Category's set rule of, "The place for major and minor local and gobal events. [In-character only]"
   
4. Great Eurussia didn't cite any specific rule(s) that were broken.
   

Opinions:

Because Great Eurussia didn't specifically cite the rule(s) broken by the post, causing an appeal to be filed, Scouting feels that the warning should be removed from Wirbanskia's record. Scouting feels that the Presidency was unclear with which rule(s) were broken when the warning was issued which resulted in time wasted, unrest, and general confusion within the region. Furthermore, it is the suggestion of the Vice-Presidency that the "WA Forums Act" be specifically amended to include that any violation of rules specifically set forth by a Category or Forum be a violation of the "WA Forums Act" instead of the loose-leaf "Illegal" category, which is open to wide interpretation.

We feel that Wirbanskia had absolutely NO intention of violating the rules and was un-aware of his wrong-doing. Therefore, we side with the request of Wirbanskia. According to the "WA Forums Act", this must now be presented to the President for approval.

I think this is completely fair, at the very least if this request is not approved I suggest an amendment to more clarify the rules of how/where to post.