NationStates

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
May I suggest using the "official" one next time to avoid embarrassing snafus like this in the future?

Is browbeating a player to death for an honest mistake really necessary here? Jesus.

You are the king of it. You just are usually more tactful than I was. (That's what happens when you work 47 hours straight I suppose).

All in all it does make the nations do a couple of things.
Granted the thrust is to make WASP do stuff, mainly work with and engage the nations that want help.
So it's close I think but it does skate past that.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
May I suggest using the "official" one next time to avoid embarrassing snafus like this in the future?

Is browbeating a player to death for an honest mistake really necessary here? Jesus.

Thank you.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Is browbeating a player to death for an honest mistake really necessary here? Jesus.

You are the king of it. You just are usually more tactful than I was. (That's what happens when you work 47 hours straight I suppose).

Fellas fellas, come on now. Can't we just agree you're both awful?

Losthaven wrote:

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
You are the king of it. You just are usually more tactful than I was. (That's what happens when you work 47 hours straight I suppose).

Fellas fellas, come on now. Can't we just agree you're both awful?

Hear hear!

Overall, a very well written and thought-out resolution. The only problem I could possibly have is with 3a, but I believe that the way the resolution is written it prevents any explotation by third parties with its funding. Very well done.

Voting: FOR

Thank you for your kind words and your support.

I see nothing wrong with this resolution.
You have the commonwealths support.

Alenka Okinawa, the representative of hailing from the Noprobla prefecture of Dustain stands up, dressed in her navy bule military uniform. "Izia Cullingham of the Dustainian Instatuite of Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine has asked us to protest the notion of free access to these journals, stating that 'the Layman has a tendency to view academic entries out of context which can potentially damage future funding efforts for research in controversial areas.' While our glorious nation's scientific projects should not suffer under the even hand of her majesty High Empress Orica Delacrox, we fear for the development of our allies with more fickle populations."

She takes a sligh breath and continues "With that being said, the pros of this bill still out weigh any cons and Dustain is in support of scientific cooperation for non-classified projects."

Following Losthaven's post, mods have received GHRs calling for this proposal to be Discarded on the grounds of illegality as a committee violation. I would appreciate further discussion from the GA.

I'd like to see your comments on these points:

• This does not create a committee. The committee already exists.
• WA nations, collectively, are being being asked to take action on something that exists. The fact that it's one of its own creations doesn't cancel out this fact. It's a valid member-nations instruction and therefore doesn't violate the committee rule.
• If it is a new committee, then the direction to the GAO is a valid clause, because even if you eliminate these changes it's still member nations telling an existing committee, the GAO, to spend more money on another existing committee, WASP.

Declaration of interest: I commented as a player during one of the early drafts.

Ardchoille wrote:Following Losthaven's post, mods have received GHRs calling for this proposal to be Discarded on the grounds of illegality as a committee violation. I would appreciate further discussion from the GA.

I'd like to see your comments on these points:

• This does not create a committee. The committee already exists.
• WA nations, collectively, are being being asked to take action on something that exists. The fact that it's one of its own creations doesn't cancel out this fact. It's a valid member-nations instruction and therefore doesn't violate the committee rule.
• If it is a new committee, then the direction to the GAO is a valid clause, because even if you eliminate these changes it's still member nations telling an existing committee, the GAO, to spend more money on another existing committee, WASP.

Declaration of interest: I commented as a player during one of the early drafts.

I refuse to participate in such a discussion until the mods clarify what rule violations may justify a discard, especially in light of the events described in this post.

In terms of the proposal, the fact that it is reconstituting the committee rather than creating it anew shouldn't make any difference. Proposals have to contain language independent of the committee, whether it's new or not.

Your rulings on committees in the past have always been straightforward: interacting with a committee cannot be all a proposal does. For example, this proposal used existing committees rather than creating new ones, and was dinged for being Just A Committee.

Taken literally, your ruling would effectively abolish the ban on committee-only proposals, because committees continue to exist even if their authorising resolution is repealed.

---

In terms of the Discard, there is no point asking for player comment. Players - more than once - asked for the rules on Discards to be clarified and explained, and you ignored all such requests. It's impossible for us to say whether a Discard is merited in this case because it's totally unclear where a Discard is ever merited.

---

Every single aspect of this proposal depends on the committees. That has always been interpreted as a "committee only" violation and illegal (whether it was enforced or not). If this is going to be a departure from that, then you should at least consider discussing it with players to try to clarify the already hopelessly opaque proposal rules.

Ardchoille wrote:Following Losthaven's post, mods have received GHRs calling for this proposal to be Discarded on the grounds of illegality as a committee violation. I would appreciate further discussion from the GA.

I'd like to see your comments on these points:

• This does not create a committee. The committee already exists.
• WA nations, collectively, are being being asked to take action on something that exists. The fact that it's one of its own creations doesn't cancel out this fact. It's a valid member-nations instruction and therefore doesn't violate the committee rule.
• If it is a new committee, then the direction to the GAO is a valid clause, because even if you eliminate these changes it's still member nations telling an existing committee, the GAO, to spend more money on another existing committee, WASP.

The rule on committees is not, on its terms, limited to creating a committee. The rule states:

Committees

Committees (tribunals, agencies, organizations, bodies etc) are designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposals. Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

Emphasis in original.

1. It's clear from the rule that it does not matter if the committee is newly created or if an already existing committee is simply given a new job. What matters is whether the committee function (i.e. a tribunal, agency, etc., being tasked to carry out specific duties) is "all the Proposal does." The rule emphasizes that a committee carrying out a function is supposed to be an addition to a proposal, not the other way around.

What is intended by the rule on Committees is what we see in the vast majority of proposals. The Proposal sets down a series of actions taken by member nations: for example, "member nations are REQUIRED to come up with good examples to make their points; member nations are URGED to make those examples humorous or witty." The committee is an addition which fulfills a complementary role: for example, "the WA Example Committee shall assist Member Nations in coming up with good examples by: (1) providing advice and suggestions, (2) scoffing at bad examples, and (3) giving final approval to any example actually used by a member nation."

When all a proposal does is establish a committee or task an existing committee with new jobs, the Committee rule is violated.

2. Member Nations "taking action" on a committee is not a "Proposal." It's simply a part and parcel of the committee being tasked to carry out some duty. The obvious ramifications of the contrary interpretation prove this point: if all it took was directing member nations to do something to the committee, then the following absurd proposal would not violate the committee-only rule.

Super Recycling Agency
The World Assembly creates the Super Recycling Agency and tasks it with recycling, repurposing, or reusing all recyclable materials within every member nation.

Member Nations are required to fund and support the Super Recycling Agency acting within that nation's jurisdiction.

We should think carefully before we say that member nations interacting with a committee is somehow a distinct act from creating/tasking the committee in the first place.

3. Directing one committee to take action with another committee is a quintessential committee-only provision: it's just the World Assembly ordering an existent committee to "carry out specific duties" related to the proposal. The obvious ramifications of the contrary interpretation prove this point: if all it took was directing an existent committee to interact with a new committee, or some other existent committee, then the following absurd proposal would not violate the committee-only rule.

Super Recycling Agency
The World Assembly creates the Super Recycling Agency and tasks it with recycling, repurposing, or reusing all recyclable materials within every member nation.

The Member Nations instruct the GAO to fully fund and support the Super Recycling Agency.

or this one:

Interagency Cooperation
All World Assembly committees shall work together to combat overly expensive bureaucracy by sharing databases and not printing more than one copy of any document.

Edited several times...

The Dark Star Republic wrote:Taken literally, your ruling would effectively abolish the ban on committee-only proposals, because committees continue to exist even if their authorising resolution is repealed.

There is no ruling yet. That's why I've asked for comment from some of the best nitpickers in the business. The points in my list are definitely not rulings. They're discussion points, not my personal views. Your informed input is appreciated.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:In terms of the Discard, there is no point asking for player comment.

I wasn't. If it comes to that, the decision will be up to a panel of mods that won't include me.

Considering the original proposal only dealt with the WASP agency and as far as I can tell did not direct the member nations to undertake any specific action

would it have therefore been illegal?

My proposal, expands on that theme but does in fact give some direction to member nations albeit it is buried

(b) Requires all WA members to cooperate with the WASP by supplying it with all data relevant to it's mandate within extant national and subnational law.

It also lays out clear guideline for how a nation interacts with the WASP in article 2.

For these reason I do feel that it does not violate the committee only rule else I'd not have submitted it.

As for discarding it, I don't see anything in this proposal that rises to the level of egregious violation.

Ainocra wrote:Considering the original proposal only dealt with the WASP agency and as far as I can tell did not direct the member nations to undertake any specific action

That's just not true. The original resolution contained:

STRONGLY URGE all member states to contribute to scientific research and advancement, to the best of their ability,

Yours has no such language. Every single aspect of it is dependent on the committee.

Ainocra wrote:As for discarding it, I don't see anything in this proposal that rises to the level of egregious violation.

Oh, is that still in force? What aspect of Repeal Rights & Duties rose to that level?

STRONGLY URGE all member states to contribute to scientific research and advancement, to the best of their ability,

Strongly urge is not the same as Requires.

I could strongly urge you to rob a bank, are you going to?

Ainocra wrote:

STRONGLY URGE all member states to contribute to scientific research and advancement, to the best of their ability,

Strongly urge is not the same as Requires.

I could strongly urge you to rob a bank, are you going to?

This reply is so comically nonsensical that it really brings into question whether you understand the rule we are discussing.

Resolutions do not have to be mandatory. The proposal rules even explicitly say:

Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine.

To use the example quoted above, WA Development Foundation - which was the subject of an extensive rules discussion on exactly this point and so can be considered pretty ironclad - contains:

4. In general, member nations are encouraged to provide debt relief to other member nations during times of national emergency and economic crisis.

Perhaps I just enjoy a good chuckle


Worst case is that it gets tossed, doesn't particularly worry me overmuch. it isn't like I can't fix it and resubmit it then.

besides it would let me fix that typo in the preamble


silver linings

OOC: Add me to the list of players who, now that the matter has been pointed out, agree that this proposal is illegal under the 'only a committee' rule as that's been interpreted in recent years.

((OOC: I, too, agree that the proposal is illegal for violating the "only a committee" rule. However, I strongly oppose the application of a Discard until such time as the mods clarify what the Discard can be used for, aside from the de facto standard of any arbitrary rule violation, however minor.))

((OOC: Personally I think this is a category/strength violation myself. It doesn't create more research. It uses GAO donated funds to distribute literature to other nations. The "cost" to give a copy to WASP is minimal. Now I'm making an assumption that (Category: Education and Creativity / Area of Effect: Educational) increases the educational budgets in member nations. I just don't see how this resolution does that. So this seems like a disconnect.))

We need more resolutions that advocate for the dissemination of information by any means necessary. It is all too paradoxical! With all of the information that surrounds us we willingly overlook and shun the splendor of its bounty! The generations that have been bestowed with this burden must ask why if humanity desires to restore any shred of its dignity and humility. With that in mind we are met with an age old question that arouses our inner cognition; what kind of world do we want to leave to our children? Do we want to perpetuate the mindlessness of war? A utopian resolution implies that humanity will be able to overcome the menace of war, but its practical counterpart insists that nothing can prevent its eventuality simultaneously.

The most preferential temperament of humanity arrives in an intellectual identity that produces resolute damage control for the impending blunders that await us in the future. Our salvation rests with the reversal of our intellectual illiteracy in every imaginable capacity. Once we abandon the blinders of ignorance and arrogance we will be able to acknowledge the common folly we share as humans; no people or nation is above that because its underlying implication designates the mortality of our humanity. Let us join together in the pursuit of a new renaissance for the ages!

The idea of the Google search has already afforded us with a drastic head start.

On Scientific Cooperation was passed 12,737 votes to 1,517.

I wish to thank everyone who contributed to this endeavor.

Railana wrote:((OOC: I, too, agree that the proposal is illegal for violating the "only a committee" rule. However, I strongly oppose the application of a Discard ...))

I agree with this, minus the "until the mods clarify" part. Not that I don't want clarification as to what Discards can be used for; I just think that using it against this proposal in any event would be foolish.