The Committees Rule

[Mallorea and Riva]

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.

Committee Rules:
Membership on the committee is reserved for mystical WA gnomes who spring into existence after the proposal becomes law
For this reason a proposal cannot define:
Who can and cannot sit on the committee
How members are chosen
Term limits for the members
Committees are bound by the "meta-gaming" rules
Acronyms for committees must not be used to brand a proposal
A committee continues to exist when its Resolution is repealed if it has been used in another Resolution
A single-use committee that died when its Resolution was repealed may be resurrected for a relevant new proposal

[Mallorea and Riva]

First round discussion bump.

[Defwa]

I'm a supporter of most of the Committee rules.
However, the branding portion, so long as it's not external branding (like for a region or player), I see no risk. I may not be clear on what is meant by branding in that rule, though.
Choosing the terms of a committee can have interesting outcomes and its also something I find harmless. While metagaming committees is out of the question, saying a committee must be staffed by experience medical professionals from developing nations could be needed for effectiveness.

[Flibbleites]

I'm a supporter of most of the Committee rules.
However, the branding portion, so long as it's not external branding (like for a region or player), I see no risk. I may not be clear on what is meant by branding in that rule, though.

Actually it is referring to regions/players, which does make it's appearance here a little redundant since that's also spelled out in the Branding rule.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Committees are bound by the MetaGaming rules, but we're not yet allowed to talk about the MetaGaming rules. Committees cannot be used for Branding, but there's another thread on changing the Branding rule. So, most of this discussion seems contingent on totally separate discussions.

The most basic rule, though, is that a proposal cannot only set up a committee. Why not? Mild proposals are legal, proposals that wouldn't affect all nations are legal. Furthermore, the rule can be easily evaded by adding some generic extra clause to a proposal. Rules that have some workaround like that are clearly wholly artificial and do nothing but add a layer of complexity experienced players can easily evade but new players will be unaware of.

[Elke and Elba]

Committees are bound by the MetaGaming rules, but we're not yet allowed to talk about the MetaGaming rules. Committees cannot be used for Branding, but there's another thread on changing the Branding rule. So, most of this discussion seems contingent on totally separate discussions.

The most basic rule, though, is that a proposal cannot only set up a committee. Why not? Mild proposals are legal, proposals that wouldn't affect all nations are legal. Furthermore, the rule can be easily evaded by adding some generic extra clause to a proposal. Rules that have some workaround like that are clearly wholly artificial and do nothing but add a layer of complexity experienced players can easily evade but new players will be unaware of.

Still, a rule I believe should remain. There has been quite a number of proposals that dictates about a committee at length (or the lack of), with the complimentary "URGES NATIONS BLAH BLAH" clause that makes it legal. There's no need to simplify people's jobs.

By your definition anyway, all rules are artificial and "do nothing except add a layer of complexity". Every single rule can be avoided by routing across it by the writer writing the resolution to be goddamn legal. Is there a bloody need to delete these rules to pander people who can't follow them?

[Mousebumples]

What about possibly introducing an "administrative category" (*if we stick with the category system) for committee only proposals? It would have minimal stat effects, but it may be worth considering, if there's enough support for category only proposals.

[Glen-Rhodes]

I agree with Gruen about the "just a committee" rule. It would be better to have a category like Mouse suggests. But in the absence of that, I think that a good argument could be made that committees *actually do things*. Committees are created to promulgate and execute rules and orders that members must actually follow, so both from a role playing standpoint and a Game Mechanics standpoint, committees have an effect.

My personal preference is that we remove any mention of "gnomes" in the rules. I get that older players get a lot of a nostalgia from it... But players take it literally. Committees are staffed by the Secretariat, who hires experts in whatever field the committee is about.

[Bears Armed]

The most basic rule, though, is that a proposal cannot only set up a committee. Why not? Mild proposals are legal, proposals that wouldn't affect all nations are legal. Furthermore, the rule can be easily evaded by adding some generic extra clause to a proposal. Rules that have some workaround like that are clearly wholly artificial and do nothing but add a layer of complexity experienced players can easily evade but new players will be unaware of.

It used to be legal to submit committee-based proposals without any such "generic extra clause", as long as they gave the nations something to do in connection with the committee, back when I [as St Edmund] produced the "historical" version of 'Meteorological Cooperation'. When I queried the change I was told that the extra requirement was introduced because one or more of the Mods (Fris?) felt that there were too many committees being created and wanted to slow-down that process...

[Frisbeeteria]

I was told that the extra requirement was introduced because one or more of the Mods (Fris?) felt that there were too many committees being created and wanted to slow-down that process...

Doesn't sound like something I would have raised. A more likely argument is the fact that proposals which do nothing had to be shoehorned into categories which by definition did something. Therefore, we wouldn't allow do-nothing committees.

With a more flexible category system, we could conceivably find stats for even do-nothing committees. Just the act of adding bureaucracy should have an effect on some areas personal / economic / political freedoms, for instance. If we adopted Sedge and Golgo's suggested new category stat system, I'd be entirely in favor of eliminating the committee rule.

[Defwa]

The most basic rule, though, is that a proposal cannot only set up a committee. Why not? Mild proposals are legal, proposals that wouldn't affect all nations are legal. Furthermore, the rule can be easily evaded by adding some generic extra clause to a proposal. Rules that have some workaround like that are clearly wholly artificial and do nothing but add a layer of complexity experienced players can easily evade but new players will be unaware of.

It used to be legal to submit committee-based proposals without any such "generic extra clause", as long as they gave the nations something to do in connection with the committee, back when I [as St Edmund] produced the "historical" version of 'Meteorological Cooperation'. When I queried the change I was told that the extra requirement was introduced because one or more of the Mods (Fris?) felt that there were too many committees being created and wanted to slow-down that process...

I'm not a fan of putting "just-a-committees" into they're own category. There would be no way to focus their effects on whatever field they hold domain over and their effect can be quite significant.
Like if a committee were to set limits on carbon dioxide production that all nations would be required to obey.

If we could adjust the rule to make sure the committee actually does something, if the committee requires a nation do to something (take it's advise for example) in the same way mandatory compliance works for other resolutions (crate of worms for another thread), then I think we're still filling the same purpose of the "just-a-committee" rule which seems to me would just be to ensure people don't constantly create groups to discuss things endlessly.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I think doing away with the Just a Committee rule would pair well with the new stats system. I can envision players writing proposals to look into the effects of X, and having the committee pass that information on to member states. Such exploratory committees are illegal by themselves now, but I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed under the new system. Sure they don't do much, but there's no reason to block incremental progress on issues.

[Defwa]

I think doing away with the Just a Committee rule would pair well with the new stats system. I can envision players writing proposals to look into the effects of X, and having the committee pass that information on to member states. Such exploratory committees are illegal by themselves now, but I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed under the new system. Sure they don't do much, but there's no reason to block incremental progress on issues.

How would that apply for blockers? Would the committee placing a recommendation on, say ship building, stop another proposal from making legislation on ship building?
I'm just worried that someone might come along and say "it's already been legislated on". It may not do anything but there's already legislation on the topic.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I think doing away with the Just a Committee rule would pair well with the new stats system. I can envision players writing proposals to look into the effects of X, and having the committee pass that information on to member states. Such exploratory committees are illegal by themselves now, but I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed under the new system. Sure they don't do much, but there's no reason to block incremental progress on issues.

How would that apply for blockers? Would the committee placing a recommendation on, say ship building, stop another proposal from making legislation on ship building?
I'm just worried that someone might come along and say "it's already been legislated on". It may not do anything but there's already legislation on the topic.

I don't see why it would act as a blocker. If a Committee exists investigating ship building then the committee could conceivably even be incorporated into the new resolution, since under the current rules existing committees can be given new duties.

[Unibot III]

I'm for the "Just a Committee" rule getting scrapped.

I'm also for the Committee rules being laxed entirely - for example, why not just prevent the use of specific names being mentioned in a committee. Like, I'd like to see resolutions in the future that organised summits and boards and commissions which nations could sit on and attend. If it's all mentioned in the abstract, I'm not sure what the problem is.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Fris, what do you think of my argument that committees actually do stuff, and so the stat effects make sense? Most committees are written as rules-promulgating bodies or arbitrators, so their decisions have impacts on member states.

If there's a committee that literally doesn't do anything, it just exists to look nice or sound cool -- I can't think of any examples -- that would be a Useless Committee.

[Ainocra]

As the most recent and egregious offender in this category I would be fine with doing away with committee only rule.
(selfishly it would mean less work for me in the short term)

How many times has the real UN created a committee on (insert topic here)?

These groups get set up and filled with experts on (insert topic here) and then make recommendations on how nations should handle that topic.
It generally only gently nudges a government in a given direction but it does work.

perhaps restrict such things to mild?

Mouse's idea of an administrative category would fit with that very well I think.

[Frisbeeteria]

Fris, what do you think of my argument that committees actually do stuff, and so the stat effects make sense?

Agree in principle if we write the stats under the new category-replacement proposal.

Under the current category system, I don't think most committees rise to the level of the stat changes. If you're going to make a committee that sets regulations on how doctors or teachers or diplomats behave, I'd characterize that as "doing something", so the Committee rule wouldn't apply.

[Snefaldia]

It shouldn't really matter that all a resolution does is create a committee; in fact I think it represents one of the more absurd qualities of real-world international legislation where there every time there's a crisis the UN sets up a High Commission or a Special Rapporteur and sends them off to save the day. Voters can come back later and say, "why the hell do we have the WA Office of Sandwich FIllings" and decide to repeal it on their own.

[Ardchoille]

When I started GA modding, I was told that committees were things the abstract entity "the WA" did by or to itself (establishing them, staffing them, operating and maintaining them), but GA Resolutions also had to work through or on member nations. Thus, committee authors had to add in something specific and non-committee for nations to do, even if it was the banal "(The WA) urges nations to encourage further interest in [judicial neutrality]". Otherwise there was no direct WA --> nation interaction.

Personally, I like committees when they're used intelligently to keep legislation solid, yet within the character limit. With them, authors don't have to go into wordy detail for every "but what if X unlikely thing happens?" query. They just explain that the committee decides/reacts to circumstances as they arise, within the given guidelines. As the committee is staffed by GA staff/gnomes (who are)/experts in appropriate fields, it's as professional, informed and unbiased as it can be, provided the author's guidelines are well thought out.

But if the game has to have a nation-directed clause, then it has to, and there's nothing any of us can do about it. Techies, your input?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Techies, your input?

Why would the "techies" care about minute legalities in WA resolution texts?

[Snefaldia]

Techies, your input?

Why would the "techies" care about minute legalities in WA resolution texts?

I think what she means is, if all a resolution does is set up a committee at the international level, with no text-based impact on member nations, what would the technical impacts on the game side be?

Or maybe I'm reading that wrong?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Why would the "techies" care about minute legalities in WA resolution texts?

I think what she means is, if all a resolution does is set up a committee at the international level, with no text-based impact on member nations, what would the technical impacts on the game side be?

Or maybe I'm reading that wrong?

As Fris has already pointed out, even a resolution of that nature does have an effect. Setting up committees requires money, to pay those hard working gnomes: nations would experience an (admittedly minimal) increase in taxes and government sizes.

[Railana]

The most basic rule, though, is that a proposal cannot only set up a committee. Why not? Mild proposals are legal, proposals that wouldn't affect all nations are legal. Furthermore, the rule can be easily evaded by adding some generic extra clause to a proposal. Rules that have some workaround like that are clearly wholly artificial and do nothing but add a layer of complexity experienced players can easily evade but new players will be unaware of.

I agree.

What about possibly introducing an "administrative category" (*if we stick with the category system) for committee only proposals? It would have minimal stat effects, but it may be worth considering, if there's enough support for category only proposals.

I don't see the need for a special category for committee-only proposals. As Gruen pointed out, Mild proposals can also have no effect. Glen-Rhodes is also correct that committees actually do things and that this should be taken account in proposal strength.

[Unibot III]

I think what she means is, if all a resolution does is set up a committee at the international level, with no text-based impact on member nations, what would the technical impacts on the game side be?

Or maybe I'm reading that wrong?

As Fris has already pointed out, even a resolution of that nature does have an effect. Setting up committees requires money, to pay those hard working gnomes: nations would experience an (admittedly minimal) increase in taxes and government sizes.

Plus administrative budget, I imagine.