NationStates

In a proposal, can a committee be allowed to establish subcommittees, inferior bodies, et cetera?

Christian Democrats wrote:In a proposal, can a committee be allowed to establish subcommittees, inferior bodies, et cetera?

Christian Democrats wrote:If necessary, the Committee of Religious Practice may establish inferior courts with powers similar to those of the Court of Religious Practice

Well, resolutions have created subcommittees for committees create by other resolutions, so I don't see why a resolution couldn't create a subcommittee for a committee that it creates (heck, it might have be that it's already happened and I can't think of it).

Subcommittees that really are sub, yes -- for example, you might have a committee for making displays of military rank uniform, and suibcommittees to deal with each of the services.

You can't have a subcommittee that has more power than its originating committee.
You can't have a subcommittee that has more power than the WA.
You can't have a subcommittee that goes beyond the scope of its original committee, or the originating proposal. You'd need a separate proposal for that.

Thank you.

Flibbleites wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:In a proposal, can a committee be allowed to establish subcommittees, inferior bodies, et cetera?

Well, resolutions have created subcommittees for committees create by other resolutions, so I don't see why a resolution couldn't create a subcommittee for a committee that it creates (heck, it might have be that it's already happened and I can't think of it).

e.g. GA resolution #87, => WASP => the IMO.

I have a question about campaigning in order to get your proposal approved. The rules for proposals specifically prohibit excessive campaigning, using words like "pimping," "spamming," and "hustling." However, I know it is commonplace to contact delegates and ask for their approval. So, my question is, where is the line drawn? How do I solicit approvals without breaking the rules?

Ghanara wrote:I have a question about campaigning in order to get your proposal approved. The rules for proposals specifically prohibit excessive campaigning, using words like "pimping," "spamming," and "hustling." However, I know it is commonplace to contact delegates and ask for their approval. So, my question is, where is the line drawn? How do I solicit approvals without breaking the rules?

You're allowed to send one TG per proposal to each delegate, unless there's a message on their region's page saying not to do so (maybe not if their nation's motto says not to do so, either, although as far as I'm aware that's still officially considered to be a matter of manners rather than of rules).
Sending repeat TGs is out, unless they've actually replied to your original one with a request for further information that you're now supplying, and if you have two or more people sending TGs for a single proposal then you need to coordinate matters so that only one of you contacts each delegate.
Posting adverts for the proposal in forum threads that are supposed to be about different subjects is also forbidden, and so is creating multiple threads of your own to advertise it.

Bears Armed wrote:

Ghanara wrote:I have a question about campaigning in order to get your proposal approved. The rules for proposals specifically prohibit excessive campaigning, using words like "pimping," "spamming," and "hustling." However, I know it is commonplace to contact delegates and ask for their approval. So, my question is, where is the line drawn? How do I solicit approvals without breaking the rules?

You're allowed to send one TG per proposal to each delegate, unless there's a message on their region's page saying not to do so (maybe not if their nation's motto says not to do so, either, although as far as I'm aware that's still officially considered to be a matter of manners rather than of rules).
Sending repeat TGs is out, unless they've actually replied to your original one with a request for further information that you're now supplying, and if you have two or more people sending TGs for a single proposal then you need to coordinate matters so that only one of you contacts each delegate.
Posting adverts for the proposal in forum threads that are supposed to be about different subjects is also forbidden, and so is creating multiple threads of your own to advertise it.

[Not-a-Mod]

Thank you so much! I really appreciate your help.

Ardchoille wrote:Subcommittees that really are sub, yes -- for example, you might have a committee for making displays of military rank uniform, and suibcommittees to deal with each of the services.

You can't have a subcommittee that has more power than its originating committee.
You can't have a subcommittee that has more power than the WA.
You can't have a subcommittee that goes beyond the scope of its original committee, or the originating proposal. You'd need a separate proposal for that.

I am concerned that the Christian Democrats resolution actually does way more than just create subcommittees. It gives his newfangled "religious courts" the authority to (itself) create subcommittees at will, which is a whole new brand of conservative IntFeditry.

To what extent must the title of a proposal reflect the scope of that proposal?

Usual forum rules apply re trolling, flaming, baiting, etc. After that, player discretion, and after that, mod discretion.

Player discretion, because if you give your proposal a title that means you have to spend half your campaigning TGs explaining what the name means, you've shot yourself in the foot. This applies whether it's unrelated or whether you've "related" it very obscurely, such as by giving it the title of a Simpsons episode that was about the same topic as the proposal or by picking up a current catchphrase. But usually, if you want to make your own life difficult in such a way, mods won't stop you.

Mod discretion comes into it because we have to consider that your proposal might well pass, and if it does there may be times when players refer to the resulting resolution by name rather than by number or by an abbreviation (eg, FoMA, FGM). So, in general, we might reject something relevant but still but madly distracting or overly argumentative. For example, if its initial letters made a word, maybe even an inoffensive word such as D-U-C-K.

Unless it's a proposal about witches. Which is where the discretion comes in.

Seriously, I can't remember ever rejecting any proposal, or seeing one rejected, on its title alone ... but who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of Delegates?

Ardchoille wrote:Seriously, I can't remember ever rejecting any proposal, or seeing one rejected, on its title alone ...

Maybe not, but I can certainly remember arguments about whether the title was included in the "legally binding" sections of the wording...

Bears Armed wrote:Maybe not, but I can certainly remember arguments about whether the title was included in the "legally binding" sections of the wording...

Good point. You mean something like "Ban @@Action@@ Now!" as a title? It'd have to be in the text as well.

Ardchoille wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:Maybe not, but I can certainly remember arguments about whether the title was included in the "legally binding" sections of the wording...

Good point. You mean something like "Ban @@Action@@ Now!" as a title? It'd have to be in the text as well.

Well, there was the joke proposal "Ban War," which established an annual whale hunt.

Does the House of Cards rule apply in repeals? Presumably, any resolutions referenced in a given repeal would still be active at the time of the repeal's passage. I don't know that a repeal can be "undermined" in the same way that a resolution could be, should those referenced resolutions later be repealed.

Thanks!

St Eedyets would like to make a Proposal - new to this, trying to understand, we find some nations' responses very unkind, they do not seem to understand we are not experienced about where to post, what to write etc. Could the GA propose that nation states attempt to be kind to other NSC when posting outside of obvious war-based threads.

St Eedyets wrote:St Eedyets would like to make a Proposal - new to this, trying to understand, we find some nations' responses very unkind, they do not seem to understand we are not experienced about where to post, what to write etc. Could the GA propose that nation states attempt to be kind to other NSC when posting outside of obvious war-based threads.

If I understand you correctly, you want to know if a proposal requiring players to be nice to each other is legal. If I'm right, the answer is no, proposals can't require player activity.

Mousebumples wrote:Does the House of Cards rule apply in repeals? Presumably, any resolutions referenced in a given repeal would still be active at the time of the repeal's passage. I don't know that a repeal can be "undermined" in the same way that a resolution could be, should those referenced resolutions later be repealed.

Thanks!

Despite my firm belief that exceptions just confuse people, I have been over-ruled by my colleagues and Artichokeville, all of whom insist on shamelessly using logic. It goes like this: say we allow HoC in repeals. We then get a repeal of Proposal A because of an argument based on Proposal C. Proposal A is repealed. Some months later, Proposal C is also repealed. Doesn't make any difference to A, since A is long gone. Doesn't make any difference to C. C's going makes a difference only to the repeal of A: it's now is based on no valid argument. But it was based on a valid argument when it did its job of repealing A. WA delegates are smart enough to read time-stamps.

So, since it doesn't make any real difference to the way legislation operates, you can go for broke. Fill your repeals with HoCs! See if I care!

Ardchoille wrote:Despite my firm belief that exceptions just confuse people, I have been over-ruled by my colleagues and Artichokeville, all of whom insist on shamelessly using logic. It goes like this: say we allow HoC in repeals. We then get a repeal of Proposal A because of an argument based on Proposal C. Proposal A is repealed. Some months later, Proposal C is also repealed. Doesn't make any difference to A, since A is long gone. Doesn't make any difference to C. C's going makes a difference only to the repeal of A: it's now is based on no valid argument. But it was based on a valid argument when it did its job of repealing A. WA delegates are smart enough to read time-stamps.

So, since it doesn't make any real difference to the way legislation operates, you can go for broke. Fill your repeals with HoCs! See if I care!

Also: you can't repeal a repeal.

Yet, at least.

Thanks, Ard!

To what degree must a proposal to relax gun control laws loosen gun restrictions to be considered legal?

(link to proposal in question)

For my latest proposal, "Firearms and International Travel", Mousebumples brought up the issue of possible duplication or contradiction to the Standardised Passport Act. After reading the STA, I can't find any duplication, but I can see some possible contradiction issues.

My proposal, in its current form, allows for nations due deny entry to certain convicted criminals, if two conditions are met:
1. The crime the criminal(s) was convicted of must involve usage of firearms (for example, armed robbery);
2. The criminal(s) in question must be carrying firearms in their luggage (my draft bans everyone from carrying firearms on their person while traveling over international borders);

The STA, in setting the requirements for passports, does not require a mark of criminal conviction. Would it be legal to require such a mark on passports in my proposal (which is in "International Security" by the way)?

The STA also allows nations to deny entry if "national security is threatened", but makes no references to criminal records. Based on that, is it legal to allow nations to bar entry to certain people, not mentioned in the STA, in a separate resolution?

Thank you for your time.

Noted both "Q"s, and we'll post "A"s in the threads, where we can erect walls of text/field questions from the floor.

EDIT:
Christian Democrats answered here.
Darenjo answered here.

Is it legal to force nations to be honest when reporting events, even when it would be beneficial to lie?

Alternately, is it legal to force nations to help WA agents in ascertaining the truth, eg. confidential document access, visiting restricted areas, etc? Or is that violating sovereinty?

It is legal to force nations to do whatever you want them to do, provided it doesn't break the rules and fits the category. "Violating sovereignty" is the entire point of the World Assembly.

What extent of protection does Clause 5 of "On Abortion" provide?

Taking that into consideration, would the inclusion of the following in a proposal be illegal?



Furthermore, is the WA allowed to pass legislation restricting abortions, in view of the last clause of GA#128?

Thank you.