[Proposal] Financial Crisis Commission

[Belzia]

The WA isn't a bank...

[Chester Pearson]

The WA isn't a bank...

Oh..... But it Is

[Moronist Decisions]

While the idea has merit, and I intend to comment on this further later ... I would like to ask the Secretariat if they consider there to be anything beyond the committee. We suspect that there is nothing in this proposal that goes beyond the creation of a committee - all of the active clauses are related to the FCC.

Dr. Johannes Frick

[The Dominion of Plebians]

While the idea has merit, and I intend to comment on this further later ... I would like to ask the Secretariat if they consider there to be anything beyond the committee. We suspect that there is nothing in this proposal that goes beyond the creation of a committee - all of the active clauses are related to the FCC.

Dr. Johannes Frick

Why would that matter? GA Resolution #226 has active clauses that only relate to the World Assembly Development Foundation. If that was legal, than surely this is as well.

[Grays Harbor]

While the idea has merit, and I intend to comment on this further later ... I would like to ask the Secretariat if they consider there to be anything beyond the committee. We suspect that there is nothing in this proposal that goes beyond the creation of a committee - all of the active clauses are related to the FCC.

Dr. Johannes Frick

Why would that matter? GA Resolution #226 has active clauses that only relate to the World Assembly Development Foundation. If that was legal, than surely this is as well.

uh-huh. That is an argument being heard altogether too frequently anymore. "But it's legal!". And my answer is "So What?". Technically legal =/= good idea.

[The Akashic Records]

Why would that matter? GA Resolution #226 has active clauses that only relate to the World Assembly Development Foundation. If that was legal, than surely this is as well.

I would direct you to Article III, section 4. This particular section remains, even if we remove the committee.

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

Yours, on the other hand, will not stand, if we remove any and all mentions to the committee.

[Wheeled States of Bifid]

I'm sorry, Ambassador but the foregoing assessment appears to be correct. The committee created is mentioned in every section. If you were to take out all of those references, this would fall apart.

[The Dominion of Plebians]

Why would that matter? GA Resolution #226 has active clauses that only relate to the World Assembly Development Foundation. If that was legal, than surely this is as well.

uh-huh. That is an argument being heard altogether too frequently anymore. "But it's legal!". And my answer is "So What?". Technically legal =/= good idea.

I suppose our two nations have a fundamental disagreement. I urge you to vote against the proposal (if it comes to vote) if you believe that is "=/= [a] good idea."

[The Dominion of Plebians]

I'm sorry, Ambassador but the foregoing assessment appears to be correct. The committee created is mentioned in every section. If you were to take out all of those references, this would fall apart.

If any nation directs me to a rule explicitly requiring that there be clauses in a resolution that do not reference a committee then I will tender an official apology on behalf of my government.

[The Akashic Records]

If any nation directs me to a rule explicitly requiring that there be clauses in a resolution that do not reference a committee then I will tender an official apology on behalf of my government.

OOC: The moderator has spoken before.
If you'd like to read the excerpt:

[...]when players say it just creates a committee, they're not referring to its effects. It's not a reflection on what the proposal might achieve. As written, it "did" a lot of things through the committee. But its technical format -- the way you structured the proposal -- was (a) create committee (b) give committee things to do. That's a classic just-a-committee violation. You have to give WA nations something to do unrelated to the committee.

(Check some of the other committee proposals. Practised authors often put the establishment of any committee in the last few active clauses, which means that they virtually force themselves to write the first few active clauses legally, committee-free.)[...]

[Wheeled States of Bifid]

If any nation directs me to a rule explicitly requiring that there be clauses in a resolution that do not reference a committee then I will tender an official apology on behalf of my government.

The moderator has spoken before.
If you'd like to read the excerpt:

[...]when players say it just creates a committee, they're not referring to its effects. It's not a reflection on what the proposal might achieve. As written, it "did" a lot of things through the committee. But its technical format -- the way you structured the proposal -- was (a) create committee (b) give committee things to do. That's a classic just-a-committee violation. You have to give WA nations something to do unrelated to the committee.

(Check some of the other committee proposals. Practised authors often put the establishment of any committee in the last few active clauses, which means that they virtually force themselves to write the first few active clauses legally, committee-free.)[...]

And one thing I've learned is that if you can do something without a committee (which is pretty close to everything) it's really better to do so.

[The Dominion of Plebians]

The moderator has spoken before.
If you'd like to read the excerpt:

And one thing I've learned is that if you can do something without a committee (which is pretty close to everything) it's really better to do so.

In that case I would like to humbly apologize on behalf of my nation. I had not realized that the Moderators could enforce rules that only exist in their own minds (ruling implies a decision on a rule). In that case I suppose I shall have to add a throwaway clause just to please the infallible moderators who will spit on proposals that involves the WA actively striving to do something productive if they don't have some useless clauses in them.

[Moronist Decisions]

FTR: the rules are stated clearly in this thread.

Specifically:

Committees (tribunes, agencies, organizations, bodies etc) are additions to resolutions. They are designed to carry out specific duties related to the resolutions.

Example ruling on committees.

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

This was unfortunate. However, I would point out that it is a reasonable idea overall.

The FCC shall provide deposit insurance for all banks up to 1/14th average lifetime wage in each nation per account per bank.

Why should this be a WA-wide responsibility?

The FCC shall draft strict banking regulation that shall be revised from time to time, noting that while these regulations shall only apply to banks chartered by the FCC, nations are urged to apply them to all banks within their jurisdiction.

Now, the problem is that the FCC is mandated to provide insurance to banks that aren't even following the regulations of the FCC since they're only advisory in nature. To me, this is a major problem.

Noting that banks are still subject to all other WA laws.

Appears to be a sentence fragment.

A WA Chartered bank may open bank branches in any WA nation.

This clause won't fix your committee-only problem, in my opinion - as WA chartered banks would not exist without the FCC.

The FCC is forbidden from bailing out a bank or financial institution at any point in time.

The terminology here doesn't fit your definition.

In a global financial panic where the banking system is threatened with collapse, the FCC is authorized to establish fallback banks that people and businesses may use to meet their banking needs; the banks will be capitalized with cash reserves worth 10% of WA GDP. The FCC may require Central Reserve Banks to provide funding to capitalize these banks. After 10 years these banks are to be sold, earnings from the sale will first be returned to Central Reserve Banks; any proceeds above what the Central Banks originally provided will be split 50% between the FCC and the WA General Fund.

I'm not sure about this idea
- Establishing banks that will be sold in ten years' time by law could be extremely costly and potentially create extremely unstable banks that everyone knows will be sold after ten years.
- Ten years could be a very long time (for Drosophila) or a very short time (for species that have lifespans of thousands of years).
- Why must these banks be capitalized with 10% of WA GDP specifically? Why this magic number?


I think there's some merit to this idea; however, it may well be better to have NATIONS run their own FCCs, with WA assistance as needed. This draft still needs significant work, but can be used as a starting point. I would like to remind the author that "resolution writing is a marathon, not a sprint".

Ms. Amber Stivers
Charges d'Affaires ad Interim

[The Akashic Records]

In that case I would like to humbly apologize on behalf of my nation. I had not realized that the Moderators could enforce rules that only exist in their own minds (ruling implies a decision on a rule). In that case I suppose I shall have to add a throwaway clause just to please the infallible moderators who will spit on proposals that involves the WA actively striving to do something productive if they don't have some useless clauses in them.

OOC: As MD said earlier, the rules have been stickied at the very almost absolute top of the forum. I have no idea how else to point you to it (well, maybe the links in my sig could do that too). Also, your tone indicates that you didn't read the rules, seeing that you're asking "whoever said that was a rule!?"

While writing proposals are good (because you listen to people), having at least some form of basic understanding of the rules is far better. You wouldn't want to write a draft around 3500 characters long, only to find it illegal, would you?

[The Dominion of Plebians]

In that case I would like to humbly apologize on behalf of my nation. I had not realized that the Moderators could enforce rules that only exist in their own minds (ruling implies a decision on a rule). In that case I suppose I shall have to add a throwaway clause just to please the infallible moderators who will spit on proposals that involves the WA actively striving to do something productive if they don't have some useless clauses in them.

OOC: As MD said earlier, the rules have been stickied at the very almost absolute top of the forum. I have no idea how else to point you to it (well, maybe the links in my sig could do that too). Also, your tone indicates that you didn't read the rules, seeing that you're asking "whoever said that was a rule!?"

While writing proposals are good (because you listen to people), having at least some form of basic understanding of the rules is far better. You wouldn't want to write a draft around 3500 characters long, only to find it illegal, would you?

Explain to me where it forbids "just a committe" proposals in these rules.

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

Because nowhere there do I see anything that forbids "just a committee" proposals. Please quote the exact clause that forbids "just a committee" proposals. Because everything I read here only seems to forbid defining how a committee is to be formed. This is why I believe the rule against "just a committee" proposals exists only in the minds of the moderators, because I find no clause in the rules that forbids it.

[Abacathea]

OOC: As MD said earlier, the rules have been stickied at the very almost absolute top of the forum. I have no idea how else to point you to it (well, maybe the links in my sig could do that too). Also, your tone indicates that you didn't read the rules, seeing that you're asking "whoever said that was a rule!?"

While writing proposals are good (because you listen to people), having at least some form of basic understanding of the rules is far better. You wouldn't want to write a draft around 3500 characters long, only to find it illegal, would you?

Explain to me where it forbids "just a committe" proposals in these rules.

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

Because nowhere there do I see anything that forbids "just a committee" proposals. Please quote the exact clause that forbids "just a committee" proposals. Because everything I read here only seems to forbid defining how a committee is to be formed. This is why I believe the rule against "just a committee" proposals exists only in the minds of the moderators, because I find no clause in the rules that forbids it.

For your attention

Committees

Committees (tribunes, agencies, organizations, bodies etc) are additions to resolutions. They are designed to carry out specific duties related to the resolutions.

Example ruling on committees

Just follow that there URL i've linked for you from the original thread.

[The Akashic Records]

Because nowhere there do I see anything that forbids "just a committee" proposals. Please quote the exact clause that forbids "just a committee" proposals. Because everything I read here only seems to forbid defining how a committee is to be formed. This is why I believe the rule against "just a committee" proposals exists only in the minds of the moderators, because I find no clause in the rules that forbids it.

OOC: IIRC, in the old rule, it said:

Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

You should read Alqania's explanation, since Alq's a senior player who had gone through the various debates on the rulings and the rules. If you think that the rules are not clear enough, feel free to ask the mods to put that line back into the rules, though, the link to the ruling should be more than sufficient, if you actually cared to read through the explanation and the context of the ruling and text. What you believe vs precedent rulings that have been enforced since before you even played the game makes not for a convincing argument.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I do think that part should be added to the rules - added back into the rules, as I remember it - though. I was surprised when it was pointed out it wasn't stated explicitly, because I'd honestly thought it was! I certainly don't blame a new player for tripping up on it.

In fact, on reading Hack's old rule set, the wording of that has changed. It used to say (emphasis mine):

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

But now that last qualifier is absent. I'm honestly not sure why that final subclause was dropped, because it makes the word 'addition' much less clear.

[The Dominion of Plebians]

The FCC shall provide deposit insurance for all banks up to 1/14th average lifetime wage in each nation per account per bank.

Why should this be a WA-wide responsibility?

It should be a WA-wide responsibility because it allows pooling of resources (which is more efficient). Further it prevents a weak sovereign from spreading contagion. Example, suppose instead this resolution only required nations to create their own deposit insurance. So nation A creates such a system. Nation A experiences a financial panic and because the government of nation A is exceptionally weak, it cannot back its deposit insurance. Nothing stops the financial panic and it spreads from nation to nation (as banks tend to be connected on each other). Now as financial panic spreads it costs many nations a lot of money to back their own deposit insurance schemes. Much more than it would have cost to simply back nation A's deposit scheme. So by creating a WA wide scheme we lower costs and reduce risks of financial panic.

The FCC shall draft strict banking regulation that shall be revised from time to time, noting that while these regulations shall only apply to banks chartered by the FCC, nations are urged to apply them to all banks within their jurisdiction.

Now, the problem is that the FCC is mandated to provide insurance to banks that aren't even following the regulations of the FCC since they're only advisory in nature. To me, this is a major problem.

I also recognize the the difficulty of this. I didn't want to infringe too much on the sovereignty of nations, however, so I added a backdoor method of regulation. The FCC charges banks for the deposit insurance, they are charges based on size and riskiness. As such, the FCC can simply up the fees on banks that do questionable things, which discourages them from doing questionable things. If said banks insist on doing said things, then the FCC will simply charge as much money as is necessary to ensure that they pay for the risks they are taking.

Noting that banks are still subject to all other WA laws.

Appears to be a sentence fragment.

Apologies, that was for clarification from an older draft. I suppose it would make sense to remove it now.

A WA Chartered bank may open bank branches in any WA nation.

This clause won't fix your committee-only problem, in my opinion - as WA chartered banks would not exist without the FCC.

I am aware of this, as of your response I hadn't yet added a suitable non-committee throwaway clause.

The FCC is forbidden from bailing out a bank or financial institution at any point in time.

The terminology here doesn't fit your definition.

I'm not sure what you mean. If a bank runs itself into trouble, the FCC may not give it money or loosen regulations on that bank specifically. If it fails, the FCC will compensate depositors, but the bank will not be able to continue operating (as it is insolvent and the FCC has already taken over its assets to pay depositors).

In a global financial panic where the banking system is threatened with collapse, the FCC is authorized to establish fallback banks that people and businesses may use to meet their banking needs; the banks will be capitalized with cash reserves worth 10% of WA GDP. The FCC may require Central Reserve Banks to provide funding to capitalize these banks. After 10 years these banks are to be sold, earnings from the sale will first be returned to Central Reserve Banks; any proceeds above what the Central Banks originally provided will be split 50% between the FCC and the WA General Fund.

I'm not sure about this idea
- Establishing banks that will be sold in ten years' time by law could be extremely costly and potentially create extremely unstable banks that everyone knows will be sold after ten years.
- Ten years could be a very long time (for Drosophila) or a very short time (for species that have lifespans of thousands of years).
- Why must these banks be capitalized with 10% of WA GDP specifically? Why this magic number?

I don't see why that would be costly. If fallback banks must be created, then there probably aren't many banks left, which leaves a huge captive market in need of banking services. After 10 years, people will probably be lining up to purchase banks with such big market share easily allowing the FCC to recoup its costs. These banks shouldn't be unstable as they will continue to run after 10 years, they simply won't be run by the FCC anymore. This was mainly because I didn't want the FCC to be running banks, I want it to regulate banks. As such I wanted the FCC to run fallback banks for the least amount of time possible.

As for species lifespans, I acknowledge that may be a problem, so I may adjust that clause a bit.

Why 10%? I assumed a capital reserve ratio of 10%. This implies that if the banks have 10% of WA GDP(collectively), then combined they can make loans worth 100% of WA GDP. If anything, I was concerned that this number was a bit too high, which is why I have added "up to." If the FCC believes that the fallback banks need an extra cushion of breathing room, then it will have the power to do so. If the FCC does not believe they need that breathing room, it may given them less resources to play with.

I think there's some merit to this idea; however, it may well be better to have NATIONS run their own FCCs, with WA assistance as needed. This draft still needs significant work, but can be used as a starting point. I would like to remind the author that "resolution writing is a marathon, not a sprint".

Ms. Amber Stivers
Charges d'Affaires ad Interim

[The Dominion of Plebians]

Because nowhere there do I see anything that forbids "just a committee" proposals. Please quote the exact clause that forbids "just a committee" proposals. Because everything I read here only seems to forbid defining how a committee is to be formed. This is why I believe the rule against "just a committee" proposals exists only in the minds of the moderators, because I find no clause in the rules that forbids it.

OOC: IIRC, in the old rule, it said:

Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

You should read Alqania's explanation, since Alq's a senior player who had gone through the various debates on the rulings and the rules. If you think that the rules are not clear enough, feel free to ask the mods to put that line back into the rules, though, the link to the ruling should be more than sufficient, if you actually cared to read through the explanation and the context of the ruling and text. What you believe vs precedent rulings that have been enforced since before you even played the game makes not for a convincing argument.

I have read the old ruling. However, I am of the opinion that if a rule is dropped, then a previous ruling no longer holds precedent. For example, if nation A has made drinking liquor illegal, and a court has upheld the law, then there is a precedent. HOWEVER, if nation A repeals said law (drops it from the rules), the precedent no longer stands as the law no longer exists and drinking liquor would be allowed again.

[Araraukar]

However, I am of the opinion that if a rule is dropped, then a previous ruling no longer holds precedent.

The mods still enforce it. Take it as you will.

[The Akashic Records]

I have read the old ruling. However, I am of the opinion that if a rule is dropped, then a previous ruling no longer holds precedent. For example, if nation A has made drinking liquor illegal, and a court has upheld the law, then there is a precedent. HOWEVER, if nation A repeals said law (drops it from the rules), the precedent no longer stands as the law no longer exists and drinking liquor would be allowed again.

OOC: Hmm, still threadjacking, but I suppose the new revision thinks that it's saying the same thing with this line:

They are designed to carry out specific duties related to the resolutions.

For those familiar with the old rules, it would sound almost like the old one, but to newer players, it would seem like building just-a-committee would be fine. I'm going to agree with DSP here, and prefer the old wording, as opposed to the new wording.

[The Dominion of Plebians]

However, I am of the opinion that if a rule is dropped, then a previous ruling no longer holds precedent.

The mods still enforce it. Take it as you will.

I take it grudgingly as there does not appear to be any obvious way to appeal. I have added a throwaway clause that requires nations to publish an assessment of their banking system from time to time. (I really couldn't care less if nations did that once every 10 million years).

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Ok, so to avoid further contributing to the threadjack here, should we take it to, for example, the GA Proposals Q & A? We could post something like:

The proposal rules used to make it clear that: "Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does." While this judgement can be abstracted from the current proposal rules and a link within them, it is no longer explicitly stated. Given there have been at least two recent examples of players being confused about this, should the original language, or something like it, be returned to the proposal rules in explicit form?

That way TDoP can continue to draft their proposal here without us clogging up their thread with legalism.

[The Dominion of Plebians]

OOC: Ok, so to avoid further contributing to the threadjack here, should we take it to, for example, the GA Proposals Q & A? We could post something like:

The proposal rules used to make it clear that: "Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does." While this judgement can be abstracted from the current proposal rules and a link within them, it is no longer explicitly stated. Given there have been at least two recent examples of players being confused about this, should the original language, or something like it, be returned to the proposal rules in explicit form?

That way TDoP can continue to draft their proposal here without us clogging up their thread with legalism.

I would be in favour of that.