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).
Advertisement
by Jean Pierre Trudeau » Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:54 pm
by Ainocra » Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:23 pm
by Defwa » Mon Mar 30, 2015 5:09 pm
by Felix Dote » Mon Mar 30, 2015 10:32 pm
by Ainocra » Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:20 pm
by Clorp » Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:04 am
by Dustain » Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:30 am
by Ardchoille » Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:54 am
by Railana » Tue Mar 31, 2015 11:58 am
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.
by The Dark Star Republic » Tue Mar 31, 2015 12:23 pm
by Losthaven » Tue Mar 31, 2015 12:31 pm
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
by Ardchoille » Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:02 pm
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: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.
I wasn't. If it comes to that, the decision will be up to a panel of mods that won't include me.The Dark Star Republic wrote:In terms of the Discard, there is no point asking for player comment.
by Ainocra » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:03 pm
(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.
by The Dark Star Republic » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:17 pm
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
STRONGLY URGE all member states to contribute to scientific research and advancement, to the best of their ability,
Ainocra wrote:As for discarding it, I don't see anything in this proposal that rises to the level of egregious violation.
by Ainocra » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:33 pm
STRONGLY URGE all member states to contribute to scientific research and advancement, to the best of their ability,
by The Dark Star Republic » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:39 pm
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?
Many 'Mild' Proposals will have phrases such as "RECOMMENDS" or "URGES", which is just fine.
4. In general, member nations are encouraged to provide debt relief to other member nations during times of national emergency and economic crisis.
by Ainocra » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:48 pm
by Bears Armed » Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:36 am
by Railana » Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:34 am
by Frustrated Franciscans » Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:19 am
by Reborn Ottoman Sultan » Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:38 pm
by Ainocra » Thu Apr 02, 2015 11:10 am
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:16 pm
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 ...))
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement