Advertisement
by Charlotte Ryberg » Sun May 10, 2015 11:57 am
by Knootoss » Sun May 10, 2015 10:53 pm
by The Dark Star Republic » Mon May 11, 2015 1:57 am
Charlotte Ryberg wrote:Any future rules on committees should be able to allow for creative use of acronyms, such as how I played on the acronyms of the ICRC and then defended the acronym alone for being in uncontroversial use by unrelated organisations (such as the Indiana Civil Rights Commission and so on). However, I should also suggest a rule that prevents committee acronyms that would cause general offence at time of passage, such as sneaking in the GESTAPO acronym (the Nazi-regime secret police).
by Glen-Rhodes » Mon May 11, 2015 9:08 am
Knootoss wrote:Let me introduce another way of going about this: ban committees entirely. No committees. Committees are used as a cheap tool to avoid laying out the commitment that nations are supposed to make, thereby greatly increasing the scope of potential proposals. The WA would run out of things to legislate less quickly if these generalised "let a committee legislate subject x" resolutions were simply banned.
by Bears Armed » Mon May 11, 2015 9:58 am
Knootoss wrote:Let me introduce another way of going about this: ban committees entirely. No committees. Committees are used as a cheap tool to avoid laying out the commitment that nations are supposed to make, thereby greatly increasing the scope of potential proposals. The WA would run out of things to legislate less quickly if these generalised "let a committee legislate subject x" resolutions were simply banned.
by Knootoss » Mon May 11, 2015 11:22 am
by The Dark Star Republic » Mon May 11, 2015 1:20 pm
by Glen-Rhodes » Mon May 11, 2015 1:34 pm
by Sciongrad » Mon May 11, 2015 7:09 pm
Knootoss wrote:Let me introduce another way of going about this: ban committees entirely. No committees. Committees are used as a cheap tool to avoid laying out the commitment that nations are supposed to make, thereby greatly increasing the scope of potential proposals. The WA would run out of things to legislate less quickly if these generalised "let a committee legislate subject x" resolutions were simply banned.
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon May 11, 2015 8:24 pm
by Krioval » Mon May 11, 2015 8:57 pm
Knootoss wrote:Let me introduce another way of going about this: ban committees entirely. No committees. Committees are used as a cheap tool to avoid laying out the commitment that nations are supposed to make, thereby greatly increasing the scope of potential proposals. The WA would run out of things to legislate less quickly if these generalised "let a committee legislate subject x" resolutions were simply banned.
by Knootoss » Mon May 11, 2015 9:13 pm
by Defwa » Tue May 12, 2015 7:19 am
Knootoss wrote:Glen-Rhodes: while you're right about differing standards, uniformity is not the goal of environmental legislation. The purpose of resolutions in the environmental category is to promote the environment at the expense of business. What does it matter if one country has a different approach to tackling the resolutions' goals than another country? In fact, you see this in the proposed resolutions on greenhouse gasses IRL, where every signatory country can find its own path to emissions reduction. By adopting broad goals and universal rules you avoid shoehorning vastly different nations into compliance with a committee's rulings, and still accomplish your goal. The statistical effects are there, after all.
by Knootoss » Tue May 12, 2015 7:30 am
by Glen-Rhodes » Tue May 12, 2015 7:57 am
by Elke and Elba » Tue May 12, 2015 9:44 am
Knootoss wrote:You seem very stuck on the idea that the resolution must micromanage for there to be an effect. That's simply not true. The resolution has a gameplay effect (and a limited effect at that) whether you say that there's a committee or not.
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.
by Defwa » Tue May 12, 2015 10:05 am
Elke and Elba wrote:Knootoss wrote:You seem very stuck on the idea that the resolution must micromanage for there to be an effect. That's simply not true. The resolution has a gameplay effect (and a limited effect at that) whether you say that there's a committee or not.
To be fair, Knootoss does make a point because rather than having "X Committee", we could have "This World Assembly" should blah blah. And have the same effect
But why make it difficult for everyone to comprehend that resolution just because you'd rather add the World Assembly and get rid of X Committee?
I do find it slightly odd that someone that has been missing for so long from this Assembly has such a strong opposition to Committees in general. Not that I think removing Committees is a feasible thing without causing massive retroactive damage to a lot of past resolutions and put the possibility of a hard reset on the table again, somehow.
by Snefaldia » Tue May 12, 2015 10:29 am
Defwa wrote:We could write an environmental all businesses resolution that is nothing but cake recipes and it would have the same gameplay effect. However the words in the resolution are there for roleplay purposes so it's pretty important their function is clear and results indisputable.
Elke and Elba wrote:I do find it slightly odd that someone that has been missing for so long from this Assembly has such a strong opposition to Committees in general. Not that I think removing Committees is a feasible thing without causing massive retroactive damage to a lot of past resolutions and put the possibility of a hard reset on the table again, somehow.
by The Dark Star Republic » Tue May 12, 2015 10:37 am
Snefaldia wrote:Elke and Elba wrote:I do find it slightly odd that someone that has been missing for so long from this Assembly has such a strong opposition to Committees in general. Not that I think removing Committees is a feasible thing without causing massive retroactive damage to a lot of past resolutions and put the possibility of a hard reset on the table again, somehow.
I'm not sure what Knoot's absence has to do with anything. Why even bring it up?
by Defwa » Tue May 12, 2015 11:01 am
Missing the point here or perhaps just not understanding how stats work. It was claimed that the existence of mechanisms to make the words of a resolution effective were unnecessary because the stat change would exist regardless. From a gameplay/stat standpoint, this is absolutely true. However, those of us who care about these rules discussions are here because regardless of the uniform stat effects, the words are quite important. They determine how the role play of our nations in the WA change- what actions have been removed from the menu, what effects it's had on their RP economy.Snefaldia wrote:Defwa wrote:We could write an environmental all businesses resolution that is nothing but cake recipes and it would have the same gameplay effect. However the words in the resolution are there for roleplay purposes so it's pretty important their function is clear and results indisputable.
I don't get this. The words in the resolution are a conceit of the game but it's not RP; the point of writing a resolution is to establish what, in the category, the effects will be. As players we just don't know what those specific effects actually are. Currently, the proposal you described would be rightfully deleted, and so would have no gameplay effect, and the example is extreme enough to be pointless because such a proposal would never be passed. What are you trying to say?
by Knootoss » Tue May 12, 2015 1:33 pm
Elke and Elba wrote:I do find it slightly odd that someone that has been missing for so long from this Assembly has such a strong opposition to Committees in general.
Elke and Elba wrote:Because some of us remember that Knoot has always been vitriolically opposed to committees and that his sudden appearance to lambast them as the scourge of good legislation doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with what has been going on in the WA for the last few years or improving the environment of the WA forum, but is instead about blowing the cobwebs off ancient political scores, and are duly unimpressed?
Elke and Elba wrote:There are a few other aspects of the committee rule that haven't been discussed much, for example, reusing committees and reincarnating repealed committees. The rulings about those, while not really changing, got quite tangled and complicated a while back and it might be an idea to restate clearly the rules position on them.
by Glen-Rhodes » Tue May 12, 2015 7:25 pm
by Knootoss » Tue May 12, 2015 8:31 pm
by Glen-Rhodes » Wed May 13, 2015 7:35 am
by Tzorsland » Wed May 13, 2015 11:27 am
Advertisement
Return to General Assembly Rules Consortium
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement