The Committees Rule

[Charlotte Ryberg]

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).

[Knootoss]

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.

[The Dark Star Republic]

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).

So the moderators should make value judgements about whether a committee's name is suitable or not? Yuk.

Not that I'm advocating scrapping the committee-branding rule, but that was such a missed opportunity. Moronist's repeal should have read:

...
Disappointed that U.N.I.B.O.T. exists,

Regretting that U.N.I.B.O.T. ever became involved with the WA,

Wishing to destroy U.N.I.B.O.T.,
...

:P

[Glen-Rhodes]

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.

This is a terrible idea. Just because a few committees are overly broad doesn't mean all committees should be banned. How about guide authors into not writing a single resolution to cover an entire issue area instead?

[Bears Armed]

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.

Only if we then get an unlimited number of characters to use when writing proposals. Otherwise, within the current limit, some subjects are so complex that they absolutely need a committee to handle the details. For example, I'm working on the first draft of a proposal about reducing the production & use of 'Ozone-depleting' chemicals, and deciding not only which chemicals need reduction but also how extensive & quick that reduction should be in each case couldn't possibly fit within 3'500 characters.
And then there are the "committees" that are actually active agencies, with roles beyond just settling the details of legislation, such as the IMO...

[Knootoss]

Frankly, BA, I think your issue with the word limit has more to do with writing style than with the word limit itself. Not to blow my own horn here (awooooogaaaaa), but I've passed resolutions on subjects as varied as male circumcision, extradition rights, the right to petition and (as co-author) gambling regulation and mutual recognition of diplomas without relying on a committee (unless you count the guy reading the resolution, but that's not a WA committee) or coming even remotely close to the word limit.

It's better to have resolutions that state things clearly. If you're having an issue with the word limit then perhaps you are either micromanaging too much or taking on too broad a scope. In the case of ozone-depleting chemicals it seems insane to me that you could get a one-size-fits-all resolution for all different ozone-depleting chemicals in all different applications in a way that does not grossly generalise, and a committee is just a cheap cop-out. There's no reason why you couldn't either delegate the decision to the states (zomg!) or split the resolution up into gasses you want to ban and ones for which you want another regime, for example, if your mistrust of member states IC is so great that you can't really let member governments implement your legislation in a serious way.

Banning all committees has the merits of simplicity, and preventing confusion about who is in the committee and who does what.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Fully agreed that it would be a catastrophic reversal to ban committees.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Using that as an example, Knootoss, the ability to establish a committee is necessary. Yeah, it's easy to think that Bears could just write it in a way like, "Member states must ban or reduce the use of ozone-depleting chemicals." That seems attractive, because you're clearly stating the mandate and not creating a committee.

But then member states will have different ideas of what an ozone-depleting chemical is, what kind of reduction is required, who the mandate applies to, etc. It becomes a mess of differing standards, which is something international law is supposed to reconcile. That's where the committee comes in use. Additionally, *new* chemicals are created all the time, and the use of a committee prevents the need to regularly pass new resolutions on the subject, if you're listing severe chemicals in the text because you want to avoid a mismanaged global system.

It's easy to hate on committees because they're sometimes written poorly. The solution there is to help authors become better, not to ban committees altogether.

It's also kind of obvious that your suggestion is driven by your own preferences of federalism or subsidiarity.

[Sciongrad]

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.

Committees are one of the most useful tools an author has. Using the bureaucracy is sometimes absolutely necessary to ensure that policy can be implemented effectively, especially when oversight is needed to ensure implementation. Additionally, committees often allow resolutions to be more concise than they would be otherwise. I think you're wildly underestimating the role the bureaucracy has and wildly overestimating the importance of simplicity.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I presume I'll have to try and find some middle ground between the view expressed between Knootoss and Sciongrad. Perhaps, if committees were only used to create definitions? Honestly, I agree with Knootoss that committees, many times, are a cop-out. Yet, I also agree with Sciongrad that committees are quite important then used effectively.

[Krioval]

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.

This is an interesting idea. Effectively, then, the WA serves as a supercommittee that acts by resolution? Assuming mandatory compliance (represented by statistical effects) and the voluntary membership of the WA, that could lead to some very interesting legislation on multiple aspects of a given policy, some with almost-but-not-quite antagonistic clauses that generate unexpected results. Certainly, the idea of abolishing committees should not be dismissed out of hand if only because of the potential of passing narrowly focused resolutions and not having to pass a single civil rights omnibus that then forestalls future proposals due to duplication or contradiction.

[Knootoss]

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.

[Defwa]

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.

The point is around setting goals.

"Nations should reduce green house gasses."
Okay, Bigtruckistan will turn off one of it's constantly running trucks. Done.

"Keep green house emissions at 2015 levels."
Mudsburg is a developing nation and only last year invented steam power. Now they can't build any more because they lack the technology to develop.

"Reduce green house gas emissions by 5%."
The Protectorate of Super Sweden has already gone bare bones to become one of the cleanest nations. The only way it can reduce its emissions further would be to ban flatulence.

When you set goals that can't be tailored to each individual nation, you get uninvited results like that. And without a hundred thousand pages to individually address each nation, a committee is essential.

[Knootoss]

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.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Again, your proposal is based entirely on your political beliefs, rather than an objective approach to why the rule exists or shouldn't exist. That is reason enough to dismiss it.

Committees play a vital role in keeping resolutions comprehensible and workable under a strict text limit. Your political beliefs may lead you to believe that broad language is just fine because the actual power to make specific decisions should rest only in the hands of individual states, but the vast majority of authors don't hold that view and would not write that way. What would happen is that we would get horribly written resolutions that focus on so many specifics, so many "what-if" scenarios, that the whole of debate would seriously degrade.

I think you're missing the point of this whole thing. Past attempts to make this game better have failed because long-time players couldn't get over the desire to push their political and rivalry-driven views. Let's not make that mistake again.

[Elke and Elba]

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.

[Defwa]

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.

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.

[Snefaldia]

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?

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?

[The Dark Star Republic]

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?

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?

Anyway.

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.

[Defwa]

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?

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.

tl;dr stats are not effected by words, role play is

[Knootoss]

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.

I have been absent from NationStates for reasons entirely unrelated to the World Assembly, and I happened to come back when this discussion on rule changes was just starting up. If you think I've been lurking here all these years, waiting for the opportunity to argue against committees, you're wrong.

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?

Orrrrrrrr I have sincerely believed for a long time that committees are bad, I continue to believe this, and now that I am in a thread where the Committees Rule is being evaluated I post to it with the (entirely unsurprising) view that committees are a bad idea. This has nothing to do with any of y'all. I sincerely believe that committees tend to be a cop-out. Politics is the art of deciding who gets what, where and why, and resolutions that make nice noises about some admirable aim (saving kittens) whilst leaving the banning of All Things That Could Theoretically Hurt Kittens to the World Assembly Kitten Protection Committee (WAKPC) removed that decision from the prerogative of Member States and the people voting on the resolution. It's a black box and we're supposed to just assume that this committee won't ban dogs and toddlers as potential kitten-risks.

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.

It might be that everything looks like a nail when you have a hammer, but I would submit that abolishing committees would untangle this knot pretty much instantly!

[Glen-Rhodes]

Bottom line is that the rules aren't there to enforce personal political preferences.

[Knootoss]

Can we please knock off these personal attacks? I'm actually here to give input on proposed rule changes. This isn't some In Character debating thread. Saying my views are a "personal preference" really misses the point. Whose preferences could they be if not mine? And saying they are "political" misses the point too. My wanting to ban the use of imaginary committees in an Internet game has nothing to do with my social-liberal political views. I genuinely believe that committees are bad for the game and hope to convince others here by merit of arguments that this is indeed the case.

So let's talk about the proposed rule change.

[Glen-Rhodes]

It's not a personal attack Knootoss. Your argument is that committees shouldn't be used at all because it's individual member states that should be given the power to enforce resolutions how they see fit.

That is an argument about political/policy preferences.

[Tzorsland]

I think I understand Knootoss' position here and it has nothing to do with "political views." (I think I can reasonably state that since I'm pretty sure my "political views" are diametrically the opposed of Knootoss and yet I am finding myself in agreement.) I think it comes down to what exactly a general assembly resolution is.

The more common model is that of the real world. In the real world, a governing body writes laws and executes those laws. Committees are needed to maintain the execution of those laws.

But that's not exactly how the subtle wording of the WA worked (or worked, I can't seem to find the subtle wording at the moment). The notion was that when a WA resolution was passed, your nation's laws were automatically changed to reflect the WA resolution. So ion effect it's not a higher level of government whose laws supersede that of the lower levels, but a secret and not so subtle extra branch of all the lower level governments under the WA, that can write national law in all WA member states. Such local law should be enforced at the level the national level, all committees are then at the national level as a consequence of national law created by GA resolutions. National committees are, of course, free to coordinate with each other, but there does not need to be a separate coordinating committee.

And thus we get to another dirty little secret. Stat wank speaking, no other nation exists. No nation can do anything to any other nation from a stat wank point of view. Even the GA resolution is only all the members stat wanking the same thing at the same time. Cooperation, coordination, and such committee tings is complete fluff ... THIS AIN'T NO MODEL UN.

Thus I can easily see a reasonable point of view that would state that WA Resolutions result in national laws enforced by nations and maintained by nations. Questions of WA funding, committees, and so forth become moot. The fact that this is exactly what happens from a stat wank perspective is only harmonizing the game role play with the game reality.

On the other hand, committees are as NS as baseball and apple pie is American. Explaining to newbies every day that "that was then and this is now" would be a horrible headache.