The Committees Rule

[Knootoss]

Thank you, Tzorsland, for putting it so eloquently.

[Sciongrad]

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.

I don't know if I agree with the notion that "cooperation, coordination, and such committee things" are fluff. Sometimes, committees serve in roles that are critical to the successful implementation of policy. For example, some policies cannot be reasonably implemented unless a committee provides oversight and ensures implementation. There is no reason to obey WA nuclear weapons testing policy if there's no way of knowing whether a neighboring country is following that policy. And regardless of whether or not you like it, it is sometimes impossible to write a resolution on certain topics without a committee that can serve in some quasi-legislative capacity. GAR#34 would be so vague that it would have little real meaning if it wasn't for the ITSC acting in a rule making capacity. It's so easy to say that committees are superfluous and don't serve any real function, but that's not true. They're valuable tools for authors, and eliminating them would serve no real purpose except maybe preventing the WA from tackling issues that can't reasonably fit in 3,500 characters.

[Krioval]

Why not just assume that it is implied that the WA bureaucracy itself is checking periodically to see that all member nations are in compliance. We do receive telegrams from the World Assembly Compliance Agency after every GA resolution passes. Also, I think that the idea of making smaller, more targeted resolutions would improve the longevity of the GA by making it possible to pass similar resolutions on a broad topic. Thoughts/analysis?

[Old Hope]

Why not just assume that it is implied that the WA bureaucracy itself is checking periodically to see that all member nations are in compliance. We do receive telegrams from the World Assembly Compliance Agency after every GA resolution passes. Also, I think that the idea of making smaller, more targeted resolutions would improve the longevity of the GA by making it possible to pass similar resolutions on a broad topic. Thoughts/analysis?

What about WA legislation mandating the formation of national comitees?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Why not just assume that it is implied that the WA bureaucracy itself is checking periodically to see that all member nations are in compliance.

I don't know that compliance was the best example to choose. But how could we possibly "assume" the existence of major committees like the WTC or WHA?

[Sciongrad]

Why not just assume that it is implied that the WA bureaucracy itself is checking periodically to see that all member nations are in compliance. We do receive telegrams from the World Assembly Compliance Agency after every GA resolution passes. Also, I think that the idea of making smaller, more targeted resolutions would improve the longevity of the GA by making it possible to pass similar resolutions on a broad topic. Thoughts/analysis?

Perhaps it was unwise to use compliance as an example, seeing as mandatory compliance is assumed. But oversight is certainly not the only useful function a committee can serve. Again, rule making committees are invaluable. Bear in mind that the majority of players are just that - players. Sometimes writing the exact protocol that nations should follow in the event of certain biological attacks is not practical, or creating 10 different resolutions on transport protocol may require a level of expertise that most players don't have. Committees make the game accessible to all players. I know some resolutions can be tackled with a couple of lines, as Knoot likes to say, but that isn't the case with all policy, and I don't know why we would willingly prevent discussion on certain policies by bogging ourselves down with the ultra-technical specifics.

[Frisbeeteria]

But how could we possibly "assume" the existence of major committees like the WTC or WHA?

We've got a bit of a conundrum here. We can't have the committee, and we can't NOT have the committee. That's why we went with the silly/stupid convention of "gnomes".

I've never had any problem with a group of players setting up a RP thread over in NationStates or II can calling themselves "The WA committee on <fillintheblank>" They can hold all the committee meetings they want and make any decisions they want.

What they can't do is impose their ideas on nations that haven't signed up for that roleplay. For that matter, there's no way to force even signed up nations into answering issues in a way that doesn't contradict the committee rulings. A core part of the game is that the actions of a single nation don't impact any other nation's stats or operations, with the single exception of a game-wide WA vote. Another core part of the game/forums is that all roleplay is consensual. You can't force another nation to go to war with you, or enter treaties with you, or sit on committees with you.

When you work on the Committee rule, you have to keep it simple. The game simply can't allow the necessary complexity needed to address most of these concerns.

[The Dark Star Republic]

But how could we possibly "assume" the existence of major committees like the WTC or WHA?

We've got a bit of a conundrum here. We can't have the committee, and we can't NOT have the committee. That's why we went with the silly/stupid convention of "gnomes".

I've never had any problem with a group of players setting up a RP thread over in NationStates or II can calling themselves "The WA committee on <fillintheblank>" They can hold all the committee meetings they want and make any decisions they want.

What they can't do is impose their ideas on nations that haven't signed up for that roleplay. For that matter, there's no way to force even signed up nations into answering issues in a way that doesn't contradict the committee rulings. A core part of the game is that the actions of a single nation don't impact any other nation's stats or operations, with the single exception of a game-wide WA vote. Another core part of the game/forums is that all roleplay is consensual. You can't force another nation to go to war with you, or enter treaties with you, or sit on committees with you.

When you work on the Committee rule, you have to keep it simple. The game simply can't allow the necessary complexity needed to address most of these concerns.

Which concerns, though? I don't disagree with anything you've said - but then, I also don't see anyone else disagreeing with anything you've said. A while back there were a few attempts at roleplaying the International Criminal Court, with mixed degrees of success, but those involved seemed to have fun. More recently I brought up the idea of roleplaying some of the Multilateral Trade Talks and there seemed to be some interest.

If anything, the fact that committees offer a fun, but ultimately harmless, roleplay possibility is even more of an argument against banning them.

[Bears Armed]

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!

But then so, of course, would abolishing the entire WA...
... which doesn't mean that doing so would be a good idea.

Why not just assume that it is implied that the WA bureaucracy itself is checking periodically to see that all member nations are in compliance. We do receive telegrams from the World Assembly Compliance Agency after every GA resolution passes.

Because some committees do -- and have to do -- more than just see that all member nations are in compliance?

Also, I think that the idea of making smaller, more targeted resolutions would improve the longevity of the GA by making it possible to pass similar resolutions on a broad topic. Thoughts/analysis?

And how long before the membership gets fed up with passing yet more resolutions on subtly different aspects of a topic that has already had other aspects addressed in several earlier ones? Consider [for example] the potential proposal on Ozone-depleting chemicals that I mentioned earlier, and how many separate proposals -- probably almost identical to each other in everything except the names of the chemicals targeted -- we could need to lay down schedules for reducing levels of each of the numerous substances involved if we couldn't just assign that duty to a committee...
Or consider, for another possible example, the fact that if 'Endangered Species Protection' was repealed and we were no longer allowed to use committees then we would probably be unable to replace it in that way, due to the fact that any proposal establishing any particular species as sufficiently endangered to require protection (instead of leaving the job of listing species to a committee, as at present) would almost certainly be illegal for Meta-gaming...

[Glen-Rhodes]

Tzorland, I wasn't misunderstanding Knootoss' position. I see it the same way you do. It's still a political preference. It's a way of limiting the political role of the WA that isn't dictated by game code, but rather a political and ideological preference for how global governance is done (if it's done at a all). I could easily (and *have*) offered a different view of what a GA resolution should be used for, broadening the scope of the GA into a truly "world government." It would be a totally valid way to view the GA, but not one that should be enforced through the rules.

[Railana]

I'm strongly opposed to banning committees as well, for the same reasons that GR and Gruen have already outlined.

Also, I'd like to point out that committees aren't just responsible for making policy. Some handle dispute resolution between nations, for instance. I don't see how that would be possible without a committee.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Also, I'd like to point out that committees aren't just responsible for making policy. Some handle dispute resolution between nations, for instance. I don't see how that would be possible without a committee.

Just playing devil's advocate here — but couldn't they handle disputes by ... having their ambassadors talk to each other and negotiating? The WA hasn't banned negotiations outside a WA office, has it?

[Sovreignry]

Also, I'd like to point out that committees aren't just responsible for making policy. Some handle dispute resolution between nations, for instance. I don't see how that would be possible without a committee.

Just playing devil's advocate here — but couldn't they handle disputes by ... having their ambassadors talk to each other and negotiating? The WA hasn't banned negotiations outside a WA office, has it?

Sometimes in negotiations if you're at loggerheads it helps to have a third party look over it.

[Mousebumples]

It appears that most players are interested in keeping Committees in some way. For clarity (and, again, call it a straw poll, if you'd like), can we try to straighten out who wants to maintain the current rule (that the resolution must do something else _in addition_ to creating the committee) and who wants to relax that a bit further. Additionally, does your preference change whether we maintain the current category system or go to Resolution Editors ?

i.e.

1) Abolish committees entirely
2) Maintain the current rule.
2a) Maintain the current rule with the current system; relax the rule if Resolution Editors are implemented.
3) Relax the current rule and remove the need for legislation beyond the creation of the committee.

... And anything else I may have overlooked.

[Glen-Rhodes]

3.

[Defwa]

Two
I would want to discourage fluff committees And those that serve to replace good writing if at all possible.

[The Dark Star Republic]

3, followed by discussing all the other aspects of the committee rule we haven't discussed yet.

[Knootoss]

1.

[Sciongrad]

3.

[The Candy Of Bottles]

2

[Imperium Anglorum]

2

[Railana]

3

[Old Hope]

3.

[Kaboomlandia]

2a

[Bears Armed]

You're missing another option between '2' and '3'. I'd vote for a return to the old rule, so that a proposal still has to require (or, at least, urge) some action by the member states but it's okay [again] if the only action specified for the nations requires the committee's existence.
Without that option, I'll go for 2a.