The Committees Rule

[Glen-Rhodes]

I like that option, too. But I think that's what intended by #3?

[Tzorsland]

1

[Christian Democrats]

3.

---

I don't think there should be any specific rule on committees.

[Bears Armed]

I like that option, too. But I think that's what intended by #3?

Somewhere earlier on in this discussion it was suggested that just setting up a committee without specifically requiring [or urging] any action on the part of member states would still require a [verrry] slight increase in government expenditure (to cover the increase in “donations” to the WA that would be needed to finance this committee), and that that could be considered enough of an effect in itself to make the idea ‘legal’: I thought that option #3 was about that possibility…

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

The most basic rule, though, is that a proposal cannot only set up a committee. Why not? Mild proposals are legal, proposals that wouldn't affect all nations are legal. Furthermore, the rule can be easily evaded by adding some generic extra clause to a proposal.

This is a legitimate point. Why do we need to force some petty shit on nations just to set up a committee? Does the U.S. or Canada for that matter need to pass a comprehensive law just so the President can have a committee on condom flavours? I understand we don't want to be mired down in pointless votes that do nothing but create committee's, but honestly any newbie coming in that is going to try and set up a committee only is likely to screw up the resolution some other way.

[Krioval]

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.

Option 1, with a secondary preference for option 2.

[Ainocra]

3

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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other aspects of the committee rule that haven't been discussed much, for example, reusing committees and reincarnating repealed committees.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.

I don't recall the regulations on that being so complicated. If the resolution creating a committee has been repealed, but other resolutions still use it, they can still be reused. If the only resolution involving a committee has been repealed, the committee can be reestablished, by the same name even, if it's appropriately generic. Unless other stipulations have since been raised by the mods (and obviously your memory surpasses mine), I don't have a problem with these requirements as they stand.

I couldn't care less about the committee-only rule. Though it does help reduce the instances of do-nothing proposals; obviously it does not require a lot creativity to say, "just let a committee handle the details."

[Glen-Rhodes]

Rather than require a generic clause at the end so the resolution "does" something, perhaps the more relaxed rule would be that the committee itself must do something that affects member states. That way we don't get resolutions that just study and make a report that goes nowhere, if that's the kind of do-nothing type of committee we want to avoid.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Rather than require a generic clause at the end so the resolution "does" something, perhaps the more relaxed rule would be that the committee itself must do something that affects member states. That way we don't get resolutions that just study and make a report that goes nowhere, if that's the kind of do-nothing type of committee we want to avoid.

That would be fine, though it could possibly create more mods-vs.-players friction over whether the committee in question actually "does something" or not.

[Frisbeeteria]

Summary of proposed changes:

• General consensus to keep committees, with a strong but smaller group opposed
• General consensus that the proposed coding system will help define committee-based proposals better
• Another straw poll bizarrely numbered 1, 2, 2a, 3 instead of simply 1, 2, 3, 4 ... which I haven't counted

[Kaboomlandia]

About the poll, 3 appears to be the majority with eight votes.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I believe that something should be added to make sure that it is clear that roleplaying as a WA committee does not give the people roleplaying as that committee some sort of 'control' or 'power' over WA members. Just as a clarification after this WSA debacle.

[Separatist Peoples]

I believe that something should be added to make sure that it is clear that roleplaying as a WA committee does not give the people roleplaying as that committee some sort of 'control' or 'power' over WA members. Just as a clarification after this WSA debacle.

That's actually fairly well covered, all things considered. Bitely & Co. just elected to ignore it. Since that's clearly the incident you refer to. In several occasions, Bitely was adamant that it was just a RP, and was aware of the limitations. Since that's really the best current example of that issue, I think what we have is probably sufficient.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I believe that something should be added to make sure that it is clear that roleplaying as a WA committee does not give the people roleplaying as that committee some sort of 'control' or 'power' over WA members. Just as a clarification after this WSA debacle.

That's pretty much how RP conventions work right now. There's just no way to police them unless players are actually breaking site rules while doing it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I believe that something should be added to make sure that it is clear that roleplaying as a WA committee does not give the people roleplaying as that committee some sort of 'control' or 'power' over WA members. Just as a clarification after this WSA debacle.

That's pretty much how RP conventions work right now. There's just no way to police them unless players are actually breaking site rules while doing it.

Yes, but in the form of adding a clarification to the rules. I'm not saying that we need to make it illegal. I'm saying that the rules need to be made more clear. On cursory glance, the words 'meta-gaming' don't really mean anything to the uninitiated.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

The rules are about what proposals are legal, not which kinds of roleplay. Did the WSA region's wank really change anyone's stats or individual RP? Certainly not mine. (Though it was fun blowing up their fleet.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

The rules are about what proposals are legal, not which kinds of roleplay. Did the WSA region's wank really change anyone's stats or individual RP? Certainly not mine. (Though it was fun blowing up their fleet.)

Addition: 'A proposal cannot empower a region or a nation to act with the authority of the World Assembly.'

[The Dark Star Republic]

The rules are about what proposals are legal, not which kinds of roleplay. Did the WSA region's wank really change anyone's stats or individual RP? Certainly not mine. (Though it was fun blowing up their fleet.)

Addition: 'A proposal cannot empower a region or a nation to act with the authority of the World Assembly.'

Ban on Slavery and Trafficking just became even more illegal :(

[Imperium Anglorum]

Addition: 'A proposal cannot empower a region or a nation to act with the authority of the World Assembly.'

Ban on Slavery and Trafficking just became even more illegal

Then: 'A proposal cannot empower a region or a nation to act with the authority of a committee of the World Assembly nor a region to act with the authority of the World Assembly'.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Why not? That's the great thing about freeform roleplay: if you don't like it, ignore it.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Ban on Slavery and Trafficking just became even more illegal

Then: 'A proposal cannot empower a region or a nation to act with the authority of a committee of the World Assembly nor a region to act with the authority of the World Assembly'.

I don't think the rules currently allow proposals to do that anyway. It sounds like a subset of metagaming.

And may I remind you: WA Building Mgmt has been acting with authority, purportedly from GA#8, since the resolution was passed (and even years beforehand), without so much as a peep of protest from GA regulars. Like TDSR said, freeform roleplay is harmless, because you can't really affect any nation without its permission.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I don't think the rules currently allow proposals to do that anyway. It sounds like a subset of metagaming.

On cursory glance, the words 'meta-gaming' don't really mean anything to the uninitiated.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Then maybe you should be discussing this in the metagaming thread?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Then maybe you should be discussing this in the metagaming thread?

It's filed under committees in the rule book.