NationStates

Posted: **Mon May 18, 2015 12:02 pm**

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

Posted: **Mon May 18, 2015 2:03 pm**

Posted: **Wed May 20, 2015 2:06 am**

3.

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

Posted: **Thu May 21, 2015 9:33 am**

Glen-Rhodes wrote: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…

Posted: **Sat May 23, 2015 8:24 pm**

The Dark Star Republic wrote: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.

Posted: **Sat May 23, 2015 9:59 pm**

Mousebumples wrote: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.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2015 11:07 am**

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2015 12:46 pm**

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aspects of the committee rule that haven't been discussed much, for example, reusing committees and reincarnating repealed committees.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

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."

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2015 1:24 pm**

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.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2015 1:32 pm**

Glen-Rhodes wrote: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.

Posted: **Sun Jun 07, 2015 2:35 pm**

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

Posted: **Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:24 pm**

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

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:30 pm**

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.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:33 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:51 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:05 pm**

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote: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.

Posted: **Wed Aug 19, 2015 10:55 pm**

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.)

Posted: **Thu Aug 20, 2015 12:15 am**

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote: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.'

Posted: **Thu Aug 20, 2015 12:58 am**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote: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 :(

Posted: **Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:44 am**

The Dark Star Republic wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote: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'.

Posted: **Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:07 pm**

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

Posted: **Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:14 pm**

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
The Dark Star Republic wrote: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.

Posted: **Thu Aug 20, 2015 4:48 pm**

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

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

Posted: **Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:49 pm**

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

Posted: **Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:57 pm**

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

It's filed under committees in the rule book.

NationStates

The Committees Rule

Re: The Committees Rule

Re: The Committees Rule