Committees, split from [DRAFT] Ban on Leaded Fuel

[Imperializt Russia]

Is there a list of active WA committees at all? Sounds like something that could be very useful.

I think I remember someone saying that committees aren't killed by repeals like the legislature itself is, so can committees of repealed legislation be "revived" for new purposes if it's deemed within oversight?

[The Dark Star Republic]

Is there a list of active WA committees at all? Sounds like something that could be very useful.

Here.

[Imperializt Russia]

Is there a list of active WA committees at all? Sounds like something that could be very useful.

Here.

Only two of those are struck out.
So is it true that committees are usually considered to survive repeals?

[Ardchoille]

Sciongrad's Committees List. It's under Helpful Links in the Rules thread.

Also in the Rules thread, under House of Cards:

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existence; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committee be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity.

I'm taking that as meaning that, if a committee has been used in another proposal, it continues to exist; but if it has no life other than in the repealed Resolution, I'd think it dies with the Resolution that established it.

[The Dark Star Republic]

(Unofficial interpretation): But in terms of the original question, there wouldn't be anything stopping someone from "reviving" it for a future resolution. If The Landmine Convention were repealed, the WA Demining Agency would cease to exist, but someone could easily write Landmine Convention II: Return of the Crippled Orphans, and "revive" the WA Demining Agency.

Edit: I knew I remembered this argument from somewhere before. I brought this up before with regards to Abacathea trying to "reinstate" the WAEC; he claimed in response:

as it stands what it's doing is legal, it has been done, and we've done it.

But looking through his resolutions I can't see that any of them have done that, in fact.

[Ardchoille]

Well, we don't seem to have anything definite on the issue, so have at it, citizens: should the committees that died when a Resolution was repealed be revivable?

I'd particularly like to hear from authors of committees here: are you so sold on your committee name that you'd regard any re-use of it as plagiarism, or have you gifted it to the WA s a whole?

My own feeling is that it's silly to revive a committee, when you can just as easily come up with a new name for something that does a similar job. Plus, specifying the areas a committee covers seems to me to help firm up a proposal in the author's and the voters' minds. However, I can see the appeal from a character-count point of view.

EDIT: After discussion here, an "OK, go ahead, revive dead committees" note had been posted in the Committees section of the Rules.

Tasks: Don't copy the original author's description of a committee's tasks; if necessary, paraphrase.

Names: You can re-use alphabet-soup, bland committee names, but please don't pinch somebody else's unique name. For example, you don't have to paraphrase Potato Committee into Committee for Potatoes, but SPUD (Special Protection for Underground Delectables) would be reserved for the original.

[Defwa]

Well, we don't seem to have anything definite on the issue, so have at it, citizens: should the committees that died when a Resolution was repealed be revivable?

I'd particularly like to hear from authors of committees here: are you so sold on your committee name that you'd regard any re-use of it as plagiarism, or have you gifted it to the WA s a whole?

My own feeling is that it's silly to revive a committee, when you can just as easily come up with a new name for something that does a similar job. Plus, specifying the areas a committee covers seems to me to help firm up a proposal in the author's and the voters' minds. However, I can see the appeal from a character-count point of view.

OOC: If reviving dead committees is plagiarism than reusing live committees should be too- and that's simply not efficient, speaking realistically. In role play its as if the committee was suspended and returned to duty later. I personally like the feeling of reusing committees and think it should be encouraged.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Well, we don't seem to have anything definite on the issue, so have at it, citizens: should the committees that died when a Resolution was repealed be revivable?

Yes, but not using language like "reinstate". That's repealing a repeal. I would expect to be in the tiny minority of people who could give a shit about this point, though.

The only exception should be for committees that would now be illegal, like UNIBOT (and, perhaps, GESTAPO?).

I'd particularly like to hear from authors of committees here: are you so sold on your committee name that you'd regard any re-use of it as plagiarism, or have you gifted it to the WA s a whole?

By putting something into the game, you're letting other people use it. People can roleplay committees, can use committees that haven't been repealed - there's no reason why they shouldn't revive them.

If The Landmine Convention were repealed, I would have no problem with people someone else reviving the WA Demining Agency: in fact, my current repeal text is "heartened" at the prospect of that. I would have felt the same way about my various UN-era committees, UNDA, UNEAF, UNRC...and whatever other alphabet soup I served up at the time.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: I personally have no issue with committees being reestablished and wouldn't consider it plagiarism if one of mine was later used after its original resolution was repealed. To be perfectly honest, I think it depends on the purpose of the committee in the new resolution and its purpose in the old resolution. If the new resolution's committee pursues a policy goal similar to the one established by the old resolution, then I think it makes logical sense from an IC perspective to re-establish the old committee to carry on its previous work and to send the message that the World Assembly approves of the old resolution's policy goal. I think it all depends on the purpose of the new committee. Although I do see Ard's point - it really isn't that hard to come up with a new committee.

Here.

Only two of those are struck out.
So is it true that committees are usually considered to survive repeals?

I haven't actually included committees in resolutions repealed before the list was compiled yet (I will in the near future), but there are obviously more than only two committees that have been repealed.

[Bananaistan]

Well, we don't seem to have anything definite on the issue, so have at it, citizens: should the committees that died when a Resolution was repealed be revivable?

I'd particularly like to hear from authors of committees here: are you so sold on your committee name that you'd regard any re-use of it as plagiarism, or have you gifted it to the WA s a whole?

My own feeling is that it's silly to revive a committee, when you can just as easily come up with a new name for something that does a similar job. Plus, specifying the areas a committee covers seems to me to help firm up a proposal in the author's and the voters' minds. However, I can see the appeal from a character-count point of view.

Absolutely yes. The status of a resolution (IE whether or not it has or has not been repealed) should not become an issue at all as to whether a committee can be used. But then that is coming from someone who thinks that all passed resolutions, whether or not repealed, should be considered to be the IP of the whole WA and phrases from current resolutions, particularly definitions, could be used in future drafts while repealed resolutions could be used to a significant extent with only the repeal reasons being changed. I am sure I have been told, or I saw a comment somewhere saying that what I have outlined is against the rules but I cannot see anything about in the rules or the rulings, other than a "don't plagiarise in the RL rule and a ruling about plagiarising an unsubmitted draft.

[Ardchoille]

<snip>... I am sure I have been told, or I saw a comment somewhere saying that what I have outlined is against the rules but I cannot see anything about in the rules or the rulings, other than a "don't plagiarise in the RL rule and a ruling about plagiarising an unsubmitted draft.

"Plagiarism" covers taking someone else's work and presenting it as your own. So yes, a proposal copying someone else's text would be ruled illegal unless the original author had granted permission onsite. Details are in the Rules under Proposal Stealing.

[Bananaistan]

<snip>... I am sure I have been told, or I saw a comment somewhere saying that what I have outlined is against the rules but I cannot see anything about in the rules or the rulings, other than a "don't plagiarise in the RL rule and a ruling about plagiarising an unsubmitted draft.

"Plagiarism" covers taking someone else's work and presenting it as your own. So yes, a proposal copying someone else's text would be ruled illegal unless the original author had granted permission onsite. Details are in the Rules under Proposal Stealing.

Thank you.

I note that the rule states "[don't just] copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal" (emphasis mine). Does this mean that quoting from a definition from a passed resolution, even if it has been repealed, IE in either case is it a document which is no longer a proposal, would be legal? It's rather similar to using a committee.

[Bears Armed]

"Plagiarism" covers taking someone else's work and presenting it as your own. So yes, a proposal copying someone else's text would be ruled illegal unless the original author had granted permission onsite. Details are in the Rules under Proposal Stealing.

Thank you.

I note that the rule states "[don't just] copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal" (emphasis mine). Does this mean that quoting from a definition from a passed resolution, even if it has been repealed, IE in either case is it a document which is no longer a proposal, would be legal? It's rather similar to using a committee.

Past rulings have said that it isn't allowed.

[Imperializt Russia]

"Plagiarism" covers taking someone else's work and presenting it as your own. So yes, a proposal copying someone else's text would be ruled illegal unless the original author had granted permission onsite. Details are in the Rules under Proposal Stealing.

Thank you.

I note that the rule states "[don't just] copy and pasted somebody else's Proposal" (emphasis mine). Does this mean that quoting from a definition from a passed resolution, even if it has been repealed, IE in either case is it a document which is no longer a proposal, would be legal? It's rather similar to using a committee.

Passages of the text are explicitly of the Proposal, so can individually be plagiarised.
When in doubt, ask a mod or refer to the definition of "plagiarism".

[Ardchoille]

It just struck me that some authors may hope to ride on a previous author's work by quoting a committee's tasks straight from the old legislation. My view on that would be that, like copying a definition, it's plagiarism. Authors should describe what new tasks the committee has.

Example:

Establishes the Potato Committee, which shall
1. Monitor the growth, use and distribution of potatoes in member nations
2. Ensure that existing potato varieties are maintained.

The WA further tasks the Potato Committee with
(a) developing new strains of potatoes
(b) researching cures for potato diseases.

Comments?

[Louisistan]

Comment?
My comment is: What you said.

Reusing committees from repealed resolutions: Yes
Plagarising the committee tasks: No (paraphrasing is okay, if it can't be avoided).

[Defwa]

Comment?
My comment is: What you said.

Reusing committees from repealed resolutions: Yes
Plagarising the committee tasks: No (paraphrasing is okay, if it can't be avoided).

Right- giving it the same tasks can be necessary. What the point of bringing back the ICC if it can't try and punish war crimes?
Just have to do the usual language switch up.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

My concern is committee names. If it's something generic, like World Assembly Sock Puppet Committee, then it should be fine. However, if it's an acronym* or something similarly clever that the original author had to make effort to think up, it should not be used again. It would be horridly unoriginal, and just plain lame, besides.



* absent illegal ones, like U.N.I.B.O.T.