NationStates

Posted: **Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:22 am**

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Looking at the entire proposal I believe it's legal both as to category and as to its committee use. The promotion of civilian space programs (the primary goal) is fundamentally educational even minus the committee's mandate to publish research. Since the coordination of space launches serves to promote international cooperation in civilian space programs (thereby leading to increased scientific knowledge WA-wide), it's not a huge reach category-wise.

Then, consider what that coordination actually entails. It might look like all that is is "filing paperwork" to notify the international community of launch dates and such; but the unstated converse of that is that the other nations involved are agreeing not to launch in conflict with the filer. In other words, participation in this coordination is a commitment to scrub or postpone launches where some other nation has priority, just to cite one example. This is a serious commitment, very much in line with the committee rule, and is not "merely filing paperwork."

OOC
There is content that fits the Category.
There is content that is enough to make it legal under the [recently modified] Committees rule.
Unfortunately those are two separate pieces of content.
As the content making it legal under the [recently modified] Committees rule would actually have the stronger effects on the nation (at least in terms of direct effects) IC, and as the Stat effects are determined OOC by Category (& Strength or AoE), I am still inclined to say that the Category assigned must match the proper Category for the non-Committee effects.

Posted: **Fri Aug 31, 2018 3:55 am**

OOC: If committee interaction is sufficient to survive the committee-only rule, then committee actions can indicate category, since we count the action taken as sufficient to have an effect on nations. To do otherwise ignores the logical connection between the committee and action taken in conformity with the committee.

Posted: **Fri Aug 31, 2018 6:48 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: If committee interaction is sufficient to survive the committee-only rule, then committee actions can indicate category, since we count the action taken as sufficient to have an effect on nations. To do otherwise ignores the logical connection between the committee and action taken in conformity with the committee.

OOC: It would seem though that the majority of the proposal is the committee off doing it's own things, some in conjunction with other committees and some involving member states although that part is only upon the request of the member state. The main part of the committee interaction is included in the one hard and fast mandate in the liaison clause: the instruction to liaise with this committee, another committee and other member states in non-educational matters. This is the only actual requirement made of member states. They could safely ignore everything else the committees are doing and the educational encouragement clause. I'm leaning illegal in line with our extant precedent on the category rule.

Posted: **Fri Aug 31, 2018 8:04 am**

Ooc: Urges clauses are still operative even if you ignore them. Ignoring optional committee options is no different than ignoring Urges clauses. Which nonetheless do not change the category.

There isnt a logical difference between urging nations to do X and urging them to work with a committee to do the same X.

Posted: **Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:03 am**

Bears Armed wrote:OOC
There is content that fits the Category.
There is content that is enough to make it legal under the [recently modified] Committees rule.
Unfortunately those are two separate pieces of content.
As the content making it legal under the [recently modified] Committees rule would actually have the stronger effects on the nation (at least in terms of direct effects) IC, and as the Stat effects are determined OOC by Category (& Strength or AoE), I am still inclined to say that the Category assigned must match the proper Category for the non-Committee effects.

OOC: Then you should suggest another rewrite of the Committee rule, because nothing in it requires or even implies that this is a standard we are going to hold proposals to. This is a standard stemming from the old Committee rule, wherein it was not acceptable for the bulk of national action to take place by interacting with the committee.

The new, current committee rule wrote:Every proposal must affect member states in some fashion. A committee may be the primary agent of that effect, but forming it may not be the proposal's only action. Requiring member states to interact with the committee somehow is sufficient, provided the interaction creates a measurable burden - one more strenuous than simply filing paperwork.

(emphasis added)

Nothing in there says member states are required to take any other action outside of the committee, let alone action that is perfectly commensurate with the chosen category - though if it did, this would still qualify as legal. This proposal fills the requirement of 1) requiring member states to take action, that is 2) more strenuous than simply filing paperwork; and since all of these requirements are in service of an educational objective (viz. the scientific investigation of outer space and the effects of zero gravity on everything terrestrial), there's no category issue to speak of.

Further to the category issue, I continue to think (and take the resolution at its word, as we mostly try to do) that the international cooperation spoken of in the preamble is there to advance an educational goal; that said goal would be harder without such cooperation; and that the cooperation specifically required (coordination of launches) is essential enough to advance the resolution's goals that it doesn't alter the category. An analogy would be an International Security proposal saying that in order to permanently end street crime once and for all, in addition to putting more cops on beats nations must also study the sociology and economics of poverty¹ - if you're looking at it piece by piece, it might look unrelated, rather than like the foundation underlying the entire concept of the proposal; but that view is missing the forest for the trees.

Posted: **Sat Sep 01, 2018 2:18 pm**

OOC: I withdrew this so I could actually campaign for it this time. So, you know, if you think its illegal, now is the time to articulate why and see if it stacks up against the arguments for legality. Like, maybe in a Challenge form.

Posted: **Sat Sep 01, 2018 3:22 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:OOC: I withdrew this so I could actually campaign for it this time. So, you know, if you think its illegal, now is the time to articulate why and see if it stacks up against the arguments for legality. Like, maybe in a Challenge form.

Will do.

Posted: **Sun Sep 02, 2018 4:00 am**

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
There is content that fits the Category.
There is content that is enough to make it legal under the [recently modified] Committees rule.
Unfortunately those are two separate pieces of content.
As the content making it legal under the [recently modified] Committees rule would actually have the stronger effects on the nation (at least in terms of direct effects) IC, and as the Stat effects are determined OOC by Category (& Strength or AoE), I am still inclined to say that the Category assigned must match the proper Category for the non-Committee effects.

OOC: Then you should suggest another rewrite of the Committee rule, because nothing in it requires or even implies that this is a standard we are going to hold proposals to. This is a standard stemming from the old Committee rule, wherein it was not acceptable for the bulk of national action to take place by interacting with the committee.

OOC
I was actually thinking more of the Category rule, and its "most appropriate Category" requirement: The fact that the education-related bits about sharing research with the committee are optional,whereas the safety-related clause is mandatory, suggests to me that choosing a Category which could be justified on the grounds of increased safety instead would be most appropriate...

Posted: **Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:45 am**

Bears Armed wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
OOC: Then you should suggest another rewrite of the Committee rule, because nothing in it requires or even implies that this is a standard we are going to hold proposals to. This is a standard stemming from the old Committee rule, wherein it was not acceptable for the bulk of national action to take place by interacting with the committee.

OOC
I was actually thinking more of the Category rule, and its "most appropriate Category" requirement: The fact that the education-related bits about sharing research with the committee are optional,whereas the safety-related clause is mandatory, suggests to me that choosing a Category which could be justified on the grounds of increased safety instead would be most appropriate...

OOC: Ahhhhhhhhh. Apologies, that is a much better argument than I thought you were making. I do still believe it works enough to be legal, but it might behoove the author to try to eliminate this issue in the next submission?

Posted: **Mon Nov 19, 2018 4:31 pm**

This has been submitted.

Posted: **Mon Nov 19, 2018 6:58 pm**

This is an excellent piece of legislature. Full support.

Posted: **Fri Nov 23, 2018 5:08 am**

This is now at vote.

Posted: **Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:53 am**

I'm still pretty new, so I'm not sure how these things work behind the scenes, but if it's not too late:

Believing international cooperation is only way to truly develop space science research

I believe there should be a "the" between "is only". Or else, "to be the" as another possibility.

Hope this at all helps.

Posted: **Sat Nov 24, 2018 10:03 am**

North Cross wrote:I'm still pretty new, so I'm not sure how these things work behind the scenes, but if it's not too late:

Believing international cooperation is only way to truly develop space science research

I believe there should be a "the" between "is only". Or else, "to be the" as another possibility.

Hope this at all helps.

(OOC: Proposals can’t be edited once they are submitted, so it looks like we are stuck with the typo. I’m quite surprised that nobody pointed the error out, given the sizeable length of time for which this was drafted, but sometimes things get under the radar.)

Posted: **Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:30 pm**

OOC: Here's to hoping this one actually makes it to the end of its vote... I don't know if I can handle a third proposal in a row being tossed as the result of a challenge

Posted: **Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:47 pm**

International Aero-Space Administration was passed 13,992 votes to 1,357.

Posted: **Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:35 am**

Frisbeeteria wrote:
International Aero-Space Administration was passed 13,992 votes to 1,357.

(OOC: It’s nice to see that a proposal has actually become a resolution without being embroiled in controversy and legality challenges. This is what the GA should be doing: improving the world, one resolution at a time. Whilst it is enjoyable to watch the rage unfold about the latest death penalty proposal, having some legislation that passes without any battling on the forums is a welcome change.)

Posted: **Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:23 am**

OOC: I'm resigning from the WA. This isn't even compatible with my nation. I wouldn't even be able to RP justifiable non-compliance, this goes further than that.

Posted: **Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:16 pm**

The Greater Siriusian Domain wrote:OOC: I'm resigning from the WA. This isn't even compatible with my nation. I wouldn't even be able to RP justifiable non-compliance, this goes further than that.

OOC: Ok.

NationStates

[PASSED] International Aero-Space Administration