[RULES DISCUSSION] 'Committees' Rule

by **Bears Armed** » Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:20 am

Committees: Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal.
A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal

Currently the first line of this rule is still being interpreted according to the policy under which the Mods had been operating for several years before they handed responsibility for such matters over to GenSec: A proposal that uses a committee must not only have enough effects on the member nations, to justify the designated Category & Strength (or Area-of-Effect) but also include at least one clause that gives the member nations something to do separately from the committee as well.

Does the GA as a whole – or, at least, the GA forum's membership – think that this interpretation should be loosened again, so that if the clauses telling [or possibly, for ‘Mild’ proposals, just "urging"] the member nations to do something in connection with the committee are enough to justify the designated Category & Strength (or Area-of-Effect) then no added clause about separate action is needed?
(There would still have to be at least one clause involving action by the nations, even if that was only in connection to the committee.)

by **Araraukar** » Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:29 am

I could accept the "no separate mandate for nations" for mild strength cases, if and only if the actions assigned to the committee are obvious about doing something in the right category.

It would return the "and just who is going to pay for all of this?" and "why does my nation have to fund this for the nations that aren't yet taking care of it on their own?" yelling matches to the forum, too.

...would be much easier to just make Bookkeeping a real category.

by **Tzorsland** » Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:02 am

I'm going to argue the probably minority opinion of "Absolutely not." To understand why I would like to drill down to the core of what makes the GA the GA (as opposed to what makes the SC the SC). In effect, the sole purpose of the GA is to mess up member nations.

Unless you are deliberately messing up something in the governments of all member nations, it shouldn't be a G.A. resolution.

That's why the G.A. doesn't do things like commend and condemn, even at the individual level. (And why everyone to this day hates the old "Max Barry Day" resolution.) You can do that on the national level at the S.C. but that's the purpose of the S.C. (And even then the S.C. is designed for a different style of player.)

Committees are only necessary in as much as they are needed to mess up the governments of all member nations. Period.

Now if we permitted the "Bookkeeping" category, then this would become more logical to approve. Then again, one can't help but think that the same movement that created the S.C. to happen would occur and that mindless resolutions that did nothing would be forced to move into it's own voting queue and forum space. That way committee loving role players won't fill up the G.A. queue with useless resolutions.

by **Bears Armed** » Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:54 am

This thread is not about the 'Book-keeping' category, bringing back which would require Admin action.
It is only about slightly loosening the 'Committees' rule.

by **Aclion** » Fri Aug 25, 2017 10:33 am

Does the GA as a whole – or, at least, the GA forum's membership – think that this interpretation should be loosened again, so that if the clauses telling [or possibly, for ‘Mild’ proposals, just "urging"] the member nations to do something in connection with the committee are enough to justify the designated Category & Strength (or Area-of-Effect) then no added clause about separate action is needed?
(There would still have to be at least one clause involving action by the nations, even if that was only in connection to the committee.)

This is fine by me provided that the clause's mandate to member nations is in the resolution rather then entirely a product of the committee. EG If a clause requires a nation to work with a committee to meet objectives already stipulated in the proposal then even if we ignore the committee there's still some idea of what is expected of members. But if a clause tasks a committee with creating a set of regulations and then instructs member nations to follow the rules made by the committee, then without the committee the resolution imposes no mandates whatsoever.

by **Bananaistan** » Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:58 am

Aclion wrote:
Does the GA as a whole – or, at least, the GA forum's membership – think that this interpretation should be loosened again, so that if the clauses telling [or possibly, for ‘Mild’ proposals, just "urging"] the member nations to do something in connection with the committee are enough to justify the designated Category & Strength (or Area-of-Effect) then no added clause about separate action is needed?
(There would still have to be at least one clause involving action by the nations, even if that was only in connection to the committee.)

This is fine by me provided that the clause's mandate to member nations is in the resolution rather then entirely a product of the committee. EG If a clause requires a nation to work with a committee to meet objectives already stipulated in the proposal then even if we ignore the committee there's still some idea of what is expected of members. But if a clause tasks a committee with creating a set of regulations and then instructs member nations to follow the rules made by the committee, then without the committee the resolution imposes no mandates whatsoever.

This seems fair and I think this is what we are aiming for.

by **Araraukar** » Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:03 pm

Tzorsland wrote:I'm going to argue the probably minority opinion of "Absolutely not."

To be fair, this is my favourite option too, but in the last discussion we had about this (not sure why this wasn't posted in there), I think enough GenSec members were on the opposite side that some concessions will likely have to be made.

Bears Armed wrote:This thread is not about the 'Book-keeping' category, bringing back which would require Admin action.
It is only about slightly loosening the 'Committees' rule.

But opening the category would make the loosening of the rule unnecessary for other categories.

Aclion wrote:This is fine by me provided that the clause's mandate to member nations is in the resolution rather then entirely a product of the committee. EG If a clause requires a nation to work with a committee to meet objectives already stipulated in the proposal then even if we ignore the committee there's still some idea of what is expected of members.

This says better what I tried to say in my first post.

But if a clause tasks a committee with creating a set of regulations and then instructs member nations to follow the rules made by the committee, then without the committee the resolution imposes no mandates whatsoever.

And this is why the Bookkeeping category would be useful, but without it, I'm with you; no way.

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:24 pm

Delete the rule.

by **Separatist Peoples** » Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:15 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Delete the rule.

That isn't happening. Or, rather, its exceedingly unlikely.

by **Wallenburg** » Sat Aug 26, 2017 1:42 am

I think the rule should be enforced to the letter. Unless a resolution mandates actions by states that do not directly involve a committee, the resolution's only purpose is the committee, making it a committee-only resolution.

by **Bears Armed** » Sat Aug 26, 2017 6:08 am

Wallenburg wrote:I think the rule should be enforced to the letter. Unless a resolution mandates actions by states that do not directly involve a committee, the resolution's only purpose is the committee, making it a committee-only resolution.

A proposal that established a committee (or invoked an existing one) and gave it something to do, but that did not address the member nations at all, would be 'committee-only'.
However, if a proposal gives the nations something to do that's considered enough to justify the stat effects then why should it matter whether all of that action involves the committee as well or some of it is independent of the committee? After all, one can't remove the committee's role from a passed resolution without repealing the entire resolution including any clauses that don't involve the committee as well as those that do.
This is how the rule was originally interpreted -- for which I cite Historical Resolution #148 as evidence – and when I asked about the reason for the change more recently, while drafting my first GA resolution (an updated version of that ‘historical’ one), the Mods were unable to recall why the change had been made…

by **Sciongrad** » Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:20 pm

Wallenburg wrote:I think the rule should be enforced to the letter. Unless a resolution mandates actions by states that do not directly involve a committee, the resolution's only purpose is the committee, making it a committee-only resolution.

Why? What does that do for the game? The sole purpose of the rule is to make resolutions match their categories. It literally serves no other purpose. If a resolution establishes a committee, and a nation's interactions with that committee could reasonably be considered to have stat effects, why should that be illegal? I'm in favor of changing the rule. I would be in favor of deleting the rule, but I know that is unpopular.

by **Aclion** » Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:38 pm

Wallenburg wrote:I think the rule should be enforced to the letter. Unless a resolution mandates actions by states that do not directly involve a committee, the resolution's only purpose is the committee, making it a committee-only resolution.

I agree that the rule, and all rules should be enforced to the letter, However the letter of the rules need not be set in stone. What's more I think this change is in keeping with the existing rule; "Committees cannot be the sole purpose of the proposal. It is an addition to the proposal and designed to carry out specific duties related to the proposal."

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:59 pm

Sciongrad wrote:What does that do for the game?

It allows people to say that more proposals are illegal. Don't you know Scion, that having lots of complicated rules, especially if they are built on precedent that new players can't access, is the game we're playing here? We want to limit access to the WA and discourage new players by great hails of outcry on their drafting threads saying 'This is illegal!'.

by **Bears Armed** » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:44 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Sciongrad wrote:What does that do for the game?

It allows people to say that more proposals are illegal. Don't you know Scion, that having lots of complicated rules, especially if they are built on precedent that new players can't access, is the game we're playing here? We want to limit access to the WA and discourage new players by great hails of outcry on their drafting threads saying 'This is illegal!'.

If we're not going to abolish the rule completely though, and I think it's fairly safe to say that we're not, would it be correct to say that you'd prefer loosening its interpretation (as suggested in this thread's first post) rather than keeping the stricter interpretation in place?

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Tue Aug 29, 2017 7:36 am

Bears Armed wrote:If we're not going to abolish the rule completely though, and I think it's fairly safe to say that we're not, would it be correct to say that you'd prefer loosening its interpretation (as suggested in this thread's first post) rather than keeping the stricter interpretation in place?

I'd prefer taking the interpretation I already laid out somewhere on this forum – i.e. committees are only those organisations which do not take any direct action on members.

by **Araraukar** » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:35 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I'd prefer taking the interpretation I already laid out somewhere on this forum – i.e. committees are only those organisations which do not take any direct action on members.

Wouldn't that mean you favour the current rule and enforcing it to the letter?

by **Imperium Anglorum** » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:52 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I'd prefer taking the interpretation I already laid out somewhere on this forum – i.e. committees are only those organisations which do not take any direct action on members.

Wouldn't that mean you favour the current rule and enforcing it to the letter?

Yes, in a roundabout manner of speaking. I support the reemergence of a distinction between bureaucratic agencies or organisations and committees, which has fallen into abeyance for over a decade.

by **Bears Armed** » Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:55 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Araraukar wrote:Wouldn't that mean you favour the current rule and enforcing it to the letter?

Yes, in a roundabout manner of speaking. I support the reemergence of a distinction between bureaucratic agencies or organisations and committees, which has fallen into abeyance for over a decade.

Speaking as somebody who has been involved with the WA since its foundation & the NS-UN before that, "for over a decade", I do not recall ever seeing that distinction made by anybody in a relevant position of authority before the one relatively recent & quickly reversed ruling that's already been discussed in a related thread.

by **Sierra Lyricalia** » Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:04 am

Bears Armed wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Yes, in a roundabout manner of speaking. I support the reemergence of a distinction between bureaucratic agencies or organisations and committees, which has fallen into abeyance for over a decade.

Speaking as somebody who has been involved with the WA since its foundation & the NS-UN before that, "for over a decade", I do not recall ever seeing that distinction made by anybody in a relevant position of authority before the one relatively recent & quickly reversed ruling that's already been discussed in a related thread.

I was gonna say. Obviously haven't been around as long, but as far as I'm aware "committee" has always been WA shorthand for any international body subservient to the World Assembly itself. One of the most action-oriented and busy such bodies is in fact explicitly named a "committee." I can see where the most precise use of language would support inventing your proposed distinction from whole cloth, but that is literally the only thing that does. All prior practice here would dictate that we not. Repeal every single resolution containing a WA committee and we can talk.

by **Tzorsland** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 12:35 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:I was gonna say. Obviously haven't been around as long, but as far as I'm aware "committee" has always been WA shorthand for any international body subservient to the World Assembly itself.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall the basic reason for the establishment of committees in the first place was that the universal and mandatory nature of resolutions plus the non insistence of "role play" of resolutions meant that unlike the real world, nations could not be involved (except in their own laws) in the implementation of the resolution in other player's nations and thus the creation of the "Committee" complete with independent non nationals (lovingly referred to as "gnomes").

Thus the committee was a means to implement a uniform end, nothing less and nothing more. Only as the years went on did committees take on a life of their own. They had to catalog things (those were fun times) and coordinate things. That "role play" almost became more important than the actual resolutions themselves and eventually they put a stop to all that.

by **Excidium Planetis** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:35 pm

Tzorsland wrote:In effect, the sole purpose of the GA is to mess up member nations.

Unless you are deliberately messing up something in the governments of all member nations, it shouldn't be a G.A. resolution.

That way committee loving role players won't fill up the G.A. queue with useless resolutions.

Tzorsland wrote:That "role play" almost became more important than the actual resolutions themselves and eventually they put a stop to all that.

Oh, please. If the purpose of the GA were to affect stats, why do we even bother with proposal text? Why don't we just vote on categories?

The GA's primary purpose is roleplaying a UN-like-kinda-not-really international organization. The Committee Only rule serves as an unnecessary barrier to that.

I concur with Sciongrad and IA. The rule should be deleted, or at least reinterpreted so that proposals containing only committees which affect member nations are legal.

by **Aclion** » Thu Aug 31, 2017 3:55 pm

But if you had a resolution with only a committee and the committee were responsible for creating all the relevant regulations for that topic then not only would it be very hard to repeal the resolution, as the resolution doesn't do anything specific, but future legislation would be obstructed by differing ideas of what rules the committee might make.

by **Tzorsland** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:06 pm

Excidium Planetis wrote:Oh, please. If the purpose of the GA were to affect stats, why do we even bother with proposal text? Why don't we just vote on categories?

For the same reason we do it on daily issues. I mean you have to have text on daily issues. (At least we still have over the top standards in that department.) The WA/DI link is a lot closer than people want to generally admit but they are two sides of the same coin.

Excidium Planetis wrote:The GA's primary purpose is roleplaying a UN-like-kinda-not-really international organization. The Committee Only rule serves as an unnecessary barrier to that.

That organization that is not to be named because it will sue the pants off of us aside, the WA literally is as far from UN like as possible. The WA is a true international legislative body, able to shove legislation down the throats of the member nations. We use the incorrect title of resolution but really those things are LAWS.

You want a UN Resolution? THIS is a UN resolution.

That violates WA GA guidelines in so many ways my head will start to spin thinking about them. It's not even a damn committee, the UN as a body just works with some other body. That's what a UN like system would be doing and we don't do that here. No how. No way.

(By the way, that was a random selection of the 2016 session, right from the top of the list.)

by **Excidium Planetis** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:25 pm

Tzorsland wrote:For the same reason we do it on daily issues. I mean you have to have text on daily issues. (At least we still have over the top standards in that department.) The WA/DI link is a lot closer than people want to generally admit but they are two sides of the same coin.

I wouldn't say that the purpose of issues is to affect stats either. Issues Authors don't even write the stats, that's a whole section of the game right there. Issues are meant to be fun and entertaining.

That organization that is not to be named because it will sue the pants off of us aside, the WA literally is as far from UN like as possible. The WA is a true international legislative body, able to shove legislation down the throats of the member nations. We use the incorrect title of resolution but really those things are LAWS.

UN: Who are you?
WA: I'm you, but stronger.

Also, we do call them laws, in the resolution text. "Existing international laws", "Sources of international law, including this World Assembly", etc.

[RULES DISCUSSION] 'Committees' Rule

[RULES DISCUSSION] 'Committees' Rule

Who is online