[RULE CHANGE] Committee Rule

[Sierra Lyricalia]

*** Publication for Comment - Rule Change ***

This is the proposal for new language for the Committee Rule. Consensus has appeared to favor a slight loosening, but not a total abolition or castration. The new language would retain the same result for some past precedents, and change some others. In the GA Rules list, the bullet points underneath would remain as they are, only with the singular/plural agreement fixed.

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• Committees continue to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
• Single-use committees that died when its resolution was repealed, may be revived for a relevant new proposal

Committees: 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.

• A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
• A committee continues to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
• A single-use committee that died when its resolution was repealed may be revived for a relevant new proposal

[Aclion]

Good.

Also: linkie to prev discussion

[Wallenburg]

I can only imagine that the consensus you refer to exists specifically within GenSec, since the discussion Aclion has so kindly linked shows no consensus at all. That discussion even demonstrates the variety of opinions on the Committee Rule. As I expressed in previous discussions, I do not care for this new rule, and I oppose its implementation. That said, it at least captures what GenSec appears to want out of the Committee Rule in a straightforward manner. Should you go ahead with this rule change, I will certainly be disappointed, but not surprised nor underwhelmed with the effort put into this new version.

[Kenmoria]

It's good to see this long-anticipated change happen, solving countless legality challenges.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I’d still go further – the Committee rule does nothing the Strength rule doesn’t already do – but having something is better than nothing.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

I still concur with IA that the ideal solution is the abandonment of the committee rule, aside from what are currently the bullets (and I would support some loosening there as well). However, we are not, apparently, there yet.

I support the modification of the rule. It moves us forward constructively.

[Dirty Americans]

I’d still go further – the Committee rule does nothing the Strength rule doesn’t already do – but having something is better than nothing.

I am not sure how the strength rule solves the problem. "These options do have a statistical effect and strength." This is not the same as "provided the interaction creates a measurable burden." This line makes resolutions crystal clear ... Resolutions must be written so as to BURDEN nations in the WA. That's not the same as saying "different strengths of resolutions have a 'a statistical effect and strength.'"

I really love this change because it points out the necessity of at least trying to fit the resolution to the stat wank.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OP updated to clarify that only the first paragraph of the rule will receive substantive changes. The underlying bullets will remain identical in effect.

[Wallenburg]

OP updated to clarify that only the first paragraph of the rule will receive substantive changes. The underlying bullets will remain identical in effect.

Thanks.

[Ponaeamic]

*** Publication for Comment - Rule Change ***

This is the proposal for new language for the Committee Rule. Consensus has appeared to favor a slight loosening, but not a total abolition or castration. The new language would retain the same result for some past precedents, and change some others. In the GA Rules list, the bullet points underneath would remain as they are, only with the singular/plural agreement fixed.

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

Committees: 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.

• A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths
• A committee continues to exist after its resolution is repealed if it's used in another resolution
• A single-use committee that died when its resolution was repealed may be revived for a relevant new proposal

I am pleased to this gaining so much attention. It is wonderful that someone has decided to finally bring this up. Now we must make sure this get's to the floor for a vote. I am certain it will pass. This is a solid piece of legislation you have here, Nice Work.

[Frisbeeteria]

Now we must make sure this get's to the floor for a vote. I am certain it will pass.

Ummm, no. That's not how this works. GenSec sets the rules. There's no vote. It's a done deal.

[Ponaeamic]

Now we must make sure this get's to the floor for a vote. I am certain it will pass.

Ummm, no. That's not how this works. GenSec sets the rules. There's no vote. It's a done deal.

My mistake, I am still trying to get a hang of how things go here, I usually just read and remain quiet, but now I want to voice my thoughts. Glad the changes are in the pipeline though. This seems to have wide-ranging support.

[Separatist Peoples]

OP updated to clarify that only the first paragraph of the rule will receive substantive changes. The underlying bullets will remain identical in effect.

Thanks.

We appreciate you pointing out the ambiguity. When you've looked at the same draft two dozenty times, your brain starts filling in what you meant even if it isn't there. Clearly that got us!

[Auralia]

a) What about cases where member states are not explicitly required to interact with a committee but can be reasonably expected to do so? For example, the World Assembly Development Foundation provided a variety of services to member states but using them was not mandatory. Shouldn't the establishment of a such a committee be sufficient for legality?

b) Why isn't "simply filing paperwork" a "measurable burden"? For example, if Ban on Secret Treaties had simply required member states to file treaties with a committee, shouldn't that be sufficient for legality?

[Liliumtopia]

We can fully support this proposal rule change.

[Unibot III]

What is the point of "A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths" ?

I mean, it's a long, long standing rule. But why? Why shouldn't the GA be allowed to form committees made of member-region representatives? I think the rules should simply say if the process of staffing these committees is unstated, it's an assumed traditional staffing process; and no specific individuals or member-nations ought to be mentioned, only the process in which they're recruited.

[Separatist Peoples]

What is the point of "A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths" ?

I mean, it's a long, long standing rule. But why? Why shouldn't the GA be allowed to form committees made of member-region representatives? I think the rules should simply say if the process of staffing these committees is unstated, it's an assumed traditional staffing process; and no specific individuals or member-nations ought to be mentioned, only the process in which they're recruited.

It gets into difficulties with Metagaming, Game Mechanics, and Branding.

[Unibot III]

What is the point of "A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths" ?

I mean, it's a long, long standing rule. But why? Why shouldn't the GA be allowed to form committees made of member-region representatives? I think the rules should simply say if the process of staffing these committees is unstated, it's an assumed traditional staffing process; and no specific individuals or member-nations ought to be mentioned, only the process in which they're recruited.

It gets into difficulties with Metagaming, Game Mechanics, and Branding.

Not necessarily!

If you're articulating the process with which committee members are chosen, rather than who is chosen, I think it'd help expand and mature the WA's idea of 'bureaucracy' without ever metagaming or branding.

For instance, instead of the WAEC being a shadowy entity, it could be staffed with experienced climate scientists and meteorologists recruited from member-regions. The current way we handle committees is to reduce them to objectives and acronyms, but the people who serve on committees and how they're chosen and why they're chosen is a significant unknown that's important to evaluating a resolution, especially one that is dominated by committees.

I think it's interesting to look back on WA committees and ask whether they'd actually be effective. The assumption that they're optimally staffed plays to the idea that WA committees meet all tasks assigned to them, but it's an infantilizingly magic solution and it holds the WA and legislators back from writing better resolutions.

I believe the real reason why the old committee rules were so well lobbied for by the old guard was to reinforce the no-WA Army rule - that was the motivation behind most of the old ruleset's weirdness. It was difficult to write a peacekeeping corps resolution with gnomes (but we tried it anyways.)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

a) What about cases where member states are not explicitly required to interact with a committee but can be reasonably expected to do so? For example, the World Assembly Development Foundation provided a variety of services to member states but using them was not mandatory. Shouldn't the establishment of a such a committee be sufficient for legality?

Hmm. Yeah, minus Article III/Clause 4, I'm not sure GenSec would have found that resolution legal under either the old committee rule or the new one. If committee interaction is optional and the resolution does nothing else, whence the stat change upon passage?

b) Why isn't "simply filing paperwork" a "measurable burden"? For example, if Ban on Secret Treaties had simply required member states to file treaties with a committee, shouldn't that be sufficient for legality?

Again, how are political freedoms raised by sending the text of a treaty to a WA committee? Democracy is Furthered only by the actions of the people of a country, and if most of them don't know about it they can't exercise their power to approve or punish the government that negotiated it.

[Dirty Americans]

b) Why isn't "simply filing paperwork" a "measurable burden"?

Why isn't this intuitively obvious to the casual observer? Let me take a crack at it. Consider it government economies for dummies. How many bureaucrats does it take to fill out paperwork? How much money does a typical bureaucrat make (in terms of percentage of GDP)? I think the answer is that the actual burden if you could measure it would still be low the margin of error in determining your GDP in the first place, so your burden is X plus or minus say 2x, which probably isn't really a measurement at all.

(And remember folks, every bureaucrat who has to fill out paperwork is one less bureaucrat making a GDP destroying regulation.)

[Frisbeeteria]

What is the point of "A proposal cannot define: who can/cannot staff the committee, how members are chosen, and term lengths" ?

I mean, it's a long, long standing rule. But why? Why shouldn't the GA be allowed to form committees made of member-region representatives? I think the rules should simply say if the process of staffing these committees is unstated, it's an assumed traditional staffing process; and no specific individuals or member-nations ought to be mentioned, only the process in which they're recruited.

As one of the co-authors of the original rule, our reasoning was that if we let people set up official committees, we'd be besieged with requests for voting procedures, official sanctions and lists of members, and that sort of game and/or forum mechanics stuff that we can't fulfill.

Even back in 2005-2006 when we worked out most of the current ruleset, no one on staff ever minded if people voluntarily set up roleplay versions of the committees / judiciaries / whatnot. If you can come up with phrasing that reflects that, and GenSec approves it, I see no particular reason to object.

[Araraukar]

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.

Unsurprisingly, not happy with that part, unless the GenSec actually sticks to the "measurable burden" part, which I highly doubt they will. It hasn't worked that way so far, what with a single "encourages" or "urges" or similar fluff clause being enough to bypass committee only violation. Being encouraged to do something you have no intention of doing, does not cause "measurable burden".

[Separatist Peoples]

Unsurprisingly, not happy with that part, unless the GenSec actually sticks to the "measurable burden" part, which I highly doubt they will. It hasn't worked that way so far, what with a single "encourages" or "urges" or similar fluff clause being enough to bypass committee only violation. Being encouraged to do something you have no intention of doing, does not cause "measurable burden".

An optional committee with no other legal obligations would obviously not pass muster. A committee that has mandatory impacts with no other legal obligations would. Honestly, I can't see the value in permitting resolutions that are essentially committee-only violations that have a meaningless bit of fluff. At least this change would make such resolutions honest.

[Araraukar]

An optional committee with no other legal obligations would obviously not pass muster. A committee that has mandatory impacts with no other legal obligations would.

And what will happen with the proposals where the committee (aka WA) is what does all the work? You know the type where the committee does all the assessing and information gathering and publishing results and all that. Would those now become legal with a "requires member nations to cooperate with the committee" clause thrown in?

[Christian Democrats]

All resolutions must have some statistical impact on member states.