Christian Democrats wrote:All resolutions must have some statistical impact on member states.
And would a mandate to cooperate with a committee have a statistical impact on member states?
Advertisement
by Wallenburg » Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:46 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:All resolutions must have some statistical impact on member states.
by Auralia » Mon Apr 09, 2018 7:32 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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?
Sierra Lyricalia wrote: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.
by Unibot III » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:30 am
Frisbeeteria wrote:Unibot III wrote: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.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Araraukar » Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:35 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:29 pm
by Araraukar » Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:33 pm
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Again, as long as such cooperation is a "measurable burden," yes.
Therefore whatever the committee comes up with is going to have a clear effect on member states in terms of what they must do to comply.
It's worth noting that I don't see a giant horde of committee-only proposals swarming suddenly over the horizon once this goes live
(as the comment period has ended, the change will be put in directly, though I'll happily talk out this line of discussion as necessary).
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:38 pm
Araraukar wrote:It's worth noting that I don't see a giant horde of committee-only proposals swarming suddenly over the horizon once this goes live
You obviously haven't interacted a lot with IA over the years?
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:15 pm
Araraukar wrote:Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Again, as long as such cooperation is a "measurable burden," yes.
I'm trying to find out what is the "measurable burden" in the case of a committee being created, the committee doing all data gathering and whatnot, and the only clause directly addressing the member nations tells them to cooperate with the committee.
Therefore whatever the committee comes up with is going to have a clear effect on member states in terms of what they must do to comply.
The compliance committee resolution, anyone?
It's worth noting that I don't see a giant horde of committee-only proposals swarming suddenly over the horizon once this goes live
You obviously haven't interacted a lot with IA over the years?
(as the comment period has ended, the change will be put in directly, though I'll happily talk out this line of discussion as necessary).
The first post of this thread doesn't say anything about there being a limited period for comments. So nice to know that this is the new way the GA is run... you post a rules draft after you've decided that's what the change is going to be?
by Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:28 pm
Auralia wrote:The fact that committee interaction is optional does not mean that it will not occur, or even that it is unlikely to occur. I think it's reasonable to think of the stat change as the average likely statistical effect of a resolution, not just the statistical effect of the parts of the resolution that are strictly mandatory. I think the committee rule should take this into account.
It's not simply the act of sending the text of the treaty to the Committee. I agree that doesn't have a stat effect on its own. The stat effect arises from the Committee's act of making the treaty public and available to national populations.
Advertisement
Return to Secretariat Archives
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement