[DEFEATED] Committee Qualifications

[Scandinavian Nations]

That was already so weeks ago. I'll admit that the continual hostility and negativity (...)
If a community keeps taking dumps in the sandbox they play in, then at some point there is just an open sewer, not a sandbox.

I believe it was an act of protest, that got taken further than it needed to.
It's sad that it was taken out on you and the rest of the team.

Sadder still are the aftershocks. Our game here is already bordering the line between "as silly as adult games get" and "too silly for adults" as it is. At least half the game has seen the WA as a joke in its best of times. If half of those who didn't now switch to work to turn it into a joke, there's but one outcome.

[Moduland Sunrise Office]

Sunrise Pact General Assembly Official Recommendation

Vote FOR Committee Qualifications

Category: Political Stability | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Bisofeyri World Assembly Mission

Since time began, the inner workings of the World Assembly have been assigned to beings referred to by many as "gnomes." The gnomes performed admirably, completing the tasks required of them to ensure a solid functional basis for the World Assembly. The Bisofeyri World Assembly Mission has now presented an elegant proposal to codify and define our gnomish friends under law, provide them certain rights, and provide protection for them from bad actors in member states. It is a clear and concise World Assembly staffing proposal.

Following internal discussion and debate by members of the Pact, the Sunrise Pact is issuing a binding FOR vote on the proposal to all Pact member delegations

Assessment completed in coordination with and approval of the Chamber of the Sunrise Pact and written on behalf of the Pact by President Moduland.

[South Socialism]

After careful consideration of the proposal, South Socialism decided to vote against it's approval. It's topics are either useless, like topic 1 (which would actually pave the way for considering gnomes superior beings - incorruptible) or pose problems, such as that of defining what an "undue financial burden" is to the WA, which could create a discussion between those who want to exploit gnomes (by giving them small salaries) and those who aren't pigs. It doesn't achieve it's original goal and should be voted out, in order to something better be proposed to do fair justice to gnomes.

[East Amen Zamend]

A message from the WA delegate for East Amen Zamend

We whole heartedly support the resolution however, without any strong defination it might affect our final vote

“Incorruptible” -
Provision 1: “All committees shall be staffed by incorruptible individuals...”

Eli Whitney:

> “What the heck exactly defines ‘incorruptible’? Is this like some sort of a moral standard, or a background check threshold? or an abstract ideal? Without definitions, this term risks being either unenforceable—or selectively enforced.”


“Gnome” – Is it just a nickname, or does it imply a job class? Are there ranks?

“Impair or hinder” – What actions are covered? Does whistleblowing count?

Provision 2: “Gnomes shall be paid commensurate with experience...”

We absolutely support fair pay for bureaucratic staff. However, the resolution fails literially clarify likr who pays for these salaries? What WA department or office manages payroll and budget oversight? Is this a new cost to member states? Do my government of East Amen Zamend will have to Pay for this?

And Lasty,
For Provision 3: “No future resolution may create additional qualifications...”

What if a literal criminal or comprimised gnome managed to be hired by the WA? there is no safety mechanism, I advise for this provision to be Struck Out for the final version, unless you change my mind.

So my Concern here not just as a Delegate representing East Amen Zamend but to many others..

The Resolution lacking

• Definitions (e.g., “incorruptible”)
• No budget accountability or structure
• Restricts future legislation too much

So like unless the final version cleans up the resolution, East Amen Zamend will vote For, but for now its a negative..

- Eli Whiteney, Representative Delegate for the World Assembly from The Democratic Republic of East Amen Zamend

[Great Britain-and Northern Ireland]

[WA Floor – Representative of the United Kingdom, MP Amelia Graves rises with a measured expression]

“Esteemed colleagues,

The United Kingdom thanks the author for their earnest — if somewhat unorthodox — attempt to formalise standards for World Assembly committee staffing. The importance of integrity, competence, and fair remuneration in the civil service of this institution is not in doubt.

That said, we find ourselves rather bemused — and frankly unconvinced — by the terminology and scope of the proposal presently before us.

To refer to our committee personnel as ‘gnomes’ may well be an attempt at levity, but it undermines the professionalism we ought to associate with these roles. International governance demands clarity and seriousness of tone; anthropomorphic whimsy, while perhaps charming in domestic policy, has no place in binding legislation.

Furthermore, the resolution’s rigid prohibition against any future qualification standards — regardless of context, evolution of mandate, or institutional need — strikes us as a perilous constraint. Good governance must remain adaptable.

We also note the conspicuous absence of any clear enforcement provisions, administrative framework, or appeal mechanism in cases where a so-called ‘gnome’ proves unfit for duty. For a resolution purporting to address staffing standards, it is ironically light on operational detail.

The United Kingdom, while always in favour of strong, ethical institutions, shall vote against this resolution on the grounds of imprecision, poor drafting, and a general lack of seriousness expected at this level of international deliberation.

Thank you.”

[She resumes her seat, clearly unimpressed.]

[Rindenval]

Distinguished Delegates,

The Republic of Rindenval supports this resolution’s reaffirmation of the fundamental principles that should guide the staffing of World Assembly committees—principles of incorruptibility, competence, and fair compensation. These ideals are essential to the integrity and effectiveness of our collective work.

That said, Rindenval must also express that this resolution, while commendable in intent, falls short of establishing the concrete standards and enforcement mechanisms necessary to ensure these values are truly upheld. Without clear definitions or processes, it risks remaining a statement of aspiration rather than a catalyst for real change.

Therefore, Rindenval will vote in favor to endorse the spirit of this resolution, but we urge the World Assembly to pursue more detailed and actionable measures in the future to safeguard the quality and dedication of committee staff.

Thank you.

[Prasertinia]

You cannot quantify the incorruptiblility rigorously nor should our collective rights and freedoms be stamped out permanently for the lofty ideals of "law and order".

[New Bradfordsburg]

Support.

[Afthevilii]

The Representative of Afthevilii for the World Assembly votes against this resolution. One considers it to be too vague and would prefer a more comprehensive resolution with clearer definitions of the role and responsibility of gnomes.

[United Socialist Rafyevirya]

It is the position of United Socialist Rafyevirya that this resolution is so vague as to be completely useless. Furthermore, incorruptible is misspelled and... gnomes? Really?

To be perfectly clear: no human person is incorruptible, and this text does not define what is meant by "put in the effort," a "competent" and "qualified" individual, a "competitive" salary that does not pose an "undue financial burden," nor does it detail what constitutes "harm" to a gnome or what actions might impair or hinder the gnome's work; as a result, this resolution cannot meaningfully be enforced if passed, and our nation cannot reasonably support it.

[The Alexstralian State]

I just think it isn't very comprehensive. It doesn't establish what qualifications you must have to be a gnome, any hiring process, how individuals are selected, how to make gnomes "uncorruptible" which is impossible, any of that, and infact it specifically tries to stop anyone from properly defining what a gnome is. This is a frankly illogical, underdeveloped, ineffective, and exploitable resolution.

[Saint Asperes]

"Committee Qualifications" was defeated 8,156 votes to 3,461.

[Bisofeyr]

It is the position of United Socialist Rafyevirya that this resolution is so vague as to be completely useless. Furthermore, incorruptible is misspelled and... gnomes? Really?

To be perfectly clear: no human person is incorruptible, and this text does not define what is meant by "put in the effort," a "competent" and "qualified" individual, a "competitive" salary that does not pose an "undue financial burden," nor does it detail what constitutes "harm" to a gnome or what actions might impair or hinder the gnome's work; as a result, this resolution cannot meaningfully be enforced if passed, and our nation cannot reasonably support it.

Incorruptible being misspelled is an embarrassing mistake. That will be fixed if this resolution continues to be needed (which is unlikely in the next iteration of rules moderation).

[Simone Republic]

(OOC)

It would be easier to see what NationStates (as in the game and its stakeholders, including the owner, moderators/administrators etc) want to do with regards to the GA rules rather than try to change the rules within the existing framework, given the change in the qualifications of committee members in the GA is a relatively recent phenomenon.

[Scandinavian Nations]

given the change in the qualifications of committee members in the GA is a relatively recent phenomenon.

What do you mean by change? AIUI these committees have always been composed of nameless, nondescript, fictional characters, or has anything changed?

[Excidium Planetis]

given the change in the qualifications of committee members in the GA is a relatively recent phenomenon.

What do you mean by change? AIUI these committees have always been composed of nameless, nondescript, fictional characters, or has anything changed?

Yes. Now you can specify who is staffing them. If you want them composed of named, descript, real characters, you can do that.

[Simone Republic]

given the change in the qualifications of committee members in the GA is a relatively recent phenomenon.

What do you mean by change? AIUI these committees have always been composed of nameless, nondescript, fictional characters, or has anything changed?

(OOC)

There were different rulesets. The Enodian ruleset, the 2005 Mod ruleset, the 2024 GAS 6 ruling, and then the recent change made by Moderators. This sort of definition changed a few times in the last two decades of this game.

I think it would be simpler that this sort of issues defining the scope of the game for the GA be defined as a rule, not as an in-game, in-character resolution. This is more changing the rules of the GA game, not really for an in-game resolution to define/not define it.