[Suggestion] Bookkeeping Category in GA

[Morover]

Hey, y'all. I'm like 99% sure this is the right place to put this, since I don't think it would go into either the Moderation or GA subforums, and those are the only other places I can even think of.

So, essentially, I think (and I've talked to some other GA regulars about it, and they seem to support it) that a bookkeeping category in the General Assembly would be nice. For things such as basic definitions proposals which span all proposals (to stop the "affordable is a subjective term!" and other such arguments I've been seeing recently).

This isn't fully unprecedented, either. The first GA resolution written by Max himself has a category of bookkeeping. I find it rather frustrating that we cannot affect other resolutions directly through future resolutions (and no, I'm not talking about amendments).

I was thinking about it, and the description could be something along the lines of "A resolution to better manage the World Assembly."

Of course, this isn't very fleshed out, just a loose idea. Further opinions would be great. Thanks for reading.

[United Massachusetts]

Seconded.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

What statistical effect would this category have? It sounds like you're basically trying to amend resolutions without actually doing it. Can you give an example of how this would work, without materially changing the current ruleset?

[Morover]

What statistical effect would this category have? It sounds like you're basically trying to amend resolutions without actually doing it. Can you give an example of how this would work, without materially changing the current ruleset?

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure. It could affect averageness, but even then it seems out of place. I don't think it would be so much amending resolutions as setting rough guidelines for them.

Honestly, I got the idea (like I mentioned in the OP) by thinking that a general definition resolution could prove to be mighty useful (e.g. "Mandates that all resolutions, unless otherwise specified in said resolution, follow the following definitions for basic words," though put more elegantly). The only category I can really imagine this being placed in currently is Political Stability, but it doesn't seem to really fit, to me. I think there could be an argument given for the "Operative Clause" or "Optionality" rules, but I think that it can be debated endlessly. Personally, I don't think it would violate either of these, despite seeing how an argument could be there.

But yeah, I don't know entirely how it would interact statistically.

[Kranostav]

As far as I know, definitions are only applicable to the resolution in which they were defined in. So you would be looking at a rule set change for this as well.

Also, if your proposal is written in such a way that a legitimate objection could be how the word 'affordable' is interpreted, you might want to do some redrafting.

[Morover]

As far as I know, definitions are only applicable to the resolution in which they were defined in. So you would be looking at a rule set change for this as well.

Also, if your proposal is written in such a way that a legitimate objection could be how the word 'affordable' is interpreted, you might want to do some redrafting.

I can't find your former point in the rules - though I may be looking in all the wrong spots. For your latter point, I definitely don't think they are objections to be taken seriously, though I can see how a basic definition can be beneficial in general.

[Kranostav]

As far as I know, definitions are only applicable to the resolution in which they were defined in. So you would be looking at a rule set change for this as well.

Also, if your proposal is written in such a way that a legitimate objection could be how the word 'affordable' is interpreted, you might want to do some redrafting.

I can't find your former point in the rules - though I may be looking in all the wrong spots. For your latter point, I definitely don't think they are objections to be taken seriously, though I can see how a basic definition can be beneficial in general.

House of Cards is the line of thinking if I am not mistaken. As your basisg of definitions explicitly off of older resolutions will make them meaningless in the event of said previous legislation being repealed.

[Sanctaria]

I can code the stats for this in five minutes if it's something that the community think is useful, so the discussion here shouldn't really be around those.

Really the discussion should be what would opening the category bring to the GA. I'm not as au fait with the rule set as I once was, but maybe if the no committee only rule was gone the creation of committees or agencies could go in here.

But off the top of my head, that's the only thing I can think of, and I'm not sure that's good enough to open the category.

[Aclion]

What statistical effect would this category have?

Why do resolutions need to have a statistical effect?

[Frisbeeteria]

What statistical effect would this category have?

Why do resolutions need to have a statistical effect?

Because otherwise the WA is just a bunch of diplomats expounding with no actual effect, much like the United Nations. I think it's safe to say that most everyone agrees that the UN is something of a joke in terms of enforcement power and impact. We don't want that.

The WA was designed from the outset to have an actual, measurable impact on its member nations. If you want the benefits of WA membership, you must occasionally pay the price in the form of stat changes that you may not find desirable. That's why all WA proposals (except GAR #1) have a statistics effect.

[Morover]

I can't find your former point in the rules - though I may be looking in all the wrong spots. For your latter point, I definitely don't think they are objections to be taken seriously, though I can see how a basic definition can be beneficial in general.

House of Cards is the line of thinking if I am not mistaken. As your basisg of definitions explicitly off of older resolutions will make them meaningless in the event of said previous legislation being repealed.

Maybe I'm not being super clear with what I mean (or I'm misunderstanding you - which is just as likely, honestly). I mean these definitions to be completely independent (and not reliant on any other resolutions). I don't think a House of Cards violation is there - at least for my example.

If you're referring to future proposals/resolutions being reliant on these definitions proposals, I don't really think it applies there either. The definitions would be for rather basic terms that individual resolutions shouldn't need to define, but that a definition would be useful for nonetheless. Nothing that would completely render a proposal non-functioning without.

I can code the stats for this in five minutes if it's something that the community think is useful, so the discussion here shouldn't really be around those.

Really the discussion should be what would opening the category bring to the GA. I'm not as au fait with the rule set as I once was, but maybe if the no committee only rule was gone the creation of committees or agencies could go in here.

But off the top of my head, that's the only thing I can think of, and I'm not sure that's good enough to open the category.

Thanks for clarifying that it's not a statistical issue - I don't know much (if anything) about the stats side of the GA.

Like I mentioned, I think a basic definitions resolution could greatly benefit the GA. Of course, there could be proposals written on the management of committees that don't really fit any other categories. It may not be overly used, but I think that there could be a few smaller things that could benefit the GA that are not currently possible.

[Aclion]

Why do resolutions need to have a statistical effect?

Because otherwise the WA is just a bunch of diplomats expounding with no actual effect, much like the United Nations. I think it's safe to say that most everyone agrees that the UN is something of a joke in terms of enforcement power and impact. We don't want that.

The WA was designed from the outset to have an actual, measurable impact on its member nations. If you want the benefits of WA membership, you must occasionally pay the price in the form of stat changes that you may not find desirable. That's why all WA proposals (except GAR #1) have a statistics effect.

If that's the case then why are they so negligible that everyone ignores them?
Anyway I don't see why we should allow them to prevent us creating a category that would be useful for authors, and I can't deny that bookkeeping would be useful.

[Bears Armed]

Because otherwise the WA is just a bunch of diplomats expounding with no actual effect, much like the United Nations. I think it's safe to say that most everyone agrees that the UN is something of a joke in terms of enforcement power and impact. We don't want that.

The WA was designed from the outset to have an actual, measurable impact on its member nations. If you want the benefits of WA membership, you must occasionally pay the price in the form of stat changes that you may not find desirable. That's why all WA proposals (except GAR #1) have a statistics effect.

If that's the case then why are they so negligible that everyone ignores them?

IIRC they used to be noticeably stronger, but some Issues Editors didn't like the fact that one GA proposal passing had as much effect on the stats that it affected as answering multiple issues would do and managed to get the Resolution effects brought down to more in line with the Issue ones...

[Imperium Anglorum]

I believe a mild resolution = one issue decision right now. But I don't entirely recall with perfect clarity Sanct's explanation.

[Sanctaria]

I believe a mild resolution = one issue decision right now. But I don't entirely recall with perfect clarity Sanct's explanation.

Without getting into too much detail this is roughly correct, though the resolutions would still be a tad bit stronger. Mild, Significant, Strong are now roughly equatable to 1.5x, 2.5x, and 3.5x similar issues decisions.

If that's the case then why are they so negligible that everyone ignores them?

They're not that negligible, and oh boy do people not ignore them. I've lost count over the years people shouting as us for their stats changing, and it ended up being a GA resolution that caused it, not any of our issues.

Anyway I don't see why we should allow them to prevent us creating a category that would be useful for authors, and I can't deny that bookkeeping would be useful.

As I've said, I can code it up pretty quickly, that's not the issue. The issue is its use - what would it be used for. It's not my decision at the end of the day, if GenSec want the category and Admin is ok opening it it'll happen, but I know GenSec will want a fairly good argument for its use, and examples of what it would be used for. Stats shouldn't come into it, because (a) we can't divulge stats, and (b) I'll code the stats if you want it, that's not going to be a barrier.