[Discussion] Committee Rule

[The Overmind]

I'm raising a formal question about the interpretation of part of the committee rule, as written here:

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

The question was originally, but inconclusively, raised with The Ice States after reading this proposal thread:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=557805

Namely, "Establishes the Sustainable Aggregates Networking Department (SAND), a committee of accredited geologists, zoologists, biologists, and marine biologists, with the authority to" is illegal for the bolded text.

My question was, is it still illegal if the proposal only suggests who should be on the committee?

Consider:

"Establishes the Sustainable Aggregates Networking Department (SAND), a committee ideally made up of accredited geologists, zoologists, biologists, and marine biologists, with the authority to"

Or the less grammatical but more straightforwardly propositional:

"Establishes the Sustainable Aggregates Networking Department (SAND), which it is suggested should comprise of accredited geologists, zoologists, biologists, and marine biologists, with the authority to"

[Haymarket Riot]

My initial thought is yes, given precedent is that all committees are staffed by gnomes.

[Attempted Socialism]

Is it beyond imagining that the gnomes have gone to university and thus possess the relevant qualifications and hold those degrees?

[The Ice States]

I think I agree with Hay -- if committees are staffed by gnomes who only exist to serve on a committee that would prevent specifying who they are, either explicitly or through encouragements like this.

With that said, it's worth asking whether this standard still serves the community. The traditional justification seems to be addressed by the existence of separate rules such as Game Mechanics and Branding. The concurrence in [2024] GAS 6 is more compelling, but I don't think it shows a strong Ooc harm; the risk of repealing everything on the grounds of not saying how committees are staffed is small and can be addressed politically in the same way that interpreting everything in bad faith was prevented by GA #2 (and more recently #440 and #654). On the other hand, we are seeing measurable harm from the rule, in the form of new authors having their proposals marked illegal based on a rather non-intuitive standard; the sand mining proposal being one of several proposals in the last few months marked illegal on such grounds. _{[I gave up on digging through IA's archive except to find this illegal ruling last month]}

What do players think about this? Should the Committees rule remain, be reworked, or stay as it is? If the second, should it be applied to specifying membership of committees within member nations?

Is it beyond imagining that the gnomes have gone to university and thus possess the relevant qualifications and hold those degrees?

Under [2024] GAS 6 it seems as though gnomes are assumed to "spring into existance [sic] and live only to serve on said committee". The latter would seemingly preclude the gnomes from [otherwise living] such as going to university and getting degrees.

[The Overmind]

Is it beyond imagining that the gnomes have gone to university and thus possess the relevant qualifications and hold those degrees?

Under [2024] GAS 6 it seems as though gnomes are assumed to "spring into existance [sic] and live only to serve on said committee". The latter would seemingly preclude the gnomes from [otherwise living] such as going to university and getting degrees.

Understanding this response, consider an alternative interpretation of "[e]stablishes the Sustainable Aggregates Networking Department (SAND), a committee ideally made up of accredited geologists, zoologists, biologists, and marine biologists, with the authority to," where "a committee ideally made up of" merely suggests what qualities we would like the magical gnomes to have.

[The Ice States]

Under [2024] GAS 6 it seems as though gnomes are assumed to "spring into existance [sic] and live only to serve on said committee". The latter would seemingly preclude the gnomes from [otherwise living] such as going to university and getting degrees.

Understanding this response, consider an alternative interpretation of "[e]stablishes the Sustainable Aggregates Networking Department (SAND), a committee ideally made up of accredited geologists, zoologists, biologists, and marine biologists, with the authority to," where "a committee ideally made up of" merely suggests what qualities we would like the magical gnomes to have.

I don't see a difference between this and the "suggested" wording earlier.

[The Overmind]

Understanding this response, consider an alternative interpretation of "[e]stablishes the Sustainable Aggregates Networking Department (SAND), a committee ideally made up of accredited geologists, zoologists, biologists, and marine biologists, with the authority to," where "a committee ideally made up of" merely suggests what qualities we would like the magical gnomes to have.

I don't see a difference between this and the "suggested" wording earlier.

The relevant difference is in the interpretation. I could have picked either wording scheme to make the point

[The Overmind]

Upon further discussion with The Ice States, I'm going to steer this discussion back to their invitation to the community to discuss the utility of the rule, rather than descend into increasing obscurity with the line of reasoning I opened up.

[The Ice States]

Upon further discussion with The Ice States, I'm going to steer this discussion back to their invitation to the community to discuss the utility of the rule, rather than descend into increasing obscurity with the line of reasoning I opened up.

Recording for the public the contents of this discussion: https://imgur.com/a/wqPq1YH

[Attempted Socialism]

Is it beyond imagining that the gnomes have gone to university and thus possess the relevant qualifications and hold those degrees?

Under [2024] GAS 6 it seems as though gnomes are assumed to "spring into existance [sic] and live only to serve on said committee". The latter would seemingly preclude the gnomes from [otherwise living] such as going to university and getting degrees.

If you call existing without a university degree living...

I guess that's a reasonable interpretation of the rules as they currently stand, but I too question whether that is what we want from the rules. To my mind the committee rule is there to avoid arguing over seats each nation gets, what characters have served where, and avoid the hassle of drafting by-laws or procedures every time a new committee is created. That sort of thing. I struggle to see the harm in requiring a committee to have experts within applicable fields available, either as staffers or committee members. It's the current RP convention that you don't need to specify that the committee members be subject matter experts, but I would love to hear an argument as to why it should be illegal to. Is there a scenario where it could hurt?

[Barfleur]

I agree with AS. IMO, committees should remain staffed by gnomes (and not by nations, ambassadors, etc.), but proposals should be able to regulate the qualifications of the gnomes based on the needs and purposes of the committee. Of course, that does create a risk of RP-wank, but I'll say again what I've said before: that's not a bad thing. Encouraging authors and commentators to debate qualifications for a committee is a net plus, in my mind.

The one issue I see is contradiction. If GA#998 establishes a committee staffed by experts in volcanology, and then GA#1001 expands that committee's ambit to cover all natural disasters, there might be an issue if GA#1001 tries to also allow experts in earthquakes, tornados, etc. (who may not be experts in volcanology) to sit on the committee.

[Tinhampton]

If this section of the rule is retained, and I would rewrite it as such:

No proposal may discuss any aspect of committee membership

As it stands, this is functionally what the rule says. We do not need to have a laundry list of every single aspect of committee membership just to say it is forbidden to define each of these.

Since some people have seriously suggested getting rid of the interaction rule, and it's well-understood at this point that you're allowed to "recycle" repealed committees, the above. But if I were to rewrite the rule entirely with regard to history and tradition, I would write it like so:

Committees: A proposal cannot simply create a committee without requiring member states to meaningfully interact with it, above and beyond simply filing paperwork with it. No proposal may discuss any aspect of committee membership. Pre-existing committees can still be used (or, if necessary, recreated) even if the original resolution mentioning them has been repealed.

---

I said in the NSWA Discord that GenSec has changed almost every rule in the past couple of years. If a change to the Committees rule is ratified, and when Categories are finally abolished, this will be a full list of rules which remain exactly the same as they were in March 2020 when I was starting out: Optionality, Language, Joke/Silly Proposals, Plagiarism (not a GenSec competence), Responses to Violations (not a GenSec competence). I genuinely think that Optionality might be on the chopping block in the coming years, too.

At this point, I would seriously consider rewriting the rules from the bottom-up, so that people are no longer under the illusion that "we operate under the ruleset agreed during the 2016 Rules Consortium." The current rules structure is not a shibboleth. We changed them in 2016. The Other Place changed them in 2020. Ransium floated his Twelve SC Commandments - on a strictly feedbackable basis - in 2019.

[The Ice States]

I said in the NSWA Discord that GenSec has changed almost every rule in the past couple of years. If a change to the Committees rule is ratified, and when Categories are finally abolished, this will be a full list of rules which remain exactly the same as they were in March 2020 when I was starting out: Optionality, Language, Joke/Silly Proposals, Plagiarism (not a GenSec competence), Responses to Violations (not a GenSec competence). I genuinely think that Optionality might be on the chopping block in the coming years, too. At this point, I would seriously consider rewriting the rules from the bottom-up, so that people are no longer under the illusion that "we operate under the ruleset agreed during the 2016 Rules Consortium."

For the record, Language had minor edits during the general rewrite in July.

[Tinhampton]

That's the second time I've forgotten that fact in fourteen weeks! Oh, my!

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Just throwing out there, one of the aspects of the committee gnomes is they are held to be perfect creatures: they exist for the sole purpose of staffing the committee, and they fulfil the committee's mandate precisely and perfectly every time¹, without fail. From this, it follows that if any particular qualification, quality, characteristic, etc was needful or beneficial then the gnomes will possess that qualification, quality, or characteristic regardless and continue merrily along.

1. We do not necessarily agree on what that means, of course, since ask three "experts" on a topic for an opinion on a topic and you will get a minimum of 4 responses, nevermind whether considering and accommodating minority views, precautionary principles, etc... are part of perfectly and precisely fulfilling a mandate. This, in my opinion, is also why repeals can only ever require plausible interpretations and part of why TIS' "must interpret in good faith" nonsense is entirely meaningless.

[Quintessence of Dust]

Namely, "Establishes the Sustainable Aggregates Networking Department (SAND), a committee of accredited geologists, zoologists, biologists, and marine biologists, with the authority to" is illegal for the bolded text.

If it's the case a proposal was actually ruled illegal for that, then that's silly and shows that (yet again) the understanding of what the rule does has become totally divorced from what it was put in for.

[Simone Republic]

I am really inclined to think that this should go into technical more than a regular thread, but never mind.

Just throwing out there, one of the aspects of the committee gnomes is they are held to be perfect creatures: they exist for the sole purpose of staffing the committee, and they fulfil the committee's mandate precisely and perfectly every time¹, without fail. From this, it follows that if any particular qualification, quality, characteristic, etc was needful or beneficial then the gnomes will possess that qualification, quality, or characteristic regardless and continue merrily along.

This. I support keeping the rule as it is, simply to make drafting significant easier. This is supposed to be a diplomacy and government simulation game, not a simulator on running an HR department.

One issue with the assumption that they are perfect creatures is, however, that you can pass a law that says that "all education is to be provided by gnomes, all health care is to be provided by gnomes, all farming is to be done by gnomes, etc." and make the entire simulation utterly unrealistic. There really needs to be some standards on this.

Magecastle's vaccine thing is on this slippery slope.
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=552065

1. We do not necessarily agree on what that means, of course, since ask three "experts" on a topic for an opinion on a topic and you will get a minimum of 4 responses, nevermind whether considering and accommodating minority views, precautionary principles, etc... are part of perfectly and precisely fulfilling a mandate. This, in my opinion, is also why repeals can only ever require plausible interpretations and part of why TIS' "must interpret in good faith" nonsense is entirely meaningless.[/size]

Magecastle should be required to spend at least 12 months dealing with vicious office politics. His views will change thereafter.

I think I agree with Hay -- if committees are staffed by gnomes who only exist to serve on a committee that would prevent specifying who they are, either explicitly or through encouragements like this.

With that said, it's worth asking whether this standard still serves the community.

Yes it does, unless you really want half of all resolutions to deal with administrative aspects of the WA, and salaries and benefits for the staff, and qualifications and what not.

What do players think about this? Should the Committees rule remain, be reworked, or stay as it is? If the second, should it be applied to specifying membership of committees within member nations?

As is, in the sense that I agree with D&B that gnomes should be assumed perfect to make the game simplier.

Is it beyond imagining that the gnomes have gone to university and thus possess the relevant qualifications and hold those degrees?

Under [2024] GAS 6 it seems as though gnomes are assumed to "spring into existance [sic] and live only to serve on said committee". The latter would seemingly preclude the gnomes from [otherwise living] such as going to university and getting degrees.

If they are mystical gnomes, when they spawn you can always just assume that they can spawn with all requisite knowledge. It's not that hard a jump to make that assumption in the interest of spending the rest of our lives in this game arguing about HR.

[The Overmind]

I am really inclined to think that this should go into technical more than a regular thread, but never mind.

When has the interpretation of a GenSec rule ever gone into technical?

[Simone Republic]

I am really inclined to think that this should go into technical more than a regular thread, but never mind.

When has the interpretation of a GenSec rule ever gone into technical?

This is closer to a moderator decision from 2005 than Gensec itself, see the relevant ruling.

[The Ice States]

When has the interpretation of a GenSec rule ever gone into technical?

This is closer to a moderator decision from 2005 than Gensec itself, see the relevant ruling.

While Moderator precedent is obviously relevant as persuasive precedent, the extent to which it is still applied (including "not at all") is entirely up to Gensec.

[The Overmind]

When has the interpretation of a GenSec rule ever gone into technical?

This is closer to a moderator decision from 2005 than Gensec itself, see the relevant ruling.

Weren't you involved in the legality challenge thread regarding whether November is a real world reference? That was a real instance of GenSec overturning a moderator ruling.

[Simone Republic]

This is closer to a moderator decision from 2005 than Gensec itself, see the relevant ruling.

Weren't you involved in the legality challenge thread regarding whether November is a real world reference? That was a real instance of GenSec overturning a moderator ruling.

That was your challenge, I merely said I would like clarification since not all IRL countries use the Gregorian calendar.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=549673

[The Overmind]

Weren't you involved in the legality challenge thread regarding whether November is a real world reference? That was a real instance of GenSec overturning a moderator ruling.

That was your challenge, I merely said I would like clarification since not all IRL countries use the Gregorian calendar.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=549673

So you understood the that GenSec can, in fact, overturn moderator precedent, since that was what a ruling would determine

[Simone Republic]

That was your challenge, I merely said I would like clarification since not all IRL countries use the Gregorian calendar.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=549673

So you understood the that GenSec can, in fact, overturn moderator precedent, since that was what a ruling would determine

(This response has been edited to spell out my rationale)

That's not what I said. My understanding is that moderators can fire Gensec (I am not sure if it's with cause or without cause) but I am not sure if Gensec really can overturn moderator precedent without seeking approval in the first place. I don't have enough understanding of how the hierarchy works in the staffing end in NationStates to properly comment. I am just here playing this game, and not involved in the administrative aspects.

[The Ice States]

So you understood the that GenSec can, in fact, overturn moderator precedent, since that was what a ruling would determine

(This response has been edited to spell out my rationale)

That's not what I said. My understanding is that moderators can fire Gensec (I am not sure if it's with cause or without cause) but I am not sure if Gensec really can overturn moderator precedent without seeking approval in the first place. I don't have enough understanding of how the hierarchy works in the staffing end in NationStates to properly comment. I am just here playing this game, and not involved in the administrative aspects.

As mentioned by Overmind we've done it many times before without issue. Moderator consultation on rule changes has only happened where the rule is one specifically enforced by Moderation (ie Plagiarism).