NationStates Jolt Archive

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/split_sm.jpg from http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=405360

----------------------------------------------

I feel that banning the establishment of committees would be unfortunate. What of the Pretenama Panel? UNCIAT? UNSC? Many players have gained great enjoyment out of roleplaying these committees. All have done so on the basis that those interested will participate. If, for example someone wished to bring something to the PP, then they are able to (with ease, thanks to Mikitivity?s offsite UN forum). The only obstacle is awareness of the forum or who is ?taking care? of the committee in question. The simplest way around this is to include links in the thread established by Frisbeeteria.

Otherwise, excellent work, Hack; you deserve many thanks from us ?orrible lot.

It should go without say that I feel that there are many times that "creating a new committee" is actually a large part of the FUN of the game.

But the creation of a committee in a UN resolution is also a way to do more than just standardize national level rules, the stellar example of this would be the creation of the Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC) in resolution #90.

We are roleplaying the part of lawyer makers and diplomats in the UN aspect of the game. If we wanted to really argue about budgets or perhaps extremely technical details (such as, what is an appropriate maintaence schecule for a buoy), then we can roleplay that in the committee later ...

But I honestly feel the ability to say, "Like hey man ... the TEWC will worry about the real science after we, the UN, gives them some money, so lets talk about the big picture again" really streamlines the debate of resolutions.

I think the draft section regarding the creation of committees should be REMOVED, as I think not having this as an option for UN resolutions turns the NS UN into a one-sided tool ... basically all we will be left with is the ability to write and repeal resolutions spelling out abortion rights and marriage laws.

I have to agree with Mikitivity on this one, and I'm glad that it could be said more eloquently than I could have done.

I have to agree with Mikitivity on this one, and I'm glad that it could be said more eloquently than I could have done.
I agree as well. For example, in the recent Universal Library proposal, there were so many loose ends that needed to be tied up. How will staff be hired and selected? Where will problems be reported and dealt with? What sort of *specific* techology will be used and from where? (etc.) The formation of the ULCEC made things simpler since they could coordinate all those things, and it also made various parts of the resolution more fluid. We had the ability to (RP) changes into how much is paid in each year, or how things are organized, or what we would do should the current UN HQ ever cease to exist.

I understand your reasoning for wanting to ban committees, but I implore you to reconsider. Or, instead, create specific criteria perhaps, under which all future committees much fit?

Just my two cents. Otherwise the new rules look great! :)
~Lizzy Hall~

All future committees should be written with the intent of RP'ing them. Like TPP.

That can be difficult to verify, but it is worth considering.

I agree, it's definitely something that would need to be verified and in cases, would be very difficult to verify. I believe, though, a set of basic guidelines could be drafted for cases of duplication.

It should go without say that I feel that there are many times that "creating a new committee" is actually a large part of the FUN of the game.
I think y'all are misinterpreting Hack here. Lemme take a stab at it.Illegal Proposal: The World Bank

1. The World Bank will monitor all trade between UN nations.
2. 15 members of the UN General Assembly will be chosen to serve on the World Bank Oversight Committee.
3. The WBOC will offer low-cost loans to developing nations.

Legal Proposal: The World Bank

1. The World Bank will monitor all trade between UN nations.
2. The World Bank, with UN General Assembly oversight, will offer low-cost loans to developing nations.The two are effectively identical, apart from the details of how the committee is set up. There's nothing to prevent you from creating the WBOC as an RP thread in the UN, and playing out the entire loan process. It's just that you don't detail how the thing gets set up as part of the resolution. It's just too specific.

Any international organizaton will have an inherent bureaucracy. That's a given, and we can assume that it exists without having to define it. If you want to define it, do so in free-form roleplay.

Any international organizaton will have an inherent bureaucracy. That's a given, and we can assume that it exists without having to define it. If you want to define it, do so in free-form roleplay.

How would one deal with a resolution like the ICJ in such a case? Would it be possible to salvage it?

I think y'all are misinterpreting Hack here. Lemme take a stab at it.Illegal Proposal: The World Bank

1. The World Bank will monitor all trade between UN nations.
2. 15 members of the UN General Assembly will be chosen to serve on the World Bank Oversight Committee.
3. The WBOC will offer low-cost loans to developing nations.

Legal Proposal: The World Bank

1. The World Bank will monitor all trade between UN nations.
2. The World Bank, with UN General Assembly oversight, will offer low-cost loans to developing nations.The two are effectively identical, apart from the details of how the committee is set up. There's nothing to prevent you from creating the WBOC as an RP thread in the UN, and playing out the entire loan process. It's just that you don't detail how the thing gets set up as part of the resolution. It's just too specific.

Any international organizaton will have an inherent bureaucracy. That's a given, and we can assume that it exists without having to define it. If you want to define it, do so in free-form roleplay.


Ah, but by the same argument, it can be assumed that in the case of your first example that just because 15 nations aren't selected by _us_, that somewhere in the UN 15 nations are selected. That is the beauty of roleplay ... it can be used to fill in gaps in either case.

While I personally think your two examples are the same and also prefer the second one, I think that the TEWC and TPP are good examples of player created committees, and Hack's wording currently implies that we can't do anything remotely like that.

For the past 6+ months, the standing rule has simply been that UN resolutions may not mandate forum activities. I feel this is similar to how the "game mechanics" issues are out of bounds as well. But simplying saying, "A UN committee responsible for inspecting nuclear plants and reporting to the UN should be established. This committee should contain 15 members from different countries and be responsible to the UN." doesn't imply that anybody is forced to do this, but it is a flavour text (in this case, it might be argued that this is too small a group ... but I'd say that too is part of the fun of experimenting).

The danger as I see it is that the more boundaries that are established, the more viable options become the few that we are left to play with ... repealing existing resolutions and rewriting them. While that too can be a valuable and fun exercise, I think whatever the final product of all of the clauses of the new rules should include perhaps two theoretical examples, and then as moderators making rulings on proposals, there should be a series of "case decisions" appended to the rules similar to the old "Before you submit a proposal" thread.

Having been around for some time, I've watching many a well meaning newbie jump in and propose something that was similar to something else existing. When pointed out that there are existing resolutions like the ones they are talking about, the vast majority of these players apologize, adapt, and refine their ideas. Believe it or not, but creating committees and charging them with a very specific and focused task is something that is pretty real (I see committees come and go in the public water area all the time). I just don't see the harm in even poorly thought out or written proposals that create committees so long as the no game mechanics / forum mandate rules are maintained.

While I recognize that much of what Hack has proposed is an excellent way to nudge the quality of proposals up a notch, I personally found the 2004 resolutions vastly superior to the 2003 resolutions, and I've been impressed with the degree that players are now writing resolutions as TEAMS and campaigning as teams. The Universal Library is perhaps one of the best examples, in that it was based on the debate from the Global Library and the repeal of that resolution.

Actually, I was leaning towards banning them entirely...


That is what I thought ... why? Really? What harm have they created.


Actually, the Enodia Law bans all committees too:


I completely disgree with you there. There is no connection between a UN committee and a parallel UN or Security Council. We both know that the reason Enodia put those rules in force a year ago (it was about a year ago or maybe as short as 9 months), was that a number of anti-UN players wanted the game CODED such that there could be another UN or Security Council. Enodia never discouraged committees nor roleplaying.




Hm. By my reading, you are attempting to force a Game Mechanics change. No committee has actually been created, despite the Resolution's attempt to do so. The current rules on what committees can and can't be made are way too fuzzy for my liking.


How is that a Game Mechanics change? I thought game mechanics issues are changes to the way the code of the game works.

Example: resolutions should require a 2/3 vote.

That would require one of the game coders to actually change the game itself.

Another, more subtle example: the UN should archive its resolutions, passed and failed, and have a searching subject index.

That too would require a bit of coding. Under the current system, we may not suggest this in a proposal, but you and others have always encouraged us to do so in the Technical forum or even just discuss the idea. <-- a good way of handling this, open, but nothing promised! :)


I don't see that happening. New things are always coming up. And the UN has yet to support a Gun Control or Recreational Drug Proposal.


The Global Library passed, was repealed, revised and passed.

Prostitution when through the same thing.

The problem with Gun Control and Recreational Drugs is that 95% of the ideas I've seen for those categories on the forums are focused on domestic laws changes.

By removing committees ENTIRELY you are changing the character of the NS UN from a body that may deal with international _or_ domestic issues into a body that really can only write universal domestic laws. You are taking away a MAJOR degree of freedom from the game.



We want Proposals to affect a broad range of nations and to be somewhat universal, but there comes a point when it just can't be done.

I think a responsible resolution to create a Tsunami Emergency Warning Center would create and name a committee to carry out this work. That is part of the legislation process. The Tsunami Warning System resolution did impact a broad range of nations, even if all nations are not coastal. But under your current guide lines, it and many of the existing UN resolutions would be illegal.

I seriously ask that before you really consider taking such a hard line on this position that you give me a week to list off the number of resolutions that have created committees (I'm about to drive to the Bay Area and don't have the time this weekend). I think we are underestimating the value that simplying chucking an idea into a __named__ committee can add to the game and resolution debate.

I think this value includes both roleplaying value and some design value. It enriches the game, hence a roleplaying value ... it can also give players not interested in the larger issue a finer point to discuss / debate. The design value comes in giving players, not just the gnomes, a chance to feel as though they can plug something into a larger puzzle. Committees allow players to feel more a part of the permancy of the game.

Sorry, Hack, but I much prefer Frisbeeteria's reading of the rules on committees. A blanket ban is unnecessary and, frankly, more than a little puzzling. Many times I've read commentary from long-standing players - chiefly mods and admin - marvelling at the way the regular NS players have taken basic game concepts and crafted innovative responses and expansions on these themes. Curtailing the potential for innovation seems churlish and against the spirit of the game.

Corollary to Repeals and Amendments:

Since proposals can be repealed, do not write a proposal that attempts to "build upon" another resolution. If that underlying resolution gets repealed, then your proposal won't make sense. No proposal may depend upon the existence of another resolution.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

What about all the resolutions which reference the IRCO and assign it new duties? Are such proposals to be illegal in future?

Although I can see where Hack is coming from here and I agree that the UN should be taken seriously, I think I'm gonna have to agree with Ecotopia on this issue. I don't really see any reason to implement a lot of these rules, as the only thing they really do is narrow the scope of what's possible in the game. And limiting possibility is limiting fun.

For one thing, I completely disagree that proposals establishing committees are counted as "Game Mechanics" proposals. Many UN resolutions in the past have established committees (sorry I don't have any specific examples, but I could find some if you ask me to). But even more importantly, when a UN resolution establishes a committee, I don't think it's implying that the moderators have to actually create that committee, but rather that the players are to imagine that it exists and that the changes made to their nations as a result of the resolution reflect the hypothetical existence of the committee.

The ban on "World Police" resolutions is similar to the ban on committees. I don't see why such a ban must be implemented, as it only limits player creativity doesn't really add anything to the game. Just like with committees, passing a World Police resolution might, say, increase security and decrease civil rights in all UN nations. But it would not require anybody to actually set up the "World Police", instead leaving it to the players to imagine its existence.

And as to ridiculous resolutions that are "not worthy of the UN's consideration" - I think you should be as liberal as possible with this. If a resolution is simply nonsensical or random or without any reasoning ("All clouds henceforth must be cumulus"), then yes, I completely support its deletion. But in any other case, I say just let the 6% system do its job. If a resolution is a piece of crap, then it will never receive the number of delegate votes it needs to be considered. In this way, we can let the players determine what comes to the floor of the UN, like the game was meant to be played. The NationStates community has proven its capability as a whole in the past; why restrict it now?

Other than these things, I think the rest of the proposed rules are either already implemented de facto, or good ideas, and I fully support them.

Tomatoe, while that would be nice, there is a reason why the rules exist. The early UN members pretty much proved that they could not be trusted to not break the rules and that they would pass silly resolutions the UN shouldn't even consider. So we have them to thank for this.

A link to the silly resolution: http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/HIPPOS_ARE_BIG

While it's a shame that the early UN members were like that, I think by now the community has grown and matured enough such that serious members outnumber silly ones.

Also, these rules don't exist yet, and I think most of what I said doesn't pertain to silly resolutions. Like I said: silly resolutions will either be deleted for being totally ridiculous, or they will die from lack of support. I don't see how that necessitates banning UN committees.

I had a much longer post earlier, but it got lost in a database error. Most everything looks good, except for the major problem I have with...

Creating Stuff

No more committees. Oversight by the UN is assumed, so there's no need to create a special committee for your Proposal. This includes the creation of awards as well.

I understand that you can't create a committee out of actual players, as that would require forum activities (scowls at the memory of "Olympic Games"). But whatever happened to the people who pop out of the ground to do the UN's bidding? The UN has a lot to do, and having the entire general assembly deal with the enforcement of a previously passed resolution is a bit much. That's why we have committees, so that the UN can get on with daily duties, and the resolutions they pass remain enforced. And it does help to actually say that a part of the UN will be focusing specifically on this resolution and it's enforcement, because assumptions are not always correct.

Hm. By my reading, you are attempting to force a Game Mechanics change. No committee has actually been created, despite the Resolution's attempt to do so. The current rules on what committees can and can't be made are way too fuzzy for my liking.

Hm. By my reading, you are attempting to make all proposals illegal by this statement. No laws are actually created, despite the Resolution's attempt to do so.

Resolution #8, "Citizen Rule Required" was passed AGES ago, and requires my nation to have some sort of election system. Yet, everytime I get the issue "Should Democracy be Compulsary?", I still have the ability to click Option #3 and ban all elections throughout the country. Resolution #8 can do absolutely nothing to stop me, because the next day, my Political Freedoms will plummet to nothing, and the little line "elections are banned" will appear at the bottom on my nation's page.

So if you're going to follow that line of logic, then the entire proposal and issue systems need MAJOR overhauls. Because while there are no actual committees, you've got to remember that there are no actual laws either.

While it's a shame that the early UN members were like that, I think by now the community has grown and matured enough such that serious members outnumber silly ones.

Also, these rules don't exist yet, and I think most of what I said doesn't pertain to silly resolutions. Like I said: silly resolutions will either be deleted for being totally ridiculous, or they will die from lack of support. I don't see how that necessitates banning UN committees.

Have you seen the proposal list lately? Every now and then I'll go through the entire list and file a report of all the illegal proposals I see. You can ask the mods, they usually end up being at least 15 proposals long, about half of which would fall under Hack's "Bloody Stupid" category.

As for the committees, I agree. See my above post.

While it's a shame that the early UN members were like that, I think by now the community has grown and matured enough such that serious members outnumber silly ones.

Also, these rules don't exist yet, and I think most of what I said doesn't pertain to silly resolutions. Like I said: silly resolutions will either be deleted for being totally ridiculous, or they will die from lack of support. I don't see how that necessitates banning UN committees.

I'm not going to hold my breathe and hope they are that way.

UN committees are, by themselves, quite silly. We're talking about what amounts to a group of people who can make whatever decision they like within the limits and end up being ignored anyway. And, lately, the question of enforcement has certain ones, such as the TPP through the Humanitarian Intervention resolution, taking actions that are questionably legal and can result in the resolution supporting them being deleted for being illegal if a good arguement is made.

Just a question: would it be possible to allude to a commitee without actually implementing one? For example:

"To ensure that the proper medical care is being used in member nations receiving UN aid in this area, the UN will appoint 15 of its members to oversee its enforcement. The members' roles are as follows:

(roles)"

Rome, it probably won't work. Too many of us not fooled by smokescreens on here.

And it would have to be REALLY well hidden anyway. Your example would stick out like a sore thumb.

Any one know if Hack is still considering adding that to the rules? He hasn't posted in here for a while...

Thanks for that you too...I was really stuck at trying to find a viable answer. Still, I'll wait for Hack's word.

Will this committee ban also extend to having a resolution set up a panel of experts to work out something? For instance, if there was a proposal being written which demanded that all developments in rainforest land would have to be sustainable, could you say that panels of economists and scientists would rule on development plans on a case-by-case basis, approving or rejecting them and giving conditions of improvement for those they reject?

Will this committee ban also extend to having a resolution set up a panel of experts to work out something? For instance, if there was a proposal being written which demanded that all developments in rainforest land would have to be sustainable, could you say that panels of economists and scientists would rule on development plans on a case-by-case basis, approving or rejecting them and giving conditions of improvement for those they reject?

It is determental to the functioning and debates we have if committees are outlawed from proposals. A panel of experts is by definition a committee. It is necessary to allow things exactly like this, so as to limit the resolutions to a page or two (which we all know pushes the attention span of most players). The use of committees exists in the real world, because law makers are not experts in really much of anything other than making laws.

Those whom are attacking committees in general would much rather have the NS UN turn into an organization that's only power would be to make basic human rights recommendations or to over-ride domestic laws. They are actually indirectly suggesting that we shouldn't debate the merits (not the technical aspects) of other international problems.

Committees give us, players, a chance to talk about larger issues, say global warming or perhaps AIDS research, without actually having to be PhDs in these fields. I've yet to hear a single convincing argument why committees should go ...

Are they abused? Sure. But that doesn't mean that the resolutions that responsibly use them should be prevented in the future. I think we are on the verge of a very large mistake here.

The easiest way to judge the worth of a committee is "How long, if at all, will it be active?" If the answer is a short amount of time or not at all, like most committees the UN creates, it's not worth the effort. The TPP, by design, seems to be the one that is supposed to fit in the second category but is appearing to be a long-lasting group.

The reason why committees are bad is because they are the lazy man's solution. For example, with the recent case of trying to extend rights, we had the option of a committee to figure out the requirements of sentience. Instead, due to my boisterous opposition, we are hammering out requirements ourselves, requirements that will serve to be more binding than anything created by some committee.

The idea that committees are a lazy man's solution is frankly "lazy".

The following committees have been created and roleplayed on these forums:

IRCO
UNSC
UNICAT
TPP

Not all of the roleplaying activity has continued, but then again, can we say that the silly "Definition of Marriage" resolution has had ANY long-term impact on the game at all? I certainly have seen nothing other than the occassional attempt to repeal it.

The argument that committees are about laziness is false. It is an indirect attempt to attack those who do participate in committees.

In the real world the United Nations has created six main committees. First, the General Assembly itself is broken down into specialized committees like "the First Committee", "the Second Committee", "the Third Committee", etc.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/gasess.htm#main

Anybody with even the smallest amount of knowledge of _real world_ politics knows about this.

The issue here isn't that one player has no understanding of international politics, but rather I would ask people to seriously think about WHY the UN itself did this ...

The answer is simple: a body of over one-hundred diplomats and ambassadors are not really equipped to handle the finer details of everything under the sun.

While I'm certainly not suggesting that we make any game mechanics changes to NationStates, I do think it is LOGICAL to request that the underlying need for committees that exists in the basic real world UN structure (not alien DEATH FLEET FROM PLANET X make-believe universe) is the same.

Let's look over a few resolutions and the committees they created.

Resolution #90: Tsunami Warning System

The first activating clause created a Tsunami Emergency Warning Center (TEWC). Why?

Simple, it would be RETARDED to expect that every decision to "collect and monitor seismic and stage data in order to study the physics related to tsunamis in different locations, indentify possible threats to populated areas, and issue warnings in the event of such a threat;" is something that a "United Nations General Assembly" of diplomats should do.

The Tsunami Warning System resolution passed with one of the highest in-favour majorities of any NationStates resolution. The idea behing using a committee wasn't lazy. In fact, I suggest that calling committees lazy is in fact, IGNORANT of how they can be effectively and realistically used in an international resolution.

Resolution #90 is not the only example (and I'd encourage you all to read the full text of the resolution) of an effective UN committee.

Resolution #45: UCPL

OK, I'll be honest ... I don't like this resolution. It isn't that the idea is bad, but the presentation just doesn't thrill me. This does not mean that it is bad, but rather me flagging this as an example of something I feel needs cleaning up and I'm posting this to suggest that even half-finished resolutions can properly use committees.

The resolution established international copyright / patent laws. Pretty simple, and actually not a bad idea. Certainly something we should DISCUSS in general terms.

The problem was that Anward realized that when he submitted this resolution that people would ask "who is responsible for managing this work load?" That is a very logical and sensible question! :) (NOTE: I joined NationStates slightly before this resolution and remember lurking in the UN forum back in those days, deciding if I wanted to join or not.)

Anward's solution was, "Copyright/Patent organizations be modified to accommodate the number of requests for copyright. This should be done by establishing a new international Copyright Organization, with chapters in every captial."

You may agree or disagree with Anward's solution ... in fact, many nations voted against his resolution. But I will always give credit where credit is due, and Anward did correctly use a committee.

He proposed a new law and created a butt load of new work, so he also created an organization under the UN to do this work. Furthermore, he spelled out just the basics in out the ICO would be run.

There is nobody who has really tried to roleplay the organization itself, since it is administrative ... but I actually *have* seen the ICO referenced in roleplaying.

Resolution #50: UN Space Consortium

This one may bug some players, but the UNO came about because UNSC roleplayers wanted a forum that wasn't affliated directly with any one region. The UNSC was active off-site for about 10 months, but suffers from the same thing that kills most roleplaying: player's real-lives. Basically a number of the players got too busy for NationStates.

Does this mean we shouldn't have allowed a UNSC? Of course not! That is a stupid argument. It just means that we should understand that not everybody is going to live and breathe NationStates, and that when designing a roleplay based on a resolution, we should probably understand that it will be a slow process if it attempts to be transparent and democratic.

Resolution #74: The Law of the Sea

This is a resolution many players hate ... it also is a resolution few players have actually read:

"5. An International Maritime Standards Bureau will be created to set international rules on navigation, working hours and other matters it deems appropriate to ensure safety at sea."

I'll explain why I've ignored the NationStates IMSB for the past 5 months ... Mikitivity is landlocked. :)

But if you claim that committees are "lazy people trying to avoid discussions" come over to the UNO and look at the UNO, IRCO, and TPP debates. People are trying to set rules for the committees and get more technical. Better yet, they are doing it in a democratic environment, but not HOGGING space on these boards. Posts here are often burried in a day due to the fast turnover rate in messages. In order to build and have a technical debate, threads need to spin off.

The United States and United Nations, make tons of committees and those committees further divide their tasks as necessary.

It is really very ignorant of the real world and the way things have evolved in NationStates to simply dismiss other players roleplay as "lazy".

Now I could go through and dig out more references to player created committees, but look at the Pacific forums ... the feeder regions almost all have player created constitutions, player created "Court Systems", and even elections processes.

It is clear that there is a region and international demand in this game for dividing work and assigning it to smaller groups of people. Work is always done in smaller specialized groups and that work is in-turn feed to higher management groups. That is the way corporations and governments alike work. I think we need to retain the ability to SIMULATE this. It is logical to use committees and players have shown for 2.5 years the ability to do so and with great responsibility and interest.

The easiest way to judge the worth of a committee is "How long, if at all, will it be active?" If the answer is a short amount of time or not at all, like most committees the UN creates, it's not worth the effort. The TPP, by design, seems to be the one that is supposed to fit in the second category but is appearing to be a long-lasting group.

The reason why committees are bad is because they are the lazy man's solution. For example, with the recent case of trying to extend rights, we had the option of a committee to figure out the requirements of sentience. Instead, due to my boisterous opposition, we are hammering out requirements ourselves, requirements that will serve to be more binding than anything created by some committee.

DemonLordEnigma, it seems to me like you just dislike committees and bureaucracy in general. This is a perfectly respectable opinion - as a matter of fact, in RL I am generally against large government and bureaucracy.

However, I think you are forgetting that the question being considered here is not whether committees are effective, but whether they are LEGAL in the NationStates UN. If it is the desire of the majority of the UN (as has been excellently shown in several instances by Mikitivity) that a committee be set up to solve a problem, then such a committee should be set up, given that it doesn't violate any other rules. As to the argument that committees are a game mechanics violation, several people have already commented on that earlier in this thread.

The NationStates UN is a democracy; majority rules. We can't just ban committees because a few people dislike them, regardless of how lazy they may be.

Mik, while I enjoyed the rant, I think a few corrections are in order.

1) IRCO, UNSC, and UNICAT are all committees that have had either close to nothing in the way of roleplaying within recent months or are, like most UN committees, ignored by the general populous as not having enough power to be worth looking at. Really, they're not taken that seriously.

2) The TPP itself, of which I do play a part, required an entire resolution to even give it some teeth, and that resolution has come under fire as questionably legal from the moment the first draft of it was written. And, the TPP is mostly ignored and laughed at. That's part of why I've been having problems recruiting people, as the people I think would contribute to it don't take it seriously and won't join for that reason. Think of how much trouble we have had recruiting people.

3) TEWC isn't a committee. It's an organization committed to interpreting data gathered from the equipment put out to monitor the seas. It's an entirely different beast from the rest.

4) Anyone with knowledge of real-world politics also knows that real-world politics don't apply like they do in the real UN. With the real UN, you can safely ignore resolutions. With this UN, you cannot ignore a single one and the laws are forced upon you. This UN is more of a nation than of an actual alliance. The real UN doesn't have a law on the books about the rights of clones, nor would it for years. The real UN wouldn't have a concentrated effort in its ranks to deal with the rights of sentient nonhumans. The real UN wouldn't have successful arguements against items in resolutions result from nations being on other planets or in such regions as Antarctica. Hell, the real UN also includes most of the nations in power.

While it is nice to know real-world politics, you must accept the fact that, in most cases, real-world UN politics don't apply here.

5) UCPL is establishing an organization, not a committee, and probably the largest one in the UN. If this were a committee, it wouldn't be as big as it is.

6) The UNSC is a very good example of why committees are a bad idea. Committees on NS are reliant entirely on players, and those players are not always going to stay around. And, in the end, tell me how often you see one of their decisions referenced. Tell me how often you see them even mentioned in the other forums on here. I've seen more references to other resolutions than that.

7) While those committees are active on the UNO, they are still ignored. Pretty much, whatever rules and regulations they come up with are treated, on the whole, as being of a completely separate game. I've seen numerous violations of there rules among UN members on these forums, and they would be laughed out of NS is they tried to enforce those regulations. The TPP has been laughed at the one time it has tried to bring someone to trial.

While it may be nice for you to have those committees, the fact is that only the TPP has the power to even attempt to back what it says and even it has to deal with the fact it must hope the people found guilty don't have a stronger military force or allies willing to jump in and fight for them.

As it is, I don't see the resolutions that mention committees getting removed if committees are banned. Those will probably be grandfathered in or something. But as it stands, the creation of committees has been a grand failure of an experiment. The NS world goes on as though they do not exist.

8. The US and UN committees you mentioned are the poster children of corrupt politics, bad government ideas, and government inefficiency. Hell, the US has shown on several occasions it can get decisions through in less than a day what their committee system usually requires weeks to work on. The Schiavo case is a prime example of this.

9) If people want to roleplay committees, nothing is stopping them. But they don't need the UN to do it. Not everyone uses, or needs, committees.

10) The regions you are referencing have set up entire governments, not just small committees.

11) Real-world politics also includes nations that do not use committees, and strangely those nations tend to get decisions through faster. Gee, I wonder why...

We already have a way to simulate it, and without the UN getting involved. There is no need for the UN to get involved if people want to make committees. And, really, either way they'll get about as much respect and have about as much power.

13) Most players over the last 2.5 years have shown they don't give a damn about committees and aren't going to listen to them anyway. The minority may be able to do it responsibly, but the majority just doesn't give a damn. And, being as this is the NSUN, I would have to give the majority the point on this one. After all, majority rule.

DemonLordEnigma, it seems to me like you just dislike committees and bureaucracy in general. This is a perfectly respectable opinion - as a matter of fact, in RL I am generally against large government and bureaucracy.

I find it wasteful, and it is the great weakness of republics. They may be powerful once they act, but they are slow enough to act you can do some serious internal damage before they do.

However, I think you are forgetting that the question being considered here is not whether committees are effective, but whether they are LEGAL in the NationStates UN. If it is the desire of the majority of the UN (as has been excellently shown in several instances by Mikitivity) that a committee be set up to solve a problem, then such a committee should be set up, given that it doesn't violate any other rules. As to the argument that committees are a game mechanics violation, several people have already commented on that earlier in this thread.

Committees are not a game mechanics violation (well, except for one possibility...) now. Unless, of course, you look quite heavily at that massive rule banning the making of multiple UNs and count committees as being part of that. But I don't see that as necessary.

The fact is that the majority of the Un voted to create them. And then the majority of the UN went on to ignore their existance. The TPP is having a hard time getting enough members for a full council and is being somewhat laughed at while the others are outright ignored. They may make all of the decisions they want, but they can't even get a large minority of the UN to listen, let alone the majority. Hell, even on this forum they are mostly ignored.

The NationStates UN is a democracy; majority rules. We can't just ban committees because a few people dislike them, regardless of how lazy they may be.

The majority does rule, and it has ruled that it likes creating committees but doesn't give a damn what they say and won't listen to them. It's more than just the votes that are speaking now.

The idea that players IGNORE committees actually supports the idea that they are harmless and that a moderator should not limit other players roleplay.

To suggest that something isn't popular is also ignoring the number of times that the IRCO has been referenced in NS UN resolutions. Just because I don't "simulate" kindergardens in my nation, doesn't mean they do not exist ... furthermore, if another player does simulate something like a newspaper or film industry, in the past the moderation staff has taken the position that they SHALL NOT interfer with players roleplay.

I've yet to hear a single logical reason to ban committees. And the TEWC is a committee.

It sounds to me like you are just bitter that some players would like to roleplay international committees instead of god knows what else.

11) Real-world politics also includes nations that do not use committees, and strangely those nations tend to get decisions through faster. Gee, I wonder why...


Please provide a real world citation of this. Not just some players's opinion, but an example illustrating that a nation without committees speeds up the decision process.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/split_sm.jpg explanation:

While this is still part of the discussion of Hack's proposed new rules, the bickering over the committee process was overwhelming the rest of the thread. While some of my splits were necessarily arbitrary, I tried to keep as much of the purely committee discussion in this thread, and most of the rest in the other.

The idea that players IGNORE committees actually supports the idea that they are harmless and that a moderator should not limit other players roleplay.

At the same time, it supports the idea the committees are not being listened to and are actually a waste of legislation, not to mention the arguements they tend to spawn.

To suggest that something isn't popular is also ignoring the number of times that the IRCO has been referenced in NS UN resolutions. Just because I don't "simulate" kindergardens in my nation, doesn't mean they do not exist ... furthermore, if another player does simulate something like a newspaper or film industry, in the past the moderation staff has taken the position that they SHALL NOT interfer with players roleplay.

The resolution as a whole is referenced, not just the committee.

And, once again, I have to wonder if you are reading the entirety of my post. I said, and I quote,

9) If people want to roleplay committees, nothing is stopping them. But they don't need the UN to do it. Not everyone uses, or needs, committees.

The bolded part is important. I didn't make it a separate point just because I like numbering items.

I see nothing in any quote that supports your accusation and must question where it is you get the idea the rules would ban RPs from roleplaying. It's just banning them from being included in proposals and in no way stops you from having as many, if not more, committees than now.

I've yet to hear a single logical reason to ban committees. And the TEWC is a committee.

The TEWC is an organization that monitors and interprets data. Committees are not to monitor and interpret data, but to make decisions, often from data gathered by outside sources. TEWC, being as its primary role is in the data area, fits into the area of an organization.

As of yet, I see no logical arguement for keeping committees. They are not a requirement of good roleplaying and banning them from the UN doesn't ban them from roleplaying. Nor does it prevent the current committees from continuing until those resolutions are removed, which I doubt will happen. All it means is that people will be unable to create more.

It sounds to me like you are just bitter that some players would like to roleplay international committees instead of god knows what else.

Mik, we've had this arguement before. If you have evidence to support this accusation, post it and save us all time and effort. If not, just let it drop as an unsupported, and therefore miscontrued from my posts (look up my arguement with Komokom to see my views on the differences between miscontruing and lying), statement.

I have no wish to limit what people roleplay as and no bitterness towards them for it. But at the same time, I am not going to hold back from a dim view of committees when it comes to their potential to get things done. That is why I roleplay a dictatorship.

Please provide a real world citation of this. Not just some players's opinion, but an example illustrating that a nation without committees speeds up the decision process.

Hitler, for Nazi Germany.
Stalin, for the Soviet Union.
The United States, for both the Schiavo decision and the Patriot Act (neither one saw committee).
Afghanistan, before the US invasion.
Iraq, before Saddam's fall.

You noticing a trend here?. One stands out as incongruous, but it's more of the exception that proves the rule.

Your argument against committees is illogical and ill informed. First, Nazi Germany had a number of committees. A short history lesson is in order, since you are just MAKING UP false facts:

Towards the end of the Second World War a number of Germans realized that the United States and Russia were going to win the war. In August 1944, a number of German industrialists meet and formed *gasp* a committee, to discuss how to hide German treasures and wealth from the encroaching Allied troops (this is prior to the Battle of the Bulge, of which everybody here should be familiar with from there Western History 101 course). The committee they formed was known as:

"Organization Der Ehemaligen SS-Angehörigen" ( "The Organization of former SS members) — better known as Odessa

The existence of Odessa was discovered in the Nuremberg Trials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODESSA
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/odessa.html

There, I've now provided proof to disprove one of your false ideas, and you've yet to provide any citiation. Just claiming that Iraq had no committees does not make it so.


Now, as for your idea that committees are a waste because most players ignore them, I've got a cold hard truth for you ... of the 132,000+ nations in Nation States, most of them don't care about your DEATH FLEET or alien culture ... and yet you bring up this as a point against over half of the draft proposals that players submit. If your logic "It is a waste unless many players accept it" made any sense, we'd NEVER have to listen to anything about your particular roleplay again. It is called a double standard on your part to claim that committees have no place in resolutions because __you__ happen to not like them, but then to through a hissy whenver anybody proposes a DRAFT resolution that doesn't acknowledge the superiority of your made-up-fantasy.

My point isn't to discourage you from techwanking ... do it all you like. But if you are going to continue to argue that committees have no point in UN arguments or resolutions, you should immediately stop all references to your roleplay, because most players honestly don't care. Your logic, not mine. This isn't me saying they don't like your roleplay ... they just aren't interested in it.

Sucks, doesn't it? You have been doing nothing but attacking the roleplay that other players engage in, via the UNSC, TPP, UNO, IRCO, UNCIAT, and many other means, and yet you probably never once considered that you are guilty of roleplaying something that most players don't care about every day.

Ouch! Got my head handed to me there. Need to check my information before I post next time. I became lazy in this arguement.

Now, about the techwank accusation: Beyond my overmention of it, you have no evidence I have techwanked. I have accounted for every piece of technology, either by having someone who can back up that I purchased it or development of it somewhere. Check any claimed piece of technology in my posts and you'll find a place where it was either bought or developped.

Ask Klonor and Siesatia about my early pieces. They're the ones I got my first fleets from.

http://www.photius.com/countries/iraq/government/iraq_government_the_national_assembl~212.html


Since 1980 the National Assembly generally has held two sessions per year in accordance with Article 48 of the Constitution. The first session is held in April and May, and the second session in November and December. During the few weeks each year that the National Assembly is in session, it carries out its legislative duties in tandem with the RCC. The assembly's primary function is to ratify or reject draft legislation proposed by the RCC. In addition, it has limited authority to enact laws proposed by a minimum of one-fourth of its membership, to ratify the government's budget and international treaties, and to debate domestic and international policy. It also has authority to supervise state agencies and to question cabinet ministers. Although the assembly has served as a forum for limited public discussion of issues, its actual powers were restricted and ultimate decision-making authority pertaining to legislation continued to reside with the RCC in 1988.

The RCC is the Revolution Command Council. Basically is was Hussein's Party's (the Baath party's) government.

Now here is the kicker ... thought the RCC had the REAL power, there is absolute no evidence that I've ever read anywhere to suggest that power wasn't delegated up and down within the RCC via ... *gasp* committees.

Committees are nothing more than a delegation of power and work, and always are responsible to the group / power the created them.

Trust me, I have sat on a few for the state ... my most current one is a sub-committee that is part of California's CALFED "Preferred Alternative Process". I'm on what is called the "Technical Core Team", and we report via a consultant to the "Management Core Team", which was formed by various water stakeholders. They make the decisions based upon our recommendations.

http://www.photius.com/countries/iraq/government/iraq_government_the_national_assembl~212.html



The RCC is the Revolution Command Council. Basically is was Hussein's Party's (the Baath party's) government.

Now here is the kicker ... thought the RCC had the REAL power, there is absolute no evidence that I've ever read anywhere to suggest that power wasn't delegated up and down within the RCC via ... *gasp* committees.

Committees are nothing more than a delegation of power and work, and always are responsible to the group / power the created them.

I'll assume that was being typed at the time I made my previous post and up until it was posted.

Trust me, I have sat on a few for the state ... my most current one is a sub-committee that is part of California's CALFED "Preferred Alternative Process". I'm on what is called the "Technical Core Team", and we report via a consultant to the "Management Core Team", which was formed by various water stakeholders. They make the decisions based upon our recommendations.

Trust me on this: Real life experiences are best kept more limited than my massed "DEATH FLEET" when it comes to arguements, going by the frequency the people who hate the mentions the most suggest. Real life experiences are nothing to be ashamed of, but with this I can point out where I got my fleet at quicker than anyone can provide the evidence their experiences are real. If someone challenges me, I can simply provide a few dozen links. If someone challenges you, you must not only prove that the identity itself is real but that you have not stolen it from someone else.

The above is a friendly warning, nothing more.

Now I'm am purposefully keeping minus quotes ... not everybody wants pages of ping-pong.

That committee I'm on, the technical team, we exist because managers don't know how to run planning models (or in some cases have too many other more important things to consider). However, the team was constructed by different "projects" having members. We've argued, we've bickered (fortunately not over my water quality stuff). But in the end, we make recommendations to the managers who can approve 'em or not.

One such example was when I politely (and it was believe it or not polite) told them that it was inappropriate to report a single average number for 16-years worth of data. Long-story short, averages of averages of averages are meaningless ... every engineer, biologist, economist, etc. will tell you this. But a manager needs a bottom line number, and they like that one. I lost that battle.

Another example was when I forced the issue that in addition to their long-term average of an average of average and their "driest year" analysis, that they should look at a "90th" percentile result. I won that one ... or rather the idea (not the messenger) made sense.

The point in both cases is that sometimes a lower committee will recommend stuff that the group that created it will dismiss. That is the true beauty of committees. Nobody on one knows 100% if their recommendations will stick. They exist because somebody or something GAVE them power. That same thing can take away that power too.

In the world of NationStates we've done that already. We DELETED the Global Library. It wasn't a "committee", but it certainly was a UN sponsored project that had need of staff, resources, and was given a very specific mandate. But a number of nations didn't like it ...

There solution wasn't to say Committees are lazy or nobody is really gonna make libraries. Instead they argued the infeasibility of the library {edit: typo there}.

Repeals are GREAT! Best part of the game. And while I like the fact that the moderators gave us the ability to repeal resolutions, I dread the resolutions that we focus on. There are some that need rewritting and repair. There are others that are harmless. Definition of Marriage. I never liked it, but do we need to repeal it? No way. Or at least I personally would rather we spend 5 days of resolution queue time debating something new. But that is just my own opinion.

Anyway, I really sincerely am familiar with government and committees are not EVIL. In fact, they are as much a part of our life as the clothing we wear. They are just how we delegate tasks to smaller groups of people. :)

In closing, anybody against UN (player created) committees, should really ask yourself, "Can I name the committees we've created in 2.5 years?"

I know exactly how many player created committees this game has. Unless Goober or Fris updated NSWiki, the list there is not complete, but also not far off. The answer is we've really created only a bit more than a dozen committees. One committee has been giving new mandates by 5 additional resolutions since its creation! Imagine that! There is one committee that 6 independent players have created work for ... and don't for a minute not tell me that this is not an amazing fact, because no other resolution has been referenced in the game as much as the International Red Cross.

In time, I full expect more players to do the same with other bodies, but the problem with NationStates is that the experienced players rarely actually put aside their desire to "roleplay" and take up the mantel of the "teacher". NationStates has little continuity. That is a bit of a shame, because if newbies realized what already existed, they might improve it instead of accidently reinventing the rule.

With respect to Hack's rule, I think committees serve useful game functions and are fun to ROLEPLAY. Furthermore, I think the promote cooperation and allow players a *new* area to explore ... and help to move experienced players away from dominating this forum. Take me as an example, how many actual resolutions to you see me POO POO? Answer: very few. Oh, I vote no. I just do so very quietly and in the comfort of my home region. :)

As much fun as this forum was for me in 2004, I've played my part in drafting and fighting for resolutions. Now I rather spend my time doing something different. One of those things is to help newbies see that some cool stuff was done before (the purpose behind the UNA pdfs), and the other is to just encourage their creativity. Like Max, I think the coolest part of this game is just seeing what direction people take things.

And that said, I think the ability for a player to "create something" in a resolution is very important.

So in closing, if you can guess the number of already existing committees, then you might have an idea of their role in the game. But if there is even a doubt of just how many of them already exist, perhaps you (to all) should spend 1 hour reading my pdfs (I have the full text of most everything) and really judge for yourself if the better resolutions have committees in them or not. The answer might surprise you and make you change your mind.

DLE, committees have more use than just as something to roleplay. If I write and pass a resolution which uses expert committees to iron out details which simply couldn't be dealt with by non-experts within the proposal text, even if nobody ever cares to roleplay the proceedings of that committee, it will still have been useful in making that piece of legislation more effective.

DLE, committees have more use than just as something to roleplay. If I write and pass a resolution which uses expert committees to iron out details which simply couldn't be dealt with by non-experts within the proposal text, even if nobody ever cares to roleplay the proceedings of that committee, it will still have been useful in making that piece of legislation more effective.

Which would have been an effective arguement if the person you were arguing against were not already defeated in the arguement.

Ouch! Got my head handed to me there. Need to check my information before I post next time. I became lazy in this arguement.

Now, about the techwank accusation: Beyond my overmention of it, you have no evidence I have techwanked. I have accounted for every piece of technology, either by having someone who can back up that I purchased it or development of it somewhere. Check any claimed piece of technology in my posts and you'll find a place where it was either bought or developped.

Ask Klonor and Siesatia about my early pieces. They're the ones I got my first fleets from.

DemonLordEnigma bought some of his technology, mainly fighter, and weapon technologies from me. As can be Seen HERE: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357270&page=2&pp=20&highlight=Siesatia

DemonLordEnigma bought some of his technology from me.
Which has no relevance whatsover to the topic of UN committees.

I've split this topic once. It's a pain in the ass to do. Don't make me do it again.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Sorry Frisbee, just backing up a statement.

Which would have been an effective arguement if the person you were arguing against were not already defeated in the arguement.
Mik's fury strikes again, I see. He did that to me when I was trying to pass my UNEC Resolution (Guess what? Another committee).

Could someone get Hack in here to comment? It is, after all, his draft that sparked this debate, and I'd rather like to see if we've convinced him to change it yet.

Mik's fury strikes again, I see. He did that to me when I was trying to pass my UNEC Resolution (Guess what? Another committee).

Did me good to lose one. I was getting cocky. Besides, it begins to get boring when the only way you can allow points is on purpose.

Could someone get Hack in here to comment? It is, after all, his draft that sparked this debate, and I'd rather like to see if we've convinced him to change it yet.

He said he would comment in a few days.

Not to be a pain, but:

Just a question: would it be possible to allude to a commitee without actually implementing one? For example:

"To ensure that the proper medical care is being used in member nations receiving UN aid in this area, the UN will appoint 15 of its members to oversee its enforcement. The members' roles are as follows:

(roles)"

Can I get a mod's opinion on this? It's been ignored.

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules.
Sorry, this isn't very clear. The Pretenama Panel has nations that have signed up for service in the event of the Panel's use. The above looks like this may be illegal. Where exactly are you drawing the line between legal and illegal?

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules.

I have a problem with this, since it is the Another Useless Committee phenomena in action.

Bump for reconsideration.

Hrr.

This is more complicated than I expected.

My original reason for opposing committees was because they struck me as a vague form of Game Mechanics and MetaGame violations. I also am somewhat sympathetic to DLE's complaints that they are largely useless.

However, I also see Mik's point about there not being a pressing need to abolish them. Since they don't hurt anything, it becomes a question of if they're worthless enough to abolish.

Currently, I'm leaning towards letting them be allowed as long as they're a minor after effect of the Resolution. I don't want Resolutions who exist only to establish committees, nor do I want there to be voting of member nations to sit on committees, but I think minor ones would probably be okay.

Regardless of the ruling, I don't see existing Resolutions being deleted ex post facto. Admins have stated to the Mods before that illegal Resolutions won't be removed (unless an exceptionally nasty one somehow made it).

RomeW: That's a little dicey. If it was appointing a 15 member council, it'd be fine, but actual nations (players) isn't good.

RomeW: That's a little dicey. If it was appointing a 15 member council, it'd be fine, but actual nations (players) isn't good.

Thank you. I figured as much anyway. In fact, we're pretty much on the same page, as I agree with you here:

Currently, I'm leaning towards letting them be allowed as long as they're a minor after effect of the Resolution. I don't want Resolutions who exist only to establish committees, nor do I want there to be voting of member nations to sit on committees, but I think minor ones would probably be okay.

However, I think the *exact* wording should be "no appointing or voting of member nations in the proposal", because as-is it prevents commitee creation from being RP'ed on the forum, which should still be allowed.

2) The TPP itself, of which I do play a part, required an entire resolution to even give it some teeth, and that resolution has come under fire as questionably legal from the moment the first draft of it was written. And, the TPP is mostly ignored and laughed at. That's part of why I've been having problems recruiting people, as the people I think would contribute to it don't take it seriously and won't join for that reason. Think of how much trouble we have had recruiting people.


Now that TPP has been set up, it no longer needs the resolution to support itself. Were Humanitarian Intervention to now be made illegal and scrapped, TPP could go on. No UN law says it can't.

And it is mainly ignored because we have only just managed to set it up correctly, and now that we have, recruitment has become much easier. We now have over 30 members, almost enough to have 2 panels running simultaneously. And I have to say that most nations I have invited to join TPP have been honoured to be asked and subsequently joined. Of course, I tended to ask liberal democratic UN members to join but they tend to share the same ideals. In fact, we are even beginning to have nations asking to join after hearing about TPP in the forums.

As TPP becomes more active, it will become more well known, and hopefully develop a better reputation. Of course there will be cases that TPP is ill-equipped to handle, but that can be said of any real-life situation.

Remember, TPP is brand new. It's gonna take a little while to iron out all the creases and get up and running. Rome wasn't built in a day, etc.

At the end of the day though, it is panels and committees like this that keep NS interesting. I know many people who just played with their nation and their daily issues and UN votes for a while. But unless they get more involved, they inevitably get bored and leave. Panels like this keep the game interesting, giving new challenges and ideas within the same game.

Even if the UN were to ban committees in resolutions though, it wouldn't stop people from creating them. Watchdog groups do not need to have UN backing, in the real world or the NS world. And while action-grous (eg military intervention) may be stopped in the RW, here in NS, pretty much anything goes. And I would be quite happy to leave the UN to take part in such ideals if I had to.

Watchdog groups do not need to have UN backing, in the real world or the NS world. And while action-grous (eg military intervention) may be stopped in the RW, here in NS, pretty much anything goes. And I would be quite happy to leave the UN to take part in such ideals if I had to.

I agree.

My opinion ... the proposed ban on committees is a real shame. UN committees offer UN players a chance to roleplay and can provide a bit of continuity between various roleplays. They also represent an easier starting point for newbies to get more involved in various aspects of nationstates, because a UN created name has more recognition.

Rome wasn't built in a day, etc.

Exactly, it wasn't. We should know ;)

Sorry to jump in at the end here, but going back to an earlier point, someone said that people didn't tend to place much store by committies. This, in my opinion, is not so much because they don't care, but because they don't have the commitment/time to log on at least once a day to contribute in any meaningful way. To them, NS is an interesting diversion, and they see no real reason to spend hours on something that doesn't really affect them. Then again, there are hardcore players like Mik' DLE and Gwenstefani who enjoy this enough to invest time into the game (the rewards are proportionally greater with a bit of time spent, if you ask me). Now me, for example, I was TG'd by Gwen' to ask if I wanted to sit on a Pretenama Panel. I would have, but I didn't have enough time (among other reasons). I'm kinda in the middle ground. I would invest if I could.

Oh heck, I'm rambling (well I've been up since 0500h and it's now 2200h) er anyway, the point I was trying to make was that just because people don't involve themselves with committies etc. doesn't mean they don't care. Maybe it just means that they have no time for more than a quick debate about gay rights every couple of days. I hope thats helped :rolleyes: and its my2€ anyway.

Oh heck, I'm rambling (well I've been up since 0500h and it's now 2200h) er anyway, the point I was trying to make was that just because people don't involve themselves with committies etc. doesn't mean they don't care. Maybe it just means that they have no time for more than a quick debate about gay rights every couple of days. I hope thats helped :rolleyes: and its my2€ anyway.

Actually that made prefect sense and is a really good point.