NationStates Jolt Archive

DRAFT PROPOSAL: Chemical Weapons Compliance Commission (CWCC) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=442259)

I understand that for 99.9% of the 'work' of the CWCC, it would be 'off-screen' done by countless invisible trolls.

However, according to Liliths Vengeance:
The CWCC cannot be an official, UN-backed organization under current rules. Thank the TPP for that. You will have to do some research, but my own points to disgruntled members unhappy with how the TPP turned out nearly causing all committees to be banned. The other side wanted them to stay as they were. The current rules are a compromise.

This, combined with a tendency of the UN to rely on committees, has resulted in a committee float and the disgruntled members having a mountain of evidence to point to. From current rules, it appears the TPP is not operating legally under UN rules anyway, as it affects UN members and previous posts indicate it to be expanded by an amendment, something which was apparently illegal back then.

I'm still doing my research, but by all the evidence I see the TPP itself is not a legal UN organization in its operation. I am unsure about repeal efforts, though.First, I'm sorry to hear the TPP may not be working out as expected. It sounded like a freaking awesome thing.

It was part of what inspired me for the CWCC.

At the same time, 15 rotating people might be hard to keep up if you keep getting fly-by-nighters and the panel meets every few months.

My questions are:

1. Is there anything 'illegal' that I've included in my draft proposal (see the 1st revision partway down the page for the latest language).

2. What suggestions would you have to make it (further) in compliance with the game rules and spirit?

Love the game, hope to add some zing.

A clarification: A miscommunication on my part makes it appear to me, upon rereading, that it looks like I was speaking of TPP members. I was speaking of UN members.

And, I have quoted the exact rule on there I was referencing (Creating Stuff under MetaGaming of the sticky at the top) in the thread.

Two things: Committees MUST:


Be staffed by invisible people who pop out of the ground for the sole purpose of serving on that committee (you can't mantion in the proposal that it's staffed by actual people - it can be, you just have to take care of that bit later.)
Be an addition to the proposal. A proposal MUST do more than just make a committee.


Just skimming over, it's that second one you're having issues with. I didn't read it in detail, but you're going to have to make the proposal do something else as it's main goal.

Ah. Wait. I believe I understand now...

A "CWCC" as a proposal by itself dies in flames.

A Chemical Weapons Compliance resolution works, though, mandating reporting, etc., etc., with the Commission as a side-dish.
d) establish a program to catalog and track CW production facilities and stockpiles in nation states,

e) compile evidence, conduct investigations, and otherwise monitor and report to the UN on the invention, development, production, instances of accidental discharge and purposeful use of CW,
I was presuming this would be done as the 'off-screen' work, except for the rare <0.01% of the cases where it was RPed.

By the way, I was going to rate this as 'mild,' since it was not really changing chemical weapons use per se, it was just defining the term and monitoring their development and use.