We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Debate Limit Proposal.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2083
Description[?]:
| In order to reduce the number of stalled, or stagnant debates that remain on the floor, without any attempt by the sponsor to either send it to the floor for a vote or either cancel the bill. This Bill sets a time limit that a bill can remain on the floor which is set to a maximum of one to two (RL) from it's initial opening debate date. After the year is up the bill must either be called to vote or be cancelled from further debate. This bill is open to changes as seen fit. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:46:26, July 19, 2005 CET |
From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Debate Limit Proposal. | | Message | It makes sense, but some of the bills are awaiting proposals that have been guarenteed at some point in the future (though at the time at writing it was unsure - e.g.currency and Transport).
Other bills are currently trying to get their proposals pushed through (Food Standards Agency). |
| Date | 19:58:05, July 19, 2005 CET |
From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Debate Limit Proposal. | | Message | Yeah it's just a rough draft of sorts. But there are bills we can clear right now, Like USM Nationial Idenity Bill which has been idle. for a long time now, and the Farm Size Act has been sitting for a while. But I understand that's tied into the economy. |
| Date | 21:35:52, July 19, 2005 CET |
From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Debate Limit Proposal. | | Message | I think debates should be kept , in order for outsiders browsing or ourselves to recorgnise the political motivations, proposals and track record of our parties. It's a good and effective way of estimating and checking up. |
| Date | 22:41:01, July 19, 2005 CET |
From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Debate Limit Proposal. | | Message | I understand the point but the fact is that 1 year is far too short. Perhaps 1 (RL) week since last post would be better and it should also allow long term bills like the ones mentioned above to remain. |
| Date | 23:31:07, July 19, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Debate Limit Proposal. | | Message | I meant to say 1 (RL) week in my description but I said 1 year instead. There are some bills that have been sitting arounf for a few years now. If you don't move the bill to a vote then no other party can make the same bill. Holding onto bills for to long is a sort of a fillibuster in my opinion because it prevents a modified verdion of that bill from being proposed.. |
| Date | 00:03:45, July 20, 2005 CET |
From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Debate Limit Proposal. | | Message | Does this include those ones I metioned above (e.g. the ones that specifically mention in the descriptions that they are awaiting proposals)? |
| Date | 00:28:38, July 20, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Debate Limit Proposal. | | Message | No, sorry I should have made that more clear. It's directed at bills that just sit for no reason without any debate at all. Not the ones that are attempting to improve the gameplay like the ones regarding the economy and others like those. |
| Date | 00:31:07, July 20, 2005 CET |
From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Debate Limit Proposal. | | Message | I think I get it. (even if I don't, I'm sure someone'll point out if I'm doing it wrong when a bill doesn't get sent to the vote. ;-) ) |
| Date | 00:37:03, July 20, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Debate Limit Proposal. | | Message | For example, proposals from inactive parties like the gun bill that sat around for about 4 years after the socialist party bailed out and the old bill buy USM the "protect identity act" which has remained stagnant fro along time and we should get that to vote soon. |
| Date | 00:54:42, July 20, 2005 CET |
From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Debate Limit Proposal. | | Message | Thats what I thought, but it could've been interesting me voting yes then shooting myself in the foot! |
| Date | 01:01:08, July 20, 2005 CET |
From | Social Democratic Liberal Party | To | Debating the Debate Limit Proposal. | | Message | How about one electoral cycle (ie. 6 RL days or three years) as the lifespan for debates? This way, any debates that are seen by the majority to be no longer in active discussion must be deleted or put to vote, unless they refer to future developments such as the economy. |
| Date | 01:22:04, July 20, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Debate Limit Proposal. | | Message | no kidding huh! Why didn't I think of this bill last night then we wouldnt have this problem. Well the good thing is it's just a bill without proposols so we can easily change the wording. |
| Date | 09:52:56, July 20, 2005 CET |
From | United Blobs | To | Debating the Debate Limit Proposal. | | Message | You do know that the time limit isn't actually stated in the description...
Yes in principle anyway. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 272 |
| no | Total Seats: 128 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: By default the head of government is the ultimate authority within a national government. In general terms, heads of government are expected to consult with cabinet colleagues (including those from other parties) before making significant decisions but they remain responsible for government action. |
| Random quote: "Someone who wields power in name only can never compete with those who wield it through action." - Franz Reichert, former Luthorian politician |