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: AMELIP: It's for the best
Details
Submitted by[?]: Likaton Coalition of the Willing
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2374
Description[?]:
| Some proposals we hope you'll like... |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Policy concerning industrial hemp.
Old value:: There are no regulations on industrial hemp.
Current: Industrial hemp regulations are left up to local governments.
Proposed: Only regulated agribusinesses may produce industrial hemp.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on industry and subsidies to industrial operations.
Old value:: The government does not intervene in the market nor provide any form of subsidies/relief to industries.
Current: The government acts as an investor of last resort, by nationalizing failing industries that provide vital goods or services.
Proposed: Certain industries are owned by the state, all others are under private ownership.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Internet regulations.
Old value:: The government has no position on who may use or what is published on the internet.
Current: The government has no position on who may use or what is published on the internet.
Proposed: The government allows anyone to use the internet but the police can run investigations concerning illegal activities conducted by using internet (child abuse, illegal filesharing, ...)
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Government regulation of the viewing of movies.
Old value:: The viewing of movies is not regulated by the government.
Current: The viewing of movies is not regulated by the government.
Proposed: The government sets a range of standards (to be determined) but these only apply to movie theaters.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:42:15, March 15, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the AMELIP: It's for the best |
| Message | How come the Eastern Likaton Independence Party have no prinicpals on market regulation. They seem to flipp-flopp on the issue a lot. |
| Date | 00:55:09, March 15, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the AMELIP: It's for the best |
| Message | This is excellent. We fully support. |
| Date | 18:51:38, March 15, 2007 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the AMELIP: It's for the best |
| Message | The Eastern Likaton Independence party would like to state the following. At no time have we flip-flop (or flipp-flopp)ed on an issue, or issues. We may have adopted a flexible yet consistent approach, or perhaps we were constant but evolving in our outlook, but flip-flop? Us? Never. An example would be as follows ConLibs: We want pie! Likatonians: No pie for you. ConLibs: We want pie! Likatonians: No pie for you. ConLibs: We want pie! Likatonians: No pie for you. ConLibs: We want pie! Likatonians: No pie for you. ConLibs: We want pie! Likatonians: No pie for you. AMELIP: We want pie! Likatonians: No pie for you. AMELIP: We want just a slice of pie! Likatonians: No pie for you. AMELIP: We want an unspecified pastry! Likatonians: No pastry for you. AMELIP: Screw you all, we'll have a kebab Likatonians: Ok. |
| Date | 23:15:19, March 15, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the AMELIP: It's for the best |
| Message | We take it that this piece of sarcasm is an admition that the Eastern Likaton Independence Party have no clear policy as regards market regulation. One day they're in favour of de-regulation, the next day they want more regulation. I suppose it all very positive to be able to tell the voters in Likatonia (or the area which your party only cares about) that you agree with everything. The Conservative Liberals on the other stick to our principals. The current laws in Articles 1, 3 and 4 are laws which the Conservative Liberal Party have either proposed or strenuously supported. The Eastern Likaton Independence Party on the other hand support Article 3 in this bill, while also voting for de-regulation of the energy industry: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=105577 Vote against a de-regulation bill because Article 3 was the ONLY article they disagreed with in this bill: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=105716 Decide to flip-flop on energy in this bill by voting for regulation: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=105606 Decide to flip-flop again on energy regulation again by voting for de-regulation on this bill, also voting in favour of complete de-regulation of defence industries and giving support for complete de-regulation of the phone industry: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=105650 Flip flop on their policy on phone regulation by voting for phone regulation in this bill: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=106012 Maintain their de-regulation policy by voting against advertising regulation: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=106011 Very shortly after that they flip-flop on that issue in favour of advertising regulations: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=106077 Flip-flop on defence industries policy by proposing some nationalisation http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=106300 So perhaps you can understand why we're curious as to whether the Eastern Likaton Independence Party have any principals or any policies at all on market-regulations among other issues. |
| Date | 00:22:21, March 16, 2007 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the AMELIP: It's for the best |
| Message | Ok. First of all, our party research suggests that the voters have not expresssed any dissatisfaction, nor indicated they feel we lack coherency. Regarding the Bils above: Clib mandate, Sept 2372: We supported, despite two de-regulation proposals, as we felt that the positions on Advertising, Defence Industry, and Gambling, were moves in the right direction. We did not support the industrial subsidies Clib Proposals, also Sept 2372, we did not support the industrial subsidies, and following internal discussion, did not support the waste policy, so voted against this deregulation act. Regulated Energy, Dec 2373, we supported regulation. Unshackling, Oct 2372: We supported aticles 1 and 10, but felt so strongly on 8 we had to support. Phone regulation: We needed to reverse some of the damage caused by the deregulatory effects of the unshackling Bill. Advertising Bill, Oct 2373: We indicated we supporte in principle, but not in detail "It is a shame that this well thought out Bill is rendered insupportable by such small detail." Advertising Bill, March 2374: Following the revisions we wanted in the areas we wanted, discussed privately between ourselves and the AMPSD, we supported the Bill. These two advertising Bills are an example of what is known as 'rational debate', 'compromise', and a 'win-win' situation. We appreciate the Clibs may not understand such subtleties. Defence Bill, Nov 2374. Following our support of removing a government monopoly of defence industries, we felt that total privatisation was perhaps too far, so looked to introduce this compromise. To be honest, we feel that the Clibs have done us a favour, by highlighting that we are a Party of reason, and that there is a consistent thread in our policies. We realise that this may not have been the intent, but thanks anyway. Love and kisses The AMELIP . |
| Date | 01:37:29, March 16, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the AMELIP: It's for the best |
| Message | The ELIP can try to dress it up any way they like but they are completely lack any principal and seem to have no policies when it comes to the market. Every party seems to perfectly "coherent", which is strange considering a small number of parties have radically changed their fundamental principals in recent times. We'd like to see the ELIP become more consistant with what we thought was a party friendly to the idea of a free market. The ELIP seems to struggle the ideas of the new and the old. Somedays it seems absolutely no different to what the LITP was. Consistancy in clearly lacking. The facts of the matter speak for themselves. The Eastern Likaton Independence Party on the other hand support Article 3 in this bill, while also voting for de-regulation of the energy industry: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=105577 Vote against a de-regulation bill because Article 3 was the ONLY article they disagreed with in this bill: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=105716 Decide to flip-flop on energy in this bill by voting for regulation: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=105606 Decide to flip-flop again on energy regulation again by voting for de-regulation on this bill, also voting in favour of complete de-regulation of defence industries and giving support for complete de-regulation of the phone industry: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=105650 Flip flop on their policy on phone regulation by voting for phone regulation in this bill: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=106012 Maintain their de-regulation policy by voting against advertising regulation: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=106011 Very shortly after that they flip-flop on that issue in favour of advertising regulations: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=106077 Flip-flop on defence industries policy by proposing some nationalisation http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=106300 |
| Date | 01:42:59, March 16, 2007 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the AMELIP: It's for the best |
| Message | Despite your abilities in the field of repetition, we feel we can compete. First, let us put one issue to rest. Maintain their de-regulation policy by voting against advertising regulation: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=106011 We stated that we supported the Bill, in general, but not specifically. When the changes we wanted were made (to the definition of false, and the restritions on alcohol advertising relaxed), we supported. Can you understand this? Very shortly after that they flip-flop on that issue in favour of advertising regulations: http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=106077 |
| Date | 01:48:38, March 16, 2007 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the AMELIP: It's for the best |
| Message | We can go through these point by point, as we did earlier. Yes, our fundamental position is pro-regulation. No, we are not always able to support regulation Articles if the Bill is otherwise unpalatable, and we sometimes have to supprt de-regulation, when the rest of the Bill is something we support, however we will often try to reverse bad legislation in a good Bill immediately. |
| Date | 03:09:29, March 16, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the AMELIP: It's for the best |
| Message | The AM SuDP would like to express support for that kebab or unspecified pastry y'all mentioned... |
| Date | 06:24:48, March 16, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the AMELIP: It's for the best |
| Message | On the advertising bill, the AMELIP's position is clear and consistent to us, and we think it should be to all. The specifics in our bill that they opposed were: "1) False or intentionally misleading advertising shall be strictly prohibited. 2) A do-not-call list and a do-not-email list shall be established, and it shall be illegal to advertise commercially in such manners to phone numbers or email addresses on the list. 3) Advertising for recreational drugs-- including tobacco and alcohol-- may only occur in broadcast media between midnight and 5 am, or in print media that have a very low percentage of readers who are minors. Furthermore, such advertising must clearly note all significant known dangers of the drug." Their debate response was: We feel that the restrictions on alcohol and tobacco advertising are draconian. Either we ban these anti social habits, or we allow some personal responsibility, and only restrict the advertising when children are likely to be watching (6am - 9pm). Whilst deliberate attempts to mislead are indeed criminal, doesn't this Bill run the risk of removing whimsy and humour from some adverts? Think of the adverts for popular stimulant beverage, Scarlet Minotaur, which allegedly "gives you horns". Under this new initiatve, the lovable cartoons would be banned, however no rational person believes that the drink actually has this effect... It is a shame that this well thought out Bill is rendered insupportable by such small detail. So, we amended the bill in consultation with them. The amended bill that they voted for said: "1) False or intentionally misleading advertising shall be strictly prohibited, so long as the intent of the false or misleading information was, in fact, to mislead potential customers into thinking falsehoods are true. It shall be an affirmative defense against claims of false advertising that a statement is intended as humor and that no reasonable person would be misled by it. 2) A do-not-call list and a do-not-email list shall be established, and it shall be illegal to advertise commercially in such manners to phone numbers or email addresses on the list. 3) Advertising for products that children may not legally buy may only be placed in broadcast media during hours that fewer than 10 per cent of viewers are minors, or in print media that have a percentage of readers who are minors of less than 10 per cent. Furthermore, such advertising must clearly note all significant known dangers of the product." Change to Part 1: We addressed their concern that a humorous overstatement of what a product could do, not intended to be believed, would be rendered illegal, by creating the affirmative defense. No change was made to part 2, with which they had no problem. Change to Part 3: They said that the time limitations were draconian and that we were prohibiting advertising certain items during many hours during which few minors were watching TV, and also that alcohol was legal for minors anyway (a legalization made possible when the ConLibs flip-flopped to support it, as every party has flip-flopped at one time or another). So, we made the restriction one that limited advertising only of products that children could not legally purchase, and changed fixed hours that they viewed as draconian to a demographic criterion. The bill they supported had very different provisions than that which they opposed. |
| Date | 11:25:06, March 16, 2007 CET | From | Democratic National Party | To | Debating the AMELIP: It's for the best |
| Message | "possible when the ConLibs flip-flopped to support it" You didn't complain when we supported it!!!!! |
| Date | 21:44:04, March 16, 2007 CET | From | AM Populist Social Democrats | To | Debating the AMELIP: It's for the best |
| Message | We weren't complaining, but just saying that your party isn't free of flip flips yourselves, nor is mine or any other party. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 62 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 137 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The voters enjoy active parties who take upon themselves the initiative to create laws. |
| Random quote: Wait a min was we tricked into voting for absolute monarchy (Jamie Jamesson, Chancellor of Luthori 4269-4310) |