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: Parliamentary Procedure Act II.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Adam Smith Party
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: September 2087
Description[?]:
| No party may prevent the democratic process of our parliament by excessive and frivoulous presentation of bills to the house. To this effect no one party may have more than 12 (twelve) proposals in debate and voting at any given time and a maximum of 9 (nine) proposals at vote at the same time. Proposal here means a proposal to change a value of a law in our nation. Bills without proposals are unlimited. And a bill may be presented with the intention of adding a proposal whem legal to do so. This will allow issues to be debated while awaiting the proposal limit to become available by a bill being passed or rejected. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:29:34, July 27, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | On second thought, could we only restrict the number in voting? 12 is a bit high to have in voting, but not in debate. The number in debate could be 12, but the number in voting would have to be around half of that. (not counting cabinet bills or early elections, etc.) |
| Date | 21:47:49, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | Cabinet bills and early elections do not carry proposals. Initially I wanted to place a limit of three proposals per bill with no more than 2 bills in voting and 2 in debate. However if a bill gets split etc then that gets complicated. I decided that it was simpler just to go straight to the nett effect. 12 proposals at a time per party maximum. This allows debate motions to be placed with no consequences on proposing a law change etc. |
| Date | 21:48:55, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | Note the the 12 is between the two categories, it is not 12 in debate and a further 12 in voting. |
| Date | 22:31:43, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | What about 12 total, up to 6-8 in voting... |
| Date | 01:43:44, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | If they have 12 in voting they can not propose any more until the votes have passed. |
| Date | 20:26:56, July 28, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | As marvellous as this may sound, it is outside the remit of the constitution and is, therefore, unconstitutional. It will not be upheld by the judiciary and so it is a meaningless document, whether it passes or not. |
| Date | 21:18:12, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | It is the judiciary's responsibility to uphold ALL Lodamun law. Constitutional law just overrides other law when the two conflict. Anyway, if this bill does nothing, why not support it? |
| Date | 21:31:18, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | It is a law. That it is not part of the constitution is irrelevant. It simply places ordinary legal restrictions on the procedure of the parliament. To place a 13th proposal before the parliament would be, if this law passes an illegal act. To place a 10th proposal in concurrent voting would be, if this law passes, an illegal act. We, as members of parliament are not above the laws that we make. If this law passes it is binding on us unless it is revoked. |
| Date | 22:00:18, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | This law doesnt apply to bills before the law was passed, correct? |
| Date | 22:11:40, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | No law can be retroactive, so no. |
| Date | 03:04:42, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | it can't be enforced, but it sounds like a sensible guideline to me. |
| Date | 03:12:42, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | ((It can be morally enforced. You will know that you have broken the agreed rules if you contravene this.)) |
| Date | 04:30:47, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | I cannot speak for other parties, but I will abide by this bill. |
| Date | 08:39:56, July 29, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | We note the ASPs apparent discovery of a respectful attitude towards the law and even morality. As the ASPs have a long history of promoting criminal activity and acting without any sense of morality, we thank them for yet another amusing example of their showboatism. |
| Date | 08:45:36, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | lmao (why dont you go ahead and submit your "undemocratic principles review" to voting so that issue can be laid to rest? You cannot act as a one party judge and jury.) |
| Date | 15:54:06, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | Equitista: can you see the voting details on this bill? Of those that voted, you are the only party that seems to find it wrong. Now let us look at what morality really is. (We suppose that you are capable of this). There are two positions on morality, one is that it is absolute, in which case if you find yourself in disagreement with everyone else, you have to consider that you may have misunderstood the absolutes involved. ie. you are wrong. The other is that it is relative, in this case the decision of the majority defines what is right and wrong in the society. If you oppose that majority in your actions you are morally wrong to do so. You may attempt to persuade the others that their position is unjustified etc. but until you obtain agreement, the morally correct thing to do is to conform to the standards adopted by the society you are in. Thus with a more than 5 to 1 ratio opposing your position you can choose between changing your beliefs and accepting that your judgement of what is truly right and wrong was in error or in accepting the society values while retaining your beliefs and arguing to change the values, or not accepting either and leaving the society. What is not acceptable in any society is to try to impose a system that is disapproved of by the overwhelming majority of those that expressed an opinion. |
| Date | 16:10:58, July 29, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | Your maths, your rhetorical and your conclusions are all wrong. |
| Date | 16:14:00, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | I may be able to accept your opinion that my rhetoric (not rhetorical, it is not an adjective that you want to use here) and conclusions are wrong. But my maths? 284:50 = 5.68:1 |
| Date | 16:59:06, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | a side note. a number of bills have been moved to a vote with the CNT-AFL absent. They will certainly be returned to vote, possibly with compromise proposals, when they are back. |
| Date | 17:47:38, July 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | They can be returned to debate and then vote, preferably. If they are returned directly to vote, this would be disrespecting parliament. We would like it to be recognised that we are not placing any proposal directly to vote, despite the current absence of the CNT. |
| Date | 09:12:11, July 30, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Parliamentary Procedure Act II. |
| Message | We would like it to be recognised that the ASP statement "We would like it to be recognised that we are not placing any proposal directly to vote, despite the current absence of the CNT" is a lie based on the meaning of the phrase "directly to vote". The following ASP bills have all been introduced and put to vote in the absence of CNT/AFL: Healthy health care. Separation of State and Religion. Space for all. Reaffirming our Right to Defense. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 284 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 50 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 116 |
| Random fact: The grey space in the east is populated by the forum-based countries, known in-game as the former colonies or the "Third World". These countries are managed by the Third World Coordinator but players can request control of individual countries in the Third World Control Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8302 |
| Random quote: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle |