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: Legislative Proposal Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Technocrat Bloc
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2498
Description[?]:
| There are a lot of bills out, perhaps, too many for one session. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The number of proposals a party can introduce per year (will be handed out as a monthly quota).
Old value:: 20
Current: 6
Proposed: 10
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The maximum proposal quota a party can accumulate.
Old value:: 50
Current: 24
Proposed: 25
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:11:25, December 07, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Labour Party | To | Debating the Legislative Proposal Reform |
| Message | Agreed |
| Date | 22:59:31, December 07, 2007 CET | From | Evergreen Party | To | Debating the Legislative Proposal Reform |
| Message | I appreciate the unique opportunity for the Evergreen to define itself, but I have to agree that with the time limit we have to vote, this was somewhat overwhelming. But I also can't help but question, with the passage of multiple bills related to a single topic...doesn't that put a particular party at an uber advantage to gain more seats? |
| Date | 21:21:16, December 08, 2007 CET | From | bran1322 Party | To | Debating the Legislative Proposal Reform |
| Message | I would argue that a large part, probably not all but a large part, of gaining seats is where you stand on the issues relative to what the voters want. The thing for a new part like you Evergreen is you need a lot of bills to define yourself and gain visibility. Honestly, you kinda got in at a perfect and unique time, I would have wanted that when I started here. In fact, one reason I did want to propose the bills was because I thought it would help you take some of the unclaimed seats now instead of trying to steal someone else's seats a few elections from now. |
| Date | 21:31:36, December 08, 2007 CET | From | bran1322 Party | To | Debating the Legislative Proposal Reform |
| Message | I know this is the anti-what bran1322 party did bill. I can't really defend what I did more than what I think you already know why I did it. But, I would say a lot of things did pass which shows there was a will among parties, by doing this I did lose a lot of seats so I don't foresee anyone definitely including myself using this as a normal gameplan, it made the election and thus the game more interesting, and on the pure substance of this bill even it were someone else that did this, I would probably say this bill restricts freedom of speech by lessening debate and gameplay ability to make changes that you would want to see in your nation. |
| Date | 21:42:11, December 08, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Labour Party | To | Debating the Legislative Proposal Reform |
| Message | I was going to propose this very bill a few days (real-life) ago. |
| Date | 04:41:31, December 09, 2007 CET | From | Evergreen Party | To | Debating the Legislative Proposal Reform |
| Message | I've never been one to bite the hand that generously feeds me....so I do not want to lend the impression that the Evergreen is ungrateful to the leader of the bran1322. Politics tends to turn newbies into suspicious cynics. If the arguement here is about restricting freedom of speech by lessening debate, however, I would say piling a whole lot of bills and having a short amount of time to give ample thought and discussion is a restriction of debate and smart gameplay ability to make changes for a particular party benefit. Wasn't there a proposal about providing time to discuss bills before putting them to vote? I don't mind a whole lot of proposals...I just want ample time proportional to the amount of bills put to vote. |
| Date | 05:56:15, December 09, 2007 CET | From | bran1322 Party | To | Debating the Legislative Proposal Reform |
| Message | Oh no Evergreen, I do not hold any ill feelings toward anyone for voting in favor of this bill. In fact, I understand why people believes it needs to be done. So don't worry about that, if you feel you want this vote yes. There are other parties in the game that I think would tell you I've pushed for them to do stuff that helps them but hurts me because its what they wanted. I do consciously try to follow that minimum 2 month rule for debate. I think its a good rule/suggestion. I did specifically time my debate part to follow that rule and tried to get as much debate before having to put it to vote. |
| Date | 00:41:03, December 10, 2007 CET | From | Evergreen Party | To | Debating the Legislative Proposal Reform |
| Message | Group hug for the bran1322 party! |
| Date | 04:47:29, December 10, 2007 CET | From | bran1322 Party | To | Debating the Legislative Proposal Reform |
| Message | You know I was just trying to be nice, now I don't like any of you forever, until the end of time. :) |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 361 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 40 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: It is the collective responsibility of the players in a nation to ensure all currently binding RP laws are clearly outlined in an OOC reference bill in the "Bills under debate" section of the nation page. Confusion should not be created by displaying only some of the current RP laws or displaying RP laws which are no longer current. |
| Random quote: "The only people who would be hurt by abandoning the Kyoto Protocol would be several thousand people who make a living attending conferences on global warming." - Kirill Kondratyev |