Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: September 5573
Next month in: 01:20:52
Server time: 18:39:07, November 24, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Cabinet Proposal of November 2501

Details

Submitted by[?]: National Defender Party

Status[?]: passed

Votes: This bill presents the formation of a cabinet. It requires more than half of the legislature to vote yes. Traditionally, parties in the proposal vote yes, others (the opposition) vote no. This bill will pass as soon as the required yes votes are in and all parties in the proposal have voted yes, or will be defeated if unsufficient votes are reached on the deadline.

Voting deadline: July 2502

Description[?]:

Proposing a Cabinet

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date18:11:53, December 16, 2007 CET
From Libertarian Socialists of Endralon
ToDebating the Cabinet Proposal of November 2501
MessageNaturally we will oppose this as we aren't included. In addition we believe our own proposal gives a fairer deal to some of the smaller parties.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
    

Total Seats: 311

no
  

Total Seats: 66

abstain
  

Total Seats: 122


Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context.

Random quote: "Those who are responsible for the national security must be the sole judges of what the national security requires. It would be obviously undesirable that such matters should be made the subject of evidence in a court of law or otherwise discussed in public." - Unattributed member of the the House of Lords on the removal of trade union rights

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 57