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: Domestic Animal Act of 2104
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal-Progressive Union
Status[?]: passed
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: January 2105
Description[?]:
| This bill requires that domestic animals kept as pets be registered by the owner with the local government. This simplifies the process by allowing the local agency to register the animal rather than increase the burden for the national government. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding the ownership of domestic animals as pets.
Old value:: There are no laws regarding domestic animal ownership.
Current: There are no laws regarding domestic animal ownership.
Proposed: People must register domestic animals with the local government.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:42:26, August 31, 2005 CET | From |   Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Domestic Animal Act of 2104 |
| Message | This bill will make the registration of domestic animals more efficient. Local owners can register at their local agency rather than increase the burden of the national government. This keeps it simple. |
| Date | 14:14:35, August 31, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Domestic Animal Act of 2104 |
| Message | I disagree (strange that! ;-) ). Having animals registered at a National level allows the ability to introduce a national computer system that has a record of all animal owners and their respective pets. This national database can then be used to guarantee animal safety as it can be accessed by National and local agencies so as to make it impossible (or as near as possible) for owners convicted of cruelty to move from one area to another and being able to still own animals due to them being under different Governmental restrictions. Also, local Government agencies would require, should an owner move with their animal, for the animal to be re-registered with the new local Government agency, increasing paper work and red tape, and increasing costs to the country as a whole. A single Government agency would be, in the long term, cheaper and more efficient than the multiple, unlikely to be linked, local agencies carrying around the same information as another requiring licences etc to be produced in triplicate. |
| Date | 14:36:10, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the Domestic Animal Act of 2104 |
| Message | The local computer system can still be accessed nationally. It willl be easier to manage for the local government to input the information into a database that can be accessed from anywhere and deal with pets an downers in their own locality. If an owner and their pet move then registering is as simple as contacting their local agency rather than the national government. I believe having a single government agency leaves the door open for more error due to the sheer volume of pets and owners that would be on a single database, making it easier for owners who have caused cruelty to their pets to avoid registration. |
| Date | 17:59:43, August 31, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the Domestic Animal Act of 2104 |
| Message | Fair enough. |
| Date | 18:48:20, September 01, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the Domestic Animal Act of 2104 |
| Message | A National system would be more cost effective, and the use of more than one agency increases the risk of error more than a single agency as the differing agencies, in the system you described, would have to continuously be in contact with each other, something a single National agency already would be. We also again reiterate that operating many agencies increases the costs to the tax payer as well as increasing the amount of red tape, as information would have to be doubled between the individual agencies instead of a single database. There would also be the risk of information being lost as the differing agencies attempted to communicate with each other, should there be any form of inter-agency cooperation and communication. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 194 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 154 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 48 |
| Random fact: Characters are considered to be "owned" by the player who first mentioned or created them. In practice, players may share responsibility for role-playing a character, but ultimate authority rests with the owner. |
| Random quote: "There is no problem that cannot be solved with diplomacy or debate. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not need a gun, but a direct ride to a mental health clinic." - Ascentio Cartaginese, former Istalian politician |