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: Forest Protection
Details
Submitted by[?]: Republican Party of Lodamun
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: July 2595
Description[?]:
| New policy on Forest protection. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning forest protection.
Old value:: Forests are protected. Logging is allowed by licence only.
Current: Forests have strictly enforced protection. Felling is limited to fire breaks.
Proposed: Forest protection is left to local governments.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:32:16, June 21, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Forest Protection |
| Message | Reason for this? |
| Date | 02:39:06, June 21, 2008 CET | From | Republican Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Forest Protection |
| Message | It's the best for both the enviroment and the local governments. As if there is necessary to increase some sort of industry for jobs, either it's agriculture or anything the local government knows if it's best or not to say yes. Not any of the Parliament members. |
| Date | 05:59:59, June 21, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Forest Protection |
| Message | OOC: This is why I can't vote yes. We already voted no to the Ecology Act and a proposal of it is this bill. If we vote yes, that'll be flip-flopping and that's not good. If you wait about 10 years(in-game time), I'lls support it. |
| Date | 15:48:45, June 21, 2008 CET | From | Republican Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Forest Protection |
| Message | You are flip flopping indeed, the only reason we made this bill is that you acknowledged your support towards it. I'm sure the news ought to pick up that the Liberal Party promises one thing, but does not follow their promises. |
| Date | 22:15:46, June 21, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Forest Protection |
| Message | I didn't promise anything, I just said I agreed with Article One. That's what happens when you include several proposals in one bill. Don't do that anymore because maybe this one had a chance to pass but because of the others, it failed. Next time, only include one proposal per bill. It has a greater chance of passing. |
| Date | 23:04:30, June 21, 2008 CET | From | Republican Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Forest Protection |
| Message | Yeah, I'll make like 8 bills each time I want to increase my visibility, I'm sure everybody would appreciate that. |
| Date | 23:25:36, June 21, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Forest Protection |
| Message | I do it. It is actually better for you and better for everyone. If you have eight proposals and I disagree with 2 or 3, I'll have to vote no but I am flip-flopping on those 2 or 3 that I agre with. The more bills you get passed, the more appreciation the voters have for it. It will allow you and the other parties to actually vote on individual proposals and maybe getting some or most of them passed without flip-flopping. |
| Date | 23:25:54, June 21, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Forest Protection |
| Message | I have never included more than one proposal in a bill. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 52 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 73 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 25 |
| 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: "You don't have to explain something you never said." - Calvin Coolidge |