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: APL Reform Bill 2
Details
Submitted by[?]: Anarchist Party of Lodamun
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: May 2707
Description[?]:
| some more reforms. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on advertising
Old value:: Only advertising that meets certain set standards is permitted.
Current: All advertising is permitted.
Proposed: All advertising is permitted.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The weapons used by police forces.
Old value:: Police officers carry military-grade equipment.
Current: Police officers may only carry standard firearms apart from specially trained firearms units.
Proposed: Police officers may only carry standard firearms apart from specially trained firearms units.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy with respect to the production of pornography.
Old value:: Local governments establish policies on the production of pornography.
Current: The production of pornography is legal, but regulated.
Proposed: The production of pornography is legal, but regulated.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding sexually explicit material on broadcast television.
Old value:: Nudity on television is banned.
Current: Sexually explicit material is not allowed, but nudity that is not sexually explicit is.
Proposed: Sexually explicit material is not allowed, but nudity that is not sexually explicit is.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards smoking.
Old value:: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner, and is legal in government-owned buildings.
Current: Smoking is legal outdoors and in private homes and clubs, but illegal indoors in places of employment, with the exception of places that primarily serve liquor.
Proposed: Smoking is legal everywhere, at the discretion of the property owner. However, service/employer property owners that allow smoking must provide a separate non-smoking section.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:13:56, January 25, 2009 CET | From | Anarchist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the APL Reform Bill 2 |
| Message | Article 1: the government does not choose advertising. if companies use bad advertising, they will suffer from it themselves. Article 2: last time I checked, this wasn't a military dictatorship. why should police carry M16's? Article 3: It won't stop, so we might as well regulate it and uniformise it. Article 4: There's already a law stating that these things can only go on tv at late hours. why is it banned, then? it also makes no sense to be like this. one breast is just one breast. even the opening to some soap operas include female breasts, and no one even cares. so there's no point having this. just another form of censorship. Article 5: obviously, non-smokers should not be forced to be inhaling someone else's poison. any comments? |
| Date | 21:27:05, January 25, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the APL Reform Bill 2 |
| Message | We only support Article 5. Here's why: Article 1- Advertisement is regulated in order to make sure that the content is appropriate (language, images, etc.). Article 2- There are very powerful criminals on the streets, the police should have all the equipment necessary to fight those criminals. The better equipment they have, the better they will be able to catch criminals. Article 3- We should allow some autonomy for local governments. Some towns in this country are very liberal, some are very conservative. Each other hold different views when it come to pornography, so we should allow them to decide. Article 4- There is no place in TV for nudity. That's why you have pornography for. |
| Date | 00:09:17, January 26, 2009 CET | From | Anarchist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the APL Reform Bill 2 |
| Message | 1 - who decides appropriateness? let the costumers decide! 2 - they have just enough. the military equipment is for the special units (SWAT, etc...). having policemen walking around like soldiers will just make the citizens feel coerced and uneasy. unless there's a situation that needs the deployment of such weapons, there is no need for them and they'll just be overkill with bad results. 3 - good point there, but since when do towns get to decide what kind of businesses are allowed there? this isn't a matter of whether or not kids are allowed to play football on the park's grass, this is a business from which people legally make money (I'm assuming it's consensual, obviously). they're not killing each other or breaking any major laws, so what's so wrong with it? why should it even be allowed to be banned? would you make the legality of building a mosque in a certain place a decision of the local governments? we all know how this conservative vs liberal thing would turn out. 4 - pornography is not nudity. pornography is sexually explicit content. and even then, why is TV no place for pornography? are we going to tell each broadcasting station (private ones, obviously) what they can and can't broadcast? are we going to censor the radio stations too? and again, nudity is not pornography. and notice that it clearly says: "Sexually explicit material is not allowed, but nudity that is NOT sexually explicit is." see? a mother breastfeeding her child would be nudity, but it would NOT be sexually explicit. there is no reason to be overzealous. I am glad we agree with number 5. |
| Date | 00:36:37, January 26, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the APL Reform Bill 2 |
| Message | Article 1- The government is made up of consumers as well. We are trying to make sure our citizens do not get poisoned with inappropriate advertisement. Article 2- The police has proven to have better success with the advanced equipment. By the way, it is not necessarily just weapons. Article 3- If the citizens on a town don't want pornography or building a mosque, as you said, then they should have the power to decide and ban it. Article 4- The problem is not the mother breastfeeding her child, the problem is the other nudity. Even though the law would not allow sexually explicit material, there are a lot of loopholes that the TV producers may find. We do not want to risk it. |
| Date | 02:42:49, January 27, 2009 CET | From | Anarchist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the APL Reform Bill 2 |
| Message | Article 1 - if they do get "poisoned" by bad advertising, it's the advertiser that will suffer, so it all balances out. Article 2 - no, they haven't. having a police state won't help in any way. are you kidding me? I can't believe you actually think that regular police with military equipment is good in any way. that would only make things worse. apart from the reasons stated above, there could also be accidents with the guns and the citizens. there would be a lot more bloodshed. it's dangerous to have such weapons in the hands of a policeman patrolling highly criminal areas. Article 3 - no, not really... 'cause then we'd be allowing discrimination. the state exists to ensure everyone gets treated fairly and equally. the pornography industry is no different from any other. not legalising it is discrimination. Article 4 - name one. what "other" nudity are you talking about? a woman taking her shirt off and showing her breasts in a non-sexual way? wow, that's so offensive. as if we hadn't seen it before. |
| Date | 04:32:51, January 27, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the APL Reform Bill 2 |
| Message | Article 1- We understand that the advertisers will suffer but there is no need to upset the citizens when we can take measures to prevent it. Article 2- We, in no way, have a police state. The Liberal Party is not restricting the liberties of Lodamun's citizens or granting the police and/or military any powers beyond the necessary to maintain security. The fact is that not the entire police has those kind of weapons. Most of the police force has regular weapons. We certainly cannot afford to arm every single police officer just like a soldier. Article 3- How is that discrimination? If the majority of the people in a region do not want pornography, then they should be allowed to ban it. That is the corner stone of democracy. It would be discrimination if we forced pornography on them when they don't want it.. Article 4- You just cited one of the loopholes. Who will define what is "sexually explicit"? What stops a TV producer from claiming something to be non-sexual and show it? |
| Date | 18:22:06, January 27, 2009 CET | From | Anarchist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the APL Reform Bill 2 |
| Message | Article 1 - ok, I'll concede on this one. Article 2 - that's exactly what this bill is supporting. only special units need the military equipment. for example, for bad neighbourhoods, for hostage situations, prison riots, etc. Article 3 - but this isn't forcing democracy. you can't just let the people in a region decide like that. just imagine if a region full of religion A's followers decides that they don't want any other religious people over there. should they be able to do it? and besides, this bill only makes production legal, it doesn't force anything on anyone, and people won't necessarily have to even see the pornography. and the nation is more progressive than conservative. Article 4 - the same goes for you. who decides what "nudity" is? and seeing if something is non-sexual or not is not that difficult. |
| Date | 20:38:20, January 27, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the APL Reform Bill 2 |
| Message | You mixed up the articles there. Anyways, we don't like the wording of the "weapons used by police forces" article. To us, it restricts the police too much. If they need the military weapons, they should be able to use them. We know specially trained units may use such weapons but sometimes that is simply no enough. If the people in a region do not want it, we won't force on them. That's as simple as it gets. Who decides what nudity is is a problem of itself plus the loopholes producers can find with your proposed law, that's simply too much of a risk. And remember that this nation is conservative overall not progressive. |
| Date | 00:00:45, January 29, 2009 CET | From | Anarchist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the APL Reform Bill 2 |
| Message | actually, the nation is progressive overall. how is the normal weapons not enough? when normal police can't handle the job, special forces come in, that's the whole point of it. it's not forcing it on them. so what if they don't want? what if they don't want companies that hire black people? will you "not force them" by letting them ban them? there isn't a loophole. it's easy to differentiatee sexually explicit from non-sexual nudity. and even if there was, what is the risk? a pair of breasts? is it just me or there are two conservative parties in Lodamun? |
| Date | 03:02:37, January 29, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the APL Reform Bill 2 |
| Message | OOC: According to our detailed opinions on the nation's page, the country is conservative as it always have. It never changes. IC: As stated before, the Liberal Party is made up of different people with different ideological backgrounds, some are liberal, some are conservative. We try to balance it out as much as we can. |
| Date | 00:18:20, January 30, 2009 CET | From | Anarchist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the APL Reform Bill 2 |
| Message | OOC: not according to the polls... IC: then you're not a liberal party. |
| Date | 03:44:56, January 30, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the APL Reform Bill 2 |
| Message | OOC: What polls are you looking at? The only measure I know is on the nation's page which clearly says that the nation is conservative, religious, and laissez-faire (capitalistic). IC: First and foremost, names do not matter, what matter is what the party does and our party does what's in the best interest of this country and its citizens. The Liberal Party was formed more than 150 years ago, making it a very old party. Back then, our founders were Liberals (OOC: Not Liberal as in Democrat, Liberal as in believing in the Liberalism). This modern Liberal Party is more realist (OOC: Follows the realist theory of international relations) though we still have shades of liberalism. Again, what we do is what counts, not our party's name, slogan, color, flag, or anything of that sort. |
| Date | 01:38:41, February 05, 2009 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the APL Reform Bill 2 |
| Message | You do realize there is no need for the first article, correct? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 66 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 34 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not accept Cultural Protocol updates which introduce, on a significant scale, cultures which are likely to be insufficiently accessible to players. In particular, for all significant cultures in Particracy, it should be easy for players to access and use online resources to assist with language translation and the generation of character names. Moderation reserves the right to amend Cultural Protocols which are deemed to have introduced significant cultures that are not sufficiently accessible and which are not being actively role-played with. |
| Random quote: "Racism is man's gravest threat to man - the maximum of hatred for a minimum of reason." - Abraham Joshua Heschel |