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: Advertising allowance bill of 2125
Details
Submitted by[?]: Malivia Democratic Party
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: May 2128
Description[?]:
| Reverses the fascist ban on advertising which has caused alot of harm to our economy. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on advertising
Old value:: All advertising is prohibited.
Current: All advertising is permitted.
Proposed: Only advertising that meets certain set standards is permitted.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:08:17, October 14, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2125 |
| Message | I'm submitting this bill again, and this time we are going to pass it. I'll be holding the debate open until 8 months before the next election again until I get a guarantee that this bill will pass. The people have spoken in the election, they want to be free to advertise their products and ideas again. |
| Date | 18:11:18, October 14, 2005 CET | From | United Labour Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2125 |
| Message | 1. It's extremely annoying to keep proposing the same bill over and over again 2. It's extremely obnoxious to label the ban on advertising as fascist. |
| Date | 22:56:09, October 14, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2125 |
| Message | Except it is fascist. No other nation has banned advertising. The nations that have the strictest rules on it are led by fascist parties..national socialists to be precise. What is odd is neither the ULP nor the PP address this fact. If you don't like ads, then change the channel. Don't stifle the right of others to sell their products on TV, on the radio, in the newspaper, or on the ad boards in grocery stores. Doing so is clearly a fascist move, and no other party here can deny it isn't. And its extremely annoying to be up against several parties who have an unusual view of 'free speech'. If the people can be subject to 'falsehoods' by the media, then they can be subject to advertisements. |
| Date | 23:17:20, October 14, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2125 |
| Message | One final comment.. As far as 'annoying' or 'obnoxious'... well, welcome to politics. My goal is to pass bills that I support, and that I know the people of Malivia support. If you or anyone else can make a case for your bills, or a case against my bills, then by all means state it instead of complaining about how I'm being 'annoying'. Now I'm still waiting..for the PP, or others to prove to everyone here that banning advertising isn't banning a major aspect of freedom of speech. I've laid out my case for this bill with verifiable proof that banning advertising is a fascist move. |
| Date | 00:42:57, October 16, 2005 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2125 |
| Message | Showing other nations with as you state "fascist" tendancies have restricted ads does not make the ban on ads a fascist move. Permitting government only ads is not the same as banning all ads nor are the reasons behind such moves the same. This type of comparison can be made in military spending, centralization, and other areas as well. The reasons behind a law are far more telling on what is "fascist" and what is good policy. Would you restrict spending on our military in times of war because a fascist state also has high spending on its military. As we have stated advertising interferes with the development of an informed consumer rather then, as you state, aids them. Ads are mearly a way for those with inferior products to gain market share by shameless promotions which have little to do with the product's value. A far better method is to turn the comparisons over to independent reviewers who can fairly and objectively compare products. Then the consumer can make an informed choice when purchasing a service or product. Thus we have a market which promotes the improvement of quality of its products rather then favoring who can get the biggest star to plug their product. |
| Date | 17:37:19, October 16, 2005 CET | From | Social and Labour Reform Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2125 |
| Message | Once again, we will support this. |
| Date | 21:58:13, October 17, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2125 |
| Message | And who reviews the independent reviewers? There are more holes in the concept of allowing advertising to be regulated through 'reviewers' than swiss cheese. And spending on military vs allowing ads is apples and oranges. The truth is, it is the consumer, not a 'board of regulators" that are the best judge of what should be allowed in advertising. In fact, I suspect there are already magazines that objectively compare products, as in Consumer Reports. However, Consumer Reports is not the only And to go back to the free speech argument.. yes, I am maintaining that advertising is free speech, and banning it is fascist. Why? Because it is the government..actually, a board of regulators picking apart every buying and selling transactions, and telling the people what this board of regulators wants them to hear, and the people are eventually at a disadvantage because they do not have the ability to judge for themselves.. their right to judge for themselves what products are best for their personal use. The point has been again and again, let the people decide on their own..if they don't like it, they can change the channel. Trust the people to make the decisions, not a board of regulators. And as I've already said, when you're taking the decision out of the peoples hands..by filtering what YOU think is best for them.. that is fascism. In fact, here is a definition of Fascisim, and you'll find the word censorship in it, which is what you're having this board do with ads. ------ Fascism 1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. ---- The truth is you seem to be all for suppressing the right of the people to make their own decisions on what they'll buy, so you're all for this 'censorship'. Just admit it to everyone for once. |
| Date | 23:06:44, October 17, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2125 |
| Message | there is no board. independant regulators, private industry the more the merrier, etc. It is as you start to say already done and many citizens use these in determining their purchases. If you don't like a reviewer you turn to another, if you feel one is being unduely influenced you toss away that review and look at others. There is no government involvement. It is not about censorship as there is no free speech being curtailed. It is about forming an informed consumer who has the information to make a choice in their purchases. If they wish to ignore the sources of this information they are free to do so and purchase the worst product on the market. Few would choose this route, thus we develop a market which promotes better quality products. There is no abridgement of freedoms in what they can purchase, nor is there only telling what the government wants people to hear as once again the government is not involved. Thus the whole facism arguement falls apart. No central authority, no determination of what impact the product has in the market or social fabric of Malivia as far as the government is concerned, no suppression of products or services, |
| Date | 20:49:40, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2125 |
| Message | Well.. I think the PP in their post above just provided a reason to vote for this bill, and gave everyone a view on how the PP just defeated its own argument. How? They go on saying that ads will be 'regulated' through 'independent regulaters', or something to that effect. The interesting thing, is the bill proposed does exactly that, it says: "Proposed: Only advertising that meets certain set standards is permitted." Certain set standards, indeed. The current law, the one the PP had unfortunately passed says this: "Current: All advertising is prohibited." Prohibited means exactly that. Prohibited. Banned, Disallowed. "All advertising is prohibited" doesn't mean ads get to be reviewed by a government, or private regulation board and then distributed in the PP's suggestion to the consumer. It also doesn't mean "Some advertising is prohibited, and others.. like non-profits' or regulator approved advertising isn't". It says "All advertising is prohibited", ..and "all" means regardless of the source.Not some, not most, but all. You cannot make exceptions when it says "All ads=Prohibited". That statement doesn't provide for any leeway, or loophole that the PP is suggesting. What I find amusing is all this time the PP has been arguing for a compromise between my bill, and the one that only allows the government to advertise, but doesn't actually justify its position on 'banning all ads'. It goes on about how ads should be 'regulated'..not entirely prohibited. Hence, I have to thank the PP for arguing for my bill, even though all this time they never realized they were doing it. I'll put this up to a vote now, and maybe everyone else can understand that most of us are on the same page.. ...that is.. unless you actually believe in "All Advertising is Prohibited" without the kind of loopholes the PP has tried to put into it...but the law doesn't allow. |
| Date | 22:27:59, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2125 |
| Message | How you got that from our statement is beyond us. Products are reviewed by independent reviewers. People turn to the reviewers for their option on the product. Citizens make purchase based on information they gain through the reviews. No ads, no government involvement, no regulators, ... |
| Date | 22:28:55, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2125 |
| Message | that would be opinion not option above. |
| Date | 00:22:14, October 19, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2125 |
| Message | So in effect, companies (and indeed political parties, the government, private citizens...) can still advertise, but only indirectly - the ads are filtered by independent reviewers. That sounds fine. |
| Date | 20:13:34, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2125 |
| Message | Except.. again.. the law explicitly states that ads are prohibited. No loopholes. And regardless of whether it is information from reviews or from the companies is irrelevent, its still advertising, and you're still trying to fit a loophole into a law that explicitly prohibits ads, regardless the source. I'm going to keep submitting this bill every session, because its absurd that everyone who thinks that the PPs proposal doesn't somehow violate the law it wanted passed. The current law is clear.. no ads.. period. OOC: What will it take to convice you people, do I need to ask the game managers on what their interpretation of "All Advertising is Prohibited" is? I somehow doubt they will agree that the PPs proposal on independent ads isn't a violation of the law. |
| Date | 20:22:14, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2125 |
| Message | OOC: I've posting an inquiry to the board managers interpretation on what "All Ads are prohibited" actually means. I suspect that they will be agreeing with me that the PP's proposal is in violation of the law that they supported. Hence, there will be two options.. either the PP has to admit that "Advertising is Prohibited" regardless of it being from an independent board..and Malivia will just be a nation where no one may recieve information on any products, ever.. or we change the law, which is what I have been trying to do. |
| Date | 01:40:38, October 20, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Advertising allowance bill of 2125 |
| Message | Publishing independent reviews certainly isn't advertising. Companies providing information to reviewers could arguably be advertising, but it would be a bit of a stretch. The PP's proposal seems perfectly reasonable. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 17 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 70 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 13 |
| Random fact: By default the head of government is the ultimate authority within a national government. In general terms, heads of government are expected to consult with cabinet colleagues (including those from other parties) before making significant decisions but they remain responsible for government action. |
| Random quote: "I got nothing against no Viet Cong. No Vietnamese ever called me a nigger." - Muhammad Ali, 1967, refusing to fight in Vietnam |