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: Reform of Political System
Details
Submitted by[?]: Capitalist Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill asks for an amendement to the Constitution. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: June 2130
Description[?]:
| In an effort to reduce the massive bill spamming To bring about more frequent and better debate To allow us not to have to cycle through dozens of bills with no debate, no description to speak of and enough to make you fed up of going through them all. We are the oldest party in Trigunia, period. We were here at the beginning and contested the first election, we had the first Head of State. I am proud that we now have what seems like 8 active players, however it could be better. We do not debate, we do not talk much, this needs to improve to make our experience more enjoyable. We hereby ask parties to decide and support these simple rules. 1. The number of proposals given to each party will be reduced to 6 and 12 respectively. 2. Bills must be kept in debate for at least four months. 3. Bills will have at least two lines of text explaining why the party wants it passed instead of; "For the people" "Cos we think so" "Other shit like this" |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The number of proposals a party can introduce per year (will be handed out as a monthly quota).
Old value:: 8
Current: 20
Proposed: 6
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The maximum proposal quota a party can accumulate.
Old value:: 15
Current: 20
Proposed: 12
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:11:39, October 19, 2005 CET | From |  Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Reform of Political System |
| Message | Thoughts wanted |
| Date | 23:39:37, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Herut Orthodoxy | To | Debating the Reform of Political System |
| Message | Well, this is obviously in light of my 15 bill push because I woke up one morning and lo and behold it was 8 or so months before an election. Debate? No. Many legislatures quickly put riders and whole bills though before breaks, etc. The need for debate currently is zero on most topics really. If you look at LP, you can SEE how they'll vote by the profile page, so there's no debate from that source. LP says LP wants it this way, and then someone may say no by voting, why debate? If LP needs to get LPs visibility higher on an issue, this is the only way. It's the only way for any of us. There is no appealing to the people by going on talk shows, running ads, writing editorials for papers, there is only one way to increase visibility and that's by introducing legislation to be VOTED on, not debated. This whole idea of limiting it is rewarding to the status quo at the detriment of any new comer who now has to wait a FULL year for a proposal to be accepted or rejected, and as such has a very limited exposure. Don't like my proposals? Counter them with your own. We all have the same limits currently, and it seems that when some lose seats they want reform... not very sporting at all. |
| Date | 00:01:31, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Reform of Political System |
| Message | "Many legislatures quickly put riders and whole bills though before breaks, etc." Not here they don't, so that can hardly be a legitimate excuse. "The need for debate currently is zero on most topics really." True, but you don't know where every party stands on every issue, and you don't know whether any party can be persuaded on any issue. And for the record, I have been persuaded on at least two bills I can think of, so there is some value to debate. "and it seems that when some lose seats they want reform... not very sporting at all." Actually, the CP and ourselves have been in favour of this as long as the quota thing has been part of the game mechanics. We believe that casual legislating may be something that authoritarians are particular enamoured with (the more laws there are, the more power gets accumulated by the state) but those of us who believe that we should think hard before imposing new laws feel that a reduction in the rate of lawmaking can only be a good thing. Having said that, we do recognise the visibility issue has some merit (although it doesn't apply to you - you have achieved largest party before this bumper batch of bills went to the vote). Nonetheless, we feel that it is right that it should take time for a party to gain visibility both for reasons of realism and to differentiate between commited players and people who turn up a few times then disappear. |
| Date | 02:09:30, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Herut Orthodoxy | To | Debating the Reform of Political System |
| Message | I agree with you on much, but your last paragraph, I did in fact run 14 or 15 bills through that were coming up for vote in December before the Jan election vote. Now of course, in 20 years that'll bite me in the rear if I'm not careful as I understand it. But anyhow, why I mention it: It boosted my visibility quite a bit and I think it helped. I can see your points, and accept the validity with them, I'm just looking for a good way to balance 'realism' with playability, and I'm not so sure we can do it with limiting this or that, or demanding debate on this or that. Plus, for some parties even in the real world, they offer no more rationale than 'For the people'. Some whole parties are built around that concept. Saying that parties need to conform to your style or preference isn't really the best of plans either. |
| Date | 02:48:13, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Herut Orthodoxy | To | Debating the Reform of Political System |
| Message | OK, after reading it all again, and thinking a bit, I'd be fore dropping the max capacity to 12 - that's one per month, and since we all sleep at some time, then you can still get a few together at once if you want to strike hard right before an election. I'd also suggest limiting the amount of individual proposals per bill. I've rarely done those, and it got defeated soundly despite having some support for part of it. |
| Date | 06:32:32, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Partiya Natsional'noy Gordyy | To | Debating the Reform of Political System |
| Message | Art 1: We do not support this article. As a matter of principle we believe a party should be free to propose as much bills as it wants. There is enough time to debate. By the way, during the debate parties almost never changes their points of view. Art 2: agree |
| Date | 07:08:04, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Reform of Political System |
| Message | "for some parties even in the real world, they offer no more rationale than 'For the people'. Some whole parties are built around that concept." We don't dispute that, but are you really suggesting that it is how we *should* approach politics? Can we not all agree, even if we don't legislate it, that 'good' politics is the product of intelligent, rigorous debate? On the subject of multi-proposal bills, we would prefer not to legislate against it, since there are times when two bills can be sensibly linked. I think we should agree that it is simply good form to ensure that separable proposals are submitted in separate bills, and we should have the integrity to oppose bills that seek to combine unrelated proposals. |
| Date | 14:07:06, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Reform of Political System |
| Message | Actually this is in response to the spamming of Parliament with bills by many parties, without debate or reasons for why we should support. The idea you cant be persuaded in a debate is rubbish, i have been many times by the Liberty Party and others. |
| Date | 14:10:38, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Reform of Political System |
| Message | I also witheld from proposing this bill to allow the new parties to get a foothold, which they have, and until we had 8 active parties, which we do. I do hope you will all agree to this |
| Date | 15:00:15, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Herut Orthodoxy | To | Debating the Reform of Political System |
| Message | LP: No, I don't think that those statements are anything more than grandstanding for 'the masses' in attempt to stir emotion rather than thoughtful discourse. Because, unless a party is actually sadistic or maniacal EVERY party assumes to be doing something for the good of the nation and the people therein. I'm not saying the results reflect this all the time -- the road to hell is pave with good intentions is a phrase to also keep in mind at times, but for the most part, everything is for that less-than-definable idea called 'The People'. But, that being said, if SHL wish to play the role of the purely "Power to the People" role, or anyone else (sorry for picking on you, it's not a personal attack), it is rooted in real politics, and those parties do have their supporters. I don't think that it should changed to suit what you or I would prefer. |
| Date | 19:05:14, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Partiya Natsional'noy Gordyy | To | Debating the Reform of Political System |
| Message | CP: reading your remarks we should have expected more radical proposals. For instance art 1: from 8 to 4. art 2: from 15 to 10. The proposed changes are very marginal. |
| Date | 22:45:48, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Secular Humanists League | To | Debating the Reform of Political System |
| Message | I'm confused by this because it seems that if I, or anyone else, don't conform to your standard then the bill shouldn't be brought up? I'm shocked that HO seems to be the only one acting as the libertarian in this matter... CP: you say in your proposal that certain things will make the game more enjoyable? For whom? I'm enjoying it now and I don't see how what you want will lead to any increase in my experience... And what's so bad about wanting to help people who don't have much of anything? Yeah, I'm kinda for the people and I think that it's a good idea to give back to those who do all the crap work so that others can make loads more cash... Without them it'd be a different place (how would the rich survive) so I don't mind the concept of helping them out... Because of that I think that 'This is for the people' is quite enough of a reason, and if you don't, then be sure to vote against it. Why wait 4 months? If you think dialog is needed, we can have dialog before voting, but I personally want the people to know I'm willing to start bills that favor them, not just ask permission of a party of Capitalists if it's OK with them to... Because we won't agree I'd bet. |
| Date | 23:57:37, October 20, 2005 CET | From | Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Reform of Political System |
| Message | This is an OOC matter, i believe debate and compromise is a part of politics and it sure is in real life. I believe we need to stop the endless spamming that makes it quite repetitive and boring and concentrate on thoughtful discussion that lets us understand how the others think and why. So we may be convinced for or against them, so our opinions can be changed or hardened. You dont have to ask permission to propose a bill, this is just an advisory Out of Character gentlemans agreement to play the game a certain way. Its nice to debate and i and the Liberty Party have been convinced many times by the thoughts of others in debates, when there have been them I'd like to know why you think your proposals would help the people SHL, not just that you think they will by proclaiming it but why you think it will So i can therefore debate it and try to explore the issue, you may think im being an arse but im only trying to make the game more enjoyable for me and i hope for all of you too. |
| Date | 04:40:27, October 21, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Reform of Political System |
| Message | SHL, I think you need to understand that *saying* 'this is for the people' doesn't necessarily make a proposal benefit the people. That is why debate is important. |
| Date | 14:36:27, October 21, 2005 CET | From | Secular Humanists League | To | Debating the Reform of Political System |
| Message | CP You say it is boring.... I disagree. I find it boring to have to wait 12 months before seeing the results of proposed bills.... and so what we have now is a complete disagreement. I will not find it interesting to wait four months to hear how wonderful free trade is for everyone again, and again, and again.... ever. I won't be compelled to think religion is anything but an opiate... I won't be compelled to think that a big military is a good thing.... So, on those issues I do not find debate to be worthwhile at all...... I say this and you say that and we talk past each other and a real life day goes by... that's fun? I'm doing it for my ability to make my position clear to Trigunia.... I'm doing it for my visibility... LP: Very true, there is no perfect system.... unlike many I'm not trying for one... I'm trying to let people have a chance at getting ahead and not put stuck in a caste-like system where some get more money because they have money to start with... I'm not a communist... I just am not very for free trade... and then the two most pro-capitalist parties target me and I'm supposed play the reindeer games how they want? Yeah... I'm not here this weekend, so we'll debate more next week I guess.... sounds great. don't it? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 220 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 265 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 70 |
| Random fact: RP laws follow the same passing rules as in-game variable laws. Laws that are not of a constitutional nature require a simple majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. Laws that are of a constitutional nature require a 2/3 majority "Yes" vote from active parties currently holding seats. RP laws may be abolished a simple majority vote this applies to ANY RP law. |
| Random quote: "Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one's government is not necessarily to secure freedom." - Friedrich Hayek |