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: Gentlemens Agreement concerning Bill flooding
Details
Submitted by[?]: Slaytanic Wehrmacht
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: July 2140
Description[?]:
| Since all those new bills really seem to get out of control, we hereby propose the following rules. They should not be seen as constitutional laws, but as recommodations. - No bill should be up less than 8 months and more than 24 months before being moved to a vote. - Proposals which have already been declined shall not be proposed again in the same legislature period. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:38:10, October 29, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Gentlemens Agreement concerning Bill flooding |
| Message | Maybe we can remove the 24 month cap, sometimes you have to leave a bill in debate for a while, to try and reach consensus, or to wait till the time is right. |
| Date | 18:04:11, October 29, 2005 CET | From | Slaytanic Wehrmacht | To | Debating the Gentlemens Agreement concerning Bill flooding |
| Message | I think we need a cap on how long a bill can stay in discussion. otherwise old bills will clutter up at the top of the list |
| Date | 18:58:52, October 29, 2005 CET | From |  National People's Gang | To | Debating the Gentlemens Agreement concerning Bill flooding |
| Message | Sorry, opposed to all of this. Bill flooding is an absolute pain but we won't back any moves to limit the right to bring as many bills as any party feels it should, whenever and however it should, within the set game mechancs. (And rather surprised that the Satanists, however honourable their motives may be, should suggest restrictions after running one of the most bill-flooded periods we've experienced) |
| Date | 19:27:36, October 29, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Gentlemens Agreement concerning Bill flooding |
| Message | The RIGHT to do whaetever you want is not to be limited: it's a request to parties to behave in a certain way. It should not be passed with the force of law (as staed, i'm voting agaisnt all bills to make any sort of rules like this binding), but i'd certainly like it if we all tried to leave things in debate for at least 8 months, and not to re-introduce the same proposal more than once in the same term. There may be exceptions, but this would still be a nice non-binding guideline. Most of us acted this way before the recent start of bill-flooding at any rate. |
| Date | 19:55:33, October 29, 2005 CET | From | Slaytanic Wehrmacht | To | Debating the Gentlemens Agreement concerning Bill flooding |
| Message | Devo: I myself could life with an ongoing bill flood like right now. I just saw other parties complain and thought, if we could agree on a basic guideline of behaviour, we'd make it easier for everyone. And a gentlemens agreement is not binding. The constitution in Lodamun does not require anyone to be a gentleman. So no rights would be limited, you can still decide to be rude. |
| Date | 23:05:45, October 29, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Gentlemens Agreement concerning Bill flooding |
| Message | We don't consider the exercise of constitional rights to be rude. We therefore give prior notice that we will exercise these rights from time to time, perhaps sometimes just to celebrate their existence. However, although we do not share the view that restraint from bill flooding is either "gentlemanly" or "polite", we do consider it to be common sense for members to conduct the business of parliament in an effective manner. |
| Date | 18:08:06, November 02, 2005 CET | From | Slaytanic Wehrmacht | To | Debating the Gentlemens Agreement concerning Bill flooding |
| Message | Another argument for this bill: With this bill in place, we would have 13 bills less in debate right now (anything proposed before dec'32, including this bill). There are still opinions from some important parties missing, so please comment wether you would accept this bill should it pass or not. The situation concerning bills is very unfortunate right now. While i admit that i occasionally propose many bills at a time, I always tried (and will continue to do so) to put them to a vote as soon as justifieable. |
| Date | 12:47:42, November 03, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Gentlemens Agreement concerning Bill flooding |
| Message | The problems with this remain manifold: 1. The suggested restrictions take no account of the fact that players are from around the world, in different time zones. 2. We don't share definitions of what is "polite" or "impolite" gameplay - I consider the introduction of bills which consist of a list of proposals which may or may not be split with a definition saying "Whatever, whatever, will split where required" or something similar, to be impolite, gamesmanship and contrary to the spirit of the game. I consider the bringing of proposals which are already on the agenda in another bill to be ungentlemanly and impolite but it's a common practice not addressed by this bill. 3. A number of proposals/bills are brought by all parties which have no chance of passing given the complexion of the assembly at the time. It is right and proper that these should be proposed - but nothing is gained by either waiting for debate or waiting to put to vote. 4. If there is a problem with the number of new bills, it will resolve itself anyway, over time, because players bringing them will reap small benefit from them. If parliament has to go through periods of hectic activity, then so be it. 5. This limits the way the game is played far beyond the concept of the game. If these restrictions were thought to be essential, they could easily have been coded into the game mechanics. 6. There has been at least one incident in the past when the democracy of parliamentary - and the entire notion of the game - would have been undermined by these restrictions. |
| Date | 02:03:49, November 13, 2005 CET | From | Slaytanic Wehrmacht | To | Debating the Gentlemens Agreement concerning Bill flooding |
| Message | putting to a vote as a reminder. I dont care if this gets passed or not. |
| Date | 13:01:49, November 13, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Gentlemens Agreement concerning Bill flooding |
| Message | We abstain. |
| Date | 02:10:04, November 14, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Gentlemens Agreement concerning Bill flooding |
| Message | We vote no for obvious reasons |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 45 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 76 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 118 |
| Random fact: Never use the same password as a friend. If two or more active accounts use the same password, they will be inactivated. |
| Random quote: "There is no other definition of communism valid for us than that of the abolition of the exploitation of man by man." - Che Guevara |