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: National Parks Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Party of Telamon
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 2046
Description[?]:
| We need to develope national parks to protect our wildlife, and save our belloved boxing kangaroo from extinction |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy regarding a national park system.
Old value:: The government designates ecological preservation zones but does not fund their oversight.
Current: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Proposed: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 07:07:04, April 30, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the National Parks Act |
| Message | There is already a bill on this. Can you please do one bill at a time for each subject? |
| Date | 08:02:47, April 30, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party of Telamon | To | Debating the National Parks Act |
| Message | actually the other bill doesent have the same proposal as mine |
| Date | 09:17:36, April 30, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the National Parks Act |
| Message | No it doesn't have the same proposal but it is of the same subject. Yet thtat's not a bad thing. Substitute amendments are commonplace and since we can't do that in the exact matter its done in the US Congress this is the next best thing. I am much more in favor of this proposal because I believe funding needs to back it up, so I would vote yes here. If this wasn't a proposal I would have voted yes on the other bill on this subject because it was better than nothing. Now I have options. |
| Date | 13:57:02, April 30, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the National Parks Act |
| Message | We feel that at the present time are Ecological Preservation zones are enough. We believe that they are national parks but without needing the massive government funding associated with this system. Our proposals would be (we hope) more or less self financing. |
| Date | 15:09:27, April 30, 2005 CET | From | Partiya Nacionalnogo Progressa | To | Debating the National Parks Act |
| Message | UCA position is good. We can't spend all our money for ecology. |
| Date | 15:15:38, April 30, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the National Parks Act |
| Message | PNP: I'm glad you think my position is good, but perhaps you would therefore like to vote yes to by Ecological Preservation Act which would set up my system, rather than voting no as you are at present? |
| Date | 19:26:06, April 30, 2005 CET | From | Partiya Nacionalnogo Progressa | To | Debating the National Parks Act |
| Message | No problem. |
| Date | 00:07:29, May 01, 2005 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the National Parks Act |
| Message | TCP: My Ecological Preservation Act which established sort of national parks has now been passed, including if I might add by a vote in favour by you. We believe as we have stated previously that this will adequatly protect wildlife including our beloved national animal the Kangaroo. We would therefore suggest that this bill is now redundant and respectfully ask you to remove it (& thank you for voting for my proposal - we appreciate it!!!) |
| Date | 21:51:17, May 02, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the National Parks Act |
| Message | Although I have no problem with funding of National Parks, we did just pass UCA's version with my support. I don't think this area needs to be changed, at least not yet. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 28 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 57 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, special care must be taken to ensure realism is maintained when role-playing a government controlled by an ethnic and/or religious minority. If it is to be supposed that this government is supported by a majority of the population, then this should be plausibly and sufficiently role-played. The burden of proof is on the player or players role-playing such a regime to demonstrate that it is being done realistically |
| Random quote: "The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected." - Will Rogers |