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: Repeal of IIP
Details
Submitted by[?]: Protectorate Party
Status[?]: passed
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: October 2048
Description[?]:
| WE have been long opponents of the IIP and call for its repeal. A great nation such as ourselves should be leading the international community toward a more just and tolerant society where nations are not judged and punished until a crime against us our our allies has been committed. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:00:28, May 07, 2005 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Repeal of IIP |
| Message | We ask the distinguished body do we want to be known for the great strides this nation has made toward building an international community or as the thought police of the world believing in guilt before the crime. |
| Date | 05:58:17, May 07, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Repeal of IIP |
| Message | OOC - Whats the IIL? Is it the same as IIP? If so, why do people keep using the other term? |
| Date | 06:11:18, May 07, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Repeal of IIP |
| Message | OOC: Don't know what you are talking about I always type IIL... I mean IIP. (Perhaps it makes me ill, and its just a freudian slip) Thanks, fixed. |
| Date | 07:00:54, May 07, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Repeal of IIP |
| Message | We are already known for making great stries, and the PP is still over stating its case. Only two parties have objected to the IIP, and only one of those parties has made an issue of the IIP. During the same time, nations consistently have joined the IPT. Lodamun is about to ratify the IPT: http://aiglesrv.no-ip.info:8080/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=2843 So is the PP really that concerned with how the world views us, when it's clear the IIP is not having a negative effect on Malivia's standing of the IPT. What is the PP really after? Privatization and serving it's plutocratic masters, that's what they're after. If only they could be honest about it. |
| Date | 07:35:08, May 07, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Repeal of IIP |
| Message | We simply feel we should start our diplomacy with respect for others and their views. Should a nation not want to sign the IPT we should not try and force them. Its really all about tolerance. We do not believe in forcing others to our will. And we truely believe that the IIP is theft. We where against this policy before there was comment in the international arena and we will remain against it even if every nation signs the IPT. |
| Date | 21:05:06, May 07, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Repeal of IIP |
| Message | Lodamun has just ratified the IPT: http://www.takeforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5046&mforum=particracy#5046 The PP is still maintaining it's duplicitious stance on this issue despite having no evidence that the IIP is having any negative effects. In fact, repealing the IIP would leave our information completely unprotected, even if the free market radicals get their way and return the tyranny of exclusive ownership of information to Malivia. What of all the other nations that have not yet signed the IPT, or who never intend to sigh specifically to allow the theft of information? Will copyrights protect our information then? No. The IIP is sensible policy regarldess of our stance on coyrights, and the PP and FRP are utterly naive to think otherwise. The RC's opposition to this repeal is proof enough that good sense trumps ideology, and a policy of reciprocity with regard to copyrights is good sense. |
| Date | 22:29:15, May 07, 2005 CET | From | Social Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Repeal of IIP |
| Message | Don't mean to butt in on a sovereign nation's debate, but there is one issue we would like to clear up: Beluzia cannot legally steal information--nor allow it to be stolen--from other nations. In an error we made in wording the TIP, which we later signed, we actually prohibited all signatories from stealing information from -all- nations. It's a fact we haven't taken pains to make public on the international sphere, but we thought it would be prudent to tell you now, since you're mentioning the use of reciprocity. Just wanted to clarify that. |
| Date | 00:02:43, May 08, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Repeal of IIP |
| Message | Given the SLP's incendiary comments in this discussion, you will understand if we are not convinced of your party's interest in enforcing Malivian copyrights. If the SLP is so interested in protecting copyrights, they would have signed the IPT rather than throwing a temper tantrum for all to see. |
| Date | 01:01:50, May 08, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Repeal of IIP |
| Message | Although the IIP is too harsh, it is better than nothing. |
| Date | 02:22:21, May 08, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Repeal of IIP |
| Message | Would you prefer putting the IPCN in its place. We would have no problem with that, just didn't feel it necessary to formalize the policy. |
| Date | 03:49:14, May 08, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Repeal of IIP |
| Message | For all the LevP speeches we fail to see how the repeal of the IIP would leave our material unprotected. It does NOT protect our material in any way, shape or form. It simply states that we are free to take the material help in non IPT nations. Some in this body see this as a reason nations are signing on to the IPT. We do not, the IPT is a fair and needed treaty in the global community and that is why nations sign it. Question for the supporters of the IIP: when a nation comes around and signs the IPT do we repay it for the information we have taken while it was in debate, and in voting? Who decides on a fair price for this info, we pretty much have them over a barrel since we already have it, and we really cannot give it back. |
| Date | 05:29:26, May 08, 2005 CET | From | Social Republican Party | To | Debating the Repeal of IIP |
| Message | I would perfer putting in the IPCN. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 56 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 44 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where players introduce RP laws to a nation and then leave, Moderation reserves the discretion to declare the RP laws void if they appear to have fallen into disuse. In particular, please bear in mind that a player who is inexperienced with Particracy role-play and has joined a nation as the only party there should not generally be expected to abide by RP laws implemented by previous players who have been and left. |
| Random quote: "The one bonus of not lifting the ban on gays in the military is that the next time the government mandates a draft we can all declare homosexuality instead of running off to Canada." - Lorne Bloch |