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: Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Coalition for National Unity [CNU]
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: March 3301
Description[?]:
| IC Clauses: 1) a) There shall exist in Solentia a titular system of Social Incentive to reward those Solentian citizens that make a significant or noteworthy contribution to continued development of the Solentian people or state. b) The lowest of these titular systems shall be the Knights of the Republic. c) The middle of these titular systems shall be the Life Lords of the Republic. d) The highest of these titular systems shall be the Family Seats of the Republic. 2) Knights of the Republic shall be entitled to refer to themselves as “Sir” (if they self-define as male) or “Dame” (if they self-define as female). These titles are for life and may not be inherited. a) The ranks of Knighthood shall be as follows, in ascending order; i) Order of Torvellian (KT) ii) Order of Belisarius (KB) iii) Order of Harding (KH) iv) Order of Bailen (KB) 3) Life Lords of the Republic shall be entitled to refer to themselves as “Lord” (if they self-define as male) or “Lady” (if they self-define as female). These titles are for life and may not be inherited. a) A Life Lord is a Baron and should use the formal style; First Name, The Lord/Lady Surname, Baron(ess) Surname of Location. (e.g. John, The Lord Smith, Baron Smith of Imaginaton) 4) Family Seated Lords of the Republic shall be entitled to refer to themselves as “Lord” (if they self-define as male) or “Lady” (if they self-define as female). These titles are inherited by the family of the original holder and may be passed down. a) The ranks of the Family Seated Lordships shall be as follows, in ascending order; i) Viscount(ess) ii) Earl (or Countess) iii) Duke (or Duchess) b) A Family Seated Lord should use the formal style; First Name, Number Title of Location. (e.g. John, 6th Duke of Imaginaton) c) A Family Seated Lord may also use the style; The Lord Location. (e,g, The Lord Imaginaton) OOC Clauses; 5) Knighthoods may RPed freely by any party to a realism limit of one new Knight every 10 years. 6) Life Lords may be RPed freely by any party to a realism limit of one new Lord every 10 years. 7) Family Seats may be created by the Supreme President to a realism limit of two new Seats every electoral cycle; one for the ruling party and one non-ruling party. 8) Whilst there is no rule on filling a party with Lords; it is a consensus that this should not be the case based on realism. The electorate would not like it and it is not encouraging to other, newer, players. Players are therefore politely asked to limit the number of peers and knights they use. It is, after all, much more enjoyable to reward a Knighthood to a character RPed without a title for 30 years than to fill your party with Dukes nobody has heard of. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:20:50, May 01, 2012 CET | From |  Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | "Madam Speaker, I address the House today to comment upon the issue of the Social Incentive. This question has plagued the nation for over 200 years and we have never reached a solid, sustainable consensus. That is what the Leylabi Administration attempted to solve. We have been tasked by the Supreme President of the nation to host a debate on the subject and debate it, we shall. I was elevated to the peerage by virtue of inheritance and so when I speak of social incentive, it need be clarified that I do not speak of myself. What we are talking about is the granting of titles and styles as a way of measuring the civic service and contribution to Solentian life of our most noble of citizens. Peers of the realm do not, as some would have us believe, roll in wealth of riches. Many of them started with the most humble of origins and were recognised, either by supportive Supreme Presidents or by the Regency or by the Monarchy, for their positive and patriotic contribution. Over the years we have heard claims that these are political titles with no real value. But praise, Mme. Speaker, is valuable indeed. This method of rewarding those who have worked hard is practised throughout our society. In the Church, those who do well are elevated to Bishoprics and given extra styles to match their new offices. In the Military, ranks are given out as a reward alongside medals, the latter of which grant no change in remit or responibility. In politics, the leader of this place is declated to be a "Warden" and the Presiding member, a "Supreme" President. These descriptions offer no more value to the role other than recognition of achievement. Many of my colleagues who share these titles are Life Peers or Knights. Who have no power to pass these titles on to their children. They are simply rewards of thanks. The Social Incentive is not discriminatory. Opportunity of achievement and freedom to be rewarded does not belong to this class or that. But to individuals, each and every one. Any man of Solentia can become a Sir or Lord, any woman a Dame or Baroness. I ask this House to support legislation to recognise Social Incentive as a valid form of comabtting the class divide and to support true equality of opportunity for all." Lord Torvellian. Nicholas, The Baron Torvellian of Harth Former Margrave of Solentia Former Supreme Presidential Advisor on Social Incentive & Democracy |
| Date | 18:55:43, May 01, 2012 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | OOC: On a purely ooc note; I'd be happy to impliment a rule that says Hereditory Peers can only be created by the Supreme President and that these are limited to a single peer per term from a party other than his/her own, with Senate power to strip them if they disapprove. For Life Peers and Knighthoods, I'd reccomend a rule that says they do not need to be created IG snd that parties can RP them but must list the ones they do use; limtied to one new peer every 10 years? |
| Date | 01:56:14, May 02, 2012 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | OOC: My chief concern with the peerage system in Solentia is the standardization of it. I'd like to see orders named and ranked, as well as workings of a peerage system explained in general. I understand that it must come as second nature to you, living in a culture where this is commonplace. But as an American, the peerage system of the UK is labyrinthine to me. I've attempted to do some research and abandoned it, simply overwhelmed. But I don't want Solentia's to be so simplified as to betray my ignorance. So I defer to you on the structure. That said, I'd like the orders to be based in Solentian history. Order of the Grey Wolf, for example, is something I've thought of prior to now. I have no idea how hereditary titles such as baronages and dukedoms work, so any information you can point me to would be much appreciated. |
| Date | 02:04:36, May 02, 2012 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | OOC: To better make my point, I'll refer to the case of Torvellian, Baron of Harth. Where is Harth? Where did that come from? Sorry if it's a stupid question. But that's what I mean. I'd like it to be standardized so people can't just claim titles at random. |
| Date | 02:18:06, May 02, 2012 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | OOC: The Harth thing is the easiest to explain so I'll start with that. It was just a random place I made up. When someone is made a Baron, they are made a Baron OF someplacewithaconnectiontothem. Usually the town they were born, grew up, served as an MP etc. They're so small in size (you don't tend to be named Baron X of Oxford for example, as the City would have too many peers from there) that I think it would be impossible to name them all. Players would have the make up the names of the places as they do the people. The titles can be standardised. The Queen, in our case SP, bestows titles according to serve to the realm. The lowest ranks are the Orders such as MBE and CBE; Member of the British Empire and Commander of the British Empire. Grey Wolf/Bailen/whatever. These are suffixes to people's names; they grant no title but add to their name alongside their academic qualifications. Then there are KCBE and DCBEs; Knights Commander and Dames Commander. These do both. They have the prefix at the start of their name (Sir or Dame) and they get the suffix. These are honours but are not peerages. Peerages grant access to the House of Lords. In Solentia, they'd have no such body but they would get the same titles. The lowest peerage is the life peer; a person granted a title for their life but not able to be inherited. These peers are always Barons, the lowest rank of peerage. They would be refered to in speech as Lord Torvellian but would formally be Nicholas, The Baron Torvellian of ... After that, the hereditory peers are those who hold a rank higher than a Baron (Marquess, Earl, Duke) and can pass these titles on to their children. The family is getting the honour as well as the individual. They're still refered to as Lord X but are still formally Nicholas, The Lord Torvellian, Duke of Harth. People under a Solentian peerage system would be able to pick the Man and the Place but never the rank or type of peerage; that would be left to the player giving the title. The exception to this was the life peers, of which there are many and I suggested players having an allowance of one per decade for their party usage. |
| Date | 00:21:16, May 04, 2012 CET | From | Grand Liberal Party | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | OCC: I agree with the flow of the discussion here especially the suggestion made by the UP. Why don't we adopt for a trail period and see how it goes? |
| Date | 01:03:11, May 04, 2012 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | OOC: I agree with the Liberal Party, and I'm fine with implementing this, but I'd like something to be written out ICly detailing the manner in which it'll work. |
| Date | 20:49:57, May 04, 2012 CET | From | Grand Liberal Party | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | OCC; agreed. Would the UP put something together for us to start with? |
| Date | 17:36:10, May 07, 2012 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | OOC: I'd be happy to create an IC outline and present it to Senate. |
| Date | 22:52:01, May 07, 2012 CET | From | Grand Liberal Party | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | OCC: Yes do so. I would maybe suggest that the HoS can appoint a Hereditory from his/her own party + one from other party per term, that way successful parties are not penalised |
| Date | 02:36:25, May 08, 2012 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | POPOSAL: IC Clauses: 1) a) There shall exist in Solentia a titular system of Social Incentive to reward those Solentian citizens that make a significant or noteworthy contribution to continued development of the Solentian people or state. b) The lowest of these titular systems shall be the Knights of the Republic. c) The middle of these titular systems shall be the Life Lords of the Republic. d) The highest of these titular systems shall be the Family Seats of the Republic. 2) Knights of the Republic shall be entitled to refer to themselves as “Sir” (if they self-define as male) or “Dame” (if they self-define as female). These titles are for life and may not be inherited. a) The ranks of Knighthood shall be as follows, in ascending order; i) Order of Torvellian (KT) ii) Order of Belisarius (KB) iii) Order of Harding (KH) iv) Order of Bailen (KB) 3) Life Lords of the Republic shall be entitled to refer to themselves as “Lord” (if they self-define as male) or “Lady” (if they self-define as female). These titles are for life and may not be inherited. a) A Life Lord is a Baron and should use the formal style; First Name, The Lord/Lady Surname, Baron(ess) Surname of Location. (e.g. John, The Lord Smith, Baron Smith of Imaginaton) 4) Family Seated Lords of the Republic shall be entitled to refer to themselves as “Lord” (if they self-define as male) or “Lady” (if they self-define as female). These titles are inherited by the family of the original holder and may be passed down. a) The ranks of the Family Seated Lordships shall be as follows, in ascending order; i) Viscount(ess) ii) Earl (or Countess) iii) Duke (or Duchess) b) A Family Seated Lord should use the formal style; First Name, Number Title of Location. (e.g. John, 6th Duke of Imaginaton) c) A Family Seated Lord may also use the style; The Lord Location. (e,g, The Lord Imaginaton) OOC Clauses; 5) Knighthoods may RPed freely by any party to a realism limit of one new Knight every 10 years. 6) Life Lords may be RPed freely by any party to a realism limit of one new Lord every 10 years. 7) Family Seats may be created by the Supreme President to a realism limit of two new Seats every electoral cycle; one for the ruling party and one non-ruling party. 8) Whilst there is no rule on filling a party with Lords; it is a consensus that this should not be case based on realism. The electorate would not like it and it is not encouraging to other, newer, players. Players are therefore politely asked to limit the number of peers and knights they use. It is, after all, much more enjoyable to reward a Knighthood to a character RPed without a title for 30 years than to fill your party with Dukes nobody has heard of. |
| Date | 03:56:00, May 08, 2012 CET | From | Conservative Party of Solentia | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | OOC: I'll support that. Could more orders be amended on in future? |
| Date | 05:07:43, May 08, 2012 CET | From | Coalition for National Unity [CNU] | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | OOC: Sure, we can add as we go, amend, take away. |
| Date | 17:29:54, May 08, 2012 CET | From | Chann National Party (CNP) | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | [ The Fuwan Times ] DRP Party Activist makes scathing remarks toward the Unionists and pleads with the 2406 Party... http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=126&p=38555#p38555 |
| Date | 17:30:07, May 08, 2012 CET | From | Chann National Party (CNP) | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | [ THE FUWAN TIMES ] Mass protests break out after word of counter-restoration efforts on behalf of the Unionist Party leaks out... http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=126&p=38556#p38556 |
| Date | 00:57:48, May 09, 2012 CET | From | Grand Liberal Party | To | Debating the Social Incentive Act 3300 (OOC & IC) |
| Message | THE INDEPENDENT Liberals express support for demonstrators... http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=126&p=38555#p38555 |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 244 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 100 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 81 |
| Random fact: Make sure to check out Particracy's wiki. http://particracy.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page |
| Random quote: "The Revolution needs to progress. We as humans need to evolve into higher beings through better moral virtues. And we can achieve that if we clean ourselves from the immoral. Those who go against the Revolution, go against human progress and must be freed in the most humane way possible. That is why we introduced the guillotine." - Maximus Robertson, former Davostani revolutionary |