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: More Nature.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Devout Ecologists Party
Status[?]: passed
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: September 2159
Description[?]:
| This bill is to improve the ecological situation in the Kingdom if Rildanor further. Let us expand the forests, so that nature may prosper and more wildlife may be spotted in our beautiful Kingdom. To achieve this, more trees have to be planted after they were logged. So, by logging, the forests will indeed grow. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy on tree plantation.
Old value:: The government requires tree plantation at replacement level for all logging or clearance operations.
Current: The government requires tree plantation at higher than replacement levels for all logging or clearance operations.
Proposed: The government requires tree plantation at higher than replacement levels for all logging or clearance operations.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:39:33, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Proletariat Coalition | To | Debating the More Nature. |
| Message | Supported. |
| Date | 17:55:58, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Union for the Rights of Christian Women | To | Debating the More Nature. |
| Message | Never. |
| Date | 18:03:24, December 20, 2005 CET | From |  Parti Citron de Rildanor | To | Debating the More Nature. |
| Message | The reason I proposed a normal level of replanting was so it actually got passed as opposed to it getting shot down. But if we vote, you vote and the PC votes, this should pass anyway. Let's do it. |
| Date | 18:58:53, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Zirdor Majority Party | To | Debating the More Nature. |
| Message | We see no reason to change the current policy which we supported. It seems a waste to replant more than the natural biome could initially support. What if this policy is in contradiction of what Mother Nature will allow? Will this body propose a bill to force nature to accept the new mandate? Needless to say, we have to respectfully vote no. |
| Date | 19:05:15, December 20, 2005 CET | From | Front Canrillaise | To | Debating the More Nature. |
| Message | We support. |
| Date | 06:15:13, December 22, 2005 CET | From | Front Canrillaise | To | Debating the More Nature. |
| Message | We retract our support; we are fine with the current law. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 55 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 39 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 6 |
| Random fact: Google Translate can help you with those language translations: https://translate.google.com/ |
| Random quote: "We never know the worth of water 'til the well is dry." - Thomas Fuller |