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: Law on National Service
Details
Submitted by[?]: Fortschrittsvereinigung
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: March 4049
Description[?]:
| A bid to completely remove National Service, which has no moral place in our nation! |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change National service.
Old value:: All adults upon completion of schooling must serve either a term in the military or a lesser paid term of civilian national service, at their option.
Current: All adults upon completion of schooling can be required in times of war to serve a term in the military.
Proposed: There shall be no mandatory military or civilian national service.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:20:55, June 23, 2016 CET | From | Hosian-Konservative Allianz | To | Debating the Law on National Service |
| Message | OOC: I'm voting absolutely no on this because this is a huge part of Dorvish culture and is also part of an RP Law. |
| Date | 23:11:03, June 23, 2016 CET | From | Fortschrittsvereinigung | To | Debating the Law on National Service |
| Message | OOC: A bit odd national service being a part of the culture here... |
| Date | 23:19:06, June 23, 2016 CET | From | Hosian-Konservative Allianz | To | Debating the Law on National Service |
| Message | OOC: Not entirely actually. The Dorvish have been a warlike people for ages and to undermine something such as this when it's very likely you're own party members served and got their start due to their service in either one of the many Dorvish government agencies or I'm one of the branches of the military. It's also attached to the Landsturm Decree which is an RP Law so you'd have to overturn that with a 2/3 majority I believe is the ruling. |
| Date | 23:19:06, June 23, 2016 CET | From | Hosian-Konservative Allianz | To | Debating the Law on National Service |
| Message | OOC: Not entirely actually. The Dorvish have been a warlike people for ages and to undermine something such as this when it's very likely you're own party members served and got their start due to their service in either one of the many Dorvish government agencies or I'm one of the branches of the military. It's also attached to the Landsturm Decree which is an RP Law so you'd have to overturn that with a 2/3 majority I believe is the ruling. |
| Date | 22:04:33, June 24, 2016 CET | From | Fortschrittsvereinigung | To | Debating the Law on National Service |
| Message | OOC: Due to our party's stances, overall I'd say the majority of ex-soldiers would be in your party, the ones in mine would most likely be people who wish they were given more of a choice instead. Looks like we'll have to be getting to work on that Decree then ;) |
| Date | 23:28:45, June 24, 2016 CET | From |  Moderation | To | Debating the Law on National Service |
| Message | Farsun, please read the Game Rules (http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6363 ). RP laws cannot contradict game mechanic laws (22.3.2). I would also point out that your "Landsturm Decree" (see http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=443170 ) was not passed by the customaryl 2/3rds of seats majority required for constitutional laws. So in short, no player should feel obligated to vote against this bill on account of the Game Rules. Aquinas (Moderation) |
| Date | 23:30:05, June 24, 2016 CET | From | Moderation | To | Debating the Law on National Service |
| Message | I also want to clarify the Cultural Protocol rules would not obligate players to vote against a bill like this either. Aquinas (Moderation) |
| Date | 23:37:42, June 24, 2016 CET | From | Hosian-Konservative Allianz | To | Debating the Law on National Service |
| Message | As it was previously told to me by Moderation that it was 2/3 of players required I'll base it off that. Thanks though Aquinas. |
| Date | 23:45:15, June 24, 2016 CET | From | Moderation | To | Debating the Law on National Service |
| Message | I am not aware of any Moderator telling any player that, but whatever happened here, I'm glad we're all clear now. Aquinas (Moderation) |
| Date | 23:48:50, June 24, 2016 CET | From | Hosian-Konservative Allianz | To | Debating the Law on National Service |
| Message | I apologize, I'll find the thread and post it. However that rule was created and in place before the current iteration of the "Game Rules" and no provision states about RP Laws made prior to the current rules and how they are to be handled thereafter. RP laws previously required that 2/3 of active players (as noted in the bill to be expressively clear) was required and therefore was in good faith. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 269 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real-life organisations should not be referenced in Particracy, unless they are simple and generic (eg. "National Organisation for Women" is allowed). |
| Random quote: "Politics is the art of the possible." - Otto von Bismarck |