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: OOC/RP: The Sovereign: Non-binding rules/conventions
Details
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: April 4246
Description[?]:
| When I recreated the monarchy in Trigunia, I roleplayed it to be a dualistic monarchy, where both the emperor/empress and parliament share the powers. However, as I played more Particracy, I wnated to make the nation not only roleplayed as a dualistic monarchy, but actually be a dualistic monarchy in game mechanics. However, that could not be implemented using game mechanics, so I even removed things such as the veto from the powers of the monarch even in the RP and left other things alone as symbolic powers. Now however, I have come up with the idea of non-binding rules or conventions which players may choose to abide by if they want better roleplay, or can just not abide by them, it is purely their choice. If we use these conventions on the monarchs' power, we might actually create a dualistic monarchy. My ideas for conventions: - Monarch appoints the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers This is already written down in the Trigunian Central Governmental Administration bill (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=522213) but has only been roleplayed for a short time. A convention could be that the person roleplaying the monarch (currently me) would propose a bill with a government which is exactly the same as it was before, except the HoG position, which would be occupied by the party which the monarch wants to appoint as the Prime Minister. This bill should then be approved by the legislature. This convention would also encourage parties to talk with each other, in order to negotiate coalitions and persuade other parties to vote for the bill appointing the Prime Minister. It should look something like this: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=516586 - Monarch can veto bills This used to be one of the RP laws but was scrapped since it could not be implemented. However a convention could be that all players abiding by the conventions could just vote no on any bill declared vetoed by the monarch. An exception would apply to laws which have a 2/3 majority, where the veto would be overridden, and it would not apply. - Monarch can introduce Imperial Decrees This one is easy to use - the person roleplaying the monarch introduces a bill titled Imperial Decree on ________. However, as it says in the Trigunian Central Governmental Administration, these bills are the only bills that can create new political bodies. A convention is relatively easy to do. No party can propose a bill creating or changing a new political body except the one roleplaying the monarch. If a party wants to change something, it needs to inform the party roleplaying the monarch. It should be something like this: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=496297 Please do discuss this, it will be much appreciated. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:22:18, July 15, 2017 CET | From |  Trigunian Liberal Socialist Party | To | Debating the OOC/RP: The Sovereign: Non-binding rules/conventions |
| Message | Not a bad idea. |
| Date | 17:27:39, July 15, 2017 CET | From | Trigunian Liberal Socialist Party | To | Debating the OOC/RP: The Sovereign: Non-binding rules/conventions |
| Message | Although, as a socialist, and what some would call a communist, I hate the idea of a monarchy as it creates a struggle between the classes. OOC: Is it okay to use the term "communist" in this game? |
| Date | 11:16:23, July 18, 2017 CET | From | НДПСМ | To | Debating the OOC/RP: The Sovereign: Non-binding rules/conventions |
| Message | I understand, but these are for the current political system. If you want to abolish the monarchy, attempt to do so, but since I am monarchist and so is the other party, that would be relatively hard. :-) I see you agree with these non-binding rules for the time that the monarchy remains. I am waiting for the NAD to reply. |
| Date | 14:55:42, July 19, 2017 CET | From | Центральная партия | To | Debating the OOC/RP: The Sovereign: Non-binding rules/conventions |
| Message | On the premise of introducing a the policy of "the Monarch appoints the Chairman", must coincide with game mechanics. I can see that being easily abused by another person once the current monarch is removed. If this is approach similar to how it was approach here (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=516586), It will be a contradiction of game mechanics (RP-Laws have no weight when it comes to game mechanics). So I would caution everyone on their approach to this matter. On the premise of "Monarch can veto bills". Once more i can see this being easily abused by another player. He/she out of spite for another player will not veto his/her bill. I do not believe that the introduction of conventions (in respect to these circumstances) will be the best option. With conventions like these it will cause confusion and distress when a player doesn't want to abide by them and other players do. For example player A doesn't want to abide by Convention 1, but players B,C and D want to. So players B,C and D leave player A to ignore the convention and move on with their plans (with respect to the convention) might said plans be aimed against player A or in favour of player A. It makes no sense. I would once again caution from making this approach. As games rules can and will most likely be applied in the scenario previously stated. Conventions/mutual understandings should come in the form of etiquette and conduct in the parliament for example: A mutual understanding between players would state that they could either address the head of parliament as Mr. Speaker, Mr House President etc. Or it could state that they could address other parliament members as "The Honourable Gentlemen, or the Respective House Member". |
| Date | 15:01:58, July 19, 2017 CET | From |  Moderation | To | Debating the OOC/RP: The Sovereign: Non-binding rules/conventions |
| Message | @Trigunian Liberal Socialist Party (You are allowed). |
| Date | 15:36:16, July 19, 2017 CET | From | НДПСМ | To | Debating the OOC/RP: The Sovereign: Non-binding rules/conventions |
| Message | Please may you explain how this violates game mechanics IF everyone abides by the convention: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=516586 The fact that these are conventions is exactly why not abiding with it is fine (although it does ruin the RP aspects). If you do not wish to abide by one/two/all of them, fine, only you will most likely be strongly disliked by the other players. |
| Date | 15:54:16, July 19, 2017 CET | From | Центральная партия | To | Debating the OOC/RP: The Sovereign: Non-binding rules/conventions |
| Message | I based by opinion on this based on the scenario that a player does not want to abide by this mutual understanding. At the time of the bill previously mentioned. If the current were to change which would allow that the largest party would be the one forming the cabinet and this mutual understanding were to be enacted it would contradict game mechanics, because you would hold the discretion to nominate any party you choose. This would contradict the game mechanics because you choose to pick a minority party whilst the largest party is supposed to pick the cabinet. All i am saying is that, if you want to go about doing so, ensure that you have the permission of ALL members in the nation to move along. And ruining the RP aspect is something that no one would ever want. I don't want to see other people be discriminated/hated/segregated from roleplay or discussion because they didn't want to abide by the mutual understanding. In taking into consideration both sides (and not just one), i believe that mutual understanding should be structured along the lines of how i previously outlined. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 125 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 475 |
| Random fact: If you have a question, post it on the forum. Game Moderators and other players will be happy to help you. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "What is conservatism? Is it not the adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried?" - Abraham Lincoln |