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: Civil Defence Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Independent Freedom Party
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: January 2218
Description[?]:
| A bill to encourage the development and use of Civil Defence precautions. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Civil defence is the government's policy on providing shelters to be used in the event of attacks on major cities, mainly nuclear attacks and bombing.
Old value:: Local authorities are responsible for building and maintaining shelters.
Current: No new buildings may be constructed unless they feature provisions for civil defence.
Proposed: Every public building is required to feature provisions for civil defence and at least 50% of spaces must be allocated to private citizens.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:04:02, April 20, 2006 CET | From | Social Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Civil Defence Bill |
| Message | The need for such measures is sad comment on the times in which we live but the Government must take national responsibility in ensuring all our citizens have adequate shelter and protection. We support this bill with the reservation that there should be places for all regardless of status. |
| Date | 14:56:43, April 21, 2006 CET | From | Lodamun Humanist Party | To | Debating the Civil Defence Bill |
| Message | We do not believe in a system of protection for only the lucky or the priveleged. Either their should be shelters and provisions for all, or their should be shelters and provisions for none - nobody has a greater right to life than anyone else. |
| Date | 22:34:21, April 21, 2006 CET | From |  Gil's Green party | To | Debating the Civil Defence Bill |
| Message | We agree strongly with the LHP, shelters for all, or shelters for none |
| Date | 06:11:24, April 22, 2006 CET | From | Libertarian League | To | Debating the Civil Defence Bill |
| Message | leave this to the locals |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 26 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 102 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 73 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word." - Martin Luther King, Jr. |