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: Stop.
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Labour Party
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: February 5319
Description[?]:
| I will be saying it one time, only one. All laws which are about the martial law and state of emergency will only be abolished by the Government and the Government only. Furthermore, due to the fact that this bill needs 2/3 of the Diet to agree upon it, it needs 12 months of debate. Finally, I would like to ask TrueDignity to stop putting laws before the end of their respective debates period. This is against the RP Law which regulates debate. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:15:41, June 17, 2023 CET | From | Course of Freedom (Kellins faction) | To | Debating the OOC: Stop. |
| Message | OOC: When it comes to bills related to a state of emergency, it is crucial for the legislator to act swiftly and effectively. The nature of such measures often requires immediate action to ensure the safety and security of the nation. Therefore, it is logical to prioritize and expedite the debate process for these bills, rather than extending it over a prolonged period of 12 months. While it is necessary to respect the legislative process and provide ample time for thorough deliberation, it is equally important to strike a balance and acknowledge the time sensitivity of certain issues. The government's responsibility to swiftly respond to emergencies and protect the well-being of its citizens should be taken into consideration. |
| Date | 16:37:54, June 17, 2023 CET | From | Union of the Lion (Reform) 🦁 | To | Debating the OOC: Stop. |
| Message | OOC: I think things are getting a little bit out of hand here. Let's try and figure it out, one issue at a time. The "debate period" rule is unenforceable. If players want to ignore the debate period, they can. If you would like to clarify that with Moderation, there is a thread for Role-Play Laws (http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=7891). The seven bills that BC / Socialists has proposed with the same content is spamming. The Game Rules are clear about that (http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?p=145760&f=4#p145760): "Any form of spamming ([...] creating multiple bills with similar names/variables repeatedly, etc.) is forbidden in-game, on the forums and the official Particracy Discord server;". If that happens again, we should notify Moderation and they will deal with it. The state of emergency / martial law. I believe that a "state of emergency" would be the prerogative of the government (probably the Prime Minister). The state of emergency would realistically need to be time-limited and would provide only certain powers (under the game mechanics). For martial law to be in place, it would require the passage of a Role-Play Law with a two-third majority of votes. I don't think that has happened, so I think it is questionable whether this was ever properly authorised under the rules. I think as players there needs to be better communication. Large-scale role-play events (such as assassinations, protests, or martial law) generally require the consent and cooperation of the other players in the country. Certainly anything that involves another person's characters requires their permission. Let's try and be a bit more communicative and collaborative moving forward. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 494 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 107 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players consent to the reasonable and predictable consequences of the role-play they consent to. For example, players who role-play their characters as committing criminal offences should expect those characters to experience the predictable judicial consequences of that. |
| Random quote: "If a female president can come here and be treated equally, why can't any other woman?" - Jewell C. Stillman, former Lourennais politician (on equal rights in Badara) |