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: Jawa Rules
Details
Submitted by[?]: Malivia Democratic Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: October 2330
Description[?]:
| Without order comes chaos. Every legislative body has a set of rules that are generally agreed to prevent disorder and confusion. The MDP proposed these way back in the 2120s, and they held, more or less, for over 150 years. New parties have had the unfortunate experience of assuming the Jawa..or Assembly as previously known..has always been disorganized. Rules brings order, respect, and accountability. We propose these rules ..again...because the citizens of Malivia expect us to conduct our business in a professional and organized manner. ------ Proposed rules: 1) To encourage debate, all bills must be left in debate period for at least five months, unless expedited. 2) bills may be expedited if: they would otherwise not have time to pass before the end of the Assembly session factors require immediate attention to the matter of the bill (war, state of emergency, natural disaster, etc) 3) Repeat bills of identical proposal(s) are not permitted in the same session of the Assembly. 4) Members in debate will restrict their comments such that they be relavant to the matter of the bill. 5) Members in debate will preserve the proper restraint which will permit the Assembly to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without unnecessarily and unduly exciting animosity among its Members. 6) Proposals must be limited to no more then three per bill presented to the Assembly. 7.)Once a period of two years has gone by as of the last debate on record for a proposal, the bills sponsor shall either be withdraw it or put it to a vote, unless an election will interfere with the vote, in which case said bill must be put to a vote upon the start of the new session. 8) Rules may be changed by a majority vote of the Assembly's members. 9) Passed Assembly rules must be posted in debate phase and may not be deleted, until a new set of rules are passed. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:18:32, December 15, 2006 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Jawa Rules |
| Message | The MDP is going to go through the reasoning behind each proposed rule line by line: 1) To encourage debate, all bills must be left in debate period for at least five months, unless expedited. The LP has condemned other parties of using 'tricks' to pass their own bills..typically omnibus bills. To put a bill up for a vote without debate is, in the MDPs opinion, a form of trickery because it does not give other parties time to prepare a response in debate or vote. 2) bills may be expedited if: they would otherwise not have time to pass before the end of the Assembly session factors require immediate attention to the matter of the bill (war, state of emergency, natural disaster, etc) Self explanatory 3) Repeat bills of identical proposal(s) are not permitted in the same session of the Assembly. It is a huge waste of the jawas time to reconsider the same proposal whether it passed or failed, or attempting to overturn a law that passed in the same session. Plus it makes one look like a sore loser. Bills pass or fail. Deal with it if you lose a vote and propose something in the next session, when the election may or may not favor your idea. 4) Members in debate will restrict their comments such that they be relavant to the matter of the bill. Typical behavior expected in rules of order. Fortunately has not been a problem here, but still should be a rule to prevent it from becoming one. 5) Members in debate will preserve the proper restraint which will permit the Assembly to conduct its business in an orderly manner and without unnecessarily and unduly exciting animosity among its Members. This has been a problem as of late. It is not out of order to suggest "The people demand this" or "The election results show the following" . But it is out of order to attack other parties with ad hominems. 6) Proposals must be limited to no more then three per bill presented to the Assembly. Allows omnibus bills without them getting too ridiculous 7.)Once a period of two years has gone by as of the last debate on record for a proposal, the bills sponsor shall either be withdraw it or put it to a vote, unless an election will interfere with the vote, in which case said bill must be put to a vote upon the start of the new session. Having a proposal sit in debate for years or decades clogs up the page...move them along for a vote or withdraw them. This can exclude OOC factologies. 8) Rules may be changed by a majority vote of the Assembly's members. 9) Passed Assembly rules must be posted in debate phase and may not be deleted, until a new set of rules are passed. Both obvious |
| Date | 21:15:14, December 15, 2006 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Jawa Rules |
| Message | We still feel that these rules would not cause any problems and would make it easier for debate to occur. OOC: I find the game more fun with more debate, and less ping ponging legistlation. |
| Date | 02:52:31, December 16, 2006 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Jawa Rules |
| Message | ooc: The problem is that the voting system advantages parties that propose bills, meaning that while each party improves visibility with each vote, the opposition party that keeps proposing legislation that will fail gains slightly each time. So what are those parties happy with the status quo supposed to do, if not ping pong legislation to equal the score? And let's be honest, no one is really scratching their heads about what to do during debates. Our minds are made up within a few hours of reading the bill, so even if the bill moves immediately to voting, we have 28 hours to consider it. I'm not supporting moving bills immediately to vote, as it precludes people from making changes to the proposals, which is an issue if a party tacks on more than one proposal to a bill. But it's not the end of the world. And about omnibus bills, they are nothing but dirty tricks. A really dirty player can really screw other parties by intentionally putting in proposals where an opposing party has voted for and against proposals in the bill. This forces the party to either flip flop on an issue, which is very damaging, or to abstain, also damaging. Considering that there's no limit to the number of bills we can present, but there is a limit to the proposals we can submit, there's no reason not to just seperate the proposals into seperate, or at least related, bills. Having to click a few buttons to see other pages is preferable to setting a dangerous precedent for how we use game mechanics. And if these are just RP rules, what happens when someone breaks them? I know a couple countries have had this problem, with people being given RP reasons to leave and the mods refusing to boot them after repeated requests by the majority of parties. If we want to cross the bridge of RP coming first, then we're going to end up with more problems than we started with, as people argue about what a minimum wage or nationalization does to the economy. I'd prefer we just left it open and not muck with any of this. And it's LevP, not LP. The LP is the Labour Party, a now defunct party. I got by LevP for a reason. |
| Date | 10:49:52, December 16, 2006 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Jawa Rules |
| Message | OOC: This is politics, which has always been renowned for 'dirty tricks'. If you want to put a stop to 'dirty tricks', then you would agree to leaving bills in debate for a minimum time so as to not try to sneak a bill into law under peoples noses. And maybe you might not be scratching your head, but it is possible others are. Please do not assume others think like you when it comes to considering legislation. Most of us are a bit more open minded..I've read your history in the 2070s-2090s and you've been one of the most closed minded I've seen. As far as what happens if someone breaks them? Basically we've gone on the honor system..which has worked fine. Sometimes a party might forget, and a gentle admonishment is in order. Anyway, I don't see any objection to the LP (We'll call you LP since the Labor Party has been gone for over 200 years and thus irrelevant in this country today)..I don't see any objection by the LP to the rules except on the basis of the following: (We'll just summarize up the LPs objections in a simple manner: 1. The LP thinks Omnibus proposals are "dirty tricks" Counterargument -Politics by nature is full of 'dirty tricks'. If members don't like dirty tricks they shouldn't participate in a game of national politics. 2. The LP thinks the proposed rules are 'unenforcable" Counterargument-The proposed rules have worked before because all parties agreed on an honor code to follow the rules as best as they could. 3. The LP thinks members should be allowed to keep resubmitting legislation in the same session for 'visibility purposes'. Counterargument-The MDP would consider that a form of 'dirty trick', but more importantly, it is basic rules of order, and the MDP would offer that parties get the same visibility by proposing a bill in the next session as it would by proposing it 8 months after the original proposal failed. 4. The LP opposes moving bills immediately to vote after 5 months of debate Counterargument-the 5 months is a minimum time it should stay in debate. Considering the other rule on putting bills to vote that have sat there for years..5 months minimum and up to 2 years maximum...leaves plenty of time for parties to consider changing proposals. In short, these proposed rules are simply about keeping order. Parties still get to propose bills, still gain visibility, but in a sense of order. |
| Date | 15:39:50, December 16, 2006 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Jawa Rules |
| Message | ooc: It's LevP. Please respect my choice to go by that. Also, re: "I've read your history in the 2070s-2090s and you've been one of the most closed minded I've seen." You need to keep ic and ooc seperate, which I don't see you doing right now. You weren't there so don't pass judgment until you have the whole story. Regarding this: "If you want to put a stop to 'dirty tricks', then you would agree to leaving bills in debate for a minimum time so as to not try to sneak a bill into law under peoples noses." Your party page shows you the bills you have to vote on, and if you don't log in once a day you risk missing votes, no matter how long they've been sitting there, since they only remain open or 32 hours. So there's no added risk of sneaking anything by if you put it to an immediate vote. Not that it stopped you with your bills this time around, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it, but it's hard to make this argument when you're doing exactly what you're telling others not to do. Putting bills to an immediate vote is not about 'dirty tricks.' Some of us can't be online all the time, and the only chance I may get to put something to a vote is that one session I have online. And again, the game tells you what you have to vote on, so this is a non-issue. Re: this: "Politics by nature is full of 'dirty tricks'. If members don't like dirty tricks they shouldn't participate in a game of national politics." There's dirty icly and dirtly oocly. For instance, if I wanted to I could create a bill right now that included removing the state religion AND renationalizing industries. How would you vote on that? Either way requires you flip flop, so you either abstain or burn your base. That's dirtly oocly. That's INCREDIBLY dirty oocly. It's a brilliant tactic, but it makes the game not fun if people are going to play like that, and that really defeats the purpose of the game. If you don't see a problem with that, then I'm not sure why you're so worried about these other fairly minor issues. As is my ic character, I'm oocly against unnecessary rules, and I think this is a case in point. We've done fine without these rules so far, and adding the rules just creates ooc problems and nastiness when people break them, so I'd rather just move on and keep playing the game. |
| Date | 18:01:17, December 16, 2006 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Jawa Rules |
| Message | Fine, we will use the LevP as they wish. It is quite clear that the LevP and the MDP do not see things eye to eye on a number of things, and basic rules are obviously one of them. I may not have been here in the 2060s-2080s, but I can read for myself. The small difference is the LevP seems to expect others to see it their way, or it throws a long winded tantrum. It isn't just about what the LevP wants in this game, its about what all of us wants. I've generally been open to compromise on a number of things, but it seems the LevP sees things in black and white, no compromise, just their way or no way. It is unfortunate that the LevP has not offered to compromise on any of the rules, only to insist that their way "No assembly rules", is the way it should be. I will put this to a vote, and we hope that if they pass the LevP accepts them as binding. |
| Date | 19:01:58, December 16, 2006 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Jawa Rules |
| Message | OOC: MDP you seem to be confusing IC and OOC statements in you replies. That was the primary thing I was trying to avoid when I first proposed rules, which most of these currently come from. I agree with Lev when keeping bills in debate for x months does nothing to prevent slipping a bill in when some people cannot log on. There really is no way to prevent that. Keeping a bill in debate gives a chance to work out compromises and address issues which the sponsor may not have considered. Generally I support it to give a chance on expanding the bills description, explaining issues such as what religion is the state religion, what are our restrictions on ads, etc. In addition rule three address the issue of constantly proposing say abortion is not allowed, rather then proposing multiple bills on abortion being permitted at different cut offs. Thus flip flopping is not prevented, rather it is a means to keep one party from forcing positions onto other parties. Finally to address the attacks on the LevP, we have found them vocal yes, however not unbendable, and always respectful toward the current RP situation. Thus we have no doubt they would follow the rules if they pass. The LevP clearly explains their positions in debate, yet as the debate continues addresses concerns expressed by other parties and occasionally will retract a proposal if through debate it is found not to work. That said the LevP raises a valid point on the issue of enforcement and need for these rules. |
| Date | 01:00:31, December 17, 2006 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Jawa Rules |
| Message | ooc: As before, icly and oocly, nevermind all the other stuff, I can't support any 'rules' that don't include a ban on omnibuses. |
| Date | 02:20:28, December 17, 2006 CET | From | Malivia Democratic Party | To | Debating the Jawa Rules |
| Message | The MDP points out that the LevP is free, as it always is, to submit bills that have only one proposal instead of omnibus's, just as the MDP believes other parties should be free if they wish to propose omnibus's. As we've pointed out, historically we've gone on the honor system. The main concern to the MDP is the annoying issue of parties submitting the same bill in the same session, or overturning a bill that passed in the same session. Its disrespectful of the will of the majority, and its generally a violation of rules of order, unless its a motion to reconsider (but you have to be on the winning side to submit that motion). We also believe that bills should remain in debate. Granted, the MDP has not done this recently either, but we should, and Malivia would be better if we left bills open for a minimum time (and maximum time). |
| Date | 14:28:22, December 17, 2006 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Jawa Rules |
| Message | rule three seems to have a different interpetation to the MDP then the PP reads it. It states identical article, meaning the same change. This would not prevent overturning a law in the same session. We support this interpetation, not the way the MDP is reading it. For now we vote no until this is cleared up. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 50 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 95 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 55 |
| Random fact: The grey space in the east is populated by the forum-based countries, known in-game as the former colonies or the "Third World". These countries are managed by the Third World Coordinator but players can request control of individual countries in the Third World Control Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8302 |
| Random quote: "I believe that guns don't kill people, husbands that come home early do." - Larry the Cable Guy |