Lorerunner's Forums

The Lorerunner's Forums

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Keywords

game  discord  WArs  Star  political  Trek  

Latest topics
» Eye of the Storm
Today at 9:33 pm by Crensler

» Battle of Scales
Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:12 pm by SilverDragonRed

» Discovery Rumination Schedule?
Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:32 am by The Lorerunner

» Turn 9-1068
Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:59 am by The_Wanderer_In_Rags

» Nest of the Koth
Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:21 am by SilverDragonRed

» Star Trek TOS essential episodes?
Tue Aug 15, 2017 6:04 pm by NMdum1

» Turn 8-1068
Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:03 am by FreelanceZero

» The end of a journey (Star Trek: Voyager Rumination)
Wed Aug 09, 2017 3:13 pm by NMdum1

» Is The Federation in Star Trek Fascist?
Tue Aug 08, 2017 6:59 pm by NMdum1

You are not connected. Please login or register

Council of Governors - PRAT Bill (Passed, Archive Please)

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Here it is... no wait it isn't



Last edited by Governor Gollvieg on Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:20 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
The Protection of Regional AutonomiTy Bill

View user profile
OOC: Is this bill IC or OOC?

View user profile
I honestly have no idea what that question means in the context of a bill. It's written in language that's IC and has both IC and OOC consequences. If that helps.

View user profile
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I honestly have no idea what that question means in the context of a bill. It's written in language that's IC and has both IC and OOC consequences. If that helps.

OOC: The thing that is most confusing to me is whether this is an action taken in game, like we are all sitting around a council seat and one of us wants to hold for 2 hours or you and to do this OOC in which you post that you want to hold for two hours.

If you want us to give you time, we can do this without a vote. Just post that you want time to draft a proposal (probably do it in Red so we know that this is an OOC manner)

As a personal rule I will never (well, I try) mix OOC with IC so if you want to change a rule OOC, we can create a Forum rules section and build it up from there, if you force me to vote on a OOC bill that changes the rules of the game IC, I will always vote no because Mr. Gollvieg will always see it as unnecessary bureaucratic bullshit.

Look, I'm not saying that you don't have any grievances or it is not fair that we keep the conversation rolling when ever there is two of us on at the same time but I never want Real Life to leak into my entertainment. I enjoyed it greatly when we were arguing about What constitutes an Emergency Conscription and we were going back and forth at each other's throats IC (I hope that was IC) but when things like We have 36 hours to prepare for a counter-proposal and we are not allowed to have multiple topics going on in order to settle multiple bills, it's just not fun. I'm not a politician, I'm not a lawyer, passing laws that have zero impact IC is not interesting to me.

Please, I'm begging you all, don't make us vote on how we are going to vote. It is not funny anymore and I am getting progressively more irritated.

View user profile
I mean there is no vote on the 2 hour thing. It is just asking for time. I just put two hours as a limit, because I thought it would be shitty if someone said they wanted to create a counter-proposal forgot and then came back 14 hours later with nothing to show and no one else discussing anything. It can be left out and different OOC rules put in place somewhere else.

This is absolutely an IC bill then. It's my character feeling like he is being shut out of influencing decisions and having Plainsdale's autonomy overridden. This bill would just allow any region to opt-out of a law and replace it with something with similar functioning.

View user profile
Okay then, I vote aye

View user profile
I am ok with this, aye from me.

View user profile
Thank you.

View user profile
I vote Aye

View user profile
I also vote Aye

View user profile
That makes 5. The bill is passed.



Last edited by Governor WhiskeyWhiskers on Sun Feb 12, 2017 12:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
...and so a measure useless and dangerous has passed thanks to backroom dealings and short-sightedness.

View user profile
You had many chances to work towards a compromise on this bill, but you thought killing it entirely would serve you better. I would have welcomed some more insight into how you would have dealt with the problems you raised earlier. A pity.

View user profile
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:You had many chances to work towards a compromise on this bill, but you thought killing it entirely would serve you better. I would have welcomed some more insight into how you would have dealt with the problems you raised earlier.

I do agree a formal system to attach amendments is necessary, and we are in discussion over a complete procedural bill which, at least my version, includes a way to make ad hoc amendments.
If the problem is defense of regional rights, we have the Constitution and the Constitutional Court for that.

I have explain numerous times why PRAT as it is now is dangerous, and part of me will enjoy when I'll use it in such a manner simply to show how easy it is to abuse it.

View user profile
I think I speak for the rest of the council when I say I hope that day never comes and pledge to not accelerate it.

View user profile
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I think I speak for the rest of the council when I say I hope that day never comes and pledge to not accelerate it.

What? Negative repercussions of PRAT? You may pledge not to exploit a law, but, eventually, someone will, either intentionally or oblivious of the true nature of their actions. If I do so as soon as possible, so repealing PRAT is simple and relatively painless.

View user profile
I vote NAY.

View user profile
Felix Clary zu Osegg wrote:What? Negative repercussions of PRAT? You may pledge not to exploit a law, but, eventually, someone will, either intentionally or oblivious of the true nature of their actions. If I do so as soon as possible, so repealing PRAT is simple and relatively painless.
No, I pledge that I will attempt to refrain from crafting legislation that would see the need for PRAT to arise. 

You are also severely overplaying your hand. Do you expect your abuse likely to pass the council after announcing your intent here?

View user profile
Governor WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:
Felix Clary zu Osegg wrote:What? Negative repercussions of PRAT? You may pledge not to exploit a law, but, eventually, someone will, either intentionally or oblivious of the true nature of their actions. If I do so as soon as possible, so repealing PRAT is simple and relatively painless.
No, I pledge that I will attempt to refrain from crafting legislation that would see the need for PRAT to arise. 

You are also severely overplaying your hand. Do you expect your abuse likely to pass the council after announcing your intent here?

Well, I will attempt to abuse PRAT benignly, purely to show that it can be abused. If I do it right, you'll have no option but to pass it under PRAT (or break PRAT and then face legal action like anyone who breaks a law).

View user profile
And how do you suppose we would break PRAT by voting against you? Perhaps you have not read the most recent version of the bill?

View user profile
"with the understanding they should attempt to vote on whether it follows the intention of the original bill."

- what is the "intention" of a bill?
- how can they prove they attempted to vote in this manner?

Any voting system which asks anything more than for the voters to vote on their conscience is wrong.

The new wording is significantly less strict, but even if the precedent made will be that the voters do not have to concern themselves with anything but their own opinion, it is a satisfactory result.
It would make PRAT useless, toothless, redundant and irrelevant. As if it wasn't even a law.

View user profile
I vote Aye

View user profile
The tooth resides in each governor wanting to have their own voice not be drowned out in the future. The mechanism for enforcing this bill is simple game theory.

View user profile
I vote Nay

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum