Polites wrote:Aquinas wrote:If you read the bill description, parts of it clearly qualify as RP laws. As an example, section 2 assigns responsibility for foreign and defence policy to the Head of State, and responsibility for domestic policy to the Head of Government.
That's a fair point, but isn't that what a Head of State is typically understood as doing? I always send my HoS or Foreign Minister to international conferences and such, not my HoG, and the HoS is typically understood to be the commander-in-chief.
Not always, by any means. Actually, some of them play a role that is purely titular, holding no executive responsibilities at all.
Polites wrote:I think it would be pushing the matter a bit far to require every nation to explicitly mention that the HoS is the head of state and the HoG is the head of the executive through an RP Law and have this protected by Moderation
Nobody here has even remotely suggested this. It is true, however, that players have the option to use the RP law system to clarify what the specific areas of responsibility are for the holders of different political offices. I have seen this done countless times.
Polites wrote:I'd rather see more of an issue with the last sentence, which gives the Confederal States some rights in regards to foreign policy, so that's an aspect that might need further elaboration in an actual RP Law.
This is clearly
another feature of the legislative content of the bill that is not covered by the game mechanic Articles attached to it. There is also the issue of whether a RP law should be able to over-ride basic game mechanics in such a way.
Polites wrote:So basically the bill in question is not an RP Law, though there is an argument to be made that parts of its description could qualify as such.
You seem confused about what a RP law is. The definition is really very, very simple. To quote from section 22 of the previous Game Rules:
Laws outlined in bill descriptions but not specified in game mechanic proposals are known as "role-play laws" or "RP laws"
Section 6e of the current rules expresses it like this:
They are laws which are only referenced in the bill description and not enforced by the game mechanics
The
bill in question contains game mechanic laws, in the form of the 9 attached Articles. It also contains 5 "sections" in the bill description. As you say, some of the bill description overlaps with the game mechanic laws, but some of it very definitely does not and yet is still adding to the legislative content of the bill. We can therefore say that
this bill includes both game mechanic components and RP law components.
My recommendation is that you consider using the Moderation account to simply leave a message on the bill page, clarifying the RP law components of the bill would not be protected by the two-thirds requirement which was claimed for it in the OOC note in the bill.