Requests: RP Laws [RPC]

[Hyrama]

Given the difficulty in enforcement, this would be considered an RP flavor law versus a Moderation enforced law.

I see, thanks again.

[Zumoka]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=680651

[Auditorii]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=680651

The establishment of single-party states requires significant RP development. You are more than welcome to make this as a voluntary RP law but there won't be Moderation enforcement of it unless there is significant RP to have only a single-part state.

[hyraemous]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=680151

Hi there, I would like approval for the new constitution for Kundrati.

[Auditorii]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=680151

Hi there, I would like approval for the new constitution for Kundrati.

Moderation does not typically approve whole constitutions. Moderation will only review and potentially enforce executive authority that expands beyond what the game allows given sufficient justification. If there is something in there that provides executive powers beyond what the game allows you can post those respective items and I'll review from there.

[Hyrama]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=680151

Hi there, I would like approval for the new constitution for Kundrati.

Moderation does not typically approve whole constitutions. Moderation will only review and potentially enforce executive authority that expands beyond what the game allows given sufficient justification. If there is something in there that provides executive powers beyond what the game allows you can post those respective items and I'll review from there.

Alright. danke

[Martinulus]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=682881

Please review the party bans provision, which has been in every Septembrist and the Mikuni constitution for the past IG millennium, and is arguably required to safeguard the treatment of Maerang.

I hope you can also overlook that I forgot to label it RP law in the proposal title, since the proposal text specifies it is a constitutional RP Law. If not, please let me know so I can pass it again.

[Martinulus]

[

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=682881

Please review the party bans provision, which has been in every Septembrist and the Mikuni constitution for the past IG millennium, and is arguably required to safeguard the treatment of Maerang.

I hope you can also overlook that I forgot to label it RP law in the proposal title, since the proposal text specifies it is a constitutional RP Law. If not, please let me know so I can pass it again.

Additional information based in recent RP:
- The document can be seen as a reform of the old Mikuni basic law (
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=676587), which justified the parties ban as being taken from a Septembrist-inspired point of view after Kunihito nationalism got discredited by the genocidal regime that preceded it. In effect, the author of the document has made the Septembrism of the preceding Basic Law overt but is in a sense continuing the old constitutional order (this intention is described in this article: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7531&p=181453#p181453)
- the document that Basic Law was inspired on contained the second iteration of this ban, which was put in place to prevent a Hulstrian genocidal regime from happening again and the original ban was constituted in law after a Communist takeover. It has since become an integral part of the Septembrist constitutional order (see final paragraph of wiki section here: https://particracy.fandom.com/wiki/Sept ... _democracy)
- finally and most immediately, Fukuyama was responding to a flare-up in Hulstrian nationalism that was quite militant after the same happened to the Kunihito in the Dovani War. Arguably, the justification for the ban this time is that it is needed to prevent excesses from nationalists on both sides and protect the multi-ethnic order first established in Mikuni, reformed in the new H&GS and required by the treaty of Maerang.

[Auditorii]

I will review and let you know my decision, any other supporting RP you have, please provide.

[jamescfm]

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=692033

I am requesting approval for this RP Law in Cildania. The law would ban anti-democratic parties (specifically anarchist, communist and fascist parties).

For the past two decades, Cildania has been role-played as a fragile democracy seeking political stability. In this context, it appears reasonable that mainstream parties would attempt to ban extremist parties. As I understand laws of this kind require strong role-play justification, I am including some role-play posts related to this.

In addition, I would argue that Cildania's current popularity (nine active parties) and the large number of inactive countries should be considered as factors too. At the moment, there are many other countries players are free to choose if they wish to role-play anarchist, communist and fascist parties.

Supporting role-play:

Formation of a national unity government composed of four pro-democracy parties: viewtopic.php?p=184721#p184721
Creation of a pro-democratic electoral alliance: viewtopic.php?p=184816#p184816
Post about Cildania's transition to democracy: viewtopic.php?p=184970#p184970
Report about anti-Yeudi violence linked to rise of far-right: viewtopic.php?p=185039#p185039
Legislator and former minister assassinated: viewtopic.php?p=185149#p185149
Government collapses: viewtopic.php?p=185295#p185295
Indecisive election result: viewtopic.php?p=185686#p185686
Violent protests against new government: viewtopic.php?p=185687#p185687
Agreement to reduce political tension: viewtopic.php?p=185710#p185710