Requests: RP Laws [RPC]

[cm9777]

Aquinas. Yes and Yes. I think more communication would have been helpful and it’s something to take into account for next time. However, without referencing every forum thread related to House Spencer and Jelbania, I do also believe there was a sufficient amount of assistance and explanation available. Indeed as Lewis has stated we are also looking at rule reforms to make things easier to understand for new players.

Spencer, I’m happy to discuss this with you any time but please do so in a civil way. The manner in which queries have been expressed has not been conductive in a respectful environment.

[Zanz]

Assuming Zanz's RP law supersedes the previous RP law (which Moderation ruled legal) assigning full autonomy in domestic matters to 4 of the 5 regions, and is basically returning Jelbania's law system back to normal game mechanics, one supposes Zanz is technically obliged to go through the rigmarole of rule 6eii:

ii.To overturn or abolish an RP law you must pass a bill with a simple majority which explicitly mentions which law you are scrapping and provides a link to the original law. You should then post a link to the bill on the RP Law Dismissal Thread.

Could Moderation please clarify?

Second, Zanz probably should overturn the previous law just to clear any confusion.

Just to get final clarity here (and not trying to be a pain for you, Lewis), can you tell me whether I actually need to overturn the previous law or whether I just probably should? I disagree that I should (since, if the former law was legal, why was it necessary to do this new law; if it wasn't legal, why do I need to overturn it?), but I'm trying to do whatever I need to do to put this all to an end and let Jelbania proceed as the crazy decentralized Somalia of the Steppe that it is.

[lewiselder1]

Assuming Zanz's RP law supersedes the previous RP law (which Moderation ruled legal) assigning full autonomy in domestic matters to 4 of the 5 regions, and is basically returning Jelbania's law system back to normal game mechanics, one supposes Zanz is technically obliged to go through the rigmarole of rule 6eii:

ii.To overturn or abolish an RP law you must pass a bill with a simple majority which explicitly mentions which law you are scrapping and provides a link to the original law. You should then post a link to the bill on the RP Law Dismissal Thread.

Could Moderation please clarify?

Second, Zanz probably should overturn the previous law just to clear any confusion.

Just to get final clarity here (and not trying to be a pain for you, Lewis), can you tell me whether I actually need to overturn the previous law or whether I just probably should? I disagree that I should (since, if the former law was legal, why was it necessary to do this new law; if it wasn't legal, why do I need to overturn it?), but I'm trying to do whatever I need to do to put this all to an end and let Jelbania proceed as the crazy decentralized Somalia of the Steppe that it is.

Just for clarity’s sake we recognise the new RP law only.

[House Spencer]

Just for clarity’s sake we recognise the new RP law only.

So does he need to overturn or doesn't he?

[lewiselder1]

Just for clarity’s sake we recognise the new RP law only.

So does he need to overturn or doesn't he?

The old RP law is invalid and unrecognised, and the new law is the opposite. The old one should be removed from any official lists etc, the new one is A-okay. We had a discussion and for clarity's purpose we now think it's fine not to overturn the original one formally just for the sake of moving things along. If that makes sense. If you want, we could remove the old RP law from the game...?

[House Spencer]

Just for clarity’s sake we recognise the new RP law only.

So does he need to overturn or doesn't he?

The old RP law is invalid and unrecognised, and the new law is the opposite. The old one should be removed from any official lists etc, the new one is A-okay. We had a discussion and for clarity's purpose we now think it's fine not to overturn the original one formally just for the sake of moving things along. If that makes sense. If you want, we could remove the old RP law from the game...?

Please explain how now the Moderation says it is invalid but before the Moderation was saying it was valid.

[Occam]

The old RP law is invalid and unrecognised, and the new law is the opposite. The old one should be removed from any official lists etc, the new one is A-okay. We had a discussion and for clarity's purpose we now think it's fine not to overturn the original one formally just for the sake of moving things along. If that makes sense. If you want, we could remove the old RP law from the game...?

Please explain how now the Moderation says it is invalid but before the Moderation was saying it was valid.

I'm with Spencer on this one. I'm starting to get the feeling that we reached a point where even Moderators aren't quite sure what the rules are. This looks more like decisionism* than arbitration based on rules and facts. That may be the best option available here, I don't know. But if so, it needs to be acknowledged and we have to ask why and how we got there.

Regards
Occam

* Quoting Wikipedia: "According to decisionism, it is not the content of the decision, but rather the fact that it is a decision made by the proper authority, or by using a correct method, which determines its validity."

[cm9777]

The old RP law is invalid and unrecognised, and the new law is the opposite. The old one should be removed from any official lists etc, the new one is A-okay. We had a discussion and for clarity's purpose we now think it's fine not to overturn the original one formally just for the sake of moving things along. If that makes sense. If you want, we could remove the old RP law from the game...?

Please explain how now the Moderation says it is invalid but before the Moderation was saying it was valid.

I'm with Spencer on this one. I'm starting to get the feeling that we reached a point where even Moderators aren't quite sure what the rules are. This looks more like decisionism* than arbitration based on rules and facts. That may be the best option available here, I don't know. But if so, it needs to be acknowledged and we have to ask why and how we got there.

Regards
Occam

* Quoting Wikipedia: "According to decisionism, it is not the content of the decision, but rather the fact that it is a decision made by the proper authority, or by using a correct method, which determines its validity."

While I don’t necessarily agree that it this was the case, I think I can understand why that perception arose. For the sake of clarity I think what Lewis said should be done. I think we can consider this when we do our rewrite. Something to take into account for next time.

[House Spencer]

While I don’t necessarily agree that it this was the case, I think I can understand why that perception arose. For the sake of clarity I think what Lewis said should be done. I think we can consider this when we do our rewrite. Something to take into account for next time.

This has made me a lot of trouble so could Moderation explain why now they are saying that RP Law was invalid but before they were saying it was valid? If it was invalid then why earlier did C7779 pronounce his own RP Law was VALID?

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=576058

"Legislation excluding foreign policy matters will only be effective within the territory of the Free Republic due to the autonomy of the regions."

Is this legit? If so, how do we set the laws for the other regions?

As Far as I'm aware. Its fair enough to do this as the New Jelbanian Nation is a Confederation. To set laws for other regions, you'd have to pass an rp bill that reversed this.

[lewiselder1]

While I don’t necessarily agree that it this was the case, I think I can understand why that perception arose. For the sake of clarity I think what Lewis said should be done. I think we can consider this when we do our rewrite. Something to take into account for next time.

This has made me a lot of trouble so could Moderation explain why now they are saying that RP Law was invalid but before they were saying it was valid? If it was invalid then why earlier did C7779 pronounce his own RP Law was VALID?

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=576058

"Legislation excluding foreign policy matters will only be effective within the territory of the Free Republic due to the autonomy of the regions."

Is this legit? If so, how do we set the laws for the other regions?

As Far as I'm aware. Its fair enough to do this as the New Jelbanian Nation is a Confederation. To set laws for other regions, you'd have to pass an rp bill that reversed this.

For clarity; even if it’s not necessarily 100% rule correct, this is the best path in our eyes just to be able to move forward practically assuming that nobody is harmed by the old one being deemed invalid. If you see what I mean