Requests: RP Laws [RPC]

Submit your requests on various areas of the game.

Moderator: RP Committee

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Polites » Mon Aug 06, 2018 2:37 pm

House Spencer wrote:"OOC: This is a constitutional Act passed with a two thirds majority. The same majority is necessary to amend it."

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=577692

rules wrote: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.


Good catch. This really depends on whether this counts as an RP Law or not. Technically, many parts of that bill that are covered by game mechanics, such as the names of regions or the national sport, do actually require a 2/3 majority to amend, but those are not covered by rules regarding RP Laws. If the player in question wants to have the description of the bill protected as an RP Law, they need to comply with current rules in section 6.e., so they cannot claim that the bill requires 2/3 majority to be repealed. So for this reason this bill is not considered an RP Law and its description will not be protected by Moderation, but will be treated as a regular constitutional bill. As such it is not against the game rules, but will not be protected by Moderation either.
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Occam » Mon Aug 06, 2018 5:10 pm

Polites wrote:
House Spencer wrote:"OOC: This is a constitutional Act passed with a two thirds majority. The same majority is necessary to amend it."

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=577692

rules wrote: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.


Good catch. This really depends on whether this counts as an RP Law or not. Technically, many parts of that bill that are covered by game mechanics, such as the names of regions or the national sport, do actually require a 2/3 majority to amend, but those are not covered by rules regarding RP Laws. If the player in question wants to have the description of the bill protected as an RP Law, they need to comply with current rules in section 6.e., so they cannot claim that the bill requires 2/3 majority to be repealed. So for this reason this bill is not considered an RP Law and its description will not be protected by Moderation, but will be treated as a regular constitutional bill. As such it is not against the game rules, but will not be protected by Moderation either.


So, for clarification, in cases like this the whole RP-(part of the)law is invalid, not just the 2/3 condition?
Permanently gone.
Occam
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:45 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Polites » Tue Aug 07, 2018 8:59 am

Occam wrote:So, for clarification, in cases like this the whole RP-(part of the)law is invalid, not just the 2/3 condition?


Not really, just that this does not qualify as an RP law, strictly speaking. RP Laws cover aspects of the game that are difficult or impossible to implement through game mechanics. But bill descriptions, outlining how exactly a specific law variable is to be interpreted, do not generally count as RP laws. In this case the bill description outlines how the variables of this law apply in practice, but the description doesn't introduce anything new to the game that isn't already covered by said variables. For instance Section 1 details how the "Government policy concerning granting citizenship" and the "Privileges of nobility (if nobility is recognised by the government)" variables are to be understood - the HoS is elected by "all property owners". The titles of the HoS and HoG is already implemented through other variables, which covers Sections 1. and 2. Section 5. is broad enough that it could apply to practically every law where "the local government handles this" is an option.

So what I am saying is that this bill is perfectly legal, but it does not require the protection granted to RP Laws under the rules, nor does it qualify for such protection. It would be possible to pass a more comprehensive RP law outlining more specific responsibilities granted to the "Confederal States", including who exactly is in charge of RPing them, and that would be protected by Moderation if passed legally. As for the question whether an RP Law incorrectly detailing the procedures for repeal will be entirely invalidated, that is ultimately under Moderation discretion. We wouldn't invalidate such a law if there's no complaint and it appears this was a good-faith mistake rather than an attempt to mislead players, and is there is we'd rather suggest that the player(s) in question pass a new one if possible.
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Aquinas » Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:01 pm

Polites wrote:
Occam wrote:So, for clarification, in cases like this the whole RP-(part of the)law is invalid, not just the 2/3 condition?


Not really, just that this does not qualify as an RP law, strictly speaking. RP Laws cover aspects of the game that are difficult or impossible to implement through game mechanics. But bill descriptions, outlining how exactly a specific law variable is to be interpreted, do not generally count as RP laws. In this case the bill description outlines how the variables of this law apply in practice, but the description doesn't introduce anything new to the game that isn't already covered by said variables. For instance Section 1 details how the "Government policy concerning granting citizenship" and the "Privileges of nobility (if nobility is recognised by the government)" variables are to be understood - the HoS is elected by "all property owners". The titles of the HoS and HoG is already implemented through other variables, which covers Sections 1. and 2. Section 5. is broad enough that it could apply to practically every law where "the local government handles this" is an option.

So what I am saying is that this bill is perfectly legal, but it does not require the protection granted to RP Laws under the rules, nor does it qualify for such protection. It would be possible to pass a more comprehensive RP law outlining more specific responsibilities granted to the "Confederal States", including who exactly is in charge of RPing them, and that would be protected by Moderation if passed legally. As for the question whether an RP Law incorrectly detailing the procedures for repeal will be entirely invalidated, that is ultimately under Moderation discretion. We wouldn't invalidate such a law if there's no complaint and it appears this was a good-faith mistake rather than an attempt to mislead players, and is there is we'd rather suggest that the player(s) in question pass a new one if possible.


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.

The RP law area of the rules would benefit from a review, in my judgement. For reasons stated near the beginning of this thread, I personally believe it would make sense for constitutional RP laws to be protected by the usual 2/3rds requirement.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Polites » Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:28 pm

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. 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, since that's what practically everyone assumes "head of state" and "head of government" mean, afaik. Section 2 seems to me the least controversial aspect of this bill. 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.
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby House Spencer » Tue Aug 07, 2018 3:43 pm

Polites sorry okay but I'm not understanding this much could you explain all this again but more clearly, please & thank you
House Spencer
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:42 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Polites » Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:19 pm

Lol, sorry if I've been obscure with this.

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. As it is not an RP Law it does not fall under the rules governing RP Laws, so it will not receive any specific protection or enforcement from Moderation. The part of the description that mentions the 2/3 majority necessary for amending the bill is considered to apply strictly to the game mechanics aspects of the law that do require a 2/3 majority to amend, such as the name of the Head of State or the capital city. In other words that 2/3 majority thing is basically redundant. On the other hand there isn't anything illegal about the bill in question. We're considering the bill description to be an outline of what the bill's proposals accomplish in practice, no different from any other bill description.
Polites
 
Posts: 3198
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:48 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby House Spencer » Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:41 pm

Section 1

The Great Jelbek Confederation shall be led by a Mrjkai (Protector) elected directly by all property owners.

Section 2
The Mrjkai shall be the head of state and charged with conducting foreign and defence policy of the Confederation. The Wrntusrljikai (Forward Souled Person) shall be charged with conducting all domestic policy particularly administration of Confederal territories.

Section 3
The Tribal Areas shall be ruled directly by the Confederal government.

Section 4
The capital shall be Rklemjistad or any other city which shall fall under the direct authority of the Confederal government.

Section 5
Confederal States shall possess full authority on all internal affairs (except those assigned to the Confederal government ) which they may delegate in any area to the Confederal Government. Confederal States also possess a limited and Confederally regulated right to conduct external affairs.


OOC: This is a constitutional Act passed with a two thirds majority. The same majority is necessary to amend it.


So all this can be basically ignored, okay?
House Spencer
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2018 2:42 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Occam » Tue Aug 07, 2018 9:38 pm

I agree that the 2/3 clause was almost certainly an honest mistake, so I was a bit surprised that it would invalidate the whole bill. Thank you for the clarification. Though, I would have considered section 5 to be the most important in sense of RP. It seems to me that this is intended as the legal acceptance/implementation of the occupation regimes in parts of Jelbania.


Regards
Occam
Permanently gone.
Occam
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:45 pm

Re: RP Law Query Thread

Postby Aquinas » Tue Aug 07, 2018 10:01 pm

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.
User avatar
Aquinas
 
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:28 am
Location: UK

PreviousNext

Return to Requests

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests