Particracy Forum

Why has this still not been addressed?

It now appears Auditorii has left Kafuristan, but left the RP law hanging there in the OOC: RP Laws of Kafuristan reference bill, looking as though it is binding when in fact it has not been approved on the forum, as the Game Rules now require.

Respectfully, is it too much to expect that GRC/Moderation members bother to honour the same rules they write for everybody else and expect everybody else to follow? I have to note that this is not the first time this kind of thing has happened.

Aquinas wrote:Why has this still not been addressed?

It now appears Auditorii has left Kafuristan, but left the RP law hanging there in the OOC: RP Laws of Kafuristan reference bill, looking as though it is binding when in fact it has not been approved on the forum, as the Game Rules now require.

Respectfully, is it too much to expect that GRC/Moderation members bother to honour the same rules they write for everybody else and expect everybody else to follow? I have to note that this is not the first time this kind of thing has happened.

This is a matter of the GRC and i will revert it to them

Mr.God wrote:

Aquinas wrote:Why has this still not been addressed?

It now appears Auditorii has left Kafuristan, but left the RP law hanging there in the OOC: RP Laws of Kafuristan reference bill, looking as though it is binding when in fact it has not been approved on the forum, as the Game Rules now require.

Respectfully, is it too much to expect that GRC/Moderation members bother to honour the same rules they write for everybody else and expect everybody else to follow? I have to note that this is not the first time this kind of thing has happened.

This is a matter of the GRC and i will revert it to them

It is more than 2 weeks since this issue was reported, and the GRC has still not addressed it.

Aquinas wrote:

Mr.God wrote:

Aquinas wrote:Why has this still not been addressed?

It now appears Auditorii has left Kafuristan, but left the RP law hanging there in the OOC: RP Laws of Kafuristan reference bill, looking as though it is binding when in fact it has not been approved on the forum, as the Game Rules now require.

Respectfully, is it too much to expect that GRC/Moderation members bother to honour the same rules they write for everybody else and expect everybody else to follow? I have to note that this is not the first time this kind of thing has happened.

This is a matter of the GRC and i will revert it to them

It is more than 2 weeks since this issue was reported, and the GRC has still not addressed it.

So, any update on this?

Also, there is an interesting RP law being voted on in Hulstria at the moment which is worth checking out: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=595987

@Aquinas - Since I have since departed from Kafuristan those laws would not be binding anymore unless the players there decided to re-vote on them. My apologies, originally I had asked another member of the GRC to review this since I wanted to avoid a conflict of interest and that player has since stepped down from his role. I apologize for the lack of activity on my part but I did it so I could avoid any sort of CoI.

Auditorii wrote:@Aquinas - Since I have since departed from Kafuristan those laws would not be binding anymore unless the players there decided to re-vote on them. My apologies, originally I had asked another member of the GRC to review this since I wanted to avoid a conflict of interest and that player has since stepped down from his role. I apologize for the lack of activity on my part but I did it so I could avoid any sort of CoI.

Can I clarify that it is not an automatic assumption that RP laws become non-binding once the player who created them has departed?

Also, would you agree it would now make sense for your RP law reference bill in Kafuristan to be deleted, cleared out or edited as appropriate? Otherwise, obviously, incoming players may be misled into thinking that RP law is still valid.

I saw mentioned on the rules page that it is possible to enact RP laws to create One-Party states (section 5d).

I would be interested in doing so, and I believe I have significant RP justification to do so. Examples of said justification can be found on the wiki pages for my party, its leader and various newspaper sources.

My intention is to effectively have a few years under a one-party state, engaging in a war of aggression and effectively being crash-tackled by the international community and be forced to revert to a democracy. Obviously, there's room for a different method of the system failing etc., but I would like to see if this is possible, or if I should continue as a de facto (even if not IC de jure) one party state.

*bump*

Aquinas to answer your first question it’s a grey area, it’s safe to assume that if they wish to continue them they have a right to but otherwise generally, with the inactivation of a player that those laws become a lot less binding on the newer players. Laws that have a more generic, broad stroke such as names of ministries, defense, bank names, etc would be upheld by the GRC. Others such a granting dictatorial powers are more or less pushed to the wayside unless picked up by current players.

Yes it would make sense but that is on the players there and Moderation to handle, not the GRC.

Pigeonvalley, I apologize for the delay. Mr. God just informed me that he approved such laws; the GRC will review them but they are approved pending any issues that may arise from our review.

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=596228

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=596273

These are mainly monarchical laws and executive laws