Just checking whether Lourenne's CP update request ended up getting overlooked...
Moderator: RP Committee
Aquinas wrote:http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6369&start=680#p139686
Just checking whether Lourenne's CP update request ended up getting overlooked...
Govenor12 wrote:The party http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=24628 was inactivated but after the inactivation voted on various bills:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=582704
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... id=5829324
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=582951
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=582970
What are the rules on that?
cm9777 wrote:Govenor12 wrote:The party http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=24628 was inactivated but after the inactivation voted on various bills:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=582704
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... id=5829324
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=582951
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=582970
What are the rules on that?
If I understand correctly, the party in question probably voted on those bills before they were inactivated but obviously those bills stayed in voting meaning the vote of that inactive party is still recorded. I don't think this can occur any other way (let me know if this isn't the case). In this case there is unfortunately very little that can be done on it. If its some sort of renaming bill we can certainly rule it invalid but for standard proposals there is no way to undo it apart from passing another bill.
Aquinas wrote:cm9777 wrote:Govenor12 wrote:The party http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=24628 was inactivated but after the inactivation voted on various bills:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=582704
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... id=5829324
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=582951
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=582970
What are the rules on that?
If I understand correctly, the party in question probably voted on those bills before they were inactivated but obviously those bills stayed in voting meaning the vote of that inactive party is still recorded. I don't think this can occur any other way (let me know if this isn't the case). In this case there is unfortunately very little that can be done on it. If its some sort of renaming bill we can certainly rule it invalid but for standard proposals there is no way to undo it apart from passing another bill.
Please could you explain the bolded/underlined part? Is the implication here that renaming bills may be considered invalid if one of the parties inactivates shortly after voting for it?
cm9777 wrote:Yes that is correct.
Aquinas wrote:cm9777 wrote:Yes that is correct.
This approach to renaming requests is not explained at all in the Game Rules, and this is taking a different approach to how things have been done previously. Going forward, if this is continued, I think we will find this will confuse and irritate players, because obviously it is counter-intuitive to assume that just because a party disbands, that somehow means the votes it cast just before it was disbanded don't count. To offer a UK parallel, this is like saying that because an MP has resigned his seat in the House of Commons, his most recent House of Commons votes should be "voided" - even if that means retrospectively changing the outcome on the bills he voted on.
Could you clarify in more detail what approach Moderation is following on this? For example, when Moderation receives a renaming request, does Moderation routinely investigate to check whether the outcome of the vote would have been changed if you deduct the votes of parties which have now disbanded? Or is Moderation only doing this when players bring this issue to attention?
On a somewhat related matter, could you also clarify whether Moderation is still following its previous precedent of deleting bills which are currently in the voting stage if the party which created them inactivates shortly afterwards? Again, this is an approach which is counter-intuitive, makes little sense and is likely to create issues going forward.
SavelyYuriev wrote:A few questions:
1. Is it legal for a party to "out-law" other parties?
2. What happens when a party breaks the constitution and they're the leading party?
3. Is it legal for a party to turn a nation into a dictatorship?
The particular bill/nation in question:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=583830
http://classic.particracy.net/viewnation.php?nationid=42
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests