Particracy Forum

Amazeroth wrote:

Snej wrote:How can this bill (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=394658) when there is still conflicting legislation pending in the legislature?

Is it a bug, or a moderation decision?

Is what a bug or a moderator decision? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

My apologies, it seems I was a little hasty when I made my last post and left out the most important bit.

I was wondering how that bill could have been moved to a vote when at that time there was still conflicting legislation in the legislature and the treaty page said that it could not be ratified because of that conflicting legislation.

Snej wrote:

Amazeroth wrote:

Snej wrote:How can this bill (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=394658) when there is still conflicting legislation pending in the legislature?

Is it a bug, or a moderation decision?

Is what a bug or a moderator decision? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

My apologies, it seems I was a little hasty when I made my last post and left out the most important bit.

I was wondering how that bill could have been moved to a vote when at that time there was still conflicting legislation in the legislature and the treaty page said that it could not be ratified because of that conflicting legislation.

If there really is conflicting legislation, or if there was before this post, point me to it. It will be a bug, as this wasn't my decision, and I'm pretty sure that I couldn't do that even if I wanted to.

Player: http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=11266
Bill: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... 43&vote=no

This player appears to have introduced a bill while his party is inactivated. Given the demise of the Pax Cynica, is such an action now allowed?

Reddy wrote:Player: http://classic.particracy.net/viewparty ... tyid=11266
Bill: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... 43&vote=no

This player appears to have introduced a bill while his party is inactivated. Given the demise of the Pax Cynica, is such an action now allowed?

No. I've locked the account and removed the bill.

Snej wrote:

Amazeroth wrote:

Snej wrote:How can this bill (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=394658) when there is still conflicting legislation pending in the legislature?

My apologies, it seems I was a little hasty when I made my last post and left out the most important bit.

I was wondering how that bill could have been moved to a vote when at that time there was still conflicting legislation in the legislature and the treaty page said that it could not be ratified because of that conflicting legislation.

If there really is conflicting legislation, or if there was before this post, point me to it. It will be a bug, as this wasn't my decision, and I'm pretty sure that I couldn't do that even if I wanted to.

It's the same again. This ratification (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=394658) should not be possible because it is in conflict with this bill (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=395811), which I must admit I have made partly because I wished to stall ratification.

I was surprised, however, that I was able to bring another bill with the same content (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=395865) to a vote while the ratification vote was in progress. I thought that wouldn't be possible either.

Snej wrote:
It's the same again. This ratification (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=394658) should not be possible because it is in conflict with this bill (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=395811), which I must admit I have made partly because I wished to stall ratification.

I was surprised, however, that I was able to bring another bill with the same content (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=395865) to a vote while the ratification vote was in progress. I thought that wouldn't be possible either.

Because there is no conflict (yet). So far, Tukarali's laws are in compliance with the treaty, which is why the ratification process could be started. Likewise, since the treaty is not ratified yet, there is nothing to hinder the voting on bills that don't comply with the treaty.
So far, there's no bug yet. It will be interesting to see what happens when the different laws come into effect. Please keep me posted.

Amazeroth wrote:
Because there is no conflict (yet). So far, Tukarali's laws are in compliance with the treaty, which is why the ratification process could be started. Likewise, since the treaty is not ratified yet, there is nothing to hinder the voting on bills that don't comply with the treaty.
So far, there's no bug yet. It will be interesting to see what happens when the different laws come into effect. Please keep me posted.

If the treaty page says (when logged in to my party): "Your nation can currently not ratify this treat because you have pending legislation which conflicts with this treaty.

- Programme for a Local Health Service, 3574"

then I understand it as there being a conflict. And as far as I remember, there were situations when I couldn't propose certain things because they were in conflict with a treaty already being voted on, and there were cases when I couldn't bring a treaty to a vote because there was legislation in the voting process which would have brought the nation into conflict with the treaty.

However, there's probably not going to be any interesting development in this case, the treaty was rejected, and my own bill is unlikely to pass either.

Might be a bug then - I'll inform Wouter.

What's the policy on semi-inactive users? That is, users who log in on a once-a-week basis, but don't vote on bills, RP, or introduce legislation?

templestar wrote:What's the policy on semi-inactive users? That is, users who log in on a once-a-week basis, but don't vote on bills, RP, or introduce legislation?

Everybody should be forgiven for missing a vote every now and then, but I think I am in the majority when I say I find it irritating and disruptive to the gameflow when it goes on for a prolonged period. There are no rules against it, but this thread may interest you, if you've not seen it already: Time limit for deactivating inactive parties