About this:
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=9050&p=166671#p166661I would like ask to Rob if it is the case to point out the attention to such changements within the games. The issue is: laws can be easily changed into the game, often after every elections can be great changements, bills after bills which can change this or that law and often players doesn't plan to play as single-party nation (simply there are no other player in that nation). Thus I think for the Roleplay we should look to a general progression of RolePlay and general tendencies of the laws within the game in this or that nation to proceed with some assumption on which develop some RolePlay, and of course we should be certain of a response by part of the nation "against which" we develp a RolePlay, so that it would be interesting to partecipate to such a Role Play.
For example, about this bill
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=635725 after which you roleplayed something into the SC: I think that we cannot look at that bill as a hyperliberal or oppressive bill, but indeed as the contrary. Looking at the whole bill we can assume that the Government of Narik/Darnussia is working to improve workers conditions (previously the strike was illegal tout court).
About Rutania, I think it was excessive the interpretation of a government opposing free election. It is just skermishes between parties and probably players soon will support early elections.
I think these are too particular issues, not onlu for the Security Council, but also to develop some RolePlay. I hope I exposed well what I was thinking.