Particracy Forum

Yolo04 wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=596228

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

These are mainly monarchical laws and executive laws

We’ll take a look.

Auditorii wrote: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.

With respect, the impression I am left with is that GRC/Moderation has been obfuscating and internally passing the buck around for over a month(!) and is now essentially leaving behind a mess for somebody else to have to sort out later.

Does GRC/Moderation appreciate that it is a recipe for potential confusion and problems to leave a RP law listed in a nation when the RP law in question was not introduced according to the rules and is of dubious validity? Would GRC/Moderation be happy for everybody else in the community to follow this same example?

BTW, my intention is not to single out Audtorii. I can see clearly enough that despite RL time pressures, he makes more effort to be responsive than most of the other GRC/Moderation members and is probably doing his best. This is a general problem with how GRC/Moderation works as a whole, and in particular, it would seem, about how the GRC and Moderation work together with these confused, overlapping areas of responsibility.

Auditorii wrote: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.

Okay...do you guys appreciate that this may come across as a bit of a vague/confused response for a player to receive? Again, I'm not pointing the finger at Auditorii because this obviously goes beyond just him, but this seems to me to highlight a deficiency in communication and co-operation between Moderation and the GRC and/or a general structural confusion in roles.

I generally agree that communication could be better and I think we've striven to improve it. I think it has improved but sometimes these things happen. With that being said, if the GRC were able to, we'd naturally handle moving/removing RP related threads but alas, we don't have that power so its a split duty. To put it plainly, the GRC handles the actual RP-related matter while the administration of such moves, removals, etc are Moderation tasks. I agree theres an overlap and ultimately the goal to make sure one handles one and the other handles the other. I think as players get better understanding of the rules and we continue to flush out random problems that inevitably pop-up, we'll continue to get more feedback and player responses.

As for your second question, indeed. It is vague because the issue should have be relayed to the GRC. The way I like to think of it that the GRC is the standard court whereas Moderation is the Appeals part of the court. Issues should generally be brought before us and referred to us prior to Moderation. Moderation should be the place where issues related to RP that we cannot come to an agreement on are passed to. Unfortunately, it appears, this situation was where a player went directly to Moderation and Moderation, I believe in an effort to make sure the issue didn't linger, answered.

As a note, I think that the forums sometimes get neglected in some respects due to the rise of Discord and other messaging platforms. While it isn't an excuse it's definitely a factor.

With that, I'd like to avoid cluttering this thread so if you wanna continue to chat, you're welcome to ask me via PM or on Discord.

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=596676

This bill intends to illegalize and prohibit all anti-socialist and pro-capitalist parties in Dorvik. The bill itself goes more into detail.

The bill itself:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=596457
RP justification and it's background can be found here (The Sentinel Act Passed But... Is It Good? and basically all the articles since the EDP and PAP came to power):
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7533&start=350#wrap
It's important to remember that this bill is not only a result of the immediate justification or the justification written in the bill but also a result of the 17 years long Socialist regime and previous RP background.

The bill bans all; nationalist, monarchist, conservative, capitalist, and fascist movements.

You can see mentioned in the bill how it's inspired by the Implementation of the Nationaler Sicherheitsgesetz in Metzistische Republik Dundorf (Metzist Republic of Dundorf).

Auditorii wrote:

Yolo04 wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=596228

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

These are mainly monarchical laws and executive laws

We’ll take a look.

Hey, still haven’t received confirmation on these laws

Yolo04 wrote:

Auditorii wrote:

Yolo04 wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=596228

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

These are mainly monarchical laws and executive laws

We’ll take a look.

Hey, still haven’t received confirmation on these laws

Your laws are approved.

terminallyGrumpy wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=596676

This bill intends to illegalize and prohibit all anti-socialist and pro-capitalist parties in Dorvik. The bill itself goes more into detail.

We'll get back to you shortly.

SheikhOlorin wrote:The bill itself:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=596457
RP justification and it's background can be found here (The Sentinel Act Passed But... Is It Good? and basically all the articles since the EDP and PAP came to power):
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7533&start=350#wrap
It's important to remember that this bill is not only a result of the immediate justification or the justification written in the bill but also a result of the 17 years long Socialist regime and previous RP background.

The bill bans all; nationalist, monarchist, conservative, capitalist, and fascist movements.

You can see mentioned in the bill how it's inspired by the Implementation of the Nationaler Sicherheitsgesetz in Metzistische Republik Dundorf (Metzist Republic of Dundorf).

We'll take a look and get back to you.

terminallyGrumpy wrote:http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=596676

This bill intends to illegalize and prohibit all anti-socialist and pro-capitalist parties in Dorvik. The bill itself goes more into detail.

After consideration by the GRC and Moderation, we’d like to see some more RP regarding the crackdown and overall push to outlaw such parties. One great example is what Dundorf and thefalloutfan aka Elizabeth has a great example of what it takes to make a one party state.

SheikhOlorin wrote:The bill itself:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=596457
RP justification and it's background can be found here (The Sentinel Act Passed But... Is It Good? and basically all the articles since the EDP and PAP came to power):
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7533&start=350#wrap
It's important to remember that this bill is not only a result of the immediate justification or the justification written in the bill but also a result of the 17 years long Socialist regime and previous RP background.

The bill bans all; nationalist, monarchist, conservative, capitalist, and fascist movements.

You can see mentioned in the bill how it's inspired by the Implementation of the Nationaler Sicherheitsgesetz in Metzistische Republik Dundorf (Metzist Republic of Dundorf).

As mentioned above, Jakania is in a better position than Dorvik in terms of such a law. The GRC and Moderation would like to see more RP in regards to such actions.