Requests: General [A]

[cm9777]

The other party in Jelbania doesn't comment on any bills. Can he be closed down for that?

Sounds harsh. I'd rather we just got rid of the dictator tactics like limiting proposal quota

Obviously as the player of the party In question I would sound biased (maybe someone else should deal with this but I’ll do what I can).

Commenting on bills is not in any way a requirement and it’s not possible for me to be inactivated for that. Regarding the proposal quota I don’t necessarily think it’s a dictator tactic but a competitive one. It has never been against the rules to do this but perhaps we can look at maybe having a proposed minimum proposal cap in the rules.

Then what exactly does the rule I quoted actually mean?

It means someone who logs in every 3 days and votes with the intent of avoiding inactivation while being very inactive themselves. We would be looking for a pattern of this happening several times before inactivating someone.

[House Spencer]

???

iv. They only log in or vote on bills every 2 days without giving a reason for any behaviour, usually attempting to dodge inactivation due to the above rules.

[cm9777]

???

iv. They only log in or vote on bills every 2 days without giving a reason for any behaviour, usually attempting to dodge inactivation due to the above rules.

The rule currently says three days. There is a draft proposal being discussed by moderation to change this to 2. For now it is three.

[EasyPeasy]

Hi,

At the moment Beluzia hasn't put in any time or effort to build a working military. It kinda exists but only in a very vague way. So as Prime Minister I wanted to reorganize the military. I am not interested in invasion or war etc and i appreciate i'd need consent and planning from other people to make that work anyway. Also I appreciate the need for heavy realism which means I wouldn't award Beluzia 800 nuclear subs and 700 stealth fighters or star wars death stars. My idea is that whatever money we do spend on our military would also cost money to maintain which then causes budgetary knock on effects. Apart from those considerations though are there any other special rules we'd need to follow?

Also, imports and exports. Is there any way to find out what our country has in terms of resources, commodities and industry or can we just agree on this via ourselves with grounded realism in the picture?

Thanks a lot.
Beluzia.

[lewiselder1]

Hi,

At the moment Beluzia hasn't put in any time or effort to build a working military. It kinda exists but only in a very vague way. So as Prime Minister I wanted to reorganize the military. I am not interested in invasion or war etc and i appreciate i'd need consent and planning from other people to make that work anyway. Also I appreciate the need for heavy realism which means I wouldn't award Beluzia 800 nuclear subs and 700 stealth fighters or star wars death stars. My idea is that whatever money we do spend on our military would also cost money to maintain which then causes budgetary knock on effects. Apart from those considerations though are there any other special rules we'd need to follow?

Also, imports and exports. Is there any way to find out what our country has in terms of resources, commodities and industry or can we just agree on this via ourselves with grounded realism in the picture?

Thanks a lot.
Beluzia.

For the first question, you’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head: just be careful with realism and not going overboard. Also, if Beluzia hasn’t opted out of the Global RP Accord, make sure you stick to the guidelines set out in the military and economic rankings drafted by the GRC (viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7929&start=0).

You will note that the GRC now does not generally consider just long lists of numbers regarding troops and equipment sufficient for an up-ranking; you’re free to make them, but as an aid to RP that shows, not tells military power, if that makes sense. You can find the more official description in that link to the rankings.

For the second question, not for the time being. Try the Wiki, but otherwise you’re free to kind of just make this up: just be reasonable and relatively realistic, again. Bear in mind the laws of your nation too I suppose: taxes, for example, and regulations.

Ultimately you don’t want to get too bogged down in numbers and making everything hyper-realistic (well, some players like to, but it’s not an expectation). So long as it’s reasonably grounded and doesn’t conflict with previous RP you’re good to go, though I always prefer RPs that show a story rather than telling us every little detail. It’s up to you though, really. It is as your name suggests easy peasy

Thanks

[EasyPeasy]

Hi,

Thanks for clarifying the stuff about the military. Very useful going forward.

I have another question this time about treaties. We have plenty of out of date treaties on our books some over 300 years old but would it be game-legal to implement an RP law putting a time limit on the legality of treaties after a set period of time beyond voting them down directly by Congress?

My intention is to ensure that long forgotten, inactive or obsolete treaties aren't just left to sit in 'storage' and a pro-active attempt is made to keep them up to date.

Here is the wording of my Treaty Expiration Act for reference:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=577184

Many thanks again,
EP.

[Occam]

Here is the wording of my Treaty Expiration Act for reference:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=577184

Article IV i) is definitely against the rules.

Upon expiration the treaty must be brought before Congress and voted down by a majority.

In particular rule 6eiii (my emphasis):

iii.An RP law must not contradict game mechanics or the game rules, or force users to act a certain way OOC. Additionally they cannot ban types of parties (without considerable RP justification) or users. RP Laws must also not force users to vote in a particular way.

[EasyPeasy]

Here is the wording of my Treaty Expiration Act for reference:
http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=577184

Article IV i) is definitely against the rules.

Upon expiration the treaty must be brought before Congress and voted down by a majority.

In particular rule 6eiii (my emphasis):

iii.An RP law must not contradict game mechanics or the game rules, or force users to act a certain way OOC. Additionally they cannot ban types of parties (without considerable RP justification) or users. RP Laws must also not force users to vote in a particular way.

Thanks for getting back so quick.

We don't want a OOC dictatorship just want to clean up treaties so i can see that as problematic. So if that passage were removed the mods would be ok with it?

Also on that point wouldn't the treaties themselves be a form of vote compulsion as you would be stopped on legal grounds by the other players changing laws in violation of the treaty?

EP.

[Occam]

Thanks for getting back so quick.

We don't want a OOC dictatorship just want to clean up treaties so i can see that as problematic. So if that passage were removed the mods would be ok with it?

Also on that point wouldn't the treaties themselves be a form of vote compulsion as you would be stopped on legal grounds by the other players changing laws in violation of the treaty?

EP.

I share your feelings regarding outdated and unnecessary treaties. Many nations have so many treaties, you can hardly find the few that actually matter. I'm not a moderator, so I can't tell you whether the rest of your bill would pass muster. But it would create a problem because you would end up having treaties in your list that are void.
As to treaties enforcing certain behavior, when game mechanics laws are part of a treaty, game mechanics simply won't let you propose the options that would violate the treaty. If it's RP parts, you would end up with laws violating a treaty. This is not specific to treaties, since you could just as easily have two contradictory RP-Laws. This poses a host of difficult questions - in real life as much as in the game - when two laws are incompatible, which one is valid? The older one? The newer one? Is there some other hierarchy of laws? Or are they both valid (most would probably deny that this is possible, personally I belief it is)? Unless you have an RP-Law that determines what to do in such situations you'll end up in a form of legal limbo.

Regards,
Occam

[Aquinas]

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363&start=3020#p137942

Yo, this bill's author is not in Kalistan anymore, and I'd rather not have it affect positions, if possible.

http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill. ... lid=577942

Thank you in advance,
Docula.

I noticed Moderation deleted this bill when it was in the voting stage. Deleting bills whilst they are in voting is very unusual. During my period, this would only have been done if there was a serious enough problem with the bill itself, such as it was proposing to change the name of the legislature to "Mickey Mouse" or something like that.

Obviously, if bills created by inactive parties can now be deleted not because they're clogging up the debate section, but because they're in voting and player doesn't want it to affect their in-game positions, then this will open up quite a new dynamic to the game...

Could we have a few words of explanation on this?