Re: (Dismissed) WA Roleplay Guide Act

Zackalantis Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:14 pm

Can the author please explain Article 5. The Delegate from the UKZ has not fully understood it.
Thank You.

Kaevi Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:21 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
Texania wrote:Could we possibly extend the discussion period for this bill? I feel like this has potential.

There is no problem with that. Since you and Ireland has already invoked the extension. I believe Speaker?

Debate will go into the second term upon expiration. See first page for details.

United States of Europe Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:13 pm

We do not agree with the definition given to topics in "Modern Age". It is really too strict a definition, in fact, not respectable. Would block virtually any type of technological progress, in fact many civil and military technologies used today by various nations simply could not exist. For this reason I propose to extend the term of "Modern Age" in all of the technologies that could occur over the next hundred years, although in real life are just simple theories or projects. And I would say to eliminate the absurd rule on the images, in fact, would force the players to unnecessary research efforts.

Great Eurussia Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:03 am

United States of Europe wrote:
We do not agree with the definition given to topics in "Modern Age". It is really too strict a definition, in fact, not respectable. Would block virtually any type of technological progress, in fact many civil and military technologies used today by various nations simply could not exist. For this reason I propose to extend the term of "Modern Age" in all of the technologies that could occur over the next hundred years, although in real life are just simple theories or projects. And I would say to eliminate the absurd rule on the images, in fact, would force the players to unnecessary research efforts.

That is why it was limited to 50 years? Because no one really knows what are those technologies for the next 100 years. That's why we need to be precise or there are proven research proving such future technology.

New Tarajan Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:25 am

The problem is that nobody knows even the technologies which will be available in 50 years....

Great Eurussia Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:15 am

New Tarajan wrote:The problem is that nobody knows even the technologies which will be available in 50 years....

That is why it says that there must be a proven research that proves that a technology will materialize in a particular time in the future.

New Tarajan Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:53 am

But this is impossible for many of them. Progress, often, cannot be precognized.

If I played NT exploiting its shale gas resources only two years ago, that would have been considered Future Tech, because it was deemed impossible to reach those deposits. Now, instead, everybody is extracting shale gas.

Great Eurussia Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:26 am

New Tarajan wrote:But this is impossible for many of them. Progress, often, cannot be precognized.

If I played NT exploiting its shale gas resources only two years ago, that would have been considered Future Tech, because it was deemed impossible to reach those deposits. Now, instead, everybody is extracting shale gas.

No that is possible. Why? Because shale gas is being utilized today already. And it doesn't necessarily mean that if you just discovered it 2 years ago (rp) doesn mean it is covered by the 50 years thing from today's tech.

Ireland Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:28 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:But this is impossible for many of them. Progress, often, cannot be precognized.

If I played NT exploiting its shale gas resources only two years ago, that would have been considered Future Tech, because it was deemed impossible to reach those deposits. Now, instead, everybody is extracting shale gas.

No that is possible. Why? Because shale gas is being utilized today already. And it doesn't necessarily mean that if you just discovered it 2 years ago (rp) doesn mean it is covered by the 50 years thing from today's tech.

i think we can thell the difference between modern and future tech so i say just take that bit out

Great Eurussia Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:55 am

Ireland wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:But this is impossible for many of them. Progress, often, cannot be precognized.

If I played NT exploiting its shale gas resources only two years ago, that would have been considered Future Tech, because it was deemed impossible to reach those deposits. Now, instead, everybody is extracting shale gas.

No that is possible. Why? Because shale gas is being utilized today already. And it doesn't necessarily mean that if you just discovered it 2 years ago (rp) doesn mean it is covered by the 50 years thing from today's tech.
i think we can thell the difference between modern and future tech so i say just take that bit out

Huh?

Ireland Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:56 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
Ireland wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:But this is impossible for many of them. Progress, often, cannot be precognized.

If I played NT exploiting its shale gas resources only two years ago, that would have been considered Future Tech, because it was deemed impossible to reach those deposits. Now, instead, everybody is extracting shale gas.

No that is possible. Why? Because shale gas is being utilized today already. And it doesn't necessarily mean that if you just discovered it 2 years ago (rp) doesn mean it is covered by the 50 years thing from today's tech.
i think we can thell the difference between modern and future tech so i say just take that bit out

Huh?

Im not going to waste my time to explain something to you again Eurussia

Great Eurussia Thu Jun 05, 2014 10:14 am

Ireland wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
Ireland wrote:
Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:But this is impossible for many of them. Progress, often, cannot be precognized.

If I played NT exploiting its shale gas resources only two years ago, that would have been considered Future Tech, because it was deemed impossible to reach those deposits. Now, instead, everybody is extracting shale gas.

No that is possible. Why? Because shale gas is being utilized today already. And it doesn't necessarily mean that if you just discovered it 2 years ago (rp) doesn mean it is covered by the 50 years thing from today's tech.
i think we can thell the difference between modern and future tech so i say just take that bit out

Huh?
Im not going to waste my time to explain something to you again Eurussia

Then I would just simply say that the proposal is sufficient enough to guide us all in our RP.

Zackalantis Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:54 pm

Zackalantis wrote:Can the author please explain Article 5. The Delegate from the UKZ has not fully understood it.
Thank You.

We are still awaiting explanation of this clause.

New Tarajan Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:00 pm

Great Eurussia wrote:
New Tarajan wrote:But this is impossible for many of them. Progress, often, cannot be precognized.

If I played NT exploiting its shale gas resources only two years ago, that would have been considered Future Tech, because it was deemed impossible to reach those deposits. Now, instead, everybody is extracting shale gas.

No that is possible. Why? Because shale gas is being utilized today already. And it doesn't necessarily mean that if you just discovered it 2 years ago (rp) doesn mean it is covered by the 50 years thing from today's tech.

You're loosing my point. TODAY it is being used, ok. But two years ago? What if I tried to precognize its use two years ago?

I'll make another example: me and Antanares both use military mechs. We are sure that in fifty years they'll be available, you are not. Who of us is right?

Kaevi Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:25 am

The second debate term has expired without a petition to renew and the voting session will now begin. The voting session will last three days, ending at 00:00 GMT on June 11, 2014. All parliament members are encouraged to voice their final vote of agree, abstain, or against within the limited time period.

Kaevi Sun Jun 08, 2014 10:27 am

AGREE

Kaevi Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:54 am

This proposal did not reach the necessary threshold of votes within the time period. One vote was submitted out of the eleven (now eight) required for a proposal to pass. This proposal has been dismissed for insufficient votes.

The Speaker declares this proposal as "Dismissed".

Ireland Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:36 am

Kaevi wrote:
This proposal did not reach the necessary threshold of votes within the time period. One vote was submitted out of the eleven required for a proposal to pass. This proposal has been dismissed for insufficient votes.

The Speaker declares this proposal as "Dismissed".

Hold on. you do realize what has been going on in the region right. And plus it can no longer be 11 votes as 3 or 4 MP's left. I ask for you just to put this on hold until activity is up.

Kaevi Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:15 pm

Ireland wrote:
Kaevi wrote:
This proposal did not reach the necessary threshold of votes within the time period. One vote was submitted out of the eleven required for a proposal to pass. This proposal has been dismissed for insufficient votes.

The Speaker declares this proposal as "Dismissed".
Hold on. you do realize what has been going on in the region right. And plus it can no longer be 11 votes as 3 or 4 MP's left. I ask for you just to put this on hold.

What unfortunate timing. As much as I would love to give everyone time to vote, I am constitutionally barred from extending the voting time as it must last three days. War or peace, time must go on. We have already raised this issue in first attempt of the International Interventions Regulation Act so please look there. It would be a good idea for the parties to fill their vacant seats, unless the court finds that having vacant seats is acceptable.

Ireland Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:21 pm

Kaevi wrote:
Ireland wrote:
Kaevi wrote:
This proposal did not reach the necessary threshold of votes within the time period. One vote was submitted out of the eleven required for a proposal to pass. This proposal has been dismissed for insufficient votes.

The Speaker declares this proposal as "Dismissed".
Hold on. you do realize what has been going on in the region right. And plus it can no longer be 11 votes as 3 or 4 MP's left. I ask for you just to put this on hold.

What unfortunate timing. As much as I would love to give everyone time to vote, I am constitutionally barred from extending the voting time as it must last three days. War or peace, time must go on. We have already raised this issue in first attempt of the International Interventions Regulation Act so please look there. It would be a good idea for the parties to fill their vacant seats, unless the court finds that having vacant seats is acceptable.

There is no one to fill the Vacant seat for CDIP.

Kaevi Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:23 pm

Ireland wrote:
There is no one to fill the Vacant seat for CDIP.

I'll contact the Chief Justice on the matter and come back with what I hear.

Kaevi Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:35 am

I have been told by the Chief Justice that the number of parliament seats will be reduced in the case of a vacancy. The seats can filled during the next parliament session.

The third parliament has five vacancies at this time (11:35 June 11, 2014).

WADSP - 2 (Marquette, Fylkirate)
IGP - 2 (Aloia, Arveyres)
CDIP - 1 (Catham Islands)

As of now, the third parliament has 15 members and proposals require eight votes in order to reach the possibility of passage.

Great Eurussia Fri Jun 20, 2014 11:26 pm

Kaevi wrote:
This proposal did not reach the necessary threshold of votes within the time period. One vote was submitted out of the eleven (now eight) required for a proposal to pass. This proposal has been dismissed for insufficient votes.

The Speaker declares this proposal as "Dismissed".

This is unfortunate. We must resolve the numbers in Parliament to pass this law since there is no opposition on the proposal and it is just unfortunate due to inactivity.

Kaevi Sat Jun 21, 2014 12:03 am

Great Eurussia wrote:
This is unfortunate. We must resolve the numbers in Parliament to pass this law since there is no opposition on the proposal and it is just unfortunate due to inactivity.

From what I understand, Parliament can only loose seats during a session. Seats may be regained in the next general election. The remaining Parliament may need to get together to find a solution to this issue, which will most likely worsen with time.

Sponsored content

(Dismissed) WA Roleplay Guide Act