[Thunderhawk]

The problem here is: SN-RF is pushing for a minority government, before seeking any coalition formulas, just because to attain the protection of Article-1D. Do you deny it?

If SN-RF tries to form government by themselves and 50%+1 of the MPs vote against their confidence motion, then government would once again grind to a halt as coalitions are planned and formed.

[HoniSoit]

If SN-RF tries to form government by themselves and 50%+1 of the MPs vote against their confidence motion

What's all these speculations?

The SN-RF would not form a government if it fails to have more than half of the votes.

[Andres]

They were defeated in previous term. They must be defeated this time too. This is necessary for the game. This is necessary for eventually making SN-RF to come to terms with the spirit of this democratic republic.

If at this point, we already had a few government cycles, and the rules where well established, then I could see your point. As the game stands, I think it is much more important to move things forward. If that means the SN-RF implement farm collectivization then so be it. It is just a game, and no one would actually die of hunger during the process. Not that I think that is actually going to be a policy of the SN-RF.

[Figlio di Moros]

Does Fasces know about you usurping his seat and leadership?

I've usurped nothing; Fasces is currently unavailable and I've been placed in charge until his return.

[Brio]

I've usurped nothing; Fasces is currently unavailable and I've been placed in charge until his return.

Ah I see. So once Fasces does return (if he can stop creating multiple accounts for long enough to do so ) you will step down from your seat and the party leadership?

[Figlio di Moros]

Ah I see. So once Fasces does return (if he can stop creating multiple accounts for long enough to do so ) you will step down from your seat and the party leadership?

Assuming the party wishes for the return of his leadership, yes.

[Donna]

I think that might actually be unconstitutional. If you're taking Fasces' seat, you will have to hold that seat until the next election cycle. The same thing has happened in the PNL since Dave was red carded; while he will retain leadership of the party he will not be sitting in parliament during its first session.

[Demosthenes]

Guys...

Please don't clog a party thread with off-party talk. I know none of you mean ill in the discussion, but really it should be more respectful of THP to take that matter up elsewhere.

Donald does have a point though, one I'd overlooked. Perhaps a discussion for a possible motion in the future IF Fasces does indeed want his seat back.

edited- mean ill, not mean well...

[Falx]

Demos, as it happens this sort of cross party talk can't happen anywhere else in the forum since every other party is bricked up in their own little thread, as long as our two important threads- the vote announcement and voting- aren't clogged up I don't actually mind all the extra chatter. If any one else in the party does, or it becomes ridiculous in volume please speak up.

Party matters: The SN-RF have proposed their first piece of legislation. Like I thought it doesn't address any of the problems of the game, talk about the constitution, try to ratify or reject it democratically or so on. Instead they have already started role playing about the nations "health care" and some other things. Bland enough to get them elected, useless enough to make sure the game stays in limbo for at least one more week.

Looking through how ugly the official parliamentary language is I suggest anyone from our party who is publishing some parliamentary proposition, legislation or so on first read this before trying to murder the English language:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

This may be trivial but I wouldn't mind if we had a motion for using the following rules to word all our official responses in parliament and as far as possible to be used by all members of parliament:

(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do.

(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

After seeing how badly written and waffle filled parliament is likely to become this will be just one more thing to set us apart from the other parties.

[Demosthenes]

Alright Falx, I'll back off unless your party requests it, but privacy and "hiding" aren't the same things.

Besides, new threads can always be created to address just about any contact people of differing parties which to make.

[Falx]

I honestly don't get this privacy business, where I'm from privacy means that others don't know what you're doing, not that they can't tell you that they know, ie wanking in front of on open window while my neighbours have reflective windows so I don't know if they're there isn't privacy, having a reflective window closed while I do the same is. The current party threads satisfy the first set of conditions, not the second.

[Demosthenes]

Well they were requested, so we have them.

Obviously privacy online is different than elsewhere. I don't get why you care honestly.

I think the parties using them enjoy being able to discuss without worrying about the spam.

[Falx]

I care because the right to privacy is very different to the right to not be bothered by spam.

Using bad language to defend ideas that it really does not apply to is always a bad thing.

[HoniSoit]

I again apologise for posting in this thread.

Party matters: The SN-RF have proposed their first piece of legislation. Like I thought it doesn't address any of the problems of the game, talk about the constitution, try to ratify or reject it democratically or so on.

We are aware of the issue you raised. However, it appears the problems you have with the game design lack substantial popular support. Having said that, we welcome THP or anyone else to raise any of the issues in the parliament; and if you could gather a majority support, we will change them.

[Falx]

However, it appears the problems you have with the game design lack substantial popular support.

If you mean in the GM council sure, no one has asked what the rest of the people in the game think about it.

[HoniSoit]

Not just in the GM council, but among players of the simulation game in general.

In any case, I have made my point: you are very welcome to raise any issue you have in the parliament.

[Falx]

Ok, but as it happens I found something even more disturbing than game mechanics about the game:
Party matter:
I am thinking of how to formulate a motion in our party in reaction to the debate going on here right now.

My current ideas seem to be revolving around calling for a purge, something that should happen anyway once SF sees some of the more interesting comments there. The more reasonable thing would be to vote on an official party stance on racialism "We hold racialism to be no different to the racism of the past. It is an ideology masquerading as science, preventing meaningful action on the failure of education system to teach basic reasoning skills to the low income segments of the population." Seeing as I'm fairly pissed off we are having this debate I would like some input on rewording the above statement to be as explicit on the issue which appears to have much support in parliament across the board.

[Dr House]

This is ridiculous. No party in this parliament has proposed any legislation or policies whatsoever based on race realism, scientific racism or anything of the sort.

[Falx]

Well then opposing it before it becomes a problem means we are addressing problems first like usual.

[Dr House]

How can you prove that it is going to become a problem? The PNL actually struck racialism from our party platform very early in the sim due to its unpopularity.