IDS 1: Liberalization Act of 2013 (Passed) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 06:49:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  IDS 1: Liberalization Act of 2013 (Passed) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: IDS 1: Liberalization Act of 2013 (Passed)  (Read 2167 times)
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,329
« on: July 20, 2013, 08:25:15 PM »

Hey, y'all, so this would define how our law works in regards to all that crap that makes Jesus Sad
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,329
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2013, 04:51:28 PM »

I like this, mostly, but I'm a bit concerned about the middle part of section 9 - it seems as if this would benefit people who don't wear helmets.

It means that, if you're suing a guy who hit you (in an auto accident), you may have the money you get from it reduced if you don't wear a helmet (the thinking being that your injuries wouldn't be as severe if you had worn a helmet). It's designed to incentivize helmet-wearing.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,329
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2013, 08:33:47 PM »

Section 8 and 9 are just out of this world. Seatbelts and helmets have saved thousands of lives, and we'd like to ban them ? What is wrong with you Sjoyce ? Maybe we should give guns to every user of a car or motorcycle to protect them instead of those boring seatbelts and uncool helmets.

Seriously.

No portion of the legislation bans helmets or seatbelts. Read the legislation.

Hash's amendment excluding the striking of 8 and 9 and the insertation of 12 is friendly.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,329
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2013, 07:39:53 AM »
« Edited: July 31, 2013, 09:33:59 AM by Emperor SJoyce »

All amendments (excluding Dereich's amendment to Clauses 4 and 8 and Hash's amendments to clauses 8 and 9) are friendly.

We made the age of consent 12?
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,329
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2013, 11:02:15 AM »

All amendments (excluding Dereich's amendment to Clauses 4 and 8 and Hash's amendments to clauses 8 and 9) are friendly.

We made the age of consent 12?

So what of my striking of clause 3? Is that friendly as well or does accepting Hash's revision count as rejecting it?

And Velasco, I wasn't really thinking too hard about it; I just noticed that the changes to 8 didn't really effect 9 and glossed over it.

I accept Hash's revision to Clause 3.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,329
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2013, 11:22:31 AM »

All amendments (excluding Dereich's amendment to Clauses 4 and 8 and Hash's amendments to clauses 8 and 9) are friendly.

We made the age of consent 12?

So what of my striking of clause 3? Is that friendly as well or does accepting Hash's revision count as rejecting it?

And Velasco, I wasn't really thinking too hard about it; I just noticed that the changes to 8 didn't really effect 9 and glossed over it.

I accept Hash's revision to Clause 3.

Do you accept my striking of clause 6? Its always nice to say we don't support child pornography, but its pretty redundant when we already have a law about it.

Yes.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,329
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2013, 12:46:09 PM »



On the Liberalization Act of 2013: by the powers vested in me as Emperor of this region, I thus sign it into law.

Be it resolved, X Emperor SJoyce
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 14 queries.