*walks in*
*makes 1000th reply on thread*
*leaves*
Advertisement
by New Bierstaat » Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:00 am
POLITICAL COMPASS
Economic +2.75
Social +1.28
Thomas Jefferson wrote:I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
by Next Washington » Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:10 pm
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX |
by Neo Rome Republic » Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:52 pm
by Battlion » Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:21 am
Delivery Surcharges (Transparency for Consumers) Act
Urgency: Moderate | Author: Battlion [NDP] | Category: Business & Finance
Co-sponsors: Next Washington [NDP]
Preamble
An Act to require online retailers to declare to consumers at the start of the retail
process the existence of surcharges for delivery to certain addresses in Aurentina; and for connected purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate of Aurentina in respect to the sovereignty of the People of Aurentina the following act.
Section I – Requirement to declare variable charges
1. The Ministry of Telecommunications shall, within one month of this Act coming into force, make regulations to require online retailers (“the retailer”) to make a declaration to consumers if their freight, delivery, postal or other charges (“charges”) vary according to the delivery address within Aurentina.
2. Regulations under this section shall require a declaration made under subsection (1) to include a clear statement of —(a) which charges may be varied according to delivery address,
3. Regulations under this section shall make provision requiring a declaration under subsection (1) to be—
(b) to which locations within Aurentina delivery will result in variations to charges, and
(c) a reasonable indication of the total cost or costs to the consumer of such variations in charges.(a) clear and comprehensible,
4. Regulations under this section shall include provision for their enforcement by one or more enforcement authorities and for penalties in the case of noncompliance.
(b) made in a prominent place on the retailer’s website, and
(c) available to the consumer before they browse the goods and services available to them on the retailer’s website.
5. Regulations under this section shall be made by Ministerial Directive.
6. Any penalty set out by regulations shall be limited to fines
by Next Washington » Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:34 am
Battlion wrote:Delivery Surcharges (Transparency for Consumers) Act
Urgency: Moderate | Author: Battlion [NDP] | Category: Business & Finance
Co-sponsors:
Preamble
An Act to require online retailers to declare to consumers at the start of the retail
process the existence of surcharges for delivery to certain addresses in Aurentina; and for connected purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate of Aurentina in respect to the sovereignty of the People of Aurentina the following act.
Section I – Requirement to declare variable charges
1. The Ministry of Telecommunications shall, within one month of this Act coming into force, make regulations to require online retailers (“the retailer”) to make a declaration to consumers if their freight, delivery, postal or other charges (“charges”) vary according to the delivery address within Aurentina.
2. Regulations under this section shall require a declaration made under subsection (1) to include a clear statement of —(a) which charges may be varied according to delivery address,
3. Regulations under this section shall make provision requiring a declaration under subsection (1) to be—
(b) to which locations within Aurentina delivery will result in variations to charges, and
(c) a reasonable indication of the total cost or costs to the consumer of such variations in charges.(a) clear and comprehensible,
4. Regulations under this section shall include provision for their enforcement by one or more enforcement authorities and for penalties in the case of noncompliance.
(b) made in a prominent place on the retailer’s website, and
(c) available to the consumer before they browse the goods and services available to them on the retailer’s website.
5. Regulations under this section shall be made by Ministerial Directive.
Hope to see some more NDP Sponsors on this act, it aims to ensure transparency online for those purchasing products online...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX |
by Battlion » Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:36 am
Next Washington wrote:Battlion wrote:Delivery Surcharges (Transparency for Consumers) Act
Urgency: Moderate | Author: Battlion [NDP] | Category: Business & Finance
Co-sponsors:
Preamble
An Act to require online retailers to declare to consumers at the start of the retail
process the existence of surcharges for delivery to certain addresses in Aurentina; and for connected purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate of Aurentina in respect to the sovereignty of the People of Aurentina the following act.
Section I – Requirement to declare variable charges
1. The Ministry of Telecommunications shall, within one month of this Act coming into force, make regulations to require online retailers (“the retailer”) to make a declaration to consumers if their freight, delivery, postal or other charges (“charges”) vary according to the delivery address within Aurentina.
2. Regulations under this section shall require a declaration made under subsection (1) to include a clear statement of —(a) which charges may be varied according to delivery address,
3. Regulations under this section shall make provision requiring a declaration under subsection (1) to be—
(b) to which locations within Aurentina delivery will result in variations to charges, and
(c) a reasonable indication of the total cost or costs to the consumer of such variations in charges.(a) clear and comprehensible,
4. Regulations under this section shall include provision for their enforcement by one or more enforcement authorities and for penalties in the case of noncompliance.
(b) made in a prominent place on the retailer’s website, and
(c) available to the consumer before they browse the goods and services available to them on the retailer’s website.
5. Regulations under this section shall be made by Ministerial Directive.
Hope to see some more NDP Sponsors on this act, it aims to ensure transparency online for those purchasing products online...
enforcing... eg by test buyers?
penalties... you have an example? like closing the online store for a while?
i'll sponsor it... wanna sponsor mine too?
by Next Washington » Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:41 am
Battlion wrote:Next Washington wrote:
enforcing... eg by test buyers?
penalties... you have an example? like closing the online store for a while?
i'll sponsor it... wanna sponsor mine too?
The penalty is left to be defined by the regulations, however I should ensure that a maximum is put in there.
I'll put your sponsor in, I can't support the family incentives act I'm afraid :'(
:'''''''(XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX |
by Maklohi Vai » Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:48 pm
Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS
Category: Senate Procedures | Urgency: High | Author: Wulukuno Porunalakai (NDP) | Co-Sponsors:
The Aurentine Senate,
Appreciating and recognizing the improved efficiency and flexibility created by the SIMBEDS Act and its subsequent amendments,
Believing, however, that the second amendment to said act placed restrictions on the method of voting that have proven to create a more cumbersome procedure than desired,
Hereby declares that:
- Operative clause 1 of the act entitled “Second Amendment to SIMBEDS” shall be struck and replaced with the following clause;
- The maximum number of bills in any given omnibus shall be ten (10).
- If an omnibus should exceed this number of component bills, the first ten bills submitted to it shall remain, while extraneous bills shall be placed in a Temporary Omnibus of the same category, next on queue.
- If this should result in an omnibus over the maximum number of bills, the process shall be repeated ad nauseam.
- Each Temporary Omnibus shall be removed from the next queue after it is voted on, i.e. it does not become a persistent feature of the queue except when the maximum is exceeded.
by Lamaredia » Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:56 pm
Maklohi Vai wrote:Seeing as there have been issues with the queue, I wrote this act. Sponsors and commentary appreciated.Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS
Category: Senate Procedures | Urgency: High | Author: Wulukuno Porunalakai (NDP) | Co-Sponsors:
The Aurentine Senate,
Appreciating and recognizing the improved efficiency and flexibility created by the SIMBEDS Act and its subsequent amendments,
Believing, however, that the second amendment to said act placed restrictions on the method of voting that have proven to create a more cumbersome procedure than desired,
Hereby declares that:
- Operative clause 1 of the act entitled “Second Amendment to SIMBEDS” shall be struck and replaced with the following clause;
- The maximum number of bills in any given omnibus shall be ten (10).
- If an omnibus should exceed this number of component bills, the first ten bills submitted to it shall remain, while extraneous bills shall be placed in a Temporary Omnibus of the same category, next on queue.
- If this should result in an omnibus over the maximum number of bills, the process shall be repeated ad nauseam.
- Each Temporary Omnibus shall be removed from the next queue after it is voted on, i.e. it does not become a persistent feature of the queue except when the maximum is exceeded.
by Maklohi Vai » Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:56 pm
Lamaredia wrote:Maklohi Vai wrote:Seeing as there have been issues with the queue, I wrote this act. Sponsors and commentary appreciated.Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS
Category: Senate Procedures | Urgency: High | Author: Wulukuno Porunalakai (NDP) | Co-Sponsors:
The Aurentine Senate,
Appreciating and recognizing the improved efficiency and flexibility created by the SIMBEDS Act and its subsequent amendments,
Believing, however, that the second amendment to said act placed restrictions on the method of voting that have proven to create a more cumbersome procedure than desired,
Hereby declares that:
- Operative clause 1 of the act entitled “Second Amendment to SIMBEDS” shall be struck and replaced with the following clause;
- The maximum number of bills in any given omnibus shall be ten (10).
- If an omnibus should exceed this number of component bills, the first ten bills submitted to it shall remain, while extraneous bills shall be placed in a Temporary Omnibus of the same category, next on queue.
- If this should result in an omnibus over the maximum number of bills, the process shall be repeated ad nauseam.
- Each Temporary Omnibus shall be removed from the next queue after it is voted on, i.e. it does not become a persistent feature of the queue except when the maximum is exceeded.
Sponsored sooo much.
by Lamaredia » Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:11 pm
by Bering » Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:22 pm
Maklohi Vai wrote:Seeing as there have been issues with the queue, I wrote this act. Sponsors and commentary appreciated.Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS
Category: Senate Procedures | Urgency: High | Author: Wulukuno Porunalakai (NDP) | Co-Sponsors:
The Aurentine Senate,
Appreciating and recognizing the improved efficiency and flexibility created by the SIMBEDS Act and its subsequent amendments,
Believing, however, that the second amendment to said act placed restrictions on the method of voting that have proven to create a more cumbersome procedure than desired,
Hereby declares that:
- Operative clause 1 of the act entitled “Second Amendment to SIMBEDS” shall be struck and replaced with the following clause;
- The maximum number of bills in any given omnibus shall be ten (10).
- If an omnibus should exceed this number of component bills, the first ten bills submitted to it shall remain, while extraneous bills shall be placed in a Temporary Omnibus of the same category, next on queue.
- If this should result in an omnibus over the maximum number of bills, the process shall be repeated ad nauseam.
- Each Temporary Omnibus shall be removed from the next queue after it is voted on, i.e. it does not become a persistent feature of the queue except when the maximum is exceeded.
by Maklohi Vai » Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:30 pm
Bering wrote:Maklohi Vai wrote:Seeing as there have been issues with the queue, I wrote this act. Sponsors and commentary appreciated.Fourth Amendment to SIMBEDS
Category: Senate Procedures | Urgency: High | Author: Wulukuno Porunalakai (NDP) | Co-Sponsors:
The Aurentine Senate,
Appreciating and recognizing the improved efficiency and flexibility created by the SIMBEDS Act and its subsequent amendments,
Believing, however, that the second amendment to said act placed restrictions on the method of voting that have proven to create a more cumbersome procedure than desired,
Hereby declares that:
- Operative clause 1 of the act entitled “Second Amendment to SIMBEDS” shall be struck and replaced with the following clause;
- The maximum number of bills in any given omnibus shall be ten (10).
- If an omnibus should exceed this number of component bills, the first ten bills submitted to it shall remain, while extraneous bills shall be placed in a Temporary Omnibus of the same category, next on queue.
- If this should result in an omnibus over the maximum number of bills, the process shall be repeated ad nauseam.
- Each Temporary Omnibus shall be removed from the next queue after it is voted on, i.e. it does not become a persistent feature of the queue except when the maximum is exceeded.
I will sponsor it too
by Britanno » Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:41 pm
by Venaleria » Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:56 pm
Bering wrote:What happened to Unicaro's database?
by Next Washington » Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:54 am
Britanno wrote:So basically, I need someone (or several people) to go through this list and take out all the NDP ones, and put them in a separate list so I am left with two lists. One with NDP ones in, one with the rest in.
Ignore the gaps, they mean nothing.
Considering I spent a significant amount of time collecting 711 senators, I was hoping someone could do the biggest party in the senate for me. I've done most of the other parties, but I still need to do the Communists, Red Greens, New Democrats and then the Iron Party.
I was hoping for some help with this party.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX |
by Britanno » Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:22 am
by Fulflood » Fri Oct 11, 2013 9:49 am
Straight male British apatheist pacifist environmentalist social liberal
by Next Washington » Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:43 pm
Fulflood wrote:SovCan's counted twice on the OP list.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX |
by Britanno » Fri Oct 11, 2013 2:53 pm
Next Washington wrote:Fulflood wrote:SovCan's counted twice on the OP list.
so is astracan
so this is the list of our members that you'll allso find on page one:
and this is the result of my excel work, so i basically copied your list and ours from the first page, pasted them in the same column and let excel delete the duplicats, so here's what's left:
btw i'm not on the list
by Britanno » Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:00 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
