[quote="Publius Crabgrass":1locztjq]This bill proposes to eliminate those legislative enactments that are no longer in force.
The following acts shall be repealed:
HISTORICAL
NL 3-2 City Lag Reduction Act (should be replaced by more flexible scripting rules in Covenant)
NL 3-3 Tiny City Removal Act
NL 3-4 Casino Removal Act
NL 3-5 Holiday Chalet Rental Act (rentals not alllowed by the covenants)
NL 3-7 Rathaus Act
NL 4-1 Guildhall Act (should be taken into account when dealing with the new guild)
NL 4-7 Central Commercial District Land Allocation Act
NL 4-9 Expansion Planning Act
NL 4-17 Anzere Infohub Act (should be reformulated incorporating recent proposals)
NL 4-22 Housing Restitution Act
NL 4-27 Naming Procedures Act
NL 4-28 Rebuilding Funding Act
NL 5-3 Gwynethstrasse Relocation Act
[/quote:1locztjq]
Most of these are acts which authorized a specific, often time limited, action. They are now over. There is no reason to repeal them. If you wish to make the code more comprehensible, why not just a wiki page listing those acts currently in force. I've started on such a project. Even those acts which have ceased to be in force are valuable to us, either as models for future similar undertakings or as object lessons in what not to do again.
I wonder if in your zeal to simplify, you seek to wipe away much of our legislative history. We all know the old salt about those who forget history.
[quote:1locztjq]
SUPERCEDED
NL 3-6 MoCA Act (superceded by NL 4-12)
NL 3-8 Texture Size Reduction Act (should be entered into covenants)
NL 3-11 Bond Act (superceded by 5-2 and 5-14)
NL 4-24 Defense of the Republic Act (superceded by provisions in the judiciary act)
NL 4-26 Public Information Act (superceded by 5-7, should become an ordinary employment contract)[/quote:1locztjq]
Many things which were superceded have been marked as such. I think you're probably right that there are additional acts which deserve the designation. Why not just designate them as superceded and be done with it? Or why not just amend the superceding bills to make explicit, where it isn't, that these supercede the acts you mention?
I would also note that 3-8 has not been superceded. If you believe this ought to be in the covenants instead, perhaps it would be better to introduce a bill amending the covenants to include a maximum texture size first, and only after that happens repealing 3-8.
