Forum:First Chamber

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ In Lovia, Congress is the national legislative body and the most powerful branch of government. The First Chamber is one of the two chambers of Congress, in which the Members of the Congress propose bills and debate them. The Second Chamber is where they are eventually voted. Paradoxically, Lovia does not have a bicameral parliament: there is only one group of MOTCs that both debates and votes the proposals. For the current composition of Congress, see this.

As prescribed by Article 6 of the Constitution, all Lovian citizens "may write and propose motions to the Federal Law", that "are presented to the Members of the Congress in the First Chamber." The MOTCs' duty is to "read the motion and form a personal opinion about it. In order to obtain the support of a majority of Members of the Congress, changes may be proposed in the First Chamber." If a majority is likely to be found, the proposer will move the bill to the Second Chamber for a vote.

The First Chamber is not a popular assembly where all citizens can express their personal interests. Polling the population ought to happen outside of Congress.

Composition of Villanova I Government
Before we do that i thank you all, and we need to vote on one proposal, Condenseing the departments to help our congress and future congresses. So here's what I think.

068. Condensement bill
Ruling Monarch - Kept

Prime Minister - Kept

Culture/Eductaion/Heritage combines with REAC and NMS - Even though these two are already mostly the same CEH would take over REAC so when it's unactive like now it could just take over all educational issues. With NMS all issues that would have been done by NMS are done by CEH.

Energy and Environment - Okay, kept

Foreign Affairs - Combine with Tourism and Lesuire. Job would also to promote vactions and things like that. Sports would be done by other users.

IAT - would also take over Transportation and be called "Economy and Transportation"

Justice - Dismantled. Congress can make proposals for judges and appoint them.

Finance - Combines with Welfare and the Federal Charity Fund, and would be called "Finance and Welfare"

So any comments? Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:18, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

This sounds good, but there's something weird about it that I can't put my finger on. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:27, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

The ruling monarch isn't our monarch anymore. So, what to do? Aesopos 12:35, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * Aesopos, we have a Line of Succession. His closest living relative should take over the throne - since he has no son or any issue his brother will take over or his nephew. The Master's Voice 12:39, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Dimitri abdicated? Well, I guess Alexander takes over now. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:39, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

He's even more unactive! Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:43, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Well, Dimi was active two days ago, so let's wait this out. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:45, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

True but let's focus on this first i need some straightfoward feedback. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:48, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

It seems fine. Could we discuss (067) Hamlet Act Revision? No one seems to have seen it. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:53, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Whenever a new government comes in Lovia is kinda tradition to approve the new department heads, but i kinda slowed it down with the condesement act. After we approve the heads that'll be the first thing we get to! Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:55, May 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're going to "hand out" the departments, would it be possible for me to get Culture, Heritage and Education? HORTON11  13:45, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is tradition for the PM to work out a proposal and Congress has to approve it. I'm sure Marcus will count in our preferences as far as possible. 14:20, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Basically i'm not going to argue over it but if you want a position i'll give it. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:23, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

As my favorite author (approximately) said, the reports of my abdication are greatly exaggerated. 17:18, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Official Composition of Villanova I Government
Here it is!


 * Culture, Education and Heritage - Justin Abrahams


 * Energy and Environment - Lars Washington


 * Foreign Affairs - Yuri Medvedev


 * Economy and Tansportation - Nathaniel Scribner


 * Finance and Welfare - William Krosby

that's basically it. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:40, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Taking this to second chamber. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:23, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Just letting you know we should always wait a day for discussion, somtimes even a week. But due to very active attitude around here it's fine. Love the exictedness though! Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:31, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

We don't really need to discuss this. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:40, May 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I, I. G. La Blaca, on behalf of the UNS and the rightists of Lovia, demand a department too... All departments are currently given to leftists, which is not really a proper way of sharing, is it? The Master's Voice 20:27, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

The PM gets to select it. I guess he doesn't want the UNS's ideas in Lovia. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:30, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * He considered us worthy of joining his congress, then he should also consider us worthy of taking up an office. Congress has the authority to remove me from office if they desire to do so, so I see no problem at all. The Master's Voice 20:31, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Not to be "that guy" but i'm keeping it real. In the US for example all presidents stock there cabinets full with firends with the same view points and ideals. These departments really do nothing more but propose bills which would come from there departments, which you could do anyway. Also your a facist, since when do you like sharing Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:57, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * At the beginning of this year there was quite some fuss about the composition of the Government not being "diverse" enough; the PM was forced to accept people he did not like for positions they did not furfill properly and who were from different parties. Besides: did I ever insult anyone on here or make unfriendly remarks? The Master's Voice 04:50, May 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * At the beginning of this year there was a progressive majority in Congress, so the PM could simply not appoint his fellow conservatives - the bill wouldn't pass. Our new PM can!  08:00, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

069. Lovian Currency
I would like to propose a bill to create a Lovian currency, and to help achieve a greater degree of economic independece from the U.S. Basically it would be a Lovian dollar, divided into 10 Dimes and 100 cents. It would be issued in banknotes (from 2-500 dollars) where $1 LOV= 75 US cents, and coins of 1,2 and 5 cents; 1, 2 and 5 Dimes. HORTON11 01:19, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been mentioned before. I think it would be a good idea. However, I'm not so sure it should be pegged to the dollar. Maybe to very stable currency, which is what I want. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:38, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Tying up our coin to the US dollar gives us more financial independence than we have today (using the US dollar). Also, a stable exchange rate spares us the cost of always having to update a (fictitious) altering exchange rate. I'm pro, though I think our coin should be a little stronger. Perhaps somewhere between $1 LOV = 80 US cents and $1 LOV = 90 US cents? We could write in the bill that we will take action if the limits would be crossed (printing money or taking it out of the market). 05:57, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can make the value higher ($1 LOV= 90 US cents) HORTON11  14:26, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's go with that. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:11, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * @ TimeMaster- I had made some designs for banknotes at User:Horton11/Lovian_Currency. I may have to make updated/new designs for some though. HORTON11  16:14, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

I'm an own currency. If I'm right 1 dime = 0,1 $ and 1 cent = 0,01 $? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:30, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Would give an extra feel to Lovians to be proud of themselves! As PM i love this idea for a more independent Lovia. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:38, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

@ Oos- Yes its correct. HORTON11 23:49, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Should we pass this to the second chamber? HORTON11 20:35, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

PM is fine with it. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:18, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Just Noticed
What if two people want to mayor of a place. Should we re-vote on this and add an admendment that July is Local elections month and anyone can contest if you live in that place, and only people living in that area can vote in that city or town. Just pointing that out beacuse there might be some confusion. Also that you can only be the mayor of two towns or one city.

I say July is local election month and you get elected by having the most votes, nothing more than this

Marcus Villanova Jane Doe Marcus would be the winner.

Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:57, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

We don't have mayors anymore. OuWTB convinced me to remove them. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:07, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oh really? The what was the point of that bill. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:10, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

It was to add villages. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:11, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

=/ Hummm Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:13, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should have ignored him. Was he oversimplifying? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:15, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion yes. But (I think you agree with mayors) We are greatly out numbered on this one sadly Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:24, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

No, I think we aren't. Yuri only changed to Contra because of the hamlet population thing. By the way, should I move the census thing to second chamber? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:52, May 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and move the census. About the mayor thing: Still some doubt in my mind. I admit it would be fun, but local elections will be controversial and it is not like a major has any autonomy. In previous laws we always moved power from local levels to Congress because it was easier that way.  06:08, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Local elections may be fun and a little competitive. Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:28, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * We need proper elections for our most important institution: Congress, the representatives of the people. Aged youngman 13:55, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Hey, we already have 5 states which are lead by a governor. If we'd also add mayor, we'll really run out of enough users to keep the political system functioning (and trust me, this has happened before) and there's also no need for another political level. :) I'd say you just run for governor soon! Also, IRL not all people are politician è :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:32, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

True we were suppose to have state elections in April but didn't and mid-term elections in June. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:17, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Amish Kinley
As you know I live in America, New York, Yonkers, but if you met me my favorite state is a toss-up between Pennsylvania or Vermont, but leaning Penn!! I vist that state at least once a year. In the western part there are blue collar people, in the southeast 75% of the population lives there (my favorite part) a war took place there, a country was formed there, a city thrives there, chocolate is made there and then Lancaster County is filled with Amish people simple people. Maybe for the fun of it Amish Kinley a LRC (Local Rieligous Community) could have a mayor. If you check Nova Times archive 2010 around agust september i worte about Amish Mayoral elections, in which the leader would just lead and lead the LRC in prayer. Maybe we could make an exectpion for LRC's, let them have not "mayors" but "Reiligous Leaders" with local elections every year in July. We would obviously made up the election results (in which the CCPL would win ) and Nova Times could report.

So should we have Amish Kinley have Reiligous Leaders? For the fun of elections? Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:35, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

This is not really necessary, and anyways most of Lovia is atheist. HORTON11 22:06, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

There is already a Amish Kinley made before you came, just before about, a LRC which is under Lovian rule but is also sorta independent in a way. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:10, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, see also Mayors of Hurbanova. Hurbanova still has a "mayor" as an unofficial, ceremonial function. In Dutch they also call this lintjes knippen (referring to the otherwise useless monarchy) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:28, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well also we forgot to add LRC's in the Bill so maybe we should add them and say they could have useless reiligous leaders. Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:39, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd just keep it this way. A mayor should now be considered more like a spokesman for a town :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:16, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:42, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah maybe we should have a proposed bill like this/add this in: So is this good? Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:37, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Every Town, City, or Local Reiligous Community can elect a spokesperson.
 * This person has no political power.
 * The purpose of the spokesperson is to promote his or her views and the best for his city.
 * A spokesperson is elected every year in July.
 * The spokesperson has no term limits.
 * A citizen can only be the spokesperson of two towns, or one city.

We don't have LRCs, replace it with village. And don't explicitly say "July" either. What if we need to suspend it due to lack of candidates? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:31, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well we could just make up a person for that area that doesn't have a spokesperson we can make one up, we can also make up elections so let's say: I want to run for Noble City Mayor, but no one else does we can just make up people to run against. Were the only country in the world that doesn't have a local level! Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:38, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

And we did have LRC's before in Amish Kinley. That way the amish can live peacefully in there simple ways. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:41, May 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Marcus, our local level are the states :) Take Oceana, if we had a governor and a mayor, both men would run exactly the same terroritory, even if East Hills would become a village, still it would be a useless function. Just run for governor in Sylvania. TV is dead anyway. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:00, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

So is the governor Martha Van Ghent hasn't made an edit in months. So i guess so but the spokesman would have no political power. Maybe we could just have this for LRC's? Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:50, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Notification to all fellow congressmen
Please re-propose all bills, that were going to be voted on or were in the process of being voted on, to the first chamber. This way the new congress can disscuss and vote on them (This is aimed at Yuri Medvedev beacuse he wrote three beautiful bills that shouldn't be abbandoned) So if you did have a bill just re propose it please to the first chamber for short disscussion and back to the second chamber for the new congress to vote on it. Thanks, Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:47, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

070. Lovian Banknotes
On the Lovian Dollar page I made the definitive designs for the banknotes. They are modern in design, but with several traditional elements and layouts. HORTON11 02:25, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * They are nice, though I think the Euro banknotes really rule. I love the idea of a monotone color scheme per note and one theme throughout the series. 11:37, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good? So we won't have conis? Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:02, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * On the Lovian dollar page are some designs I made. They are out-dated though. 12:14, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw with the 1 and 2 dollar coins, I though they were nice and we should circulate them! I always like they feel of coins instead of some crinkled balled up dollar, but then again there worth more... Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:26, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Prime Minister Calling for new elections
I want to have new elections with a new PM and everything. Boy didn't Villanova I Government go fast! In any case I want this done very fast, we'll use this same voting system and everything. So here it is:

Candidancies: May 9th - May 17th

Elections: May 20th - May 28th

This way it's short and sweet and we don't have the drastic vote changing everyday.

Also i'm setting the ammount of MOTC during the three day span. Considering the fact there are very few candidates, these elections are more for setting up a elected govrnment (which i wanted to do in the first place) and a elected PM. Which i'll be campaigning for. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:49, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sweet, I will support your candidacy! 13:54, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope the rest of congress supports this. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:02, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Wait a little longer, maybe until June, for more activity to build up. Maybe some of the old users, like Martha or Galahad will come back. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:04, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Doubt it we should just continue with the activness we have now. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:12, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

No, I disagree, for the reason I stated. Time for my census. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:13, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait with it. Some people might miraculously become active again. We really need the experience of older users! --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:15, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hummm maybe we should see how the other congressmen think. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:16, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Both options have their pro's and con's. I say that if the Provisional Congress is not hindered we can continue as we are. 14:20, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Back on subject, So what if we move everything foward two weeks, makes eveything convinent for eveyone. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:20, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Four, please. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:11, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * This might be too early since we are still discussing but can anyone participate? Also do you need to be with a party or not? Aged youngman 20:40, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Also the consitution calls for a three week period in which candidancies need to be open so in that case it must be so and also a 25 day period for voting.

So here's the new plan:


 * Candidancies: May 10th - May 24th
 * Voting: May 30th - June 23rd

So this is final, supposing this are federal elections, i don't need congressional approval.

@Dae-Su- You can run as an independent if you want but the CPL.nm is always looking for new members. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:41, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

If the CPL doesn't suit you, look at the List of political parties in Lovia. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:17, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

True but we'd love go have you! There are many parties though. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:01, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

We also need to rename the conservative party. . . right now it is a UK mirror party, which is dumb. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:07, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Humm how about Conservative Alliance. I'll change it. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:13, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Let's have candidacies from May 23rd to June 6th, and the Elections from June 13th to July 4th. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:02, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

I moved the candacies up back one day. The reason we're holding elections so soon is that the "protesters" want a democratically elected congress, if we don't have that then they'll keep complaining and everything. I say hold them now and they'll stop. Besides the PM also controls the number of Congressmen elected, which will probaly be nine +king = 10. So everyone will probaly be elected. Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:37, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Ten is the red line? Okay. Or maybe that is nine, because of the king. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:39, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Ummm. I'll decide that during that six day period between candidancies. It'll probaly be nine making ten people in congress. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:57, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were supposed to decide before the elections? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:12, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, according to the constitution PM's can decide this during elections, In my opinion this just seems a bit undemocratic. I mean if I see CPL.nm is doing great but the UNS and Conservatives aren't i'll just put that number @ 6 or somthing. Or if it's the other way around. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:47, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Tirade

 * Agree with OWTB: Let us wait for a couple of months. We aren't in a hurry. Let's build up some more activity first. Fakking Held 17:13, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need more people like you. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:35, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Says someone who just called me a pig, for no reason at all... Why get personal? Clearly you cannot win the discussion, so you get personal... How weak of you, sir. I piss on your attitude. Fakking Held 17:41, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * This will stop AT ONCE. Final warning! 17:45, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why remove my comments and not his? Is it because he is a communist like you, and our PM? How weak... Fakking Held 17:50, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why you little rascal! You still don't get it, do you? Marcus has made valuable contributions to this site. He can (and does) make mistakes, but that is probably due to his short temper with extremists. You on the other hand have only spread you're unconstructive fascist commentaries. 17:55, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have no life except messing up other peoples lives then you really need therapy or somthing. Sorry Fakker. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:58, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * For your information, kid, I happen to have a rich social life. I am not the one with 5,000+ edits... Fakking Held 18:04, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep up the bad work and I'll make sure you'll never get there. 18:08, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * @FH-True but at least not all my friend have swazitkas on there heads, and where army boots. Glad your the most popular nazi in your private nazi compound. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:12, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Marcus, playing is allowed but shouting not. He's blocked for three days and I warned him he shouldn't return without bettering himself. 18:14, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Banning Tobacco
Simply add it to the other banned substances, like marijuana. Then I'd add its legalization to part of the green hemp party's platform. What do you guys think? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:37, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

that makes absolutley no sense. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:46, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

how does it make sense to ban somthing no one wants banned? Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:47, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Only you want it not banned so far. The only true reason in real life we don't ban tobacco is because so many people use it. In Lovia, that is diminished. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:33, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Apartenley Oos does, he said he started when he was 12 You probaly won't get his support.

We could do this one of two ways:


 * 1) Ban it completely


 * 1) Put a very high tax on it like (50%, i.e. pack of cigs 5.00, 2.50 would be the tax) but then the poor smokers would probaly not like this.

Ummm we do have alot of laws which make smoking around kids and public places a pretty big fine. I personally hate smoking but we'll see how other congressmen and Oos think about this. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:54, May 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, I feel bad for Oos. Started when he was 12! Why not put a huge tax now, then ban it completely a year from now? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:12, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, just keep it the way we do now we have enough laws to limit smoking. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:14, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I know this is a fictive country, but we should stay realistic. Banning tobacco is not possible. About 40% of the people in the Netherlands smoke, so imagine banning it there. It would cause a lot of trouble for the state... And don't forget: most people smoke because they're addicted (like me :P) and/or because they like it that much that they even like to give up their health for it (also like me :P). Current laws are actually already unbelievably strict for a western country, so I don't think we need to make it even worse.. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 04:45, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I support a ban of smoking in public buildings and at schools and other places kids are normally around in huge numbers. Another scenario I like is having a state monopoly on the import of tobacco and derived products. That way we don't have high prices that come with taxes and yet the state can make money to finance health care and anti-smoking campaigns. Anyone in for this? It would be still sold in stores but most of the profit would go to the concerned Lovian state instead of people who want maximum profit out of destroying people's health. 05:51, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

I say were controlling people way to much, if you wanna stop smokers we could put a 15% tax on it and issue government vouchers to pay for smoking patches and gum and all that. Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:29, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Yuri, anti-smoking campaigns are probably the most useless waste of money. All smokers know the dangers and health risks of smoking and no matter how hard you're campaigning: they ain't gonna quit until they have some kind of mental change or a strong reason to. (believe me, I'm a shmoker, so I know shit like that :P) Simply raise the health insurance price for smokers: how would you like to check that? Very simple, just like the wietpas they want to introduce in the Nl, you create a card for smokers and you may only buy cigars/cigarettes/joints/stuff like that, if you have this card. Immediately also stops minors from being able to buy the stuff if they look old enough, but aren't. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:46, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * The campaigns are meant to prevent people form starting to smoke, I know addictions don't die out easily. About the solutions you put forth: I absolutely agree on a stronger enforcement of the age level. More control is a must. Not so sure on the higher health insurance though, it would hit the poorer strata of society where smoking is more present due to a wide variety of social phenomena.  09:02, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should be targeting minors and people below 21. They are the most common people to start, I believe. We should pay for the campaigns with tobacco taxes as well. $2.00 on a pack of 20 would work. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:55, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Here, you pay about €5,- for a pack, of which €3,- is taxes and accijnzen, €0,50 is profit for the shop owner, €1,- is transportation cost/tussenhandelaren etc. and the actual production cost is €0,50. Which means that you actually already pay 90% useless stuff and 60% for the state :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:38, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

071. Language Act
Basically I would like to make Oceana an official national language alongside English. Lovian citizens should eventually have a basic working knowledge in both languages, and schooling in Lovia should become 50/50 split between both. HORTON11 22:13, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * We do have this for the state of Oceana, I think the rest of the states should decide this on what they want there second language should be. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:56, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * I do of course agree with Horton, but I don't think it's really that useful. The original Oceana speaking area only covers Oceana and a very small area in Sylvania. Another problem is that there are about 400 speakers, which is only about 15% of the Oceana population. @Marcus: actually not, because of Dimitri's fear for another Hurbanova Crisis, I was not allowed to make education in Oceana different from the rest of Lovia, so it's 100% English with only a few hours Oceana literature in a week. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 04:49, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can allow the pupils to choose two subjects out of a list that covers the history, language and culture of a specific country/region? Each of the courses could be given one hour a week in the four last years of high school? Subjects certainly included should be Oceana, French and Spanish. I don't think with only 400 speakers we should make it a must, but I think most pupils in Oceana schools will choose for Oceana. 05:57, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should simply accord certain languages 'special recognition', in that they are spoken by large minorities which deserve recognition of their culture. We could give it f.e. to Oceana and Dutch - I can't think of any others at the moment (except Russian of course ). English would remain the only official language. --Semyon 10:58, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, though I would refrain from using the expression 'large minorities' in an official text.  12:46, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * There's only 400 speakers of this language. I think we should add in Oceana as a offical language for Oceana. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:35, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oceana culture and language is worth keeping and safeguarding. If it is decided not to make Oceana the official second language of Lovia, then let us at least give it an official status so that we can properly protect it. The Master&#39;s Voice 20:38, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

I say make it offical language in Oceana, not anywhere else. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:41, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But it wouldn't work unless the language is given an official status and recognized by the government in Noble City. In Oceana, too, English has to be the first language. Yet nation-wide Oceana is the second biggest language, so why not make it the official second language of Lovia? The Master&#39;s Voice 20:44, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Beacuse no one else speaks it, also Sofasian is spoken by 350 people, which use to be spoken by around 1,000 people. So we also make that an offical lanuage of Lovia? No we just make it an offical language of Clymene Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:52, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we also make Sofasian an official language of Lovia. Either that or we both grant them the status of regional dialect and nothing more. We don't play favourites. Either all these languages are given an official status, or none are. The Master&#39;s Voice 21:03, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Yes regional dialect, perfect wording. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:08, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

They aren't "dialects" of English all that much. They are more like languages. . . for example, Oceana has a more slavic grammar. Let's call them regional languages instead. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:15, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Sofasian hadn't been given that state, because it was created after a language stop. In Lovia there had been so many languages created that more would be irrealistic. I'd say we keep this stop, but make an exception for Sofasian, so it can become an official regional language. One problem though: there's nobody here that can speak it, as there has hardly been made a dictionary, unlike for Oceana, and the creator has left Lovia... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:27, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but Oceana should only an official language of Oceana. Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:23, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact it's not that fine :) But indeed, Oshenna = Oceana. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:18, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why it just can't be for one state, every state should have two offical lanuages to broden language horizions.

Kings and Sylvania: They only speak english very conseded

Seven: Dutch, Russian

Clymene: Sofasian

Oceana: Oshenna

Fine? Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:24, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what about Russian in Seven? (Novosevensk) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:14, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Well see how others react Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:23, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I do think that it's important that we have people that can speak the language on this site as well, even if it's only somebody who knows the basics of that language. Otherwise it just makes no sense, because it's like: "hey guys, in our country/state we speak this language, but actually nobody speaks it..." --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:14, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Which you've made my point why made Oceana a National language when it's only spoken by one Place. It 's like saying "Hey I live in Kings and even though our national languages are English and Oceana we only speak English." See. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:08, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia calls them "recognised regional languages" (from memory). That's a suiting term, although dropping the recognised would be perfectly fine. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:35, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, originally this act was a part of the Oceana State Law and as these were abolished it was transferred to the federal law. I guess that's the reason why it's national. But "recognised regional language" is slightly different from "official regional language". The difference is that a recognised language may not be used in official documents, but an official regional language may. (at least, that's the case in the Netherlands). --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:17, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

072. Tax System of Lovia
This is a law to be added to the constitution, so 75% needed.


 * All citizens 18 years of age and older must pay taxes to the Federal Government of Lovia.


 * All citizens must pay the taxes at the current rate set by the goevrnment.


 * The rate is to be set when the new congress comes in.


 * They must pass the rate from March 1st - April 1st, or the previous rates continue to go into effect, know as the tax code and record should be kept about the taxes of former years.


 * Congress may also pass a law on sales tax.


 * Congress may change this rate between the peroid of March 1st - April 1st.


 * Congress can also attach on benefits for certain types of people. (i.e. first time home owners, people with two or more children, small bisnuess owners.)


 * Citizens of Lovia must pay there taxes at a, local post office, mail to the federal govrnment, or deliver it to the government, between the period of April 20th - May 20th.


 * Citizens of Lovia who do not pay there taxes will be brought before the judical system of Lovia and punished with a felony.


 * Along with the felony they must pay the money and be sentenced with additional three years to the jail sentence.
 * Wikia Citizens say they didn't pay there taxes they should appear before the supreme court for a trial, the maximum sentance is four months, and the minimum is one month.

So any one like? Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:51, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Like. Let's just pass the law now, also. Why should we wait a month? Also, five years is way too much, since this is a wiki. Why not three months? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:56, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Wait five years? Where do you see that. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:00, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

We need this bill now, and we need a budget plan. Nathaniel Scribner 21:25, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, ummm also the bullet things are being indented. Crap. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:26, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

It says five years as the punishment. That's way too much. Also, I like Scribner's plan most closely. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:54, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Oh for tax evasion? I'll lower it to three. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:02, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Three years should be three months. Banning someone for 3 years for an IC situation is six times as bad as YgoD's 6 month ban for an IC thing. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:40, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

We should also introduce the sales tax, 6%. Also I wanted my plan's lower class tax bracket at around 30%. Nathaniel Scribner 01:23, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe to 28%? I think the lower classes might be paying a bit much. Also, the sales tax is good. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:28, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

And seriously TM, seriously? What user would just say "I want to be banned for three years" It's just to make the other "citizens" of lovia pay there taxes. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:38, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, seriously. Look what happened to Donia for breaking an IC law. If someone evades taxes, we aren't going to ban them for three years. You get banned for IC here, if you didn't know that. I am not going to vote for this until it is changed. Realistic punishments for the wiki, not real life which Lovia isn't, are needed. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:45, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Again seriously? Since this isn't IRL we won't litterally say Going to pay taxes now, it'll just be done for us. When we create laws we create them for us and the other "Citizens" of Lovia. Why Would any one just want to be banned for three years? That doesn't make sense. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:52, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

What about if someone explicitly says "they don't pay taxes". Then there could be a trial and they would get banned for three years. It does make sense. We need to have wiki punishments, not IRL punishments. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:09, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

If they're really that smart then they should be banned I'll put in a new clause, read it. But the dot aren't working. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:21, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Forget the tax plans, we have to focus on this law so that we have taxes! We can discuss that during the tax period. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:48, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

O_o I just found an old tax plan of Yuri's that was never passed. It's in the second chamber somewhere, with those other massive financial bills. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:54, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but it was in the old congress, i notified congress by saying all former laws should be re-posted in the first chamber, it wasn't here we are now. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:07, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

His was really good, I think we should just be revising it. O_o —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:14, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

We should probaly. Let's see what yuri has to think about this. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:16, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Some Charts and thoughts
Well here's three possible ways that seem most out there

I suppose this:

17,000 Lovians are above the age of 18 and recive income

I also suppose since we have such a high cost of licing and almost every user and character is a millionaire i'll say:

4% of all Lovians make a million dollars or more

4% make between 250,000 to one million

4% make between 100,000 to 249,999

75% make between 45,000 to 99,999

and the rest 13% make 44,999 and under.

Just guessing

So let's say:

16% (2720) of Lovians for this graph's sake make 500 thousand

and 84% (14280) make 60,000 dollars.

So here's the three plans:

Plan one
Tax them a very socialist way 20% on the lower, 40% on the higher

So let's do 2,720 times 500,000 times 40% that would get lovia = 544,000,000 to the Lovian Government, or 200,000 a person.

And the Lower Class, 14,280 times 60,000 times 20% = 171,360,000 to the Lovian Government or 12,000 a person.

Plan Two
A way Scribner put out which is the "enjoy limited taxes" eveyone pays around the same:

So the higher classes of 2,720 times 500,000 times 36% that would get Lovia = 489,600,000 to the government or 180,000 dollars a person.

The Lower classes, 14,280 times 60,000 times 28% that would get Lovia = 230,904,000 to the government or a person

Plan Three
Across the board taxes a very republican conservative plan, everyone pay 35%

So here we go 2,720 times 500,000 times 35% that would get Lovia = 476,000,000 or 175,000 a person.

And Lower Classes, 14,280 times 60,000 times 35% would get Lovia = 299,880,000 or 21,000 a person

So what we gonna do? Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:10, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion up there. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:40, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

So here's a chart showing the difference between rich (100,000 and more) and under you can make a decision by yourself. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:41, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the graph that well. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:45, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Read it, it shows that even though 16% of the people are just 16% they have 61.35% of all the money in Lovia. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:52, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:09, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the first plan though in Europe we'd call that 'normal progressive taxation' instead of 'very socialist'. 06:58, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

I think the lower class taxes should be reduced further in Scribner's plan. Maybe 25% for lower and 35% for higher, and some way to make a fluid zone in between. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:39, May 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I say 38% and 23% is fine. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:08, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

I think that the rich are being too highly taxed in your plan. Put them down to 35% at least. However, the 23% for the poorer people is very good. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:23, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * 35% for the richest is an absolute minimum too me, go underneath it and I'll vote contra. 13:05, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but Lovia offers so much to people and so much more. Maybe 37% Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:06, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

We should really be focusing on the bill itself these were just different plans. Nothing has been set in stone. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:07, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

How much money does it take to run the country, anyone got the numbers?Nathaniel Scribner 19:00, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on a lot of things such as how big government is, what its tasks are, how large the country is, etc. Really no beginning at making up a realistic number. 07:33, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Can We really focus on the bill it's self so we have a tax program? Please? Anyway we'd have to look through all laws take number of lovian people it effects and how much it would cost. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:05, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Let's do 36% on the rich and 28% on the poor. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:11, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

36% and 25% Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:32, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Okay. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:33, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

We need a budget plan, stop the estimations and lets get the numbers. People shouldn't be paying for a government who doesn't know how much the bills are to run the government. Alright, every department secretary should report how much there department would cost for the next year/ongoing year, making this essayer for the next term of congressmen. If its good in the end we could possibly lower the taxation for both of the brackets if we are in the clear for money, or we could use it on some other national project. Nathaniel Scribner 16:54, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Not to be that guy but why don't you do then. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:44, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Had to go to my sisters graduation, now I get to be that guy- do your department.

DoAiT : 10 million Lovian Dollars.Nathaniel Scribner 04:01, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the budget for AiT? Foreign Affairs will need about 84 million (including aid-programs, participation in international research and a budget co-operated with AiT for foreign trade). 05:53, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Were are a nation of low populace and low poverty, we need small aid-programs and participation in international research would be be taken in small representation. 84 million is way too high, I could understand with 30 million for ambassadors and embassies. Seeing as 670,000 is too low I'd put it at 3 million Nathaniel Scribner 06:26, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 34 million are the new costs. I re-calibrated them for our low population number. 06:45, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Love it. Nathaniel Scribner 06:47, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am cutting costs like crazy but would like an additional 13 million for international aid programs. It could be in a fund that when not spent on a disaster this year, it is used to fund the budget of next year. Would that be okay? 06:49, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * 8 million and allow the rest into our budget plan for future disaster's, also we should only to send it to nations with no activity with terrisom, is in good terms with us and won't use it for military spending. Nathaniel Scribner 07:03, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm making a plan here, can you take a look? I altered my approach to international aid and directed it all trough the UN. 07:13, May 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Our budget has to be at least around 75 million with a 36%, 25%, + sales tax also including tax rebates. See as the two biggest departments are accounted for, ummm...The police would need funding and so would the parks departments. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:09, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

073. Revision to the Sports and National Team Act
Currently, the law reads:


 * Minors may not participate in outside physical training or games when the outside temperature is below 10 degrees Celsius (50°F) or above 35 degrees Celsius (95°F), nor may they participate in inside physical training or games when the temperature in the specific room is below 15 degrees Celsius (59°F) or above 30 degrees Celsius (86°F).
 * Minors may not accept financial payment for sports achievements.

Firstly, the limits are too stringent, especially the lower ones. So minors (including 17 years olds) can't play a sport outside before 10 degrees. You can function fine at that temperatures. And besides, doesn't this mean a bunch of winter sports are illegal? I propose the limits be changed to -10 degrees Celsius (14 degrees Fahrenheit) and 35 degrees Celsius (95 degrees Fahrenheit) for minors, and no limits for adults. Regarding the final clause, I believe that this is ageist. Why not? Why can't they start a sporting career in high school? I think these age limits should be done away with or reduced for the final clause. What do the rest of the MOTCs think? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:19, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

As the co-sponsor and wirter, I also found this wierd. I think that the highest should be 87F all around and 0F. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:27, May 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is good but I'm not in Congress yet. I wanted to comment since nobody else does. Aged youngman 11:15, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, seems fine with me. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:12, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

No one else cares, and anyone who does agrees. Taking this to second chamber, with a rewrite to section 5 and deletion of section 6. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:04, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Pro. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:14, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

I added some requirements for adults as well. -13 F and 100 F. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:17, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

074. A Fair Trial
I checked the Constitution and all we have is the following:
 * Lovia is a democratic and social state, governed by the rule of law, in which [...] justice and political pluralism represent supreme values (Article 1.A.2)
 * Every human being and citizen has the right to be arrested in a trial and to be treated correctly (Article 2.1.5)

Even Iran has a better developed concept of a fair trial and therefore I wrote an article I'd like to add to the Constitution. The most important change is that it allows a change of the judge if you feel he is not neutral. Also, a judge will have to motivate his decision thoroughly. Take your time to read it trough, it should not be in conflict with any existing legislation. Please notify my if you find an irregularity - typo's can be fixed on the spot. 11:35, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Article 12 of the Constitution
Awesome. Now Iran will be looking pretty stupid. Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:41, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) All people accused in a civil or criminal case pending with a Lovian court are entitled to a due process of law as defined in this section of the Constitution, in correspondence with Articles 1.A.2 and 2.1.5.
 * 2) The due process of law is supervised by a Judicial Council which is an organ independent of any of the three powers judicial, legislative and executive.
 * 3) The Judicial Council consists of a Supreme Court Judge, the Secretary of Justice and a representative of the Congress.
 * 4) Of all the non-involved Supreme Court Judges the one with longest duty is chosen for every case-specific assembly.
 * 5) For every case-specific assembly Congress appoints a MOTC as its representative.
 * 6) All three seats of the Judicial Council are at any time occupied by different members.
 * 7) The Judicial Council must judge on the challenging of judges and motivations as described in 3.3 and 4.1 of this section of the Constitution.
 * 8) The Judicial Council may formulate an advice to the Congress on the appointment or removal of a judge.
 * 9) To ensure a due process of law a defendant in a civil or criminal case pending with a Lovian court has the following rights:
 * 10) To have access to an independent and impartial judge with the full judicial power to judge on both the facts and the rights.
 * 11) A judge is considered independent if he does not follow instructions of another judge or a political actor.
 * 12) A judge is considered impartial if he does not show any bias towards a party in a case he is judging.
 * 13) The fair access to a judge is guaranteed by allowing any involved party to challenge the judge before the Judicial Council.
 * 14) If the Judicial Council agrees to the challenge it can either appoint a replacing judge or judge the case itself.
 * 15) If the Judicial Council denounces the challenge the judge resumes his duty and his judgement is legally binding.
 * 16) To be provided the following means in order to be sufficiently able to exercise one's right to a fair defense:
 * 17) The ability to choose not to speak or answer any question by calling upon one's right to remain silent.
 * 18) The ability to get advice from and to be defended by a lawyer which can not be treated as a witness.
 * 19) A treatment in compliance with the presumption of innocence for the duration of the trial.
 * 20) The ability to contradict all elements of a case during the trial and to be given the proper time to do so.
 * 21) The right to contradiction is limited to the substantial case and does not apply to police research.
 * 22) The judge can make an exception to this right to protect an anonymous witness from harm.
 * 23) To be judged and hear one's verdict in publicity, ensured by entrance to the court room free to the public.
 * 24) The judge can cancel this right to protect an involved party from harm or to ensure public order.
 * 25) If the judge cancels this right he has to inform the involved parties at the start of the trial.
 * 26) To ensure a due process of law the parties in a civil or criminal case pending with a Lovian court have the following rights:
 * 27) To receive sufficient factual and judicial motivation for the verdict given in which all means raised are to be answered.
 * 28) If the motivation is believed to be insufficient, dubious or contradictory any involved party may challenge the verdict before the Judicial Council
 * 29) The Judicial Council can suspend a verdict if the motivation is found to be insufficient, dubious or contradictory though it can not be cancelled.
 * 30) A suspended verdict becomes executable when the judge altered its motivation to solve the problems determined by the Judicial Council.
 * 31) To be provided with a judgement within a reasonable amount of time, at most one month after the judge opened the case.
 * 32) No one can be sentenced for an act more than one year after the act took place, tough the question of guilt can still be the object of a trial.
 * 33) An an exception, the following crimes are always punishable: murder, genocide, slavery, severe deprivation of freedom in conflict with the law, torture, grave sexual violence such as rape or forced prostitution, targeted persecution or discrimination of an identifiable group or community and forced disappearance.
 * 34) To see the verdict executed once it is final as a means of assuring the rule of law.
 * I've been preparing a reform of our judicial system for quite some time now. Justice is rotten in Lovia, this is the most urgent part. 11:54, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

075. Amending Article 8.2
I would like to get this approved before the next elections are over so that there is no problem with proposing the next government in the King's absence. It will also strengthen democratic control trough the Congress and fix some continuity errors we faced when installing Villanova I. More concrete it will:


 * Make the PM propose a government composition independent of the King
 * Allow Congress to replace a secretary instead of just firing him
 * Allow new PM to be appointed by Congress if the former steps down (or is removed like Donia was)

The adjusted bill looks like this (changes underlined):

8.2. Federal Secretaries
 * 1) The Prime Minister will chose which Members of the Congress will become Secretaries of a certain Department at the beginning of his term . His proposal needs to be accepted by a normal majority in Congress.
 * 2) Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities. When they have lost their trust in the questioned person, they can vote a motion of distrust against him or her. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, he or she has to resign and a replacement has to be appointed by Congress.
 * 3) Remains the same
 * 4) When the Prime Minister and his government resign, Congress can appoint a new government by normal majority. If no new government is appointed within two weeks, Congress is dissolved and new federal elections are to be held.

12:09, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks just fine. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:38, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine, and i'm just throwing this out, should we include votes of no confidence so Lovia can be even more democratic? Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:30, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Perhaps they could trigger elections? And maybe votes of confidence at the mid terms should be proposed if the government wants to continue, but if they are rejected the new PM must make a government. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:37, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Marcus: the vote of no confidence against any secretary or the PM is already included in part 8.2.2, though under the name of 'motion of distrust'. @TimeMaster: MidTerms are for expanding the Congress, they do not have to affect the government. If a new MOTC is unhappy with the government/PM he or she can always issue a motion of distrust as described in 8.2.2. 09:21, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine then. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:22, May 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * What if a group of congresspeople want to create an entirely new government after the current government becomes inactive or unpopular? That is what motions of no confidences would be for here. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:06, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Part three of this section of the Constitution (the one which is marked 'remains the same' in my proposal) allows such a motion of distrust: Congress can vote the entire government home, though at the cost of having to hold new elections. Theoretically, Congress could also use part 2 of the proposal to replace all secretaries and the PM one by one. 05:50, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * So let's move this to the second chamber? Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:32, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

076. Metrics Act
I would like to write a law establishing standards and regulations on measurement-related things. It would also establish the metric system as the official measurement system of Lovia. Thoughts? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:57, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

I say contra only beacue i like inches and feet. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:03, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

What if we:


 * held a nationwide referendum,


 * allowed each state to choose what system they would like


 * create a unique Lovian measurement system


 * use a combination of metric and US system ex.

HORTON11 00:31, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

No more states' rights. This needs to be national, having the states select their own will only complicate it since some people will be able to decide their state's system. I was going to recommend a standard of this: METRIC (IMPERIAL/USA), so for example we would use: 15 cm (5.9 in). Also Marcus, we have to be realistic here. We shouldn't just use Imperial because you are from the US. I am from the US also and I am used to the Imperial system, but I support Metric because it is more realistic. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:24, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Well if we do't have state rights, then whats the point to having State elections and governors? Also I think your idea of using both is good. HORTON11 01:50, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * As the USA is basically our only trading partner, in my opinion we should stick to their system. But then again, I'm not an MOTC, so ignore me. --Semyon 07:24, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * People in Indiana are trying to push the Metric system to become the state measurment system. I think the states more wanting to devolope trade with the US or Asia/ Oceania should have the choice to decide for themselfs. We are here to set the taxes, produce a defense for the people and to support the liberty of the people, not make the federal government bigger. &#91;&#91;User:Zackatron&#124;Nathaniel&#93;&#93; &#91;&#91;Nathaniel Scribner&#124;Scribner&#93;&#93; 08:08, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * The metric system is the one used in scientific research so that would get my support. About the trade issue: simple software is sufficient to calculate between units. Also, this isn't a real trade barrier since China exports a lot to the US but China does use the metric system. On a side note: doesn't the US use the metric system when it comes to electrical charge or the measurement of time? 08:27, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Semyon - your running for congress, take a stand on the issue. I like the inches and everything, the USA uses it and were also close to them so we should use it. Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:36, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

This should be nationwide. What if you're in Sylvania and see a board telling you it's 16 to Hurb, while crossing the border with Oceana it suddenly becomes 20... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:26, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, or when your using your GPS and it says 5 feet until Oceana and then starts to say 8.6 meters until the next exit, and who have know idea what it's talking about and then you crash and die. Now would we really want that to happen? Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:46, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

077. 2011 State Reform
We talked about this in the Pub. Here's the official discussion that will last a couple days. The major changes are the PM reform where the PM is now the leader of a government coalition, the increased line of succession, that the monarch is no longer MOTC by right, and that the 100 seat congress idea has been instated.

Article 1 A - Lovian National State
 * 1) Lovia is a sovereign, independent, unitary and indivisible National State.
 * 2) Lovia is a democratic and social state, governed by the rule of law, in which human dignity, the citizens' rights and freedoms, the free development of human personality, justice and political pluralism represent supreme values, in the spirit of the democratic traditions of the Lovian people and shall be guaranteed.
 * 3) Lovia shall be organized based on the principle of the separation and balance of powers - legislative, executive, and judicial - within the framework of constitutional democracy. Therefore no person is entitled to combine a top function in two or three branches of government; thus, the ruling monarch, the Prime Minister and the Supreme Court Judge shall be no less than three different persons.
 * 4) In Lovia, the observance of the Constitution, its supremacy and the laws shall be mandatory.
 * 5) The national sovereignty shall reside within the Lovia people, that shall exercise it by means of their representative bodies, resulting from free, periodical and fair elections, as well as by referendum.
 * 6) No group or person may exercise sovereignty in one's own name.

Article 1 B - Lovia is a monarchy, ruled by the ruling monarch.
 * 1) The ruling monarch is the person who legally inherited the throne from the previous ruling monarch. He or she is thus a descendant of the first Lovian monarch, King Arthur I of Lovia (Arthur Noble).
 * 2) The ruling monarch can be either male (the King) or female (the Queen).
 * 3) The method of the line of succession to the Lovian throne is absolute cognatic primogeniture. Therefore, the person who legally inherits the Lovian throne, after the previous ruling monarch has either deceased or abdicated, is the person who is the eldest child of the previous monarch. If the monarch had no children, the throne goes to the next oldest sibling, followed by younger siblings and cousins.
 * 4) All descendants of Arthur I of Lovia are part of the line of succession, regardless of any activity, except for those that have requested that they be removed.
 * 5) The partner of the ruling monarch is the person who legally married the ruling monarch. They are a member of the royal family, but they do not enjoy privileges over the citizens of Lovia.
 * 6) The person first in line to the throne is known as the heir apparent, and becomes monarch after the previous monarch has abdicated or deceased.
 * 7) The heir apparent to the throne will sign the Constitution upon their coronation.
 * 8) The heir apparent assumes the throne after he has presented himself to Congress on invitation of a normal majority in Congress. After this, the heir is officially declared Monarch of Lovia.
 * 9) The ruling monarch has the right to demand financial support from the Department of Finance, in which case the Secretary of Finance can decide to grant the ruling monarch an amount of money, in agreement with Congress.
 * 10) The maximum amount of financial support that can be given is 4000 Lovian dollars per month.
 * 11) With the exception of the ruling monarch in function, no member of the royal family is granted extra-legal privileges. Each member of the royal family, with the exception of the ruling monarch in function, is a regular citizen as determined by the Constitution.
 * 12) The ruling monarch's functions in the government are solely ceremonial. If the ruling monarch wishes to become a member of Congress, then they must run for office in the same way a normal citizen would.

Article 8 – Elections and the formation of a federal government
 * 1) Federal Elections:
 * 2) Every year federal elections must be held for the election of the 100 seat Congress.
 * 3) The term of office of every Member of the Congress is exactly one year. Therefore every year the elections should be held at the same date.
 * 4) Election procedure during Federal Elections:
 * 5) During a period of three weeks, any Lovian citizen can, without restrictions, become a candidate in the Federal Elections. This period begins exactly one month and twenty-one days before Inauguration Day.
 * 6) During a period of three weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her votes in favor of candidates in the Federal Elections.
 * 7) Every citizen may cast three favorable votes in the Federal Elections: a Major Vote, a Minor Vote and a Favor Vote. A Major Vote is worth three points, a Minor Vote two and a Favor Vote one.
 * 8) Citizens may choose not to cast their votes, or to only cast some of them.
 * 9) Citizens may not cast multiple votes for the same candidate. All cast votes must be given to different candidates.
 * 10) If more than 100 candidates are running, only the top 100 in number of votes will receive seats in Congress.
 * 11) The normal dates of elections, excluding the possibility of a dissolution of Congress, are set at December 10th to 31st for nominations, and from January 1st to 21st for voting. Inauguration Day is set at February 1st.
 * 12) All candidates will complete the elections with a percentage of the total votes, with the exception of those that have withdrawn.
 * 13) The percentage of votes cast to a certain candidate from the total votes cast is the amount of seats in Congress that the candidate will control.
 * 14) The congressperson may delegate their seats to all the parties that they wish, but still control the votes of each congressperson.
 * 15) New federal elections must be held when more than half of the Members of the Congress are inactive; either self-declared or if they have not edited for over a month (30 days).
 * 16) The Prime Minister and Federal Secretaries:
 * 17) The Prime Minister is the declared leader of a coalition of political parties that consist of more than 50% of the seats in Congress.
 * 18) If a coalition agreement is not reached by Inauguration Day, all non-vital executive government activities are shut down until an agreement is reached.
 * 19) The Prime Minister will chose which Members of the Congress will become Secretaries of a certain Department. Their proposal needs to be accepted by a normal majority in Congress.
 * 20) Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities. If the congress has lost their trust in the questioned person, a motion of distrust may be proposed in congress against him or her. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, he or she has to resign from the government and a replacement has to be proposed by the Prime Minister and approved by Congress.
 * 21) When Congress has lost its trust in the incumbent government, it can vote a motion of no confidence. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority, both government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held.
 * 22) If the Prime Minister or a Federal Secretary resigns, the government coalition must select a successor, which then has to be approved by Congress.
 * 23) State Elections:
 * 24) Every Lovian citizen has the right to become a candidate for Governor of a state wherein he or she has an official residence.
 * 25) It is not permitted to be a candidate during a state election in more than one state.
 * 26) The term of office of the elected Governor and Deputy Governor is exactly one year. Therefore every year the elections should be held at the same date.
 * 27) Election procedure during State Elections:
 * 28) During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen and resident of the state can become a candidate in the State Elections. This period begins exactly one month before the day of the inauguration of the Governor and Deputy Governor.
 * 29) During a period of two weeks, any Lovian citizen can cast his or her vote in favor of a candidate in the State Elections of the state of which he or she is an official resident.
 * 30) Every citizen may cast one vote per state election. Inhabitants of multiple states have the right to cast one vote for each state in which they have an official residence.
 * 31) Citizens may choose not to cast their vote.
 * 32) The normal dates of elections, excluding the possibility of a resignation of both Governor and Deputy Governor, are set at September 16th to 30th for nominations, and from October 1st to 14th for voting. Inauguration Day is set at November 1st.
 * 33) The candidate who received the highest number of votes and at least three will become Governor of the state in which he or she participated in the state elections.
 * 34) In the case of an ex aequo, a second voting round must be held within two weeks' time.
 * 35) The Governor is in charge of the competencies given to the state government.
 * 36) The candidate who received the second highest number of votes and at least three will become Deputy Governor of the state in which he or she participated in the state elections.
 * 37) The Deputy Governor is in temporary charge of the state competencies during the absence of the Governor.
 * 38) Upon the resignation of the Governor, or any other instance causing the Governor to quit, the Deputy Governor becomes Governor and will keep this office until the next elections.

(then add Yuri's fair trial amendment here as well)

How is it? Nitpicks would be nice. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:49, May 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems good, but in the section "If a coalition agreement is not reached by Inauguration Day, government activities are shut down until an agreement is reached", we should just appoint a provisional congress (or extend the previous one). HORTON11  22:30, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

The congress still goes as usual, however, no executive government actions can be taken, such as the actions of the departments, because there are no secretaries yet. I'll add executive for clarity. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:05, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'm crying tears of joy! wait 48 hours and we will move it to the second chamber. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:09, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * This proposal can most certaintly count on my complete and utter support and appreciation. This is a major day in the history of Lovian democracy and I rejoice in that fact. The Master&#39;s Voice 12:16, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

078. Missing part education Federal Law
I was just trying to find out how many weeks a year our children go to school, but I can't find it. Could be that I read over it, but I can't find it here. It's quite useful for me to know, 'cause then I can make a good method. I propose that we'll have 12 weeks of vacation spreaded as following: I think this would be a model at which both atheists and Christians can agree. We should still have a door open for other minorities like Jews and Moslims though, but they don't seem to be a group of any importance in Lovia and I really don't know much about their Holy Days. Anyway, they can make use of the "free week" when they operate their own schools. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:13, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Primary school starts after August, 1 september or the week immediately following 1 september if 1 september is not a monday. Summer vacation takes six weeks. (after August, 'cause Onsten at the beginning of school ain't a good idea..)
 * One week of autumn vacation at the start of November (will most often include the last days of October, will be set at All Saint's Day and All Soul's Day).
 * Two weeks of winter vacation, will include Christmas and New Year and 2 Jan (so, the December-January transition)
 * Two weeks of spring vacation, at the beginning of May.
 * One "free week" will be left and can be spread over five days. Schools may decide themselves where to put these, f.e.: thanksgiving/easter/pentecost/simply an extra day spring vacation.

Pretty good, however, I think there needs to be a way to make 1 and 2 January always days off. Kids are too tired then, from staying up to New Year. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:17, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are always days off. I guess New Year is considered one day in English-speaking countries, but here it lasts till the third of jan :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:19, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Awesome but i'd extend summer vacation to two months. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:20, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Why? Most children get bored after one week already :P and I'm pretty sure 6 weeks is long enough for a holiday to the other side of the world. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:22, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

I get bored of summer vacation too. Don't extend it, please. 2.5 months is way long here in the USA. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:25, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Also, New Year is defined either as the first moment of 1 January or all of 1 January. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:26, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:27, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

079. Ritual slaughter act
For the animal lovers among US (of which I regard myself as one) I want to make sure the following law passes: What do you say, fellow Congressmen? The Master&#39;s Voice 12:23, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Slaughter without the use of anesthesia will be forbidden.
 * Ritual slaughter as described by Jewish and Islamic scholars will continue to be allowed in Lovia and protected by law
 * Halal & Kosher slaughter will be allowed only if the animals are properly drugged before-hand to prevent further suffering – all slaughterhouses that refuse to adhere to the law will be closed immediately
 * And Christian ritual slaughter? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:24, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Any form of Ritual Slaughter will be allowed - given that it is done under the influence of anesthesia. The Master&#39;s Voice 12:26, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I'm pro. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:29, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If the Slaughterhouse, however, refuses to use anesthesia claiming it is "not compatible with their religious beliefs", the business will be closed down. I know Islamic slaughterhouses have used anesthesia without much trouble. If the Jewish and Greek Orthodox Christians and other denominations that perform Ritual Slaughter are as easy-going with this as they are I see no trouble ahead. If it will, then it will, so be it. The rights of animals take presidence, as religion is fine in my book as long as nobody get's hurt as a result of it, which currently is the case. The Master&#39;s Voice 12:32, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ritual slaughterhouses in the Netherlands all use anesthesia, so in Western countries it ain't a problem I guess. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:33, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * The Islamic Slaughterhouses do, the Jewish Slaughterhouses refuse to use them and are very much against laws forcing it upon them. However in Lovia I see no problem, as most of our citizens are already quite liberal and we do not have a strong Orthodox Jewish lobby here. That's definetely helpful. We are sensible people. The Master&#39;s Voice 12:36, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

This all seems well. There is a draft of this somewhere, so I am going to draft a more full draft of the bill. coming soon. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:45, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, TimeMaster. And thank you, Mr. Ilava, for pointing out the practice of Christian Ritual Slaughter, which I forgot to include. The Master&#39;s Voice 12:47, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Draft 1 - Humane Slaughter Act

 * 1) No method of slaughtering or handling in connection with slaughtering shall be deemed to comply with the public policy of the Kingdom of Lovia unless it is humane. Either of the following two methods of slaughtering and handling are hereby found to be humane:
 * 2) in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock, all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or
 * 3) by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of any religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering.
 * 4) All slaughtering of any type must be done under full anesthesia, to prevent suffering.
 * 5) The Department of Agriculture will be provide the necessary resources to mandate and the insurance of the Humane Slaughter Act.
 * 6) The Department of Agriculture shall have the power to close a farm or slaughter house if regulations do not follow these of the Humane Slaughter Act.
 * 7) If any action is taken against a farmer, butcher or any other handler of meat shall have the right to take the Department of Agriculture to the Lovian Court of Law if the defendant sees that the law was not taken into the right context or the abuse of the law.
 * 8) The farm or slaughter house may be reopened if it has been proven to pass guidelines.

How's this? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:51, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, all ritual slaughter has to be forbidden. It will only be allowed under the use of full anesthesia', as described in point three. I made that quite clear. The Master&#39;s Voice 12:54, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

But it can still be humane easily without anesthesia. Why do you always put a smile at the end of half of your posts, also? xD Added. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:20, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that 'humane' should be understood as quick and as painless as reasonable. You don't per se have to make an animal brain-death by drugging it before actually killing it. 13:24, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Humane would be to make it painless. Ritual slaughter isn't quick: in (orthodox) Jewish practices, the animal's throat has to be slit without putting pressure on the knife - how is that ever "painless" or "quick"? It often takes quite a while for the animals to die, which is a unacceptable in my opinion. I say drug the poor animals first, before you draw your knifes and hammers. If extremists disagree, we simply close down their slaughterhouses. It's easy. This would be a major and much needed victory for animal rights in Lovia. The Master&#39;s Voice 14:07, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sure. Do we need to tweak this any more? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:10, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? The Master&#39;s Voice 14:14, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

I mean is it ready for second chamber? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:16, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think my proposal already was; outlaws all forms of ritual or (regular, for that matter) slaughter performed without anesthesia. The Master&#39;s Voice 14:20, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Read clause 2. "#All slaughtering of any type must be done under full anesthesia, to prevent suffering." —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:33, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. The Master&#39;s Voice 14:37, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Killing animals is never good, killing them in a way so that it becomes torture is even bad. Aged youngman 15:19, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * A law to prevent us from killing any animals would never pass. If a bug keeps me from my sleep at night I'll crush him too, that'd make me a mass-murderer.
 * Mr. Dae-su, I agree with you to a certain extent. People are always going to be killing animals, we cannot possibly prevent them. What we can do (and what I intend to do) is make sure that it happens in a humane way. Religious slaughter without anesthesia is NEVER humane and therefore has to be completely outlawed. The Master&#39;s Voice 15:24, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I hardly ever eat meat myself, though I am not a complete vegetarian. I know killing animals is sometimes needed or can not be prevented. Religious slaughter on the other hand, well it is called slaughter right? Aged youngman 15:26, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. So I'll outlaw it completely; the current humane slaughter act still allows it... strange, by the way, to read the words "slaughter" & "humane" in one sentence. The killing of animals should be as quick as possible and painless. This means religious slaughter will no longer take place on Lovian soil and, to go even further; kosher or halal meat may no longer be imported. Now that would make a difference. The Master&#39;s Voice 15:36, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to enforce my discriminating or world-strange views on you all so don't bother. Aged youngman 15:52, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just go ahead, spread your opinion, speak your mind. It can't be that bad, can it? The Master&#39;s Voice 15:57, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think religious slaughter is inhumane. If we ban kosher and halal meat, I will vote contra. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:24, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that is what youngman tried to say. There is no consensus on banning religious slaughter, though he did wish to express his opinion. 08:05, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * @TM: it is rather complicated... Kosher and halal slaughter is fine, given that it is only performed on animals under anesthesia. According to liberal jews and muslims, this is no problemo, you see. A small group of orthodox\radical believers might be offended, though. However I doubt we have many of those, as Lovia appears to be rather moderate in mostly every aspect of society. The Master&#39;s Voice 08:37, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is wrong but understand we can not forbid it. I just wonder why they couldn't invent animal-friendly traditions. Aged youngman 13:54, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Because of all beasts, man is the worst. The Master&#39;s Voice 19:02, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Keeping things in order
I propose a extra point to be added on to the 100 person congress. That all incoming congressmen file out there "fake congressmen/women" to the National Congressmen Order in which a congressmen would file out the names of the congressmen and create pages for them. In addition we would be able to see who controls who in the voting process. Any one else want to agree with me? Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:55, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine with me, Sir. The Master&#39;s Voice 19:04, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * So, if I'm right, we create a list of the 100 members of Congress? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:07, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're smart we'll use many, many pre-excisting characters. It makes no sense if all politician retire in the same month and are all instantly replaced. We already have quite a few politicians. The Master&#39;s Voice 19:09, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, for CCPL I'll use some of the Oceana Christians. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:11, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Only if we call it National Congresspeople Order will I support it. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:24, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't National Congressperson Order be better grammar? IN any case i'll move this to the second chamber only needs 50% majority. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:26, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 1 - National Congressperson Order Act

 * To organize the 100 members of the Congress of Lovia the National Congressperson Order (NCO) is created.
 * The NCO will perform the following tasks:
 * File the names of each congressperson;
 * File the controllers of each congressperson;
 * File the political parties of each congressperson.
 * Each member of Congress must add the congresspeople that they control to the NCO pages.

Just a basic law, this is what I could get out of your ideas. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:04, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Perfect! Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:23, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Keepin' it real
I would say almost 90% of congresses have these, Majority leaders, Majority (2nd in command many names, in the US there called Whips), Minority leaders and all that. Also we don't have a Speaker of the house to make sure things are kept in order. Just wondering about this if anyone agrees. Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:09, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say we don't make it mandatory but do allow it. Of course the Speaker would have to be enshrined in law, but the rest can be an official habit of some sort. 13:01, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Speakers aren't really needed in Congress, instead anyone in Congress should be able to make the ✅ and stuff life. That way if the speaker goes inactive nothing bad happens. Majority and minority leaders would be good, but the whips would only add unnecessary complexity. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:58, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of party/coalition leaders keeps the message of the party in line, the other thing would also be a vice primer, if the PM couldn't be around. Also then he could be the leader of the congress to keep things in order. Yeah i don't think it would have to be mandatory, but it would probaly become a normal thing. The process would be:


 * New congress comes in


 * Coalitions are made, or not


 * Party members elect party heads


 * Then secretaries are appointed


 * Normal bills start to be proposed

Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:22, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Let's not call them Vice Primers. That term is either informal or does not exist. (search it). The real name is Deputy Prime Minister. And a coalition has to be made unless a party somehow gets more than 50% of the vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:54, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Fine Deputy Prime Ministers, and i understand the whole coalition thing. It also just makes us look more like a real country. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:59, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Coalitions will have an impact only if there is a certain degree of party loyalty though. If MOTC just act as individuals in stead of as a party, it doesn't matter what majority we have.  09:55, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

True, I'll write somthing up so we can have this added to the NCO Act.

Write up
I feel like i'm missing somthing! Am I? IDK. My final proposal would be a constitutional change to make the Speaker of the House the second in command and a "interm PM" if the PM steps down. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:40, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Every party (coalition or caucus) has the right to put foward a Party Leader.
 * 2) Party Leaders are elected by the members of a certain party.
 * 3) Party leaders are to be the first, in tradition, to address congressional bills and address party leaders, but this is not mandatory.
 * 4) These members shall be addressed in the following:
 * 5) If their coalition has the majority of the seats they should be addressed with their Party or Coalition name first and there position in Congress (either Majority or Minority).
 * 6) The entire Congress shall then elect a Speaker of the Congress, or head of the congress, has the power to:
 * 7) Call congressional hearings on impeachment or other important Lovian activites.
 * 8) Call a special congressional session to order.
 * 9) Ceremonially open and close congress at the beginning and ending of a congressional term.

Should the speaker really be called Speaker of the House? I was thinking Speaker of the Congress. In the UK, they have Speaker of the House of Commons, because that's their legislature. So I think Lovia should use its legislature's name. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:50, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry made a mistake so any other discussion? From other members? Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:23, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

I don't care :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:33, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'll take that as a PRO vote. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:32, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

You took it right :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:23, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll vote pro and expect most will do so. This isn't exactly a point of debate is it?  07:30, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

No just to see if it has enough support. Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:58, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

Which I see it does have enough support so i'll move it to the second chamber! We need a quick vote on this elections end June 23rd and then a short lame duck session and then the new congress so we just need a few s and were good. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:15, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

2011 Second Congress
I suppose that's a good name. Would 2011 Republican Provisional Congress be better? Anyway, this is our current agenda:


 * Confirm the Government.
 * Marcus, you need to make your government proposal.
 * Elect a Speaker of Congress.
 * File your Party Leaders on the NCO page.

Anything else? Then we can get started on some other proposals we've worked on. Also, there is no law banning Cannibis in Lovia, so the Green Party doesn't really make sense anymore. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:20, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I do not really understand what you're saying with "file your PL on the NCO page". --O u WTBsjrief-mich 21:05, July 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume Oos Wes Ilava is the leader of the party CCPL. If he is, then you go to National Congressperson Order, and mark the CCPL leader as Oos Wes Ilava like I did for LDP, LAP, and MCP. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:17, July 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, this needs to be done. The Master&#39;s Voice 21:27, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else care what the name is? I'd like to make a page for the Congress. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:14, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

I have my doubts on the 'Republican' part you suggested. Not because I'm a royalist but simply because I didn't know there was a coalition stance on the matter. Can you shed some light on this please? 05:44, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why "provisional"? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:13, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * No need for that, the provisional government ended as soon as the current government was elected and sworn in. The Master&#39;s Voice 14:48, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

"Republican" because it was democratically elected, unlike the other "provisional congress", which means it is not in a standard timeframe. The current congress is still provisional. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:51, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was not provisional. Well I don't support any provisional government now, since its not necessary. We should just call it 2011 Second Congress. HORTON11 15:23, July 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Horton, also Republican (?) the others were elected democratically too except for one seat. And we are still a monarchy, even though our monarch doesn't have any legal powers. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:36, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my thinking was that while this congress was a provisional congress (it was not a "normal" scheduled congress), it was still republican. I've already created 2011 Second Congress, though. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:38, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

First Don't we need to appoint a PM by a vote and the Speaker? We do this is just simple. All we have to do is just say "I nominate So-and-so to the position of PM" is it passes it does. Same for speaker. Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:33, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, only the government itself does. We picked you as PM, so that's good, just make your government, i.e, include the PM and federal secretaries and make a proposal! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:49, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

000. Villanova II Goverment
I want a simple vote on this. I'm glad this was a nice balanced government I set up. Ummm....Two things, first to my own Coalition Please lets appoint a Majority leader soon. Second I was already going to appoint conservatives to my office, it's not like I wasn't. I already know most won't like this but I did not appoint Far-righters. Let's be honest if this was IRL that wouldn't happen. Now if you see one of your characters that's not you, but you control you still need to do there duty. Okay? We cool? P.S. Also from my understanding My Condensement Act wwas repleaed in State Reform. I'm okay with that. In addition like most politicans i'll attach a bill to another to speed things up in this case, in some cases it's for political gain but it isn't. We won't vote on this yet, beause I have another part of this bill to write, like appoint a Speaker, and other small fake positions that are mentioned on Department pages to appoint fake people. Do you like so far? Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:09, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Department of Culture, Heritage and Education - Oos Wes Ilava (Needs a little updating too)
 * Department of Energy and Environment - Justin Abrahams (This page hasn't been updated in awhile so please update)
 * Department of Finance - William Krosby (incumbent)
 * Department of Foreign Affairs - Yuri Medvedev (incumbent)
 * Department of Industry, Agriculture and Trade - Nathaniel Scribner (incumbent)
 * Department of Justice - John Amman (Oos, A little updating)
 * Department of Tourism and Leisure - Thomas Bale (Only because I love this position, also this is like the fourth page that's said Justin Abrahams is the head, needs updating, alot)
 * Department of Transportation - Semyon Breyev (Page hasn't been updated in over a year! Please Update)
 * Department of Welfare - Jude Almore (Horton's character)
 * Speaker of Congress - Yuri Medvedev (He's the leader of the main party in congress)
 * I'm happy. Seems a bit random at some places but I do really like it. Surprising choice and that's a good thing you see.  06:02, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I will not support this. Not that it makes any difference, because it'll still pass, but I won't. The UNS is perfectly capable of holding any position within this government and more then willing to do so. If we will not play any rol at all, whatsoever, there is basically no reason for us to even be here. The Master&#39;s Voice 06:12, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are positions for fake people left, why not give to actual excisting people who want to be a part of this instead of being left out and forced to leave? Would that be so big a deal? The Master&#39;s Voice 06:23, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * See my comment elsewhere: government is symbolic for the coalition 'in charge' - an affirmation of the ruling parties and their beliefs. In spite of my support for keeping the UNS out of our government I feel all parties should be heard in Congress. You're opposition. 07:19, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * God knows I'm no far-rightist, but this wiki is all about inclusionism, not exclusionism. If you gave TMV say Energy and Environment, do you really think he'd produce race-segregated energy suppliers? (btw: Joshua Katz will not support this, as there's no Department of Porcine Affairs. :P) --Semyon 07:43, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * (Not implying that I'm not happy with the post you've given me; on the contrary, thank you very much) --Semyon 07:46, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, Semyon, we wouldn't do any harm in such a position. Or in any position, for that matter. During the campaigns or afterwards, have I ever eveb mentioned racial, ethnical or even cultural issues? Have I ever discriminated anyone on this site, or treated anyone differently because of their skin colour or religion? I can answer that for you: no, I did not. Because I am not a racist and because I obey the law like any good citizen. I'm in the Bayside Dumpster for Christ's sake with a black Christian and a white Roman catholic conservative, whilst being a white non-believer myself! Would a racist be in a jazz band?

I am not evil, my viewpoints are not evil and my party line is not evil. We are no nazi's, we are no badguys, we are just politician on a different side of the political spectrum then many other other parties. Does that make us any less capable of being a part of Lovian society as such? All we desire at this point is to be included, not excluded, as Semyon has said. The Master&#39;s Voice 08:28, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Looks great, though I agree with Semyon. These post are rather symbolic for the biggest part and hardly any have actually been used for some goals (I'm talking about Transportation, CHE, FA and Justice). All legislative power remains at the Congress, so there's nothing to worry about. If you're in Congress, you're in. And I'm sure that if a department has plans, they will welcome any useful help, even from extremist-right-wing. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:58, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Should Kim Dae-su should get a position? Also, Marcus, the way I think of it, the Condensement Act was a temporary Congressional decision that gave more than one person control of a department. And, as I'm going to become Speaker, I think it'd be best for Percival E. Galahad to become Department of Finance, as in character, he is very familiar with that. TMV, if you're so pissed at missing out of government, I'd like to let you know government has no real power. You could always work with one of the governmental agencies. Also, on the Majority Leader, I thought we agreed on Justin Abrahams? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:18, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is also a matter of title & function. Of course Dae-su should get a position, if he were active. I am active. I have been in many discussions and debates and so nobody can say I am not involved or enthusiastic. I am aware of the fact the government has no real power, but that is not the point. This is a question of honour and a personal matter, because the only reason I am being excluded is because of my political affiliation, which greatly differs from Marcus and for which he apparantly dislikes me. How would this make me unqualified? Right from the beginning I have said I was interested in being a part of our nation's government and I have made this very clear. And let's face it: Marcus has plenty of positions left to give, which would otherwise be given to fictional characters (many of whom managed by the same small group of users). The Master&#39;s Voice 13:05, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am appointing you to Energy. Okay. Dae-su is inactive right now, very He's actually in our Coalition so I don't now what yout talking about. In any case All members of the Progressive Coalition please go to the second chamber to vote for Justin Abrahams as Majority Leader. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:11, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

We did agree on Horton for Majority Leader, and there is no election for Majority and Minority leaders. They're simply chosen. I will not support Far-right in government, though I'd be willing to give them a post for a government agency. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:49, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are willing to give us Enery and thus a goverment agency? So you do support UNS in congress. If so, then: very nice! The Master&#39;s Voice 14:21, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support giving you a government agency, but not a department. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:00, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a start... but at the same time, fictional characters are getting departments. Characters used by the same select group of users. Which excludes quite a few people. Surely we could work around that. The Master&#39;s Voice 19:14, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. Are we ready for Second Chamber? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:45, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

I'll take silence as a yes. I'll also propose myself from Speaker of Congress. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:00, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ready for the Second Chamber? Well, I still don't see myself in it... No position whatsoever. The Master&#39;s Voice 06:08, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Wait A second I put Master Voice in the government? I don't know what happened? Umm... This is odd. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:14, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you or did you not? This is getting REALLY confusing bro... I haven't seen my name pop up on any list yet, but you did vaguely say I would on some occassion and said I would not on another... The Master&#39;s Voice 13:45, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:54, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, per the Pub, I take it this'll be settled soon. It probably was just a silly mistake all along. The Master&#39;s Voice 14:58, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

002. States Reform
I was thinking of doing some more reform but for states. Like heres some ideas: A state Council of fake people primarly there for show, this can sorta justify what a governor does.

Like right now technically a Governor is a dictator of his state, if he wanted he could simply say "Nah I was that bridge destroyed, I don't like it" In a sense this helps everyone, from a federal level and state level. There's way to much power at the federal level and to much state-federal interaction, like everything the state does in checked by the Federal Government.

So here's my idea we again create characters, beacuse in IRL the congressmen isn't also your Prime Minister and Governor. We can only have one charachter run in a state we live in, and let's say I win in a election 55% to 45% I would get 55% of the seats in my state's Assembly, Congress, council whatever you want to call it. The governor would also control the voting, but be practical sorta on the honor system. So back to that State Council thing, if the State had 100 seats, and my party (CPL.nm) brings up a jobs bill. The 55 councilers of the CPl.nm would of course vote pro, the other 45 depending on the other parties would also vote in another direction. But we don't need to create pages for the State Councilers unless you want. In any case We should really discuss this I hope you like this proposal. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:38, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Well, Governors have no real powers. If they want a bridge taken down, and congress disagrees, then it can be cancelled. I'd prefer having a dictator with very few powers. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:00, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

No read it again they don't gain that much power with the passing of a act like it it could just be justified now. So the states could have instead 15% power they could have 25% of the power, States are weak, the Federal Government is already powerful enough, this would just simplfy and make things better. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:12, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's good that states are weak. Then it gets hard to know the laws and also hard to muster enough activity. I think Lovia should be as unitary as possible. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:52, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

We have reformed the states already last year. I don't see any reasons for yet another change. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 21:15, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Just tossing around some ideas, any way I still think strongly on this. So We'll see. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:15, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are two problems of a council in the states: the theoretical and the practical. Theoretically, it makes no sense to introduce local councils of 100 seats if the national Congress also has 100 seats (you'll 2,7% politicians). Practically, we don't have enough users to keep it running (we don't even have enough active, interested users to keep the governor function running) and with the current "all power at Congress" system it is not worth it. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:10, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the Deputy Governor should have their power increased. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:40, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

If there's gonna be reform it's gonna be this, but it doesn't have to be 100 it could be 20, and again this would be fake people. It's alright, tho. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:15, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

I could see state elections becoming very similar to federal elections, but what's the use if we have very weak states? The whole election will not become worthwhile. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:45, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

I'd say: let us get the nation rolling and look at the states then. The states won't function without an active national government. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:57, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

003. Lovian 4-H
I think a DoAiT supported organization, that of 4-H should endorse the children of our country to get involed with the community and getting active, and growing for the future! Nathaniel Scribner 12:04, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

A 4-H program (To those not in america who don't know what this is a coumminty originization which is ran by the USA department of Agriculture, where youth voluenteer club where they help there community, and actually it's a club in 80 countries so you may have heard of it) sounds great at the time, i'dd add it in a budget proposal i'll think up of. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:07, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

If it has government support it will need a statute passed. Why not just make it a small club right now? We can add government support later on. Make sure it fits with everything, and if other countries have different names, it should have a different name. Don't just make it a copy of the Hoosier version. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:52, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Eh.. I don't know what you guys are talking about :( --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:30, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

I've never even heard it mentioned before, but Wikipedia has a B-class article on it. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:41, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big expert on wikipedia article-ratings... The Master&#39;s Voice 17:03, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a supporter of this. Why? Because my Christian education organization also does not recieve support. (mainly Dimitri's work) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:52, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Your not going to support an secular group that supports Christians, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu children, just because the fact your one oriented group doesn't get support from the state, which is by law to stay fair to all groups of religion and not support just one? Hoosier version, I thought a US-Lovian 4-H would be nice, sending our kids to each others countries for field trips and what not. I'm wanting to keep it 4-H be connected with the United States and a state funded organization for Lovian children. Nathaniel Scribner 14:12, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I agree (I forgot Sunkist is Zackatron that was sorta like Lars Washington and his two accounts) start a private orginization but then the government could finance some of it. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:16, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd say we make some kind of Children Organisation Act in which all 4-H kind of organization can get funds if they meet certain criteria. We can't only support this one, 'cause then you'll get something like the Hitlerjugend if some radical Drabo Doorian kind of guy becomes PM. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:44, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

004. Nation runs on thin air
Sorta as a urgent message we need to get this out. Other members and people have made this a message that we don't run imaginary money. We need to fin things out and it can't only be the budget committe figuring this out. Each department head, whether it be the Tourism, or Justice, or Foriegn Affairs we need to figure this out put in place a tax system, revenue system, and are spending bill.

So here's the plan let's bring to the table what we need for our department, and we'll make a joint proposal. I don't want any part not to discussed, I want every party to have a say. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:16, July 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * So what's the working method going to be? Each department proposes its own accounting or are we going to centralizing talks from the beginning? 15:35, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Right now we're running on funds from people going to sporting events. Also, Finance already has a proposed budget that is lacking taxes. I've already drafted some stuff for each department, right now every department (including Foreign Affairs--they are spending WAY too much) needs to make a budget. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:49, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Whoa forgot about that. I think that list can stand. So if we come up with a tax plan we can just pass that? Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:16, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

So i know we proposed some ideas. But I remember Yuri's plan. Maybe he should propose that? I think that was just the layout like where the money would go and how it could be distributed. But we need a plan this will indeed shape how this coalition governs. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:11, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

005. Changes to the government
I know we just came into with a government but i'd like to make a change to the government. First off i'd like to move Mr. Blaca to the position of Energy, Horton to Welfare, and Jude Almore would not have a position any more.

But let me make this a urgent message URGENT. Please update your pages and Deparment pages so there up to date and make sense. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:21, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

I will not support this due to the inclusion of a far-right politician. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:31, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully support this, thank you very much for this, Marcus. Much appreciated. Finally we can this shit behind us and make this government work properly! The Master&#39;s Voice 08:00, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Well the only reason I say this is I try to get the most active people doing the most work, being the most productive. I may not agree with him on most views but if it doesn't workd out we could always change it again. Marcus/Michael Villanova 11:06, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * What, you wanna hold me on a leash? If you are not content with me, you're screwed. If I step up, my deputy takes over. I will be the one to appoint a deputy. Maybe my good buddy Kim Dae-su?  The Master&#39;s Voice 11:14, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

We already have a PCP politician, though. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:35, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Of course the best government would be 100% CCPL, but that'll probably never come :P I can live with and without TMV in the government. One question though: which user is behind Jude Almore? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:55, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Almore? Wasn't that Horton? Anyway, I cannot live without myself in the government, lol. And the best government would not belong 100% to a single party; we are not China. The Master&#39;s Voice 13:09, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the best government can be balanced. Keeping you on a leash? In a sense we all all and I am congress has a vote of no confidence so we all have to take some chances. This may come under some dislike I imagine the vote will be fairly close. If it gets to that. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:08, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

I cant support this, as TMV is too far right for this government to work well. @ Oos I don't think any party can win with 100% vote. HORTON11 14:15, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Well with a suspected vote that if Yuri, Horton, and TM vote Contra that's a majority of 53 votes to 47 if all the rest vote pro. So consider this failed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:19, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

But then remember Horton you have two jobs. So let's remember that we should maintain our positions and update them. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:20, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yes but I do have big plans for both of them (well technically oly one, cause Almore will take care of the other). HORTON11 14:56, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Consider it failed? In that case, consider me gone. The Master&#39;s Voice 15:10, July 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Bye Nathaniel Scribner 15:11, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

It's always better without the far-right insisting on their ideals. Also, we are not the one party in government system of the USA either, luckily. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:40, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Oh well bye. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:32, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'm divided over this matter. It seems to me like a form of emotional blackmail, which works because I feel guilty already. Yet I know it is TMV himself who makes the decision to either leave or stay. A bit of thinking shows that government ought to be composed of parties in the progressive coalition. I don't see the UNS functioning within that coalition. 07:14, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Just a question how long ago was Donia blocked? Just trying to put 2+2 together. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:45, July 17, 2011 (UTC)

Anybody agree with me? Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:17, July 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay for me :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:30, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

I mean that I know we've been kinda ignoring this but this is just an excuse. So again when was Donia blocked?: Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:36, July 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Could anyone fill me in on this? I don't quite get what's up with Donia blocked, Mastervoice leaving, Mastervoice (not) being in government. All so confusing. Aged youngman 07:59, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

No what I mean is doesn't anyone agree with me but are we just ignoring this. Master Voice leaving at a time Donia is probaly coming back? Hello! Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:28, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's remarkable indeed, but it is not sufficient to think it's the same guy. Though I must say they have some things in common :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:59, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * But can we acknowlege this as a unity just let this one slide for justice's sake? But make sure that TMV's account is never used again. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:22, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * We can't. That would be "political cleansing". Unless you have check user results that prove TMV and Donia are the same guy, you can't block anybody. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:54, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well... Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:57, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * He did rescue Donia's old football club and prevented it from being deleted. HORTON11  21:17, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * And brought him to congress. Umm...In any case It's not that I don't want Donnia to come back but I don't want to of him to be here. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:14, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * What about the new user: they have already created a military page, the character (DiCaprio) is seen holding a gun and affiliates with the CCPL. I would like to have Donia back, but as Donia and not others. HORTON11
 * Well let's not jump the gun on that but I do still talk to Donia/TMV over E-mail I've hinted it sorta a mysterious man. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:53, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Beware of making this into a witch hunt. Not every new user is a criminal, make sure they feel welcome like I did. Aged youngman 06:57, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I acknowledge that there are some links between the two guys, but there are links between us all. You could also argue that Bucu is the same guy as me (Oceana nationalism, CCPL, opposition etc), but that ain't true :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:00, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Marcus: I don't really see where you want to go with this. Shady allegations are best left behind since, like youngman and OWTB said, links are too easily drawn between a lot of users. I admit it is a notable coincidence but I suggest we leave it at that. 09:09, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you don't see it's fine. =] I guess we'll just never know =p Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:17, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

006. Message to Norway
"My condolences to all in Norway, and those related to the situation. I hope all members of Congress send out there prayers and thoughts to the people in Norway and those who are deeply suffering. The deceased were just practicing there Freedom by Youth in politics and working for the Ruling Labour Government." - Prime Minister Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:23, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I join in this statement as I'm confident all other MOTC will. No matter who or when or where, drama was caused. 08:39, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

007. Amendment to Section 3.4.1 of the Federal law
I would like to change Edison Electric (or LEC)'s status as a State-Owned Company to a State-Involved Company. This would reduce the government's shares but I am willing to compromise in other areas. As long as EE is left as a private company, I would be willing to allow Congress to set up policies/create projects. HORTON11 21:41, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, as I think it's better to have the government with a majority. 60% isn't 100%, also, so the situation isn't bad at all. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:05, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:09, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

...with TM. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:10, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Damn communists...jk. @TM- 60 is still a large amount, so the situation does become bad (at leat for private companies).

I rather think companies should remain in private hands. But maybe instead of the government owning them, they should set up a regulatory board to scrutinize their practises to ensure they comply with laws, be environmentally friendly etc. Only then if they fail to act in the general best interest should they be taken over. HORTON11 22:17, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Well, an energy company is an ideal company to be owned by the government, as they can be easily forced to protect the environment and comply with other laws. Anyway, people can still contribute to LEC, so the content effect is trivial. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:41, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Well if regulation exists, those goals can be achieved without having to take it over. Also how is it that electricty is government owned, but not the post or the national bank. HORTON11 22:44, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Regulation, curbs a company owernship is a different thing. Look i'm for some private ownership but i think some things in a world where prices are higher and taxes in all countries are higher on the average citizen, some things should just be over regulated and fully owned by the government, and some entilments shouldn't. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:51, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Could the government not just regulate without owning. If laws are made to regulate practises, prices and carbon footprint ownership would not be necessary. But you are right in saying some (like the post, healthcare) should be under full overnment control. HORTON11 22:54, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

No I believe your right in not everything needs to be government own, that's communism or Facism. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:19, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

Not really fascism. But yes, it is communist, says the CPL.nm guy xD I think energy should be majority state owned so the government can do what it needs to do in energy. And owning is not really a big problem. The government is elected and hires peoples just like private companies do. . . —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:41, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

I'd vote Contra to any change and I hope my collegues will too. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:30, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

With the Economic Involvement Act the CPL.nm and former Congress made a responsible decision. Regulation might solve the problems too but at much higher costs. 60% assures firm control, yet private funding is allowed (40% private stocks). @Horton: I feel you want to change this act for your personal benefit as private entrepreneur. I do not oppose private initiative but energy is probably the sector to profit least from it. 08:36, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:14, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

008. Recognizing Charleston and Plains
We still need to do this. Here's what needs to be done:


 * Make a flag and seal for Charleston
 * Get a few people buy a residence in each hamlet.
 * Write some articles about cultural aspects of each hamlet.

A Second Chamber vote to introduce them will be required, and I would prefer they be created retroactively, into the 1900s for Charleston and 1920s for Plains. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:37, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Not this plains thing again, is this a different Plains? There was this user all he did was adovacate for this hamlet. I have no problem about charleston. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:52, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

I fully support recognizing Charleston (and I can make the logo/flags) but there seems to be quit a bit of controversy surounding Plains. HORTON11 13:43, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

It is the same Plains that Sjors liked, but modified a bit. I think that Asian Island needs another settlement now that Adoha has been moved to Truth Island. Let's just say this: Forget the history of Plains and consider it a completely new idea. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:49, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Now, pro for Charleston, contra for Plains. What's wrong with uninhabited islands? A little bit nature ain't that bad.. I thought you guys were progressive.. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 05:28, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Hamlets are to be build near bigger settlements. As OWTB said there is no need in filling up all isles. 06:59, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

In addition, Highway 5 should be removed unless Plains is added. If it is removed then it has no purpose. You could also have the nature argument with Charleston, so what's the problem? Charleston has only been built near small settlements, which are still quite far away anyway. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:27, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

That's why I was contra Charleston at first. To me it seems a fair compromise to keep Charleston, but to disband Plains. Anyway, Plains would be nothing special without the original history and we're not in need of any new places (we still have tens of empty residence/shop places). --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:41, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

@TM- Charleston will also include nature. The southern part of the peninsula will become a national park. Also plains is lacking many of the components of other towns, mainly in history (the only ne there is about the controversy surrounding it) HORTON11 13:52, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

According to the new national park proposal, the western part has become a park. . . wtf. Okay, so Plains will not be added. What to do with Highway 5? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:45, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Highway 5 leads from Sofasi to Adoha and not to Plains, so we just keep it. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:14, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Highway 5, Adoha is no longer there. I was planning to move Plains there instead, but since it has been rejected, should we kill Highway 5?. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:25, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to kill it, only to modify it. The page says it goes from Sofasi to Adoha, but we can say it is north-south, going through The Span. HORTON11 20:39, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but you can't move hamlets in the lovian universe. 216.66.45.44 17:34, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

Err, who are you? And, just so you know, you can move a hamlet if it is approved by Congress. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:27, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never seen the proposal, and it is unrealistic 216.66.9.25 06:49, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

009. Abortion Laws
Brining this forth, I would like to make laws with Abortions more strict and more straight forward. I looked around the laws to try and find a direct law supporting or banning abortions. I've might of just missed it, could some one please help me? Nathaniel Scribner 20:38, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

There are no abortion laws in Lovia. I do not support a law on abortions, although MCP does. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:25, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah well i believe do what you want to i'm for abortions. If there is any write up i'd vote for it. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:53, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * You should actually see how an abortion is done. See the little hands and feets, see the way the fetus is hacked to pieces in the womb. I did. I saw it and I was disgusted and horrified by what I saw. Personally, I would forbid the killing of any fetus if it is healthy and not the result of a rape or incest. Obviously, not everyone will agree with me - we are not a nation of Ron Paul's, after all.

But I say: if we cannot forbid it then the least we should do is clearly regulate it. The Master&#39;s Voice 17:45, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

Wow a Conservative Compromising and the proposing regulation AMAZING! Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:13, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's called realism, Mike. I am appalled and disgusted by the inhumane practice of abortion. I cannot allow these things to happen, not with a clear conscience and I am horrified by people who view it lightly as if it is "no big deal". Read into it, watch how it's done and tell me again if it isn't a big deal.
 * That being said, it's very much like with drugs: once you forbid it, people go underground, causing people to take even more health risks. Regulating seems to be the only option we could all agree on. A perfectly healthy woman who wants an abortion "because she isn't ready for kids"? Fuck her. Ever heard of anticonception? Rape, incest, serious health-risks... those are a different story.
 * Still there is the issue: if we allow abortion under special circumstances, then untill which trimester. Scientists and doctors aren't exactly on one line when it comes to that. If you are a doctor and operating on a pregnant woman, something goes wrong and she looses the child, you can be punished for this. You killed a fetus, you killed a life, destroyed a human being (or a human-being-to-be, if you have to believe some others). If it's abortion, this doesn't matter anymore. A bit crude, isn't? I am against abortion myself. But being the realist that I am, I say we should regulate it. Abortion should be handled very, very carefully. And it should be for special cases only.
 * Like: how much incest and rapes does a small nation like Lovia have? I don't think it can be that much. And, given that we are a developed, modern nation, we educate our children when it comes to sex. Lovians know about anticonception, about safe sex. If a woman still chooses to have unprotected sex (no rape, no incest, just sex) and winds up being pregnant, I am totally against an abortion in such a case. There is always giving up for adoption as another option.
 * Hell: the kid might even be adopted by gay couples, which is already possible by Lovian law. So why would any liberals have to whine? The Master&#39;s Voice 22:20, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * See I can compromise? The Master&#39;s Voice 22:20, August 17, 2011 (UTC)

The same thing you described in your first comment happens to other creatures everyday, it doesn't matter if it is happening to an unconscious non-self-sufficient fetus or a non-human animal. And also, you'd rather fuck a woman that can barely sustain herself, much less a baby, than an non-sentient extremely dependent fetus? If you don't support abortion, don't get one (@woman). But don't take away other people's rights. Fetuses under 4 months are barely more important than unfertilized eggs, at "you killed a life" people, so you'd have to ban not getting pregnant every menstruation cycle to complete that argument. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:27, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * @TMV: maybe they chop unborns to pieces in third world countries but where I live (Belgium) only non-fetal life may be aborted. In Belgium you are allowed to abort a pregnancy in the first twelve weeks at which point the 'unborn' is more like a multicellular parasitical organism than an actual human capable of feeling. Alternatively, abortion is allowed afterwards if continuing the pregnancy puts the mother's health severely at risk. @the anti-abortionists: this reasonable legislation is one of the least restrictive ones worldwide!! 07:20, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of which stage the pregnancy in, abortion should never even be considered unless there is a very, very good reason for it. Severe health risks, a baby who cannot survive anyway (or will be still-born), or a pregnancy that is the result of a rape or an incestuous relationship: those could be reasons for an abortion. In every other situation, it should not be allowed. The Master&#39;s Voice 07:57, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * My take is before 12 weeks all systems go, after that period health risks for mother and/or child need to be in play. (Part of) the CPL will vote against any more restrictive proposals. 08:23, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * My take is that regardless of which stage the pregnancy is in, abortion should be illegal unless certain conditions are met:
 * Pregnancy is a risk for mother and or child, health-wise
 * Pregnancy is the result of incest
 * Pregnancy is the result of a rape
 * In all other cases, it must not be allowed. Anticonception is available in Lovia, Lovian women are well-educated and schooled. They know the risks of unprotected and\or unsafe sex. If they choose to practice it, the unborn child may not have to pay the price for the mother's stupidity. Aborting because a woman "doesn't want children (yet)" or because a woman "lacks the financial means" is ridiculous. There is always the pill, and condoms, and spirals, and all that stuff. Certain criteria have to be met - if not, it's not an option. Ever. The Master&#39;s Voice 09:52, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * The only way I can agree with a highly restrictive abortion law (as proposed by TMV) is when it is balanced with a government-imposed birth control program. Though I expect to be the only one willing to go down that road... 11:28, August 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am glad you would at least consider agreeing with me. As for the government-imposed birth control program: I believe the Lovian birth rate is pretty low as it is. Most Lovians are:
 * Well educated
 * Atheist
 * Well-fed, middle class
 * Those people generally do not have much more then two or three children. A few conservative Christians, some orthodox jews and some muslims might have more children on average, but religious groups are still a minority. The average Lovian does not have many children.
 * That being said: I would agree on a program that educated (young) Lovians about sex, reproduction and birth control (pills, condoms, abstention: whatever floats their boat). The Master&#39;s Voice 12:49, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

I would support the Belgian system if it came to the Second Chamber, except for MCP (Moderate Centrist Party), which would support a bit more restrictive system. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:16, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

I support any progressive bill and advise the coalition that we should support some comprimise on this and we should vote on this pro or not. (Two-line whip) Is there any regulation or law on this yet? Marcus/Michael Villanova 02:44, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

Progressive proposal (based on the Belgian abortion laws)
06:56, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Abortus Provocatus, defined as a willingly induced termination of pregnancy before fetal viability, is considered legal only when:
 * 2) Carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Department of Welfare.
 * 3) Positive advice has been given by the executing physician and at least one other, non-involved physician.
 * 4) Executed no sooner than seven days after the first consultation.
 * 5) Executed within the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy
 * 6) Abortus Provocatus after the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy is considered legal only when:
 * 7) Carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Department of Welfare.
 * 8) Positive advice has been given by the executing physician and at least two other, non-involved physicians.
 * 9) Executed no sooner than three days after the first consultation.
 * 10) The health of the mother is considered to be severely at risk when the pregnancy is not terminated.
 * 11) Before carrying out an abortion the executing physician must always take the following measures:
 * 12) To notify the patient of all health risks involved with the abortion of pregnancy.
 * 13) To bring several other facilities for unwanted children to the patient's mind.
 * 14) To ensure himself of the patient's full will to carry out the abortion.

We have an NHS? Nice Law it's pretty full proof. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:03, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

What happens when it's not done legally? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:25, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I say whoever aborts a child illegally will loose his or her medical license.
 * As for the law, it is not a bad as I expected. I can not support any law, however, that allows abortion to take place, regardless of which stage the pregnancy is in (12 weeks or not) WITHOUT a serious medical (health-risks for mother and or child) or personal (rape, incest) reason. If this is not the case, it should not be a possibility in any case. The Master&#39;s Voice 14:27, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, and what will the fines be? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:03, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * The fines? Well, I am in favour of taking away the medical license of the doctor(s) who commit an unlawful abortion. They could also be incarcerated for a short period of time (same with the mother) so that they will have a criminal record. We have to take it seriously. Treat it is a serious offense and a despicable crime. The Master&#39;s Voice 16:01, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think incarceration is necessary. . . maybe just some fines for the doctor and perhaps the mother. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:53, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * This law was only meant to decide over someone's guilt. Since Lovia has no real criminal law it is up to the judge to decide on the actual sentence. If we decide to take up punishments I suggest the following:
 * When fault lies with the mother she gets fined.
 * When fault lies with the doctor he looses his license and is fined or incarcerated (depending on how grave his mistake is).
 * 06:45, August 20, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's add that to the law and put it into Second Chamber. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:46, August 24, 2011 (UTC)

In section 1.4 there should be a reason, as TMV said for terminating the pregnancy. If it was through rape or there is serious danger to the mother then it should be stopped, but not for whatever reason. HORTON11 13:00, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Horton: Indeed, in 1.4 there should already be a reason stated. It's of vital importance. Pregnancy the result of incest could also count as "severe health risk" as it often results in disfigured\ill\retarded offspring. Rape can be another reason, since the mother might grow to hate her own child out of hatred for the father, resulting in serious psychological problems. There are no other viable reasons for an abortion, so even at post-12 weeks, these criteria have to be met. Otherwise, abortion should not be an option. Ever. The Master&#39;s Voice 14:37, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys but my proposal is a progressive one, thus allowing abortion in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy for whatever reason. Feel free to vote against if you don't like it, but I will not adapt it since I feel there is a majority supporting this. 07:12, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Final abortion proposal with punishments

 * 1) Abortus Provocatus, defined as a willingly induced termination of pregnancy before fetal viability, is considered legal only when:
 * 2) Carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Department of Welfare.
 * 3) Positive advice has been given by the executing physician and at least one other, non-involved physician.
 * 4) Executed no sooner than seven days after the first consultation.
 * 5) Executed within the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy
 * 6) Abortus Provocatus after the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy is considered legal only when:
 * 7) Carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Department of Welfare.
 * 8) Positive advice has been given by the executing physician and at least two other, non-involved physicians.
 * 9) Executed no sooner than three days after the first consultation.
 * 10) The health of the mother is considered to be severely at risk when the pregnancy is not terminated.
 * 11) Before carrying out an abortion, the executing physician must always take the following measures:
 * 12) To notify the patient of all health risks involved with the abortion of pregnancy.
 * 13) To bring several other facilities for unwanted children to the patient's mind.
 * 14) To ensure themselves of the patient's full will to carry out the abortion.
 * 15) If an abortion is carried out illegally, the following consequences may follow:
 * 16) The executing physician will have their medical license revoked.
 * 17) The executing physician will be fined $3000 plus the cost of the operation.
 * 18) The mother will be fined $3000.

Agreed? Hopefully we can get this passed, as well as a narcotics act, within the Congressional session. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:07, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * A fine of just $3000 dollars? Abortion is murder and especially illegal abortions should not just be promoted. Another thing: Abortions are expensive and conservative Christians are not willing to pay for abortions. If the abortion is not necessary, you'll have to pay for it yourself. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:27, September 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, abortion is not murder. And yes, the abortee have to pay for the abortion, although the physician who did it will be fined the abortion cost as well as $3000, so that they can't pay for the fine with the abortion money. Should I increase the cost to $5000, or maybe $6000? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:36, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a a difference in opinion we are probably not going to work out :) Yes, increase it as high as possible, so at least illegal abortions are banned out. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:50, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

010. Interwiki Historic Towns Association
I would like for congress to support the creation of (and Lovian membership in) a network, or association of the 2 or 3 oldest towns in each of the wikinations. This association would

In Lovia the members would be:


 * Noble City (1872)
 * Hurbanova (1881)
 * Newhaven (1890s)

In Brunant they would be:


 * Brezonde (603 AD or 832 AD)
 * Donderstad (1365)
 * Grijzestad (1411)

In Libertas they would be:


 * Wikistad (100 AD)

In Mäöres they would be:


 * Gäörne (420)


 * Bäökberg


 * Kirkwal

(-Horton11 (unsigned))

I think some other nations could be included. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:13, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

More important than that: what is the aim of the association/who will be leading it/etc. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:36, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

I had planned for this to promote greater cooperation of these nations' governments, NGO's and other IGO's. The aim of it would be to raise awareness about these historic settlements and have cooperation between them, through an IGO (or goverment bodies) to duscuss issues such as archaeology, restoration and tourism. HORTON11 20:38, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Also Oos would it be possible for you to list here the oldest towns in Mäöres. I found that Gäörne is from 420 but for Saenteim there are two dates (I don't read Limburgish so I couldn't tell wich date was the one) HORTON11  20:39, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

@Horton: Okay, then I guess this association has a clear goal :) Saenteim probably would be founded in the fourth century, but it has been destroyed by ally bombardements in 1943, so there are hardly any old monuments left. Two historic towns that have kept their original buildings are Bäökberg (about 2000 years old) and Kirkwal (late 14th, early 15th century). Perhaps they could join Gäörne as members of the IHTA instead of Saenteim? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 21:03, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Sute they can join. There would be no point in having Saenteim if there are little/none of the historic areas left. HORTON11 10:18, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

011. Rename Train Village
I propose we should rename Train Village. Why? Because, let's face it, it's kinda a ridiculous name. Think we can all agree on that.

Makes as much sense as "Automobile Town" or "Bycicle City" or something similar.

I do not have a better name (yet) but that is something for us all to decide upon.

We could (and should) rewrite the history just a little bit - maybe name it after a Lovian historical figure the way Noble City was named after one.

It's not that big a deal, it's just something that, somehow, bothered me a bit. The Master&#39;s Voice 09:51, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous too. At the time was agreed the name was okay and I still think it is. Changing the name is way too much work and as our executive branch has failed very often before, I don't believe this is going to work. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:42, August 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * I know the name may not be too, well, real but its not really practical to go ahead with a namechange. Think of all the pages, links etc. that would have to be changed. Also references to TV on other wikis would need to be changed as well. Therefore I vote . HORTON11  12:52, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

This is not ridiculous, the name of the town is. I would support changing it to "Trainton" or maybe "Trainville". —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:59, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Trainton and Trainville are even worse ideas. I there were serious proposals I might vote pro. HORTON11 14:05, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

It simply ain't gonna work. F.e. the infobox of TV wasn't even updated when it changed from a town to a village, Clave Rock wasn't updated.. And now you're proposing to change up to hundred TV's in the main text? I'd say, first finish what hasn't been finished yet and then we'll discuss this further. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:18, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

Train Village is perhaps not the most realistic name but I got kind off attached to it. The practical obstacles urge me to vote contra too, although TimeMaster made a valid point. 06:37, August 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have to attribute this to a Donia-esque hatred of anything Pierlot did. Agreed, TV is not the most realistic name, but I kind of like it. So . --Semyon 12:32, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * You my friend have a bad taste in names for such a smart man. The Master&#39;s Voice 16:18, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

012. Securities Act
I feel L$ banknotes need an update in its securities, since in this age it is getting much easier to falsify notes. I propose (setting a precedent for banknote modifications) to add holographic strips on the LS200 and 500 notes. I would like to do the same for the L$ 10, 20, 50 and 100 notes (December-February 2012), not including the 1 and 5 dollar bills, which are not as likely to be falsified. For this new series the 10,000 dollar note will be dropped. HORTON11 21:36, September 1, 2011 (UTC)



Sounds good, but it should be on ALL bills, not some. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:40, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

It will be on all, it will just be introduced over time. HORTON11 14:14, September 2, 2011 (UTC) 14:14, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd say: change it all in one time :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:36, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

013. Modification to the Settlement Act
I think hamlets should no longer have to be connected to a town or city. We have just experienced this problem with Charleston -- Many people thought that Charleston "ought to be made an independent hamlet" -- that is a good idea. In fact, I don't think hamlets should be connected to towns or cities at all. They should simply be considered "hamlets", by themselves, instead of [Hamlet], [Town].

Current State

 * Article 1 - Settlement Act
 * All Lovian settlements are classified into five denominational groups: hamlets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities.
 * A hamlet is a very minor settlement affiliated with a town or city.
 * A hamlet must:
 * Have a population below five hundred. If larger, the hamlet loses affiliation with towns or cities and becomes a village.
 * Consist mainly of non-industrial and non-commercial lots.
 * Exceptions can be made by a congressional vote.
 * A village is an unattached minor settlement that is separate from a town or city.
 * A village must:
 * Have a population of at least five hundred and no more than fifteen hundred inhabitants. If larger, the village becomes a town.
 * Not be affiliated with any town or city within Lovia.
 * If a village becomes affiliated with a town or city, it will lose its village status and become a neighborhood.
 * A town is an unattached settlement within a state.
 * A town must:
 * Have a population above fifteen hundred. If below, the town becomes a village.
 * Contain one to four neighborhoods of any type.
 * Congress can turn a town consisting of four neighborhoods into a city, granting it a fifth neighborhood, by Congressional majority.
 * A city is an unattached major settlement within a state.
 * A city must:
 * Have a population of at least three thousand.
 * Consist of a group of neighborhoods; at least five.
 * It is legally required that at least four of the five neighborhoods are fully finished and that it is possible for its inhabitants to lead a safe and regular life.
 * A neighborhood is a subdivision of a town or city.
 * A hamlet or village may become part of a town or city, however, the hamlet or village it will lose its hamlet or village status and become a neighborhood.
 * All Lovian hamlets and neighborhoods are managed by the state of the town or city of which they are affiliated with.
 * All Lovian villages, towns, and cities are managed by the state of which they are part of.
 * All Lovian hamlets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities are part of the Kingdom of Lovia and fall under the authority of the authorities of Lovia. Only the Governor has the right to commission the construction of neighborhoods and hamlets. The Constitution rules that Congress may overrule these decisions.

Proposal

 * Article 1 - Settlement Act
 * All Lovian settlements are classified into five denominational groups: hamlets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities.
 * A hamlet is a very small settlement within a state.
 * A hamlet must:
 * Have a population below five hundred. If larger, the hamlet will become a village.
 * Consist mainly of non-industrial and non-commercial lots.
 * Not be affiliated with any town or city within Lovia.
 * If a hamlet becomes affiliated with a town or city, it will lose its hamlet status and become a neighborhood.
 * Exceptions can be made by a congressional vote.
 * A village is a mid-sized settlement within a state.
 * A village must:
 * Have a population of at least five hundred and no more than fifteen hundred inhabitants. If larger, the village becomes a town. If smaller, the village becomes a hamlet.
 * Not be affiliated with any town or city within Lovia.
 * If a village becomes affiliated with a town or city, it will lose its village status and become a neighborhood.
 * A town is a large settlement within a state.
 * A town must:
 * Have a population above fifteen hundred. If below, the town becomes a village.
 * Contain one to four neighborhoods of any type.
 * Congress can turn a town consisting of four neighborhoods into a city, granting it a fifth neighborhood, by Congressional majority.
 * A city is a very large settlement within a state.
 * A city must:
 * Have a population of at least three thousand.
 * Consist of a group of neighborhoods; at least five.
 * It is legally required that at least four of the five neighborhoods are fully finished and that it is possible for its inhabitants to lead a safe and regular life.
 * A neighborhood is a subdivision of a settlement.
 * A hamlet or village may become part of a town or city, however, the hamlet or village it will lose its hamlet or village status and become a neighborhood.
 * All Lovian neighborhoods are managed by the state of the town or city of which they are affiliated with.
 * All Lovian hamlets, villages, towns, and cities are managed by the state of which they are part of.
 * All Lovian hamlets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities are part of the Kingdom of Lovia and fall under the authority of the authorities of Lovia. Only the Governor and the Congress have the right to commission the construction of neighborhoods and hamlets. The Constitution rules that Congress may overrule the decisions of the Governor.

Comments
So, thoughts? Basically, we'd have to wipe things like "Train Village" off the seals of some hamlets, and Charleston would be independent (not affiliated with Noble City which is quite a ways away), but otherwise it is mainly the same. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:34, September 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * So you want to give hamlets the right to 'stand on their own' but feel it is necessary to forbid existing ties between the hamlets and their cities? 05:15, September 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Here I agree with what (I think) Yuri is saying. Couldn't hamlets choose individually whether to be affiliated or not? --Semyon 07:36, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

Yes -- the hamlets don't need affiliation. They have affiliation with the state and that is enough. I think chosing would make the law too unrealistic, and anyways hamlets are independent from cities IRL. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:08, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

Here I agree with TM, cause there is no purpose in having hamlets being joined with cities. But there is also no need to change the seals/names. I think it is alright if TV kept the village part of its name while being a hamlet. HORTON11 13:10, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

It's actually pretty easy to wipe TV off the seal... but yeah. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:43, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there used to. If you no longer affiliated the Hamlet with the Town, you were going to have a mayor an extra mayor. I believe that making hamlets separate from their towns is rather useless. F.e. take East Hills: it's very much alike Hurbanova, except for that they lie a few miles apart. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:25, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

You could make it a neighborhood if you wanted, the law doesn't state it has to be touching other neighborhoods. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:03, September 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it unrealistic that hamlets can choose? There'll then be two types of hamlets, affiliated and un-affiliated. I support (broadly) your initiative. Personally, I'd also support bringing back the roles of mayor and chairman. --Semyon 07:34, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with mayor, but I don't think chairpeople are necessary. I also don't think hamlets should be able to be affiliated. I think they should just become neighborhoods instead of being "affiliated." And that would primarily be for East Hills, which is a Hurbanova-y place. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:05, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

Mayors are not necessary: they often have a double function with the governour and we don't have enough people to fill all positions. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:09, September 24, 2011 (UTC)

014. Abortion laws (second take)

 * 1) Abortus Provocatus before the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy is considered legal only when:
 * 2) There is a serious health risk or chance of death to the mother or child,
 * 3) The child is a product of rape or incest which could pose a serious health risk
 * 4) It is carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Department of Welfare.
 * 5) Positive advice has been given by the executing physician and at least one other, non-involved physician.
 * 6) Executed no sooner than seven days after the first consultation.
 * 7) Abortus Provocatus after the first twelve weeks of the pregnancy, and before six months, is considered legal only when:
 * 8) There is a serious health risk or chance of death to the mother or child,
 * 9) The child is a product of rape or incest which could pose a serious health risk
 * 10) It is carried out by a qualified physician, registered in a hospital recognized by the Department of Welfare.
 * 11) Positive advice has been given by the executing physician and at least two other, non-involved physicians.
 * 12) Executed no sooner than three days after the first consultation.
 * 13) executed before six months (the second trimester).
 * 14) Before carrying out an abortion, the executing physician must always take the following measures:
 * 15) To notify the patient of all health risks involved with the abortion of pregnancy.
 * 16) To bring several other facilities for unwanted children to the patient's mind.
 * 17) To ensure themselves of the patient's full will to carry out the abortion.
 * 18) If an abortion is carried out illegally, the following consequences will follow:
 * 19) The executing physician will have their medical license revoked.
 * 20) The executing physician will be fined $15000 plus the cost of the operation.
 * 21) The mother will be fined $15000.


 * This I can agree on. The Master&#39;s Voice 15:33, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I felt better defined limits should be placed, such as which trimester and what reasons. HORTON11  15:40, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, comrade, I fully agree! More restrictions, clearer rules, that's what such laws need. Now women can kill their babies only when they have a very, very good reason for doing so. And that is of vital importance, if you ask me. I only hope the others agree too and we can let this proposal pass. The Master&#39;s Voice 15:48, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes hopefully. Although some might reject it as we defeated the first proposal. But this seems like a compromise as most of it is based on the liberal plan, with some adjustments. HORTON11  16:29, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

I hope you guys understand that I still can't vote pro because of religious reasons. But it's the best compromise we can get to :) Though I'd say we could change: rape and incest to rape or incest. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:35, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, otherwise it would mean they had to be raped by a relative... The Master&#39;s Voice 18:46, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Abortion is not murder and it is people's right to have abortions in some circumstances so I will oppose this. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:41, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * In which circumstances? The law clearly states under which circumstances it is allowed:


 * 1) For medical reasons to prevent the woman and\or child any (further) suffering
 * 2) In case of pregnancy that is the result of rape
 * 3) In case of pregnancy that is the result of incest
 * I cannot think of any other situation in which abortion should take place. And, quit frankly, the idea of unborn children being hacked or cut to pieces by doctors sickens me beyond bounderies, so I am ashtonished by the fact that I, of all people, am able to support this law proposal. The Master&#39;s Voice 06:12, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

The circumstances in which Yuri's proposal allows. In the first trimester those "unborn children" are just parasitic embryos and aren't sentient. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:05, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

But those children should have an equal chance to enter this world and live in it. I would rather encourage mothers to put them up for adoption and let couples who cannot have kids to enjoy having a baby child. HORTON11 13:37, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

And all those unfertilized eggs don't? The main issue with me is that you're telling people what they can and can't do. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:27, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not telling people what they can and can't do, in fact every woman has the right to an abortion just as long as she meets the criteria. Otherwise we can't have every woman in Lovia having an abortion because she feels like it. This would contribute to reducing our already low population figures. And, I think this would be a cataclyst for a larger amount of unprotected sex, and sex by minors, if they know they can readily get an abortion. No woman should have to go through an abortion and Lovia should educate them on the ways to prevent an unwanted birth, such as using condoms and even contraceptives. And if the child is too far developed then they can put him/her up for adoption so that others can have a child they could normally not. HORTON11 16:50, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Horton: indeed, not to mention the psychological trouble a woman or girl might get from undergoing an abortion, and the fact that abortions can very well go wrong and leave a woman infertile for the rest of her life, which might very well ruin their entire life.
 * @TimeMaster: Life begins at conception. However small an embryo is, it is still a living human being and ought to be regarded and protected as such. Telling people what they can and cannot do, TimeMaster, is the governments job. Just like the government tells people they cannot murder, abuse or molest each other. Or should that also be "a free choice"? What you also seem to forget is that this law does not forbid abortions all together. To the contrary: abortion will be allowed but not just "because a woman feels like it"... she should have a very good reason and this reason will be examined by a doctor and other experts after which is decided whether or not the procedure may go through. If the woman ends up with an unwanted child there is always the adoption agency... plenty of couples are unable to have children and more then willing and able to raise someone else's. Besides that, women in Lovia are well-educated and they KNOW about unprotected sex and how to prevent a pregnancy enough to prevent one if they really want to. A child should not have to pay the price for it's mothers stupidity. The Master&#39;s Voice 17:03, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also heard of women (and girls) who have an abortion and 30 years later are having mental breakdiwns and regret having taken that desicion. HORTON11  17:11, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * In a way, you could say we are doing them a favour. And we aren't forcing them to do anything, as it was their decision to get pregnant in the first place. If it wasn't, in case of rape or incest, other rules apply. Which is, I believe, not more then reasonable. The Master&#39;s Voice 17:28, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of young girls who had a baby and 30 years later are having mental breakdowns and regret having had one. And no, TMV. Cells are life just as a group of several million (not very many in size, actually) are. Just because that group of cells which was once a sperm and egg does not make it significantly more alive until it becomes sentient (which is actually past the 1st-2nd trimester division). Sure, murder should be illegal, but so-called "murder" of non sentient life should not be illegal. To me, killing a small embryo it like killing someone's skin cells on accident. It does not matter. Fine, have unprotected sex, and suffer the scars of abortion. . . but people who want should be able to have it! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:25, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * "sentient" is a bad and vague division. Some people argue that the real border is when the child realizes that if someone/something is no longer in sight, it still exists (which is a few months after birth) or even when full memory starts to come (more than a year after birth). For that you can argue that killing a baby is not murder either. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:26, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

Sentient means being able to sense your environment. Babies can do that. I'm fairly certain those in the third trimester can too, but embryos can't. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:02, September 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Point is: this cannot be proven. How do you want to prove an embryo cannot sense it's environment? Poke it? Ask it how it feels? Life begins at the moment of conception. And with todays contraception possibilities, no woman in the right of her mind wouldn't use them unless she wants children. An unborn child, no matter how small or fragile, no matter how well-developed, cannot and may not have to pay for his or her mother's mistakes. And to kill their (unborn) babies is not a "privilage" a woman should have. And if it is to be a possibility, then this has to be strictly controlled by the law and only allowed under certain special criteria that have to be met. Which this law will provide. Abortion will not be outlawed, it will be restricted. The Master&#39;s Voice 11:27, September 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * @ TM- This is just sick. How can you compare skin cells to a baby. Skin cells fall off and die on a frequent basis. A child is a lifetime blessing that is not granted to any woman. These embryos are the foundation of our society; they could be our next Einsteins or Grace Kelly's. And, no one truly wants to go through an abortion. If it can be prevented (such as safe sex, contraceptions, even abstinence) most people would rather choose that path.
 * @TMV abd Oos- Well said. HORTON11  13:08, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

@TMV: Sentient life (which actually matters) does not begin at conception. How can you compare a large group of parasitic cells to a baby? Embryos are far from the "foundation of our society". They cannot process information. Okay, so you could argue that they can "feel things" but, their brains pretty do next to nothing. That input from "poking" it and asking "how it feels" will not do anything, so it's not sentient. You can argue the same thing for nerve cells as you can for that. . . they can feel things, but can they process that information? No. A brain can. As for the "use conception" argument, fine. You can use conception. Just don't tell other people what they can and can't do. Abortion in the first trimester is not murder in any way. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:38, September 29, 2011 (UTC)