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.

026. Air Lovia
I'd like to bring this issue to Congress/Parliment. Air Lovia is formally requesting the ability as the national airline of Lovia. -- 中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 00:36, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * If by national airline you mean state-run provider of transportation services, I'm in! Even though any piece of legislation concerning this matter must also enshrine the relations between the national airline and commercial services.  05:47, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I would like to oppose your former comment on deregulation - Lovian government has the duty to provide key services to its people. (Though you could argue if organizing airlifts is one of them). 05:50, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Air Lovia is happy to be subsidized (subsidies) and be treated as a national airline. Thank you,

中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 22:24, October 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello?! --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 22:27, October 26, 2011 (UTC)

We can bring it before Congress. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:35, October 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, it got brought before Congress! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:39, October 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Lol... --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 03:04, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Travel by are is not a key service. Except for medical/aid air travel this should be private. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:34, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha wtf. Njet. Il Duce Octavian 09:11, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Even if Canada's national airline is Air Canada, people still pay for tickets, because you still got WestJet... so, it's merely a name of honor, really. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 13:09, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and some state-subsidy of transport would be good too. --Semyon 15:33, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

We could make it a state-involved company (minority owned) under the Economic Involvement Act. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:37, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

The plan is that Air Lovia will be subsidized and the shares will be like this: Walker (25%), Goyou (50%), and Government (25%).

Or maybe just Walker 35% Goyou 35% and Government 30%. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:56, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 22:16, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

027. The King?
Should we have a king anymore? I mean, it is unfair just because Dimitri founded this website, he doesn't even have to worry about being elected! He has been inactive for a long time and it's time to make Lovia with checks and balances. A new system will be proposed soon. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 03:38, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * NO! We will have a king. And if you have done your homework you would've seen that the automatic seat is no longer there. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:33, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we will have a king. And he will kneel before the Emperor we'll soon also have! The glorious First Consul of Rome 08:38, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't Il Duce the Emperor? :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:09, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Si, che vuole dire? :D Il Duce Octavian 09:11, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * My stance, and that of the CPL.nm, still haven't changed: Dimitri will be our last King. He can have his crown until he dies or steps down. After that, Lovia is to become a Republic. 09:39, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, I kinda like the monarchy. Let Dimi's oldest child take over, or his brother, nephew, niece or whoever is his next of kin. Lovia has always been a monarchy, and it's Royal Family has become a part of the Lovian culture and idenity. We shouldn't take that way, it would be foolish and not needed. The glorious First Consul of Rome 09:41, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the issue will probably never be on the table as Dimi isn't expected to die any time soon. 09:45, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. Maybe sixty years from now our grandchildren will figure out something. The glorious First Consul of Rome 09:47, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Dimi is not active, as you say, so it's not really different from having a wholly fictional character on the throne. --Semyon 15:31, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

028. Deployment & ending this another message from the PM
Tomorrow UNLOR, the US and Mexican armies, and hired mercenaries will liberate Clymene, no doubt. All rebels in Clymene seen there have the direct order to be arrested or if in the act of violence even killed. This drastic measure has to be taken. The fact that these fascist war-heads are still attacking has to be stopped. The ban of rebel leader coming to congress has been lifted in hopes of new peace treaties. It would be to my best interest that Seven, Kings, Clymene, and sylvania are given back to the lovian people, and in turn Oceana a free republic. A measure many rebels should agree with. Back to the clymene rebels, 5,000 troops will be sent and in turn Clymene back to the Lovian government. Similar attacks to rebels will be sent out in the coming days in Seven, then Kings and finally Sylvania. The rebels will lose. And with that I commend this statement to the house. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:03, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

I thought the rebels were already out of Clymene. Seven is almost gone. And Oceana WILL NOT be independent. They will just become an autonomous state. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:05, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * When HAMR was stopped, PAM took over. All PAM is asking for is a simple autonomy, because we hate Newhaven's laws, that's all. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 15:08, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * PAM doesn't have any real users that REALLY want autonomy, unlike Oceana. PAM is just a random independence movement that's there for no reason. UNLOR secured Kings 100% a long time ago. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:20, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * First "Hamr\Hammer", no PAMela... The glorious First Consul of Rome 15:23, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Timemaster: UNLOR controls Kings now. This PAM nonsense discredits my honest efforts. Aged youngman 15:39, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but no offense Jeff. Also... is the Capitol building blown up still or was that reversed? *crosses fingers* —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:43, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * The building has been blown up - you said no godding. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 16:17, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Can yuri or somone good at maps please update the current rebel control situation? Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:33, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehehe... this thing is a disaster. :D --LCPCOP Christopher Costello (Pikapi - Discuss) 03:26, October 31, 2011 (UTC)

029. Preparing future trials
There seems to be a general consensus on the decoupling of blocking accounts and trials. This is, most of us feel, for the best. It can't however not be an excuse not to make work of the trials. I feel we can already prepare the cases against Hessel Doorian, Dietrich Honecker, Kim Dae-su and Thomas Matombé. What I'd like to ask from Congress is that they find us a judge and a public plaintiff. I am willing to be the plaintiff if needed. 12:57, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Am I to vote over this too? Well I knew I had it coming so I wont block your proposal. That is, if the judge is trustworthy. Aged youngman 13:36, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, I wouldn't go for the guy who judged the Galahad v. The Brigade Trial. That was a total sham. The glorious First Consul of Rome 13:41, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yuri and Timemaster remain my favorites. Or Marcus if he isn't that angry with me anymore. But he's already our premier. Aged youngman 13:42, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I can be imparshial and i am studying law so if you need a judge just call. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:40, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose that in future two judges must judge every trial, chosen from opposite ends of the political spectrum to avoid travesties like the Brigade trial. --Semyon 20:52, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * And I fully support that, Semyon. In fact, I believe there has been a similar proposal once but it didn't get through. The glorious First Consul of Rome 20:59, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been working on a few lawyer characters of my own. Once this war is over, things can only get more interesting (judicially, that is!). Cheers,--LCPCOP Christopher Costello (Pikapi - Discuss) 21:58, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to be the judge, if that's possible. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:53, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * So this far we have Marcus and TimeMaster as judges and me as a public plaintiff. If no-one else applies for these jobs I think Congress may vote.  08:17, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * If we have two judges we'd need to modify the Constitution. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:04, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * What is TimeMaster's political colour? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:42, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * In the middle, so I guess I don't qualify. We need a super-commie (Yuri) and a far-rightist-racist dude (Drabo), I guess. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:06, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * But I wanted to be plaintiff. Well, I still support the duo TimeMaster-Marcus, but if you guys disagree it will be hard to find another couple. We can't use any of the charged persons (OWTB, Bucu, TMV, etc.) - this leaves us with very little choice. 08:22, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose so, but I also wanted to defend Dae-su. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:45, November 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am willing to be either defense or judge, whichever TM doesn't want to do. (I'm in a nice mood today :P) --Semyon 19:54, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'd like to be judge. My "actor" (lol) will be Lars Washington, and if Aesopos returns, I'll turn over control to him. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:02, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

030. Clarification and passage of law
Would any other Rt. Congressmen want to clarify or allow the City Archipelago to become it's own state/country? How do we define Oceana now? Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:16, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

Allow The Empire of Oceana to become it's own country de facto then Ocean apart of it to. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:20, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

The Empire of Oceana should not become its own country, it will be ended soon. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:51, November 2, 2011 (UTC)

okay.Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:16, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

I say allow them to become they're own country, and own wikia. Lets see how long that nation will last. Richard Creed 01:11, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

One wiki, one law, one nation! (all references to historic slogans are pure coincidence). Serously though, if they want a country of their own they should start a new wiki. THIS is Lovia. 12:43, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

031. Some changes to the constitution
Here are some proposed changes to the constitution adding NC as a state and introducing the concept of 'districts'. Changes in bold.

Article 4
Article 4 – The structure of Lovia
 * 1) The Kingdom of Lovia is governed on different levels:
 * 2) The federal level encompasses the entire Lovian territory.
 * 3) The executive power of the federal level inheres to the Government of Lovia. This government consists of the Prime Minister and the Federal Secretaries, and has control over government departments, government institutions and civil services.
 * 4) All legislative power inheres to the Lovian Congress. This parliamentary body consists of the Members of the Congress, who are either democratically elected by the citizens of Lovia or who are Member by Right (the ruling monarch). Congress may, as the sole body in the nation, write and amend legal matters in the Federal Law and the Constitution.
 * 5) All judicial power inheres to the Supreme Court of Lovia.
 * 6) The state level consists of five states with limited powers: Clymene, Kings, Oceana, Seven and Sylvania, and one Autonomous City: Noble City.
 * 7) The executive power of the federal level inheres to the Governor and Deputy Governor of each state, and to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor in the Autonomous City, both democratically elected by the citizens of each state.
 * 8) The term ‘Autonomous City’ and ‘mayor’ are synonymous with ‘state’ and ‘Governor’ respectively, and the same laws apply to both.
 * 9) The local level, consisting of cities and towns, and the sublocal level, consisting of neighborhoods and hamlets, are governed by the state authorities.
 * 10) On the local level, states are further subdivided, on a geographical and cultural basis.
 * 11) In urban areas, the subdivisions are known as neighborhoods and hamlets.
 * 12) Neighborhoods are grouped together into towns or cities.
 * 13) In rural areas, the subdivisions are known as districts.
 * 14) Districts, neighborhoods and hamlets are governed by state authorities or the officials that they appoint.

Comments
Any? :) --Semyon 20:20, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I definitely do not agree to Noble City being an "Autonomous city". (Maybe make it something like the China PR People's Republic of China's "Direct-controlled municipality", like Shanghai, but I'd still disagree.) First of all, will Transcity split from Noble City? Second, if Transcity will become part of Noble City, where will Sylvania's State Capitol be? Definitely NOT Train Village! --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 20:43, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

How is this going to be useful, Semyon? We don't have ridings or districts based on politics at all. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:07, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I just read the notes section. In my Census, I just added 500 as rural population to each state. I don't think population should be based on users at all, though, because all it does is make the population go up and down and up and down again. It would be better to have nice and realistic population--30,000 for Noble City, 20,000 for Newhaven, 15,000 for Hurbanova, 12,000 for Sofasi, etc. And the autonomous city thing is kinda weird, a federal district or nothing at all would be better. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:14, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay! Nobody listened to me! --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 22:46, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Transcity has been part of Noble City and it always will be... And what's wrong with Train Village? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:21, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I support this to the fullest. TV would also make a great capital for Sylvania, which is now too much synonym with 'NC' and 'Lovia'. Even the further subdivision of states is fun; it asks for new maps!  08:18, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jeff: Sorry, I only just logged in. I don't think a new state capitol will be a difficult point; it could be located in TV or even in Charleston, if that was wished. It could help also to boost TV's population. @TM: If we're going to base everything on how 'useful' it is, we may as well delete the whole wiki :P. Doing things because they're 'fun', as Yuri points out is quite a good enough reason IMO. Personally I dislike the use of the word 'federal', partly because it sounds as if we've copied it from America (yes I know DC is not a federal district, but the word federal pops up everywhere) but more importantly because it's misleading - we're not a federation. (The name was BTW copied from Buenos Aires). @Yuri: Thanks for the support. :P --Semyon 10:38, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. Just great! I'd support splitting Sylvania into West and East where Noble City is the capitol of West Sylvania (or whatever name you want), then East Sylvania (or whatever name you want) will be governed by Charleston. I do NOT want Noble City becoming some sort of "Direct-controlled municipality" (like China). I can't see how it helps Lovia, and this will ruin the wiki. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 15:23, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish Hannis was here to give his "non-existent" problem speech...but this helps very little so most of my congressmen will vote pro. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:28, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * How does a direct-controlled municipality ruin the wiki? I also don't see much reason here. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:32, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah again as i read over this is really does nothing but create more divisions. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:34, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I never mentioned a 'direct-controlled municipality' so I don't know what you mean. --Semyon 15:45, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly the 'non-existent problem' thing was a load of crap, because it allowed Hannis to sound profound while ridiculing others' ideas. No, there's no big 'problem' that needs a 'solution' but I think it would be a nice thing to do, and evidently so does Yuri. On a wiki of this kind that's quite a good enough reason for doing anything. If you disagree, by all means vote contra, but don't use that argument. --Semyon 16:07, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Read Jeff's comment, he said it would ruin the wiki. And actually, there are plenty of non-existent problems we've solved--however, not all solutions to those non-existent problems are problems in themselves (but some are--take the oasis skin--it sucks, monaco was better). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:20, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Listen, Noble City shouldn't be it's own "autonomous city". It really ruins everything, but if you want to, grrr... --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 16:29, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, how does it ruin anything? :S --Semyon 16:54, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I will agree if Sylvania's capital will remain in Transcity. (Even if Noble City is an autonomous city) --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 18:04, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think enough people have spoken out in support of the proposal. If moved to the second chamber it will most likely get approved. 06:00, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * If Transcity is part of Noble City, and Noble City would be autonomous, then how would the capital of Sylvania be located in Transcity? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:53, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I moved it. :) --Semyon 18:46, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

032. Standard Knowledge Assessment
I am proposing the default Lovian standardized test for all schools, no matter private or public, shall take the SKA until college. The last year it is taken, the scores will be a determining factor to allow students to show colleges and upper education institutes their SKA scores. No government interference shall take place, but a new organization called EduLovia or the current educational department will develop the test and set rules, etc. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 00:52, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

Jeffwang, do you have any characters with a seat in congress? If not, than this is not the place to place such a request. Especially if you are proposing the idea that this poll is open to any citizens. --LCPCOP Christopher Costello (Pikapi - Discuss) 02:45, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any such proposal. I agree with a test to indicate how capable students are, but such tests should NOT determine what you can study. So mandatory tests without consequences of which the results could be used to indicate how well Lovian education is doing. 12:26, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

@cHRIS - Any citizen can propose a law or write in the first chamber, but only MOTC can vote and disccuss in the chambers.

I dissagree with this waste of money take it from a high schooler's POV. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:43, November 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm, you know what, I don't care if I'm not an MOTC, because if you look at the introduction, you will see your shame appear. Also, the proposal has been updated. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 23:48, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

033. The 11th Amendment regarding a national military
Recently, I've been asking why everyone in Lovia is so opposed to a national military. After a while of not being responded to, however, I checked-up on Ooswesthoesbes' talk page and found the answer. Dimitri opposes a military. I get that our king is pacifist, but no official rule has yet been established that outlaws one, so I am here to provide us with a cleverly thought out solution, that we create a military.

The Lovian Civil War has just ended, and we chose to sit back as the United Nations Lovian Order Restoration Force and the United States of America were left to do our dirty work. It took hundreds of civilian deaths in order to make the solution clear? We don't want this to happen again! We need to learn to adopt our own military!Think of it like this: if we had our own military, than that would mean that we could put down rebellion quicker and then enforce our laws with more efficiency. No more waiting around on our allies to get the job done and less unjustified deaths!

Below I've established an act for our Constitution that you all should take into consideration. The title, "Lovian Armed Forces", is definitely negotiable, if you would prefer "Lovian Royal Military" or something along those lines.

Cheers,--LCPCOP Christopher Costello (Pikapi - Discuss) 02:42, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

- Submitted the idea and sees this change fit (-Pikapi unsigned)

I do support this but I think that an independent military is not really justified for such a small country. What if we made the military a part of the police (like Costa Rica)? HORTON11 18:20, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Horton. And what's up with all this voting crap? The First Chamber is not for that. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:22, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

well i agree and don't I like a military but how well funded. I don't want our country to have 45 nukes, 4552422 guns and engaging in any wars. Tho, Chris i know ur smart so i don't think you intended that.

Ummm if you could change/add in That only the PM can propose an attack on another country but it needsa special majority of 60%. And in sense the REAL MAIN PURPOSE OF THE ARMY is defense. And chris Good job! Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:51, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well I'll definitely make the changes that you suggested if you accept my decision. Also, you should know that only globally substantial nations harbor, much less have the ability to create nuclear weaponry. A military would be a smart step forward, and it's kind of my specialty...

The military would always take a defensive stance. Furthermore, we wouldn't engage ourself in foreign affairs and would remain allied with the UN and the US, but actually writing that stuff in the Constitution would make the Armed Forces seem less formidable. So what will it be? I'm taking this to the Second Chamber with your suggestions in mind. Thanks,--LCPCOP Christopher Costello (Pikapi - Discuss) 22:42, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

We should wait a day or two let the scruitiny and comments come in. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:56, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

I'm still in agreement with Horton, and I will not vote for this. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:32, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

Let's add a Lovian Air Force. I can't believe you missed an air force, because we have islands and it's faster to travel by air. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 23:51, November 10, 2011 (UTC)

That's the worse idea. We've told you already, we're a country of 20000, the fact we offer social security without taxing is freckin amazing. And seriously i really can't agree with this. Our army should just be like 100-250 specialy trained people really to defend our nation in really important times of need, along with the other 500-700 police officers. But of course a nation of 20000 is going to attack Iran...yep let's do it now. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:29, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

We get it all off sports revenues and tourism! —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:44, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

All spearheaded by me But honestly an air force is just insane. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:06, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * You are insane... let's just say UNLOR will step in again once something like this happens. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16)*跟我谈话 01:37, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. It doesn't help the nation to have an official armed forces--for a nation as small as us, the police do the job. If a civil war happens, then UNLOR can help. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:43, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Also, let's put down "In case of dire emergency, the prime minister or congress may impose martial law and a request for agencies such as the United Nations or the United States' Army.", if TimeMaster agrees. -- 02:02, November 11, 2011 (UTC)\

ARE WE serious again? Dude,Marcus/Michael Villanova 02:08, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

No, the prime minister or congress should not be able to should decree "MARTIAL LAW GO TO UR HOUSE NOW KTHXBAI." —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:20, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

@Stupid Villa of Terra Nova: YOU SON OF A BISCUIT, I JUST WANT TO PROPOSE SOMETHING AND YOU OVERREACT. I KNOW I AM TOO KTHXBAI. -- 02:34, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

I feel like we're in the middle of a yell fight in Parliament where two obscure representatives are yelling about how stupid each others ideas are. Except this time it's the PM and a non-congressor. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:53, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

The UNS (or what is left of it after the war) fully support the creation of a Lovian Army to prevent further conflicts in the near future. Without it, Lovia will never truly be free nor independent, as it will rely too heavily on allies such as the USA and Mexico to step in and save it's ass. The glorious First Consul of Rome 12:12, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Ha stupid villa of terra nova? Not even the jokes are good. On a more serious note I agree with Master voice, we do need a military, we do need it to be funded, no we are not going into any wars. Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:20, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * We aren't going into any wars, that's for sure. But we can easily be dragged into one against our will since we are a completely defenseless and rather weak nation. We are not Switserland, nor will we ever be. Lovia still has nationalists and extremists. It had them in the past, and they'll still be there in the future. The type of warmongering folk that begin conflicts are here and they are not going anywhere. To keep Lovia alive, free, and LOVIAN, first and foremost, our nation needs an army. The Civil War has proven, beyond doubt, that Lovia cannot sustain itself without one. The glorious First Consul of Rome 13:03, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:24, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Proposing a military does not mean that we are planning on stepping back into war. We are merely establishing an adequate defense force for those that want to take a stand next time insurrectionists try and overthrow Lovia. We do NOT plan on engaging in foreign affairs! An Army and a Navy are adequate, but adding an Air Force would mean more than just a shitload of military planes to produce. It would be a horrible idea in general. I proposed a Navy because Lovia is a maritime-based nation, and we should exploit the sea. Because we are such a small nation, I only approve of the two branches that I had proposed. Those two would be very possible to maintain with our resources.

Because the thought of us doing more than defending ourselves horrifies most of you, I had altered the name of our national military from the Lovian Armed Forces to the Lovian Defense Force. For the new, improved article, see: User:Pikapi/Thirteenth Amendment, and base your comments on that please. And please don't place any votes there, it isn't the official poll, that is just going to be my vote for when I copy & paste it to the Second Chamber, later. Thank you, and cheers.--LCPCOP Christopher Costello (Pikapi - Discuss) 14:26, November 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Your porposal sounds really good, so I'll be voting pro. HORTON11  14:42, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Why do you require an actual army? Why isn't a police, like the system in Costa Rica that Horton said, good enough for a country of 20,000? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:19, November 11, 2011 (UTC)

Do we need an intelligence agency? I can't see why not. -- 13:21, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

I've learned to ignore your suggestions. Please think we're a peac keeping nation of 20000 Who is gonna bomb us? If we wanted to keep up a CIA of sorts is would take about 50 billion US dollars and since ours is prob weaker is would take a lot more. I'm socialist but i don't feel like taxing everyone and everything to 99.9%. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:28, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I say no to an army either. Just so you all know. 14:45, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Wait, Marcus, you don't approve? A military intelligence agency isn't one of the thinks that I need to keep, and it isn't really in the same field as the CIA. A naval intelligence agency only keeps track of what nations could pose a threat, and then analyzes their strengths and weaknesses. We don't have to tax anyone for this either. I have millions to kick-start a military. And we don't have to start producing weaponry, boats, equipment or anything! All of the equipment and tools of the dissolved Coastal Police would be transfered to the Navy, and I am willing to support the army to the best of my ability. Please remember that our military is not so much for outside threats as those that could tear our nation apart from the inside out...--LCPCOP Christopher Costello (Pikapi - Discuss) 15:13, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

If a civil war happens again, and somehow all those rebels have achieved really gun weapons, then we can call in UNLOR. Otherwise, a police force is perfectly sufficient for a nation our size. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:10, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lovia should be independent and capable of taking care of it's own business, without having call in foreign nations to fight the battles for them. Only then can we truly be free and self-sufficient. All the arms you guys have taken from the rebels, what'cha gonna do with those, sell them, throw them in the ocean, give 'em to UNLOR? It'd be ridiculous. I say you take those guns and equip a LOVIAN army with them. It does not have to be big (in fact, it's more or less impossible for it to be big) but still. " 't is pompen of verzuipen"... The glorious First Consul of Rome 17:03, November 12, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point! We, being a small little (mostly socialistic) nation, shouldn't even try pushing around the US and the UN, and calling them into our business. Eventually, they'll have enough. Lets not get pushed into this corner later, lets establish a defense force now!--LCPCOP Christopher Costello (Pikapi - Discuss) 02:43, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see how we can possibly upkeep such an army. . . they are very expensive and I also like the current names. An updated and strengthened police force, made by modifying the Federal Police Act and adding back the Local Police Act, would be a better choice, in my opinion. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:49, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

Please don't keep amending my article, I never even had the chance to finish writing it yet. An updated version can be found here. --LCPCOP Christopher Costello (Pikapi - Discuss) 15:26, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

@Costello: It is not like the US shuns socialist countries. Just across the Ocean lies its little friend the UK, often ruled by a government that likes to think of itself as socialist. In fact, most of its European partners implement 'socialist' policies like huge social health care, price control mechanisms, etc. A lot of Americans would label certain Canadian laws as 'socialist' too. 06:28, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

I am just stating that tensions may arise. On a similar note, you know what the US did when it suspected that the Russians would be converting Koreans to communism, right? An unnecessary war erupted. Anyways, I'll be proposing my article now before this forum gets to clogged with new stuff. Cheers,--LCPCOP Christopher Costello (Pikapi - Discuss) 00:14, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

035. Lovian Citizenship and Immigration Act
This is just to replace Article 3 of the Constitution, but this is a major rewrite.

-- 03:59, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

I find this a bit overdone. It seems to hand out universal citizenship to practically anyone. It also doesn't make enough distinction between the administrative side of the wiki and the creative/fictional one. I know this is a borderline subject, but still feel that the formulation of 'purely destructive for the wiki' doesn't belong on a piece of legislation. 06:51, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the Constitution say that people can become citizens with x edits and y days, as well? Also, these scroll boxes are getting annoying, because they mess up the headers. I will have to either remove them or add includeonly tags. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:19, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

036. Rewrite the Constitution
With all these amendments being proposed, and the Constitution being cluttered even before this, I think we should heavily revamp the Constitution, reorganize it and change things. Thoughts? Some things we can add are the new police system being worked out by Pikapi, and possibly a new election system I'm conceiving. If we take this further we can just adopt a new Constitution, but keep several things the same, like what (fictionally) happened in 2007. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:39, November 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd support any amelioration. If you guys are in for some more radical legislation, I'm always willing to write a contribution too. But perhaps it is better to keep the amount of editors to a minimum, at least until we have a first draft version.  07:15, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * We could have a constitutional convention tomorrow (or Sunday unless Oos objects). Anyone up for 7 AM Lovia time (UTC -9 (not DST))? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:07, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, what is it? Or is it for MOTCs only? -- 22:15, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, everyone can come. Even you, Pierlot. I'll make a channel on Coldfront. 7:00 UTC -9, that's 19:00 in Belgium, and 13:00 in the US east coast, though we can make it earlier if any of you want, I guess. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:14, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so it's start up at #wikination. Instructions to get to the convention: Go to the chat. (Link) Accept all the warnings, and you should be in the #coldfront channel. Then type /join #wikination. Then go back to the #coldfront channel and click the X to close that chat window. Then type /nick [yourname], and you'll be set. I'm in there right now, so if you don't see me there was an error. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:20, November 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome but first two things::::::1) Let's set out a debate time frame like 13:00 -13:20 A debate on the role of congress, 13:20 - 13:40 Role of PM, 13:40 - 13;45 a break:::::or so forth.:::::2)I will be gone on sunday from 14:00 - 20:00 so i could still be there for 3 hrs.:::::and wait is this debate for today. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:23, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's telling to download some plug-in should I? Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:25, November 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, today, and do download the plug-in. There wasn't enough warning time so I am just starting once we get 4 people on or so, maybe 3. Before that we can just discuss things. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:26, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh well sorry. Can't do it family matters and such. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:29, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not today? Why not? You were coming on before, before the plug-in debacle. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:33, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also Marcus, what time zone were you using up when you were listing times? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:43, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

I cannot join. -- 13:59, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Weird, what errors is it giving? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:06, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Java (parse) errors. -- 14:21, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Is your java up to date? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:21, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * NVM, it was a stupid error of my fault. I'm on chat now. -- 14:22, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn thing isn't working, and I even downloaded Java. HORTON11  16:07, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * What errors is it giving? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:31, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Constitutional Convention
-- 16:59, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Pierlot and JeffW - In favor of abolishing states.
 * 2) JeffW - In favor of reforming the Unicameral system without two pages. One page will host all discussions and votes.
 * 3) Pierlot and JeffW - In favor of abolishing property limits.

I wouldn't mind merging the First and Second Chambers, but property limits and states are good. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:30, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * States should be kept - you know my stand on that. I prefer the unicameral system and here's why: it keeps everything clean. If you have voting and discussion on one page, it will get messy and you'll loose all oversight (my experience from the unicameral system in Mäöres) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:25, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's any worse than the current situation, though. Also, Oos, what times will you be available in the next week? I will be available mostly until thursday, friday, saturday, and perhaps sunday (8 days from now). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:02, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * So was there like only two people there? Or like 4 or 5 should we do another one? Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:20, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm never available actually, 'cause you guys are living in another time zone and you're awake when I'm asleep :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:15, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

There were three but only Pierlot and Jeff seriously discussed while I was afk. So we should do another one. And Oos, if you're in UTC +1, that's not the other side of the world from -5. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:15, November 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Still this is not workable, 'cause at the time you are free to go IRCing, I'm at university or in the train :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:23, November 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * So i think we should do this again. sometime. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:34, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Can everyone just list what times they are available in in Lovian time, UTC -9? We should aim for the first Saturday in December, about 11 days from now. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:58, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Eh? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:12, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Where is everyone? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:38, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

037. National soccer team
I would like to propose to congress to officially allow the creation of the Lovian National Soccer Team. I have created the page User:Horton11/Lovian National Soccer Team, but some coaching positions will need to be taken over. (as some users behind them are no longer here) HORTON11  15:38, November 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Make it yourself, it's fine. FIFA does not get subsidies from any country, does it? I don't think such strict regulations are needd. -- 16:51, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

038. Recess and Travel appointments
Under the certain holiday times I would propose a congressional law for lenacy for members during vacation times. Like the middle of the summer and the end of fall/begining of winter. Not to say congress would be shut down but just longer wait for bills in the first chamber and double the time for bills in the second chamber. Let's be honest no national assembly is open ALL YEAR. So let's change this.

Also within this for the next few days I will be meeting with foreign dignataries. With This I also have glad news two things:

1) In light of the global economy many investors are expecting the passage of a budget this year, I Will propose this in due time.

2)Our national economy grew to 77th largest in the world which is quite acceptional for such a small country.

In the next days I will be meeting with foriegn political leaders in Europe with some high ranking positions. Thank you. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:14, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * November 25th - First Minister of North Ireland - Peter Robinson
 * November 27th - President of Ireland - Michael D. Higgins
 * November 28th - The United Kingdom Exchequer - George Osborne
 * November 29th - French President - Nicholas Sarkozy
 * November 30th - Italian Prime Minister - Mario Monti


 * Jeff stop Only FIFA accepts a national team. So yeah it need congressional approval. I think it's nice . Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:14, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

The recess is pointless, but the second part sounds good. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:01, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

039. Labor Law Act
Several months ago, Yuri made this law to replace the current Labor Law Act which is not as good as this law. I think it ought to be made into law. What do you guys think? Here's the text: —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:50, December 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Every adult Lovian that foresees in his/her own income through labor as an employee can only do so by engaging in an employment contract.
 * 2) An employment contract is an agreement in which one party (the employee) commits himself or herself to work for another party (the employer) in exchange for a financial compensation.
 * 3) An employment contract is only valid when:
 * 4) Both parties are at least 16 and have permission from a parent or legal advisor when they are not yet 18.
 * 5) The function, working hours, working conditions, wage and duration of the contract are confirmed in a written agreement.
 * 6) Both parties agree on a voluntary basis and the volition is not deficient.
 * 7) It comprises the presence of a valid subject and a lawful cause.
 * 8) An employment contract is terminated:
 * 9) When the time of the duration of the employment contract as defined in the contract itself is expired.
 * 10) When both parties agree upon the termination of the employment contract under conditions specified and agreed upon by both parties.
 * 11) When at least one of the parties can not possibly fulfill his/her obligations due to conditions independent of that party his/her will.
 * 12) When one of the parties declares the employment contract terminated by issuing the dismissal.
 * 13) When the employer terminates the contract this way, the employee can demand a financial compensation of three month salaries.
 * 14) When the employee terminates the contract this way, the employer can demand the contract stands for up to one more week.
 * 15) When a judge declares the failure of at least one of the parties sufficient to terminate the employment contract as a whole.
 * 16) If declared terminated by a judge, the payment of a financial compensation for the duped party can be imposed on the party responsible for the failure.
 * 17) When a certain event enclosed in the employment contract as dissolving condition takes place.
 * 18) The following events can not be taken up as dissolving conditions: pregnancy, parenthood, marriage, reaching pension age and confiscation of the wage.
 * 19) When the employee dies or is missing for more than one week.
 * 20) After being employed under a labor contract for 40 years, an employee can retreat from the labor market, thus becoming pensioned.
 * 21) From the age of 55, all employees enter pension regardless of the years they have been under a labor contract.
 * 22) Pensioned people are legally entitled to a pension that is provided to them by the Social Security Fund.
 * 23) The hours an employee has to work are to be enclosed in an employment contract to make it valid.
 * 24) These hours are limited to eight hours a day and forty hours a week.
 * 25) All labor performed outside these limits are regarded as overtime.
 * 26) All labor performed from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. is regarded as night labor.
 * 27) All labor performed on saturdays, sundays or recognized holidays is regarded as weekend labor.
 * 28) If an employee is put to work he/she has to work at least three successive hours.
 * 29) After six successive hours of work an employee has the right to have half an hour of rest.
 * 30) Each employee has the right to have eleven successive hours of rest a day.
 * 31) The conditions under which an employee performs his/her job have to be enclosed in an employment contract to make it valid.
 * 32) The conditions under which an employee performs his/her job may only pose the minimal acceptable threat to his/her safety, health or welfare.
 * 33) An employer is responsible for the consequences of his/her decisions on the employment conditions of his/her employees. End that he/she has to take the following measures:
 * 34) The prevention of risks and the evaluation of risks that couldn't be prevented within an acceptable margin.
 * 35) Giving priority to safety over profit when making decisions that affect the employment conditions.
 * 36) Informing the employee over possible risks in the light of his/her duty at his/her recruitment.
 * 37) An employee has to act in agreement with his/her training and given instructions to take care of his/her safety. End that he/she has to take the following measures:
 * 38) Make correct use of the provided machinery, tools and materials that may pose a threat to the employee's safety.
 * 39) Make correct use of the provided personal protective equipment.
 * 40) Make correct use of the provided safety mechanisms.
 * 41) The wage is defined by the employment contract but has to answer to the following provisions:
 * 42) The minimum wage is 14 dollars an hour, with a 30% digression for employees younger than 18.
 * 43) A compensating differential of 20% is to be given for labor at night, weekend labor, dangerous work or irregular hours.
 * 44) The wages as defined can be altered according to the inflation upon Congressional decision.
 * 45) The wages of all employees are protected by the following provisions:
 * 46) The employee can ordain his/her own wage without restrictions from the employer.
 * 47) All wages paid to Lovian residents are to be paid in US dollars unless he/she is employed in a foreign country, in which case he/she can demand payment in the coin of that country.
 * 48) Up to 1/5 of the wage can be paid in kind if this is desirable for the nature of the job and the employee was notified of this in advance.
 * 49) All wages are to be paid at least twice a month with no more than 16 days between each payment.
 * 50) Certain payments can legally be subtracted from the wage before payment.
 * 51) These subtractions should not comprise more than 1/5 of the total wage unless when the employee did deliberate damage or quits before the entire debt is redeemed.
 * 52) Payments that can legally be subtracted from the wage before payment are:
 * 53) Contributions for the Social Security Fund which are imposed by Congress through the taxation policy.
 * 54) Fines which are owed to the employer and are imposed by the agreed labor regulation of the employment contract.
 * 55) Damages which are owed to the employer and inflicted during the exercise of the job for that employer.
 * 56) Advance payments already made by the employer with agreement of the employee.
 * 57) An employee is default by disease if he/she unable to perform his/her job due to a physic disease or mental condition.
 * 58) An employee who is default by disease has right to full payment if he/she notifies his/her employer of the situation.
 * 59) The employer can demand proof of a medical opinion or ask for a second opinion of a competent examiner appointed by the employer.
 * 60) All wages paid to an employee default by disease for more than 30 successive days are paid for 60% by the Social Security Fund.
 * 61) If the default is caused by an occupational injury or disease, the employer has to pay the full wage for the entire duration of the default.
 * 62) All employers are obliged to take insurance against occupational injuries and diseases, either private or through the Social Security Fund.
 * 63) All employers are obliged to take as much measures against occupational injuries and diseases as reasonable.
 * 64) Extra regulation can be imposed through organized collective bargaining between unions and sectors.
 * 65) The extra regulation is only valid when all parties agreed on a voluntary basis and the volition is not deficient.
 * 66) The extra regulation may concern vacations, recruitment, working hours, wages and working conditions.
 * 67) The extra regulation may not violate the marginal boundaries and regulations of the labor law.

I don't know if I'm allowed to comment here but shouldn't this really wait until after elections? Kunarian 22:18, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

We're not even in the voting stage yet, I don't see it as a problem at all. This is just a good law to protect laborers. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:25, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

True, some parts are unquestionably good others may protect labourers but harm employers and businesses, especially small businesses. But thats my final word. This is a matter for the leaders of Congress not a backbencher. Kunarian 22:29, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Any MOTCs up for discussion? Is this law missing anything? Yuri's laws are generally perfect, though, so perhaps not. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:19, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Why does no one care? Would anyone mind if I move this to Second Chamber? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:08, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't see this. It looks good in essence. I corrected one spelling mistake. --Semyon 19:43, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Lovian English doesn't change -yed to -id (as in payed vs paid). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:03, December 17, 2011 (UTC)

I Like this as a Labour Party. I'll vote pro! Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:00, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, no one objected and there is support, so I think this is ready for a vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:59, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

040. Census change
I want there to be a population boom for several reason. One to make things realistic. We have alot of sports clubs and things but only like 20000 citizens. I good population boom to 45000 or to 60000 is needed to make things realistic and kinda show we are a serious force.

Two we need to also pass a budget. And in this budget we have a pretty Socialized Health care system, Social Security and alot of benefits but for who? 20000 people that really doesn't make sense. Also what kinda loops into this is tax revenue. So I wanna change these numbers so we can have a serious and better lovia. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:06, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

So here's a formula (N = Variable):

All states start with 550 people do to rural regions which aren't incroporated into Hamlets or towns, etc.
 * Old Hamlet/Village formula: 200 + (N x 121)
 * New Hamlet/Village formula: 210 + (N x 130)
 * Old Town Formula: 1000 + (N x 121)
 * New Town Formula: 1275 + (N x 165)
 * Neighboorhood Old formula: 100 + (N x 121)
 * Neighboorhood New Formula: 120 + (N x 125)
 * And the city formula stays the ammount of neighboorhoods combined. This needs a quick response and vote and a new census will take place in the week...I'll do it of course. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:16, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

No, we should completely change history instead. The connection between the fake population and wikiusers should stop, so we can just set the number of people at a realistic number instead of multiplying wikiusers by a random number. Also, it's too early for a census. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:39, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been proposed before to increase historical populations as well. I quite agree with doing that, but it would mean a lot of work. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:56, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think we should do? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:04, December 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Pass a law/whatever vote is necessary with this change so I can implement it (next week my Christmas holiday period of two weeks start) and there is no problem at all :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:55, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Actually we do not need to change the law for this. I want to know whether most of us agree that the census should not be user-based. If we can come up with a "goal number" for how many Lovians we want (like 50.000?), I can make proposed number of inhabitants for all "governmental" bodies (state>rural areas/town>neighborhood/hamlet). --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:48, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, plus there is a calculator that I have which could tell us how much population would change without immigration or emigration. 82.18.203.83 16:56, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we do have immigration and emigration a lot, but it could be useful though :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:59, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's good that we will be expanding the population. Also, the natural growth rate is probably quite high seeing as though there are quite few very, very fertile celebrities. The Donia Clan is a good example of this. That has a bigger impact then emigration and immigration. The glorious First Consul of Rome 17:03, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you should keep in mind that Lovia is quite a "militaristic" nation (Civil Wars, etc.). This should cause a population decline, generally, as there will be people fleeing and killed. That's why this high fertility rate is so important: it'll keep the nation stable (with about 2% growth each year). --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:46, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * with 50,000 people btw, in one year (without immigration, emigration) the population would rise to 50,375 thats acounting for the recent civil war. 82.18.203.83 13:22, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

041. Special Forces of Lovia
I would like to come to congress to propose that the Special forces are recognised as a land companion to the Coastal police. I will say that honestly I do not like armies and violence, but in the Civil war there were many deaths and the regular police did not do well. I will let congress decide everything to be the most democratic and also so no body has unlimited control.Granero 01:42, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

This special forces has been operating as what is termed under Lovian law as a private militia. Congress has already refused the bill that would have made the so called special forces of lovia the standard land forces. I am taking them to court on accounts of illeagally owning firearms and of operating a private militia on Lovian soil. Kunarian 01:48, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

This is not a private militia! It is part of the police made for public security. If you want I can tone it down and make it more like a police, I can even rename to Special Police of Lovia. But, please I do not want to go to court for this, it is bad enough to go to court. Granero 02:44, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

And also could you recognise the Lovia Coastal Police, it is vital to the national security as well. Granero 02:48, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

It was my understanding it had been recognised. if not it may be included in the court case. Kunarian 03:15, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

I second the motion to recognize these entities which have been vital to Lovia's security during the Civil War. Though Kunarian dies have a point over control so maybe congress should operate them directly but with nominal control under Mr. Costello and Mr. Berbashov. HORTON11 : •  19:54, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

I argue that the coastal police stay as they were approved before, they are not in question. What is in question is the special forces of Lovia, they need to be taken from a military level and put onto a police level, I was hardly aware we had the money to fund this in the department of welfare and still have enough to fund hospitals, one of the two is being neglected and its not the "special forces". They should only operate on a law enforcement level as the coastal police has done and should not take priority over other items in the department of welfare. Kunarian 20:07, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

The Dept. of Welfare has not funded this yet, have you not seen our large hospital funding program put in operation recently? I agree theis should be more like a police (Costa Rica has a specialized police instead of an army). Perhaps we should rename it to Lovian Defense Force, used only for defense against any threats. HORTON11 : •  20:11, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

No, they shall not be our armed forces. And how do you expect to fund the 200 man force that equips itself with military weapons. Kunarian 20:16, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Horton, you know I've already proposed the Lovian Defense Force a while back, and it got denied because no one wanted it. As much as I support a military, this isn't really the time or place to recap that earlier proposal. I would be glad to incorporate any willing members of the Special Forced into the Coastal Police for now, and when we have the time and we all decide to create a military, they can return as an Army, and the Coastal Police can become our navy. That would mean we don't have to deduct anymore of the Lovian population, that might serve in the military. Back to the subject, though, what do you think about my proposal?-- LCPCOP Christopher Costello (Pikapi - Discuss) 20:29, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

I am still agianst the idea. But to integrate them into the Coastal Police is the best short term solution but would mean taking on too many members, you may simply have to lay some off. We need quality in Lovia not quantity. Kunarian 20:34, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

I saw that the arguments were not doing anything good, and also I chatterd with my cousin and I decided to change it to Lovian Defence Force.

1. The Lovian Defence Force will act mainly like the civil defence and emergency aid team but secondly like an army.

2. The official abreviation is LDF

3. The LDF will do humanitarian aid for hurracanes, tsunamis, and natural disasters.

4. In times of wars like the Civil war congress may decide to have the LDF operate the army portion and use weaponst to protect Lovians annd defend the country.

That is my plan. Granero 22:13, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

This is just a face for you to install your own military piece as the Lovian Army. I will not support it and will make sure that other members of congress flatten these bypasses of the legal system. 82.18.203.83 22:21, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

This is not my own military piece, it is for all of Lovia. Granero 22:25, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

What that you lead and control without consulting congress one bit? not at all. not at all. 82.18.203.83 22:31, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Congress will decide everything, not me. Granero 22:35, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

No you have just gone ahead with it, not waited or anything, you are even trying to get them bases! THis will be dealt with by congress and unless you cease and desist it will go much futher than you think. 82.18.203.83 22:43, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Please do not take it much further, I do not want to create more conflict. And I dont wknow waht is cease and desist? But please I will continue through congress before making bases. You should see that I removed most of the military parts and it's mostly humanitarian and peaceful aid. Granero 22:45, December 20, 2011 (UTC

IT WILL go futher unless you STOP everything NOW. If you wanted to make a humanitarian and peaceful aid force then go and make that, do not do that to cover up your military intent. 82.18.203.83 22:49, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

I have no military intent and I am not covering it. Anyd you are very rude, doing accusations and not llistening. I am trying to completly co-operate but you do not want it. Granero 22:51, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

THEN WHY DIDNT YOU STOP AT THE FIRST POINT? I am preserving Lovia from people like you who seem to just want to godmod stuff in. I have listened but you have not. You want to do it now, now, now instead of waiting for congress to even make a comment. I have given you the level with which you must comply but you fail to do that, in fact you go even futher going full out military. 82.18.203.83 22:54, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

No this not full military, only a reserve emewrgency unit. I have listened and not you. I have made the compro,mise but not you, sp please be calm and be rational and negotiaite. Granero 22:57, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

There should not be a reserve emergency unit at that point. If somehow a bunch of hooligans manage to get control of machine guns, automatic rifles, and other illegal guns then I guess we'll have to call in UNLOR again. But realistically, you can't really smuggle in that kind of military gear. We should have everyday police, police over waters, police over air, police over cyberspace, police for traffic, but no true military. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:28, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

A system like the national guard in the USA might be okay. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:48, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Thats the kind of thing I'm writing a bill on now. Kunarian 03:15, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Another thing, we need to reimplement local police. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:17, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

When did we get rid of local police?! Get them back on the beat now! Kunarian 02:18, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest we have a body which is neither police nor army, but somewhere in between? If we give it quite a vague name, then both sides can be happy - something like the Royal Guard sounds nice. --Semyon 14:09, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

We are a maritime nation, and we need a small defense force (and navy) of our own. A "royal guard" just wouldn't do. What do you find bad about my proposal?-- LCPCOP Christopher Costello (Pikapi - Discuss - What's up) 15:34, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Royal Guard already exists, to protect the Royal family.BTW Pikapi your proposal is great. HORTON11 : •  16:14, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

The Royal Guard does already exist. Plus Horton could you note which parts you particularly enjoy about his proposal? 82.18.203.83 16:16, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Plus let me note what I don't like about your proposal: Things I like:
 * It could give rise to private militia as you have put a way for people to sneak them into legality.
 * You have engineered it specifically to reward yourself and a small group of users with power in the military whether the intent was malicious or not, you have done it.
 * You have created another secret service which is uneeded.
 * There are no given limits on the operational powers of the military, basically as soon as congress lets it loose its a bull in a china shop.
 * They are not written to be responisble to any given force.
 * Its a step towards a military.

82.18.203.83 16:23, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

On Pikapi's proposal, I am in agreement with Kunarian. Another thing I don't is that there is a lifetime term for the leader a useless intelligence agency, which of course is going to be Bill An. And Jeff added that, lol. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:22, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the Royal Guard or something like it exists (@Horton and Kunarian), if it does, I would like a link. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:35, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

042. OAS membership
I propose Lovia submits an application to join the OAS.

Also, we should consider Lovia's foreign affairs in more detail. --Semyon 16:41, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Don't know if it's necessary, but it wouldn't harm us either. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:53, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I will look into the OAS, but I completely agree we must stop being isolationist. Kunarian 16:53, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that even the dubiously democratic American states are members, we don't want to be the only state whose voice isn't heard. --Semyon 17:04, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering it I don't think we need it and I don't really think Lovia needs to get involved in any political union other than NATO. It does effect us to join and not completely positively, it does not effect us to leave it alone and just focus on building foreign affairs interaction instead. Kunarian 17:11, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Which of the 'goals and purpose' don't you agree with? --Semyon 17:27, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly disagree with them, I disagree with the likelyness that we may have rules and regualtions forced upon us that do not come from the Lovian government.
 * BTW, I created a proposal for a passport. --Semyon 17:29, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Lovian passport.png
 * Are you going to propose this seperately? Kunarian 17:31, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

The only union that Lovia should not join is NATO (we don't even have a military and aren't even on the Atlantic). Joining the OAS is a much better idea. HORTON11 : •  17:32, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * This section is just intended to be discussion. Another idea I had was to join the Commonwealth, but I understand no-one will like that. --Semyon 17:34, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Kunarian: I understand your concern, but don't think that is an issue. Quoting from the Charter of the OAS: "The fundamental rights of States may not be impaired in any manner whatsoever." --Semyon 17:37, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * The commonwealth is for English Empire nations primarily and doesn't really fit Lovia in too much. Could you link the charter. Plus Horton, without NATO we would probably not be having this conversation right now, due to the civil war which would most likely still be runnning. Kunarian 17:52, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * It was the UN which sent troops to Lovia, not NATo. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 18:24, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes so it was, I confused the two. Kunarian 18:27, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel UN membership is a must, and OAS would be benefitial too. Maybe Lovia could rejoin UWN (maybe I could get Brunant to join it too). HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 18:47, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Are the other wikinations even active? Kunarian 18:52, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Link as requested. :) --Semyon 19:30, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * @Kunarian: Well... From time to time especially Libertas and Mäöres show signs of life, but at the moment it's quiet in both countries. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 19:39, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. I was thinking of setting up my own wiki nation but if they seem to die out... :/ Kunarian 19:41, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Now my problem points:
 * An act of aggression against one American State is an act of aggression against all the other American States
 * The Member States recognize that, in order to facilitate the process of Latin American regional integration, it is necessary to harmonize the social legislation of the developing countries, especially in the labor and social security fields, so that the rights of the workers shall be equally protected, and they agree to make the greatest efforts possible to achieve this goal.

The points i like:
 * No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements.

Still iffy. I'll wait for some other people to state their opinions. Kunarian 19:41, December 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Kunarian, you could join Brunant. Its quite active these days. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 21:05, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I see it does have a few people online, I'll think about it. Kunarian 21:18, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, hopefully you do decide to join. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 21:35, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

What does Brunant have to do with this, Horton? Anyway, I don't think joining OAS is something that would help Lovia, per the facts Kunarian stated. Lovia is against war, if I recall correctly. The Civil War only further increased opposition. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:20, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

043. Anti-Monopolization Act

 * 1) A monopoly is a corporation that has achieved complete or nearly complete dominance over one or more business markets and uses anti-competition practices to preserve their influence over their controlled market. Monopolies often raise prices to achieve unfair profit for themselves.
 * 2) Other reasons may be defined by a court of law, and the court should decide whether the corporation in question actually is a monopoly based on several different facts about the corporation.
 * 3) A monopoly always controls at least 50% of the market in question. Not all companies with over 50% or even 100% of the market under their control are monopolies.
 * 4) An accused monopoly should be acquitted if they are technically considered a monopoly by market share, but are not practicing anti-competitive tools.
 * 5) Being a monopoly is illegal in Lovia, and monopolies should be split or dissolved when possible, to open up the business market for competition once more.
 * 6) Cases against monopolies should be settled in a fair court of law, with a plaintiff on one side and the corporation defending itself on the other.
 * 7) To start a case against a monopoly, the plaintiff must first have sufficient evidence presented to the court. If the court's decision-making body agrees that there is evidence that suggests the corporation in question is a monopoly, the session may begin, whereupon standard practices should be adhered to.
 * 8) During the case, the plaintiff should bring arguments about the unfair and anti-competitive practices that the corporation is using, if possible. The corporation should justify arguments that the plaintiff brings.
 * 9) Eventually, after arguments have been raised and discussed, the court should make a decision on whether or not the corporation is a monopoly.
 * 10) After the decision had been made, three outcomes are possible:
 * 11) The first outcome is that the corporation is declared a full monopoly that must have action taken on it.
 * 12) The court may prescribe liquefaction of all or part of the corporation, but not in market areas where the corporation has proven it does not use anti-competitive practices to ensure its dominance.
 * 13) The court may also prescribe to split the corporation into two or more separate parts, but not in market areas where the corporation has proven it does not use anti-competitive practices to ensure its dominance.
 * 14) Such corporations may not merge without the permission of a court of law and must not form an alliance to continue unfair dominance in the sector.
 * 15) The court makes the decision on which split parts of the corporation go to which people, who may or may not get compensation if the corporation is dissolved or split, and has the authority to make actions upon the corporation in the way it sees fit.
 * 16) Such actions may only take place during the "outcome" period of the monopoly trial.
 * 17) The second outcome is that the corporation is declared not a monopoly that needs no action taken on it.
 * 18) The corporation may only be tried for monopolization again after two months have passed.
 * 19) The third outcome is that the corporation is declared a semi-monopoly, that does not need to be dissolved or split.
 * 20) Such corporations must be put on probation by the Department of Finance for a duration of two months, and cannot be tried again until two months have passed.
 * 21) If the Department of Finance finds that the corporation has not made an effort to stop its semi-monopoly-like practices within two months, then it can immediately be tried again, but can be dissolved or split if declared semi-monopoly.
 * 22) All split monopolies should act as completely separate corporations.
 * 23) Split monopolies may be charged again as oligopolies if they form a corporate alliance or oligopoly.
 * 24) Charges for oligopoly may be charged for split monopolies and other oligopoly-like corporations, and should proceed like a monopoly case.

Here it is. What needs changing? What do you not like? Other thoughts? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:48, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

, but I'm dubious about how the court will draw the line between a monopoly, semi-monopoly and and non-monopoly. Also, how will splitting be enforced? --Semyon 14:56, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I support this going to the second chamber AFTER you write in something that clarifies what as seymon said what is a monopoly, semi-monopoly or non-monopoly (basically a competitor). Make it so that it's based more on individual companies owning all or a large percentage of a market. for instance, if I own 5 retail stores from one retail company and there are three other retail companies with 5 other stores between them, that is a semi-monopoly. A monopoly in that case would mean I owned all 10 retail stores or 7 and up, in that case it would be nigh impossible to compete with me I would out compete my competitors then monopolise. 82.18.203.83 15:06, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Could you sign in please? It seems to me there are too many IPs editing these days. :( --Semyon 15:09, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

For splitting, a company simply is broken down into separate companies that can't merge or become an oligopoly together. I think I see what you mean, so I'll expand the definition part some more. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:16, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I just added a clause (1.2) that clarifies it, at least, I think it does. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:18, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy the change. :P Kunarian 15:37, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

TM, I don't think you understand my other problem. How is the company split - which part does the former owner get, who gets to own the other part, does the former owner get any compensation? It's a lot more complicated than just 'splitting'. --Semyon 15:44, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. What do you propose to add? Maybe the court should just decide? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:47, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

It could be improved further. For instance, companies that maintain a presence in multiple nations cannot be dissolved by Lovia. I think that the best reaction to a monopoly is to ban it either as a whole, or in part. -- LCPCOP Christopher Costello (Pikapi - Discuss - What's up) 15:55, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

They could be kicked out of Lovia, which is what we could do with Goyou. If any of you want to make some changes, just make a new section with a revised version below. Just don't change the original that is up there. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:00, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a monopolisation tax? really big to hurt them and force them to break apart or sell off parts. Kunarian 16:01, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, but since monopolies make so much money, I don't think that it would work. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:10, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

It would if we imposed a really high VAT on all products made by monopolies. They can only subsidise their products so far. In conjuction, however, we'd also have to break the monopoly, so customers have an alternative choice - still that doesn't solve the Goyou problem. --Semyon 16:17, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Not VAT, I hate Vat. I think that we should have an efficient Judicial system, a critical media and a monopoly tax. That would sort it out. Kunarian 16:22, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think Goyou is a monopoly in most sectors, but it is just an unrealistic company. I think I might have a hatred for conglomerates... —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:25, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous
This actually makes me laugh... In Lovia there is only one company producing and selling "flaaj", De Limburger, according to this law it's a monopoly and thus it's illegal. I'm sorry, but I can't support this... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:42, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

True, we need to write in something to moderate this otherwise we cannot let this law pass. Kunarian 16:45, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Btw I think Flaaj comes under food products and so is not a monopoly but you raised a point that needs to be dealt with. Kunarian 16:45, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * We do sell a lot of other Limburgish things that are fully monopoly though :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:52, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

We don't need a law for this. If there's just one company it ain't no problem: nobody else is interested in it then. If we'd ban the monopoly company, we won't have any company in that sector. And if a company is unrealistically big, we can downsize it per community consensus. No need for a law at all. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:52, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and that's not the aiming of this law, to eradicate every company that controls a market, such as that of flaaj. That doesn't make it ridiculous though, because De Limburger doesn't use unfair practices to control its market. . . it's just the only one. This isn't trying to be ridiculous, it's trying to fight Goyou (and Plus Company for that matter) and its mindless expansion. And I think it's better to try and keep things more in character if we can. You can argue the same for every other law, even the Constitution. So yes, we do need a law. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:03, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Helloooo? Once again, this is not ridiculous, and it's still being worked on anyway. I just made a few revisions to start the fix to the flaaj argument. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:40, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good stuff. Just need to scan it again once or twice and see if I could get round it or abuse it again. :P Kunarian 18:25, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, good. I think we've made good progress. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:10, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Being the only company to sell a product does not make it a monopoly! We have a million of those in Lovia, and plenty of small nations! In my opinion, a monopoly is best described as an organization that has over 60% of an entire industry, or 40% of every industry. Why not put that in your act as an alternative, so that Lovia's market doesn't have to crash? -- LCPCOP Christopher Costello (Pikapi - Discuss - What's up) 21:23, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I've already made some fixes so that if a company technically is one but doesn't have unfair practices, it will be acquitted (see 1.2, Not all companies with over 50% or even 100% of the market under their control are monopolies.). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:32, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

This law is so vague... --J&bull;t 03:23, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

You could probably argue the same for any other. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:24, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

How many of you would support this in the Second Chamber, and if not, why? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:32, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * When I am an MOTC I will vote "Contra" or "Abstention". Why? It's simply vague, and as OWTB says, would ban De Limburger, which is unacceptable. --J&bull;t 02:48, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that in light of the refusal of even the improvements of this act I think we must go back to the drawing board and work out a better way of stopping monopolies from arising. 213.81.126.43 02:52, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've expressed my concerns already and it is not yet fixed, so an abstention for me. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:09, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Also, Jeff, I've added provisions for the De Limburger case. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:28, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Monopoly? Anyone
Is Goyou still considered a monopoly? Why and why not? --J&bull;t 16:08, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Goyou still controls large nd important parts of the economy and even in Brunant too, the internet, airlines. It is good to be involved in the economy, but in important sectors don't take complete control. HORTON11 : •  16:51, December 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's all I'm interested in. --J&bull;t 16:56, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I. Police and Army

 * 1) The Police of Lovia are the general policing forces of the Kingdom of Lovia.
 * 2) In case of a declaration of state of emergency, martial law, or an emergency act by the Prime Minister or the Congress, the Police will be replaced by the Lovian Guard.
 * 3) The Lovian Guard is the lawful defense force of the Kingdom of Lovia that will replace the Police of Lovia in severe unrest, civil war, or conflicts with other foreign states.

II. UNLOR

 * 1) In case of an emergency where no lawful police or military are around, the Kingdom of Lovia, without congressional approval, will ask for aid from the United Nations and the United Nations Lovian Order Restoration Force, also known as UNLOR.

Discussion
Both parts of this bill will be voted on separately; so in case one cannot pass the other can pass. Also, the bill is currently very vague; please feel free to suggest ideas below. --J&bull;t 03:42, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks okay. A textual note: I'd drop the "of Lovia" and "Lovian". It is clear the the Lovian constitution/federal law is about Lovia I'd say :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:11, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel like this bill just restates the fact we have a police so i say contra to that. And with UNLOR i don't think our debt ridden allies care much for our minor revolts. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:24, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I would also vote contra, I believe that our national guard work in progress and police are two separate things that are both active at the same time. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:27, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

045. Prime Minister Making it Manditory!
Until i see who's who I can't allow elections to take place. Now Don't fret this is mainly a simple and small matter to deal with but in addition we need all people running for congress to also leave there User name so I know who's running. Thnx. Once done we'll be back on track. (This is simply done to eliminate fraud) Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:32, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point. People will just run their main characters that other people know. We haven't any fraud so I say don't start unless someone somehow manages to get two candidacies in without detection. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:03, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I still want the users there. Some of there character pages don't even have a connection to there User page. I don't know who "Bill An's" user is and i won't remember unless I see it there. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:05, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, user names should be given. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 20:10, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'll add it. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:06, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Wow OWTB tells you so you do it...okay wow. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:41, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted some agreement. The PM doesn't really have the power to order anything they want done. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:50, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

If you need checkuser (suspect some socks) use SpecialContact. --J&bull;t 15:58, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

It's not about checkusering, it's about the fact that some of us are still unable to couple all user names with the characters. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 18:07, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it confused me and It now allows be to understand you all are. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:09, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

046. Judicial Reform (Amendment to Constitution)
This idea was thrown out a while ago, and I recently started thinking about how it might work. What if the Supreme Court consisted of a judge (with the current system of appointment), and a panel of four either randomly selected citizens or lawmakers that switched for each court case? Then, each of the five would have one vote in the case (the judge has a vote), and the judge would preside over the case. I haven't made a draft of the idea yet, but what do you guys think about it? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:25, December 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Why? Well i would say yes to this maybe if it was like a year ago and we had like 12 to 14 users. But now we have like 7 (oos, me, TM, Jeff, Chris, Horton, Donia (Kinda), others) so I don't think this works out. Not to say it's a bad idea but I think i've supported it in the past, but not now. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:36, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would argue for twelve: you listed seven, but there's also Semyon, -Sunkist- (kinda), Kunarian, Granero, and Pierlot (who uses his IP). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:47, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Also not exclude them but also we have alot of youngester...wait like until like april for this. In raw numbers, like old, active users, we have like 5 or 6. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:57, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's still enough. We could have 2 experienced users, like Oos and me, and 2 less experienced ones, like Pikapi and Jeff. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 16:18, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Or we could just appoint 2 judges. Though the jury idea is cool. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 16:21, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I see alot of problems here how do we even choose the jury and change it? It can be really problematic. Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:21, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * We could have a Secretary of Justice (formerly YgoD) and let him/her choose (but we need someone wise like TM). -- 17:30, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Guess who hates the USA the most here...ME!!! Look at the supreme court...freind and political ideolog minded people are appointed to the bench and don't honestly judge the cases but instead just vote on how the lobbists and friends want them to. To much politics for a non-political office. And yeah you can say TM will be wise, but I doubt 100% or even 75% of the time he will. Just being honest, and no offence to him. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:06, December 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Off-topic, but my main problem with the USA is with the two-party system. People complain and complain... but they refuse to vote for an independent or third party candidate!! Back on-topic, I am very able to be neutral, but when I am not required to, I don't, since I prefer showing my views. If I was judge I would certainly be neutral. I think that the panel of four should not be appointed by Congress, to make sure the majority doesn't get 4/4. The minority should still get 1/4 on the panel at least. Therefore, I proposed my random selection idea (like what was done for the site council) to ensure that. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:44, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * As a round-up for my idea: There is a panel of five judicial people. One is the supreme court judge, appointed the same way they currently are. The other four are four randomly selected citizens that are active and have enough edits. The five will then make a majority decision (3/5) on a case. The panel of four changes each trial, i. e. one panel of OWTB, TM, Pikapi, and Granero might be replaced by Marcus, TMV, Jeff, and Horton the next trial. The Supreme Court judge is permanent (unless removed by Congress, like in the current system) and presides over the trial, while the other four and the judge are the jury that vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:44, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go draft a law. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:03, December 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. You can read it here: User:TimeMaster/Sandbox Opinions? Supports? Opposes? What do you think of it? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:22, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I oppose this reform because I probably won't be an MOTC in this case! :( -- 20:26, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * So you don't support it because you aren't an MOTC? That's illogical. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:05, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think I would have three votes, because everyone would vote for someone like Oos. :( -- 23:35, December 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what you're talking about. What three votes? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:45, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Would anyone else than Kunarian or I vote for me? -- 02:33, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote for you for what position? Congress? And if you mean the jury, there is no vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:54, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

(reset indent) In Congress, I want to run for elections. However, since I am so unpopular I will probably not get any votes. I know Kunarian and I will exchange votes, so yeah. -- 03:08, December 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. There are three types of votes: One vote is worth three votes, another two, and another one. So if you self vote yourself the three, you will have it already. It's just so inactive people who won't self vote themselves or get many other votes don't get any seats. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:53, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

047. Air Lovia (purge)
Forum:First_Chamber

Discuss please. -- 05:25, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

We can just list it as a state involved company with 30% after a vote. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:32, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

048. Ban Ben Opat' from the 2012 Congress
He's just an abstentionist who will get a vote anyway. WTF. Who agrees? -- 01:15, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know. Let's ask him if he'll be serving in absencia before we make such bold accusals. Jumping to conclusions about people is always especially upsetting and stressing to the victim. I get that he created an account in 2007, though, and that he is rarely online. I personally think that just because he had the dedication to return to Lovia during voting time and place his name in the ballot that we should give him a fair shot.--— Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat  • What's up ) 01:21, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wise PM Beats You :P. -- 01:34, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree! I say total pro. Marcus/Michael Villanova 01:40, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

, because this is illegal. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:20, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does it say this is illegal. -- 03:36, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Constitution, Article 2, Clause 2.2: [Every Lovian citizen has the right. . .] To participate in federal and state politics and to be a candidate in any Lovian election, unless he or she does not meet the requirements.

I say we formally ask him on his talk page. WHO'S WITH ME! *crowd watches silently* --— Christopher Costello (Pikapi • Chat  • What's up ) 03:29, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

I know for a fact that Ben Opat' did not run in the 2010 and 2011 state elections, the 2011 and 2011 second elections, and the 2010 mid-term elections. I also believe that he didn't run in the 2010 federal elections. If this is the first election he's run in since 2008, then what makes him an abstentionist? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 03:45, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

He is not very active. Granero 03:48, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple yet completely true. -- 04:23, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Just because you don't know a man is not a reason to ban him from an election. That's called a corrupt regime. Lovia is a wiki that runs for over 70% on politics. If you do not have a political job, you can not function. A perfect way to get back in the game is getting elected. Ben (talk) 09:49, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We simply do not need you to take up seats and leave. Simple. Instead of stating why you want a seat, you give me some useless words that prove nothing. Unless you can prove your activeness I'd rather follow TMV/Dr. Magnus/YgoD's path where you agree to give your seat if you are inactive. -- 15:47, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

GUYS! This is not the Lovian way of doing things... Two years ago, people were still welcomed when they returned instead of banned. I'm actually very disappointed in the screaming and shouting people here. Ben has been one of the best governors Lovia's ever had. He glued together a broken country after the Hurbanova Crisis back in 2008. And yes, he may have been inactive for the past two years, but still he is a good politician and that's exactly what we need now. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:05, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone who gets voted in is in Congress. Period. It's that simple. No rocket science. I doubt Ben will get enough support for him to take many seats. What we could do, however, is discuss with him what to do when he does leave. Then maybe he could allow someone else to vote for him. I offered the same solution after La Blaca got killed and I left. In case I myself leave again (pretty likely at this point) I'll allow someone else to control my characters and vote with them. The glorious First Consul of Rome 10:08, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Outrageous. If you don't like Ben, don't vote for him, 'tis simple. --Semyon 13:32, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:20, January 2, 2012 (UTC)