Forum:Speakers' Corner

{| width="100%" style="background-color:#FFAA99"

Speakers' Corner regulations

 * 1) All Lovians, regardless of their status or function, may, at any time, speak publicly at Speakers’ Corner.
 * 2) Speakers’ Corner may not be used to spread feelings of hatred against somebody or something. No bad shall be spoken of anybody without reasonable cause and only through decent language.
 * 3) Speakers’ Corner is a public space where all laws of the Kingdom of Lovia apply.
 * 4) Speakers’ Corner has the right to remove speakers from the park when the speaker is considered to be violating either the laws of the Kingdom of Lovia or the Speakers’ Corner regulations.
 * }

Statement by HRH
Please, if you do wish to read this statement (it's quite important), then please read it entirely. 19:18, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Speech
Dear Lovians, I think we should change our country. Maybe with the old five, maybe not. But with non-neutral admins, we may not change it. I think there should be neutraller admins. Maybe many people not agree with this. But is it the reality:Lovian kingdomship is too centred on a elite, where only friends of the king are part of. I think we should change this. Making a better Lovia, without TOO MUCH influence for the old five. That is what i want. I think Lovia shouldnt be anarchy, but also not a monarchy.. I think that is the best for our nation. I feel we could modernize Lovia. I think we shouldnt trial people who create new country within Lovia. The second option is this: citizens should have the chance for wich Lovia they want to be part of. Old Five-lovia, Iron Guard-Lovia or Andy-Lovia. They should be able to also start a extra Lovia. I know this can be confusing but it is one of the few solutions. I hope Lovia can be once a great nation without the OF. Thanks for a nation, thanks for a population and for stability. Greets, Pierlot Temporary No Character 16:52, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Speechless; I don't get it, Lovia worked well in the past and according to me still does. Why can't we all just follow the laws, the democratic method? Sure, some change is needed, but why do we need to overthrow the monarchy and yell the place together with nasty claims of conspiracies ... What did I miss? 17:08, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know the laws look good, but according to my opinion, Lovia is becoming less good every day Temporary No Character 17:28, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, but don't you think that a proposal in Congress will achieve more than an all-out offensive against half the users? 17:32, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I might propose one. Temporary No Character 17:33, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I might support it. I too think that some crucial things should change, like the underused state and local levels that need some serious revaluation. Make sure not to be too radical, one step at a time  17:35, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Administration or bureaucracy?
Recently a poll was launched in the pub to ask our opinion on weather we should lose some admins and who would deserve becoming one. It is my opinion this question can be reduced to a simple self-reflection: do we want a site administration or a site bureaucracy? Two admins are named on the admin-off list. Most of the time they are not around and they have never used their admin rights. Taking away their 'rights' - what a poor word to describe this - or leaving things as they are would result in the same situation, right? Wrong! I do acknowledge that there are more admins than are really needed to make this wiki function, though masked by the fact that some of them are inactive. Making both admin-off could be a symbolic act, a gesture that signifies a change in the Lovian policy. We also have several capable people that do are around and should grant them a place in the site administration.

Finally, I would like to comment on the status of 'honorary admins' which was suggested on behalf of a non-active admin. This is under any conditions out of the question, several people already stated that we 'do have no nobility in Lovia' and I think we should keep it that way; admins are people with a task, a duty which itself can - and perhaps should - indeed be seen as an honor. This does however not imply that we can ignore the capabilities and availability of those we call 'admins'. We must keep in mind that the administration of this site is to be focused on its primary task, otherwise we will become a bureaucracy.

12:39, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * You sound reasonable. still i find it no shame to let the founder keep his rights. It includes no privileges, I hear, so it's only an outward sign. Nothing wrong with that? 12:56, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I do not really agree. We all respect Robin, but does he have to be admin for that? Personally I don't care but I do feel that becoming an admin must be accompanied by competence and activity. 12:16, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't we ask Robin's opinion right away? --Lars 12:23, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that is a good idea! 12:24, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because he is inactive and won't respond anyways? I agree with Yuri. --Bucurestean 15:53, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wanna bet on it ? --Lars 16:54, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright. But what has tyw7 to do with SPQ? --Bucurestean 16:56, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep digging man, keep digging... --Lars 17:07, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Until I find oil? --Bucurestean 17:09, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Nooooo, water man, water, cause I'm thirsty --Lars 17:11, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here in this corner of Europe, enough water falls from the sky, so it's not necessary to dig, man, 'cause you'll only find mud, man. --Bucurestean 17:14, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mud ? --Lars 17:15, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mud, man. --Bucurestean 17:21, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mud? Mad is a better description! Just ask him and see what he answers.  09:12, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Fellow citizens
The last week of the elections has begun. It's not over yet, nothing is lost. Many things have happened this month, from small riots to communist and fascist recruitments. It's amazing to see what can happen in a free and democratic country that suddenly can become very instable. However democracy is dangerous, we surely do love it. I'm also glad to announce you that these elections are completely fair.

But I do want you, fellow citizens, to think about a couple of issues. It's amazing to see how many ideologies some people could have, voting for both left and right. Everyone has his or her freedom to do so, and I fully appreciate it. But what will happen to the country?

Please do remember the points of view of several parties. The Liberal Democrats and the Walden Libertarians are the only parties - you may think I'm proud of that but actually I'm really concerned about the future of Lovian politics - which do have a concrete programme with concrete points of view. That's why these parties came together and united, into one coalition.

Tell me, fellow editor, what do you prefer more: less CO2 and more money for the elderly? Be honest: you don't care! Because we want to edit on this wiki, we want every citizen to be equal and respected, every citizen to contribute and write articles because that's why we are here. Unfortunately it looks more like a struggle for more power.

The Liberals and Libertarians are very clear in this. Have you heard any parties talking about their future plans for this site? Even the Progressive Democrats, until now the largest party, has declared that their campaign was pretty weak. The communists seem to be agressive and only said to want to gain influence. Open your eyes, Lovian, because we should avoid what has happened to Wikistad, namely a civil war because of power and influence. You don't see what is happening out there? The communists are "recruiting" people to vote... and leave afterwards. We seem to be the only ones who reject these actions and exclude leftist and rightist extremists from rule.

I want you to think about real ideals like liberty and equality. Don't forget what this wiki is about. It's about editting. And the Liberals and the Libertarians seem to be the only ones who actually do care about that, how disappointing it may look.

Well, if you vote for this coalition of the Liberal Democrats and the Walden Libertarian Party, you vote: Pro-Monarchy, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Simplification
 * Democracy: Separate elections for Prime Minister
 * Democracy: Abolishment of non-democratic local regulations, like the huge transformation of Train Village lately.
 * Democracy: No automatic seat for the King in the Congress. He may become MOTC, only no Judge nor Prime Minister. He should be elected.
 * Democracy: The King shouldn't get an automatic position in the negotiations about the formation of the government. The formed government should be accepted by the Congress (+50%)
 * Democracy: More use of referenda, for example when a new admin is needed.
 * Simplification: Reduce the 4 layers (neighborhood, city/town, state, federal) of the governmental systems to 3 layers
 * Simplification: Abolishment of not used State Courts
 * Simplification: New elections when +50% of the Members of the Congress is inactive.
 * Monarchy: Full support and respect for the monarchy and the King.

Dear Lovian, please take the elections seriously. Many misuse the word "Change". If you do want to see some real change, better conditions on this wiki and more activity, you should consider a vote for the Liberal-Libertarian coalition and Prime Minister candidate Andy McCandless, the only Prime Minister candidate who has actually made public what he will do on this site. The only one who will not come with any disappointing surprises. A man of the people, a man you can count on.

--Bucurestean 14:33, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Bucu, is it possible to also include this:No more than one vote and and no-vote changing? Pierlot McCrooke 15:49, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not in our programme. --Bucurestean 15:51, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe talk about that with McCandless? Pierlot McCrooke 15:52, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, we will discuss all points and, if some wish so, come with new points if we will participate in the formation of the government. Now, 3 weeks after the beginning of the elections, it's not our main interest to change our programme, you see. Patience, my friend. --Bucurestean 15:55, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * May I ask how you plan to combine your love for democracy and freedom of participation with the exclusion from power for leftists and other (play-by-the-rules) extremists? 10:42, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't compose this campaign, but as the major coalition candidate, I would like to answer this question anyway. i personally think every party (regardless of their extremism) should get a full chance. However, we must try to protect our sacred democracy from its enemies within. What i am saying is this: Republicans should get a chance to ask for reform, and get it thru democracy, and the same applies to communists or people who support a minimal state. What we cannot allow, and i think i may say this as a representative of my coalition, are parties who wish to abolish democracy. because once democracy is abolished, no change can be made again, but be bloody revolutions. That is why we, the Liberals and Libertarians, wish to be very careful with extremists. 13:42, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all: the LCP is not comparable to the IGP, do not make the mistake to compare them! Second of all: the LCP may be a communist party but we will never (and I have said this a thousend times) ever violate democracy. We value the fundamental rights of Lovian society. We have always did and will always do so. Do not insult us. We are no danger and wish to contribute in a meaningful way. We are not fascists and not extremists and we support the monarchy as it is. Dr. Magnus 13:46, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems we are slipping into a violation of some democracy too safe the rest. Just allow everyone who respects the law speak in congress. Do you seriously believe anyone here will succeed in destroying democracy? Harold Freeman 13:48, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I believe the political views of Bucurestean are a danger to society. I believe him to be driven by his hatred for communism as a whole. He therefor hates the LCP and everything is stands for. No matter how often I try to explain our good intentions, he refuses to listen. That is why I am deeply concerned. Dr. Magnus 13:52, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sure he didn't mean it this way. LD+WLP is not anti-democratical at all and we wish to create a pluralist and democratic platform, composed of all ideologies, within a democratic framework, of course. 13:54, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not, I don't have anything against communists in the Congress. But I am concerned about the circumstances, all the recruitments, why would one recruit people for his party? And by the way, I just said we, Liberals, could never govern this country together with communists and fascists. And I think that's logical: the differences are too big. --Bucurestean 13:57, January 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * That is very different of statements I read above. This coalition may not be an excuse to propagate the ideals of one as those of us all. Liberals respect differences! Harold Freeman 13:55, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I see I've failed as a party leader then. You're the new one, you may decide what to do. --Bucurestean 13:58, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

There are no more fascists: they were all banned and McCrooke left the party. The IGP is no more active and has no congressmen. The LCP has only one, and probably no more then 4 by the next elections. That means we are not a majority and I don't think we will ever be. We have to rule together. We should not fight each other. Dr. Magnus 13:59, January 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe, this has to do something with it (?), The incident has also been published on 15th November 2009 in The Noble City Times --Lars Washington 14:03, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it does. But a man should be able to give his opinion. And indeed, I may have reacted a bit harsh back then. However, I do not wish this to affect my political career, and the LCP harbours no anti-US sentiments or viewpoints whatsoever. Dr. Magnus 14:08, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Walden
The Walden Libertarian Party invites all Lovians who feel a political engagement to consider membership of our group of Waldeners. I would like to summarize the most important reasons to join our movement; though everybody is free to decide for himself what is truly important. 10:02, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Walden is a libertarian party. We strive for reform and liberty. Unlike other parties, we are willing to compromise if that is the only way to bring reform. Also, we do not fear to work!
 * Walden is an environmentalist party. Most of us don't hug trees, but we do love our planet. That is why we support more attention for environmentalist issues.
 * Walden is a Home. Being with us, is like being at home. We are gentle with each other, and we're not pushy. Everybody is free - that is what libertarianism is about.
 * Walden is a growing political faction with great ooportunities. We are doing well in Congress and the Lovians do notice that. When Mid-term elections will be held, a Waldener will have a good chance at getting elected. With the support of the party and our fellow libertarians, liberals, environmentalists and progressives, Walden is ready to kick ass!
 * It's true. WLP is a great party to be in Martha Van Ghent 10:33, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Percival's little speech (Mid-Terms)

 * Some good reasoning you have there, but I don't completely agree. There is a difference between ideology (a not compromise-able truth which does not need to be based on proof) and a worldview (an interpretation of reality which we try to base on facts). Most people have the latter which is often very political in itself. 07:07, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. I merely meant party-loyal ideology and dogma. This is not my point though: I didn't mean to call ideology a bad thing. My point was that I am pragmatic, liberal and able to compromise. Percival E. Galahad 07:10, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just making a point here; the negative effects of narrow education.  07:12, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Percival E. Galahad 07:13, May 14, 2010 (UTC)