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.

2012 First Congress
I'd to welcome all the Congresspeople to another great year! Hopefully, we'll be able to establish a tax code, further laws on the economy, and some reform proposals during the year. The first item on our agenda is the government composition, followed by an election of the Speaker of the Congress. Mr. Ilava, will you be proposing your government today as expected? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:38, February 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be speaker. I can do so, even if I'm not that active. -- 01:20, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm planning to become the speaker too. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:38, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try to make something of it. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:16, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

001. Government
I propose the following list for the government. Shall we put it to a vote?

Those who did not give their preferences have been assigned another tasks. I gave TM two functions, because I think he can handle it. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:21, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Prime: Ilava
 * Defence: Hoffmann
 * FA: Breyev
 * Finance: Krosby (using Galahad IC)
 * Justice: An
 * Health: Torres
 * Education: McComb
 * Culture: Ilava
 * Labour: McCrooke
 * Commerce: Costello
 * Agriculture: Lewis
 * Energy and Resources: Opať
 * Environment: Donia
 * Transportation: Abrahams
 * Tourism and Sport: Villanova
 * for some reason i don't want to be in gõvernment with conservatives. I however think about it Pierlot McCrooke 08:18, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this Marcus/Michael Villanova 10:56, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not give Bill An the Justice position? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:54, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll just go ahead and change it. Jeff doesn't have a post so he can have Justice. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:57, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Full support from me. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 12:14, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did Breyev take FA? I had so much interest... As Justice minister I guess I'll revamp the Judicial situation... I'm so sad. WTF... -- 12:38, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you just didn't have enough activity... —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:38, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

I am in favour of this. Kunarian 14:37, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, we've got no serious opposition, so let's propose this. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:41, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

Go go! Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:49, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

It's proposed now. I also added me as Speaker. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:50, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

002. Establishment of the SKA - Educational Reform Act (Part I)

 * Establishing the SKA as the state-subsidized and sponsored test.

The 2012 Educational Reform Act - (Part I)

An act requiring the education of Lovia to be reformed and for the Standard Knowledge Assessment to be implemented as the official state-sponsored and subsidized test.
 * The theories of creationism and evolution will only be taught with permission from the parent/legal guardian.
 * The SKA may not include any topics about evolution or creationism.
 * If a school's average grades are below 80 (C-F), the school must offer tutoring every morning and afternoon, unless excused by a reasonable reason from a parent/legal guardian.
 * Students may choose to be absent for religious holidays, including Passover, Easter, Chinese/Lunar New Year, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, etc. They will not be marked absent. Any missing schoolwork will not be required to be turned in, or the due date will be delayed.

Anyone? -- 04:41, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea itself is not bad, though it definitively needs more working. Also, it might be a good idea to check whether it doesn't have a negative impact on regional practises and religiosity. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:34, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't like the bonus idea. It will be a stimulating environment for fraud. The rest looks okay to me. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:03, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus we don't have a state school system here do we, most aren't payed for by the government are they? Kunarian 14:43, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Well, first this will need to be made into a law. Also, why would a Standardized Test ask simple "fact" questions that may not have a definitively right or wrong answer? They usually don't. For example, the SAT and the ACT don't simply quiz you on random facts, instead they focus on things that have a clear right and wrong answer that are in limited fields, like math and english and in the ACT's case, "science reasoning". So the SKA will need to be reviewed and made sure to be a legitimate test. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:35, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

For me to accept the SKA then I would need for it to have much much more work done on its page, at the moment its a stub and we really need it to be more detailed. As for creationism and evolution, the schools should teach both, one in science and the other in religions of the world. No bonuses for better grades, a teacher should not be motivated by such things that could lead to fraud. Manditory tutoring... hmm, its too forced, maybe it should be a requirement for the school to offer it but not to force it on the student. Religious holidays yes, schoolwork still needs to be handed in though. Kunarian 14:43, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Made changes. -- 16:00, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * HELLO?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! -- 04:08, February 5, 2012 (UTC)!

003. Census: By the Numbers
I would like to propose this law which congress would control the census numbers so we have a more realistic country to deal with. There's 20000 people and about 250 different companies. Too many for such a small country.

Congressional Census Act
Short and simple I like it beacuse we can have a realistic country now. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:42, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * In April of each year congress must put foward new numbers for the Lovian population.
 * Any congress member can propose these numbers.
 * These numbers must be approved by congess by a 51% majority
 * In case congress cannot reach an agreement, the population of all the villages and townships automatically increase by 50.
 * If duthc parliament would accept that the Netherlands have 166 milion inhabitants? Would be that useful? No. What if some guy came in and proposed 14444444444444444444444444444444444 inhabitants and it then got accpeted, would lovia then really have soo many inhabitants? I suggest we do censuses independent of politics Pierlot McCrooke 20:47, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we, as a group, are smarter than that. Don't you think Pierlot? I don't think we're that dumb -__- Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:55, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * It still should be independent of politics. It should be a realistic number for Lovia but should not be something congress votes on. Kunarian 21:12, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

NO NO NO!! No voting on population figures! This is not how Lovia is meant. I'd say we simply keep the current census figures and make them 10 times higher, so 200.000 inhabitants. Way simpler, less politics. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 21:14, February 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. This is a good idea. As we said. Kunarian 21:17, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * We however should not base the inhabitants figure around berekeningen like every house 10 inhabitants or every nhabitant of lovia represents 1738 people or something Pierlot McCrooke 21:19, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * We already proposed a system before: based on the current figures times 10 with an annual growth between -5% - +10% max. per year. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 21:36, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * growth at +10% is optimistic especially when we are in the position where the best country population growth is around 5%, and the worst -2%. I think we should consider things at the start of every year, such as "was immigration promoted?", "were people more encouraged to have children?" and such. Kunarian 21:40, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Could I have some people saying whether they support the increase by 10 times, so that we may move on and work with other matters. Kunarian 22:46, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of Oos's idea: no more counting! Although, I agree that the growth needs to be slow, 5 and -2 should work. We also need to change our previous population figures. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:54, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

@Kunarian: a ten percent growth in Lovia would than mean +300 inhabitants in f.e. Hurbanova. If you'd make this lower, it will be impossible to create new neighborhoods. Indeed, in a country with a population of 15 million a 10% growth is much, but in a country with a population of 200.000 it is not that much. -5% is justified for the same reasoning and the fact that we might have another civil problem in the future. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:08, February 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, but it would need to be well justified when you go beyond 5% and -2%.
 * Of course. Actually, all growth/decline should be justified. That's why we need a Census bureau. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:29, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * any system but the current one, unless it's very carefully thought out. For instance, we have to consider that each settlement will have an individual and different growth rate to the others, which will be hard to simulate well, and in the end we will have to choose these growth rates by voting. For instance, I might want to have a higher rate of increase for Novosevensk than for other places, and Oos might say 'No! Hurbanova should have a population boom instead.' The thing I like about the current system is that number of inhabitants is linked closely to population, and I fear that if the two were disconnected completely, we might end up with a situation whereby Charleston with one inhabitant had a greater population than NC. Well, an extreme example, but let's consider this carefully. Also, would anyone be interested in the reïntroduction of the district plan? --Semyon 13:49, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not a bottom up approach? Decide the neighborhoods, downtowns, villages, and hamlets, then add. Also, I don't really understand the usefulness of the districts. Would we make "District X" pages, and list who lives there, and where it is? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:02, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I like bottom up approaches in general so lets go with this. Kunarian 14:07, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it still will have to involve some sort of voting, which I really don't like. (about the districts: I like the idea of being able to split states up a bit, e.g. create local sport teams, and expand information on the rural geography of Lovia. Tbh we know virtually nothing about what goes on outside the cities. However, you may not consider that 'useful'.) --Semyon 14:10, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the voting wouldn't be in character, perhaps we could revive the site council and let them do it? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:14, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Or make it the task of the local governor. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:58, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what we decided on. Is it we're gonna change the numbers or what? Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:28, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we need a working system for the future. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 06:20, February 6, 2012 (UTC)

004. Job Bureau Plan
I hereby propose a plan to set up Job Bureaus. The Job Bureaus must provide the following services:
 * Helping people that can not succefully find a job finding a good job.
 * In case that is not possible only then you can get a uitkering
 * People can get tested for work handicaps here. In case that is the case they are eligible for Job Bureau
 * Sheltered work companies may only haave 50-60 workers macimum to keep their controlability
 * Regularily a 'stage' at a normal company is offered. This 'stage' tests their capabilities Pierlot McCrooke 21:00, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

What is a uitkering? Some sort of unemployment benefit? Also... I don't get what you mean by a "sheltered work company", and why can't they have more than 50-60 workers? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:56, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
 * for the dutchies onder us 'sheltered work company' is 'sociale werkplaats'. And those employeement limits are there so the people there can be easily helped Pierlot McCrooke 09:49, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

@TM: uitkering means the social security payments to the unemployed, disabled etc. Def. of sheltered workshop: cost subsidised establishment where work is offered to persons who,due to a combination of severity of disability and/or labour market conditions, cannot secure competitive employment. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 10:14, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that makes a lot more sense. So what's your reasoning for only allowing them 50-60 workers? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:28, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Because they can be easily helped then Pierlot McCrooke 14:39, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

005. Judicial Branch Reform Act of 2012
I hereby propose, (with some stolen ideas), that we revamp our judicial system. Who else can add anything, add it above. -- 15:57, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) A panel of judicial judges will rotate positions, based from Congress members.
 * 2) Everything will be assigned proportionally.
 * 3) Every panel will have 3 members each time.

Personally I think this should be incorporated into Article 9 of the Constitution rather than being a stand-alone act. --Semyon 16:14, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

I also believe it's too vauge for such an important act, and I agree with semyon. Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:16, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

must, not should. What about the previous judicial reform that was proposed? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:32, February 5, 2012 (UTC)

Article 9
Article 9 – Supreme Court Trials
 * 1) The Supreme Court is an independent institution and the nation's only and supreme judicial organ, led by three Supreme Court Judges.
 * 2) A lawsuit is a civil or public action brought before a court of law in which a plaintiff, a party who claims to have received damages from a defendant's actions, seeks a legal or equitable remedy, from the defendant who is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint.
 * 3) A lawsuit can be opened by a plaintiff or a public plaintiff.
 * 4) Any person in Lovia may be a plaintiff in a lawsuit.
 * 5) A public plaintiff is a representative of the federal government or any institution of it or any other level of administration in Lovia.
 * 6) The federal attorney is the public plaintiff representing the federal government, the entire population or any other administrative institution of the federal level in court. He or she is appointed by the Secretary of Justice.
 * 7) A defendant is the party accused by the plaintiff.
 * 8) A public defendant has the same status as a public plaintiff.
 * 9) The Judges, plaintiff and defendent must all be different people. If one of Judges are involved in the case, he/she must resign and a replacement be nominated.
 * 10) Both parties may opt to be represented in court by a lawyer.
 * 11) Every lawsuit before the Supreme Court must proceed in this manner and order:
 * 12) The plaintiff opens the lawsuit.
 * 13) The plaintiff makes an accusation and names the defendant in the lawsuit.
 * 14) The plaintiff may make a demand. This can be a period of imprisonment, a fine or/and any other punishment not contradicting the laws of Lovia.
 * 15) The Supreme Court Judges must investigate the accusation. They may find the accusation not suited for Supreme Court; that is when the accusations made are in no way a violation of the law.
 * 16) The Supreme Court must notify the defendant that he or she is accused in court.
 * 17) The Supreme Court Judges must read out the case, including accusations and demands.
 * 18) The plaintiff's party must speak before court in order to convince the Supreme Court Judges of the truthfulness of the made claims. He or she may bring forward witnesses, that can be asked questions directly relating to the accusations, and/or evidence material. He or she may ask the defendant's party questions directly relating to the accusations.
 * 19) The defendant's party may speak before court. The defendant or his or her lawyer may plea guilty to the accusations, or unguilty. He or she may also try to convince the Supreme Court Judges of extenuating circumstances. The defendant is free to bring forward witnesses and evidence, both directly relating to the accusations or to the extenuating circumstances.
 * 20) The Supreme Court Judges must consider both pleas thorougly and by interpreting the laws of Lovia.
 * 21) The plaintiff's party may demand a second round, for which the same rules account.
 * 22) The defendant's party may demand a second round, for which the same rules account, but only if the plaintiff's party has made use of their second round.
 * 23) The Supreme Court Judges must consider the entirity of the lawsuit. The Judges must, within two week's time since the last plea, come to a conclusion. They may conclude:
 * 24) That the defendant is guilty of the accusations, or of a part of the accusations;
 * 25) That the defendant is not guilty of any accusations.
 * 26) All Judges must agree on the conclusion, except in the following circumstances:
 * 27) One of the Judges does not make an edit for a full week. In this situation, the agreement of the two remaining Judges will suffice.
 * 28) The Judges disagree completely over the verdict to give. In this case, the Judges must announce their inability to judge the case and stand down. Three new Judges must be appointed and continue with the case.
 * 29) If the Supreme Court Judges find the defendant guilty, he or she may choose to sentence the defendant, by means of:
 * 30) A period of imprisonment in a federal penitentiary;
 * 31) A fine;
 * 32) Any other sentence, including penal labor or contributions to Lovian society.
 * 33) All sentences issued by the Supreme Court:
 * 34) Must be in agreement with the laws of Lovia;
 * 35) Must be in proportion to the violation;
 * 36) Must respect the personal integrity of the individual; therefore death penalty, corporal punishment and inhumane forms of humiliation are prohibited.
 * 37) The Supreme Court Judge is appointed by the Federal Secretary of Justice. This appointment must be confirmed by Congress, by a normal majority.
 * 38) Potential candidates for the position of Supreme Court Judges must give their names to the Minister for Justice, who will officially announce the candidacies in Congress.
 * 39) The three candidates that receive the most votes will become Judges.
 * 40) Not more than one candidate may stand from each political party.
 * 41) The term of each Supreme Court Judge does not necessarily coincide with the Congressional term, nor with the duration of a federal government. The Supreme Court Judge must maintain his or her duty until another is appointed and confirmed; only then is his or her service terminated. lasts for six months, or shorter, if he/she resigns due to personal reasons or a conflict of interests, or if the Judges declare their inability to judge the case.
 * 42) At the end of his/her term, the Judge must stand down and another must be elected.
 * 43) Judges must not remain in office for two consecutive terms, except in exceptional circumstances, such as if there are no other candidates.
 * 44) If one of the Supreme Court Judge resigns from his or her duty, the Department of Justice is bound to appoint a successor, with Congressional confirmation, within one month's time. It is the Supreme Court Judges' duty to continue their service until another Judge is confirmed, and until all ongoing cases are terminated, or prepared to be passed on to his successor, without causing disturbances.
 * 45) Congress has the unique power to discharge a Supreme Court Judge forthwith, by a special majority. The Department of Justice is then bound to appoint a successor, with Congressional confirmation, within one month's time.

All additions in bold, all removals struck, with the exception of Judge --> Judges where I didn't bother. --Semyon 17:51, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the jury/panel of citizens still. And with voting people that wouldn't be good judges will get elected. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:25, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * You dislike voting because 'people that wouldn't be good judges will get elected', yet you support completely random selection? Somehow I don't feel this is a strong argument... :P --Semyon 21:33, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Voting could produce corrupt Judges, but random selection doesn't take skill in law and respect from the people into account. Voting in is better simply because it is less flawed. We will not find a perfect system. Kunarian 23:33, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I announce support for this bill. Going to SecCham. -- 23:40, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

I'll support it as well. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:18, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have any more comments to make? --Semyon 14:23, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Pro. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:27, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

006. Addition to Settlement Act
In addition to the already great settlement Act i want to propose that we add a list of exisiting cities, towns, hamlets etc. So we can clarify things. This isn't a partisian bill, just to clarify things.


 * All Lovian settlements are classified into five denominational groups: hamlets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities.
 * A hamlet is a very minor settlement affiliated with a town or city.
 * A hamlet must:
 * Have a population below five hundred. If larger, the hamlet loses affiliation with towns or cities and becomes a village.
 * Consist mainly of non-industrial and non-commercial lots.
 * Exceptions can be made by a congressional vote.
 * A village is an unattached minor settlement that is separate from a town or city.
 * A village must:
 * Have a population of at least five hundred and no more than fifteen hundred inhabitants. If larger, the village becomes a town.
 * Not be affiliated with any town or city within Lovia.
 * If a village becomes affiliated with a town or city, it will lose its village status and become a neighborhood.
 * A town is an unattached settlement within a state.
 * A town must:
 * Have a population above fifteen hundred. If below, the town becomes a village.
 * Contain one to four neighborhoods of any type.
 * Congress can turn a town consisting of four neighborhoods into a city, granting it a fifth neighborhood, by Congressional majority.
 * A city is an unattached major settlement within a state.
 * A city must:
 * Have a population of at least three thousand.
 * Consist of a group of neighborhoods; at least five.
 * It is legally required that at least four of the five neighborhoods are fully finished and that it is possible for its inhabitants to lead a safe and regular life.
 * A neighborhood is a subdivision of a town or city.
 * A hamlet or village may become part of a town or city, however, the hamlet or village it will lose its hamlet or village status and become a neighborhood.
 * All Lovian hamlets and neighborhoods are managed by the state of the town or city of which they are affiliated with.
 * All Lovian villages, towns, and cities are managed by the state of which they are part of.
 * All Lovian hamlets, villages, neighborhoods, towns, and cities are part of the Kingdom of Lovia and fall under the authority of the authorities of Lovia. Only the Governor has the right to commission the construction of neighborhoods and hamlets. The Constitution rules that Congress may overrule these decisions.
 * The current exisiting Cities are:
 * Newhaven and Noble City
 * The current exisiting Towns are:
 * Sofasi and Hurbanova
 * The current exisiting Neighborhoods are:
 * Artista, Bayside, Citizen Corner, Downtown, Industrial Park, King's Gardens, Little Europe, Little Frisco, Long Road, Mandarin Village, New Town, Old Harbor, The Mall, Trading Quarter, Transcity, Abby Springs, Malipa, Newhaven (neighborhood), Old Port, Pines, Canterbury, Drake Town, Hightech Valley, Hurket-on-Kings, Millstreet, Newport, Nicholasville, Orange Gardens, Muza
 * The current existing Hamlets are:
 * Beaverwick, Clave Rock, East Hills, Plains
 * The current existing Villages are:
 * Adoha, Charleston, Kinley, Portland, Train Village

Comments
I think we should clarify which neighborhoods belong to which settlements e.g. --Semyon 14:12, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) The current cities are:
 * 2) Newhaven, which contains the following neighborhoods:
 * 3) Malipa
 * 4) Old Port

I remember the original list didn't have that, but it's just a general list so i don't think the City list with nighborhoods is needed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:14, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

This is not what should happen. Instead we should just keep confirming the existing municipalities once in a while. They don't need to be enshrined in law what exactly each settlement is. If the USA put every little village in their laws, I can't imagine how long the list would be. So. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:15, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

How can you be literally opposed to this? All it dose it confrim what's a city and what's not and so forth. It's smart. This way we all don't have to have arguments about "should this hamlet be allowed" shouldn't it. It helps people. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:18, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Technically I believe that it's the governor's job to approve settlements, but as me and Oos are pretty much the only ones interested in our respective states, there's not much point in that. --Semyon 14:19, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

All it does it make an existing system be written in the law. Again, if the USA put every little village in their laws, you would be reading for a long time. JUST do a "confirmation of the existing municipalities" action and DON'T put it the law. It's unrealistic, stupid, and not needed. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:20, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

No, see this is where i see problems. Sometimes the states have no power, then they do? I mean we def need to clarify that, but this is just an easier way to do it. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:22, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's that necessary, but I don't think it matters that much either. --Semyon 14:24, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Just keep the old system of writing some thing about "the existing municipalities" and getting it approved by Congress. This has no need to be in the Settlement Act. Also, arguments are what makes Lovia active, so yes, they are very necessary. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:25, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

I think there's nothing bad with this, so opposition should be small. Plus it ends arguments, which apparently TM likes to start. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:29, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if you're feeling aggressive surely you can find better things to argue about? :P --Semyon 14:31, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

EXACTLY!! this helps us just clarify the simplest thigns, but why should there be opposition IDK!!! This is a small change, and is being moved to the Second Chamber. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:33, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't simplify anything. The current system of approving the municipalities is no different, except it's MORE REALISTIC. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:34, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Argh, capitals. I'm getting out of here... xD --Semyon 17:18, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

007. Recognition of Plains
See second chamber.

008. National Settlement Order
Yes I'm trying again so we have an actual system for Lovia, not some "we'll do things as they go" sorta thing. It's like the National Congressperson order but better and for Settlements. Here it is: This is WHAT WE NEED!!! Marcus/Michael Villanova 17:51, February 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) To organize all existing settlements, as defined in the Settlement Act, the National Settlement Order (NSO) is created.
 * 2) The NSO will keep records of:
 * 3) All existing settlements in Lovia
 * 4) This includes all settlements such as cities, towns, villages and hamlets.
 * 5) Recognized neighborhoods will be listed together with their respective settlement.
 * 6) For a settlement to be recognized and added to the NSO, Congress must approve it with a 51% majority.

'tis not. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:09, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

OMG yes, why do you oppose everything. This is what we need to clairfy and help Lovia. It would actually help people and in my eyes the promotion for people to make new settlements to boost Lovia's Population. Marcus/Michael Villanova 18:12, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe it would help people. It just adds another thing that we don't ever really do. It'd be sort of like the Congressional Journal. But anyway, we have the places list on the main page and articles like hamlet and village. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:20, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

But it isn't official. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:10, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Can have more feedback other than the narrow-minded TM, who opposes almost everything I do? This is actually a good plan, I just need the support. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:14, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I sort of agree with TM, but my attitude is 'don't really care so ' rather than 'don't really care so .' --Semyon 19:22, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

I do not oppose everything you do, only a few thing that are pointless (or spelled wrong :P). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:25, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

But it isn't, you agreed with the NCO, the NSO is the same thing but settlement wise. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:29, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to move this to the Second Chamber, beacause it's still a good law. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:15, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

under two conditions: neighborhoods are included as well and the law needs to be "professionalized". --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:53, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Nieghborhoods are included, but if you want to make that clearer, go ahead. You can professionalize it all you want =P Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:55, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to professionalize anything. My English sucks way too much for that :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:49, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel like it is enough, i mean it's just to define what the NSO does, and how to reconize a settlement. I'm putting in the second chamber. This way we actually have a system of creating settlements, not just randomly doing it. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:54, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * There are still some spelling errors however. I take it you don't mind if I do some 'professionalization'? :P --Semyon 14:56, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah i already corrected some of the spelling :D Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:01, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, did some more. :D --Semyon 15:31, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

009. New Laws
Hi Please vote for this law this law will let Lee Feng controll eveything. -- Lee Feng 18:04, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

- Bill An 18:04, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

—TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 18:20, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Wabba The I 19:21, February 11; 2012 (UTC)

, obviously. No, really, this is just annoying. --Semyon 19:18, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

i agree with semyon it's kinda getting old now Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:27, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

Aw, you guys broke the Contra train... but this was quite a lame joke, agreed. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 19:29, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

And it was kinda blown with the "I"M GOING TO ATTACK IN MARCH" i mean dude it's really old by now. Marcus/Michael Villanova 19:34, February 11, 2012 (UTC)

010. Secretaries or Ministries naming issues
We have to call them secreatries in formal contexts: Article 4 Edit

Article 4 – The structure of Lovia

The Kingdom of Lovia is governed on different levels: The federal level encompasses the entire Lovian territory. 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. So Timemaster's random rename is just unlawful Pierlot McCrooke 15:10, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but he just proposed a law, making it leagal. Right, yeah. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:12, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is that law. Sorry to lazy to look it up Pierlot McCrooke 15:14, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Second chamber, no discussion on it. I really don't understand TM's need for it but okay. I mean i agree with you pierlot. That's why gave it some abstain votes> Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:19, February 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Was never put in the archives (Probably) cause i can't find it Pierlot McCrooke 15:33, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

And also I really dis like Timeaster 'cause he always wants to pull his will through wihout consensus and only want5ing it becaue 'it's cool' Pierlot McCrooke 15:43, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, I proposed an amendment to fix this out of many issues, BEFORE you posted this. And Pierlot, no one cares. (except you) —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:54, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

011. Ferguson Beach Village
Ferguson Beach Village is not listed on the National Settlement Order as a neighborhood of Adoha. Shall we add this place to the list? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 16:41, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

We should. HORTON11 : •  17:09, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and since it was recognized in the last recognition of exist localities, I'll just go and add it. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:39, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it was already pre-existing so yeah no vote needed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:04, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

012. National Recognition of the Lovian National Sevens Team
In accordance with the National Sports Act written by me, and re-edited by William Krosby, I propose that we nationally reconize the LNST with a simple 50% majority. The act calls for this so i'm just being formal. I'm going to move this to the Second Chamber by the end of the day, hence it's simplicity. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:19, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds okay to me. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:20, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Also before I would like, and this will prob be the only debate, what our team name should be. The Blue Jacks i don't think is working unless we agree with that? Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:23, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking like an Animal. I'll upload some pics. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:27, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Do that :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:40, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright I chose a logo, it's phresh and nice so it's going to the second chamber now. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:44, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, okay :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:47, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

013. Lovian National Soccer Team
Now that Marcus is proposing a national rugby team, I propose to have the Lovian National Soccer Team recognized. For now it would only be the senior team but perhaps in the future we can make a U20 team. HORTON11 : •  18:31, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean a Lovian National Football Team :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:47, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I make a Logo for this? Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:19, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Association football' is better than either, I think. :P --Semyon 14:42, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Association football and just football are more correct, but in north America they like to use Soccer so Lovia should follow that. And Marcus, I had made a logo already (see the page) but if you can make a similarly styled one which is better that'd be great. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 14:49, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the (semi-)official name is "association football", so in a law or national teams should use this term. English or American, I don't care. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:55, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * The logo is paint made. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:05, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a mock up: Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:27, February 22, 2012 (UTC) LovianSoccerlogo.gif

It's nice but It doesn't seem really Lovian (especially the Germanic font). And if we named it a "football team" the logo would have to be done. I came up with one that just says Lovia. HORTON11 : •  15:48, February 22, 2012 (UTC)