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)

Nice stuff =] Marcus/Michael Villanova 16:01, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Association football is somethings other than American football. Both are covered by the term 'football' same with Australian rules football, international rules football, rugby union and rugby league. Association football was the sport were Spain in 2010 the champion in was on the world championships. The second logo of Horton is better but it looks more like a normal coat of arms. I miss a football picture in the logo? Wabba The I 17:00, February 22, 2012 (UTC)



I don't like either logo that much, though the one with the Germanic font is okay. I prefer "football" as well, since american football isn't played in Lovia. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:02, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Well The question in matter is the understanding of the Team itself, not the Logo. Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:11, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

I'd say we either use "football" or the full-length "association football". --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:33, February 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, we can go with Lovian National Football Team. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 14:37, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

014. World Trade Organisation

 * I propose that congress votes us to leave this organisation before it has any serious effect on us. This was a rash decision made by the department of commerce and has the opposite effect of what it claims.

My fellow congressmembers, I come before you today to ask that you give full support in throwing out our agreement to be part of the world trade organisation. The system that it uses is broken and corrupt and couldn't be called free trade even on a good day. On top of that Lovia would have to submit to their rules on trade and we must not surrender our national soveriegnty to a foriegn power.

It uses a secretive decision system that happens behind closed doors where only those nations large enough have influence, this will lead to Lovian national interests being thrown out the window on every important matter. It over regulates and stops the flow of certain goods to poorer nations, stopping developing countries from gettting to their feet. It also forces developing and small economies to completely open itself to various nations which would lead to a steady flow of wealth out of their nation instead of into it.

They also ignore developing labour rights and the protection of the environment, instead simply focusing on helping out developed countries to become monopolies. We must also remember that should we continue to be a part of this that their labour regualtions would be imposed over ours, this must not happen, our labour rights are currently fine and I see them becoming better over the years.

So in conclusion we must not continue to be a part of an organisation that is protectionist, corporatist and simply another tool for putting down developing economies. We must defend our national soveriegnty and vote out the decision to join it and be ready against any other such attempts. Kunarian 12:13, February 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is not whether Lovia should leave the WTO, but whether it ever joined in the first place. It's far too an important issue to be decided by the Minister without first consulting with Congress. --Semyon 13:19, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I feel like these newbies and stuff think beacuse there in a minsitry position that they can do whatever they want, pretaining to the ministry name. Which is not the case. We never joined the WTO and since i don't think this is relevent. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:27, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * We should never have joined, but congress was never consulted. The ministry of commerce has acted alone, what we need to do is get some laws so that these ministries are restricted properly. Kunarian 13:29, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the Constitution 'all legislative power inheres to the Lovian Congress'. I feel confident that this matter would impact on Lovian laws, therefore must be referred to Congress. Problem solved. --Semyon 13:34, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel like i said that Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:35, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah technically we never joined in the first place. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:37, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

Nice OOC talk, guys... Anyway:

The WTO would overpower our needs as a small nation, and put the wants of large nations ahead, regardless of what poorer and smaller countries want. I'm in agreement with Hoffmann. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:31, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

Krosby that's not the issue. The issue is the fact that some less-new users believe because they are in a ministry they can do whatever without congressional approval. Which since Congress never voted on it, we were never in it in the first place. Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:48, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I thank you for your support Krosby, and I hear that others would say that we have not even joined the World Trade Organisation and so I believe we should put it to the second chamber and find out whether joining such an organisation would receive any support from any of the members. Kunarian 14:56, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with you about the WTO, as Marcus says, that's not exactly what we were talking about. Also, how is it OOC? :P --Semyon 15:05, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

Smh. WE DON'T NEED A VOTE!!! It never happened, just because one ministry official wants to join something or do something they still need congressional approval. So we never were apart of the WTO ever. Marcus/Michael Villanova

So let's remove it from the ministry page. --Semyon 15:19, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:22, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

015. Decimal point or comma?
Do Lovians use the decimal point or the decimal comma? I assumed they used the point, as America and most English speaking countries do, but there are a number of pages using comma. Obviously we have quite a number of users from countries where the comma is predominantly used, so the comma is worth consideration. I personally am happy with either. --Semyon 16:53, March 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone? :P --Semyon 16:31, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * Though I think a comma makes more sense (not-anglophone è :P), I want to stick to the decimal point for a variety of reasons. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 17:23, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

I think we just need a Metrics and Standards Act. Personally, I prefer the decimal comma (but I use the point due to habit). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 01:28, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, my variety of reasons: The rest of my variety of reasons is either lost or not yet made up but I guess you guys see what I mean :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:03, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) We are already going to divert from American/British English by setting up our own spelling. Also other (metric) units or notation systems will not encourage the growth of the wiki. Keep in mind that if the population of f.e. Hurbanova becomes 30.120, many newbies will think we've got very small towns and decapitated people.
 * 2) On the page, currently a mix is used, but the majority of the pages uses the decimal point. This cannot be fixed by using a bot and nor can it be easily fixed manually. The only way I know is by viewing all content (/other namespaces?) pages one by one, reading the entire text, and then fix the thing. Any volunteers? :P
 * 3) This wiki functions as a learning ground for some of our non-native users (like Wabba). Instead of helping them by simplifying or (in this case) making English more reasonable, we should help them by saying that English (regardless if it's American or British) does the decimals the reverse way. Using the decimal comma will mean that it gets imprinted in their system for English and that does not guarantee higher grades :P
 * What Oos says seems logical. I too prefer the comma, but it doesn't matter that much, so I'll go for the point. --Semyon 08:23, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Lovia is in North America, so we should follow convention and use the dot. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 14:44, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Everybody prefers the comma, even anglophones... :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 14:45, March 13, 2012 (UTC) but we'll stick to decimal point

Weights and Measures Act

 * 1) The primary and official system of measurement used in Lovia is the International System of Units, which may be referred to as the metric system.
 * 2) All information provided by the government shall, where relevant, use SI units.
 * 3) Where convenient, SI units may be prefixed with the appropriate SI prefix.
 * 4) The sole exception is that degrees Celsius shall be used for the measurement of temperature, rather than degrees Kelvin.
 * 5) The secondary system is the imperial system as used in the United States of America.
 * 6) Any purveyor of goods bears responsibility for providing information in the metric system associated with the goods being traded.
 * 7) The level of accuracy of measurement shall be left to the disgression of the purveyor, as long as it is not so accurate as to hinder the purchaser, nor so inaccurate as to deceive.
 * 8) Mathematical punctuation:
 * 9) The period is used as a decimal mark to indicate the radix point.
 * 10) The comma may optionally be used to separate digits into groups of three.

Here is an extremely rough draft of a Metrication Act. --Semyon 18:21, March 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Is "centigrade" Celsius or Fahrenheit? If it's the last I propose to change it, because Fahrenheit makes no sense at all :P --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:13, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Centigrade is an odd word. Celsius is more proper. The bill looks pretty good. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:13, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree with section 3.1, all measurements should be as accurate as possible. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 13:02, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * @TM: thanks. @Oos and TM: changed it to Celsius. @Horton: I probably wasn't clear enough, but I think if you go to the shop and find written on an item 'This weighs 501.12649372977332 grams' then you won't find it incredibly helpful. :P --Semyon 18:01, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe not that precisely, but I wouldn't want stores selling a 12 oz drink and only giving 10 or 11. HORTON11 : Email_icon.jpg • follow_me.PNG 21:19, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

Revisions

 * 1) The primary and official system of measurement used in Lovia is the International System of Units, which may be referred to as the metric system.
 * 2) All information provided by the government shall, where relevant, use SI units.
 * 3) Where convenient, SI units may be prefixed with the appropriate SI prefix.
 * 4) The sole exception is that degrees Celsius shall be used for the measurement of temperature, rather than degrees Kelvin.
 * 5) The secondary system is the imperial system as used in the United States of America.
 * 6) Information provided by the government should, if possible, provide the imperial equivalent of any SI units used.
 * 7) Any purveyor of goods bears responsibility for providing information in the metric system associated with the goods being traded.
 * 8) The level of accuracy of measurement shall be left to the disgression of the purveyor, as long as it is not so accurate as to hinder the purchaser, nor so inaccurate as to deceive.
 * 9) Where possible and legible, the imperial equivalent of the metric units should also be provided on the goods being traded.
 * 10) Mathematical punctuation:
 * 11) The period is used as a decimal mark to indicate the radix point.
 * 12) The comma may optionally be used to separate digits into groups of three.

Ready for voting? I tried to add another section about symbols for operations, percents, etc., but I didn't want to say "as prescribed by everyday mathematicians". —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 00:28, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

No response, so moving to 2nd Chamber. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:14, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

I completely forgot about this, sorry. This looks really good, except that I just realised 'accuracy' here should be 'precision.' My fault. --Semyon 18:47, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

016. Official note
To all Lovian citizens: you may nominate yourself as a candidate for the position of one of three Supreme Court Judges. No party may submit more than one candidate, so discuss amongst yourselves. I also advise (but not order) you not to use your main characters. --Semyon 19:46, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

Also: if you plan to bring a case to court then please don't nominate yourself, because legally there's a conflict of interest and you will have to step down, and there'll be new elections and it'll all be rather annoying. :P --Semyon 19:51, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

You could ask someone else OOCly to do it for you, as long as you remained neutral. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:19, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

I know, but I think people will prefer to do it themselves. --Semyon 08:12, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I think I will nominate Lars Washington. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:57, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I nominate Rico Wasabi. A little known fact about Mr. Wasabi is that he has a short-lived career as a judge in North-Korea during the late 1990s. The glorious First Consul of Rome 12:22, April 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Wasabi, Washington and An (Bill) are good judges. An is also the head of the supreme court in Brunant. Wabba The I 14:39, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * But Bill An was not a good judge and is very temperamental and corrupt. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:29, April 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a pretty diverse team of judges now - the expierence of Washington, Wasabi as a link to the asian community. Now all we need is a woman. How about... Martha Van Ghent? The glorious First Consul of Rome 10:19, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * No, what we need is a leftist. Though, I suppose Martha works out as a leftist. Another option would be Alyssa. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:55, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * So we will have Washington, Wasabi, Alyssa\Martha, and ...? The glorious First Consul of Rome 12:30, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: after at least three candidates have been nominated, we vote for them, and the three with the highest number of votes become judges. Alyssa/Martha need an active user to control them - Horton perhaps? --Semyon 12:41, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

I would nominate someone but I think I'm going to be doing a lot of law enforcement so I won't so there's no corruption in the system! :L Kunarian 14:48, April 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * I support for Lars Washington, Alyssa C. Red, Martha Van Ghent, Rico Wasabi and maybe George Matthews? We can also create a judge? Wabba The I 16:58, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate, since no-one seems to take any notice :P - every judge needs to have a user behind it, and it's not helpful to give a list of random names without some sort of indication of which users control them. So far, I understand these are the candidates: I can't (yet) include Van Ghent/Alyssa. Also, I'm kind of hoping Oos will nominate someone. --Semyon 16:52, April 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Lars Washington (User:TimeMaster)
 * Rico Wasabi (User:The Master's Voice)
 * George Matthews (User:Wabba the I)

We need a leftist. Marcus and Horton should be asked if they will judge. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:05, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

I already did. :) --Semyon 17:07, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Am I George Matthews or what? Wabba The I 17:27, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

I nominate Antonia Tilly, but under my control. If I get accepted I'll make a detailed page. HORTON11 : •  20:15, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'll come with a name soon :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 04:41, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

017. Budget
Anyone want to discuss the budget? Check out Department of Finance/Budget for a start. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:22, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 09:38, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well, no one cares, so I guess I'll have to wake people on their talk pages. . . but I'll put a proposal up to vote on soon enough. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 17:51, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

018. Local Police
What do you guys think about reinstating Local Police? Would simply un-repealing the Local Police Act be sufficient? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 02:18, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

No i think you either need to reinstate governors and such and then get local police or nothing at all. There would be confusion if you just did one or the other. Marcus/Michael Villanova 13:07, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

We do have governors... The last elections were just a failure due to inactivity. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:26, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

I'm fully pro the state police, but we do need to reinstate the state law as well then... --O u WTBsjrief-mich 04:45, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

I fully support the idea, of course, this would mean sacrificing some powers on the ministry of defences side to governers but co-operation would work fantastically and be a good way to get things moving in Lovia. Kunarian 11:32, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why we need state law to have state police. We can make the rules here in Congress, and then the Governor can choose how they want to fit those rules with the state police. I'm also opposed to state law because that would be like the President (of the US, for example) writing laws without getting them approved by someone else, like Congress (partially because there is no one else). —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:28, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

In the US there are State Capitols that pass law and it's all democratic. I would like to see states have more power; perhaps we could just create secondary characters to serve in state legislatures. That way it becomesmore democratic. HORTON11 : •  17:31, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

States could simply have state elections with their own group of 100 representives, I had an idea once that this would work and you would have a voting system similar to the national elections, your first house would equal three votes in the state it was in, the second house would be two and the third house would be one vote. Then you'd have the state candidate with the most support becoming the governer there, it would make politics even more interesting and would create more activity on a state level. Kunarian 17:38, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

100 is too much for the state level. Also a much simpler solution would just be to allow governors to enact their own laws, of course in compliance with federal and the constitution. And if they try to pass something violating that, congress should be able to veto such laws or even impeach him. HORTON11 : •  17:48, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

We should not impeach democratically elected officials nor should congress go around vetoing them, the reason they were elected was to give states a more flexible ability in making laws and dealing with their own problems, vetoing and impeaching nulifies most of this. If 100 is too much maybe 50 or even just 25 or a multiple of three, it would be better in my opinion if we found a way to delegate more legistlative power to the states. Kunarian 18:01, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

@TM: the entire idea of the state police is that the state police enforces the local state's laws... Otherwise it would just be a local chapter of the national police (which is exactly what it is now). --O u WTBsjrief-mich 11:57, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

You can't exactly enforce the official symbols of a state. What exactly would they enforce if we did have state law? I have no problem with them being a chapter of the federal police. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:10, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Read the Oceana State Law, it was much more than that (most of these laws have simply been lost after the State Law was abolished). Especially in Oceana, there were plans to make a real law of it but we didn't have enough time. We were given a choice: states without power or no states at all. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 07:13, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

The entire idea of state legislatures set up that way was my idea, just sayin. But in any case Iove to see the support as it isbrought up here. Marcus/Michael Villanova 09:56, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

No, actually we already had state laws long before you all were here. At the same time that the last states were "inhabited" on the site (Seven and Oceana), Dimitri launched the state law idea. Only two laws ever got contents, but still, it could've been a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, it didn't work out because the level of democracy in the creation of the law was way too low. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:57, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I don't see is why we can't just have a state police in each state to do everyday things, and no state law. This would be better since we now have ten times the former population, so more officers will be needed and therefore a more branched organization. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 11:12, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

TM, we already have that: Federal Police. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:43, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

We could change those to local police. Wasn't that added to replace local police anyway? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 12:53, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

No. Local police should be reserved for when the state laws can be put into effect. This might take a long time (with current activity being low), but for now I want a clear division between the terms "Local Chapter of the Federal Police" and "Local State Police". --O u WTBsjrief-mich 13:29, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we could implement State Law, though I'd prefer that we use a state legislature, like Marcus's idea. I just don't like a governor to be writing laws and enforcing them by themself. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:06, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

019. Novosevensk Airport
I suggest we open it as a local airport which has connections to seven airport. Pierlot McCrooke 18:26, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest we don't, as the Seven State Airport is right nearby. Same thing with the Adoha airport. With a population of 220,000, we have more than enough airports. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:10, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not every airport has to be like the freggin' JFK, right? We could have smaller ones that are basically little more then a single landing strip. The glorious First Consul of Rome 20:38, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright. But I think one State Airport for Seven would be quite sufficient, since the islands of the state are hooked to each other with bridges and ferries. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:49, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * @TM - We agreed on that population of 220,000? I don't think so. Marcus/Michael Villanova 21:10, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * We did. You may not remember, but we talked about updating it and decided on a pure logic system, with around 220,000 citizens. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:58, April 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * @Timey: Which bridges? Anyway if those bridges exist, they were build without permssion I think Pierlot McCrooke 05:22, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * @TM: Officially, there are no bridges. We can have a ferry system though. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 08:55, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe there is now a bridge connecting Novosevensk and Kinley. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 10:51, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * But there is no highway there, right? --O u WTBsjrief-mich 12:44, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. Pierlot: Semyon built it, and he's governor of Seven, so it is legal. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:09, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, we need a highway to cross that bridge :) --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:10, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Isn't the current road alright? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 15:20, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Because there are highways that connect towns of alike sizes. --O u WTBsjrief-mich 15:22, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I think all those highways are ridiculous thinking back about those plans. Maybe we could make a small airport that only has small flights for the tourists to seven and clymene Pierlot McCrooke 15:44, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

020. Change misleading names
I suggest we change the name of the first chamber and second chamber to Debating Room and Voting Room because our current names suggest we have a bicameral system while we haven't., Pierlot McCrooke 15:55, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

021. Resigning from my Post
I'm hereby resigning from my post as Secretary of Labor because i'm too busy with other things and i'm not really suited for the job I think Pierlot McCrooke 15:55, April 18, 2012 (UTC)