FANDOM




FIRST CHAMBER


Place Stop Bill Edit

we cannot allow lovia to be destroyed by building addicts. Our nature and environment need protection from these grotesk plans. that's why i am proposing a temporary place stop bill. There are plenty of towns and neighborhoods in lovia that are empty: why build more??

Content Edit

Congress will prohibit the creation of new neighborhoods, hamlets, towns and cities until a full state reform plan has been accepted and introduced; so that the responsible governments can manage building policies themselves.

Congress will put newly created neighborhoods, hamlets, towns and cities on hold until that time. We cannot afford to have many more places: Lovia is already jammed with empty streets. These newly created places are: Bayfield, Hurket-on-Kings, Novosevensk, Orange Gardens, Plains, Portland.

It must be noted that after the reform plan, all of these towns and neighborhoods may be re-submitted, for there are some very nice ones among them.

Talk Edit

comment splease Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 07:05, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

btw: this is NOT personal. I do like these towns and all that; i just don't think we should build em recklessly. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 07:11, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
I don't like the on-hold option at all; this matter is loose of state reform. What we really need are new state elections so that we have governors who are present and can see to the completion of the new towns/hamlets. Not that I am against the idea of a thorough reform, it is just that it would take longer than organizing state elections which is after all a more direct way to deal with this issue. Regaliorum (S Kitana) 07:41, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
State elections must be reformed themselves, mr. prime minister. First things first: dealing with legal framework is more important than this building frenzy! Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 07:46, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Unless you know a way to lineup a majority of MOTC behind a proposal that doesn't need revision a hundred times, I prefer to have elections first and reform afterwards. I support more democracy on the lower levels; putting everything 'on hold' until we figure out a solution seems to collide with that view. Portland for instance was build according to all the existing regulations, so why temporarily shut it down? Regaliorum (S Kitana) 09:42, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Do not shut down my beloved Novosevensk or I shall release my vengeange upon thee! BastardRoyale 15:33, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Er...thanks for the support, BR. Seriously though, I think that it will be difficult to 'shut down' these towns. Novosevensk already has 4 inhabitants, as does Portland, and Plains has two. There are other articles that have been made concerning them as well (e.g. Truth Island Railway), so they are fairly well integrated.
I apologise if I didn't discuss enough before building Novosevensk, but I have worked hard on that project and would be disappointed if it was all just thrown down the drain. Semyon E. Breyev 16:15, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Andy only proposes too freeze the projects until we sorted things out; You wont loose the project but I still deem even a freeze unnecessary. It doesn't help no-one. Regaliorum (S Kitana) 08:48, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Talk (2) Edit

We really need to debate on how to further solve this issue. Since the Kings is finalizing his long-expected institutional reform and we can organize state elections afterwards, the only thing we need to do is officialize the newly build towns. I suggest we let Congress decide on the faith of Novosevensk, Plains and Portland and combine this with a temporary stop on the building of new towns (the end of the summer for example, when we have new governors). Regaliorum (S Kitana) 09:09, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. What about this: we do a poll in the first chamber about which of these places can stay. When we have an idea about which places are support by Congress, we could make a sort of bill (not to be added to the law) to pass to the second chamber. Martha Van Ghent 09:14, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

(there was originally an anonymous wiki-poll here)

Because I distrust anonymous polls (Martha Van Ghent 09:21, July 30, 2010 (UTC)):

There is still some work to do in Plains but in my opinion it could become a cozy town. Why the harsh attitude? Harold Freeman 09:32, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Because we're building too much. We must choose, i think. Martha Van Ghent 09:35, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
i cast my votes. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 11:05, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
So you don't like any of 'em? Smile Semyon E. Breyev 15:04, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Official note Edit

The First Chamber was filled to the brim with proposals, attempts at proposals and rewritings of proposals. If you had something here which is now moved to the archive, please post your proposal again. I also would like to urge all MOTC to vote in the second chamber - it is getting crowded there too. Regaliorum (S Kitana) 14:06, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

well done Smile Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 15:50, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
I hope you vote too, we must clean it up in here. Order in the room is order in the mind ;-) Regaliorum (S Kitana) 16:08, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Oh I know an other one: Active bowl, active mind SmileD Jon Johnson 06:13, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
That's how Congress is ought to be: active and structured. (btw shouldn't you be doing your spreadsheet magic?) Regaliorum (S Kitana) 07:27, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
A long time ago I have been reading somewhere: "From clean desk to clean screen". If that is of any help to you Naranja Naranja! --Lars Washington 08:38, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
How are you doing Lars? It's been a long time Smile Dimitri 08:55, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Economic Involvement Act Edit

  1. The federal government of Lovian has the right and power to execute direct economic activities; either
    1. In the form of a State-Owned Company (SOC), when having a majority of the shares.
      1. An SOC is headed and run by a branch of the involved federal department(s).
      2. The goal of an SOC is to provide a certain public service to the people of Lovia.
      3. Any company providing a public service can become a SOC, by Congressial rule.
        1. When declared a public service by Congress, only the designated SOC may provide this service.
    2. In the form of a State-Involved Company (SIC), when having a minority of the shares.
      1. An SIC is run privately, but with Congress as a shareholder, represented by the involved federal department(s).
      2. An SIC is a means in the execution of the governmental policies.
      3. Any company that is of importance to governmental policy may become an SIC.
  2. Only the Congress has the right and power to approve or alter the statute of a SOC or SIC, by altering the Economic Involvement Act in the Federal Law.
  3. The executing powers are responsible for their own economic decisions.
  4. A complete list of all State-Owned and State-Involved Companies and their specifications:
    1. The Lovian Energy Company, of which 60% of the stocks are owned by Congress, represented by the Department of Energy and Environment;
    2. The Lovian Water Company, of which all stocks are owned by Congress, represented by the Department of Energy and Environment;
    3. The Unified Railroad Company, of which 60% of the stocks are owned by Congress, represented by the Department of Transportation.

Notes: (not to be added in the law)

  • The Lovian Energy Company will be a merger of the energy-producing branch of Ecompany and Walkernet
  • The Lovian Water Company yet has to be created since we don't have any company providing the service?!
  • The Unified Railroad Company will be a merger of the Pacific Railroad Company and Newhaven Express/Connect
  • The remaining shares will be divided between the current company owners

Regaliorum (S Kitana) 09:08, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Talk Edit

The Dimi Thing Edit

May I do my thing? You know: punctuation, wording...? Dimitri 09:09, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just make sure you look out for the enjambments. Smile Limba Regaliorum (S Kitana) 09:15, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
I will ;) Dimitri 09:17, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Say? Dimitri 09:24, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Now we have a good bill in good a good form, even though I say so myself. Regaliorum (S Kitana) 09:27, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Great. Before we go on, we'll have to discuss the remaining shares. Since Ecompany is way bigger than Walkernet, I propose you take 30% of the remaining energy stocks, and Walker Inc gets 10%. With the railways, I'd do 30% Walker, 10% you? Dimitri 09:30, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
A very fair judgement. Regaliorum (S Kitana) 09:33, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
I may hope so Smile. Let's say we keep the bill a week in the first chamber?
Someone forgot to sign :-) Harold Freeman 07:46, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Judgments (to know whether the bill may pass on to the 2nd Chamber) Edit

  • LibDems
    • Liberals are usually not in favor of such proposals but I wont block it because for the companies in question it is rather normal to be state-run. Harold Freeman 07:45, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
      • @Harold and Libdems in general - Liberals would support this bill it keeps big compines in line! I Hate to say it and not to get personal but your party isn't liberal anymore, I would say Classic Libertaranism, Socialy Liberal. Econmicly Conservative with a side of small goverment. Marcus VillanovaFlag of Lovia Small 14:40, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Marcus: I don't pretend to know much about it, but I think Liberals do NOT want to restrict big businesses (in general). According to Wikipedia: "Economic liberalism... is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire economics." Semyon E. Breyev 15:22, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • @ Seymon - That page also goes onto say "It opposes government intervention in the free market, and supporting the maximum of free trade and competition, it contrasts with mercantilism, Keynesianism, socialism,and fascism. IDK but i think somone messed up on that page!Marcus VillanovaFlag of Lovia Small 16:05, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
The neo-liberal wave of the nineties did however cause the privatization of a lot of sectors in Western Europe. It kinda depends on what sort of liberal you are. Regaliorum (S Kitana) 16:36, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah i guess. Marcus VillanovaFlag of Lovia Small 16:38, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Harold is a liberal; he's just a guy that thinks the state should relax for a while and let people do their thing as long as everything goes smooth. Am I right? Regaliorum (S Kitana) 16:46, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
I guess that's why i hate all LibDem parties... Why is the name LibDem when there always conservative! Like the one in the UK! MarcusVillanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 18:58, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
The Liberal-Conservative dichotomy only seems to exist in America (or exists more, anyway. For instance, the British Conservatives aren't conservative). And the British LDs aren't conservative either. Semyon E. Breyev 14:20, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Communists
    • I wrote it and think it is of a marvelous quality; easily passing any standard. (Okay, that was just too silly, but it is a good bill). Regaliorum (S Kitana) 09:45, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • Great bill, and it's really necessary, It'll bring some simplifications I hope... Jon Johnson 10:14, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • Waldeners
    • Although it still needs some time to get used to the idea, it fits in Walden's new manifesto. Also, it's a perfect bill; no mistakes, no holes. Martha Van Ghent 09:16, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
    • what she said. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 11:06, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
    • Love it is so Anti-Captialism and helps small bis to grow and large bis to be kept in line! Very Good! Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 18:58, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • NLS
  • CCPL
  • Independents and Member by Right
    • Dimitri: I support the bill. It's fair, balanced, well-structured. It requires no more edits. It's easy to consult and includes the required clauses. It allows adjustments in the future and new companies to be added. The bill makes the process of state-owned companies democratic and justified, just as it should be. Dimitri 09:37, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

2010 State Reform Bill Edit

This is very important. I need all Members of the Congress to read this bill carefully and to consider everything very well. Therefore, the bill will get its own subpage of the First Chamber. Dimitri 08:27, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Arrow right Main article: /2010 State Reform Bill.

Train Village Me or King? Edit

Hi i am the mayor of Train Village if you know, my question is can i combine Nicholasville, Muza and TV together! With that our population would frow and Muza would bring people to the town for entertainment purposes! My question is can i do this, does congress have to vote on this, or does the Govenor/Dimi grant me the power do this? I think the new state reform would let the Govenor do it so what do I do? Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 21:01, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing about towns and governors has been under fire quite heavily the past weeks. I suggest we first vote on the Reform Bill (which should get a majority quite easy I believe) and then follow the new procedure. (Congress votes) The King will probably support me on this one, but for now he is on a (2 or 3-day?) trip to London. A little visit to the queen. SmileD Regaliorum (S Kitana) 07:18, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Ha okay i'm glad to know we're cool with Great Britan, So I see are timeline...
  1. Reform
  2. Final votes on other bills
  3. State Elections
  4. and maybe combing the two towns and the no extint Muza!

Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:14, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone support this bill... Edit

One of the parts of being on a wiki is wikian ideology! Would anyone support a well written bill that i would produce later that would Make it mandatory for a tri-yearly checkuser of all accounts... This bill would not restrict Admins or Buracrats to do checkusers at any other time of the year but the bill would make sure that we crack down on these pepople. Now I'm not gonna be all like "JESUS WE NEED TO PASS THIS BILL" I just wanna now if anyone else would want it! Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 20:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I believe this issue has surfaced before, but without results. I'm pro nor contra for the moment as such checks are regularly performed when suspicion arises. Regaliorum (S Kitana) 07:06, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah again i'm alway curious i just wanted to see! Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 18:25, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Marriage DefinitionEdit

Marriage is the legally recognized union of two people. Gender-specific terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships, including without limitation “spouse,” “family,” “marriage,” “immediate family,” “dependent,” “next of kin,” “bride,” “groom,” “husband,” “wife,” “widow,” and “widower,” shall be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil law. Upon application in a form prescribed by the department, a justice of the peace shall issue to a person a civil marriage license in the form prescribed by the department and shall enter thereon the names of the parties to the proposed marriage, fill out the form as far as practicable and retain in the justices’s office a copy thereof. At least one party to the proposed marriage shall sign the certifying application to the accuracy of the facts so stated. The license shall be issued by the justice of the town where either party resides or, if neither is a resident of the state, by any town justice in the state.

Persons authorized to solemnize a MarriageEdit

Marriages may be solemnized by a justice of the peace, or by a member of the clergy residing in this state and ordained or licensed, or otherwise regularly authorized thereunto by the published laws or discipline of the general conference, convention, or other authority of his or her faith or denomination or by such a clergy person residing in an adjoining state or country, whose parish, church, temple, mosque, or other religious organization lies wholly or in part in this state, or by a member of the clergy residing in some other country, provided he or she has first secured from the probate court of the district within which the marriage is to be solemnized a special authorization, authorizing him or her to certify the marriage if such probate judge determines that the circumstances make the special authorization desirable. Marriage among the Friends or Quakers, the Christadelphian Ecclesia, and the Baha’i Faith or any other reailion that may not reconize it may be solemnized in the manner heretofore used in such societies but is still reconized by the government.

WE NEED THIS PASSED! Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 20:30, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

This is a nice idea, but not exactly a ready-to-vote-and-enact-law. Regaliorum (S Kitana) 07:08, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah if anyone wants they should edit it, i'm not so sure the final part about "Reilgion" should be in threre but I thought it was good at the time. Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 18:27, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
what a strange thing.. we don't have all those judges! we only have one, in Lovia. we do need to recognize marriage, but this isn't the way, i fear. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 19:38, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
Also, as Lovia has almost no mention of religious beliefs in its laws and does not discriminate between the "major religions" and "sects and cults", specific mentionings in the FedLaw are quite odd. Dimitri 20:15, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
I'll be sure it make it better in a week or so. Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 21:42, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
i've changed it alot, I do think we have justices of the peace right? A pastor or offical that signs a marraige into law? Again this law reconizes Gay Marragie or any kind but does not write it out right there. I guess i won't be getting the support of the CCPL. Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 21:58, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

I will protest against this bill, please let me explain why: in Lovia two people of the same sex can marry each other - but, we also recognize religious matrimony as 'having legal power'. Last time I checked, religious people don't like gay marriage too much. However, every marriage should have the same status in law. I see two ways to solve this: (1) make the law so that no person who can officialize a marriage can refuse to do so (forcing priests to marry gay couples) or (2) drop the legal status of the religious marriage. Regaliorum (S Kitana) 07:37, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

no surprise, walden backs Yuri's plan (2). Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 07:39, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Too bad, I was hoping for option number one. It would be fun! Regaliorum (S Kitana) 07:48, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
i think we should write our bill from another point of view. we should focus on what marriage means in legal terms (benefits, etc.) rather than focus on the ceremonial thingies. really, legally, a marriage should just be a bond fixed by some civil servant - ceremony is for fun anyways. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 07:54, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
We just need to foresee some options (married; legal housemates; etc.) and a way to achieve them through a civil servant. Regaliorum (S Kitana) 07:56, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
that's right. I agree. what about letting governors do this? would be nice =) Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 07:57, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
@ Yuri - Fine then re-write it so that it proposes gay marraggie and is to your liking, i'll sure it'll be fine! SmileD Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:05, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

001. Order in the congress Edit

I'd like to propose a small informal rule for congress to keep things in order. i propose we add a number to the title of each bill. let's say the next proposal in the First Chamber is 001. if the bill goes to the 2nd, we just keep this number. it will be a lot easier for us to archive the chambers then. the bill proposed after 001 is 002 then of course. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 08:27, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

That would indeed come in handy. Please all just try to use it. Don't worry if you forgot, we wont decapitate you. (Will we already use it for the next C1-to-C2 proposals?) SmileD Regaliorum (S Kitana) 08:32, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
We don't we count the past proposals? They have all been archived. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:51, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
there isn't much use in that, is tehre? btw: they're all mixed up and so. would be a huge work. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 08:53, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Fine idea, Andy! Dimitri 16:01, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
I would certainly support such an effort to facilitate our Congress Smile. --Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 08:03, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

thereyougo! Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 08:59, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

002. Act on the Fight Against Poverty Edit

  1. To fight poverty among the inhabitants of Lovia the Board on the Fight Against Poverty (BFAP) is erected under the Act on the Fight Against Poverty, supported by Congress and the Department of Welfare.
    1. The composition of the board is as follows: the Secretary of Welfare, three Lovian citizes appointed by the Secretary of Welfare, and the Prime Minister.
    2. The board will perform the following tasks:
      1. The evaluation and financial support of (voluntary) organizations that aid the poor in Lovia;
      2. The creation and management of facilities to give shelter and food to the homeless in Lovia;
      3. The creation and management of a Center for Societal Welfare (CSW) in Lovia.
        1. The CSW may grant payments to the poor in exchange for supervision.
        2. The CSW may appoint social residences with low rent to people in need.
    3. The board will work together closely with other initiatives that fight poverty, both private and public.
  2. The Department of Culture, Heritage and Education will foresee a Learning Point.
    1. The Learning Point offers cheap basic education according to the low doorstep principle.
    2. The Learning Point will focus on guiding Lovians who have not received proper and full education.
    3. The Learning Point may be an instrument for the CWS to aid its people.
Regaliorum (S Kitana) 12:27, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:50, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Looks okay but I don't think it's needed, I do Like to simplfy! So I won't vote contra but I might abstain or vote pro! Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:21, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
I just need an occupation once my examinations are over and aiding the poor by writing a page or two sounded like a nice thing. It is in fact a program that consists out of two branches: (1) direct assistance through financial means and guidance, (2) providing knowledge and self-esteem through education. Regaliorum (S Kitana) 16:25, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
A board is not actually "constructed" SmileD. You mind if I do some dimi things later this eve? Dimitri 17:13, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead. Don't forget that we.put.a.dot! SmileD Regaliorum (S Kitana) 07:32, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
Is my re-write okay? Dimitri 15:10, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
Sure. SmileD Regaliorum (S Kitana) 06:52, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

003. Ocean and Fishing Act Edit

  1. Parts of the Lovian ocean are protected under the statute of natural reserve
    1. An ocean can only be declared a natural reserve by the National Park Service
      1. When it is endangered or likely to become endangered within years
      2. When it is of unique importance to the existence of the wildlife
    2. All fishing and fun diving is prohibited in these reserves
    3. The National Park Service is responsible for these reserves
  2. Fishing quota are introduced by the Department of Industry, Agriculture and Trade
    1. Fishing quota can be imposed by the department
      1. To protect certain species from extinction
      2. To maintain the populations high enough
    2. No fishing is allowed if the species is endangered or likely to become so within years
    3. Limited fishing is allowed if the population is likely to slink under the average
    4. No prohibition can be imposed if none of the above mentioned conditions are met
Regaliorum (S Kitana) 12:27, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

This one looks fine too :) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:51, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Looks very good Pro Pro Pro! Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:21, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

We could incorporate the natural reserve part in the National Park and Monuments Act... That would be neat. Would that be okay for you Medve? Dimitri 14:28, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a map that shows where people can Hunt/Fish? Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:36, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
In due time, I think so, yes Smile.
@Yuri: consider my suggestion please. Dimitri 17:05, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Sure, a map and incorporate in another part. I can do that but not until I've finished my last examination (September 1st). Regaliorum (S Kitana) 06:09, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
Great. Dimitri 16:11, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

004. Sports and National Team Act Edit

  1. A player can come under review of the LSCA, Players Union of Lovia or Lovian Congress if...
    1. If a player takes an illegal substance that can illegaly improve the player's game as in the follwing:
      1. Seroids such as Human Growth Hormone (HGH) or testosorone that isn't needed or was presribed by a medical professional
      2. Illegal Drugs that are already inact in the Narcotics Act such as Cocaine, LSD, Marjiuana (Not presrcibed), Opiates (Heroine, codine, morphine), MDMA (Ecstacy), GHB, or Phencyclidine (PCP).
    2. If a player commits a crime of some sort.
  2. Lovia's national sport is Lovian boules beacuse it's the game the Founding Fathers played.
  3. A national team can only be granted by 50% of the Lovian congress.
    1. A national team can be funded by the congress or by a private funder.
  4. All players are protected by the government and LSCA group Players Union of Lovia.
    1. Being apart of the union alows player to be paid only if the are out year removed from Secondary School.
    2. The union protects the players from wrongful conduct.
  5. No player can go to a sports association unless they are one year removed from Secondary school.
  6. Children under the age of 18 can not train over temperatures of 35C. or 95F.
  7. Children under the age of 18 can not play over temperatures of 37.8C or 100F.
  8. Players can not accept payment or prizes if they are still in college, Secondary School, or in any other youth orginzation.

Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 20:03, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

I like it! Anyone else? Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 20:06, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

It's lovely, a bit strange to write a law on this, but nice though Jon Johnson 20:07, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Players in the sence are laborers so they need to be protected, but it also clarifies some things! Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 20:11, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
That's right, good bill, we'll see what the others think of it, but i'm confident Jon Johnson 20:18, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Good idea! Might need a little re-write, perhaps. I propose we leave it here for a week or so to allow the King and others to do a legal check. --Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 13:45, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Yup, sounds fine. I'll do a Dimi-legalization soon, if that's fine. Dimitri 17:01, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Cool! It'll say in here until Saturday! Smile! Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 20:21, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Did anyone edit it (Meaning Dimi) Remember it stays here until Saturday! Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 17:41, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's ok. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:23, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

i think we ought to be more careful with terms and so. Also, some of these clauses need serious re-writing, i guess.. Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 13:33, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite Edit

Sports and National Team Act

  1. Lovian boules is recognized as the national sport of Lovia.
    1. Congress hereby commits itself to protect the sport and its culture as national heritage.
  2. A national sports team is a team that performs a single sport at a high level and represents Lovia during international contests, championships and friendly games.
    1. Congress can grant a sports team this title and duty by a normal majority.
    2. The ownership of a national sports team remains with its original proprietor.
    3. Congress will provide in a part of the expenses of this team to guarantee regular practice and performation.
    4. Congress may revoke this grant by a normal majority when the team does not represent Lovia correctly, with dignity and without wrongful conduct.
    5. Congress bars players who abuse narcotics, or any other substance that illegally improves a player's game, or have abused narcotics in the past twelve months from participating in a national sports team.
      1. Drugs that are prescribed by a fully qualified doctor of medicine may be used.
        1. At all times, other doctors of medicine may question the prescription and file for re-examination. If two other fully qualified medical professionals find the prescription unnecessary or harmful and therefore illegal, the sportsperson may no longer use the prescribed drugs.
  3. Non-governmental governing bodies in Lovian sports may bar players from playing:
    1. On reasonable suspicion of drug abuse;
    2. On ethical grounds, that is when a player acts not appropriately and without dignity, or when he or she has violated the law.
  4. Minors, that is people who have not yet reached the age of eighteen, must be a member of a sports player's union to protect them from wrongful conduct.
  5. Minors may not participate in outside physical training or games when the outside temperature is below 10 degrees Celsius (50°F) or above 35 degrees Celsius (95°F), nor may they participate in inside physical training or games when the temperature in the specific room is below 15 degrees Celsius (59°F) or above 30 degrees Celsius (86°F).
  6. Minors may not accept financial payment for sports achievements.

Comments Edit

@Marcus: Is this alright for you? Dimitri 15:03, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Fine! It'll stay in the 1st chamber until saturday! Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:41, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for being such a good MOTC, Marcus! Dimitri 17:04, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
This is fine indeed. --Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 17:47, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

005. Recognition of the existing localities Edit

A while ago, the PM made a poll about which new places we should keep. Most of the voters thought Portland and Novosevensk were okay; many didn't find Plains worth keeping. We must bear in mind that we cannot keep building. We are a small archipelago that is not densely populated. So.

Proposed recognition Edit

I hereby propose the following:

Congress recognizes all the following localities as cities, under the Lovian law:
Newhaven and Noble City
Congress recognizes all the following localities as towns, under the Lovian law:
Kinley, Hurbanova, Portland, Sofasi and Train Village
Congress recognizes all the following localities as hamlets, under the Lovian law:
Adoha, Beaverwick, Clave Rock, East Hills and Novosevensk
Congress recognizes all the following localities as neighborhoods, under the Lovian law:
Abby Springs, Artista, Bayfield, Bayside, Citizen Corner, Drake Town, Downtown NC, Downtown HU, Downtown KY, Downtown SO, Hightech Valley, Hurket-on-Kings, Industrial Park, King's Gardens, Little Europe, Little Frisco, Long Road, Malipa, Mandarin Village, Millstreet, Newhaven (neighborhood), New Town, Old Harbor, Old Port, Pines, The Mall, Trading Quarter, Transcity

As a result hereof, these localities will enjoy the rights described in the Federal Law and Constitution. All other "localities", which are not recognized by Congress, will have no such rights, and will be subject to removal.

Comments Edit

This bill will not be in the Federal Law; it's just to make sure that Congress has full power over its towns and so. Martha Van Ghent 14:20, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'm pro. We did need something of this kind, to get rid of towns and hamlets that somebody "just made", but that aren't actually used. Dimitri 16:09, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
I'm also pro. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:23, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
So am I. --Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 12:31, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Pro Jon THE DUDE Johnson 12:51, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Walden say Yea!!! But still maybe Plains should be a Hamlet? Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:07, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
It got to little votes and is it worked out a bit? Jon THE DUDE Johnson 18:06, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Well yea I still think we should add it! But it's still a Pro Pro! Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 20:31, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Voting Edit

Arrow right Main article: Forum:Second Chamber.



SECOND CHAMBER


Announcement Edit

I will soon clean up the above proposals which are not accepted. All MOTC have one more day to comment or change their vote; we need room for newer proposals such as our Political Reform and the Economic Involvement Act. Regaliorum (S Kitana) 07:25, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Good, you do that :) Dimitri 15:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
The proposals have been moved to the archive (number 7). Regaliorum (S Kitana) 06:33, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

2010 State Reform Bill Edit

I will not post the full monty here in the 2nd Chamber. I will create voting lists for each of the seven parts. There will be links to the articles under review. If you have questions, just ask. Dimitri 15:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

When abstaining, please explain why. Abstention is the wish not to vote. If you disagree with the bill, it is better to oppose it than to abstain. Dimitri 15:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Content (1): Structural change (Constitution Art. 4) Edit

CONTENT: click here

MAJORITY REQUIRED: 75%+ (13 MOTCs)

PRO Edit

  1. Pro Pro Royal Standard Dimitri 15:59, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Pro Pro Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:02, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Pro Pro Regaliorum (S Kitana) 16:42, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Pro Pro Jon Johnson 19:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Pro Pro --Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 07:59, August 7, 2010 (UTC) (Probably the nicest part, together with Content 2.)
  6. Pro Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 08:57, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Pro Pro Bucu 12:45, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Pro Pro Martha Van Ghent 15:31, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Pro Pro Lars Washington 11:04, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Pro Pro Harold Freeman 09:22, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Pro Pro Percival E. Galahad 20:22, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Pro Pro Christina Evans 09:35, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Pro Pro Sjorskingma 07:54, August 18, 2010 (UTC) No more shit with local levels that remain unfilled. I like it
    We got our full majority here. Please keep voting, MOTCs! Dimitri 12:46, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

ABSTENTION Edit

  1. Abstention Abstention --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:55, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Approved Edit

This part of the amendment is approved. Dimitri 12:46, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

  • 87.5% (14 out of 16) of the MOTCs cast votes.
  • Of all valid votes, 92.9% were in favor of the bill; 7.1% abstained.
  • 81.25% of all MOTCs were in favor of the bill; 6.3% abstained; 12.5% did not vote.

Content (2): Competencies (Constitution Art. 5) Edit

CONTENT: click here

MAJORITY REQUIRED: 75%+

PRO Edit

  1. Pro Pro Royal Standard Dimitri 15:59, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Pro Pro Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:02, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Pro Pro Regaliorum (S Kitana) 16:42, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Pro Pro Jon Johnson 19:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Pro Pro --Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 07:59, August 7, 2010 (UTC) (See comment (1).)
  6. Pro Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 08:57, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Pro Pro Martha Van Ghent 15:34, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Pro Pro Lars Washington 11:04, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Pro Pro Harold Freeman 09:22, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Pro Pro Percival E. Galahad 20:22, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Pro Pro Christina Evans 09:35, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Pro Pro SjorskingmaWikistad 07:56, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

ABSTENTION Edit

  1. Abstention Abstention --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:55, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Approved Edit

This part of the amendment is approved. Dimitri 12:46, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

  • 81.3% (13 out of 16) of the MOTCs cast votes.
  • Of all valid votes, 92.3% were in favor of the bill; 7.7% abstained.
  • 75.0% of all MOTCs were in favor of the bill; 6.3% abstained; 18.8% did not vote.

Content (3): Amending the law (Constitution Art. 6-7) Edit

CONTENT: click here

MAJORITY REQUIRED: 75%+

PRO Edit

  1. Pro Pro Royal Standard Dimitri 15:59, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Pro Pro Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:02, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Pro Pro Regaliorum (S Kitana) 16:42, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Pro Pro Jon Johnson 19:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Pro Pro --Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 07:59, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Pro Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 08:57, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Pro Pro Martha Van Ghent 15:38, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Pro Pro Lars Washington 11:04, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Pro Pro Harold Freeman 09:22, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Pro Pro Percival E. Galahad 20:22, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Pro Pro Christina Evans 09:35, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

ABSTENTION Edit

  1. Abstention Abstention --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:56, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Approved Edit

This part of the amendment is approved. Dimitri 12:46, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

  • 75.0% (12 out of 16) of the MOTCs cast votes.
  • Of all valid votes, 91.7% were in favor of the bill; 8.3% abstained.
  • 68.8% of all MOTCs were in favor of the bill; 6.3% abstained; 25.0% did not vote.

The Constitution requires that more than three fourths of all valid votes cast is in favor of the bill. Those who did not vote, thus, have abandoned their opportunity to oppose the bill. Dimitri 12:46, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Content (4): Elections (Constitution Art. 8) Edit

CONTENT: click here

MAJORITY REQUIRED: 75%+

PRO Edit

  1. Pro Pro Royal Standard Dimitri 15:59, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Pro Pro Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:03, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Pro Pro Regaliorum (S Kitana) 16:42, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Pro Pro Jon Johnson 19:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Pro Pro --Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 07:59, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Pro Pro =Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 08:58, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Pro Pro --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:56, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Pro Pro Martha Van Ghent 15:39, August 7, 2010 (UTC) going for a firm majority here!
  9. Pro Pro Lars Washington 11:04, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Pro Pro Harold Freeman 09:22, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Pro Pro Percival E. Galahad 20:22, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Pro Pro Christina Evans 09:35, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Approved Edit

This part of the amendment is approved. Dimitri 12:46, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

  • 75.0% (12 out of 16) of the MOTCs cast votes.
  • Of all valid votes, all (100.0%) were in favor of the bill.
  • 75.0% of all MOTCs were in favor of the bill; 25.0% did not vote.

Content (5): Trials (Constitution Art. 9-10) Edit

CONTENT: click here

MAJORITY REQUIRED: 75%+

PRO Edit

  1. Pro Pro Royal Standard Dimitri 15:59, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Pro Pro Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:02, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Pro Pro Regaliorum (S Kitana) 16:42, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Pro Pro Jon Johnson 19:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Pro Pro --Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 07:55, August 7, 2010 (UTC) (This change was an urgent one. Naranja!)
  6. Pro Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 08:58, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Pro Pro --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:57, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Pro Pro Martha Van Ghent 15:41, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Pro Pro Lars Washington 11:04, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Pro Pro Harold Freeman 09:22, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Pro Pro Percival E. Galahad 20:22, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Pro Pro Christina Evans 09:35, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Pro Pro tempting to abstention. What to do with all the empty state courts? SjorskingmaWikistad 08:04, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
    Easy one: we can use them for government agencies, commercial activities, momunements, museums... Plenty of possibilities Smile Dimitri 12:45, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Approved Edit

This part of the amendment is approved. Dimitri 12:46, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

  • 81.3% (13 out of 16) of the MOTCs cast votes.
  • Of all valid votes, all (100.0%) were in favor of the bill.
  • 81.3% of all MOTCs were in favor of the bill; 18.8% did not vote.

Content (6): Police (FL Art. 5-6) Edit

CONTENT: click here

MAJORITY REQUIRED: 50%+ (9 MOTCs)

PRO Edit

  1. Pro Pro Royal Standard Dimitri 15:59, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Pro Pro Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:02, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Pro Pro Regaliorum (S Kitana) 16:42, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Pro Pro Jon Johnson 19:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Pro Pro --Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 08:01, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Pro ProAndy McCandless (WALDEN) 08:58, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Pro Pro Martha Van Ghent 15:54, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Pro Pro Lars Washington 11:04, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Pro Pro Harold Freeman 09:22, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
    Okay, another part we have the required majority for. We're getting there. Dimitri 17:16, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Pro Pro Percival E. Galahad 20:22, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Pro Pro Christina Evans 09:35, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

CONTRA Edit

  1. Contra Contra --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:58, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
    Just curious: I thought you co-authored this state reform? Martha Van Ghent 15:35, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
    He didn't co-author; Oos Wes and I just worked out the "general idea version" of this reform plan. Nevertheless, I find his contra-vote strange too. On the other hand, it was predictable... Dimitri 17:02, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
    A little explanation for my contra: I believe that we should still keep the state police in some way, f.e. keeping the police stations but then they're no longer state police stations, but "local national police stations". If you understand what I mean. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:22, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
    You're lucky OWTB: that is still very well possible under the FedPol Act Smile. We could very easily maintain a police station in every state or city/town. Dimitri 10:45, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
    Ah ok. Then I'll change my vote è. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:20, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks. Now: why the abstention? Smile Limba Dimitri 17:16, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
    Cause I don't want to be the last voter :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:05, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

ABSTENTION Edit

  1. Abstention Abstention --Bucu 12:55, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Abstention Abstention --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:20, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Abstention Abstention SjorskingmaWikistad 08:06, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Approved Edit

This part of the amendment is approved. Dimitri 12:46, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

  • 87.5% (14 out of 16) of the MOTCs cast votes.
  • Of all valid votes, 78.6% were in favor of the bill; 21.4% abstained.
  • 68.8% of all MOTCs were in favor of the bill; 18.8% abstained; 6.3% did not vote.

Content (7): Places (FL Art. 7-8) Edit

CONTENT: click here

MAJORITY REQUIRED: 50%+

PRO Edit

  1. Pro Pro Royal Standard Dimitri 15:59, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Pro Pro Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:02, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Pro Pro Regaliorum (S Kitana) 16:42, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Pro Pro Jon Johnson 19:58, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Pro Pro --Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 08:01, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Pro Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 08:58, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Pro Pro --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:59, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Pro Pro Martha Van Ghent 15:55, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Pro Pro Lars Washington 11:04, August 8, 2010 (UTC)$
    our first content bit passed!! keep voting please! Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 16:01, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Pro Pro Harold Freeman 09:22, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Pro Pro Percival E. Galahad 20:22, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Pro Pro Christina Evans 09:35, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Pro Pro SjorskingmaWikistad 08:08, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Approved Edit

This part of the amendment is approved. Dimitri 12:46, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

  • 81.3% (13 out of 16) of the MOTCs cast votes.
  • Of all valid votes, all (100.0%) were in favor of the bill.
  • 81.3% of all MOTCs were in favor of the bill; 18.8% did not vote.

State Reform approved! Edit

The 2010 State Reform Bill has been approved by Congress by the required majorities. It might take some time to implement all changes of this amendment. Congratulations to all supporters of the bill! Dimitri 12:46, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

To the non-voters: you choose not to vote = you choose not to participate in democracy. Please vote if you're elected to vote. Dimitri 12:46, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well done! Martha Van Ghent 07:19, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Lovia rocks! Jon THE DUDE Johnson 08:19, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, she does! SmileD Martha Van Ghent 09:23, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
(Shouldn't it be: "Lovia jazzes!" ?)

Economic Involvement Act Edit

Finally ready to vote. Regaliorum (S Kitana) 12:29, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Bill (FedLaw) Edit

  1. The federal government of Lovian has the right and power to execute direct economic activities; either
    1. In the form of a State-Owned Company (SOC), when having a majority of the shares.
      1. An SOC is headed and run by a branch of the involved federal department(s).
      2. The goal of an SOC is to provide a certain public service to the people of Lovia.
      3. Any company providing a public service can become a SOC, by Congressial rule.
        1. When declared a public service by Congress, only the designated SOC may provide this service.
    2. In the form of a State-Involved Company (SIC), when having a minority of the shares.
      1. An SIC is run privately, but with Congress as a shareholder, represented by the involved federal department(s).
      2. An SIC is a means in the execution of the governmental policies.
      3. Any company that is of importance to governmental policy may become an SIC.
  2. Only the Congress has the right and power to approve or alter the statute of a SOC or SIC, by altering the Economic Involvement Act in the Federal Law.
  3. The executing powers are responsible for their own economic decisions.
  4. A complete list of all State-Owned and State-Involved Companies and their specifications:
    1. The Lovian Energy Company, of which 60% of the stocks are owned by Congress, represented by the Department of Energy and Environment;
    2. The Lovian Water Company, of which all stocks are owned by Congress, represented by the Department of Energy and Environment;
    3. The Unified Railroad Company, of which 60% of the stocks are owned by Congress, represented by the Department of Transportation.

Voting Edit

Congress Voting Options
  • {{pro}} resulting in: Pro Pro
  • {{contra}} gives: Contra Contra
  • {{abstention}} gives: Abstention Abstention

PRO Edit

  1. Pro Pro Regaliorum (S Kitana) 12:30, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Pro Pro But I barley support thiss bill but it would be even more stupid to vote contra! Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:32, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
    I really think it is about time Lovians get water out of their taps. Serious, why the hesitation? Regaliorum (S Kitana) 16:34, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
    I like the bill and what it does but I like to simplfy but I always think Liberalism over Libertaranism! Marcus Villanova WLP Flag of Lovia Small 16:38, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
    I see, glad you voted pro anyway. I'm only handing out my own companies (and Dimi's). Regaliorum (S Kitana) 16:40, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Pro Pro However i would have liked other solution over this one, but it might simplify anyway Jon Johnson 16:49, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Pro Pro Although I have my doubts on state-owned railways, I know the importance of state-run electricity and water distribution. Percival E. Galahad 20:24, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Pro Pro And I'll tell you why:
    1. A major problem is solved: we finally have proper water supply in all of Lovia.
    2. By unifying the energy companies and bringing them together as a state-owned corporation, the government can guarantee good and fair prices.
    3. Our railroads have always been perfectly in order. Until somebody came here to over-build new railroads and billions of railway stops. Useless stuff. To avoid more of this building frenzy, we must unify them and give the authorities and only the authorities the right to organize them. Just as with energy, this allows us to choose low and fair prices. Dimitri 17:17, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
      Superb man, the first comment reminds me of il postino SmileD Jon Johnson 17:29, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
      Haha SmileD. Metafore! Dimitri 18:08, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
      Non c'é l'aqua :p Jon Johnson 21:23, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
      You guys know perfectly well how to humiliate someone (me) who did edits in good faith. I spent quite some time on the railways, and the only thing you can say is " Until somebody came here to over-build new railroads and billions of railway stops. Useless stuff.". I'm not in doubt why so many people leave Lovia after a set period of time. If I were you, I should feel ashamed. You really dissapoint me. SjorskingmaWikistad 13:17, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
      As a socialist i had to vote pro, this is a really good bill, sorry but here my ideology speaks, and not something else, it's nothing personal Jon Johnson 13:20, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
      Your enthusiasm was appreciated; you changing companies in which you don't own stocks was wrong; you building state-owned stations and railways was illegal. Dimitri 18:22, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
      The stocks are, like, virtual. I don't see the point. I did my edits in good faith. They were constructive, and if you just say you are okay with them, there is no problem. SjorskingmaWikistad 19:18, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
      Ever wondered how many hours I spend on making a map, a seal, write new station articles, rewrite railline articles, change time tables, thinking it all out? And now you want to delete it all. This is bullying someone away, and very childish. SjorskingmaWikistad 19:27, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
      I agree with a newly state owned railway company. But: PRC already owns all Lovian lines, so the only thing we need to do as Lovian congress is "buy" PRC. Changing the name to URC is silly, because it costs time to change the name everywhere. I vote pro if we keep the name PRC and keep my precious and time consuming work on the railways. That's a reasonable deal, isn't it? (And if you don't think it is, I exspect it to be not without a good argumentation) SjorskingmaWikistad 19:36, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
      We love your edits, really, I've been discussing with the pm on the excellent quality of the railroad map! The only issue we have is you not communicating on those extra stations, we actually don't need, but if you had asked, we could of done something Jon THE DUDE Johnson 20:17, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
      Just like Jon says, it's not that we don't appreciate effort. We do. The problem is you did not consult ANYBODY. You edited a firm that's not yours. You edited a government ownership (railways) without permission. You built stuff on land that's not yours. All this without even talking to anyone who could have helped you out. No matter how much effort you put in it, you put effort in it without thinking (enough). I'm sorry. Dimitri 21:54, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
      I don't like it when people suggest I lack the ability to think. I consider that an insult. Btw, You agree with the map and stuff, don't you? Why don't you give permission for the stuff right now, and the next time I WILL consult the person in charge of the subject I'm about to edit. SjorskingmaWikistad 08:37, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
      Okay, that 'd be great! We even want to keep your map, but tell me: is it difficult to remove the stations that 'actually' don't exist? btw: don't forget to vote this bill Jon THE DUDE Johnson 09:34, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
      Of course I will vote :) but first I want to be assured Dimitri is okay with it as well. Maybe we can have two stations in Portland? It's quite a big town. (And then I don't have to change my map, and the template, and the other articles.) SjorskingmaWikistad 07:51, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
      Sorry but in portland i don't want two stations, sorry mate Jon THE DUDE Johnson 10:58, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
      "but first I want to be assured Dimitri is okay with it as well" => I won't give such a guarantee; because I'm not okay with this theory of yours: "We created sth very nice, and spent hours doing it, and therefore it's immoral to do away with it, regardless of law or rule." Dimitri 13:22, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Pro Pro Walden says aye. Martha Van Ghent 15:53, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Pro Pro Andy McCandless (WALDEN) 14:17, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Pro Pro --{{SUBST:User:Aesopos/HT}} 16:14, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Pro Pro Harold Freeman 07:41, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
  10. ...

CONTRA Edit

  1. Contra Contra --OuWTBsjrief-mich 12:51, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Contra Contra --Bucu 19:16, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
  3. ...

ABSTENTION Edit

  1. Abstention Abstention I wish not to vote. --Arthur Jefferson Lovian Freethought Academy 13:46, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
  2. ...

Accepted This proposal is accepted! Regaliorum (S Kitana) 08:49, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.