Post Archive
Region: The Thaecian Senate
Abstain
The Bigtopia
Aye
The Bigtopia
Aye
The Bigtopia
Results:
Aye (7) Andusre, Ashlawn, Islonia, Rayekka, World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Brototh
Nay (1) Dendrobium
Abstain (1) Marvinville
The treaty passes 7-1-1.
Senators, we have begun debating the Amendments to LR 022
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1426801[spoiler=Senators]Dendrobium
Ashlawn[/spoiler]
Just a simple question and forgive me if this is a misunderstanding, but if Hulldom is no longer a citizen, should we still be able to debate it? Or am I being too quick to react?
Indian Genius
I agree with all, but the first amendment. I think making both chambers of congress approve of the electoral commission prolongs things unnecessarily. No other appointed official has to go through 2 hearings. With how quickly things on the Electoral front run I feel it wise to keep things as they are so the confirmation of the EC can be done efficiently while maintaining scrutiny, so the EC can get on with Electoral business
Indian Genius
This is actually a good point
With the power vested in me, by myself, I declare Ashlawn an author of this bill
Hulldom pls gain citizenship back what I'm doing is like, totally illegal
World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Indian Genius
Hulldom is a citizen
Indian Genius
He has a waiver?
Indian Genius
He's listed on the registry
Indian Genius, Brototh
Hell yeah
I don't have to break the law this week
Hear that @enadia???
Ashlawn, World Trade, Pap Sculgief, The Peoples Caribbean Union
So the reasoning behind that amendment was that since the EC is managing a fundamental aspect of Thaecian democracy they should have to go through more extensive scrutiny by having to be confirmed by both houses.
Indian Genius
I would like to propose the following amendment
[spoiler=Amendment A]
Removes the section Amendments to Article I from the bill
[/spoiler]
There seems to be quite some disaproval to the Amnedements to Article I, but I would like to give my thought on why I believe it would be a good thing to have th EC be confirmed by both Chambers of Congress. The EC is arguably the most important role any Thaecian could hold. While people like the President represents our region in the WA and the PM bascially (indirectly) manages most of the region, the EC has the task to organize the debates and elections that appoint these, and other, important roles who must in turn keep the region running. As fellow Senator Ashlawn stated, the EC is a fundamental aspect of Thaecian democracy, but that is exactly why I believe having both Chambers confirm the EC is essential for the well-being of that Thaecian democracy. We obvioulsy trust the President to nominate a good EC, but we cannot risk a simple mistake or unintentional misinformation to danger the safety and fairness of our elections, electory debates, and very Thaecian democracy itself. This is not something that "should be done as quickly as possible", but something we should take our time to do right, and that is why I am in favor of the Amendements to Article I.
Ashlawn
I have a question to the author of this bill Hulldom and would, if possible, like a direct answer from them here on the Senate floor. As part of the Amendements you propose for Article II, you argue at number 2 for a speciffic process for the re-distributing of votes. However I personally find this bit very confusing, so would you mind giving some explanation to how exactly this would work?
Ashlawn, Hulldom
Gladly! So I am arguing for a defined process as spelled out in the Amendment. Specifically, we would number each vote for a candidate. Then, in redistribution over the limit, we would use a random number generator to say pick (c=number of votes over the threshold) of (d=Total number of votes). This way the process is random USF and no decency bias can exert itself. Hope this helps!
Ashlawn, Dendrobium
Due to my above reasoning I oppose this amendment
Post self-deleted by Marvinville.
Why not have the House approve of the nominee by 2/3rds majority instead of 50%+1 then instead of going through both chambers?
Because I feel that it doesn't provide the same amount of scrutiny as having both houses review and confirm the nominee
but we do not do that for any other position
Yes but as I said since the EC is managing a fundamental aspect of Thaecian democracy they should have to go through more extensive scrutiny by having to be confirmed by both houses.
Nay
Aye
Nay
Nay
Abstain
Abstain
Nay
Amendment A has failed.
Results:
Aye (1) : Marvinville
Nay (4) : Ashlawn, Dendrobium, Pap Sculgief, Islonia
Abstain (4) : Brototh, Rayekka, World Trade, Andusre
Senators, we have begun voting on the final bill.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1426801
My vote is Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Nay
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Bill passes.
Results:
Aye (8) Andusre, Ashlawn, Brototh, Dendrobium, Islonia, Pap Sculgief, Rayekka, World Trade
Nay (1) Marvinville
[spoiler=Speaker]Antenion[/spoiler]
Senators, we have now begun debating the Constitutional Amendment Regarding Political Parties
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1429824
Nothing much to say here. It removes outdated parts of the constitutions that dates from the time of Party Voting, and I'm all for that. 😛
Pap Sculgief, Indian Genius
So essentially, these amendments originally appeared in a bill by Kors and I deofficialising political parties. Im in the process of removing the main bill from the senate docket but allowing the amendments to be put forward. They are simply removing outdated clauses from the constitution, and I urge all Senators to support these amendments
I see nothing wrong with this bill. It's really a simple change but it updates our constitution to be in line with where we are now as a region, that being mostly moved on from party politics. I still don't have anything massively against pary politics, but we do need to keep up with the times. I do support these amendments.
In essense these Amendements try to do a good thing, namely updating clauses concerning parties. Political parties have indeed become less significant and less important, but that does not mean they, or some parts of these Amendements, should simply get one look at to be judged.
The first line to be removed talks about coalitions, which have become something that doesn't happen anymore these days, so I support it.
In the second part I think something has been looked over when editing the text however. While parties only putting forward one candidate for Speaker of Chairperson is something I would stand behind normally, but this rarely ever happens so it can be glossed over, but it is the sentence before that which concerns me. For what reason should the way the Speaker and Chairperson are elected by their respectable House not be specified? Now already is there more than often confusion about what type of majority they need for that! Removing this from the Constitution straight up does not make sense. That is why I propose Amendement A:
[spoiler=Amendement A]Changes the Amendements to Article III section III to say:
Each chamber will be led by one Senator/Member of Parliament in the caucus of the ruling coalition, where the ruling coalition is the coalition whose sum of the number of seats of the parties in the coalition is greater than half of the total number of seats in that chamber as determined by a vote amongst the chamber representatives. The intern election to determine the chamber leader(s) shall be hosted by the Electoral Commission after the inauguration of the Congress representatives upon the conclusion of a general election and midterm election for the House of Commons. The Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the Senate shall have the power to determine their chamber's agenda. Both roles are chosen by a simple majority vote by the members of the respective chambers. Parties can only put forward one candidate for the chambers leadership elections. In the event in which no candidate is tied, but at the same time no candidate received more than 50% of the votes, a run-off is held between the two candidate who received the most votes.[/spoiler]
The last of actually three Amendements here talks about the ballots. Now just as a reminder for some who might have forgotten, but as of now, Thaecians have rights. Rights to speak their minds. Rights to join a political party. Rights to challange government. Rights to run in elections. And those are just a few. This Amendement is not so bold to directly break into Thaecian rights, but it does undermine them. When Thaecians want to join a political party, then let them; do not undermine this by removing what they worked for from the ballot. Be it running as an independent or as a member of a party, people should be allowed to be proud and open about that, to speak their minds about that. When Thaecians identify with the membership- or non-membership- of a party, then that is part of their identity in this region. And if your concern is that people won't vote for you because you are running as independent and not as a member of a party, then campaign harder and convince people so you won't need "the support of everyone from your party", since that is somehow an argument I have seen used for this. I, again, propose an Amendement:
[spoiler=Amendement B]Removes "II. Changes Section VI of Article VIII of the constitution to now say:" and everything below from "Constitutional Amendements Regarding Political Parties".[/spoiler]
Pap Sculgief, Marvinville
I have a question for the author Pap Sculgief. If your changes to the constitution in the 2nd part of your amendment are implemented would the EC decide which political parties to include on the ballot or would political party affiliation just not be listed at all?
Pap Sculgief
The latter. Party affiliation being mentioned, whether directly or indirectly, could affect who citizens vote for. The way I see it, candidates should be voted on by their campaign, and not party affiliation. Hope that answered your question.
In terms of Dendrobiums amendments, I support Amendment A, as it is a logical amendment. But Im against Amendment B. The amendment doesnt undermine the right to run for election or join a party. It simply removes the need for parties to be on the ballot, not citizens wiling to run in an election. The idea was to make it only the candidates choice if they are to be added onto the ballot or not. We arent stopping citizens from joining a party and we certainly arent stopping candidates from mentioning their party affiliation in campaigns. What we are stopping is letting parties put themselves on the ballot, and making it solely the choice of a citizen to be added to the ballot or not.
You say it "removes the need for parties to be on the ballot", but that is simply not true; this Amendement would directly remove any mention of wether candidates run as an independent or a member of a party alltogether. The way this Amendement is written it also will not be the choice of a citizen to have their affiliation mentioned on the ballot, because the Constitution right now states "Each political party ... shall be allowed to register to be added to the ballot. Independents ... shall be allowed to register to be added to the ballot.". So to make it clear, this Amendement, if it were to pass, will de-legalize any mention of one's affiliation and indeed undermine, directly or undirectly, Thaecian rights, because this Amendement, if it were to pass, will remove this entire part from the Thaecian Constitution!
As of the situation now, candidates have to mention to the EC together with their declaration if they wish to chose to run under the banner of one or none party at all themselves. From your words you apparantly try to make it seem like people are being forced to run as a partymember, which is not only not true in practice but is also a ridiculous idea to begin with, so I honestly find it a bad argument.
Ashlawn, Pap Sculgief, Marvinville
I support the amendments proposed by Dendrobium and if Amendment B does not pass, I will vote Nay on the Constitutional Amendment.
Ashlawn, Dendrobium
I concur with Marvin.
Ashlawn, Dendrobium
Ok, look, I accept what you are saying. To be honest, Ive been really tired this week just because of school and other stuff, so Im probably not thinking everything as straight as I usually would do. Im too tired to respond and really think about what Im saying.
Ashlawn, Brototh, Dendrobium
That's perfectly fine, no worries, but you can't blame me for going at it after I took a tiny break too ;))
Pap Sculgief, Brototh
Senators, we have begun voting on Amendment A & Amendment B, both authored by Dendrobium.
[spoiler=Amendement A]Changes the Amendements to Article III section III to say:
Each chamber will be led by one Senator/Member of Parliament in the caucus of the ruling coalition, where the ruling coalition is the coalition whose sum of the number of seats of the parties in the coalition is greater than half of the total number of seats in that chamber as determined by a vote amongst the chamber representatives. The intern election to determine the chamber leader(s) shall be hosted by the Electoral Commission after the inauguration of the Congress representatives upon the conclusion of a general election and midterm election for the House of Commons. The Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the Senate shall have the power to determine their chamber's agenda. Both roles are chosen by a simple majority vote by the members of the respective chambers. Parties can only put forward one candidate for the chambers leadership elections. In the event in which no candidate is tied, but at the same time no candidate received more than 50% of the votes, a run-off is held between the two candidate who received the most votes.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendement B]Removes "II. Changes Section VI of Article VIII of the constitution to now say:" and everything below from "Constitutional Amendements Regarding Political Parties".[/spoiler]
My vote is Aye to both
[spoiler=Senators]
Rayekka[/spoiler]
Aye to both
Aye to A
Abstain to B
A. Aye
B. Aye
Aye to both
Aye to both
Aye to both
Abstain to both
Aye to both
Results:
Amendment A:
Aye (8) Brototh Ashlawn Pap Sculgief Dendrobium World Trade Islonia Marvinville Andusre
Abstain (1) Rayekka
Amendment B:
Aye (7) Brototh Ashlawn Dendrobium World Trade Islonia Marvinville Andusre
Abstain (2) Rayekka Pap Sculgief
Senators, we have begun voting on the final bill.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1438011
My vote is Aye
Aye
Brototh
Aye
Brototh
Aye
Brototh
Aye
Brototh
Aye
Abstain
Aye
Pap Sculgief
aye
Results:
Aye (8) Brototh Islonia World Trade Pap Sculgief Dendrobium Ashlawn Marvinville Andusre
Abstain (1) Rayekka
The bill passes.
[spoiler=House Speaker]Antenion[/spoiler]
Pap Sculgief
Sorry for the delay bois
Was quite busy with N-Day
Glad ANAL did as good as we did, suck it ATOMIC XP
Our next bill is Pap Sculgief's revised petitioning act. I am aware this bill is probably in need of a few amendments, however, at first glance it looks decent. I will read it over a bit later. Please make a statement on the bill or propose amendments if you have to :)
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1429945
[spoiler=Quote because I'm too lazy to do the pings XP]
[/spoiler]Pap Sculgief, Indian Genius, Marvinville
Um, so, yeah. Like Brototh said, I reckon it needs a few amendments, as there are a few bits that might need clearing up. If you do have an amendment in mind, then I do encourage you to submit it, because at the moment, Thaecia needs a petitioning system, and I think that this is a pretty decent system for us as a region to use. So yeah, please submit amendments if you have them
Here are some amendments:
[spoiler=Amendment A]Amend Article I - Section II - Subsection I to be read as follows:
"A petition aimed at any legally codified government official. including Prime Minister, President, Minister, Deputy Minister or Legislator."[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment B]Amend Article III - Section II to be read as follows:
"Once a petition that provides either house of Congress with something to debate on has reached 15 10 signatures in the first 7 days, the petition must receive a form of public acknowledgment from the leader of the house of Congress the petition is aimed at."[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment C]Amend Article IV Section I - Subsection I to be read as follows:
"The petition is intended to waste the time of the official legislator"[/spoiler]
They all are wording & logic fixes here and there.
Pap Sculgief, Brototh, Marvinville
I have some minor questions and one or two comments.
In Article V Section II it is stated that when a petition is declared to be wrongfully rejected it the decission to reject it must be reversed. This is good, but what exactly follows after this? Will the petition be opened again to start again from zero? Will the petition be allowed to continue collecting signatures? Or does/do the elected official(s) the petition is meant for have to immediately handle the petition right after the High Court decission?
Lastly I have some comments on Article IV Sections III. Section III reads that if the issue a petition is about has already been adressed, it won't be seen as a legitimate petition or can be rejected. This raises the question if when and how matters. Nowhere is it defined when this issue has to be adressed for it to not require/allow a petition; this could mean that petitions about topics from several months before can be pushed aside legally this way, which is honestly quite worrying. The "how" is also an important factor here. Say a bill has been passed with the required simple majority or a minister pushes through a certain thing, but when a petition is opened, the majority of signatories disgree with said passed legislation. Wouldn't this be a good reason to revisit this issue anyway? If others share this opinion I propose this part to be either defined more clearly or removed alltogether.
Section IV could potentially be viewed in a similar logic, although I am unsure as to what could be a solution for this or if we need it. I'm not sure if a a petition, which comes about as close to teh general opinion of Thaecians as possible, should be stopped simply because the recipient might change soon. Again, I ask for thoughts of other Senators here.
Pap Sculgief
I am in complete agreement with Islonia on these amendments, and will vote for all of them.[spoiler=Dendrobium]
[/spoiler]I believe Dendro raises valid concerns. I encourage her to write amendments to what she disagrees with in the bill, and any other Senator as well if they would like to. I might propose some if none others are proposed later, but for now I will refrain from doing so
World Trade, Pap Sculgief, Islonia, Indian Genius, Dendrobium
Alright, Amendement time bois:
[spoiler=Amendement D]Changes Article IV Section I Sub-section III to say:
The issue the petition raises has already been addressed within a period of 2 months or less before the petition has been brought before the recipiant, unless if the petition's outcome shows a majority of signatories stand in contrast with the previous decission on the issue in question.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendement E]Removes Article IV Section I Sub-section IV.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendement F]Changes Article I Section III to say:
A petition may be in the form of a question, or a request for an action to be taken and must be accessable to all citizens.[/spoiler]
Note: added the last one because I just now noticed this was nowhere mentioned before, but it is still very important I think.
Pap Sculgief
I support all amendments proposed. Amendment E concerns me slightly, just because I dont want officials having to respond to a petition that they potentially might not be able to deal with, however I hope that petitions are never brought in in too close proximity to a large election, and so that means that my concern is fixed. Just wanted to put forward my view, but apart from that, all amendments look good and receive my support
I would agree with Pap Sculgief on Dendrobium's amendment E (see how I worked in the pings ehe). However I feel like "too close" is very vague. A time period should be established instead, perhaps "14 days" or "10 days" or "7 days" and so on. Ideally much more time than that, something around the range of 5d~ works for me, but I digress.
It feels to me like say the election was in 2 or 3 days, I would have no time to get whatever the petition wanted done.
One other thing I would like to say quickly is there is only one 'house of Congress', a phrase used multiple times in the bill. The HoC is the only House of Congress. While it's pretty clear what the author/bill is trying to come across with, I fear a senate that could potentially try to exploit this. Perhaps I am just fear mongering or over thinking, but as Hulldom once said the details are what matter.
[spoiler=Amendment G]Change all mention of 'house of Congress' in the bill to 'Chamber of Congress'.[/spoiler]
Also a small grammatical error in the bill, the fourth article is written as 'Article VI' instead of 'Article IV', despite there is a real article six later in the bill. As this is only a grammatical error I will allow the Senator to edit it without an amendment.
I also raise some concern at these lines:
Once a petition aimed at a government official has received 15 signatures in the first 7 days, the petition must receive a public response from the official that has been targeted by the petition.
First of all, 5 more signatories and the time stamp is still 7d? I would say that once you have established your core base of support (10 people), you should get extra time to petition--I mean that's how most governments do it, at least the United Kingdom and I am aware this is based off the UK's petitioning system.
Secondly:
II. Once a petition that provides either house of Congress with something to debate on has reached 15 signatures in the first 7 days, the petition must receive a form of public acknowledgment from the leader of the house of Congress the petition is aimed at.
III. Once a petition that provides either house of Congress with something to debate on has received 15 signatures in the first 7 days, the petition must be placed on the docket of the house of Congress its aimed at barring an executive dismissal.
The sections are clearly doing different things, yet require the same amount of signatories? Secondly the bill only must be placed on the docket, it doesn't say that it must be debated next for example. The Speaker or Chair could just put it at the bottom of the docket. While that would be a PR nightmare, it makes no sense to me. That is why I propose these amendments:
[spoiler=Amendment H]Amend Art. II Sec. III to read as follows:
Once a petition aimed at a government official has received 15 signatures in the first 7 10 days, the petition must receive a public response from the official that has been targeted by the petition.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment I]Amend Art. III Sec. III to read as follows:
Once a petition that provides either house of Congress with something to debate on has received 15 20 signatures in the first 7 14 days, the petition must be placed on the docket of the house of Congress its aimed at barring an executive dismissal.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment J]Amend Art. III Sec. III to read as follows:
Once a petition that provides either house of Congress with something to debate on has received 15 signatures in the first 7 days, the petition must be placed on the docket debated after current business has concluded in of the house of Congress its aimed at, barring an executive dismissal.[/spoiler]
Pap Sculgief
I agree with Brotoths amendments as they clear up some a few other problems. I dont have time to write up an amendment concerning petitions close to an election, but I encourage others to do so. Id like to thank all the Senators for writing amendments and participating in this debate, and while it may seem like there are lots of amendments, we are helping to provide the region with an efficient petitioning system, and I thank everyone for helping improve this bill and helping us get a step closer to having a new petitioning system
Dendrobium
Since there seems to be some misconception on Amendement E I proposed, I would like to give some clarification on why I proposed it.
Petitions exist to ask the Thaecian public for their opinion on certain matters or to ask their support for or against a specific topic to be brought up in either Congressional Chamber or Branch. The recipient of a petition therefore will never be limited to one person, but in the end will be all Thaecian citizens themselves. Elections can never be a burden on handling issues that are of importance or interest of people, but instead are a way of expressing them. If a petition is written to target or be specifically handled by one destined individual, instead of the Thaecian governmental officials as a whole, then this petition is not, in my opinion, a good petition. Whenever something is brought up quite litterally by and for citizens, then it should not matter who takes care of this, as long as it is taken care of in a way that benefits all.
That is why I proposed Amendement E to delete the line "The petition [may be rejected if it] has been brought in too close to an upcoming election in which the recipients position is being elected.", because in the end the person of the recipient may not play a role in how petitions, or the issues they discuss, are viewed or processed.
Hopefully this cleared some things up and I hope this explanation has maybe convinced some people on voting "Aye" for Amendement E.
Pap Sculgief, Islonia
A to C = Author: Islonia
[spoiler=Amendment A]Amend Article I - Section II - Subsection I to be read as follows:
"A petition aimed at any legally codified government official. including Prime Minister, President, Minister, Deputy Minister or Legislator."[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment B]Amend Article III - Section II to be read as follows:
"Once a petition that provides either house of Congress with something to debate on has reached 15 10 signatures in the first 7 days, the petition must receive a form of public acknowledgment from the leader of the house of Congress the petition is aimed at."[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment C]Amend Article IV Section I - Subsection I to be read as follows:
"The petition is intended to waste the time of the official legislator"[/spoiler]
D to F = Author: Dendrobium
[spoiler=Amendement D]Changes Article IV Section I Sub-section III to say:
The issue the petition raises has already been addressed within a period of 2 months or less before the petition has been brought before the recipient, unless if the petition's outcome shows a majority of signatories stand in contrast with the previous decision on the issue in question.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendement E]Removes Article IV Section I Sub-section IV.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendement F]Changes Article I Section III to say:
A petition may be in the form of a question, or a request for an action to be taken and must be accessible to all citizens.[/spoiler]
G to J = Author: Brototh
[spoiler=Amendment G]Change all mention of 'house of Congress' in the bill to 'Chamber of Congress'.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment H]Amend Art. II Sec. III to read as follows:
Once a petition aimed at a government official has received 15 signatures in the first 7 10 days, the petition must receive a public response from the official that has been targeted by the petition.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment I]Amend Art. III Sec. III to read as follows:
Once a petition that provides either house of Congress with something to debate on has received 15 20 signatures in the first 7 14 days, the petition must be placed on the docket of the house of Congress its aimed at barring an executive dismissal.[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Amendment J]Amend Art. III Sec. III to read as follows:
Once a petition that provides either house of Congress with something to debate on has received 15 signatures in the first 7 days, the petition must be placed on the docket debated after current business has concluded in of the house of Congress its aimed at, barring an executive dismissal.[/spoiler]
Senators, we have begun voting.
You can format your votes however you wish, this ain't the House we're cool here.
My vote is Aye to all, except E, where I will Abstain.
[spoiler=Senators]Brototh
Marvinville[/spoiler]
Aye to all.
Brototh
A - Aye
B - Nay
C - Aye
D - Aye
E - Aye
F - Aye
G - Aye
H - Nay
I - Nay
J - Aye
Aye to all
Brototh
Aye to all except E. Abstain to Amendment E
Aye to all
A: Aye
B: Aye
C: Aye
D: Aye
E: Aye
F: Aye
G: Aye
H: Aye
I: Aye
J: Aye
Aye to all except H that I say nay to.
Aye to all
Post self-deleted by Ashlawn.
All amendments pass. I have little time to do the voting results, but you can check and it's pretty obvious.
Senators, we have begun voting.
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1440465
My vote is Aye
[spoiler=Senators]Brototh
Marvinville[/spoiler]
Aye
Ауе
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The bill passes 7-0-2.
Aye (7) Brototh Islonia World Trade Ashlawn Pap Sculgief Rayekka Dendrobium
Abstain (2) Marvinville Andusre
[spoiler=House Speaker]Antenion[/spoiler]
New bill. House passed amendments fixing two of the main concerns of the Senate. Sorry Dendro, but that's the main reason people voted against it here, and it (the OC -> RP amendment) passed comfortably in the House of Commons.
I would sponsor someone, but I don't have anyone to sponsor. I just want to sponsor somebody lmao.
Might require amendments. Propose them before shooting the bill down pls lol. The reason I wrote this was to keep the LR on-site after the government decided to make slides you can't even edit. Seriously I hope y'all have seen the website LR, it's the worst thing ever. Any concerns please voice them. Islonia will hate this bill XP
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1420694
Pap Sculgief
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.