Join the new world

Enjoy reading!

You have successfully donated 1000 NLG. If the user accepts, the amount will appear shortly in the citizen account.

It was a real delight working on this first version! Happy reading to everyone. May this lead to fruitful discussions!

Will have a closer look later on, but allready two suggestions:

I-4.2 was a reference to the Armed Forces in general as far as I know. I would advise to keep that as in the current Lawbook, so a Commander not following the orders of the President is illegal.

II-4.2 maybe remove the part of the (d)CoC is opening the debate. All CM should be a able to do so. Would speed up things sometimes. Same goes for the following rules on the election.

The Armed Forces is also used in other parts of the Lawbook like III-4. Keep it also in I or alter it everywhere.

''Armed Forces of Netherlands'' is a vague term that is defined nowhere. I get that the intention is to mean ''DAF'' with that or something and for DAF there is a separate 'protocol' that has been voted on by Congress. The idea is to include such protocols/motions (like SCI as well) in the law system, or at least easy to find together with our laws.

Just include it in a general term, refering to the official MU(s) controlled by the Dutch government.

Still think it's an abundant and unclear law. And considering the main theme has been to simplify and up for no interpretation I think it's fine if it's removed (as we have a separate protocol for DAF regarding the issues you mentioned anyway). Let's not forget that the issue of supposedly ''a commander not following orders'' happened anyway with this law in place: exactly because it's so vague that it is an empty statement.

II-4.2: Do we still need a CoC if we can just delegate everything? I'd be in favour 😉 I think we should at least expect them to do that in a timely order, as that (CoC Elections) is essentially the only thing they do these days.

II-9/14: ''Private'' votes weren't in the old version if I remember correctly - so why now? What could possible be private that needs to be hid from eNL population (which with such a low population almost equals the number of Congress Members anyway). I don't think it needs to be explicitly mentioned. If one really wants you can just make a vote in which details are not public (just a link to the private post).

III-6.1: That seems overly bureaucratic. Besides, one can check it by looking at the Finance Sheet and if one doesn't trust that the State Orgs (EZ) or Treasury.

IV-2.3: I don't see now how it would protect against a coup indeed. However I think the scrap of that is justified by the thought that once someone's KeyKeeper you might as well trust him to be CP (as KK is non-political position it doesn't too much power or anything) .And vica versa a CP would still need to be voted 2/3 to be Keykeeper as well. In the same vain that we accept non-CM to be CoC as well now due to lowered population numbers.

VI-2/4.3: Same as I said on the other thing. And if (d)CoC doesn't act timely I'm sure we can be flexible enough that anyone can start it anyway.

I know we disagree on some points 😉

II-9/14 Maybe make it possible to have a vote in the private section, when the debate is private.

III-6.1 Maybe change it to send proof to someone outside the government, e.g. the CoC?

IV-2.3 Dont remove that from the Law. For reason to protect against a coup? Please explain.

VI-2/4.3 Same as above, let every CM be able to start a debate.

I know we disagree on some of these points. 😉

I am glad I could join and cooperate on this, even though not as much as some others did 😉 . But I have to say it is a great project, and it is certainly worth reading, debating and supporting!

Great job! I like a lot of them. Haven't read more than half though, will do that later. It's good to see the lawbook finally simplified. Maybe it will gives some issues, but I think we should just see how it works out and change it if it doesn't work like we want it to.

I'm very much in favor to remove the dCoC elections. Maybe instead of let the CoC appoint the dCoC afterwards, he can do it beforehand, so we choose a CoC team and we aren't surprised. That would be more fun I think. Maybe this is already in the lawbook, because I didn't read it close enough.

Please, that book is full of bs that change according the cunt in charge

Hi kimi welcomr back hehe, pls explain as right now we ask imput from the whole community. This isn't the final version. When we do have s final version congress will have to vote so that should represent the entire community as well.

You wanna explain the "B" word or the "C" word 😮 ?

We can always hope and ask, but then this is kimi.

Oh god no, why?

[removed]

1.1: With all the recent changes in eRep.. There's no reason for people to be involved in eNL to be abroad is there really?

1.3: You could keep it but it's such a strange 'technical thing'. We don't have 'lex posterior' and really technical stuff like that either 😛

1.4: While we might have 3 State MU's (but 2 are just placeholders..) what does 'Supreme Commander of the Dutch Armed Forces' truly means? It's not defined anywhere and it's not clear either by tradition what it means.

1.6: The intention is to have a clean law book and not have it riddled with strange things eRep come up.. But I guess it could stay in the Constitution at least as it's kinda important in case we ever have to deal with it again.

1.8: Removing Referendum might be a bit radical yes. But let's make it in-game then as a compromise - because clearly there is neither an appetite for a forum referendum nor will it really work.

2.1: Why not? All citizens even remotely interested enough to open a debate (believe me it won't be much) should be applauded for doing that 😛

2.3.4: Well you apply for a job, you do stuff.. It's not too much to ask to have CoC for example post links on the national feed or open a Congress PM. As you noticed it does result in more participation and discussion.

2.4.2: Why? It's a change that hasn't been too controversial and considering we still barely can't fill the position.. Although lately there seem more people interested.

2.4.3: I can understand your point but it contradicts with your other suggestions. It's a bit 'lazy' + people might not want him to continue. We vote for the CP every month as well, even if he's the only one and already CP 😛

2.4.5: Says who? If there are 2 candidates in a draw we shouldn't just scrap it. It doesn't make such sense if we extend in one case and not in another one. Because.. not all people show up every 24h (say what you want about that) and it can be 'unfair' that due to attrition a candidate wins - like last CoC Election.

2.5.1: Any other solution to the complete disinterest in these positions? Imo it wasn't my preference either - I'd rather have it removed than this suggestion 😛

2.7: What's the spirit behind that? Why does one thing require 50% and the other 60% - and why is this arbitrary divide even made? and if I did my best to look up all the bills I'm almost certain some have been accepted with just 50%.. If a majority wants a simple law change - why not?

2.9: Holidays are not relevant any more. With our decision to lower the quorum.. We made this law abundant. It should have been adjusted back then because it kind of contradicts each other, does it not? Besides I don't see a big different in activity between holiday and normal any more - we don't live in the PC age anymore 😛. Downtime - That happens like once every 2 years. Can't we expect flexibility in the ultimately rare case that happens?

2.11: Somehow requiring a bit of information/link to why donation is not too unreasonable indeed. Could be a link to an in-game shout as well (I know you don't like that 😛)

2.13: Well to be honest, never has there been a 'negative voting advice' publicized.. So it's doing nothing. If a CoC wants to do it he's free to do it without it as well. Besides, would that ever even entice people to NOT do that? Unless you want to punish PP's for placing them not last on the list etc

2.16: See my remarks on referendum in constitution

3.1: As a collective work it kind of does: If only 'real' eDutch can be in Government it'd be extremely odd and unlikely he serves in a foreign government as well.

3.2: I kind of agree. I preferred to have the essential ministries listed/noted briefly (MoD, MoF, MoD, perhaps even a Coaching thing). But two of them ARE listed below it anyway. AFAIK this issue hasn't been resolved by 'us' yet.

3.3: Well nothing stops someone from doing it in a private section/discussion with Congress/Government. Besides, it is the law we've already had for years 😛

3.5: Imo 3.3.5 can be removed. Because it's already defined elsewhere that DNB can be accessed by Congressional approval in the Emergency Fund section. And spending more than there is, is kind of an 'Emergency'. 3.4 can be removed - and I think the intention was to refer to the Finance Sheet somewhere instead.

4.2: I don't get that either - I think it has been wrongly noted.

5.1: How can 250cc be enough while that amount has been around for such a long time, while 'inflation' has skyrocketed? I'd propose even raising it to 1000cc if there is truly anyone wanting to 'promote' Forum because it's clearly not working now 😛

Nevertheless thank you for taking time to read it all and make suggestions. We intend to have this additional feedback converted into something that is workable for everyone eventually after all. Not doing all the work only to have it fail 😛

https://goo.gl/7qRQMj

Why first post a reply on here, to 'hide' it on the forum afterwards? I was actually excited about this change of heart 😛

it's not hidden on the forum. it is now posted on the correct platform where it should have been posted in the first place.

I believe if authors of the proposal wanted it to be moved to Forum, they would have done so on their own. Or they would ask CoC or dCoC to do it. Not a random person like you.

Thanks for attempt to help, but next time contact the team and talk it with them 🙂 .

just doing my duty as cm.

You are doing the proposal a bad service by fulfilling your "duty" (whatever kind of a benevolent lie that is)... but do not worry, we all know you did it only, because you do not support the proposal, and you desperately want it to fail 🙂 .

For now, people can freely express their opinions here, or they can contact the aforementioned authors with their ideas.

This is a little bit more accessible than the forum. Every citizen of eNL can easily find this article without having to create an account on the forum, without logging in to the forum, without applying to the right group to see the debate. That's 3 steps extra every new citizen has to take in order to participate into this law proposal. I would say that only the final debate (the one the voting is based on) should be on the forum. As is being said, this is a first draft, so a lot can be changed. In this way it is possible for everyone to give their opinion.

So you are saying better to remove the forum?

If this is a reply to me, than no, I'm not saying that. I'm saying there should be a debate on the forum about the law proposal. But I think this is a very good and logical first step.

oh if only we had a place where we can quote stuff.

@Bo Kito - Since that is not the goal fo the proposal... no 😃 .

@odan - but we have, here 🙂

What a mess

That was a question for Spir Tus

@Bo Kito - Do not worry, you will eventually learn to use the game to full potential 😉

Either way, as this proposal is not about dissolving Forum, I see no reason, why that should be discussed. Rather focus your energy on the great Lawbook proposal 🙂 .

I think I did. Was the first to react, right?

@Bo Kito - Which I respect. However others are now expanding outside the boundaries, which... is certainly good for activity and debating in general, but not sure, if it is the best for the specific debating here 😂

@ odan I like you can't quote easy here. I get bored very fast if I see lots of quotes. This reads more like a conversation than the forum.

@Janty and Bokito And that is exactly what is the downside of using an article to debate. If we don't stay on topic, it will be a mess and there is no one able to moderate our contributions. I rather see activity and participation on this topic (or outside the topic) than it only being on the forum with a few to look at it. If you want constructive feedback or criticism, the forum is the place to look I think.

Yes