User blog comment:Jeremiah Garland/Roleplay Reformation Proposal - Please Read/@comment-2040576-20130127093900

Excellent ideas, although I am not in perfect agreement with everything.

At first I did not like the chambers idea, but now I see it may work. My primary concern with  it is, although the "conservatives" will get representation, there will still be a split and the chambers may end up at each other's throats instead of working together. The different chambers may also feel the need to mob against the other chamber in every vote if it gets to that. However, I would not mind trying it, but if it fails I suggest we just have one council, but with fair representation from many viewpoints.

Then, as I said, I don't think the elections should be a big deal. Knowing this wiki, people will get too political and dramatic and things will end up crazy. We need to keep it simple and concise, not a major event every month or 2. I also think a month is far too short, I would say a minimum of a 2 month term, perhaps longer or even permanant (with the possibilites of retirement and removal by vote of course).

One of the major things I want to bting up after the reformation is the concept of declaring war and the council's influence on that. I think invalidating a war is the stupidest thing I have ever heard! If we allow such nonsense every single war will be requested for invalidation when that is not our purpose nor should it be our jurisdiction. However, reading Garland's comment, I can see that the possibility of ruling against wars without solid reasoning might be a possibility but will have many grey areas... So, eh. I don't want the well-established powers to just run through every other nation as they please, but invalidating wars is foolish.