I use this free application for my computer, called f.lux. What it does is it makes the bright blue light coming from your computer a more orange color at night. You can set your location so that it knows when to turn on. It's much better for the eyes, and there is much less of that burnt in image after you close your eyes.

^^^ Came here to post this. I can't recommend Flux highly enough.

Yes, seconded.

Thirded.

I've used Ambien in the past to deal with insomnia, but I would advise against taking it unless you've exhausted every other option, including cannabis. The side effects are not pleasant, particularly if you're awakened by anything before you've had enough sleep.

[FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS]

FIRST ROUND OF QUESTIONS

1. Candidate Matt from VT has said that a vote for him would be "a vote for freedom from unreasonable government regulations." To Matt: What current regulations would you seek to roll back in the Northeast Region? To the other candidates: Do you agree with Matt, and if you do, what regulations would you prefer to repeal?

2. What is the best use for Northeast's current budget surplus?

3. During the Assembly's last session, activity suffered because of the low amount of legislation that was introduced. If you're elected, what legislation do you intend to introduce for debate?

It's not what I would call "fun."

Here's an idea. I plan to prioritize updating legislation articles once I've finished creating pages for our most recent elections. You could copy the format from the articles that I've finished and update them with whatever background information on other elections that you have. When you've finished doing that, let me know, and I'll fix the tables for those elections. Thoughts?

I'd be happy to do that. Ideally we can get the important pages as up to date as possible. I've also considered making a consolidated constitution page to go along with what's already there.

That would be useful, especially as a number of recent constitutional amendments haven't been added at all.

It's not what I would call "fun."

Here's an idea. I plan to prioritize updating legislation articles once I've finished creating pages for our most recent elections. You could copy the format from the articles that I've finished and update them with whatever background information on other elections that you have. When you've finished doing that, let me know, and I'll fix the tables for those elections. Thoughts?

That's unnecessary, as I'm already working on it. I wouldn't mind some help, of course.

I'm working my way backward from the most recent election. I've already completed two pages, the February 2013 Presidential Election, and the February 2013 (regular) Senate Election.

If anyone wants to help me, it's not difficult. I've already culled the most useful page elements from earlier election articles on the wiki. Creating additional articles will only be a matter of filling in information on candidate names, party affiliations, and vote totals, along with a few minor changes to formatting.

[Citizen Commentary:]

Citizen Commentary:
Anyway, personally, I'm not a fan of making the tax code more complicated if it can be avoided. Instead I would like to see the requirements for becoming a teacher raised, and pay increased, both to reflect the stricter standards and to make becoming a teacher attractive.

I usually prefer to avoid working through the tax code but this is a case in which I would prefer to make an exception. Increasing teacher pay just isn't easy for the federal government to do without risking saddling the regions with an unfunded mandate. I am unlikely to support Napoleon's amendment for this reason.

Also, do you have any specific new requirements for certification in mind?

I don't know if I support this amendment as currently worded.

Which words pose a problem for you?

Do we not currently have this system in place for the last portion of Senate terms?

I'm not sure what you're asking, Yankee. Clarify?

I am ready for a final vote.

May Dave have mercy on our souls.

I'm reserving the right to object. As of now I would not support either bill, but $15 million in poorly justified spending is a lot better than $150 million.

Sorry to press, Ben, as I know that this isn't your bill. I just need to see more clarity of purpose behind this spending before I can support it.

IA Committee (1 Seat):
[X] Napoleon

Here are a few suggestions. Unless anyone objects, I'd also like to divide our platform into numbered sections and subsections to make reading, editing, and referencing it easier.

These are all just minor "improvements" on what Duke has already included in our platform. I hope to return to this later to suggest some additions.

It is The People’s job to ensure equality. We must have a progressive tax system, one that is fair and allows the government to offer services for the general welfare of The People – including bridges, public roads, airports, transport infrastructure and other public works, healthcare, schools education, and environmental protection. But when fairness is considered, we stress that those taxes must never exceed 50% on an individual’s income. Further, The People recognize life is not perfect and people may hit the occasional bump in the road in life. As such, welfare must be a means of assistance to aid people through these difficult times, not a way of life.

Finally, The People recognize the individual and the family. It is who we are. We recognize the hardships and protections employees experience in their everyday lives. The Party favors a policy of honesty and openness between both employee and employer. While we hold employment policies, including “at will” laws a regional issue, we encourage regional governments to change policies like these. They are archaic and are a tremendous disservice to the employee. They discourage honesty, openness and job security.

]The People are realists. We recognize that there is evil in this world, and there are groups of people who are not rational and do not follow basic reason whose basic interests and values conflict with our own. But dealing with this evil does not always begin with bombs and bullets. Diplomacy must be our first line of defense, and we must work to keep the lines of communication open with both our enemies and allies. The People recognize Atlasia’s position in the world. We must lead by example. However, if diplomacy does fail, and a nation openly defies the international community, The People shall not shy away from using force. Each situation must be handled in its own way.

Freedom of speech, religion, and love are basic freedoms all human beings must be given.  The People do not wish to ever establish a national religion. Further, it is not the government’s business who you love, what you do in your bedroom, or what kind of family you belong to. Therefore, we favor marriage and adoption rights for all couples, straight or same sex. The right to privacy, to organize and due process are evolutions of these principles. The People will always favor federal protection to protect abortion rights – as keeping abortion safe, legal and rare far outweighs the alternatives. It is a woman’s decision, and her decision alone, and The People respect this fundamental right. It is the government’s job to protect individual liberties from oppression by the majority.

Regardless, that debate isn't very relevant to this bill.

It's a tangent, but it's a relevant one. If we pass any piece of legislation related to elections, whether it should apply to federal elections only or regional elections as well is an appropriate subject to debate, and our disagreement over the legal status of the current framework of election law is something that we need to sort out before we can craft further legislation coherently.

I'm not trying to make this about Oakvale, he is just the most obvious and recent example. Maybe it's the Justice in me, because you seem hell-bent on preventing this activity, but you can't seem to settle on any sort of definition of it and are just trying to get at it in some sort of roundabout way.

I don't even know if that would be entirely constitutional, but I would not want that to sink the bill and I definitely don't want to make it difficult for regions to pass more progressive legislation if they would like to.

Election standards set by the Senate and the Constitution are universal, regardless of your region. It would absolutely be constitutional to set universal standards.

In your opinion, Marokai, is the Northeast's prohibition on vote editing unconstitutional?

I would not be opposed to extending the act to cover regional elections as well, if others support taking that measure.

I prefer to let the regions create their own election laws.

Why is that? Wouldn't setting universal rules be fairer and less confusing to voters? I would prefer to regionalize plenty of government activities, but the rationale for leaving voting laws in the hands of the regions seems very weak to me.

I like it a lot more than your original proposal, but I'm not willing to support it for reasons that I mentioned earlier.

Also, even if other Senators support your suggested text, there's a technical issue that should be dealt with: It would criminalize contacting a voter to let him or her know of certain common kinds of errors, e.g. duplicate preferences.

Despite the fact that 'Adam Griffin' is 'goblin' spelled backwards, I'll be tightening my belt one loop so that I don't feel hunger pains and voting AYE on his confirmation.

Sorry, the post that Napoleon quoted was literally up for less than ten seconds before I realized my error and deleted it. The wording is cumbersome, and I was working under the impression that the bill had been amended at a later date.

[Section 1: Definition of Crime]

I withdraw my previous amendment and introduce the following:

F.L. 23-9 (the Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Act) is hereby amended as follows:

Section 1: Definition of Crime

1. It shall be a crime against the Republic of Atlasia for any citizen who may be called upon to make a determination as to the validity of a ballot cast in a federal election, including but not limited to the voting booth administrator, to instruct or encourage a voter who has already cast his or her ballot to take an action that would have the effect of invalidating the ballot.

2. For the purposes of this statute, federal election shall extend to (but is not limited to) any election for President, Vice-President or Senator, any federal impeachment vote, and any public vote sanctioned by Law which requires that an officer of the federal government administer it.

3. The instruction or encouragement of a voter shall be interpreted to include any action which indicates the possibility of invalidating a vote to affect a federal election.


Section 2: Trial and Punishment

1. Trial of this crime shall be in accordance with the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act.
2. Sentencing of the crime shall be by the Presiding Justice; He may use any combination of the following as punishment, depending upon the severity of the offense:
         (i) Up to a four twelve month ban from voting in any elections.
         (ii) Up to a two six month ban from holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia.

I would not be opposed to extending the act to cover regional elections as well, if others support taking that measure.

I am offering this amendment as a compromise that addresses a behavior that we all agree is unethical and harmful to the game without disenfranchising voters or violating anyone's right to freedom of speech.

[Section 2: Trial and Punishment]

Introducing an amendment:

The entire text of the bill is replaced with the following:

Section two of F.L. 23-9 (the Campaigning for Invalidation of Votes Act) is hereby amended as follows:

Section 2: Trial and Punishment

1. Trial of this crime shall be in accordance with the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act.
2. Sentencing of the crime shall be by the Presiding Justice; He may use any combination of the following as punishment, depending upon the severity of the offense:
         (i) Up to a four twelve month ban from voting in any elections.
         (ii) Up to a two six month ban from holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia.

Among those listed, I would support Biden, Kaine, Kerry, or Klobuchar.

There are others whom I like but whom I wouldn't support, either because they lack experience in Washington (Hickenlooper, Castro, Schweitzer) or because they'd make lousy candidates (Emmanuel, Dean).

[Section I.Title]

Introducing an amendment:

Section I.Title

1. This legislation may be cited as the “Forest Restoration Act of 2013”.

Section II. Forest Restoration Requirements

1. All areas logged (public and private) are required to plant 2 trees (of the same species destroyed) for every estimated 1 that they chop down.

Section III. Enforcing the Law

1. A government organization hereby known as “The National Forestry Association” will be created The Department of Agriculture, working under the direction of the Department of Internal Affairs, will enforce the law and administer any punishments to violators.

2. Judgment over violation and the amount of fining, or reward, will be administered by the National Forestry Association. Department of Agriculture.

We have come to a general consensus on how the law applies to campaigning in the voting booth after several court cases, yes. But precedent, case law, and definitions don't do enough to clarify how a similar law would apply to messages exchanged in private.

You are correct that this is a secondary concern for me. Clarifying the details of this definition would improve the law, but it would not win my support. My primary concern with the second section of this law is that it would violate Atlasians' right to freedom of speech. Blackmail and threats aside, we do not have the authority to regulate how citizens discuss political matters in private.

My primary concern with the first section of this law is that it would effectively disenfranchise at least a few voters in most elections, either because they were ignorant of the new law or because they were unable to correct an error on their ballot within the reduced window of time in which edits are allowed. In addition to that, I've seen no evidence our current voting laws have been exploited in more than a few isolated and insignificant cases.

Can someone else with Chrome try to log in in anonymous mode?

I just did so successfully.