Hello,
Like I said in my first post, Ashcroft invited me to these forums. We have had some time to talk about his work on trying to implememting a legislative system over and without wanting to be a pedant I made some suggestions which he proposed I would write in the forums as well, so here goes...
When I joined my group, there was no valid lawbook. The Romans already said it when they formed their system which laid the foundation for many modern law-systems; 'nulla poene sin lege'; no punishment without law. So, first thing to do seems to get out and write that lawbook, but if you don't watch out; it will take you more time than you will ever spend upholding it (which is good in a way ofcourse), but it shouldn't have to be.
Main reason for this is that you will just *never* agree on a lawbook when you discuss it in large groups. Laws need to be complete for their purpose and for that to be the case they need to be extensive in a way, but some people want plain and simple rules, for everyone to understand and easy to follow. Others might say that not all needs to be caught in rules; things can be worked out when problems will arise, no need to debate situations which will probably never occur.
And then there's the matter of superiority; once a proposal for a law or lawbook is made, the ones in charge wake up; read through what has been discussed over and over in the recent past and start the same discussions again. Sorry for exaggeration to make a point.
When I became active within my group as a legislative officer, I decided it was me who was in charge of these matters, so I started doing what I thought was right; for I was given my position because people thought I was the right person for that job.
So, what I would suggest in a situation like this, is to constitute a legislative commission of three, to write down a coherent lawbook. You probably know some people who can be in such a commission, the first maybe a bit on the punctual side, the second wants all to be easy understandable, while the third thinks about how to uphold it all. When you as a group trust these people to be good in what you ask them to do for you, rest assured they will do their best and let them be when they do their highly valued work for you 
.
After they're done with their first draft, they can propose it to you, the group. Within a 'designated period' everybody can ask, react, etc and the commission will take everything into consideration. Again, trust them to be good at what they do. You can always appoint others into the commission when they mess things up.
After that, the proposed draft is altered and will go into effect. The ones with the power will agree on that without a dispute ofcourse; they have delegated this to the commission and everyone - including them - was able to react to it. Rather than dispute the whole thing again, they will thank the committee for the hard work put in and turn their efforts into the coherent lawsystem it is designed to be 
Ofcourse any law, once in effect, can be amended to be altered. A proposal for this can be done by say, at least three group members together. Again, a period for contemplation will start after this proposal and the legislative commission can agree or not, based on what the majority seems to think, or their expertise.
This way, the legislative system will actually be effective within a more or less decent time-period. Imagine that! Also, it won't be the prime responsabilty of the ones in power, but delegated under that same power (which ofcourse makes them very good leaders, for they get and keep people engaged and motivated in participating).
Bottom line of my suggestion; stop talking about the laws for you won't ever agree on it all; trust some people to do their work and believe you have a good system what will be able to change matters when they seems faulty afterwards.
/me flips her two cents again and repeats she doesn't want to sound like a pedant.
