We still need to hear from Chief Judge @Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN with her appointment.

Is it for real money or for fun? I can't really afford a real money tournament

This is good material for news. This topic is probably the most active on here.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on Yesterday at 06:19:53 PMAttention CRL: @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu , @Ian Plätschisch , @Sir Lüc . This bill is now ready for your perusal, as sponsored by myself and @Breneir Tzaracomprada .

I must note that this bill is substantially different from the one first presented when this Hopper thread was created; and its earliest similar version was posted on the 17th of April, meaning that if that's taken to be the time the current proposal was first Hoppered, the bill will only be ready for CRL consideration in three days's time.

It shouldn't be any issue clearing it in time for the next Clark, so I'm just trying to avoid setting a bad precedent.

Upon rereading my post, I can see why it didn't come off the way I wanted.

I never meant to propose amending Section 3 to specifically call out King John's abdication. I was only trying to illustrate (with a failed attempt at humor) what the effect of amending Section 3 to remove any reference to a specific person, plus a decree of King John's abdication, would essentially be.

The (perhaps hypothetical) issue I see is that the amendment and decree kind of contradict each other. Section 3 as-is says John I is King until his demise, abdication, or removal, but the decree says the throne is vacant even though none of those things happened.

Sorry for the confusion.

Sure. If I'm available on the selected date I'm in! (Even though I'm gonna lose again)

My take on the "decree" is that it's a regrettable kludge necessitated by the fact that the King will neither abdicate gracefully nor indicate otherwise so we could proceed to "legislative decapitation". I would agree with AD that there is no need to be rude but we've got to make sure it "sticks" (and no need to bar him from a possible comeback although it's hard to imagine a situation where that could happen).

My idea as previously was to just draw up a Decree of Abdication that would take effect automatically if not signed, like any other law, but I was worried whether an ordinary Act of the Ziu (as opposed to an OrgLaw amendment) would do the job.

Wouldn't it be much easier to simply remove "as though King John I had abdicated" from the decree section?  I can see a hypothetical problem, but I frankly see no real practical problem and I'd like to avoid such a clumsy bit of phrasing if we can.  Also, it's possible that His Majesty might be asked to resume the throne one day -- stranger things have happened! -- and it'd be kind of weird to prohibit only him.  It's also kind of an affront to the man's dignity -- we're barring him but not his predecessors?

I'm not necessarily opposed to any changes, but I think we'd at least need to find a more elegant and less rude one if we're actually worried about this, if it's okay.

I do not think there is any reason to amend the OrgLaw upon the succession of a new monarch -- they would be the new king, as the text says, and "thus succeeded unto perpetuity."  We could make such a change if we so felt like it -- maybe on an anniversary of some time on the throne -- but there's no actual need to do so.  The conditional clause in that bit substitutes in the successor (or their successor, etc.) neatly and with absoluteness.

Is someone willing to play Texas Hold'em for the 2024 Maricopan Poker Tournament?

What about may or june? LIke last years, some Sunday, 8:00pm France, 2:00pm US, something like that.

I challenge the current champion in a chess match.