Very good work!

My only problems are, of course, with your description of post-Reunision Talossa.

I'll sign on to this "History of Talossa" project as a subject matter expert on 2015-Present. Maybe not the most useful time period to be expert in, but my memory is quite good.

Since each Convocation is required to elect a GGS, I recommend we get going.

I nominate Sir Alexandreu Davinescu.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 02, 2020, 08:56:39 PM
I believe you're right, but this is the existing law with just Senäts candidates added in. I encourage amendments to better reflect reality.

I propose an amendment to replace the references to MinFin with references to the BIR.

I would feel more comfortable with this bill if the second requirement were modified to the effect of:

"Such communication may not include publicity for, or any other business pertaining to, any political party or candidate for election, or advocate for or against any ideology, political position, or legislation."

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on July 20, 2020, 06:30:45 PM
It seems like this would inherently require getting rid of the database, since I don't know that it is technically feasible to separate out the current Chancery duties without an overhaul of the code.

Couldn't the duties related to operating the database be delegated to the SoS, per the provisions of this amendment?

Isn't the PayPal also administered by the BIR rather than the MinFin?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 02, 2020, 08:36:05 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on August 02, 2020, 08:29:08 PM
I'll let AD answer this himself, but if deficiencies in wording cause there to be real ambiguity as to what the law means, that seems to me to be a problem. I can't say whether that is the case here because IANAL (I am not a lawyer).

Neither is AD, except in Talossan terms. The vital jurisprudential issue is that it is the Cort who decides what correct legal language is and isn't, in a proper case. Anything raised by lawyers, amateur or otherwise, is like, just their opinion, man.

Yes, but it would be better if everyone agreed on what the law said so we didn't need to spend months in Cort.

Given I am still technically the Grand Specific Undersecretary, I am the only one left in a provincial executive role, which gives me the best authority to open this convocation.

Members, besides myself, are:
-Sir Alexandreu Davinescu
-Jordan Placie
-Cresti d.I. Nouacastra-L.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 02, 2020, 08:23:39 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on August 02, 2020, 07:54:14 PM
these criticisms are being brought by someone who did not vote on it and thus shouldn't be expected to base their schedule on when Clarks occur.

A problem I see is that there seem to be real differences of opinion on what water-tight legal language is. If a person who is known to have strong partisan feelings says "the Party-Whom-I-Don't-Like submitted a shoddily worded bill", and refuses any requests for an alternative by saying "not my job", then the question arises in some minds: is there really a legal problem at all? Or is this guy just causing mischief by raising a problem which doesn't actually exist? Note that this same brain genius ginned up a scandal about "ex parte corruption", which most people disagree ever existed.

I'll let AD answer this himself, but if deficiencies in wording cause there to be real ambiguity as to what the law means, that seems to me to be a problem. I can't say whether that is the case here because IANAL (I am not a lawyer).

Quote from: Açafat del Val on August 02, 2020, 07:59:00 PM
Operative word: these criticisms, not all criticisms. It's not my fault that you extrapolated past the plain language.

Quote from: Açafat del Val on August 02, 2020, 07:49:44 PM

I never acknowledged that AD's criticisms were valid; on the contrary, I was suggesting that, if he wishes to complain, he should hopper some bills to correct the errors. "Put up or shut up", as it were.

It looked like the beginning of this thread was a constructive conversation between the two of you. What I mean by "valid" is not that you agree with him, only that you see why someone could think that.

QuoteI have been pretty consistent from the beginning in assessing that this thread was started and continues in bad faith.

Again, that is really not how I interpreted your first couple of comments.

QuoteYou read that correctly and are more than welcome to hold it against me: If you're not willing to offer an alternative idea, an amendment, or at least a valuable piece of constructive feedback, then you should continue to stay silent.

I get that you are trying to target more established citizens with this, but we better be really clear that we are not holding new or newly-returning citizens to this standard. It's already hard enough to get them to stick around; imagine how hard it would be if no one who is not in a position to propose something concrete feels comfortable airing concerns.

The LCC is still in very early days and just spent the entire election providing alternative proposals to the Free Democrats. I can assure you there will be no shortage of LCC participation in the coming months.

QuoteNo statement has been raised by me here or elsewhere that criticisms be invalid for being "raised too late", or that late criticisms are inherently disingenuous; that's a hasty, false, and impugning assumption.

What? You just said:

Quote from: Açafat del Val on August 02, 2020, 04:53:47 PM
Aye, and it is self-evidently disingenuous that these criticisms were laid out after the fact when the same critic had access to The Hopper and could well have asked these questions then.

(Replying to V; didn't see intervening comment)

That was not meant as an attack on you; proofreading any completely new Organic Law would be really hard. That's what had to be done, but it was hard to get myself to do it, and I brought it up to point out I'm not perfect and I can't always muster that kind of energy.

Note that I am not the one who presented these criticisms; you're right that it would not be great if I voted for something and then started complaining about it because I hadn't read it properly. But these criticisms are being brought by someone who did not vote on it and thus shouldn't be expected to base their schedule on when Clarks occur.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 02, 2020, 01:11:46 PM
The national election is over and it's almost time to start the 18th Convocation, so we should wrap up this vote.  I don't see how the outcome is going to change either way, since either Epic votes for me or he votes for himself and then Ian P has to break that tie.

I would be a little uncomfortable ending the election before the customary two-week voting period expires unless there is broader agreement in the Assembly, even though I am not sure this Convocation of the Assembly has any more authority to conduct business now that the next one is ready to be convened.

If Epic votes for himself, I would not be in a position to break a tie (since I am no longer GGS), but the best thing to do in that situation would be to not elect a GGS in this election and try again in the 18th Convocation. We probably have to have a GGS election in the 18th Convocation anyway given the provisions of the provincial Constitution.