Quote from: owenedwards on June 12, 2025, 02:34:40 PMIs it necessary to clarify that the new term would start in January 2026? That would seem to be the implication of "Every Judge of the Cort pü Inalt shall be subject to a re-appointment in intervals of five years, measured from when their initial appointment." - that is, the reappointment is necessary in January 2021.

Thanks Judge Edwards, I am going to add that just to be safe.

Whereas, Istefan Perþonest's appointment to the Uppermost Cort was approved via 55RZ17 the Elevating Istefan Perþonest to the UC Act in January 2021, and

Whereas, the time has come for his reappointment to the Uppermost Cort.

Therefore, the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa, hereby re-appoints Istefan Perþonest to a seat on the Uppermost Cort to commence on January 1, 2026, pursuant to the provisions of Organic Law Article VIII, Section 4.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Breneir Tzaracomprada, MC-Green

Quote from: Sir Lüc on June 11, 2025, 03:32:32 AMYes, a reappointment vote would be within the rules given that we are indeed "in the Cosa immediately preceding the expiration of the Judge's term", with all likelihood.

To this effect, I suggest you Hopper a simple resolution ending with the following clause:

QuoteWHEREAS, (...),

THEREFORE, (we the Ziu etc etc), hereby re-appoint Judge Istefan Éovart Perþonest to a seat on the Uppermost Court, pursuant to the provisions of Organic Law Article VIII Section 4.

or somesuch.

I would additionally like to clarify that, pursuant to Lexh.H.2.1.2.4., such a resolution would not be subject to CRL review.

Thanks Mr. Secretary

I've starting listening to audiobooks on my commutes and have enjoyed a series called Expeditionary Force by Craig Alanson. The first book was titled Columbus Day and has an entertaining blend of sci-fi and humor. And the voice actor, RC Bray, is one of my favorites. The series apparently has 17 or 18 books.

Is anyone else familiar with this series?

54RZ25 Judiciary Amendment of 2020 amended the Organic Law, Article VIII: The Courts, as follows:

QuoteSection 4.
...Unless otherwise set by law, re-appointment shall be deemed automatic if no member of the Ziu has requested a re-appointment vote in the Cosa immediately preceding the expiration of the Judge's term; and re-appointment shall only require a simple majority of each house in the Ziu. The Ziu may modify the foregoing provided the requirements of re-appointment never exceed that for appointment.

Judge Istefan Perþonest's appointment to the Uppermost Cort was approved via 55RZ17 the Elevating Istefan Perþonest to the UC Act in January 2021.

Seeing as we are nearing the period for the automated re-appointment I, as a member of the Ziu under Article VIII, Section 4, am requesting an official re-appointment vote.

@Sir Lüc Mr. Secretary, please let me know if I am too early or if the Ziu has at some point modified these provisions.

Also, a minor note for the Scribe, there is a double shall in the fourth whereas clause of 54RZ25.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 10, 2025, 06:54:28 PMHypothetically offended, yes. If someone is legitimately offended, that will be different, and we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Sure, Baron.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 10, 2025, 05:11:16 PMMaybe let's not worry about people getting hypothetically offended on this one, so we can keep the data consistent.

Sure, Baron. We won't worry about people getting offended on this one. :)

Quote from: carcosa on June 10, 2025, 04:07:24 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 18, 2025, 07:32:53 PMIs Carcosa just like, one guy?

No, actually we have 27 permanent ceremonial residents (people who knowingly live within our borders and are registered citizens). We also have a further 68 virtual citizens, and another 3 in the process of gaining citizenship. If you're interested in a visa or learning more about our citizenship process, feel free to drop us an email at department-of-state@carcosa.cc, or at visa-applications@carcosa.cc.

I just sent a message to those emails. I had sent an email to the contact email listed on your website but didn't receive a response.

Quote from: King Txec on June 10, 2025, 02:47:44 PMI'm curious why this wasn't an issue during the last census when you were the Seneschal but it seems like an issue now. I'm not casting any aspersions, but it does seem as if you might be looking for an issue when there really isn't much of one. Frankly, if this is really a big deal, we should just remove the religion question entirely if we really are making those of other faiths uncomfortable.

However, any data analyst will tell you that data must be consistent for it to mean anything, so changing the questions between censuses will give wrong conclusions. Of course, did we actually do anything at all with the data from the last census? The only effect I think it had in practice was maintenance of the citizenship rolls.

-Txec R

It honestly didn't come to mind when I was seneschal probably because I was focused on matters related to working with you on the National Skills Survey if I recall correctly which was a great deal of fun. Unfortunately, that didn't end up developing into its intended purpose. I am not sure why we would rather remove the question entirely than just make it standardized in presentation. That is kind of a weird and overly dramatic response especially if it is not such a big issue, King. I am a former data analyst (five years in the Seniors and Disabilities Unit of the Department of Health) for the State of Alaska...and still don't see such a simple change as negatively impacting data quality.

Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on June 10, 2025, 11:53:19 AMEvery method of bucketing is going to have some conceivable issue (for example, I'm Protestant, but I'm much closer to Catholicism than I am to some other denominations considered Protestant)

Consistency is probably best barring a very compelling reason to change.

But you have more self-descriptive options, as a Christian, to describe your faith than a Jewish, Buddhist, or non-religious respondent despite the fact that those faiths also have denominations or sectarian subdivisions too. That is the compelling reason in my opinion. We have no practical need for the additional options for Christians and Muslims beyond general interest and the data are also not tied to any existing or currently planned programs that I know of. What is questionable, then, to me is that we would have more interest in a breakdown for Christian and Muslim respondents than any other faith. If that is not the case then there seems little issue with making the change.

I am less concerned with consistency between censuses because this is not a huge and disruptive change. I am more concerned with consistency as the options are presented to respondents as a matter of fairness.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on June 09, 2025, 08:44:03 PMEstimat Tuischac'h,

I thank the Member for his inquiry; I am pleased to report that the Burgermeister of Inland Revenue has successfully been added to, and can access, the Talossa team on DigitalOcean. He is working to connect a payment method within the next few days (he tells me it will not allow for Paypal, but we have a debit card number available as well).

In the meantime, I will work with the Permanent Secretary of Backend Administration to prepare for the transition; because we are copying the server state between Droplets (which I am told was easier than transferring Droplet ownership), this will necessitate a brief period of downtime for the nation's server. I will try to ensure that the transition and accompanying downtime are scheduled toward the end of the month in which they occur, to avoid any interruption to Clark voting/tabulation and the call for bills, but in any event will notify the nation publicly of when the downtime is scheduled for once it is so scheduled.

I thank the Minister for this detailed and informative reply.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 09, 2025, 04:14:38 PMIf we change the breakdown of the religion data, it would be somewhat less useful and somewhat less easy to compile, since it wouldn't be less easily compared to earlier versions.  It's not a big deal, but we shouldn't make the change without a good reason.  Hypothetical offense probably isn't a good reason.

I'm not Christian, by the way: I say this as a lover of data.

That's fair, ultimately it's not that big of a deal, I agree. It was something that came to mind when reviewing the questions again. I don't think a change like this would have a big impact on data quality though.

If we are able to gather useful and neat information without the breakdowns for any of the faiths and it is marginally easier to compile the data then I'd recommend we just remove the denominations. Or we simply add the options for the other faiths too. The current framework allows only Christians and Muslims to express a more specific subset. I don't think this is fair to Talossans who are not Christian or Muslim (however few they may be).

Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on June 09, 2025, 11:08:51 AM

Quote from: King Txec on June 09, 2025, 10:22:33 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 08, 2025, 07:48:45 PMOne suggestion: we might want to remove the denominational options for Christianity and Islam.

There are many in the Christian religions who would consider a protestant as NOT a Christian and many who would consider a Catholic as NOT a Christian. I'm unsure if the same thing applies to Suni and Shia in Islam or not. I see no issue with keeping this distinction and I don't think it was an issue during the last census.

-Txec R

Would "Christian (Other)" and "Islam (Other)" options satisfy the denominational concerns?

It's more about the lack of options for Judaism and Buddhism which also have subdivisions and therefore being presented differently as options. I am thinking we should present the options in a standardized way so include denominations for all or remove denominations for all. Seeing that we really don't need the detailed information, I was suggesting removing the denominations for all of the faiths.

Quote from: King Txec on June 09, 2025, 10:22:33 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 08, 2025, 07:48:45 PMOne suggestion: we might want to remove the denominational options for Christianity and Islam.

There are many in the Christian religions who would consider a protestant as NOT a Christian and many who would consider a Catholic as NOT a Christian. I'm unsure if the same thing applies to Suni and Shia in Islam or not. I see no issue with keeping this distinction and I don't think it was an issue during the last census.

-Txec R

As someone who was raised catholic and recalls protestants claiming we were not real christians I am not sure  that this is something we want to accommodate, King. You are probably not intending to suggest that but your example brought forward that immediate experience from my childhood. We should either add distinctions for the other religions (Judaism has reform, orthodox, reconstructionist, conservative, etc.) and (Buddhism has theravada, mahayana, and vajrayana. Or we should remove them for all for the purposes of a non-preferential standard as a global nation.