Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on Today at 04:35:04 PMAzul leaders of Fiova,

The Chancery is preparing the 60th Cosa election and needs to confirm details regarding your upcoming Senate election. The Chancery has details that the election for senator is run by the Chancery, is this correct or should the province conduct the election?

Regards
Sir Txec dal Nordselvâ
Secretary of State

Please run our Senäts election for us Mr SoS kthx.

miestra la capitan

Azul leaders of Maritiimi-Maxhestic,

The Chancery is preparing the 59th Cosa election and needs to confirm details regarding your upcoming Senate election. The Chancery has details that the election for senator is NOT run by the Chancery, is this correct or should the province conduct the election?

Regards
Sir Txec dal Nordselvâ
Secretary of State

Azul leaders of Benito,

The Chancery is preparing the 60th Cosa election and needs to confirm details regarding your upcoming Senate election. The Chancery has details that the election for senator is run by the Chancery, is this correct or should the province conduct the election?

Regards
Sir Txec dal Nordselvâ
Secretary of State

Azul leaders of Fiova,

The Chancery is preparing the 60th Cosa election and needs to confirm details regarding your upcoming Senate election. The Chancery has details that the election for senator is run by the Chancery, is this correct or should the province conduct the election?

Regards
Sir Txec dal Nordselvâ
Secretary of State

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 10:48:00 AMMaybe the solution is just to do a separate bill?  That would be easiest, and I think trust would extend that far at this point.  If they were viewed as a joint package, I'd support that (not that I have a vote, but I am pretty noisy).

Can we do a separate bill as a joint package, i.e. the two go up or go down together? I would be worried that one would get vetoed but the other passed.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 10:51:07 AM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on Today at 06:10:00 AMI 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.

Legally speaking, we could just affirm this right now out of committee and then any changes we want could still be made afterwards, but I agree that this would be a bad precedent and we should not do it.  As a general rule, (if we are going to have a CRL) then a bill should not go to a vote without CRL approval, and it should get re-approved if it is substantially revised after the CRL process.  It's not a legal necessity but it's good practice and something the Ziu can enforce on itself.

Yeah, I understand where Lüc's coming from, but how are you going to measure "earliest similar version"? That's pretty subjective.  IMHO the ten days should be the period of discussion of the proposal as a concept. Actual textual continuity should not be required.

I also understand where AD's coming from whereby you could totally replace a bill's text after CRL but before Clarking. But to require the CRL's say to be final would be giving the CRL too much power. A more difficult question. The CRL should be an advisory body that needs to have its say but should be able to be ignored (by a staggering coincidence that's my idea of the monarchy as well).

Either way the point seems moot because it appears the Ziu is coming to a consensus about a solution that's also perfectly acceptable so Im not gonna bother any further with this. Still thought it was a nice idea.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 13, 2024, 06:24:00 AMI'm somewhat "on the spectrum" so forgive me if I can't tell which of the three reactions is appropriate:

a) Ha ha, well, that excuses me from taking this proposal seriously in any way.

b) I suppose if you're intermittently active in Talossa, deliberately causing uproar and chaos at the heart of the political system might be funny from a distance, but less funny for the people who keep this Kingdom going day to day to put up with this - let's re-emphasise because the good Baron insists on it - lifetime appointment.

c) Someone always seems to come up with a "wacky suggestion" just when we seem to be close to consensus on political reform. I am reminded of someone saying that nothing should really be allowed to change in Talossan politics because that would make it confusing for citizens to come back from extended break. Like, Talossa should be a daytime soap opera where nothing really changes and nothing really happens.

Well I prefer b, because it's at least a valid concern, whereas the other two just assume Im trolling and not serious about this proposal, which is wrong.

Quote from: GV on April 19, 2024, 04:38:32 PMMax would drive this country over the edge. 

How? I don't agree with that at all. Either way he has already said he's not interested in becoming King.

QuoteI absolutely do *not* want IV as King.  I'm sure he's a good man in general, but he would be too much of a politico (one way or the other) and would alienate half the country.

Highly doubt IV is even around to accept the position. The argument that he is partisan feels a bit strange coming from a republican. Do we think that an elected head of state would not be  "a politico"? At the very least we know he wouldn't be elected because of any political dealings or campaigning.

QuoteIf either were to be elected appropriately, that would be a different matter.

How so? Would they be more inclined to be a King for all Talossans if they were elected for partisan reasons?

QuoteTo have any sort of seniority system could conceivably allow the infamous Daviu Ardit to make a return, putting him first in line to the throne.

No. This couldn't happen if its done as described here.

QuoteHe would be trumped, though, by a potential resurgent G. Conâ who would be too much of a Ben-partisan.

No. This couldn't happen if its done as described here. Also there are no Ben-partisans in Talossa anymore. This is ancient history at this point.

QuoteGjermund would be fine, but a seniority system would be manipulated in the future to make sure one faction's people by a future rogue SoS would be naturalized one day earlier than those who would lean to another faction.

That would mean two prospectives at the same time and then the sos would somehow already know their political affiliation and then for it to work they have to assume both of them stick around for 15 or 20 or 30 years and both will want to be King and at that point in time still have the same political views as when they just arrived as a prospective that still match with the political views of the SoS. Seems a bit farfetched no?

QuoteConceivably, Ben Madison himself could convince enough of the country to allow him back in, making him the next monarch.

No. This couldn't happen if its done as described here. Also didn't he try this before and got a resounding no? Also he would immediately be removed.

This isn't the first time we got this absurd Ben-fearmongering. It's a complete fantasy. It's no more likely than Ben being elected or selected as heir presumptive or staging an actual military coup. Don't like my idea? That's perfectly alright. But don't let it be because of this reason.

Truth is I don't think it is at all obvious who becomes King if we do this. (Other than definitely not Ben!) I just know they won't be King because of some political dealings or partisan preferences. I think thats a feature rather than a bug.

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on Today at 07:46:59 AMIs it for real money or for fun? I can't really afford a real money tournament

No money involved. It's only for the Glory of being the Talossan Poker Champion of 2024.