Looks good; I approve.

Well, I guess I agree that we should be careful, S:reu Cadì, but there's a very long history in Talossa of the Ziu dictating the terms under which the corts shall operate.  It was just a few years ago that you yourself wrote and sponsored a wholesale revision to Title G (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=645.0), which itself includes the current laws regulating appeals.  Surely if it was permissible then, it's permissible now.

When I initially discussed this bill, I said that I would not have proposed it if there was a cort rule addressing the topic. Currently, I think it's barely legal to legislate on the matter at all, and it comes down to a case-by-case basis for individual provisions about whether or not there is organic backing for laws about cort administration. It is almost certainly not organic right now for us to purport to overrule any cort decision on procedure. We can say that there has to be a law protecting to process or speedy justice under the Covenants, but that doesn't really hold true if such a rule already exists.

So with the advent of that rule, I don't think this bill would be organic, plus I am honorbound to keep my word.

This bill is withdrawn, as the Cort has acted with astonishing rapidity to address the issue.

Oh, also you misspelled a word in the first sentence. The.

Before proceeding to that question, I just want to make it clear that the law says that a bill that has cleared this CRL may be put on the Clark, with or without changes - by letter and spirit, that means that you can and should change it as necessary to clear this committee. It has not been past practice to hold over a bill for another month because it has been changed in response to CRL feedback, and that won't be changing in the future. A bill should not be changed after the CRL process is over, I think, unless it's brought back for another quick review, but you can absolutely make changes to the bill here in response to feedback without needing to go through the process again.

Anyway, I approve the bill as it is. I'm not a huge fan of complicated language for its own sake, and the original language in this respect seemed completely fine and more clear, but it's not a question of form or function, really.

Whatever your preference might be... I just would personally appreciate if it were easier to see which bill was which, based on the short beginning excerpt available at the top of a tab in my browser. It's not a big deal, so if you feel strongly about it, that's okay too.

No, I'm asking why you want to substitute the Latin jargon ex officio in there. It makes it a little harder for laypeople to read, so I wanted to know if there was a substantive reason for the change. Is it necessary, in your opinion, for the new subclause to work?

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 26, 2023, 08:27:25 AMI've never actually removed a bill so I will have to get the help of MPF as I don't have that ability myself.

I apologize for the hassle.  Can we officially consider it withdrawn, even if it technically runs on the Clark, either way?

I mostly approve, but I'd like to inquire about 6.5.3.  Is there a reason or substantive effect to making the language more complicated?

I approve the bill.

Tangentially, would you mind titling your bill threads in such as way so that they don't all start with the same phrase, even if the actual bill title begins with "Ün proxhet per" each time?

I apologize for the trouble, but would you remove the Appeals Act from the Clark?  Luc believes it didn't go through regular order, entertaining many of your same doubts, and I want everything to be on the up-and-up.

Well, I don't want to break regular order, and I can see your point.  I will withdraw it from the Clark.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2023, 12:02:48 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 25, 2023, 11:40:44 AM

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2023, 10:12:51 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 25, 2023, 10:06:57 AMAll three of my bills are separated parts of a single larger bill. I believe they each received full consideration, since the text is not different. I would ask you to reconsider, although this is completely your prerogative.

I'm more than happy to reconsider. Can you show me which bill these three new bills all stem from? Thanks.

The Legal Repair Amendment's language and the Appeals Act's language have been in the Hopper and received commentary and feedback for many months.
 As you can see from this post, it was being discussed in its current form a year ago, and reintroduced for this Cosa in February (with the same language as here) at this point: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1469.msg17327#msg17327

The Unsanctified Act was split off and considered separately as its own bill, but reintroduced unchanged in this Cosa: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1468.msg17328#msg17328

Thanks for the quick response. I'll Clark the three bills later today or tomorrow.

Thank you for your diligence.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on April 25, 2023, 11:21:20 AMHello, I have asked to ChatGPT to speak Talossan.. I am not really sure of the correctness of the use of "el glheþ" !! Do you know what ChatGPT uses as a proxy ?

Q: Can you explain in talossan what is talossa ?

A: Certamen in Talossa, jo es un pais virtual creit da la internet e fondat in 1980. El es un patria imaginarie, con su proprie cultura, politica, e lingua, e es governat per un monarc'a e un parlament. In Talossa, le persone pote participar in le vita politic e cultural del pais, creante contento e artefactos cultural, e votante pro le candidatos in electiones. Le lingua official de Talossa es talossan, un lingua construite que es un mixtura de divers lingua romanicas e germanic, e es usate pro comunicar intra le communia talossan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This might be of interest: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2081.0