RZ1: Per

RZ2: Per

VoC: Uc

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 13, 2024, 10:32:18 AMYes. The party would not be able to claim seats but if the MC of an existing party decides to "cross the floor." then it is fine as the individual MC owns the seats according to our current approach.

As far as an official action, I believe you applied this standard to the ability to create party forums, Txec.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 13, 2024, 10:36:20 AMParty forums on Witt has been one area where registration has been the limiting factor for action. If we apply this same standard to other abilities for parties between elections then we have a clear benefit for parties to be able to register, no?

Ok, I see what you're saying. When we talk about "registering parties", I interpret that as "founding a party". You mean it instead as "having the party recognized by the Chancery". You're advocating we have a concrete way to recognize new parties as having parliamentary representation should a member of an existing parliamentary party wish to break off and join their own. Do I understand you correctly?

While the precedent is that individual MCs own their seats, should this new party's MC resign (or be removed due to inactivity), the seats they hold would still return to the original party, correct? Does Lex.B.7 sufficiently cover what to do if no party can really claim to be "the original party"? (For example, if instead of a splinter group, there's a full-on dissolution.)

Should be fairly easy to reverse the process described in Lex.B.8.2 for partisan mergers.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on August 13, 2024, 06:36:41 AMIn answer to the editor's note:
The ability to register outside of an election period allows for activity by parties not in existence during the last election. I've observed official actions being based on party registration (as of) the last election but there is no scheme currently for party registration outside of the election. It is common practice in macronations for parties to have the ability to register without need for waiting until the next election period and I can't see a downside, other than the self-interest of the existing parties to prevent it here. I say this as the leader of one of those existing parties.

Which official actions are you talking about? I don't see any reason why one cannot simply claim to have started a new party whenever they want, if they wish to start recruiting or publicizing themselves or what have you. The only time where this registration really seems to matter is at election time anyway -- between then, the procedure appears to basically be "do whatever".

I'm not saying this shouldn't be allowed, for reference, I'm just trying to understand your argument for what benefit it would confer.

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on August 13, 2024, 08:42:01 AM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, SMC EiP on April 18, 2024, 02:02:17 PMAfter consulting the requestor, I submit the following blazon:

Gules, a griffin segreant argent armed and beaked Or langued of the first bearing in its foreclaws a lyre of the second.

- TLF

Where'd the coat of arms go?

For whatever reason, Witt drops embedded images more rapidly than it used to.

I've attached the proposed arms again just for everyone's reference.

- TLF

I have updated the OP with a link to a document summing up the discussion so far. Viewers can add comments, if you wish to do so.

From what I'm seeing it looks like most of our attention has focused on reforms to both houses of the Ziu, so it seems to me that would be the best place for us to start refining our efforts further. Not sure if any polling would be appropriate; I know Dama Litz suggested a referendum on the future of the Senäts, but I'm not sure we're quit to the point of referenda yet.

Also, if you see anything not mentioned in the document that you've brought up in some other thread, repost it here for visibility's sake.

Using a slightly different (but likewise random) method from that of S:reu Tresplet, the PdR assigns its seat to S:reu @Zilect Uómbat Firă .

Not a fellow Maricopan, but hopping in to plug the COA as well.

Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on August 02, 2024, 09:45:48 AMThe recent (last year) effort to update the symbols of the Ziu is an example.

Heh, when I updated the images on the wiki, they followed through to AD's post. (The old ones are still on the wiki, before anyone gets worried.)

Benvenescu, Éovart!

We could also make it so that elections to the Cosa occur on a fixed schedule, but "constructive votes of no confidence" allow a change of government mid-term. Basically, if you're voting Non on the VoC, you need to nominate someone else as Seneschal, at which point we could handle it one of several ways:

• If a majority vote Non and all nominate the same person, that person takes over as Seneschal
• If a majority vote Non, and a majority of those nominate the same person, that person takes over as Seneschal (I feel a little weird introducing what is basically the Hastert Rule to the Cosa, but here we are)
• If a majority vote Non, whoever wins a plurality of their nominations becomes Seneschal

That last one feels sub-optimal, but it's the only one of these three that doesn't lead to a situation where a VoC returns "Non" but the Seneschal isn't automatically removed. The first two would maybe just lead to a shuffling of coalitions if possible? If nothing else "hey, the Government lost a Vote of Confidence" would likely touch off negotiations to form a new one, even if it's just by using the same "majority petition process" we use now.

If it were later in the day I'd be able to make it, unfortunately.

While I know we've discussed the possibility of redoing the Zouaves' logo previously, I had a little burst of creativity the other day and produced the attached.

And yes, as the linked post mentions, the legal Talossan name of the Zouaves is apparently incorrect, but as was discussed there, it is the legal name nonetheless, so that's what I used.

- SPC Autófil

I thank the Member for his question. While I am still well within the legal window in which my response is required, I would still apologize for the delay, but I hope the depth of my answer makes up for it.

Regarding the replacement of the National Database, I envision the process basically working as follows:

• Consult with the Chancery regarding Database tasks to prioritize replacement
• Hold a brief public consultation regarding preferred method of replacement
• Begin to port functionality over to this new database

On the first point, I am currently preparing a list of common tasks (in my own estimation) that the Chancery uses the Database for. If anyone here is familiar with the term, what I'd like to do is an adaptation of one of our tools in the engineering field known as an FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis). We use FMEAs to identify the likelihood of a given failure mode occurring, and the severity of that failure mode if it should occur; combining these two ratings allows us to prioritize different design criteria to ensure that the design is as robust as possible. With respect to Database actions, I'll be asking the Secretary of State to rate different tasks on how frequently he needs to use the Database to perform them, and how difficult it is to get the Database to actually perform the task successfully; this will enable us to identify the "pain points" of the current Database and try to design around avoiding them in the future.

On the second point, I know there's already been some discussion on the possibility of using a large Google Sheet (which is my personal preference for a replacement), but I'd like to come to the discussion in Point #2 with at least one or two alternative methods on the off chance anyone else happens to be very familiar with them.

Azul Talossaes! As one of its goals, the incoming Government is committed to a nationwide discussion on reforms to the Organic Law and Talossa's constitutional structure. This discussion is open to all, and it is intended to be open-ended. In recent weeks, we've seen different suggestions and brainstorming for reforms to the monarchy and succession, ideas on how to reform both the Cosă and the Ziu, and various suggestions for how to reform how provinces function (and even how many of them there should be) -- but the list shouldn't stop there if you have something else you'd like to discuss!

I think as a first step, it would be prudent for anyone who has posted such a suggestion in some other thread to repost it here in a central location, and I can start keeping a list of the different ideas posted. If you have an idea you haven't posted elsewhere, add it anyway! This will make it easier for us to identify popular ideas and areas in which we can move the discussion forward productively.

You can find a recap of the discussion so far here. Anyone with this link can also comment.

Pursuant to El Lexhátx C.1.1, as Minister of Technology I recommend to the King that @Danihel Txechescu be appointed as Permanent Secretary in the Office of Backend Admin under the Ministry of Technology.

This position is the same one to which the outgoing Permanent Secretary @Sir Lüc da Schir, was nominated in 2022, and as such carries the same responsibilities.

10 additional seats in support here as well.