Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 12:23:36 PMI agree that there's no big harm done, but I don't think you should intentionally set a bad precedent to try to force the legislature to make changes. I think you should try your best to interpret the law as it seems to mean, or ask for guidance if you're not sure.

"I shouldn't have to intentionally set a bad precedent to try to force the legislature to make changes" is a sentence I would agree with.

QuoteThat said, I do think you are acting in good faith and you're just trying to do your best in a bad situation. Really, the problem is the 11th hour attempt here, frankly. It's not realistic to expect people to be able to give a full and fair review of something in such a short amount of time.

Oh yeah, I think that problem got buried a little in the simplified writeup I ultimately went with. Sending the bill to committee with less than two days to spare, and then asking me to make a decision that will piss someone off either way I rule, is an ungentlemanly gesture to say the least.

Voting on the July 2026 Clark (the sixth of the 62nd Cosă) is now open, until the 21st of the month, at 19h30 TST.

You can find the Clark at: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/clark (database) or at https://wiki.talossa.com/images/9/90/July2026Clark.pdf (pdf)

MCs and Senators can all vote on the new Database using the credentials you have been sent by email: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/clark/vote

If you wish to vote on Wittenberg, MCs can vote here and Senators can vote here.



Sir Lüc da Schir, UrB
Secretary of State

Senators, you can cast your votes on the Sixth Clark here or on the database: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/clark/vote

You can find the Clark at: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/clark (database) or at https://wiki.talossa.com/images/9/90/July2026Clark.pdf (pdf)

If you vote here on Witt, do not indicate any conditions which may make it sound like this vote isn't final: you can always change your vote later.

Members of the Cosă, you can cast your votes on the Sixth Clark here or on the database: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/clark/vote

You can find the Clark at: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/clark (database) or at https://wiki.talossa.com/images/9/90/July2026Clark.pdf (pdf)

If you vote here on Witt, do not indicate any conditions which may make it sound like this vote isn't final: you can always change your vote later.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 07:25:49 AMJust for the record, approval has never been taken in this way before in other votes and contexts, which is really going to serve as the operative precedent here absent anything else. Generally, we do not take a body's vote of approval to mean that at least one person voted in favor and no one has yet voted against it.

This would be perfectly applicable if the CRL actually operated as a committee and took votes like a mini-Cosă or mini-Senäts, but it does not. No committee would cast conditional votes, for instance. The 2.1.6 clause, "After the CRL has given its recommendation", is extremely vague either way.

QuoteI don't have any particular objection to this bill passing (although I had asked a question because I had a concern about the form, and I did have a suggested amendment!) But my main concern is just making sure that this does not actually become a precedent.

Setting bad precedents in the case of the CRL is also something I was strongly opposed to in previous instances, but my concerns were generally ignored. One of the comments I wanted to make in the fuller writeup I couldn't complete on time is precisely this - the provisions governing the CRL have been inadequate for a long time, and even if the CRL as a whole is not abolished or replaced, they need to be seriously looked at.

So yeah, I don't like the situation one bit and I loathe intentionally setting a bad precedent, but I'm happy to force the Ziu to take a look at the issue so this same precedent can be made irrelevant soon. And thankfully, the result of my decision here is that the Ziu can still consider the bill as it stands, both on the basis of its form and merit - no big harm done.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on June 30, 2026, 11:54:45 PM@Sir Lüc if you will forgive the 11th-hour request, please Clark the Caretaker Clarification Act. Under Lexh.H.2.1.5, one CRL member has recommended to accept the bill for Clarking, none have voted to reject, and there have been no amendments suggested.

I will grant this request, despite major doubts. I will post a full reasoning later - I worked at it for over two hours, including researching precedents, and I simply must move on now.

But in short - you can argue for either decision, depending on precedent and the extremely vague statutory provisions. I strongly object to the timeline of CRL review, because for a bill that was in the Hopper for a whole month, giving the CRL 1 day and 23 hours to review it is not an attempt at receiving a fair review. But, again, the law is so vague that time isn't a factor at all, and depending on how you look at precedent, one can easily argue that one positive review is enough for Clarking. (A dangerous precedent to set!)

I will therefore accept the bill for Clarking under something akin to Speaker Denison's Rule, ie, that when in doubt, one should allow for debate to continue, which in this instance means letting the bill on the Clark instead of "pocket vetoing" it by having it die in committee.

The law as written means that any instance when operation strays from a clean full approval from a full panel of reviewers is an opportunity for bad precedent and unintended consequences. This is one of those instances.

TANDI QE Owen Bottu tent compiaçat toct i resquiraziuns lexhitais per l'aðmiçiun àl Regipäts Talossan, es tent comvimçat la naziun es noi da sieu intereçù in la citaxhienità Talossan (la Mhiglhor Cosă Qe L'Erxhent Non Put Comprar), da sieu intenziun es desireu à partiçipar in noastră vidă naziunal, es da sieu leialtà àl Coronă, noi sint rat es þonourat àð aðmiçar perventüră Owen Bottu àl statüs exaltat de CITAXHIÉN VEITAT DEL REGIPÄTS TALOSSAN, es dal provinçù Cézembre, cün toct i drepts, privilexhuns, es deveirs qi sint iherinds à ça.

Fäts par va mha in la nómină del Regeu Txec es sub sieu Saxhel Rexhital li 30. Gün in l'anneu dal eră comun 2026, in el secund anneu del röin da noastra soveran cortös Regeu Txec, es el 47-l:t dal independençù da Talossa.

---

WHEREAS Owen Bottu has completed all the legal requirements for admission to the Kingdom of Talossa, and has satisfied the nation and us of his interest in Talossan citizenship (the Best Thing Money Can't Buy), of his intention and desire to participate in our national life, and of his loyalty to the Crown, we are pleased and honoured hereby to admit Owen Bottu to the exalted status of NATURALISED CITIZEN OF THE KINGDOM OF TALOSSA, and of the province of Cézembre, with all the rights, privileges, and duties thereunto appertaining.

Done by my hand in the name of King Txec and under his Royal Seal this 30th day of June in the year of the common era 2026, in the second year of the reign of our gracious sovereign King Txec, and of the independence of Talossa the 47th.




Sir Lüc da Schir
Secretar d'Estat / Secretary of State

Oath sent over.

WHEREAS it has been more than a fortnight since @Owen Bottu first posted on Wittenberg, following his introduction to the citizens of the Kingdom by officers of the Immigration Ministry, and

WHEREAS as I said in another petition I issued a few months ago, I don't normally write petitions, because I would be addressing them to myself, but

WHEREAS I served as Owen's TalossAssistant, in theory if not in practice, and

WHEREAS Owen has, in that time, demonstrated an active, genuine, and continuing interest in Talossan life, language and culture (and politics, and history), and

WHEREAS Owen desires to obtain citizenship in Talossa, so

THEREFORE I, Sir Lüc da Schir, a citizen of good standing of the province of Belacostă and of the Kingdom of Talossa, do hereby petition the Chancery to issue a grant of citizenship to the said Owen Bottu, as specified by law.

Everything above this comment has been queued up for Clarking - I suspect that's going to be it for this term, so I'm going ahead with numbering in the usual order (amendments, then bills, then nonbinding resolutions) so I can get a head start on preparing the PDF. Anything submitted later will simply get numbered out of order.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 27, 2026, 12:11:41 PMI apologize. You did ask me that before. Actually, I was trying to do it the way you said, but I misremembered and thought that you asked me to do it this way instead, so I did the wrong thing again!

No worries! I'll try to be clearer next time.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 27, 2026, 11:36:59 AMWhereas etc. etc.

Please just post a link to the Hopper thread, as I asked in the initial comment, rather than the full bill text. (I'd already pointed this out in January, but perhaps you forgot.) This version you posted doesn't even have a title, which means I have to go back and find what bill this is myself. I specifically ask for a link for the following reasons, rather than arbitrary whims:

• I can just click and go get the latest title and text;
• I can make sure any requirements for Clarking have been met;
• It aids future research by leaving a simple way to go read the full discussion;
• It doesn't clutter this thread, making sure I don't accidentally miss a comment because I've scrolled past it to avoid a wall of text.

Done

Leaving behind a link to the original discussion for posterity: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4427.0

Done.

I will of course be Clarking my two eligible bills, just for the record.

Attn @King Txec @þerxh Sant-Enogat @Breneir Tzaracomprada and @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be - quick reminder this will be your last opportunity until the next First Clark in October to Clark the bills you currently have in the Hopper (if they pass CRL, where necessary).

Moved to the CRL for review.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 24, 2026, 06:10:05 PM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on June 24, 2026, 06:06:12 PMPlease don't necropost on threads this old; six months old is bad but tolerable, three years is way too old. I suppose it's not explicitly discouraged by Wittiquette, but it makes historical research much more difficult when threads are suddenly heavily out of order.

--SoS

Thank you for advising on this, Luc. Would it be better for me to request a split beforehand rather than make the post? Or if someone could help me with how to do it?

I think the best thing to do is to simply create a quote from the old thread, and paste it into a new thread. The quote's header will contain a link to the original comment, which can be used to peruse the old thread. (Or if you don't want to quote anything in particular, you can just paste a link to the original thread.)

QuoteAs you mentioned this is not a breach of any etiquette rules but I do not want to make historical research more difficult. I am currently doing exactly that on Old Witt.

To be more specific - necroposting is not a breach of Wittiquette but is one of those things that are pretty much universally discouraged in Internet fora. AFAIK, there's no way to prevent it which wouldn't also prevent legitimate "update threads" - something like the "Holding place for Green legislation" thread getting revived every 2-3 months - and so there's just a red warning in the bottom when people attempt to reply to old posts, but I don't think it's getting read that often.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 24, 2026, 09:10:57 AM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on June 23, 2026, 10:18:21 AMGot it! Just wanted to make sure.

If someone's interested in being added as a co-sponsor, would that still be possible? I've gotten an inquiry about adding someone: @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP has asked to co-sponsor.

Sure, anytime before the Call closes is fair game.

Please don't necropost on threads this old; six months old is bad but tolerable, three years is way too old. I suppose it's not explicitly discouraged by Wittiquette, but it makes historical research much more difficult when threads are suddenly heavily out of order.

--SoS