Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Today at 04:30:49 PM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on Today at 02:27:51 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 28, 2025, 05:38:39 PMPlease to be Clarking:

the Terpleziuns Reform Bill
the Immigration Reform (Antispam) Bill

It doesn't seem like either bill has currently passed the CRL; you're probably aware of this but just making sure.

Edit: the first bill has now passed the CRL and has been added to the queue (https://database.talossa.com/ziu/bills/unclarked)

Both bills have been commented on by 2 members of the CRL, what's the problem?

Well, pursuant to Lexh.H.2.1.6 commenting is not enough, the committee has to issue a recommendation (in practice always a positive one) by majority vote in order for a bill to pass the Hopper.

Edit: I'm sorry, I see what you mean - they made suggestions and you applied them. I'm not sure what precedent looks like here and I would still really prefer the CRL to explicitly say "fix this and we're good". Either way, I don't think this is enough reason to have the bill stuck for a month as it is unlikely to be amended or debated further, so I will allow it in the Clark.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 28, 2025, 05:38:39 PMPlease to be Clarking:

the Terpleziuns Reform Bill
the Immigration Reform (Antispam) Bill

It doesn't seem like either bill has currently passed the CRL; you're probably aware of this but just making sure.

Edit: the first bill has now passed the CRL and has been added to the queue (https://database.talossa.com/ziu/bills/unclarked)

I can mostly get behind these requests - I too believe the number of top level boards on Witt has grown too much and there are many instances where a separate board only serves to segregate and hide away content. Another problem is the provinces having a rather prominent place despite most provincial boards being underutilised. Proboards Witt used to have them as subboards of a Provinces board until about 2013-14.

I might have a few different thoughts about where to place the boards you're proposing to eliminate, but that's mostly academic. (For instance, I would rather dissolve hobby boards into the Chat Room than eliminate them; also, the Funziun board can also go into the main Wittenberg board.)

The abandoned tag is to comply with Lexhatx H.2.1.9.1; as you said, it's just bookkeeping and the tag carries no prejudice towards republishing an archived proposal, as H.2.1.9.1 itself states. (I've explained this already somewhere else but I can't find that reference right now.)

Compared to H.2.1.9.1, I've actually tried to be as fair to legislators as possible by also stipulating that, as an internal rule, a (non-joke) bill needs to have been passed up for Clarking at least twice to be sent to the archive and be tagged as abandoned.

By the letter of the law, the Charitable PermSec bill should technically be considered abandoned, but I consider my additional policy to be fairer; the bill was moved to committee on April 22, meaning it became Clarkable on time for the June Clark and this is therefore the second and final chance at Clarking.

Yes, both of those bills are Clarkable. I archived The Charitable PermSec, Again Act by mistake (I probably checked the initial submission date). Both it and the Sentient Rights Act have passed the Hopper by the provisions of H.2.1.6, having laid in committee for thirty days.

Thank you, and I mean it.

I have, I hope understandably, been reluctant to speak publicly about the incident that sparked all this. I was deeply disgusted by it, and remain disgusted about the numerous efforts at deflection, gaslighting, whataboutism, the lack of any sort of apology or self reflection. It's disheartening, but I am relieved to see Talossa at large will not stand for harassment and I hope nobody will have to endure what I did ever again. I urge all MZs to vote for this resolution, and pledge to comply with the Ziu's wishes should it pass.

So thank you again, for the leadership you have shown, for the support you have given me in public and private, for giving me a voice when mine wasn't working so well.

Added questions on age and civil status (as on the previous census) and on education level (seems to make sense for a census).

Lastly, one small reminder that there are five bills and resolutions in the Hopper which do not need CRL review and can go straight on the Clark, just so I can restate this somewhere central where people can see it:

• The two Senses of the Ziu, but not before they have laid in the Hopper for ten days;
• The treaty ratification resolution, pursuant to H.2.1.2.2;
• The Perþonest reappointment resolution, pursuant to H.2.1.2.4;
• The Census question review bill, pursuant to C.1.2.2.2 and H.2.1.2.5.

The call for bills for the July 2025 Clark (the third of the 61st Cosă) is now open. You may post a link to a bill's Hopper thread underneath in the usual fashion, provided it has passed the Hopper according to Lex.H.2 and you are entitled to Clark bills.

I will accept for Clarking any such bills (except for any that fall foul of H.2.7) that are presented between now and June 30th 11:59 PM TST, as I will begin assembling the Clark on the CEST morning of July 1st.



Sir Lüc da Schir
Secretary of State

I don't wish to comment on the merits of the bill but I have to say this H.1.2.5 should go on some sort of handbook for how to write an addendum that is consistent in form, tone and style with the preexisting legislation.

I largely wrote and laid out the List of Seneschals page in its present form and the eras on there are more about separating different political systems/power structures than actual history.

The ones on the History page are more accurate, although the 2007 "modern" era arguably ended with Reunision and we could be considered to be in yet another era with the accession of King Txec.

The time allotted for voting on the Clark has expired.

The Cosă and Senäts have passed the following bills and resolutions, which are sent to His Majesty @King Txec for Royal Assent:

61RZ04 - The 61st Cosă Budget Act
Agreed to by the Cosă 170-0 (30 abstained), by the Senäts 7-1

61RZ05 - The Flip Molinar Ziua Auservada Act
Agreed to by the Cosă 200-0, by the Senäts 7-1

61RZ09 - The Database: End Of An Era Act
Agreed to by the Cosă 194-0 (6 abstained), by the Senäts 8-0

61RZ10 - Sense of the Ziu: The ICC and Upholding International Rule of Law
Agreed to by the Cosă 62-42 (96 abstained), by the Senäts 3-2 (3 abstained)


The Cosă and Senäts have passed the following amendment with the required supermajority:

61RZ08 - The Seneschal Appointment Anytime Amendment
Agreed to by the Cosă 179-0 (21 abstained), by the Senäts 7-0 (1 abstained)


The Cosă and Senäts have disagreed on the following bills and resolutions:

61RZ06 - The Let the Chief Legal Advisor Advise Amendment
Rejected by the Cosă due to missing the required supermajority 124-76, rejected by the Senäts 1-6 (1 abstained)

61RZ07 - The Clarification on Confidentiality Act
Agreed to by the Cosă 66-27 (107 abstained), rejected by the Senäts 2-6

61RZ11 - Sense of the Ziu: the exemplary X exit, a.k.a xXx
Rejected by the Cosă 85-94 (21 abstained), agreed to by the Senäts 6-2

61RZ12 - Opposition Redefinition Act
Agreed to by the Cosă 127-26 (47 abstained), rejected by the Senäts 2-5 (1 abstained)


The Cosă passed a Vote of Confidence in the incumbent Government 152-48.

I am pleased to report all MCs and Senators voted.



Sir Lüc da Schir, UrB
Secretary of State

Yes, 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.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on June 09, 2025, 01:55:45 AMNo questions should be mandatory

This is already the case as per Lexh.C.1.2.2.1.

(This set of questions is almost entirely lifted from discussions that took place around the time of the past Census.)