Let's keep doing these and work out the bugs, if any.  I think we saw last time that we should have a clock going or something on each bill, to keep everyone mindful of the time.

I think it might be time to put in some requirements that government business be required to take place in venues that will allow this to happen.  This Government is certainly doing so with the Cabinet forum, as did my predecessors, but there's no legal requirement... we're just relying on everyone's good nature.

However, it might be the case that a policy statement -- which would either stand publicly or be rescinded publicly by an administration -- would serve the same purpose.  I'd be interested in hearing everyone's thoughts.

In almost all legislatures, collegial relationships are important.  People often work together for years, and even when they stand in staunch opposition on important values, they can sympathize with each other as people.

The Progressive Alliance has a narrow majority this term.  In previous years, such a situation has led to the ruthless necessity for every legislator to vote every time, no matter what might be happening in their lives.  There has sometimes been some leeway, but it has been infrequent.

This term, one of our MCs appears as though they will not be able to vote through no fault of their own, and ordinarily this would lead to the abrupt end of this democratically-elected administration.

However, I approached the Opposition leadership at the Informal Session this week with a request: would they be willing to accommodate this situation on a human level, by "holding harmless" the absent MC's missing vote of confidence?  To their great credit, and as a testament to the power of direct interaction outside of message-board posts, the URL has agreed to a "pairing."  You can read their gracious statement here.

The recent campaign was a harsh one, and the debate between our parties continues to be sharply-phrased at times.  But we hope that this will be the start of a new tradition that enables greater comity among our politically-active citizens and more stability in an era of slim majorities.  If the chance arises for us to return the favor, it will be our honour to do so.

Quote from: Xheralt Del'Encradeir on January 12, 2026, 05:26:05 PMI'm waiting for a callback from Ben.  He & I are planning to have lunch sometime, probably a weekend.  Would have been this past weekend if I hadn't been dead to the world for most of it.

Cool. I sent him a message, but let him know I'm personally inviting him as the leader of the country to create a guest account for the Landing Pier. I don't think we're ready to have him jump right back in, but we would love to start a conversation about that.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 10, 2026, 05:15:07 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 10, 2026, 08:08:02 AMThe King may debate, but not vote. The Secretary of State may do neither. No one else can speak unless invited to do so, which is what a terpelaziun does.

While I mostly agree with you, as long as we don't have precedents or rules governing it, what you said is opinion and not fact - moreso because the Seneschal doesn't and shouldn't have any particular authority over the Ziu's operations.

Parliaments worldwide handle this stuff in wildly different ways and since the Ziu is not based on any individual one, we just can't make gut-feeling assumptions.

Oh, yeah, I absolutely have no authority to say either way.  I just think the answer for a lot of these flows pretty naturally from the respective roles in the law.  I mean, the king is legally part of the Ziu but has no vote, so being able to speak but not vote in an informal session makes sense to me.

I agree with the basic idea that we should do what seems to work and then codify it.

Welcome to the party!  Yes, we haven't used this thread a lot.  I better make a recruitment thread!

Yeah, I assume that if any official requested to speak on a given bill within their portfolio (probably even if it wasn't in their portfolio, actually), they would be invited to do so. It's a good thing to permit, because the people carrying out our laws often have invaluable input on their form.

The King may debate, but not vote. The Secretary of State may do neither. No one else can speak unless invited to do so, which is what a terpelaziun does.

Looks fine to me!  Thanks!

Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 09, 2026, 11:41:09 AM1b could make sense because, if Marcel has to take an unexpected break while the Mençei is not attending, the only recourse is recess. I disagree a temporary deputy would have arbitrary powers.

The first rule there deals with Marcel needing a temporary deputy -- the Mencei would do it.  Saying that a majority can appoint another deputy but with no limits on their possible power during the proceedings is just messy.  If it's absolutely necessary that we have two deputies, then Marcel should just be able to appoint another.

That said: I don't think this matters much, so it's not a big deal either way.  It's just a possible failure point that's not necessary, IMO.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 09, 2026, 11:41:09 AM

• 2b's second sentence is unclear - does it say that the motion to add an item requires a second to be voted on, or that an item can be added to the agenda by a proponent and a second, without a vote? In the first case, the second sentence should read "to be voted on" rather than "to be added"; in the second case, referring to the mechanism as a motion is probably incorrect, and either way the second sentence should say "such an item" instead of "such a motion"
• In 2c, I am not too sure why the shortest a recess can be is 10 minutes and not something unspecified or simply shorter
• 3b might allow for a deputy to the Tanaischteu in case they can't attend during Terps or at all
• 4b has a typo ("another member to speaker")
• I agree 5e's 2/3rds requirement to end debate is potentially dangerous on its own, unless the motion to start debate includes a time limit
• 6a has a typo ("billed")

I agree with all of these.  There's no real reason to include the possibility of a filibuster with the scope of what we're doing here.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on January 09, 2026, 04:20:45 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 08, 2026, 07:01:36 PM@Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP , we should probably see if anyone has a version of zoom or teams or something that can do long meetings, so we're not limited to the free 40 minutes.

I have the full Zoom version, if necessary. Last time we had a State Opening, I was Túischac'h and I picked meet.jit.si (jitsi.org) as the videocall tool. I don't remember if three were any issues with it, but it is completely free and doesn't require accounts.

I hope I'm not speaking out of turn when I say it might be a good idea for you to schedule the Zoom then and publish the link.  I'll put it on the national website when you do.

My advice:

Delete 1b; you don't want people to be able to vote in new officers with arbitrary powers during proceedings.

1c should either be not specific or more specific; right now the only thing the chair would be able to do to enforce order would be to reprimand people.  Just keep the first sentence.

These rules institute a filibuster, which I'm not sure is a good idea.  Having a motion to end debate with a 2/3 majority requirement means that a minority can stop a bill from passing if they're willing to just talk until people quit.

What does "killing" or "indefinitely postponing" a bill here mean?  Usually those would be covered by the term "tabling," which is when a bill is set aside (on the table) and no longer actively considered.  Unless you're talking about the UK, in which case "tabling" a bill means that it is being actively considered.

You might want to reorganize your motions to separate out the privileged motions into their own category (points of order or personal privilege).

You decided to weight Senats votes for procedural votes by assigning them 25 seats, it seems like.  This makes sense because it gives their chamber equal weight to the Cosa.  I'm trying to think of ways to game this system, and nothing comes immediately to mind.

I'll take a look at the rules and everything tomorrow, and making me suggestions that I can think of.

@Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP , we should probably see if anyone has a version of zoom or teams or something that can do long meetings, so we're not limited to the free 40 minutes.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on January 01, 2026, 02:47:50 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 31, 2025, 05:33:21 PMHis Majesty also mentioned you'd like a copy of our speech ahead of time?

The Opposition needs to see the Speech from the Throne to prepare a respectful yet forensic Address-In-Reply. The OppLeader says that if you get it to him by Thursday next week that'll be plenty of time.

Okay, I sent it to him on Discord.

It means a majority of the people present at the LC.  This is problematic in some ways, such as the one you noted.  A much bigger problem is that it privileges those people in attendance.  I've been in a government meeting where the outcome hinged on the fact that one of the other people on the committee had the flu!  Thankfully, people are usually cognizant of the fact that their reputation and working relationships with others do matter.

I gave serious thought to just running the meeting autocratically, and that's probably the better way to do it -- no vote to overrule the chair allowed.

And I'd agree with your side note, generally, and I think it's a good goal to move to a Real Cosa someday.

This obviously heavily draws from my experience in local government and activist groups, using rules for order common to a lot of groups.

I don't remember it very well, but my Talossa notes have a lot of info.  As I recall, almost none of this was necessary, since not a lot happened and there was no need for any of the appointed officers.  The Doorkeeper and Sergeant at Arms was just appointed to manage the Zoom, I think.

Planned Agenda
I. Chair formally opens the Living Cosa and reviews rules very briefly.
II. Appointment by the chair of a Doorkeeper and Sergeant at Arms, to which the power to maintain order
is delegated as necessary.
III. Appointment by the chair of a Chaplain, who will be invited to give an invocation (non-religious).
IV. Apologies.
V. Invitation by the chair to the Seneschal to address the assembled Ziu.
VI. Invitation by the chair to the Leader of the Opposition to address the assembled Ziu.
VII. Terpelaziuns
VIII. Clark Business.
    A. Reading by the chair of the current votes on the submitted bills, followed by voting on the bills.  Each bill is handled individually.
    C. Reading by the chair of the current confidence votes.
    D. Voting on confidence.
IX. Adjournment.


Rules
Rules are drawn from standard rules of order for organizations.

Any MZ may make a motion during an appropriate time by asking to be recognized by the chair.  Once the motion is stated, the chair will ask for a mick.  If there is a mick, then the chair will restate the motion and debate will begin.  Debate will continue until there are no more speakers who wish to be heard.  Debate can be ended by a motion to consider the previous question, if micked and affirmed by a majority of MZs.

The Clarked bills may not be tabled, sent to committee, or amended.

There is only one privileged motion.  At any time after a ruling of the chair, an MZ may move to overrule the chair.

At any point, an MZ may raise any of the following:
-Point of Order: Draws attention to a breach of rules, improper procedure, breaching of established practices, or so on.
-Point of Information: A member may need to bring up an additional point or additional information so that the other members can make fully informed votes.
-Point of Inquiry: A member may use a point of inquiry to ask for clarification on a matter of fact to make better voting decisions.
-Point of Personal Privilege: A member may use point of personal privilege to address issues pertaining to the comfort of the meeting, such as volume, muting, connection quality, or so on. Members may also use it to address the accuracy of published reports or the accuracy of a member's conduct.
These points may not be abused for personal commentary, debate outside of the established order, or other conduct not becoming a member of the Ziu.  The chair may decline to recognize a member in such circumstances.

All rules for terpelaziuns will be scrupulously followed, but members are warned that officials of the Government are not required to be present at the Living Cosa and will not be expected in case of their attendance to have every fact on hand.  Terpelaziuns which pertain to specific data or questions of fact should be lodged with the official in question through the normal procedure prior to the Living Cosa, so that the official may make inquiries.  The terpelaziun period shall be cordial and orderly.

I figure I'll make them as I need them, like I did with the Seneschal badge.  So I haven't advanced this one at all.  If there's one you think I should make a priority, I'd be happy to do so!

-SVA

I'll send you a PM.  And in the future, please use private messages when you're just trying to let me know something.

I think we'll probably wait to see if a range of candidates apply. We'll get back to you.