I generally support the bill. I think we need to clean up a few of our laws and constitutional provisions as it relates to the Cabana, as our constitution (at least shown on the Wiki) is a lot less restrictive than our current law or even this bill.

I also wonder if we need a Premieir to set a voting period on this bill before it can be voted on as some of our statutory law would suggest, effectuating Article Eight. Or does our current constitution suggest that we always have a Premieir (who could set a voting period), given a resolution could pass to keep them?

I'll claim my seat here, and second the nomination.

Visited:
US, UK, Canada, Mexico, Bahamas, Talossa;
and over the last two weeks:
Ireland (UNC vs TCU football game), Spain (walked the Camino), and Switzerland (an overnight layover in Zurich, I return back to the States in a couple hours)

Would like to visit:
Italy, Japan, South Korea

Wow, AppState! Hope you are still around, would love to have another Talossan in Western NC!

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 16, 2025, 12:20:52 PMAnd you are cooperating with the Seneschal as our Speaker to allow for lessened scrutiny on Government activity.

I was discussing my thoughts on reform as a leader of a political party with the head of government. But if you're held up on the idea that I can't propose reform while I'm Speaker, that's easy enough to fix. I have no desire to craft some sort of fix whenever these threads devolve into personal attacks, for which current law does not provide for any guidance.

Respectfully, I don't believe we have changed the rules every time someone feels uncomfortable. This bill reflects an effort to make changes to allow the presiding officer the ability to actually perform the actions taken in those two recent threads. (And where I did call out "both sides" in the first thread I came to, thank you.) And, with respect to the only clause currently being debated, I personally believe it would prevent these situations from arising again.

You've provided your opinion, I've provided mine. I'm not going to yield my position.

We're not talking about uncomfortable and persistent questions. We're talking about pointed, almost asked and answered questions that devolve into personal back and forths. And if you would prefer ministers to do what everyone else in Talossa often does, which is to disappear for long periods of time and avoid the very limited duties that they would otherwise have because they view the constant barrage of questions as a form of harassment, then I suppose a policy of enforcing official questions with Contempt of the Ziu is the appropriate way to fix this, in your view.

Those who aren't the Leader of the Opposition can ask up to three questions a month, which is a lot more than the average number of questions asked by each individual MZ, with outliers removed. Remember, ministers would be free to continue to answer any question they wished on a voluntary basis outside of this compulsory method. And if you want to campaign during the next cycle that ministers didn't want to answer your "simple" questions and be held to account, feel free.

I would note that I provided my thoughts to the Seneschal and requested her help in a writing some debatable reforms, and that when she posted the bill she made clear that the changes within do not necessarily reflect the government's position. This is my position as an individual MC who was selected to be the presiding officer of the Cosa (and if I had been monitoring fast enough, I would have declined the nomination). As I have already had to step in, twice, I felt that reforms are now needed. But this will not change how I enforce the current law, which is to try and ensure that government ministers respond fully and completely to every question asked, while I continue to remain in the position.

I think the problem is clearly evident. Sending a Terp every month for every minister to ask virtually the same question is not, in my opinion, the purpose of Terps. Terps are not a pulse check, and doing this not only diminishes the purpose of seeking an official answer on a specific topic, but in my personal opinion also discourages ministers from answering the questions completely (believing it to be somewhat harassing in nature) and could discourage other members of the Ziu from asking their own questions. I also don't want to see governments set official policies to decline to fully answer questions asked by some ministers over others, which degrades the power of the Ziu and its individual members.

When ministers are constantly declining to answer questions and deferring to the Seneschal to answer them, I think that shows how discouraged they feel. It's important to remember that Talossa's ministers are volunteers. No one is getting paid here, and to begin—for lack of a better word—pestering them for (as an example) detailed plans within days after a term beginning, is just not what official questions that could result in Contempt of the Ziu for a non-responsive answer should be used for.

I think a limit on the number of questions someone other than the leader of the opposition can ask (whether that be three or any other number) can ensure that well reasoned questions are asked and well thought out answers are provided. Notably, this bill allows for the presiding officer to recognize questions beyond the three official ones if they deem it appropriate to do so. And nothing would prohibit a minister from providing an answer to a non-official question. Additionally, this bill does not place a limit on what can be asked, so assuming an MZ wants to "waste" their three questions or so, that would continue to be their prerogative.

As I am not covered by the Terp legislation due to not being a government minister, I will decline to answer any questions within this thread. I will make my personal opinions known in the thread in the Hopper dedicated to the draft bill.

Quote from: King Txec on June 09, 2025, 10:22:33 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 08, 2025, 07:48:45 PMOne suggestion: we might want to remove the denominational options for Christianity and Islam.

There are many in the Christian religions who would consider a protestant as NOT a Christian and many who would consider a Catholic as NOT a Christian. I'm unsure if the same thing applies to Suni and Shia in Islam or not. I see no issue with keeping this distinction and I don't think it was an issue during the last census.

-Txec R

Would "Christian (Other)" and "Islam (Other)" options satisfy the denominational concerns?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 10, 2025, 08:06:29 AMI'm still unclear, honestly... Dien was fairly adamant that we should start with a Sense of the Ziu.  I'm amenable to that as a starting point, to see if the clear and open support of a supermajority of the Ziu will make a difference.

My apologies for not producing the draft I promised yet, just been too busy. But, no, I actually more or less agree with the King's position.

I desire the codification of Witt rules in El Lex and make them civil violations (with some kind of statutory pathway to the Cort to appeal what would be an agency decision, but please don't get lost on that right now), paired with a Sense of the Ziu that outlines (yes, suggests) what we believe should be enforcement priorities.

I will be locking this thread as well.

See generally: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4141.0

The Cosa will be in order.

This Cosa is not the place for back and forth engagement that rises to this level. Members are reminded that Terps are to be respectful in tone, which I interpret to span throughout a single Terp thread.

As to the accusation of a failure to answer, the Honorable Member is reminded of Lex.H.1.2.4.3, which allows the government to declare matters confidential, and thus this would forbid the Minister from answering. With that said, I do think the Honorable Minister has fully answered the Terp by outlining the government's work, priorities, and its belief in the need to keep intricate details of ongoing, unannounced projects confidential at this time.

As to the Honorable Minister's suggestion that the government will treat any future properly and politely phrased Terps posed by the Honorable Member differently than other members, I would remind the government of its statutory duties.

Going forward I will expect all Terp threads to remain within reasonable bounds of decorum. Failure to accede to the statutory rules of procedure by any party may be subject to some form of disciplinary action dependent upon the circumstances. I advise parties within the thread to consider taking a voluntary pause from posting for the remainder of the evening to allow cooler heads to prevail tomorrow.

For the purposes of this Terp, I deem that the reasonable number of supplementary questions have been asked by the submitting party per Lex.H.1.2.3. And although other Members of the Cosa and Senators may add to the discussion, I have the further power to excuse the Minister from answering further questions per Lex.H.1.2.4.2, and am doing so.

As this Terp has thus been ended by default, I exercise my power in Lex.J.2 to lock this thread at this time. (Or have someone lock it if I can't figure it out.)

Quote from: Glüc on June 03, 2025, 03:38:00 PM

Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on June 03, 2025, 11:21:45 AMI doubt the AI minister will have any powers that couldn't otherwise be controlled or monitored—probably would lack any actual powers.

Well if it didn't have any actual responsibilities, it wouldn't really be a minister would it?

Without yet hearing more about the proposal, so far, that seems to be the point.

I for one think the King should always do what he is doing here: Presenting an offer to the citizenry and the government in the name of transparency, and not making any decisions on behalf of the Kingdom as a single individual.

I think it is worthwhile to hear more information. I doubt the AI minister will have any powers that couldn't otherwise be controlled or monitored—probably would lack any actual powers. As a publicity stunt, it would be interesting. I don't think we should outright reject anyone that reaches out or may wish to work with the Kingdom. (Of course, the discourse over whether we should have an AI minister would, itself, be notable.)

Would this amendment actually end the push to dissolve the Senate and/or force the merger of provinces over their will? It seems like it would, and that would be a strong reason to favor it, given the political push in the other direction. (This isn't to say I'm in support of the amendment at this time, just that I continue to keep an open mind.)

I vote Për.

@Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat Can we open a voting period on this bill? (Or kickstart some discussion.)

I love Twitter, and it's the only social media I continue to use. I won't lie that it hasn't been the best since becoming X, but I personally would be against removing our presence from the platform.

I have more to despise about the ownership of X than anyone, given his department has directly affected my employment as a public servant, and I am now looking for employment again. But that doesn't change how I feel about Twitter, which I will continue to use. (But never pay for!)