Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on Yesterday at 10:25:55 AMEl C'hlub Saxhitourófil should be archived. It has been nearly two years since the last post was made there.

@Sir Lüc Are you planning to make El C'hlub Saxhitourófil a sub-board or to archive it? I suggested it being archived as it has been nearly two years since there has been a post. Unfortunately, the Club appears to be inactive now.

El C'hlub Saxhitourófil should be archived. It has been nearly two years since the last post was made there.

Hi folks,

Information gathering continues for our Mid-Term Review but we have noticed something associated with one of our platform planks in the last election. That being longer Cosa terms. If you are following some of the exchanges between the two largest parties in their groups and recent terpelaziuns then you are aware of early maneuvering for the next election.

In the last election, we proposed extending the Cosa term from 6-8 months to a standard and fixed 10-12 months. Because we continue to believe the election cycle needs to be slowed down. And we need more time for actual governing and less for the constant contentious electioneering. The Government has a somewhat successful record of expanding use of the Civil Service for the purpose of increasing apolitical service opportunities. This will need to be expanded along with the reduction of political ministries.

Longer terms will not lead Talossa's campaign gurus and politicians to starve for want of activity but it might allow those more interested in non-political activities the chance to flourish. And a less frequent cycle of fevered campaigning might make Talossa more attractive at our Immigration offices and at the Landing Pier. Politics is not fun for everyone and we need to acknowledge that by ensuring Talossa has a balanced relationship to it.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on June 28, 2025, 09:57:49 AMTo make it clearer, and chronologically sorted, I would suggest :

Therefore, be it enacted that el Lexhatx F.5.3.13 (Culture) which currently reads:

Quote10 December. Human Rights Day. A suggested method to celebrate Human Rights Day is reviewing Article XI of The Organic Law and/or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

is deleted

and current el Lexhatx F.5.2.7 which reads:

QuoteDecember 12: Llimbaziua (Language Day).

is renumbered F.5.2.8

and is inserted the following as el Lexhatx F.5.2.7

QuoteDecember 10. Sentient Rights Day. A day to celebrate the dignity and honor the rights of all sentient beings.

Thank you, changes have been made.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on June 28, 2025, 09:15:14 AMThe 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.

Thanks for clarifying Mr. Secretary. I knew that bill wasn't abandoned and am glad that it has therefore been Clarked.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 26, 2025, 05:24:38 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 26, 2025, 05:00:08 PMI seem to recall a past conversation in which he told me that he prides himself on never, ever backing down on anything.

Ah, I've found the reference. His precise words were "a zero-tolerance approach to threats and intimidation", and I'll admit that my memory made that sound worse than it actually was.

But in looking that up, the context was the breakdown of the 57th Cosa coalition, and in this text, Brenéir was stating that he couldn't rejoin the coalition with Txoteu Davinescu "without (Txoteu) acknowledging what he had actually done which would be the core of a restorative apology."

Let's repeat that for emphasis

Quotewithout acknowledging what he had actually done which would be the core of a restorative apology.

Thank you for bringing that forward and acknowledging that your memory was faulty there, Miestra.
I have acknowledged that what I said made Luc uncomfortable and caused harm. I then apologized to him. If you want me to agree with your assertion that what I did was equal to sexual harassment I can't do that as I don't think that's what happened.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 26, 2025, 05:00:08 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 26, 2025, 01:19:08 PMWe are sorry you had to go through that. I am hopeful that this resolution will pass with wide support, to show you that we are not going to allow this kind of behavior. It's clear that Breneir won't stop unless we make him stop.

100% agreed. The big problem is - as is apparent by this very thread - that I don't think this SotZ will make Breneir stop. He seems impervious to shame, and I seem to recall a past conversation in which he told me that he prides himself on never, ever backing down on anything.

Your rough music now includes lies in its lyrics?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 26, 2025, 02:05:58 PMI believe neither of the first two of those bills have received a vote from the CRL. The timelines might make that irrelevant, but also it's unclear to me if a bill can be abandoned and then revived in that way.

CRL members have thirty days to render a recommendation otherwise the bill is deemed to have passed the CRL. The Sentient bill has one more day remaining before being Clarkable. The Charitable PermSec bill was never abandoned. I was awaiting either the expiry of the review period or a response from the A-X.

Quick edit: Luc, let me know if I am mistaken.

Hello, I'd like to clark the following items:

The Charitable PermSec, Again Act https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3803.0
The Sentient Rights Act https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3817.0
Reappointing Istefan Perþonest to the UC Act https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4158.0
Sense of the Ziu: Moving Forward Without Rough Music https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4171.0

Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on June 26, 2025, 01:02:16 PMThat is utter nonsense

Take it for what you will. First steps toward decency have to start with the first step. Whether you decide to walk it as well is up to each of you. I apologized publicly to Luc on his speaking publicly on the effect it had on him. I don't expect it to be immediately accepted or recognized which goes back to not expecting reciprocity for what one believes to be a positive action.

Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on June 26, 2025, 12:59:10 PMThat would be believable if you had said something ONCE and then stopped after you were informed and of how it was being taken.

It's not believable now because you said the exact same things over and over AFTER you knew full well everyone hated it.

Yes, informed by Luc which just happened, Ian.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on June 26, 2025, 11:31:58 AMThank 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.

I am sincerely glad you've found your voice, Luc, and spoken publicly on this matter but I again reject the mischaracterization of my words or actions as deflection, gaslighting, or whataboutism. And while I've never complimented someone with malicious intent (including the instances being referenced here) it does seem that you and others are committed to seeing it that way. For any discomfort I have caused you, whether it was intended or not, I apologize. As you have stated above the impact on you has been negative so intent is irrelevant.

I have said before I am someone who compliments people with ease but I need to remember not everyone will receive it the same way or in the way it was intended. I view being a "hype-man" who builds people up as a positive and therefore prioritized being true to myself, as I will always strive to tell people something positive about themselves when I see it, but recognize especially when it comes to appearances that no one owes me reciprocity or to see it that way themselves.

@Sir Lüc Mr. Secretary, when possible, I am ready to move this back to the CRL.

I support 1.2.5. My major concern is 1.2.1.4 which limits the number of terpelaziuns for everyone but the opposition leader. Is that section being revised or withdrawn?

For the reason specified in the latter half of the second whereas clause, I support this amendment. I will be asking fellow Green Party members to vote in support during the coming election should it pass the Ziu.