That makes sense. A lot of them are pretty obvious, but then we get into the ones that look like it's a license to hit a bus with a car, and I start getting nervous.

What do the different classifications mean?

There is already a bill in the CRL that would modify the same provision. In such a circumstance, I would not want to move forward with a bill that would modify the same provision, because it's confusing and poor form. While this bill is fine in form and function, and I vote to approve, I think it would be best to wait for a future Clark.

Okay, I think I fixed it.  Onward!

Maritiimi-Maxhestic Mençeis are riding, changing sports for better luck!  Off the ice and on the bikes!

I thank the MZ for his question.  In response, I think I'd like to hold off until a few more people are confirmed as possible assistants.

I don't feel there's any immediate time pressure, since we've already been implementing a lot of the other Royal Commission recommendations in extraordinary form:

• The Prime Minister's Patriotic Award has been restored, and we actually have produced a bunch of physical awards that can be sent out to recipients.  They are designed to be displayed on the lapel, collar, or pocket, and that will make them visible in pictures or on Zoom and unusually prestigious (as the only physical award).
• The New Citizen's Guide has been updated, reformatted, and restored in collaboration with the Secretary of State, and will soon be formally unveiled.  You can see a preview here.
  
• Our diplomatic efforts have been very fruitful, with a lot of communications both formal and informal.

We will continue to do even more, of course.  If the MZ hears of anyone of good character who is interested in volunteering for the TalossAssistant program, please send them my way.

I thank the MZ for his question.  I am currently serving as Avocat-Xheneral, as indicated by law.

No.  I've been reaching out to Talossans of good repute to find out if any of them might be interested in helping with the program.

I have another coming out soon!

Quote from: King Txec on May 01, 2026, 02:24:14 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 01, 2026, 01:06:08 PMArticle IV, Section 3 of the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa says: "In the case of vacant party seats occurring between elections, the Secretary of State shall inform the King and the leader of whatever party held the vacant seat. The King shall appoint a replacement to each vacancy. If the seat belonged to a party with a functioning party leader, the King must appoint as a replacement whichever person shall be so designated by that party's leader."

Your Majesty, I am hereby designating Tong Mun Kit and Moinul Moin as replacements for these vacant party seats.

If you would do me a favor S:reu Seneschal @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu  and include the number of seats per MC I am appointing so we can do this as legally as possible.

Thank you.

-Txec R

Your Majesty,

Please appoint Tong Mun Kit thirteen seats, to a total of twenty, and assign the remaining seven to Moinul Moin.

It is my opinion that the Organic Law overrules the statute that purports to contradict it. I believe completely that Your Grace has only good intentions, and I commend your care. However, I do not believe that my party's voters should be disenfranchised by regulations that are inorganic and penalize success. I don't think there is any wiggle room in the phrasing of our supreme governing law.

Article IV, Section 3 of the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa says: "In the case of vacant party seats occurring between elections, the Secretary of State shall inform the King and the leader of whatever party held the vacant seat. The King shall appoint a replacement to each vacancy. If the seat belonged to a party with a functioning party leader, the King must appoint as a replacement whichever person shall be so designated by that party's leader."

Your Majesty, I am hereby designating Tong Mun Kit and Moinul Moin as replacements for these vacant party seats.

The Progressive list was:

• Mximo Carbonel
• Sir X. Pol Brigă
• Baron Alexandreu Davinescu
• Baroness Litz Cjantscheir
• Eovart Xhorxh
• Françal Ian Lux
• Tric'hard Lenxheir
• Þerxh Sant-Enogat

Well, Mximo Carbonel, Þerxh Sant-Enogat, and I are in the Senats.  Françal and XPB are already in the Cosa.  Of the remaining individuals, the Baroness is incommunicado and likely to remain so, and I haven't heard from Eovart.  Tric'hard is gone.  So out of these eight people, five of them are already in the Ziu.  The others are not really possibilities.

I agree with Miestra that it would be unjust to say that teenagers can't participate in something a teenager created.

But maybe we should have ethics standards for the behavior of MZs.  Since we're already doing this, I'll note that there's not clear guidance on when MZs should vote to expel one of their members.  That might be a good thing to include in here.

I'm honestly not really clear here at this point... is that bit of the preamble supposed to be a dig at the Government?  If so, then it would make more sense to be clear about that.  I thought it was a generic statement about philosophical opposition to strongmen in politics, which seems fine to me but poorly expressed.

Just to be clear, here are circumstances under which I will vote a bill out of committee:

• The bill proposes to do something that I think is wrong and dumb.
• The bill directly insults me, personally.
• The bill directly insults His Majesty.

All of those are fine!  The CRL shouldn't care if a bill is insulting someone.  It's not an etiquette committee.  The problem is that it's unclear and seems to be accidentally insulting someone.

There's really only a few reasons to hold up a bill:

• It's inorganic.
• It's got mistakes that interfere with its function, and so it won't do what the author intends.
• It's got mistakes that interfere with its form, and so it accidentally seems to be saying something unintended.

If the issue is that this is supposed to be a devastating dig at me, just clarify it so that it's not easily misinterpreted, and the issue will be resolved.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 30, 2026, 04:01:07 PMLol, that was a good one, Miestra.

I have mentioned this in responding to Ian. Serving in the Ziu is just one way of participation among many many other opportunities for involvement in politics. I have criticized it in the past but one benefit of our politics-heavy culture is the widespread opportunities for participation. Parliamentary service should call for a higher standard.

I agree, although not about the age thing.  It's certainly possible that we should have ethical standards.

The CRL is directed to "suggest amendments in their best judgment" about such matters as the "correctness of the language."  A bill that unintentionally seems to people to possibly be insulting the king definitely has a problem with its language!

I have never voted against sending a bill out of committee just because I thought it was a bad idea, and I'm not starting now -- but I do think it's a problem if there's a clause that's confusing enough that multiple people misinterpreted it.  The bill is unclear in its form, though the function is correct.  Bills should not be written so confusingly that multiple people misinterpret a clause as an insult.

I mean, right now the whereas clause says, "WHEREAS, Talossa ought to be a nation of laws and principles, as opposed to strongmen and personalities."

Why not just change it to, "WHEREAS, Talossa ought to be a nation of laws and principles" ?  Nothing about the effect of the bill would change.  I'm surprised this is even a point of contention.

I think we're both in perfect agreement that His Majesty is not a strongman.  And you already have made it clear that you didn't mean to suggest otherwise.  But several people, including His Majesty, reached a different conclusion when they first read the bill.  This is probably because of the nature of the phrase "His Majesty's Government."  The literal meaning can be different from what a casual reader might understand.

My preference would be for you to fix the wording of the whereas clause in question, so that it more clearly expresses your meaning.  It's a problem with the form of the bill that the wording doesn't match your intent.  That's the only concern I have, since otherwise the bill is fine in form and function.  I will reserve my CRL vote for now.

We use RCV for the Senats, but I don't know how you have parliamentary democracy without party politics.  Also that might be a bridge too far for right now.  I don't know, though?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 27, 2026, 05:55:36 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 27, 2026, 04:44:12 PMlet's say that Party A won 50%, Party B won 25%, and Party C won 25%.  In a 20-seat Cosa, that's 10 seats for A, 5 seats for B, and 5 seats for C.  But if B won six of the provincial seats, then they'd have 30% (more than their share of the national vote) and so A and B would need extra until things were proportional.

You could do it that way, but that's the harder way. The simpler option would be to just live with the overhang. Let's say A and C both won 1 province. Then, Party A gets 9 party list seats (to sum up to 10) and Party C gets 4 seats (to sum up to 5). So that's a total Cosa of 21 seats. Party B gets a small bonus.

From my (limited) research, though, it seems like the overhang can get pretty bad.  I don't have any numbers on hand, but it seems like it could get pretty disproportionate.  Since this part isn't voter-facing, it might make sense to make it as good in as many ways as possible, even if the allocation gets complicated.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 28, 2026, 05:12:28 PMAnother thing which has been glossed over so far is the other side of the coin re: "giving voters effective control over who sits in the Ziu", and that is making sure party seats (as far as practicable) go to candidates whose names were on the ballot and who the voters were aware of. Considering the Seneschal has previously talked about taking a Cort case to declare party lists unconstitutional, that's something we have to sort out right now.

The current standard of "maximum 33% off-list" is a bare minimum, perhaps with an OrgLaw amendment to render it constitutional to the Seneschal's standards. I'd prefer 25% or even 20%; I understand that some wiggle-room is acceptable.

Do we have to sort it out right now?  It doesn't seem like that's structural here, so maybe we want to leave that until later.  If you're trying to work out a consensus view, it's often helpful to focus on strong points of agreement and progress, rather than focus on problems -- unless there's something I'm missing about this, and we need to figure it out before proceeding.