Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 07:42:03 PM7.2.4. Contempt of court. Contempt of court is a serious misdemeanour consisting of intentional:
7.2.4.1. Misconduct in the presence of the court which interferes with a court proceeding or with the administration of justice, or which impairs the respect due the court;
7.2.4.2. Disobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or order of a court;
7.2.4.3. Refusal as a witness to appear, be sworn or answer a question; or
7.2.4.4. Refusal to produce a record, document or other object.

Yeah, I like it.  Makes sense to me, particularly looking at 7.2.4.1.

Should also point out Lexh.A.7.3.2: "Whoever commits fraud or harassment against any citizen or "judicial person" under Talossan law is guilty of a serious misdemeanour. Whoever commits threats of the above is guilty of a misdemeanour." (emphasis not added by myself)

Quote from: Hugh McFarlane on June 26, 2025, 06:04:55 PMIn fact, I've even considered setting up a Spreadsheet NRL code for the Republic.

Speaking just on a cultural note -- you have my attention! @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP was looking at some sort of Talossan football fantasy league in the past that would have blended different football codes and the fantasy leagues in question. I ran a "fictitious" Talossan football league for a bit a few years ago myself. We've also just had our first year of ice hockey, are in the midst of a fourth season of cycling, and just kicked off a rally circuit.

As usual, I think we're conflating different issues as one and then getting mad about what we've constructed.

The Immigration Process
Every single nation on Earth has some basic controls on immigration. Our situation is different enough that comparisons to macronational immigration and the difficulties thereof aren't really relevant. For us, a free-for-all approach accomplishes exactly one thing: a ballooned citizenship roll with people who do nothing for two years, don't vote, and then lose their citizenship. We've already seen two people gain citizenship under the governments of the Opposition's predecessor party, do nothing, and lapse out. By the time the next election comes around (November at the earliest), five more such citizens will be in the same position if they fail to act. I would, of course, be thrilled if all of them became more active, but I don't think holding my breath waiting for them it is the smartest move. It is not unreasonable to ask people who claim to want to be Talossan to put forth the smallest iota of effort into showing their interest in being here is actual interest. Filling out an immigration form is not difficult; I've filled out several this term so far as the Government continues to carefully monitor our computer systems. Takes about five minutes each time given the various required fields. Is five minutes that much of a hindrance?

Retaining Interest
As the Seneschal has correctly pointed out, we do in fact get quite a few citizenship applications on a monthly basis, so evidently even the "hard" application process -- which the Government is actively trying to simplify -- does not turn people away as has been claimed. So what is the issue with keeping people around? As both the Seneschal and Baron have agreed, part of the issue stems from "certain" behaviors being effectively condoned by the community due to lack of enforcement against them, and it is good to see the Government and Opposition working together to strengthen this enforcement. I don't think this is necessarily the only problem; for at least one other, I think we need to keep the course with "turning down the heat" that was begun last term. It is unfortunate that we have lost the Opposition's support on that cause.

"Try new things"
This may surprise the Baron, but the Government doesn't just sit on its hands and wait for people to complain about things before moving. Avant is more than just a name. The Government is already trying new things. We promote Talossa (both in discussions about the nation but also directly through advertising) on the MicroWiki discord. We are developing plans to "bring Talossa back to its roots" so to speak by advertising at places like gaming shops. Heck, I'm trying to leverage an online friend or two in "micronation-adjacent spaces" (read: they play NationStates) to join. We're not just sitting here saying "We've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!"

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 24, 2025, 05:23:35 PMTo which Government Ministry should the Director of STUFF be responsible under El Lexhatx C.2?

Provision 2 already adds the Director of STUFF under the Ministry of Finance, as I felt that made the most sense for a position involved in producing things we may intend to sell; the STUFF Ministry would be divided into two, neither of which retain oversight over making things, so I felt the Finance Ministry would be the best fit of pre-existing portfolios.

(Unless of course this was a question you were posing to the thread to see if anyone had other suggestions?)

Quote from: Dr. Pôl dal Nordselvă on June 23, 2025, 05:47:21 AMCan you explain to me why having an upper house that has the authority to reject bills or send them back down is a bad thing?

These are two separate things; at the moment, it already has the power to reject bills; this would be partially transformed into a "send bills back" power under this amendment.

For that matter, the Senate is also already fully empowered to "send bills back", as Senators may choose to offer their reasoning for voting against a bill. The catch is that the matter cannot be considered again by the same Cosa session unless "substantially amended". In other words, the Senate currently possesses both powers at their fullest extent.

I should perhaps reiterate that this amendment would not allow a razor-thin majority to force bills through; bills rejected by the Senate must gather support from including across the aisle within the Cosa; bills with such widespread support as to be deemed not just desirable, but practically necessary.

Further, this amendment does not affect the Royal Veto; it is certainly possible that the King, when considering a bill that has been presented to him over the Senate's refusal, will consider, among other things, the margin of support for the bill (both on its initial Clark run and the re-passage), the reasons Senators may have given for opposing it, and/or the reasons the bill is deemed necessary in its current state, and find it does not have his assent -- at which point the bill must achieve the usual Organic threshold for overriding a royal veto. As a matter of fact, this intermediate threshold of 3/5 majority was chosen precisely because it sits between the standard majority and the 2/3 supermajority needed to overcome a royal veto (which, in a monarchy, logically sits as the toughest threshold to overcome).

QuoteI can perhaps understand the ability of the Cosa to override but do we need to strip them of power in order to accomplish the same purpose?

Quite literally, yes -- the Cosa does not currently have that power. Adding it, by nature, is a mild alteration to the balance of power between the two houses.

Quote from: owenedwards on June 22, 2025, 11:45:30 AMI'm not particularly convinced that either of the first two clauses are factually true (though perhaps they are morally true or desirable, by a given standard).

Quote from: wikipedia link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_house#Parliamentary_systemsIn parliamentary systems the upper house is frequently seen as an advisory or a "house of review" chamber; for this reason, its powers of direct action are often reduced in some way. Some or all of the following restrictions are often placed on upper houses:

• Lack of control over the executive branch. (By contrast, in the US and many other presidential systems, the Senate or upper chamber has more control over the composition of the Cabinet and the administration generally, through its prerogative of confirming the president's nominations to senior offices.)
• No absolute veto of proposed legislation, though suspensive vetoes are permitted in some states.
• In countries where it can veto legislation (such as the Netherlands), it may not be able to amend the proposals.
• A reduced or even absent role in initiating legislation.
• No power to block supply, or budget measures. (A rare example of a parliamentary upper house that does possess this power is the Australian Senate, which notably exercised that power in 1975.)

[...]

The role of a revising chamber is to scrutinise legislation that may have been drafted over-hastily in the lower house and to suggest amendments that the lower house may nevertheless reject if it wishes to. An example is the British House of Lords. Under the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, the House of Lords can no longer prevent the passage of most bills, but it must be given an opportunity to debate them and propose amendments, and can thereby delay the passage of a bill with which it disagrees. Bills can only be delayed for up to one year before the Commons can use the Parliament Act, although economic bills can only be delayed for one month.

WHEREAS, in parliamentary democracies, the upper house of the legislature functions as a "house of sober second thought"; and

WHEREAS, this role requires that the Senäts be able to review and approve of bills, but ought not to have the ability to block those with widespread support in the Cosă; and

WHEREAS, this blocking ability ought to remain in place in the case of Organic amendments; then

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that Article III, Section 4 of the Organic Law is amended by the addition of the following bolded text:

QuoteThe Senäts shall have equal powers with the Cosa in respect of all proposed laws, except that bills appropriating revenue or moneys shall not originate in the Senäts, and the Government shall require the confidence of the Cosa only to remain in office. In the event of the Senäts twice rejecting a bill appropriating revenue or moneys which is passed by the Cosa, upon it being passed a third time by the Cosa, it shall not require the consent of the Senäts to be given Royal Assent and take effect. Bills for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other monetary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licenses or services, shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys. In the event the Senäts rejects a bill that does not amend this Organic Law, appropriate moneys, or override a Royal Veto, should the same Cosă pass that bill again by a three-fifths majority, it shall not require the consent of the Senäts to be presented for Royal Assent or take effect.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Mic'haglh Autófil (MC-PdR/¡Avant!)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 15, 2025, 07:16:02 PMRight. So here's how the Tripartite Division might work, if we go back to the "expanding the Civil Service" ideology.

So add to Title C:

QuoteC.1.8. The Directorate of STUFF, headed by the Director of STUFF, responsible for the production of "physical embodiments of Talossanity", whether for distribution to citizens, to publicise the Kingdom to outsiders, or to sell for profit, at the direction of and in collaboration with the King or the Government.

QUESTION: right now the Royal Bank and Post is in charge of making stamps and coins. Should we move the *manufacture* of these to the Directorate of STUFF, leading RB&P in charge of design?

I have amended the OP text of the bill to include this change as Provision 1, though I did change it to "in collaboration with the King and the Government". I think it's fair to say that the RB&P (headed by the Finance Minister by default) has the discretion to task the Directorate of STUFF with stamp and coin production, since that would be "at the direction of...the Government". Provision 2 helps streamline this somewhat, since it states that the Director of STUFF reports to the Finance Minister; since the Ministries of Propaganda and Information both deal with other issues, it seems to me that the logical Ministry overseeing the STUFF Directorate would be the one that could be selling its products.

QuoteAmend Title D section 2.10 as follows:

Quote2.10 The Minister of STUFF Propaganda, heading the Ministry of STUFF (Ministrà del Sanavar da Talossa al Ultra-Fiôvân Folâs) Propaganda, which shall be responsible for the internal and external promotion of the Kingdom, all events therein and all things Talossan through public relations, and shall dutifully ensure that the Kingdom and its events are regularly publicised and may use any means and media available to them to achieve this. [331]

    2.10.1 The Minister of STUFF Propaganda shall be directly responsible for the content of one or more websites and/or social media accounts named as the 'official' website(s) and social media account(s) of the Kingdom. [332]
    2.10.2. The Ministry of STUFF shall be in charge of TalossaWare, that is, the production of "physical embodiments of Talossanity", whether for distribution to citizens, to publicise the Kingdom to outsiders, or to sell for profit. [333]
    2.10.3 The Ministry of STUFF shall be responsible for ensuring the availability, for all Talossans, of the following:

        a) the records of the Scribery as described in C.1.2[r 8] ;
        b) up-to-date information on the personnel of all Government, Royal Household, Civil Service and Chancery office-holders.

Done as Provision 3.

QuoteNew subsection 2.11:

Quote2.11 The Minister of Information, heading the Minister of Information, which shall be responsible for ensuring the availability, for all Talossans, of the following:

        a) the records of the Scribery as described in C.1.2[r 8] ;
        b) up-to-date information on the personnel of all Government, Royal Household, Civil Service and Chancery office-holders;
c) any other information necessary for or useful to citizens, including but not limited to reports and data about Talossan life and Government activity.

I have inserted this as Provision 4, with one exception -- I removed your D.2.11(b), since it would appear to overlap the already-in-force Lexh.D.1.5. (This is the case with the current D.2.10.3(a) as well.)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 15, 2025, 07:29:38 PMRight, so I'm thinking:

[.etc]

I think these all make sense if we're going to move to a test-based immigration certification.

WHEREAS, it is in the province's interest to maintain records of its legal proceedings, similar to the national Scribery or the Fiovan Provincial Chancery; and

WHEREAS, we do not have anyone who is currently and clearly tasked with doing this; then

I HEREBY PROCLAIM, under the authority vested in me as Governadeir by the Constitution of Belacostă, that the following be enacted:

• The Governadeir shall have the responsibility of maintenance of the province's body of laws, and shall be the authorized figure to edit the text and records of the same; and
• This legal compendium shall be titled the Riverside Register, because alliteration is cool; and
• The Provincial Council may designate this responsibility and authority to any provincial Minister as is their constitutional prerogative.

Given at the city of Oshkosh, Wisconsin, June 13th, 2025
Don Mic'haglh Autófil O.Be., Governadeir of Belacostă

Presented for Royal/Viceregal countersignature:
@Glüc
@King Txec

After looking over these pages, it is my recommendation that all four of them, instead of being "un-orphaned", be deleted in their entirety. 55RZ4 is recorded twice -- once in the article as above and once under the standard style. Meanwhile, all three of the above lists of acts per Cosa are also correctly recorded directly in the main Digest of Laws page.

In short, all four of these are duplicates that serve no purpose other than to confuse. If no one has any objections, I will delete them.

Quote from: King Txec on June 12, 2025, 02:50:52 PMI've been "unorphaning" pages on the Wiki, but there are a few pages that are in the Law namespace (or should be) and only the Scribe can "unorphan".



-Txec R

I will look these over tonight once I'm home.

QuoteWHEREAS, the Constitution of Belacostă does not currently appear to allow voters to name fewer than three choices for Provincial Council elections on their ballot; and

WHEREAS, this risks of disenfranchising citizens who do not wish to name three candidates, for whatever reason they may have, or are unaware that undervoting may invalidate their ballot, then

BE IT RESOLVED by the Provincial Assembly of Belacostă that Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of Belacosta, which currently reads as:

QuoteThe Provincial Council will be elected from among the citizens of the Province at each Cosă election, via a positional vote. Voters will name their first-, second-, and third-choice candidates. For each first-choice vote, the candidate shall receive three points; for each second-choice vote, two points; and for each third-place vote, one point. The three candidates with the highest point totals shall be elected to the Provincial Council, with any ties being broken by the number of first-choice votes received (and if necessary, the number of second- and then third-choice votes, with a coin flip being used past this if necessary). Provincial Consuls may choose to ceremonially represent any canton or sexteir of the Province, or to represent the Province at-large.

is hereby amended to read:

QuoteThe Provincial Council will be elected from among the citizens of the Province at each Cosă election, via a positional vote. Voters may name up to three candidates, in order of their preference. For each first-choice vote, the candidate shall receive three points; for each second-choice vote, two points; and for each third-place vote, one point. The three candidates with the highest point totals shall be elected to the Provincial Council, with any ties being broken by the number of first-choice votes received (and if necessary, the number of second- and then third-choice votes, with a coin flip being used past this if necessary). Provincial Consuls may choose to ceremonially represent any canton or sexteir of the Province, or to represent the Province at-large.

As a Provincial Consul, I recommend this proposal for presentation to the Provincial Assembly. Paging my fellow Consuls, the Right Honourable @Sir Lüc and Right Honourable @Iason Taiwos for their review of this proposal; with the recommendation of at least one of these two, the amendment will be brought to the Assembly for consideration.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 10, 2025, 09:16:34 PMAlso, a minor note for the Scribe, there is a double shall in the fourth whereas clause of 54RZ25.

I appreciate the notification -- it would appear that this bill, way back when, was actually proposed, clarked, and adopted as such. Luckily, as a part of the bill's preamble, it bears no legal weight.

Estimat Tuischac'h,

I thank the Member for his inquiry; I am pleased to report that the Burgermeister of Inland Revenue has successfully been added to, and can access, the Talossa team on DigitalOcean. He is working to connect a payment method within the next few days (he tells me it will not allow for Paypal, but we have a debit card number available as well).

In the meantime, I will work with the Permanent Secretary of Backend Administration to prepare for the transition; because we are copying the server state between Droplets (which I am told was easier than transferring Droplet ownership), this will necessitate a brief period of downtime for the nation's server. I will try to ensure that the transition and accompanying downtime are scheduled toward the end of the month in which they occur, to avoid any interruption to Clark voting/tabulation and the call for bills, but in any event will notify the nation publicly of when the downtime is scheduled for once it is so scheduled.