The Zuavs have a specific historical legacy they're referencing, plus some goofy stuff from their past history in our country, plus the current incarnation's dramatic shift in orientation.  It seems to me like it would be ideal to pay tribute to all three things.  Do you concur, and/or did you have anything you think might be well-suited?

-NRH

Acting on behalf of the Dean, this petition is accepted by the Royal College of Arms.  I assign it to myself, and pray that you will assist in its development.

-NRH

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 07, 2022, 05:20:04 PM
In the past two weeks, Z has gone from a military marking to the main symbol of public support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

I don't think we should go changing things just because the Russians decided to be genocidal idiots, since the letter Z doesn't really have any inherent symbolism.  And it's too early to tell whether this new meaning for it will be long-lasting or not.  But since I made the current logo in five minutes and it's not that great to begin with, changing it also seems completely fine.  No great history behind it or anything.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on April 07, 2022, 05:01:10 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 07, 2022, 04:58:29 PM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on April 07, 2022, 04:51:03 PM
Not to mention the text is all wrong...

That's the legal name, so that's what their logo has to say.

It's concerning that outdated spelling and a grammatical error are part of the law...

I mean, there's an entire version of the orglaw in outdated language. Our laws have changed dramatically and quickly in the last few years, but pretty much any use of language was carried over unchanged in the rush.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on April 07, 2022, 04:51:03 PM
Not to mention the text is all wrong...

That's the legal name, so that's what their logo has to say.

The MinDef could certainly request an actual official achievement for the organization from the College, or they or the capitan could change it at will to whatever they want. Since it's not really currently in use, I'm not sure it matters urgently.

Quote from: Rt Hon. Mic'haglh Autófil on April 07, 2022, 03:32:41 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 07, 2022, 03:21:05 PM

Quote from: Rt Hon. Mic'haglh Autófil on April 07, 2022, 03:12:19 PM
For my part, I would argue that Talossa was initially a unitary state (a very unitary state in its earliest era! ;) ) that has undergone devolution to the point that it is now "semi-federal" in nature -- more federal than not, yet not completely so.

I agree with your conclusion for the most part, but I think you're missing one of the biggest arguments for a federal view: the Vested clause of the OrgLaw (Org.IX.6).  The provinces are vested with all the powers of government that aren't specifically assigned to other institutions.  That's a big vote in favor of federalism!

Very true, though it would seem that the provinces are more constrained than, say, US states -- in the US, it would seem that (most) state laws are harder for Congress to invalidate, whereas in this case all the Ziu effectively needs to say as per Org.IX.5 is "no".

Heh, I'm pretty sure that's just a drafting error in the OrgLaw from the last big reform.  There are a few of them.  The Vested clause used to be XVII.7, and when it was moved to IX.5 as other stuff was shuffled, the numbering got messed up.

Quote from: Old XVII
Section 6
The Ziu shall, subject to this Organic Law, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of the Kingdom with respect to:
listy listy

Section 7
Where any law of a Province, concerning an area of power outlined in 17.6, is inconsistent with a law of the Kingdom, the Provincial law shall be invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.

Section 8
All powers not vested in the Kingdom by this Organic Law shall be vested exclusively in the Provinces.

Quote from: New VII and IX
VII.2 This Organic Law is the supreme law of the land. Any national, provincial or territorial laws which violate its provisions are null and void.

VII.3 The Ziu shall, subject to this Organic Law, have power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of the Kingdom with respect to:
listy list

...

IX.5 Where any law of a Province, concerning an area of power outlined in Article VII, Section 2, is inconsistent with a law of the Kingdom, the Provincial law shall be invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.

IX.6 All powers not vested in the Kingdom by this Organic Law shall be vested exclusively in the Provinces.

As it stands, that bit doesn't actually make any sense.  Any law of a province which violates an area of power, outlined as all laws must follow the OrgLaw, are null and void?

Quote from: Rt Hon. Mic'haglh Autófil on April 07, 2022, 03:12:19 PM
For my part, I would argue that Talossa was initially a unitary state (a very unitary state in its earliest era! ;) ) that has undergone devolution to the point that it is now "semi-federal" in nature -- more federal than not, yet not completely so.

I agree with your conclusion for the most part, but I think you're missing one of the biggest arguments for a federal view: the Vested clause of the OrgLaw (Org.IX.6).  The provinces are vested with all the powers of government that aren't specifically assigned to other institutions.  That's a big vote in favor of federalism!

The real answer is that the fundamentals of our law were drafted by people who were Americans but who liked other systems, and they created a weird mish-mash that is kind of crazy and kind of amazing.  It barely fits on the spectrum, since it's bizarre to have a system where the provinces are clearly subsidiary, with their only whisper of sovereignty a few veto points on legislating their own fate, while also reserving all powers to them that aren't enumerated to others.  It's magically insane, but it's never caused any problems.

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on April 07, 2022, 12:54:06 PM

Quote from: Rt Hon. Mic'haglh Autófil on April 07, 2022, 12:26:25 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 07, 2022, 12:12:45 PM
Let's make that guy an OAF just as soon as his butt gets through the door.

-NRH

Second.

And as the most recent holder of the vacant OAFship, gonna sock-puppet that one in order to third this idea.

That's right. We're micking RTCOA fellowships now. I did it. It's a thing. You're welcome.  ;D

Sock-puppet...a very sensitive topic for some of our citizens.

Mick...I haven't seen that phrase used in quite some time. We used to do that alot, and its namesake, Sir Mick Preston, really really disliked the term. :-)

Oliphant here is referencing the ESB affair, an incident where a citizen created dozens of fake people and had them apply for citizenship, vote in elections, serve in the Cosa, and obtain arms.

-NRH

Let's make that guy an OAF just as soon as his butt gets through the door.

-NRH

Quote from: Antonio Montagnha, Ed. D. on April 07, 2022, 07:44:01 AM
Also, is the Talossan Science Fiction & Whisky Society still a thing?

Not really, as far as I know.  You should declare it is again, though, and appoint yourself as presedint.

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on April 06, 2022, 11:19:37 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 06, 2022, 11:14:08 AM
I think you deducted 11 seats from Dien?

Thanks for catching that. I accidentally left off the number 1. I've corrected the announcement to reflect that the party gets 17 seats.

Well, that's only 199 total now, though.  I think they earned 18.

I think you deducted 11 seats from Dien?

Quote from: Rt Hon. Mic'haglh Autófil on April 03, 2022, 07:02:44 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 03, 2022, 06:42:21 PM
Any enterprising Collegiates who want to take on setting up a Registry of Badges on the wiki in a way that makes sense?

-NRH

I could take a crack at it here this week.

That would be great!  No rush, just whenever you get a chance.  And please include my badge in the registry.

This all makes sense to me for the most part. I understand the desire to create cool stuff even before you figure out if there's a need for it, and especially the desire to create cool stuff in the hopes of inventing a need for it. That last one is pretty much one of our core principles. But when it comes to technology, we can't indulge in that principle if it's ever going to interfere with any of our essential infrastructure.

I do strongly disagree about the law, though. There's no reason to treat it the same as something like a complicated database. There are almost no current regulatory burdens on anyone at this point, for example. There was a time when the government was required to regularly report to the people what they were doing, for example. This government deleted that provision, and most similar provisions are likewise gone. And since there's no actual real burden imposed, and because the law is pretty much all written in accessible English and organized according to topic, there's basically no drag imposed on our country from what is actually a very lean complete legal code. Plus, a lot of what's there is because of careful thoughts for future events. It might not seem obvious why specific phrasing is used for something like setting up Witt, but there's often a good reason for it. The principle of Chesterton's fence is always a good one to observe.

Okay, I deleted the superfluous 2017 Orglaw page and redirected it to the real page. I also fixed the front page, plus a dozen or so problems with el Lexhatx.