Quote from: King Txec on July 03, 2025, 05:29:39 AMI would like to ask @Sir Lüc to create a sub-board somewhere on Witt that would be appropriate and provide myself with moderation rights on that board. I would also like to ask that for now, only members of the Royal Commission should be able to post, but all citizens should be able to see the board.

Very gladly, your Majesty - this should be done now and I have verified the permissions should be working as expected, though let me know if they don't. I will add additional members to the membergroup as they are announced.

Quote from: Istefan Perþonest on July 01, 2025, 12:42:18 PMUm, did someone delete the Courthouse sub-board on Witt? I can't find it, and looking at my past messages my posts to it are missing.

It's an SMF glitch following the moving-around of boards I did earlier today, made all the worse by the fact I could still see the board (and others I moved) so I didn't know other people couldn't. Thankfully opening and closing the board's settings should have fixed it.

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 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.

I need not add anything.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on July 01, 2025, 09:22:46 AMThe provincial boards all have posts from the last few months, and that's why I didn't recommend that.  I don't think it would be outrageous, but there has actually been a good amount of local activity lately, so maybe wait on that and see how you feel in a few days?

That's fair enough. The current Wittenberg, though full of bugs, does at least show you small indicators for new activity in subboards on the main page, which Proboards didn't do. I suppose while they take up some space, most people will be interested in what's above them.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on July 01, 2025, 09:22:46 AMThat makes sense -- I'd suggest the Chat Room (perhaps renamed "Private"?) could then be a sub-board of that Off-Topic board?

Yes, or under the Wittenberg main board, so to suggest the private board isn't just for off topic stuff. Either way works.

QuoteIt would be good to get the Government's opinion on this (maybe that already happened in private?) as well as His Majesty's, too.

Nothing happened in private yet as this is something I had been half mulling but hadn't really told anyone yet. Opinions from all would be much appreciated.

Fixed - it was just an SMF glitch which I resolved just now by entering the settings and saving.

It was not obvious to me that the moved boards were now hidden since I could still see them and no setting had been changed. The voting threads for the Clark were still accessible via the link in the Clark master post, so no real harm was done in the brief time they were invisible.

Either way, I'd be thankful if the Baron didn't need to be the adult in the room so often, as it should really be obvious to people that I can't be expected to check Witt every half an hour in the middle of a workday, a few hours after spending a good chunk of time publishing the Clark no less.

Right, I have implemented virtually all of the proposed/requested tweaks.

The lone outstanding issue is to perhaps collapse all provinces into a single board right below the main Wittenberg one. I am somewhere like 75%-25% in favour of doing that at the moment.

Additionally, I am pondering whether we should split the Chat Room into a Hobby/Offtopic board, which would now be public, and an all-purpose private board (for personal stuff and also threads like the recent immigration thing).

(As usual, topic locked; if you wish to vote on Witt, please use the Cosa/Senate threads linked above)

Voting on the July 2025 Clark (the third of the 61st Cosă) is now open, until the 21st of the month, at 19h30 TST.

You can find the Clark at: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/terms/61/clarks/3 (database) or at https://wiki.talossa.com/images/5/58/July2025Clark.pdf (pdf)

MCs and Senators can all vote on the new Database using the credentials I sent you earlier: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/clark/vote

If you wish to vote on Wittenberg, MCs can vote here and Senators can vote here. Please do not vote any other way or on any other thread.




Sir Lüc da Schir, UrB
Secretary of State

Members of the Cosă, you can cast your votes on the First Clark here or on the database: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/clark/vote

You can find the Clark at: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/terms/61/clarks/3 (database) or at https://wiki.talossa.com/images/5/58/July2025Clark.pdf (pdf)

If you vote here on Witt, do not indicate any conditions which may make it sound like this vote isn't final: you can always change your vote later.

Senators, you can cast your votes on the Second Clark here or on the database: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/clark/vote

You can find the Clark at: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/terms/61/clarks/3 (database) or at https://wiki.talossa.com/images/5/58/July2025Clark.pdf (pdf)

If you vote here on Witt, do not indicate any conditions which may make it sound like this vote isn't final: you can always change your vote later.

Azul.

This morning I have taken my time to review the first five pages of posts in the Hopper Archive, corresponding to two year's worth of CRL work. In no instance a bill was Clarked without some sort of explicit approval from at least two members, though with different phrasing, so I am really wondering as to what precedent the Seneschal is referring to.

This is enough for me to revert to my initial interpretation, as both 1) the existing law is clear though flawed, and 2) I agree this would be an unfortunate precedent to set that could no doubt be exploited by bad actors. I would still urge the members of the CRL who have not weighed in on the edits to please pay attention to Witt in the few days at the end of the month when the work of the committee ramps up. That would substantially reduce the odds of finding ourselves in such undesirable situations.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 30, 2025, 04:30:49 PM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on June 30, 2025, 02:27:51 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 28, 2025, 05:38:39 PMPlease to be Clarking:

the Terpleziuns Reform Bill
the Immigration Reform (Antispam) Bill

It doesn't seem like either bill has currently passed the CRL; you're probably aware of this but just making sure.

Edit: the first bill has now passed the CRL and has been added to the queue (https://database.talossa.com/ziu/bills/unclarked)

Both bills have been commented on by 2 members of the CRL, what's the problem?

Well, pursuant to Lexh.H.2.1.6 commenting is not enough, the committee has to issue a recommendation (in practice always a positive one) by majority vote in order for a bill to pass the Hopper.

Edit: I'm sorry, I see what you mean - they made suggestions and you applied them. I'm not sure what precedent looks like here and I would still really prefer the CRL to explicitly say "fix this and we're good". Either way, I don't think this is enough reason to have the bill stuck for a month as it is unlikely to be amended or debated further, so I will allow it in the Clark.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 28, 2025, 05:38:39 PMPlease to be Clarking:

the Terpleziuns Reform Bill
the Immigration Reform (Antispam) Bill

It doesn't seem like either bill has currently passed the CRL; you're probably aware of this but just making sure.

Edit: the first bill has now passed the CRL and has been added to the queue (https://database.talossa.com/ziu/bills/unclarked)

I can mostly get behind these requests - I too believe the number of top level boards on Witt has grown too much and there are many instances where a separate board only serves to segregate and hide away content. Another problem is the provinces having a rather prominent place despite most provincial boards being underutilised. Proboards Witt used to have them as subboards of a Provinces board until about 2013-14.

I might have a few different thoughts about where to place the boards you're proposing to eliminate, but that's mostly academic. (For instance, I would rather dissolve hobby boards into the Chat Room than eliminate them; also, the Funziun board can also go into the main Wittenberg board.)

The 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.