1
Wittenberg / Re: Happy New Year!
« on: December 31, 2020, 08:28:33 PM »
Happy 2021, and belated happy XLII!
This version of Wittenberg is now the legal national forum for Talossa! Feel free to explore it, and to check out the threads for feedback, requests and criticisms to make sure Wittenberg is tailored to you.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
2
The Lobby / Re: College of Arms, and the leadership thereof
« on: December 30, 2020, 10:11:59 PM »This would be fine with the Crown, if it's fine with the Seneschal (if she wishes to do this and if Cresti's good with it).I would be fine either way, but do hope to be around more regularly going forward.
3
Wittenberg / ¡Felicieu Natal!
« on: December 25, 2020, 07:08:36 PM »
Merry Christmas, Talossans! For those of you who celebrate, I hope you and your families have a wonderful holiday.
http://wiki.talossa.com/Glheþinaziuns_dels_Nadalets
https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/12553/feliceu-natal-talossa
And Happy Independence Day Eve!
http://wiki.talossa.com/Glheþinaziuns_dels_Nadalets
https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/12553/feliceu-natal-talossa
And Happy Independence Day Eve!
4
The Lobby / Re: College of Arms, and the leadership thereof
« on: December 21, 2020, 05:57:46 PM »
Congratulations, BenArd!
5
The Cosa / Re: 55th Cosa 1st Clark Voting and Discussion thread
« on: December 21, 2020, 05:39:44 PM »
RZ13: Per
RZ14: Austanéu
RZ15: Contra
RZ16: Per
VoC: Non
RZ14: Austanéu
RZ15: Contra
RZ16: Per
VoC: Non
6
The Cosa / Re: 55th Cosa 1st Clark Voting and Discussion thread
« on: November 21, 2020, 07:24:48 PM »
Sorry, had an editing error for RZ8 but am unable to edit my post. I vote “per” on RZ8.
7
The Cosa / Re: 55th Cosa 1st Clark Voting and Discussion thread
« on: November 21, 2020, 07:22:25 PM »
I vote as follows:
RZ1: Per
RZ2: Per
RZ3: Per
RZ4: Contra, for the reasons stated in the Hopper thread.
RZ5: Per
RZ6: Per
RZ7: Per, though I dislike the CJ title.
RZ8: Schmidt
RZ9: Per
RZ10: Per
RZ11: Contra
RZ12: Austanéu
VoC: Üc
RZ1: Per
RZ2: Per
RZ3: Per
RZ4: Contra, for the reasons stated in the Hopper thread.
RZ5: Per
RZ6: Per
RZ7: Per, though I dislike the CJ title.
RZ8: Schmidt
RZ9: Per
RZ10: Per
RZ11: Contra
RZ12: Austanéu
VoC: Üc
8
The Hopper / Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
« on: August 09, 2020, 08:12:36 PM »
Unless I’m missing something, the first option looks substantively the same as current law, except it eliminates the requirement that provinces certify their election results to the Chancery.
The first paragraph of the second option looks good to me, but I don’t see the need for the second paragraph. The Chancery doesn’t have responsibility for providing standards for and oversight of provincial elections under current law, so why add that (and only in the second option)?
The first paragraph of the second option looks good to me, but I don’t see the need for the second paragraph. The Chancery doesn’t have responsibility for providing standards for and oversight of provincial elections under current law, so why add that (and only in the second option)?
9
The Royal Society for the Advancement of Knowledge / Re: New Talossan History Project
« on: August 09, 2020, 08:34:24 AM »
A suggestion: it might be helpful to put together some content and methodology guidelines for the history project. For example:
* GV has gone to great lengths to use Talossan names even for people who never used Talossan names in Talossa, and whose non-Talossan names are widely used elsewhere (e.g. the official citizen list). Should this be an expectation for all participants in the project?
* I’ve done a fair amount of editing of history articles on Wikipedia, which has a “neutral point of view” rule. To what extent should we expect participants in this project to adopt a neutral or objective perspective on past events?
* To what extent should it be required to cite or attribute statements?
* GV has gone to great lengths to use Talossan names even for people who never used Talossan names in Talossa, and whose non-Talossan names are widely used elsewhere (e.g. the official citizen list). Should this be an expectation for all participants in the project?
* I’ve done a fair amount of editing of history articles on Wikipedia, which has a “neutral point of view” rule. To what extent should we expect participants in this project to adopt a neutral or objective perspective on past events?
* To what extent should it be required to cite or attribute statements?
10
The Hopper / Re: Placeholder Act to Remind Me to Write an Act
« on: August 07, 2020, 10:33:02 PM »Problem is that if the weed is good enough it'll be Mickey Mouse.Now that’s what I call a Magic Kingdom.
11
The Hopper / Re: Placeholder Act to Remind Me to Write an Act
« on: August 07, 2020, 07:55:12 PM »
A modest suggestion:
Select the 59 Talossans who have been citizens for longest. Reduce that number to 26 (1+9+7+9) by lot. Allow each of the 26 to nominate three other individuals. Any Talossan who receives at least two nominations goes into a pool, but if the number of those is less than 30 then the 26 selected by lot get to make another nomination until the number is at least 30. The 30 are reduced by lot to 16 (7+9) who become the members of the college, then any members of the council of regency (UC) who are not already members by nomination get added as ex officio members. The senior judge of the UC presides over the college with the title of moderator.
Then you make the college assemble in person and lock them in Merrill Hall in Abbavilla until a new king is selected. After each unsuccessful ballot they send up red smoke from the chimney (does Merrill Hall have a chimney?). A successful ballot is marked by green smoke, and the appearance of the moderator of the college on the balcony of Merrill Hall (does Merrill Hall have a balcony?) to announce habemus regem!
Seriously, though, I do like the suggestion Eiric made.
Select the 59 Talossans who have been citizens for longest. Reduce that number to 26 (1+9+7+9) by lot. Allow each of the 26 to nominate three other individuals. Any Talossan who receives at least two nominations goes into a pool, but if the number of those is less than 30 then the 26 selected by lot get to make another nomination until the number is at least 30. The 30 are reduced by lot to 16 (7+9) who become the members of the college, then any members of the council of regency (UC) who are not already members by nomination get added as ex officio members. The senior judge of the UC presides over the college with the title of moderator.
Then you make the college assemble in person and lock them in Merrill Hall in Abbavilla until a new king is selected. After each unsuccessful ballot they send up red smoke from the chimney (does Merrill Hall have a chimney?). A successful ballot is marked by green smoke, and the appearance of the moderator of the college on the balcony of Merrill Hall (does Merrill Hall have a balcony?) to announce habemus regem!
Seriously, though, I do like the suggestion Eiric made.
12
Wittenberg / Re: A very short history of Talossa - new Oraclâ Press publication!
« on: August 05, 2020, 08:14:02 PM »
I’m interested in participating as well.
13
The Hopper / Re: The Fleecing Act
« on: August 05, 2020, 07:53:35 PM »
This is why we can’t have nice things.
14
The Hopper / Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
« on: August 05, 2020, 11:07:29 AM »I might be remembering wrong, but wasn't that exactly how it used to work? I think one of the ModRad governments changed it from what you suggest to what we have now.That’s what I thought too, but I’m fuzzy on the details. I checked past versions of the OrgLaw on Wiki and at least as far as the Wiki versions go there was a change from exclusively Chancery-conducted elections to requiring the provinces to explicitly notify the Chancery if they want the election conducted by the Chancery in 2013. It may be that there were prior unsuccessful proposals that were different.
15
The Hopper / Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
« on: August 05, 2020, 10:26:44 AM »However, even having suggested that change, I might recommend that Senate elections be re-federalized altogether.Or as a compromise, allow the provinces to opt out of having the Chancery conduct their election, rather than requiring them to opt in. That way, the Chancery conducts the election by default. If a province has its act together and wants to conduct its own election, it can so notify the SoS. If there’s been a “breakdown of provincial government” then no such notification will be provided and the SoS will proceed to conduct the election without needing to inquire into the status of the political institutions of each province.
Pages: [1] 2