GROUP 1
3 - Electric Callboy - Tanzneid
2 - Monica - Jeg har aldri lært å elske
1 - Olivia Rodrigo - Get Him Back!



GROUP 2
3 - Jon Ranes - Verdens beste menneske
2 - AJR - Steve's Going to London
1 - Lucio Corsi - Volevo Essere Un Duro

It is a big problem in my opinion that MCs are merely custodians of party power instead of being elected and acting on their own behalf. Even for a proportional system, the way that seats are literally portioned out like slices of a pie is really strange to me.

This circumstance might contribue to the way the Cosă functions on a day-to-day basis: bills are put forward mainly by party leadership, and most rhetorical mud fights are also between party leaders, while the rest of the Cosă silently spectates on the sidelines waiting for the monthly Chancery email reminding them to vote on the Clark arrives in their inbox, just to unquestioningly vote the way the party leadership commands them to. Every parliamentary system has backbenchers of course, but the ratio here seems to be way off.

In an ideal world, MCs would be empowered enough to act on their own. Maybe an electoral reform, or even a switch to a different voting system entirely, can effect this change.

Revindichéu toct els eschcaes da va parti.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 06:15:47 AM

Quote from: Andrïeu Cabischabuerg on November 15, 2025, 08:59:57 PMI am a vexillologist, and I would like to join the Royal Academy of Vexillology.

Is this still something that interests you, S:reu Cabischabuerg?

-SVA

Yes

Quote from: King Txec on Today at 03:05:23 PMI would support removing so-called advisory opinions but it would be useful if someone like the Chancellor or the Bar or some other lawyerly type was available to provide guidance in cases that don't rise to the high bar of the Cort pu Inalt.

-Txec R

I think this is a fantastic idea and I'm wondering if it might be achieved by internal government policy. Assuming the removal of the advisory opinion the alternative advice mechanism might not need additional legislation.

As someone who has been in all three roles that permit advisory opinions, my thoughts are that while it may be seen by some as ad hoc legislating, these types of opinions are definitely useful in certain cases. Not every official has an attorney on staff, and not every official is an attorney. I would support removing so-called advisory opinions but it would be useful if someone like the Chancellor or the Bar or some other lawyerly type was available to provide guidance in cases that don't rise to the high bar of the Cort pu Inalt.

On the other hand, this removal also gives even less work to the already very light work of the Cort. Just some thoughts from one who has been at all levels, including the Cort.

-Txec R

That's a great point, and we should make sure to mention that specifically.

-SVA

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Today at 02:00:27 PMSorry, not a member of el Coletx, but can I just add here that it drives me wild when people (usually US Americans) think titles of knighthood "Sir"/"Dame" is a title which goes with a surname, not a first name. Elton John and Paul McCartney are referred to as "Sir Elton" and "Sir Paul" respectively.

It bugs me too and as the font of all Talossan honours, I always call knights or dames "Sir John" or "Dame Judy."

-Txec R

So this trailer just popped up today and when I tell you it is an alien movie directed by Steven Spielberg, you know it won't miss. It is called Disclosure Day and will be released in the US in June 2026:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 01:59:57 PMThis change would ensure that a lawsuit could be brought only when there was a live case or controversy. The court would only hear a case if there was some existing problem that they could solve, in other words. I think it's a problem because it makes the judiciary into an ad hoc legislature that is only presented with one side before making their ruling, rather than an adversarial process.

Such a change kind of seems like the opposite of what you were going for, which was expanding the advisory opinion role in which authorized people can just ask the court to rule about something that's not in front of them. So I'm very surprised to hear you say that.

You may find this hard to believe, Alexandreu, but I do find calm, logical arguments persuasive. You presented an alternative which persuaded me.