Quote from: Iason Taiwos on Today at 01:31:02 PMAnd I think I'm the only person with three IDs...

Three? That's interesting. I'll be in posession of two soon (hopefully).

I just realized that today is the fifteenth anniversary of my gaining citizenship in our glorious Kingdom. https://ibb.co/Cs3tV900
And I think I'm the only person with three IDs...

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on Yesterday at 10:31:45 PM

Quote from: xpb on March 14, 2026, 10:23:19 PMnote: data collected by Breneir duing impulse #1 for Asgardia not including SWOT analysis has been submitted to their foreign ministry for review of accuracy - this is an information gathering step only, not establishing any specific relationship

Hey @xpb

In starting to finally get to work on the second report for the Dominion of Vancouver Island I noticed this note concerning the Asgardia report. Have you heard anything back from Asgardian Foreign Ministry?

Asgardia did not reply to my March 2 inquiry: Establishing Asgardia information for Talossan Factbook 2026.  I most recently received from them their general newsletter on June 18th (their unity day) indicating that their upcoming 10-year anniversary 12 October 2026.

meanwhile there's an effort by Microcon/Slowjamistan to create a more terse directory that wouldn't have the details of the fact book but could be a starting point to collect information from.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on Today at 09:52:08 AMThis would be perfectly applicable if the CRL actually operated as a committee and took votes like a mini-Cosă or mini-Senäts, but it does not. No committee would cast conditional votes, for instance. The 2.1.6 clause, "After the CRL has given its recommendation", is extremely vague either way.

I agree that it is vague, but it's also pretty hard to read that text and interpret it to mean anything other than a decision by the body. And there are no entities in the country that make decisions in this way.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on Today at 09:52:08 AMSetting bad precedents in the case of the CRL is also something I was strongly opposed to in previous instances, but my concerns were generally ignored. One of the comments I wanted to make in the fuller writeup I couldn't complete on time is precisely this - the provisions governing the CRL have been inadequate for a long time, and even if the CRL as a whole is not abolished or replaced, they need to be seriously looked at.

So yeah, I don't like the situation one bit and I loathe intentionally setting a bad precedent, but I'm happy to force the Ziu to take a look at the issue so this same precedent can be made irrelevant soon. And thankfully, the result of my decision here is that the Ziu can still consider the bill as it stands, both on the basis of its form and merit - no big harm done.

I agree that there's no big harm done, but I don't think you should intentionally set a bad precedent to try to force the legislature to make changes. I think you should try your best to interpret the law as it seems to mean, or ask for guidance if you're not sure.

That said, I do think you are acting in good faith and you're just trying to do your best in a bad situation. Really, the problem is the 11th hour attempt here, frankly. It's not realistic to expect people to be able to give a full and fair review of something in such a short amount of time.

Voting on the July 2026 Clark (the sixth of the 62nd Cosă) is now open, until the 21st of the month, at 19h30 TST.

You can find the Clark at: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/clark (database) or at https://wiki.talossa.com/images/9/90/July2026Clark.pdf (pdf)

MCs and Senators can all vote on the new Database using the credentials you have been sent by email: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/clark/vote

If you wish to vote on Wittenberg, MCs can vote here and Senators can vote here.



Sir Lüc da Schir, UrB
Secretary of State

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

You can find the Clark at: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/clark (database) or at https://wiki.talossa.com/images/9/90/July2026Clark.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.

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

You can find the Clark at: https://database.talossa.com/ziu/clark (database) or at https://wiki.talossa.com/images/9/90/July2026Clark.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.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 07:25:49 AMJust for the record, approval has never been taken in this way before in other votes and contexts, which is really going to serve as the operative precedent here absent anything else. Generally, we do not take a body's vote of approval to mean that at least one person voted in favor and no one has yet voted against it.

This would be perfectly applicable if the CRL actually operated as a committee and took votes like a mini-Cosă or mini-Senäts, but it does not. No committee would cast conditional votes, for instance. The 2.1.6 clause, "After the CRL has given its recommendation", is extremely vague either way.

QuoteI don't have any particular objection to this bill passing (although I had asked a question because I had a concern about the form, and I did have a suggested amendment!) But my main concern is just making sure that this does not actually become a precedent.

Setting bad precedents in the case of the CRL is also something I was strongly opposed to in previous instances, but my concerns were generally ignored. One of the comments I wanted to make in the fuller writeup I couldn't complete on time is precisely this - the provisions governing the CRL have been inadequate for a long time, and even if the CRL as a whole is not abolished or replaced, they need to be seriously looked at.

So yeah, I don't like the situation one bit and I loathe intentionally setting a bad precedent, but I'm happy to force the Ziu to take a look at the issue so this same precedent can be made irrelevant soon. And thankfully, the result of my decision here is that the Ziu can still consider the bill as it stands, both on the basis of its form and merit - no big harm done.

Just for the record, approval has never been taken in this way before in other votes and contexts, which is really going to serve as the operative precedent here absent anything else. Generally, we do not take a body's vote of approval to mean that at least one person voted in favor and no one has yet voted against it.

I don't have any particular objection to this bill passing (although I had asked a question because I had a concern about the form, and I did have a suggested amendment!) But my main concern is just making sure that this does not actually become a precedent.

Quote from: Owen Bottu on Today at 01:19:27 AMHi,

Could I join your party?

Welcome! I'll add you to our private party forum.