Looks fine to me!  Thanks!

How's this?

I didn't really touch rule 5, except rename it. Let met know if something else needs changing.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 08:49:37 AMMy advice:

Delete 1b; you don't want people to be able to vote in new officers with arbitrary powers during proceedings.

I was envisioning this to be used whenever either I or the Mençei are unavailable, but fair enough.

QuoteThese rules institute a filibuster, which I'm not sure is a good idea.  Having a motion to end debate with a 2/3 majority requirement means that a minority can stop a bill from passing if they're willing to just talk until people quit.

It needing a 2/3 vote is something I took from Robert's Rules. Though now that I think about it, it also included a footnote that parliaments usually use a simple majority instead... I'll think about it. Alternatively there could be a time limit per person (5 to 10 minutes perhaps?).

QuoteWhat does "killing" or "indefinitely postponing" a bill here mean?  Usually those would be covered by the term "tabling," which is when a bill is set aside (on the table) and no longer actively considered.  Unless you're talking about the UK, in which case "tabling" a bill means that it is being actively considered.

From my understanding of Robert's Rules, tabling refers to a temporary setting aside of a motion in case something more urgent comes up, and tabled motioned can be brought back up again at a later time, whereas indefinitely postponing is killing a motion without a final vote outright. I figured keeping that distinction is important. Having both "killing" and "indefinitely postponing" in the same sentence however is a mistake on my part.

QuoteYou might want to reorganize your motions to separate out the privileged motions into their own category (points of order or personal privilege).

I thought I already did that... maybe I need to rename rule 5.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on Today at 11:42:40 AMIf that's fine by @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP , I'll take care of it. I don't know if Zoom requires accounts for everyone involved though, that could be a barrier to participation.

I don't mind.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on January 01, 2026, 08:38:04 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on November 08, 2025, 12:09:31 AMWe affirm that a Green Party Government will take formal stances on issues of global import such as climate change, international peace and security, and the protection and furthering of human and sentient rights.

Quote from: xpb on January 01, 2026, 05:46:18 PMCON regarding 62RZ05    Sense of the Ziu: Big Neighbor Democratic Backsliding

Talossa is not an island. If we are to move beyond isolationism we need to speak on issues based on our values as a nation and people and that are of importance globally as members of the international community.

Our "big neighbor" is experiencing democratic backsliding and while our ability to influence the outcome is limited we have many American dual citizens. We should be willing and able to speak, on the basis of our own struggle to consolidate democracy, to the importance of the preservation of democratic culture and institutions.

A review of voting shows mixed support from the PA and URL on the Green Party's Sense of the Ziu concerning the deterioration of democracy in the United States. We call on both major parties to join us in expressing Talossa's grave concern especially since the US actions in Venezuela and threats against an ally (Denmark) over the status of Greenland.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on Today at 11:41:09 AM1b could make sense because, if Marcel has to take an unexpected break while the Mençei is not attending, the only recourse is recess. I disagree a temporary deputy would have arbitrary powers.

The first rule there deals with Marcel needing a temporary deputy -- the Mencei would do it.  Saying that a majority can appoint another deputy but with no limits on their possible power during the proceedings is just messy.  If it's absolutely necessary that we have two deputies, then Marcel should just be able to appoint another.

That said: I don't think this matters much, so it's not a big deal either way.  It's just a possible failure point that's not necessary, IMO.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on Today at 11:41:09 AM

• 2b's second sentence is unclear - does it say that the motion to add an item requires a second to be voted on, or that an item can be added to the agenda by a proponent and a second, without a vote? In the first case, the second sentence should read "to be voted on" rather than "to be added"; in the second case, referring to the mechanism as a motion is probably incorrect, and either way the second sentence should say "such an item" instead of "such a motion"
• In 2c, I am not too sure why the shortest a recess can be is 10 minutes and not something unspecified or simply shorter
• 3b might allow for a deputy to the Tanaischteu in case they can't attend during Terps or at all
• 4b has a typo ("another member to speaker")
• I agree 5e's 2/3rds requirement to end debate is potentially dangerous on its own, unless the motion to start debate includes a time limit
• 6a has a typo ("billed")

I agree with all of these.  There's no real reason to include the possibility of a filibuster with the scope of what we're doing here.

If that's fine by @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP , I'll take care of it. I don't know if Zoom requires accounts for everyone involved though, that could be a barrier to participation.

My own advice:

• 1b could make sense because, if Marcel has to take an unexpected break while the Mençei is not attending, the only recourse is recess. I disagree a temporary deputy would have arbitrary powers.
• 2b's second sentence is unclear - does it say that the motion to add an item requires a second to be voted on, or that an item can be added to the agenda by a proponent and a second, without a vote? In the first case, the second sentence should read "to be voted on" rather than "to be added"; in the second case, referring to the mechanism as a motion is probably incorrect, and either way the second sentence should say "such an item" instead of "such a motion"
• In 2c, I am not too sure why the shortest a recess can be is 10 minutes and not something unspecified or simply shorter
• 3b might allow for a deputy to the Tanaischteu in case they can't attend during Terps or at all
• 4b has a typo ("another member to speaker")

• I agree 5e's 2/3rds requirement to end debate is potentially dangerous on its own, unless the motion to start debate includes a time limit
• 6a has a typo ("billed")

Quote from: Sir Lüc on Today at 04:20:45 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 07:01:36 PM@Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP , we should probably see if anyone has a version of zoom or teams or something that can do long meetings, so we're not limited to the free 40 minutes.

I have the full Zoom version, if necessary. Last time we had a State Opening, I was Túischac'h and I picked meet.jit.si (jitsi.org) as the videocall tool. I don't remember if three were any issues with it, but it is completely free and doesn't require accounts.

I hope I'm not speaking out of turn when I say it might be a good idea for you to schedule the Zoom then and publish the link.  I'll put it on the national website when you do.

My advice:

Delete 1b; you don't want people to be able to vote in new officers with arbitrary powers during proceedings.

1c should either be not specific or more specific; right now the only thing the chair would be able to do to enforce order would be to reprimand people.  Just keep the first sentence.

These rules institute a filibuster, which I'm not sure is a good idea.  Having a motion to end debate with a 2/3 majority requirement means that a minority can stop a bill from passing if they're willing to just talk until people quit.

What does "killing" or "indefinitely postponing" a bill here mean?  Usually those would be covered by the term "tabling," which is when a bill is set aside (on the table) and no longer actively considered.  Unless you're talking about the UK, in which case "tabling" a bill means that it is being actively considered.

You might want to reorganize your motions to separate out the privileged motions into their own category (points of order or personal privilege).

You decided to weight Senats votes for procedural votes by assigning them 25 seats, it seems like.  This makes sense because it gives their chamber equal weight to the Cosa.  I'm trying to think of ways to game this system, and nothing comes immediately to mind.