Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on February 28, 2026, 02:47:29 PM

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 17, 2026, 10:35:51 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on January 16, 2026, 03:03:37 PMIf this bill is rewritten to (a) make responsibility for administering Talossawiki unambiguous; (b) explicitly give admins/moderators of TalossaWiki authority to revert troll edits and ban repeat offenders, on the same line as the Consequences Act; (c) delete the noxious attempt to bring down the force of the Law on Wiki editors, it might prove useful.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2026, 03:07:45 PMþerxh, would you be willing to wait on sending it to the CRL?  Sorry, I know you were ready to go with it, and I should have said something earlier, but there's been a lot going on.

Of course, happy to give us all a bit more time to define a good legal framework for the administration and the moderation of our Wiki, which I think deserves a special status

@Sir Lüc , sorry for the disturbance, could you please move this bill back to the Hopper ?

Is this bill moving forward in the near future? Looks to be stalled since it was moved back to the Hopper in mid-January...

Checking in on this, @þerxh Sant-Enogat . Is this bill moving forward? It has my support.

Go Fiovă, Go Fiovă, Go Fiovă

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 09:09:24 AMI just hope to hold onto the podium by my fingernails at this point.

Milan getting the opportunity to sprint today was pretty bad news for you in that regard. A podium is still very much possible though. (I think so anyway. I haven't actually checked the virtual standings.) Piganzoli is realistically your only hope to make a difference with CHX/BDC/ITW, so a lot will depend on him getting points in the final mountain stages and hanging on in GC for you.

Stage 18 Fai della Paganella -> Pieve di Soligo

As usual Cyclohexane were represented in the break today and again it was Bais who went on the attack. It was caught before the climbs near the end. Surprisingly the various attacks on the final climb before the finish were not enough to permanently drop the best sprinters permanently, so it was a bunch sprint. Magnier won and regained the lead in the points classification. Milan (GHS/CHX) was the best TCAT rider in third place. Yet another stagewin for GHST. Cyclohexane climb to second place.

Standings after stage 18:

Pos	±		Team	Pts Ove	Pts Today
1st	(=)		Gordon Hiatus Support Team (GHS)	6331	+316
2nd	(+2)		Cyclohexane (CHX)	5200	+292
3rd	(-1)		Els Talossaes Rexhital (REX)	5173	+111
4th	(-1)		Maritiimi-Maxhestic Mençeis (MMM)	5138	+108
5th	(=)		Cézembre Caçeirs dals Mailintzarăs (BDC)	5021	+120
6th	(=)		Velociposse Florencia (VFL)	4949	+111
7th	(=)		Team In The Wind (ITW)	4842	+110
8th	(=)		Cézembre Fieschā (CFA)	3129	+71

Tomorrow we get the Queen stage of this edition with 6 climbs, including Passo Giau, which is the cima coppi (highest point of the giro) and an uphill finish. Definitely a stage for the climbers, although we get another mountain stage on saturday, so for the GC contenders a podium place may be lost, but not won tomorrow.


(Also if someone wanted to challenge Vingegaard for the overall win tomorrow would be the day to do it. Trying and failing however would risk dropping of the podium alltogether, so as much as I'm hoping someone gives it a shot to make things interesting, I'm guessing it's not gonna happen.)

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 09:53:46 AMThe people's will is best and most directly expressed by their vote, and we should be careful about wise elders deciding when the people's will shouldn't count.

This is exactly why I oppose expanding off-list appointees or softening party list requirements any further, since it is essentially elder party leaders deciding that the directly expressed preference for a certain slate of candidates should not count as long as it's convenient for them.

But setting all that aside, what do you think of the voting system I proposed a few posts ago?

QuoteElections to the Cosă shall be conducted following the principles of personalised proportional voting.

• Voters shall be given the choice to either vote for a single party list at-large, or to distribute exactly 20 individual votes among all candidates listed on all party lists. A single candidate may be awarded up to three individual votes.
• Seats shall be apportioned among party lists according to their at-large party list votes as well as the total individual votes for their candidates using the largest remainder method. Individual candidate votes shall count as one twentieth of an at-large party list vote for the purposes of party seat apportionment. In case of a tie, the party with the higher total vote count is prefered.
• Party seats shall be apportioned among their list candidates according to their individual votes using the largest remainder method. In case of a tie, the candidate listed higher on the list is prefered.

I certainly work on recruitment, but aside from that, the only thing I could think would be to aim lower and not contest Senats seats, lol.  Again, aiming lower is not a solution and not democratic.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 09:45:21 AMIt should be in the people's interest to improve Talossan democracy, not worsen it.

Absolutely.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 09:45:21 AMThe power to concentrate power in a few unelected appointees loyal only to the party leadership is absolutely only a convenience, and enabling this conduct any further is the exact opposite of democracy. It may be *your* will, but it's not the people's will.

The people's will is best and most directly expressed by their vote, and we should be careful about wise elders deciding when the people's will shouldn't count.

But again, I don't want parties to be able to invest their power in just one or two people.  That's also not a good outcome.  I'm asking for us to work to find a solution that addresses both concerns.

I've heavily edited my previous post to fix several syntax and phrasing errors, for the record.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 09:40:00 AMRight, but circumstance we're discussing is a new party whose share of the vote expands faster than their personal recruitment.  It's already tight, and we're proposing making it much worse.

Your party is not exactly "new", is my point. You should've foreseen that the same people that were highly popular before under a different label would still be popular now, and accounted for it. If the demand exceeds the supply, it is your responsibility as a party leader to keep up with the demand.

QuoteI'm not really presupposing that... it's been a fact in the past -- Dien is the only one who has ever run for office with no party list, I think, and he got only a few votes (presumably from people who did indeed want that!)

Not even remotely the same as what you've been suggesting here. Plus, I don't think "we've always done it like this" is a good enough argument to continue flaunting the basic principles of democratic conduct. Talossa, in the past, has not been a good democracy. It should be in the people's interest to improve Talossan democracy, not worsen it.

QuoteBut this flexibility doesn't exist for convenience, it exists because power should be distributed according to the will of the people, as much as we can manage.  This is the most basic of basic democratic principles.

The power to concentrate power in a few unelected appointees loyal only to the party leadership is absolutely only a convenience, and enabling this conduct any further is the exact opposite of democracy. It may be *your* will, but it's not the people's will.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 09:15:14 AMSimply by having more people on the list than the absolute bare minimum. These people don't even have to be a member of your party, mind you.

Right, but circumstance we're discussing is a new party whose share of the vote expands faster than their personal recruitment.  It's already tight, and we're proposing making it much worse.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on Yesterday at 09:15:14 AMYou're presupposing that voters want to be represented by unelected, unaccountable off-list appointees, or alternatively that they want to concentrate all power into a single person. The fact that Talossa currenty even allows off-list MCs or more than one seat per MC is a grave violation of basic democratic principles, and it exists solely to make the lives of Talossan party leaders easier. I find it concerning that these generosities are not only taken for granted but considered not generous enough.

I'm not really presupposing that... it's been a fact in the past -- Dien is the only one who has ever run for office with no party list, I think, and he got only a few votes (presumably from people who did indeed want that!)  But this flexibility doesn't exist for convenience, it exists because power should be distributed according to the will of the people, as much as we can manage.  This is the most basic of basic democratic principles.

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on May 27, 2026, 04:26:48 PMAs long as the voters can choose who they want as their representatives regardless of party affiliation, I would be ok with an open list voting system as a compromise.

What do you think of something like this?

QuoteElections to the Cosă shall be conducted following the principles of personalised proportional voting.

• Voters shall be given the choice to either vote for a single party list at-large, or to distribute exactly 20 individual votes among all candidates listed on all party lists. A single candidate may be awarded up to three individual votes.
• Seats shall be apportioned among party lists according to their at-large party list votes as well as the total individual votes for their candidates using the largest remainder method. Individual candidate votes shall count as one twentieth of an at-large party list vote for the purposes of party seat apportionment. In case of a tie, the party with the higher total vote count is prefered.
• Party seats shall be apportioned among their list candidates according to their individual votes using the largest remainder method. In case of a tie, the candidate listed higher on the list is prefered.