Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 07:05:48 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on Yesterday at 03:47:03 AMIn order to allow what you're suggesting would actually be a great shift away from current laws and presidents in Talossa. And will dilute to separation of powers.

Just to be clear: this aspect of the law would not be changed.  The current law already allows provinces to make their own decisions about that, and they can give any powers they wish to their cunstaval.  My bill isn't actually changing this.

So while I understand your criticism, it's a separate issue -- you're asking me to make an additional, complicated change that would restrict the provinces in a new way.

If I were to create this new restriction, I'm not sure how to word it.  It would be complicated to phrase it in such a way that it would be meaningful -- "you're not allowed to assign your cunstaval any powers" would essentially defeat our whole purpose here, so we'd need to... I don't know, make a list of powers that we're permitting them to assign?

I'm open to suggested amendments, if you have any language to add, but you're just demanding something outside of the scope of the bill.

That is a min understanding of what I said.

I my point was literally from the start was one specific thing, I only explained the above as reasons I believe my original point is actually more important than i put across before and why the bill should at least say that
"Should a Cunstaval be of the same province they are from, they shall not be eligible to be the head of government or executive of legislative branches of said province"

I think the wording is more clear than wha to have said in previous posts. I think other points about also being a senator or member of the legislature in a province should be thought about too, but that isn't a discussion for this bill. And my only priority here (which I should have been clearer about in my last response and I'm sorry that I wasn't) is to stop the possibility of the Cunstaval being the head of government in any province as has been my main concern from the start. Especially as this change has the potential to have a Cunstaval be from the same province which jm not against but only if the language of this bill reflects that in so far as saying in that scenario the Cunstaval will be ineligible to hold the executive office whilst they are Cunstaval. The law is always better with being clear on such things, especially in regards to separation of powers.
I'm just worried that if we don't pit that in now, it may cause issues down the line.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 02:28:07 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2025, 01:34:28 PMI'm not familiar with any provision transferring administration of the wiki to the Chancery.  I'm fairly sure that it's a Propaganda or Technology issue, unless I missed a significant legal change.

The Government has never, to my knowledge, administered TalossaWiki. The Government is in charge of "official pages", but TalossaWiki has always been administered by the Chancery not by the Government. There has been no legal change because the Government has never done this, and it has been the Chancery that keeps it ticking on in the background.

Actually, I'm quite surprised to note that apparently there is no legal establishment for TalossaWiki - I don't even know who set it up! Quite apart from the noxious and authoritarian s.7 of this bill, another weakness it shows is that s.4 is entirely in the passive voice - it doesn't say who administers Talossawiki.

If the Government does want to end the ambiguity and place TalossaWiki administration within its competences, this might be a good thing - if it means setting up effective moderation and surveillance, thus removing any excuse for Government Ministers to take citizens to court for disfavored speech.

TalossaWiki has never been administered by the Chancery, it actually was a MinStuff project and theoretically was administered by the same, as long as that ministry existed anyways, although it's always been a pretty hands off thing. In the end, it's mostly been me and the King and a few other changing admins doing the little admin work there was to do.

Quote from: Mximo Malt on Yesterday at 03:59:02 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 03:13:41 PMI guess you could sue yourself maybe.  If you also get yourself appointed as a judge, you could sue yourself, hear your own case, move to have yourself removed from the case, overrule your own motion, issue an injunction against yourself, and then implode into a ball of self-referential micronationalism.

Am I to understand that my question was stupid?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I'm just being silly.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 03:13:41 PMI guess you could sue yourself maybe.  If you also get yourself appointed as a judge, you could sue yourself, hear your own case, move to have yourself removed from the case, overrule your own motion, issue an injunction against yourself, and then implode into a ball of self-referential micronationalism.

Am I to understand that my question was stupid?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 03:22:12 PMStuff like this is why it's so rewarding to be a Talossan.  You can make stuff that can really make a difference for years.

That's exactly how I feel about the BHAID...

Fun moments from the past: on 15 Jun 2012, this is what the front page looked like!

Then this was my first attempt at a real front page.  It looked incredibly bad.

Like a hundred edits later, it started to take shape and I had the basic idea set.  Hooligan moved around the tables to make them flow better here.  Istefan picked better colors here.

By 1 Jul, it looked basically the way it does now, here.  Since then, it's just been tweaking.

Stuff like this is why it's so rewarding to be a Talossan.  You can make stuff that can really make a difference for years.

I guess you could sue yourself maybe.  If you also get yourself appointed as a judge, you could sue yourself, hear your own case, move to have yourself removed from the case, overrule your own motion, issue an injunction against yourself, and then implode into a ball of self-referential micronationalism.

Would self-slander be criminalised if this bill were to pass?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TalossaWiki has been a project of the Government from the first day.  It says so explicitly on the "TalossaWiki: About" linked at the bottom of every page, and it has since June of 2012, when we got it set up.

I'm not sure I'm entirely sold on the bill, generally.  But I think we can definitely do something along these lines.  And since it's become so important to us, we probably want to put some protection on it, generally.  þerxh, 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.

I've deleted a previous post both for tone, and because I got some basic facts wrong.

I cannot see any way that I can support a bill that criminalises Wiki edits. Attacks on Wikipedia and its editing community are the stock in trade of authoritarians in other countries, who want to destroy collaborative knowledge creation. We will not have this in Talossa.

Quite aside from that, I don't think "raise a case to the Court of Justice" actually means anything. What remedy would our Courts have for someone making a Wiki edit that a Government minister considers obnoxious? Banishment? If this is a matter of individual harassment or disturbing the peace, there is already a law against that (El Lexh A.7.2.11 and A.7.3.2).

As I mentioned in the post above, however, there does seem to be legal ambiguity over who administers Talossawiki. I'm actually not fussed over whether it's the Government or the Chancery, but someone has to do it - and we probably need to make it unambiguous that they have the power to revert troll edits and ban repeat offenders. We enacted a law to remove such an ambiguity in the previous Cosa.

If 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.