I know we had discussed it a bit over PM, but I'm very glad you chose to resurrect this particular bit of provincial fun. And I'm flattered to be made a Kernel!

"Quick" assessment of where we stand before the final two stages when taking into account End of Tour points - those that are given out at the end depending on the final standings in the General, Points, King of Mountains and Teams Classifications. Not gonna give exact numbers because some fluctuation will happen anyway as the final GC/PC/KOM/TC positions won't exactly be what they are tonight.

Gordon Hiatus Support Team is pretty much guaranteed the final win no matter what happens: if tomorrow goes to GC riders another 800+ points haul is likely, on top of having Milan as a potential winner for Sunday, the most EoT points, and a four digit lead over second place (only happened once in 11 past editions). The main question is basically whether or not they get to 10K points, which is usually the benchmark of whether or not the TCAT winner is globally strong when compared to all Velogames competitors.

Banqeu de Cézembre is also pretty much guaranteed a second place and a return to the TCAT podium, which they are missing from since Spain 2024; they haven't been a sprint threat, but they are safely a top 2 team in mountain stages and their EoT haul is also going to be the best of the rest by a fair bit.

Third place down is instead all but settled. Two teams have the best shot at the final podium position: Cyclohexane is virtually slightly in front due to their current points haul, but Pellizzari dropping out of GC hurt them a lot and their EoT points haul has shrunk slightly from what it would have been at the start of the week. Team In The Wind has instead been rather quiet lately, but it has an EoT advantage that would put it within striking distance. CHX has to hope not to lose too much tomorrow, where ITW is almost guaranteed to do better, and then root for Jonathan Milan to do better than Tobias Lund Andresen on Sunday. Right now, despite the slight virtual standings disadvantage, I think ITW is favoured, even if I might have jinxed their chance at getting more stage wins with my earlier stats post.

The three Narvaez-less teams will probably fight it out for 5th to 7th, with their standout rider's absence likely putting the podium out of reach, if not much harder:

• Els Talossaes Rexhitais have the advantage as it stands: Gall seems to safely be the second best climber, and Storer and Gee both had a solid performance today. They also have the best point chances of the three for Sunday with Andresen and Aular. To do better they will need to put 250ish on CHX - weaker tomorrow but with Milan to fill the gap on Sunday - and 150ish on ITW - who has superior climbing depth but no Aular for Sunday. Doubtful but not impossible.
• The Mençeis sadly don't have any sprinters left, so it all comes down to hoping Vingegaard, Piganzoli and Pellizzari do much better than REX's three GC riders tomorrow, to compensate both for likely scoring no stagepoints on Sunday and for the small EoT deficit.
• Velociposse is almost tied with MMM in virtuals; it has Gall, Pellizzari, Storer and Arensman, for what on paper seems like the climbing combination with the most point chances. They may/should overtake MMM due to climbing depth and literally having any sprinters at all, but to reach REX they have to hope Arensman/Pellizzari outscore Gee by a significant amount (200ish points), other than Andresen not scoring at all on Sunday.

And sadly, Fieschă will have to hope for better luck next time, but not all is lost as they still can root for Mozzato - twice a top 10 finisher in a Giro that hasn't been kind to sprinters - to win on Sunday and maybe deliver a stage win to the only team that hasn't managed one in this edition.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on May 27, 2026, 05:05:25 PM

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.

I still think the easiest way of implementing this, without any weird edge cases from trying to marry candidate votes and party votes, would be to implement a system in which party affiliation is listed on the ballot but irrelevant to the apportionment method.

I would be in support of this method.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 27, 2026, 04:54:24 PM

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.

There are several open list systems, but some only allow you to choose candidates from your preferred party list. I suppose you could have a system where you have a "party vote" and a "candidate vote", and your candidate vote could go to someone outside your preferred party; but that might have weird effects, like, URL voters making a concerted effort to push a Prog candidate whom they liked to the top of the Prog list, over the wishes of Prog voters. Would that be okay?

Sorry, I was not clear on my statement. I would be in favor of an open list system as a compromise given that voters' choice dictate the order of seat apportionment on the list.

Ok, so this list is basically in order of where things appear in the proposed constitution.

• Can you elaborate on Chapter I, Section 7 a bit?
• Would it perhaps make sense to render the new constitutionally-defined motto in Talossan instead of English?
• I notice that I.6 and III.4, while perhaps not directly in conflict, appear to be redundant and possibly contradictory. In other words, you could say they're trying to "talk past each other". Would it make sense to maybe combine them into one section to clarify the subordination of provincial law to national law, and the order of precedence within the former?
• The current Constitution bars the Constable and the Sovereign from the legislature. This new proposal does not. Is this something we consider desirable?
• For that matter, it does not seem to grant Florencians the ability to opt in or out of a Curia seat for the term. What was the reasoning here?
• Much like I myself was advised during the drafting process for the Belacostan constitution, I would recommend having the "failure to act" provision in IV.3 match that of the Crown at the national level (bill not otherwise acted upon takes effect at the end of the month in which it is passed). To do otherwise may call into question the Organicity of this provincial constitution under Org.IX.4.4.
• How is the Paramount chosen if both Directors either do or do not want to be the Paramount?
• Given the issues Florencia has had with filling provincial offices of late, is the separation of the Chancellor into a different role, barred from another provincial office, the best course forward? Could the duties of the Chancellor perhaps be held by the non-Paramount Director, either de jure or de facto? Made an office of the Instrumentality, etc?
• For that matter, would it be wise to place a length on the term of Instrumentality offices?
• Is a simple majority to remove any officer appropriate? Would "impeachment" (since that is in effect what this would be) perhaps be better served by some higher threshold?
• Directory elections always occur during general elections, and also between them as necessary, yes? These seems like a lot, what happens if there's an early dissolution of the Cosa?
• Does the Curia ever have any sort of recess or end to the term? Does it ever suspend business?
• If all citizens are members of the Curia, is the amendment-by-referendum process necessary?

I know this is a fair number of questions, but a big part of my role here is to effectively play the role of deableu sè avocat, to refine the proposal.

Vice-Chair @mximo , do you have any input on Vice-Chair Tzaracomprada's proposal?

This is very concerning.

Stage 19 Feltre -> Alleghe (Piani di Pezzè)

The queen stage of this edition immediately saw an important surprise as Jhonatan Narvaez (MMM/REX/VFL), one of Giro's standout riders and still in full contention for the points classification, dropped out of the race after apparently crashing after yesterday's stage finish, en route to his team bus. The breakaway predictably took a while to form, but interestingly ended up including both climbers (Ciccone, Harper and Rubio) and a few GC riders (Storer and Gee-West).

It turned out Ciccone (BDC/CHX/ITW) and Rubio (CFA) more or less made a deal to respectively split summit points and intermediate sprints, but when Ciccone teammate Gee-West (REX) broke the deal by going for the second intermediate sprint, Rubio in turn "stole" the next summit from Ciccone, who did not take it well. The Italian rode off into the distance to attempt a solo win, but was caught and had to settle (yet again) for third, with Gee-West taking second.

So no stagewin to the GC favourites, with Gall, Vingegaard and Hindley having to settle for 4th to 6th. Points also to Piganzoli, Rubio and Storer closing off the top 10, with the biggest news being Thymen Arensman finishing only 12th and losing a minute from GC leader Vingegaard and the third place in GC from Hindley.

Banqeu de Cézembre gets their second stagewin of this edition; they seem headed for second place in the final standings, as they should score both more stagepoints and End of Tour points than Cyclohexane. The latter, in turn, should have more chances to defend at least the final podium position from ITW and MMM given Narvaez abandoning and Milan having a chance at a good position on Sunday.

Standings after stage 19:

Pos	±		Team	Pts Ove	Pts Today
1st	(=)		Gordon Hiatus Support Team (GHS)	6943	+612
2nd	(=)		Cyclohexane (CHX)	5710	+510
3rd	(+2)		Cézembre Caçeirs dals Mailintzarăs (BDC)	5691	+670
4th	(-1)		Els Talossaes Rexhital (REX)	5668	+495
5th	(-1)		Maritiimi-Maxhestic Mençeis (MMM)	5476	+338
6th	(+1)		Team In The Wind (ITW)	5385	+543
7th	(-1)		Velociposse Florencia (VFL)	5312	+363
8th	(=)		Cézembre Fieschā (CFA)	3501	+372

Tomorrow we get TCAT's penultimate and probably decisive stage, featuring two laps of the 14km Piancavallo ascent. Since this is also my home stage, I will try and attend and get some pictures!

Quote from: Glüc on Yesterday at 10:47:10 AM

Quote from: Glüc on May 26, 2026, 03:39:41 PMLike the GC, the KOM winner is also pretty much decided at this point. Ciccone did get some KOM points, but he has no chance of ending ahead of Vingegaard.

Well this was completely wrong. Oops. Fascinating stage today.

What happened?!!

Quote from: Glüc on May 26, 2026, 03:39:41 PMLike the GC, the KOM winner is also pretty much decided at this point. Ciccone did get some KOM points, but he has no chance of ending ahead of Vingegaard.

Well this was completely wrong. Oops. Fascinating stage today.

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.