Maritiimi-Maxhestic Mençeis are on the road!

Somewhat randomly tagging some more previous participants who may be interested:

@Baron Alexandreu Davinescu @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be @Audrada Roibeardet @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP @Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat

Of course anyone is welcome to submit a team

Only one day left to register!

Right. As things stand, MCs affiliated with the URL have contributed 60 of 100 votes currently cast against Confidence, which, according to Lexh.H.4.3, makes Mic'haglh Autófil the Leader of the Opposition again. I will proceed with the necessary Witt and DB title changes.

Quote from: Iason Taiwos on Yesterday at 10:25:43 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 10:00:19 AMWow! That's super interesting. That would be the second Talossan sport, and it sounds like a pretty good one!

I did come up with another game not long after I became a Talossan, and thankfully no one remembers it. It was called "Lencularh" ("Lancerat" in English.) The gist of it was tossing a rope with a weight on the end into a series of stacked boxes to score points. I actually field tested that one and wrote out several pages of rules. The family members I coaxed into playing it seemed to enjoy it while we played, but it must have been fairly lame, because no one ever mentioned it again. (I know I posted about it on the old Witt.)

Take this with a grain of salt as I have never actually played this game, but having watched it several times, you may find the game of kubb fairly similar to what you were doing, just without the rope?

For my part, having recently been introduce to the tabletop version of shuffleboard, it's quite fun IMO, more so than bags/cornhole/etc.

If we're going to be sticking with Talossan-language titles (which we should) then if I may request of the good @Sir Lüc the Witt badge title of Tanaischteu. I find "Omnicanerie"'s meaning of "one who makes white noise" a bit demeaning to what is supposed to be an important office, if I'm honest...

Quote from: Sir Lüc on July 01, 2026, 05:38:47 AMI will grant this request, despite major doubts. I will post a full reasoning later - I worked at it for over two hours, including researching precedents, and I simply must move on now.

But in short - you can argue for either decision, depending on precedent and the extremely vague statutory provisions. I strongly object to the timeline of CRL review, because for a bill that was in the Hopper for a whole month, giving the CRL 1 day and 23 hours to review it is not an attempt at receiving a fair review. But, again, the law is so vague that time isn't a factor at all, and depending on how you look at precedent, one can easily argue that one positive review is enough for Clarking. (A dangerous precedent to set!)

I will therefore accept the bill for Clarking under something akin to Speaker Denison's Rule, ie, that when in doubt, one should allow for debate to continue, which in this instance means letting the bill on the Clark instead of "pocket vetoing" it by having it die in committee.

The law as written means that any instance when operation strays from a clean full approval from a full panel of reviewers is an opportunity for bad precedent and unintended consequences. This is one of those instances.

You have my apologies for putting you in an awkward spot; for what it's worth, had you declined this bill under Lexh.H.2.1.7.5, I would have understood completely, with no offence taken.

On the broader issue of the CRL's governing provisions being inadequate, however, I will say you and I are in full agreement. I still think the proposal you put forth last term was a good one; I know you wanted to rework it some, and  I'd be happy to help with that. Frankly, after the Avocat-Xheneral's abuse of the CRL's position in our legislative process earlier this term, I've been further convinced that the current model is ultimately unsustainable, so this is something we should look at fixing sooner rather than later.

At the beginning of this term, the incoming Government faced several crises of confidence stemming from its ill-considered deal with the monarchist fringe: first, a coalition deal that collapsed before it even had a chance to install a government, then a confidence and supply deal from which the junior partner briefly withdrew.

Enter the Agreement between the Government and the Union of Free Reformists. This agreement was a mutually-beneficial arrangement in which each side got something quite nice for very little cost at all:

• The Government, of course, was able to effectively ensure that their term of office would run its full length. On top of that, they were able to ensure that they would not be denied supply for the term.
• For our part, the URL secured the passage of the Pseudo-Real Cosă Act and the Broosking Swing Mitigation Amendment, two key pieces to start our Democracy Agenda. We were also able to put one of our party's principles into practice, namely that Talossa deserves a stable government as opposed to turmoil.

As we have now entered the sixth and final Clark of the 62nd Cosă, each party to the Agreement has attained their goals, and after confirming with the Seneschal, we have agreed that this Agreement can be declared successfully concluded, releasing URL MCs from their obligation to abstain on the final Vote of Confidence.

Quote from: Iason Taiwos on Yesterday at 10:25:43 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 10:00:19 AMWow! That's super interesting. That would be the second Talossan sport, and it sounds like a pretty good one!

I did come up with another game not long after I became a Talossan, and thankfully no one remembers it. It was called "Lencularh" ("Lancerat" in English.) The gist of it was tossing a rope with a weight on the end into a series of stacked boxes to score points. I actually field tested that one and wrote out several pages of rules. The family members I coaxed into playing it seemed to enjoy it while we played, but it must have been fairly lame, because no one ever mentioned it again. (I know I posted about it on the old Witt.)

This actually sounds a little more feasible to play! Can you tell us more or dig up the rules?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 08:41:39 PM

Quote from: Moses Henry Emefiele on Yesterday at 04:48:15 PMHow would I do it? I want to left URL. please, help me on that.

What is so attractive about the Progressive Alliance that you decided to quit us after a few hours?

Is it only that they're the government party?

I want to know too Moses. ;)