Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 08:34:32 PM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on Yesterday at 08:24:04 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 09:14:27 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 19, 2026, 06:06:22 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 19, 2026, 03:59:46 PMOkay.  Well, your suggested language doesn't quite work.  But how about

"2. The King may appoint a Cunstaval (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf.  A province may pass laws setting a term of office for its Cunstaval, specifying who is disqualified from the role, and assigning the Cunstaval a role in their government.  Unless otherwise fixed by national or provincial statute, the term of office shall be three years.  No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of that same province."

Ok with the same province that should same/another province.
Or just "no person shall at the same time be a Cunstaval of one province and the head/leader of provincial government of any province"

So one thing I'd point out is that we're going to run into at least some practical problems if we say that people can't be cunstaval of another province and a provincial government leader in their province at the same time.  At least two cunstavais would have to resign, I think, because we'd need a total of sixteen significantly active citizens with space for that responsibility.

This isn't an impossible problem, but I just don't see why someone like Sir Ian can't be Maritiimi-Maxhestic's Grand General Secretary while also serving as cunstaval for Maricopa.

You are aware that this argument goes against your original proposed language? As the law already makes being a Cunstaval and provincial government head illegal. Your original language does the same.
My proposed amendment is to just ensure that same standard is applied if the Cunstaval should one day be appointed from their home province that they can't serve as head of government in their home province either as Cunstaval.
So what you're arguing for here goes against even your original proposal.

What I want is not to have this kind of language at all.  But we've gotten steadily more and more restrictive, and now we're walling people off from holding any kind of cunstaval position or provincial lead position at the same time, instead of getting to choose to combine them (current law possibility and current draft possibility) or have people hold those positions in different places (new draft possibility).

It's hard to imagine even a problem here, since no province has anything in place that could make this stuff problematic.  Since the whole point is to open up some possibilities here and eliminate the military governorship, maybe we could just pick either one or the other, and not make both illegal?  I'm very much a "worst case scenario" planner, but what's the actual danger?  In order to abuse any power in this position, someone would need to get their province on-board and the king.

Honeslty I think that may be something to look at in future updates. But the language of not being a Cunstaval and a provincial head of government of any province is my sticking point at this time. The rest of bill i am fine with, but I feel that if one is going to be a Cunstaval of a province, to also be a head of government of a province is not a great position to have. As it would be akin to the king becoming Senechal, or say the crown of the U.K.'s representative in Canada or any nation to become it head of government or a head of government in an other nation under the king of their nation. (Best example I can think of)
I just disagree with the principal.

I'm not saying there is a right opinion here as I think we have both raised valid arguments in this debate. But yeah the last language I suggested that says a Cunstaval can't be a head of government of any province (or language to that effect) is my personal line for this. As it has been from the start

The time allotted for voting on the Clark has expired.

The Cosă and Senäts have passed the following bills and resolutions, which are sent to His Majesty @King Txec for Royal Assent:

62RZ01 - The Public Process Act Redux
Agreed to by the Cosă 180-0, by the Senäts 8-0

62RZ03 - The Túischac'h Casual Vacancy Act
Agreed to by the Cosă 133-27 (20 abstained), by the Senäts 7-1

62RZ05 - Sense of the Ziu: Big Neighbor Democratic Backsliding
Agreed to by the Cosă 98-47 (35 abstained), by the Senäts 7-0 (1 abstained) 


The Cosă and Senäts have both rejected the following bills and resolutions:

62RZ02 - Advisory Opinion Removal Amendment
Rejected by the Cosă due to missing the required supermajority 90-70 (20 abstained), rejected by the Senäts 3-5

62RZ04 - Sense of the Ziu: Restoration of National Honour
Rejected by the Cosă 63-117, by the Senäts 1-6 (1 abstained)


The Cosă passed a Vote of Confidence in the incumbent Government 82-78 (20 abstained).


Baroness Litz Cjantscheir (MC-PROG) and Andrïeu Cabischabuerg (MC-URL/NC) did not vote.




Sir Lüc da Schir, UrB
Secretary of State

I'm surprised nobody mentioned that having a Cunstaval from another province implies at least three positive things:

1. It gives typically short-staffed provincial governments one free additional warm body;

2. It provides an external arbiter to provincial politics;

3. It brings provinces closer together, by giving Cunstavais the chance to familiarise themselves with the culture of another province.


Many years ago I was advocating for a Belacostan Cunstaval in Belacosta, but that was mostly as a reaction to the very inactive Cunstaval of the day, and the equally inactive King who never returned our petitions. With term limits and the Cunstaval roster finally getting refreshed, I think the status quo is pretty satisfactory and doesn't really need reform.

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on Yesterday at 08:24:04 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 09:14:27 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 19, 2026, 06:06:22 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 19, 2026, 03:59:46 PMOkay.  Well, your suggested language doesn't quite work.  But how about

"2. The King may appoint a Cunstaval (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf.  A province may pass laws setting a term of office for its Cunstaval, specifying who is disqualified from the role, and assigning the Cunstaval a role in their government.  Unless otherwise fixed by national or provincial statute, the term of office shall be three years.  No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of that same province."

Ok with the same province that should same/another province.
Or just "no person shall at the same time be a Cunstaval of one province and the head/leader of provincial government of any province"

So one thing I'd point out is that we're going to run into at least some practical problems if we say that people can't be cunstaval of another province and a provincial government leader in their province at the same time.  At least two cunstavais would have to resign, I think, because we'd need a total of sixteen significantly active citizens with space for that responsibility.

This isn't an impossible problem, but I just don't see why someone like Sir Ian can't be Maritiimi-Maxhestic's Grand General Secretary while also serving as cunstaval for Maricopa.

You are aware that this argument goes against your original proposed language? As the law already makes being a Cunstaval and provincial government head illegal. Your original language does the same.
My proposed amendment is to just ensure that same standard is applied if the Cunstaval should one day be appointed from their home province that they can't serve as head of government in their home province either as Cunstaval.
So what you're arguing for here goes against even your original proposal.

What I want is not to have this kind of language at all.  But we've gotten steadily more and more restrictive, and now we're walling people off from holding any kind of cunstaval position or provincial lead position at the same time, instead of getting to choose to combine them (current law possibility and current draft possibility) or have people hold those positions in different places (new draft possibility).

It's hard to imagine even a problem here, since no province has anything in place that could make this stuff problematic.  Since the whole point is to open up some possibilities here and eliminate the military governorship, maybe we could just pick either one or the other, and not make both illegal?  I'm very much a "worst case scenario" planner, but what's the actual danger?  In order to abuse any power in this position, someone would need to get their province on-board and the king.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 09:14:27 AM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 19, 2026, 06:06:22 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 19, 2026, 03:59:46 PMOkay.  Well, your suggested language doesn't quite work.  But how about

"2. The King may appoint a Cunstaval (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf.  A province may pass laws setting a term of office for its Cunstaval, specifying who is disqualified from the role, and assigning the Cunstaval a role in their government.  Unless otherwise fixed by national or provincial statute, the term of office shall be three years.  No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of that same province."

Ok with the same province that should same/another province.
Or just "no person shall at the same time be a Cunstaval of one province and the head/leader of provincial government of any province"

So one thing I'd point out is that we're going to run into at least some practical problems if we say that people can't be cunstaval of another province and a provincial government leader in their province at the same time.  At least two cunstavais would have to resign, I think, because we'd need a total of sixteen significantly active citizens with space for that responsibility.

This isn't an impossible problem, but I just don't see why someone like Sir Ian can't be Maritiimi-Maxhestic's Grand General Secretary while also serving as cunstaval for Maricopa.

You are aware that this argument goes against your original proposed language? As the law already makes being a Cunstaval and provincial government head illegal. Your original language does the same.
My proposed amendment is to just ensure that same standard is applied if the Cunstaval should one day be appointed from their home province that they can't serve as head of government in their home province either as Cunstaval.
So what you're arguing for here goes against even your original proposal.

Okay, folks... let's talk Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talossa

First of all, it could use some basic love in the writing.  That's pretty low-hanging fruit: if you have a way with words and a spare ten minutes, fix up one of the sections.

Second of all, our comprehensive and nice "country" template was replaced with a "micronation" template, which is annoying and I oppose as a derivatist.  However, bowing to necessity, we should at least fill in that infobox!  There's a ton of parameters we're not using that could be included: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_micronation

Third of all, we need to use the recent Milwaukee Magazine article as a source to update the history section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talossa#History_and_growth).  Right now, it seems like we stopped existing when Ben left, which is dumb and wrong.

Fourthly, our flag was removed which is apparently policy, but other images could be included (preferably recent ones), maybe from that magazine article or something else.  Let's get some life on this page.

Fifth, there's definitely other stuff that hasn't even occurred to me that could be fixed or added.

Thank you to all who are willing to lend a hand!

Quote from: GV on Yesterday at 01:07:38 PMTrump is our Scipio Africanus.

I hope you'll check out the full episode, GV. It has been a fun time putting the segments together.

https://www.amazon.com/Live-Bayou-Washington-D-C-March/dp/B0FYQR4S37
I've been listening to this. (Well, I just started listening to it this morning on the way to work, only got it in the mail yesterday.)
As far as I know, this is the earliest known live recordings of the Bad Brains, recently unearthed somewhere, remastered, and finally released 45 years after they were recorded.
I haven't gotten to disc two yet, but disc one is great. I settled for CD, because the vinyl (released on Record Store Day) is already going for ridiculous prices.

The release date for For All Mankind's fifth season premiere has been announced: March 27th. This show is written by longtime Star Trek writer (also for the acclaimed Battlestar Galactica remake): Ronald D. Moore. It is also one of the few sci-fi dramas to make me bawl several times.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on Yesterday at 11:42:59 AM

Quote from: xpb on Yesterday at 10:38:17 AMI will see the Kings ante and have raised my "bet" to $50 on the Kingdom so we're at $75 thus far to the $250 goal.

So nice to see pockets opening for the Kingdom.
When the will is there good things are possible.

I will also be donating $20.00. Can I get a link to the donation page?