Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 29, 2026, 06:32:22 PM

Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on April 29, 2026, 04:37:23 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 26, 2026, 05:49:25 PMI know that we keep citizenship eligibility at 14 for historical reasons but we should consider a minimum age limit for being an MZ. I would suggest 18 or 21 (if this does not run afoul of the OrgLaw). If we are serious about making  structural improvements to the Ziu then it might be worth considering whether 14 or 16 is generally just too young to effectively participate in national decision-making.

ADDED: I mean no offense to our youngest citizens but wanted to broach the topic.

In my humble opinion, this would be terrible.

I totally get why we might not want to have minors here at all (even though it would be unfortunate given our founding), but assuming they are here, why would we not want them to participate in the thing most people find the most interesting? The stakes of "national decision making" are, all things considered, much to low to allow for that.

First, thanks for responding Ian.

I actually do support a higher minimum age for citizenship, I do suspect though, for some, it is a non-starter. But there are other ways for our youngest citizens to be involved...political parties could still accept them as members, etc. Honestly, the proposal comes from observing recent events as I think the actions of a few of our younger members of national politics have been motivated by immaturity. A period for participation as an observer for those between the ages of 14 and 16 or 18 would allow for some learning and maturation before entry into the nation's parliament. I do not think it is a good idea to throw 14 years (especially) into a nation's political fray as soon as they are citizens.

The argument to keep them out of Talossan politics for a bit "for their own good" is one I might be sympathetic to, but while we're doing things for our own good, I have some bad news for most of Talossa's adult politicians...

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 30, 2026, 05:21:11 PMI agree with Miestra that it would be unjust to say that teenagers can't participate in something a teenager created.

But maybe we should have ethics standards for the behavior of MZs.  Since we're already doing this, I'll note that there's not clear guidance on when MZs should vote to expel one of their members.  That might be a good thing to include in here.

Yes I agree that the Ziu should have a code of conduct and clear methods for expulsion as most other parliaments do. Similarly they also have reasonable minimum age requirements for service. The fact that the founder was once a teenager is not a compelling reason (edit: to me) for us not to have a higher age of eligibility.

I agree with Miestra that it would be unjust to say that teenagers can't participate in something a teenager created.

But maybe we should have ethics standards for the behavior of MZs.  Since we're already doing this, I'll note that there's not clear guidance on when MZs should vote to expel one of their members.  That might be a good thing to include in here.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 30, 2026, 04:47:32 PM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 30, 2026, 04:01:07 PMLol, that was a good one, Miestra.

I have mentioned this in responding to Ian. Serving in the Ziu is just one way of participation among many many other opportunities for involvement in politics. I have criticized it in the past but one benefit of our politics-heavy culture is the widespread opportunities for participation. Parliamentary service should call for a higher standard.

I agree, although not about the age thing.  It's certainly possible that we should have ethical standards.

Well at least we agree on something. I think not placing 14 year olds in positions of national leadership might be an issue of ethics as well but that's just me it seems.

I'm honestly not really clear here at this point... is that bit of the preamble supposed to be a dig at the Government?  If so, then it would make more sense to be clear about that.  I thought it was a generic statement about philosophical opposition to strongmen in politics, which seems fine to me but poorly expressed.

Just to be clear, here are circumstances under which I will vote a bill out of committee:

• The bill proposes to do something that I think is wrong and dumb.
• The bill directly insults me, personally.
• The bill directly insults His Majesty.

All of those are fine!  The CRL shouldn't care if a bill is insulting someone.  It's not an etiquette committee.  The problem is that it's unclear and seems to be accidentally insulting someone.

There's really only a few reasons to hold up a bill:

• It's inorganic.
• It's got mistakes that interfere with its function, and so it won't do what the author intends.
• It's got mistakes that interfere with its form, and so it accidentally seems to be saying something unintended.

If the issue is that this is supposed to be a devastating dig at me, just clarify it so that it's not easily misinterpreted, and the issue will be resolved.

So if the Government members think that the non-operative preamble to a bill "insults" them in a particular way, the Ziu should not be allowed to consider the bill?

I think the only reason the Whereas will not be changed is to be able to give false assertions such as :

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on April 29, 2026, 11:19:17 PMFrankly, the fact that the current Government is hellbent on keeping new citizens bending the knee to them is all the more argument in favor of the bill's value

Why not also add 'Whereas the current Government insists on having new citizens knee to them' ? If the Government opposes this insulting whereas, it will also confirm the bill's value, according to such reasoning

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 30, 2026, 04:01:07 PMLol, that was a good one, Miestra.

I have mentioned this in responding to Ian. Serving in the Ziu is just one way of participation among many many other opportunities for involvement in politics. I have criticized it in the past but one benefit of our politics-heavy culture is the widespread opportunities for participation. Parliamentary service should call for a higher standard.

I agree, although not about the age thing.  It's certainly possible that we should have ethical standards.

The CRL is directed to "suggest amendments in their best judgment" about such matters as the "correctness of the language."  A bill that unintentionally seems to people to possibly be insulting the king definitely has a problem with its language!

I have never voted against sending a bill out of committee just because I thought it was a bad idea, and I'm not starting now -- but I do think it's a problem if there's a clause that's confusing enough that multiple people misinterpreted it.  The bill is unclear in its form, though the function is correct.  Bills should not be written so confusingly that multiple people misinterpret a clause as an insult.

I mean, right now the whereas clause says, "WHEREAS, Talossa ought to be a nation of laws and principles, as opposed to strongmen and personalities."

Why not just change it to, "WHEREAS, Talossa ought to be a nation of laws and principles" ?  Nothing about the effect of the bill would change.  I'm surprised this is even a point of contention.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 30, 2026, 03:43:57 PM

Quote from: King Txec on April 30, 2026, 03:41:25 PMWe should be encouraging people, not limiting based on an arbitrary number like age.

Of course you'd say that, Methuselah

(for legal reasons, this is a joke, Txec is pretty much my age)

-Txec R