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

Lol, 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.

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)

One of the things that makes Talossa fun and unique is the fact that new citizens can just jump on in and legislate or do practically anything they want to without worrying that someone is going to say "hey, you're too young." I would not be in favor of disallowing our younger citizens the opportunity to join the Cosa, just like I'm not really in favor of an upper age limit also. We should be encouraging people, not limiting based on an arbitrary number like age.

-Txec R

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on April 30, 2026, 02:51:48 PMBTW, I am actively offended by the idea of depriving younger citizens of political rights. Talossa started as a child's fantasy endeavour, and it is repugnant for adults to try to eliminate kids from something they started because adults can't be trusted.

But I'm in favour of age limits for being an MC, though. An upper age limit. We can't be like the "Boomers who won't let go", I think that once you hit 40 or something you should only be able to run for a Senäts seat

I don't see any arguments against a lower age limit while supporting an upper age limit being logically consistent. I support both, we have recent experience that demonstrates why allowing some time for observation and maturation would be beneficial. With an eye on US Politics (I am thinking of Diane Feinstein, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Thomas Keane among other examples) I am sympathetic to a characterizing of the problem of gerontocratic leadership as "Boomers won't let go" though.