By precedent, nominations will remain open until a week from me calling for them, so a little less than two days for any other nomination!

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on October 02, 2026, 11:46:19 AM

Quote from: Sir Lüc on October 02, 2026, 10:44:38 AM[...]

1/2) As I understand it, the Lexhatx doesn't allow the Cosă to set its own rules like it does the Senäts (Lexh.H.3.1), so these rules would not be strictly binding.

This is absolutely true, but I suspect we're in "the law doesn't explicitly allow something, so it must mean it disallows it" territory. These rules basically only govern how an informal session operates and entirely operate within the limits of existing legislation, for example when dealing with bills, or when saying the Túischac'h maintains order. By comparison, the Senate rules are completely different and much more consequential; for example, they precisely set the terms of office of senators, which is something the Cosă doesn't need, since an MC gains their seat when they're appointed and (normally) loses it on Dissolution.

QuoteI hesitate to add these rules to the Lexhatx directly because internal processes really shouldn't be a matter of national legislation in the first place.

Fully agreed.

Quote3/4) To the surprise of perhaps no one, these rules I worked out together with AD last term are heavily based on how associations in Germany usually govern themselves, and under this framework, all the points I mentioned are in fact points of order. The idea is that an agenda is set beforehand, and everything that interrupts or distracts from the agenda is a point of order, and the chair adjourns the session once the agenda has run its course. My choice of inspiration doesn't imply that German associations have a better internal structure than the House of Commons, it was moreso a framework that was already familiar to me and easy to adapt to our circumstances here, and I wouldn't mind changing them in the direction of the Commons if there's enthusiasm for it.

That's fine, it's just odd that we'd choose a framework specific to Germany over something more international. And I'm saying that while also firmly believing we shouldn't parrot what any specific legislature does; my "a motion is not a point of order" objection is more grounded in an English dictionary definition and in common procedure, tbh.

Quote5) That would be nice, but you can't really force MCs to be more proactive than they have to be. That's something I've been struggling with during my two terms as Túischac'h at all times.

I fully get what you're saying, as a four-terms-and-a-bit Túischac'h and Mençei - but I'm sure nudging the Seneschal to move to adjourn when we're done is not an unreasonable expectation.

Any further nominations?

-Txec R

To be frank, I started this discussion with the intent to spur on outside of the box thinking. I don't expect that it would ever be acceptable for me to sit as the sole member as Crown-in-Parliament. However, the idea of appointing me or someone else as Deputy Secretary of State for this purpose is the kind of ideas we need. I think this is a workable idea and should be satisfactory for the political class as a Deputy SoS can be dismissed whereas a King is much harder to get rid of.

-Txec R

The AI consciousness debate feels to me like this with extra steps:


I'm not sure we'll ever get anywhere productive with this. Nor do I think that subjective conscious experience will ever be objectively measurable. It's a whole bunch of non-starters and circular logic.

Sure

Quote from: King Txec on October 06, 2026, 05:03:03 PMHere's a crazy idea and one that hasn't been considered. There is ONE person who is always a member of the Ziu. Me. I'm sure this won't be politically palatable, but as I am the only member of the Ziu who is by definition apolitical, I could be helping out in this regard. I know the SoS is also apolitical, but he isn't a member of the Ziu by law. Just throwing out my two bence. Feel free to tell me to go back and sit down on my somewhat battered throne.

-Txec R

My qualm here would be that the King is not an easily politically accountable figure. Meaning: a SoS acting as Túischac'h going rogue is (relatively easily) checked by existing provisions that can remove them from office; a King acting as Túischac'h by virtue of sitting as Crown-in-Parliament would, hypothetically, not be as easy to rein in were they to go rogue. And sure, the present incumbent is exceedingly unlikely to pose this issue... but our laws should be written to last a century, when who knows who will be holding those powers.

But, were you to perform those functions on an appointed basis, rather than ex officio in your capacity as King, I don't think anyone would have any reason to object. Besides, you already do something similar as Deputy Clerk of Courts. So my half-baked counterproposal is:

1. The Chancery is, effectively, the "permanent support staff" of the Cosă in particular and the Ziu in general - so I think it's fine to let the Chancery keep the thing running when the lights are off between GEs.

2. If that were the case, my idea/intention would be to appoint King Txec as Deputy Secretary of State, specifically for the Ziu "department" within the Chancery and with an appropriately fancy title, and delegate to him in turn the powers given to the Chancery in the gap between terms. This could also entail stuff like taking roll call votes in informal sessions, were I unable to attend or were I doubled up as moderator, like in this session.

3. It would be cool if future SoSes would likewise continue this new tradition, and conversely, if Txec or a successor was to temporarily need to take time off, this manner of appointment would have enough flexibility to temporarily replace the "Deputy SoS for the Ziu" as necessary, without additional legislation or hassle.

Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on October 07, 2026, 07:11:02 AMFor the record, papal encyclicals are not considered infallible even by Roman Catholics (and I am not one).

I disagree with your assessment that the question must eventually be answered (the implication being answered through natural means in a way that provides proof). In light of Thomas Nagel's conclusions in his essay "What is it Like to be a Bat" (which I heartily recommend), it seems impossible that we would ever know what it is "like" to be an AI, or (the more important question here) if it is "like" anything at all, regardless of outward appearance.

There is no way of getting at the truth of this matter without adverting to philosophy.

The sarcasm was simply about disagreement with the pope's conclusion generally as a powerful figure. As someone who was raised Catholic though I knew about the encyclicals, Ian. :) Visiting the Vatican was quite the experience.

It might be possible to infer some form of subjective experience (suffering, for example) from observing physical responses, the capacity of which, Bentham suggested be used as a measure of sentience. And I am optimistic that yes we will be able to describe individual qualia eventually. One day I will know what it is like to be a bat and what it is like to be Ian.

I have marked my availability.

-Txec R

For the record, papal encyclicals are not considered infallible even by Roman Catholics (and I am not one).

I disagree with your assessment that the question must eventually be answered (the implication being answered through natural means in a way that provides proof). In light of Thomas Nagel's conclusions in his essay "What is it Like to be a Bat" (which I heartily recommend), it seems impossible that we would ever know what it is "like" to be an AI, or (the more important question here) if it is "like" anything at all, regardless of outward appearance.

There is no way of getting at the truth of this matter without adverting to philosophy.