Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 17, 2026, 09:17:51 AMYou're kind of talking past me a bit, here.

Unless I'm mistaken, currently provinces are permitted to arrange their governments mostly how they please, including making the Cunstaval the head of any branch, right?  You're asking for these additional restrictions to be added on the provinces.

" No person shall be at the same time Cunstaval of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province"
Is what the law current says, but it doesn't say that if the Cunstaval is from the same province (which is an idea you support) that they can also become head of government in the province they are Cunstaval in.

I'm only arguing that this loophole be closed as I have said before. I do think a larger look at Cunstavals might be something to look to in the future, but having it in law, to say that
"A Cunstaval also, cannot be Cunstaval and head of government of the same province"
Is basically all I'm wanting to add to this for the moment. As it is not stated in law that that can't be the case, but it is the case that a Cunstaval can't be a head of government in another province. So this addition would make the same principal apply across the board should one day a Cunstaval is appointed the serve in their home province.

So, the King, in what I still regard as an error of judgement, bestowed upon me the title of Knight Commander in the Order of the Nation. Well, I was totally dumbstruck by this proclamation, as I felt I was totally unworthy of such an honor (an opinion I'm sure most other Talossans share.) I messaged the King, even questioned his sanity, but he assured me I was worthy. If he says so, then so be it.
I therefore am asking this noble college if they will "knightify" my current coat of arms. I assume I may choose my own Latin motto.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on January 17, 2026, 04:59:59 PM

You Italian?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr. Proper Gander Minister,

Would you be willing to share this Abbavilla Digest snippet from Fora Talossa? https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4938.0

I've manually shared to reddit on r/Micronations and may be still waiting for admin approval for the posting to the FB Wittenberg page.

Polls are something I've been meaning to incorporate into TN for a while now. Figured we'd get divisive off the bat. :P

I note that this bill would make the first sentence of the modified clause a lie.  "The Senäts shall have equal powers with the Cosa in respect of all proposed laws" will no longer be true.  There will only be two categories of bills for which the Senäts will be equal to the Cosa.  That might be something you want to fix.

Quote from: M:sr Pôl dal Nordselvă, D.Div, M.Ed on June 23, 2025, 05:47:21 AMCan you explain to me why having an upper house that has the authority to reject bills or send them back down is a bad thing? I can perhaps understand the ability of the Cosa to override but do we need to strip them of power in order to accomplish the same purpose?

I thought this was still a good question that didn't actually quite get answered.  The explanation went into the nature of the change in detail, but without saying why it was desirable.  Why would we want to do this?

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on January 17, 2026, 04:23:17 PM

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on July 21, 2025, 05:14:02 PMHonestly I don't mind the "send back" concept, however I do think that after this stage, the Senate should be able to amend the legislation as part of its role as a reviewing chamber before sending the legislation back to the Cosa. Or even just sending the reasons (both requiring a majority of senators to agree on what is send to the Cosa) it has been rejected. Although this is a more complicated system, but might be a sort of middle ground solution. And help with making the senate feeling more useful than it realistically is at the moment.

As Senators are already permitted to describe their reasons for voting against bills, I'm not sure any sort of official reconciliation process might be necessary, but I'm open to hearing what others think before sending this to the CRL.

Delighted to see this is moving now.

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on July 21, 2025, 05:14:02 PMHonestly I don't mind the "send back" concept, however I do think that after this stage, the Senate should be able to amend the legislation as part of its role as a reviewing chamber before sending the legislation back to the Cosa. Or even just sending the reasons (both requiring a majority of senators to agree on what is send to the Cosa) it has been rejected. Although this is a more complicated system, but might be a sort of middle ground solution. And help with making the senate feeling more useful than it realistically is at the moment.

As Senators are already permitted to describe their reasons for voting against bills, I'm not sure any sort of official reconciliation process might be necessary, but I'm open to hearing what others think before sending this to the CRL.

I have been thinking of inserting the latest Fora Talossa video on the Fora Talossa wiki page but am not certain if that capability exist.

@Danihel Txechescu As our resident tech guru, do you by chance know if this is possible. I didn't want to jump in and just fiddle around before asking.