Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on Yesterday at 10:35:51 AM@Sir Lüc , sorry for the disturbance, could you please move this bill back to the Hopper ?Sure!
Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on Yesterday at 10:35:51 AMOf course, happy to give us all a bit more time to define a good legal framework for the administration and the moderation of our Wiki, which I think deserves a special statusThank you! Sorry about the bother.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on January 16, 2026, 03:03:37 PMIf this bill is rewritten to (a) make responsibility for administering Talossawiki unambiguous; (b) explicitly give admins/moderators of TalossaWiki authority to revert troll edits and ban repeat offenders, on the same line as the Consequences Act; (c) delete the noxious attempt to bring down the force of the Law on Wiki editors, it might prove useful.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2026, 03:07:45 PMþerxh, would you be willing to wait on sending it to the CRL? Sorry, I know you were ready to go with it, and I should have said something earlier, but there's been a lot going on.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2026, 07:05:48 AMThat is a min understanding of what I said.Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on January 16, 2026, 03:47:03 AMIn order to allow what you're suggesting would actually be a great shift away from current laws and presidents in Talossa. And will dilute to separation of powers.
Just to be clear: this aspect of the law would not be changed. The current law already allows provinces to make their own decisions about that, and they can give any powers they wish to their cunstaval. My bill isn't actually changing this.
So while I understand your criticism, it's a separate issue -- you're asking me to make an additional, complicated change that would restrict the provinces in a new way.
If I were to create this new restriction, I'm not sure how to word it. It would be complicated to phrase it in such a way that it would be meaningful -- "you're not allowed to assign your cunstaval any powers" would essentially defeat our whole purpose here, so we'd need to... I don't know, make a list of powers that we're permitting them to assign?
I'm open to suggested amendments, if you have any language to add, but you're just demanding something outside of the scope of the bill.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on January 16, 2026, 02:28:07 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 21, 2025, 01:34:28 PMI'm not familiar with any provision transferring administration of the wiki to the Chancery. I'm fairly sure that it's a Propaganda or Technology issue, unless I missed a significant legal change.
The Government has never, to my knowledge, administered TalossaWiki. The Government is in charge of "official pages", but TalossaWiki has always been administered by the Chancery not by the Government. There has been no legal change because the Government has never done this, and it has been the Chancery that keeps it ticking on in the background.
Actually, I'm quite surprised to note that apparently there is no legal establishment for TalossaWiki - I don't even know who set it up! Quite apart from the noxious and authoritarian s.7 of this bill, another weakness it shows is that s.4 is entirely in the passive voice - it doesn't say who administers Talossawiki.
If the Government does want to end the ambiguity and place TalossaWiki administration within its competences, this might be a good thing - if it means setting up effective moderation and surveillance, thus removing any excuse for Government Ministers to take citizens to court for disfavored speech.