News:

Welcome to Wittenberg!

Main Menu

Recent posts

#31
El Funal/The Hopper / Re: The TalossaWiki is not a b...
Last post by Sir Lüc - Yesterday at 12:08:39 PM
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!
#32
The Webspace / Re: Webspace Issues to Address
Last post by Baron Alexandreu Davinescu - Yesterday at 10:48:47 AM
There's a lot of double redirects that a patriot could fix: https://wiki.talossa.com/index.php?title=Special:DoubleRedirects&limit=500&offset=0

I need to offer some incentive, so I'll be reintroducing the days of observance thing again.
#33
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 status
Thank you!  Sorry about the bother.
#34
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.

Of 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 status

@Sir Lüc , sorry for the disturbance, could you please move this bill back to the Hopper ?
#35
In Defensa Traditionis / [COMUNICAZIUN UFICIAL DEL PART...
Last post by Mximo Malt - Yesterday at 09:49:42 AM
Membreux es sostireirs del IDT,

Sch'o voi piaça, sovetz noastră páxhină Instagram:

in_defensa_traditionis

In C'hríost,

MM

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#37
You'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.
#38
Progressive Alliance / Re: Welcome to the Progressive...
Last post by Tong Mun Kit - Yesterday at 07:58:10 AM
I see. Which is our private room link?
#39
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2026, 07:05:48 AM
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.
That is a min understanding of what I said.

I my point was literally from the start was one specific thing, I only explained the above as reasons I believe my original point is actually more important than i put across before and why the bill should at least say that
"Should a Cunstaval be of the same province they are from, they shall not be eligible to be the head of government or executive of legislative branches of said province"

I think the wording is more clear than wha to have said in previous posts. I think other points about also being a senator or member of the legislature in a province should be thought about too, but that isn't a discussion for this bill. And my only priority here (which I should have been clearer about in my last response and I'm sorry that I wasn't) is to stop the possibility of the Cunstaval being the head of government in any province as has been my main concern from the start. Especially as this change has the potential to have a Cunstaval be from the same province which jm not against but only if the language of this bill reflects that in so far as saying in that scenario the Cunstaval will be ineligible to hold the executive office whilst they are Cunstaval. The law is always better with being clear on such things, especially in regards to separation of powers.
I'm just worried that if we don't pit that in now, it may cause issues down the line.
#40
El Funal/The Hopper / Re: The TalossaWiki is not a b...
Last post by Sir Lüc - January 16, 2026, 04:57:52 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on January 16, 2026, 02:28:07 PM
Quote 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.

TalossaWiki has never been administered by the Chancery, it actually was a MinStuff project and theoretically was administered by the same, as long as that ministry existed anyways, although it's always been a pretty hands off thing. In the end, it's mostly been me and the King and a few other changing admins doing the little admin work there was to do.