Scribal Note to El Lexh H.20

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

https://wiki.talossa.com/Law:El_Lexhatx#H._Legislation

Due to a series of "catastrophic failures" 57PD10 added a Lexh.H.21 But it should already have been there because 57PD1 also introduced a § H.21 while simultaneously deleting § H.17 without providing for a renumbering that instead was carried out even though it was not authorised [1]. Therefore by reinstating former 57PD1 § H.21, the subsequent 57PD10 that explicitly provides for the introduction of a new section § H.21 causes a conflict that should automatically provide for the displacement of the already existing section. This situation should be cured by law.--Üc R. Tärfâ (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2023 (CDT)

I think I more or less grasp what Üc was saying here, but I confess I'm not exactly sure what form of legislation we need to introduce to "cure" it.

[Sir Lüc]

Basically:

- 56RZ10 meant to move the role of Túischac'h to the OrgLaw;
- People thought Lex.H.17 estabilished the office of Túischac'h, and so it could now be deleted, but it actually contained the Túischac'h election rules;
- Regardless, instead of deleting H.17, 56RZ10 deleted the Living Cosa provisions, then-H.21
- 57PD1 restored the Living Cosa thing, H.21, and deleted the Tuischac'h election rules, H.17, again thinking it estabilished the office of Túischac'h instead
- For some reason, 57PD10 restored the Tuischac'h election rules as H.21, instead of as H.17
- The Living Cosa provisions were renumbered (without specific authorisation) as H.22, where they currently stand

It's a bit of a mess stemming from the fact 57PD10 stated "H.21 of el Lexhatx is added", when H.21 already existed, and didn't say anything about what to do with H.21. Whoever scribed this just renumbered the existing H.21 to H.22.

(Also, 57PD10 is itself a misnumbering, since it was issued during the 58th Cosă)

[Sir Lüc]

The cure would probably be to just restate H.21 and H.22 so they both explicitly occupy those sections, although I would urge anyone interested in tinkering with Title H to instead consider whether it would be better to reorganise the whole title into a more coherent form so that it's harder for this stuff to happen again, and so that it's easier to read.

A personal proposal could be to have H.1.x contain all provisions related to the Ziu as a whole, H.2.x contain all provisions related to the Senate and its officers, H.3.x the Cosă, and H.4.x any miscellaneous stuff.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The cure would probably be to just restate H.21 and H.22 so they both explicitly occupy those sections, although I would urge anyone interested in tinkering with Title H to instead consider whether it would be better to reorganise the whole title into a more coherent form so that it's harder for this stuff to happen again, and so that it's easier to read.

A personal proposal could be to have H.1.x contain all provisions related to the Ziu as a whole, H.2.x contain all provisions related to the Senate and its officers, H.3.x the Cosă, and H.4.x any miscellaneous stuff.

I beg you to write this legislation yourself. My head hurts just reading all that.

[Sir Lüc]

The cure would probably be to just restate H.21 and H.22 so they both explicitly occupy those sections, although I would urge anyone interested in tinkering with Title H to instead consider whether it would be better to reorganise the whole title into a more coherent form so that it's harder for this stuff to happen again, and so that it's easier to read.

A personal proposal could be to have H.1.x contain all provisions related to the Ziu as a whole, H.2.x contain all provisions related to the Senate and its officers, H.3.x the Cosă, and H.4.x any miscellaneous stuff.

I beg you to write this legislation yourself. My head hurts just reading all that.

I'd be glad to Hopper a fix and reorganization bill in the coming weeks, on time for inclusion in the Third Clark (when hopefully my two bills amending Title H that are currently slated for the Second Clark will have passed, so I can include their language in the fix.)

[Sir Lüc]

Anyway, as I took another look at H, I am reminded that I hate most of it. I'm fixing issues with H.18 and H.21 right now, but:

• H.1 mandates the State Opening when you can't generally force anyone to do anything that's not crucial. The provision on a simultaneous Living Cosa is outdated and impractical.
• H.1.2 mistranslates Seneschal as First Minister and has an outdated version of Talossan spelling.
• H.2 is ancient and simply ignores the modern practice of Terps as a written exchange on Witt. No one calls Terps "PQs" and the acronym is not even defined anywhere. There's so many little things that are wrong or odd in the subparagraphs too, such as H.2.7 putting the Courts in charge of disciplining an unresponsive Minister (why would the Judiciary cross over into Ziu internal matters instead of simply letting the Ziu censure the Minister?)
• H.5 starts with a ridiculous clause, "A difference shall exist (and be spelled out in future bills)", and goes on to state that difference immediately.
• H.6 has all sorts of capitalization issues; H.6.3, that's a hell of a requirement for a discharge petition!
• H.7.1-2 should be rewritten to be clearer, and merged with H.8.
• H.10 has, to the best of my knowledge, never been followed, and is a terrible idea anyway. Besides, why is this here and not as a subsection of C.1.2?
• H.14 has also never been followed unless John is sitting on a massive stash of signed bills.
• H.20, "the Secretary will make known to the press", is a clear nod to when we had Stotanneu. H.20.1 has never been followed and should rather mandate a PD be added to the Anuntzia dels Legeux asap.
• H.22, what the hell is "The Cosa may hold living Cosas during subsequent Clarks [...]"  supposed to mean? There are also a few other wrinkles, such as 22.3, where you basically forbid any debate not germane to the current Clark to take place at a Living Cosă.

I'm down to tackle most or all of these, but it seems like a lot of work and it will take time.