The March 2017 Clark

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

The March 2017 Clark is now here.


www.talossa.ca/files/clark.php?cosa=50&clark=2

Or here: www.talossa.ca/files/print_clark.php (this is the printer friendly version)


In PDF Form (which was made from the print_clark.php page):

www.talossa.ca/files/clarks/March2017Clark.pdf

Warning: we have a 21 page Clark this month!!!

or can vote online here: www.talossa.ca/files/clark_vote.php

Or in this thread, until the 21st of the month, at 19h30 TST.

Senators are allowed to create a single thread in the Senate chamber to post all of the Senate Votes that are not cast in this thread. Any votes not posted either using the form above, the current thread or the Senate thread might be ignored and void. Please do not vote by email or private messages.

When you vote, do not indicate any conditions which may make it sound like this vote isn't final: you can always change your vote later.


All nominated Cosa Members and Senators have been emailed

Marti-Pair Furxheir
Secretary of State

[Ian Plätschisch]

RZ2: PËR

RZ3: PËR

RZ4: PËR

RZ5: PËR

RZ6: PËR

RZ7: PËR

RZ8: PËR

RZ9: PËR

RZ10: CONTRÂ

RZ11: CONTRÂ

RZ12: PËR

RZ13: CONTRÂ

RZ14: PËR

RZ15: PËR

RZ16: PËR


VoC: ÜC

[Glüc da Dhi]

RZ2 - PER Senators should campaign on their own merit, not automatically lift along with a party.

RZ3 - PER, although I will probably submit a minor amendment at some point to make explicit what happens if votes are tied on all preference levels. (Im assuming that would mean we go with the orglaw solution, but that should be made explicit.)

RZ4 - PER

RZ5 - PER, but I do support a weak form of the royal veto

RZ6 - PER I only wished I had been in time to write additions to the bill for other royal obligations

RZ7 - AUS Related to my comment on RZ6. I'm not opposed to this bill. In the end there should be consequences for getting in the way of good governance. But rather than focus on punishment I had hoped we would focus on prevention first by making it as difficult as possible for the King to actually hold things up.

RZ8 - PER, duh

RZ9 - PER I dont have anything against the word cool, but the bedpost requirement is ridiculous

RZ10 - CON Its good that there are some organisatorial walls between our institutions, so not every non political officer has to always obey the Seneschal

RZ11 - CON Its good that there are some organisatorial walls between our institutions, even more so in the case in the royal society which should have as little to do with politics as possible.

RZ12 - PER

RZ13 - CON

RZ14 - CON I know where I stand on the Monarchy, dont need a referendum for that. Either way I have my doubts about non-binding referenda. If you propose a bill you cannot just say what you dont like, you are forced to show what your alternative looks like. I think thats important. Also, I dont like the last part, because I want to reduce the Kings powers, but like I said I support a weak veto, so Im a bit in the middle on that one. More reasons to oppose this one here: talossa.proboards.com/post/150635. Question to the FreeDems: Will the FreeDems end their agnostic policy and come out in support of the Monarchy, should that turn out to be the will of the people?

RZ15 - PER I do note though, that there is a trend going on of, especially at the beginning of a term, hoppering large reforms that deserve a month of discussion for people to weigh in and think about it and then immediatly clarking them as soon as its allowed, and then later finding out something should have been done differently. ETT noticed this problem as well: talossan.ca/ett/opinion-when-changing-the-orglaw-check-it-twice/ (I dont agree with the solutions proposed in that article, but the problem is real.) RZ15 and 16 in particular are large reforms that could have done with more discussion before being clarked.

RZ16 - PER see above

VoC - Üc

edit: entered my votes in the db

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

RZ2 - Për
RZ3 - Për
RZ4 - Për
RZ5 - Për
RZ6 - Për
RZ7 - Për
RZ8 - Për
RZ9 - Për
RZ10 - Për
RZ11 - Për
RZ12 - Për
RZ13 - Abstain
RZ14 - Për
RZ15 - Për
RZ16 - Për
VoC - ÜC

GV, Senator (Fiova)

[Iason Bitxichë Taiwos]

RZ2 - Con
RZ3 - Per
RZ4 - Per
RZ5 - Con
RZ6 - Per
RZ7 - Per
RZ8 - Per
RZ9 - Per
RZ10 - Per
RZ11 - Per
RZ12 - Per
RZ13 - Con
RZ14 - Per
RZ15 - Per
RZ16 - Per
VoC - Üc

[Viteu Marcianüs]

RZ2 – Për
RZ3 - Për
RZ4 - CON
RZ5 – Për
RZ6 - Për
RZ7 - Për
RZ8 - Për 
RZ9 - Për
RZ10 - Për
RZ11 - Për
RZ12 - Për
RZ13 – Për
RZ14 – Për (It’s always nice to know where our elected officials stand on the issue of providing the people with a clear voice to express their will.)
RZ15 - Për
RZ16 - Për
VoC - ÜC

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Mar 19, 2017 23:17:39 GMT -6 Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h said:

VoC - ÜC

GV, Senator (Fiova)

Your votes were entered, but I need to remind you that you do not have a say on the VoC, being a senator...

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

I vote as follows:

RZ2: Austanéu.

RZ3: Per. This bill is an improvement over the status quo, though I am concerned that (as discussed in the Hopper thread) there remains the possibility that a race could wind up deadlocked with no possible way of declaring a winner.

RZ4: Contra, because I don't want to discourage competition for the Senäts. It seems that we are at greater risk of too little than too much competition at this point.

RZ5: Contra, for the reasons expressed by Sen. Tresplet.

RZ6: Contra. Note that putting the new text in red did not carry through to the published Clark (for reasons such as that, I prefer that bills set forth "before and after" text to preserve a clear record of changes).

RZ7: Contra. The addition of a new poorly-defined crime, targeted at the holder of a single office, to this portion of the OrgLaw seems unnecessary and prone to abuse for political reasons. (This bill is another example of how "amended text in red" can go wrong in the transition from Hopper to Clark to Anuntzia.)

RZ8: Contra. The title of this bill insinuates an interpretation of the language proposed for deletion that is unfair to the original author, who is a friend of mine. It may be that it even unfairly maligns the character of actual pirates, as one of the few surviving examples of pirate articles strictly condemns rape as a capital offense.

RZ9: Contra. Uncool.

RZ10: Contra. I have thought for a while, though, that the Scribery should perhaps be merged into the Chancery. (Note that the parenthetical references to historic bills appearing at the end of many sections in el Lexhatx are not parts of the statutory text but editorial notes of the Scribery. This bill would seem to have the effect, however, of writing several of them into the statutory text.)

RZ11: Contra. I do believe, however, that the Royal Society should be reformed to be self-governing. (See comment on previous bill about parenthetical notes on legislative history in el Lexhatx.)

RZ12: Contra. I was originally inclined to support this bill, but have come to have serious misgivings about aspects of the proposed approach to coin production. Most notably, in previous Cosas a Kickstarter-type fundraiser was always an integral part of the coin strategy. This is vital because it ensures that we have some objective indicator of interest in the coins before they are minted. Otherwise, paying up front for hundreds of coins during a period of declining activity levels could just leave us with a severely depleted treasury and a significant inventory of useless coins to maintain (on top of our inventory of stamps).

RZ13: Contra.

RZ14: Contra.

RZ15: Per.

RZ16: Per.

VoC: Üc.

[Alèx Soleighlfred]

On RZ2, per
On RZ3, per
On RZ4, per
On RZ5, per
On RZ6, per
On RZ7, per
On RZ8, per
On RZ9, contra
On RZ10, aus
On RZ11, per
On RZ12, per
On RZ13, contra
On RZ14, per
On RZ15, per
On RZ16, aus

VoC: UC.

[Brad Holmes]

RZ2:  CONTRA.
RZ3:  PER.
RZ4:  CONTRA. 
RZ5:  CONTRA.
RZ6:  CONTRA.
RZ7:  CONTRA.
RZ8:  CONTRA.
RZ9:  CONTRA.
RZ10: CONTRA.
RZ11: CONTRA.
RZ12: CONTRA.
RZ13: CONTRA.
RZ14: CONTRA.
RZ15: PER.
RZ16: PER.

VoC: NON.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Please note that Françal Ian Lux tried to vote by email on the Clark, but I do not accept Clark votes by email.

I emailed him to post here, but it is cutting it close.

This is a reminder people : I DO NOT ALLOW VOTES ON THE CLARK BY EMAIL!!!

It's in the database, in this thread or, for senators, on the Senate thread.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Mar 21, 2017 17:06:55 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Please note that Françal Ian Lux tried to vote by email on the Clark, but I do not accept Clark votes by email.

I emailed him to post here, but it is cutting it close.

This is a reminder people : I DO NOT ALLOW VOTES ON THE CLARK BY EMAIL!!!

Why not? The OrgLaw says MZs can vote by post or telephone as well as by electronic device. So if telephone and snail mail are acceptable, rejecting email seems a bit arbitrary.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Mar 21, 2017 17:44:45 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Mar 21, 2017 17:06:55 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Please note that Françal Ian Lux tried to vote by email on the Clark, but I do not accept Clark votes by email.

I emailed him to post here, but it is cutting it close.

This is a reminder people : I DO NOT ALLOW VOTES ON THE CLARK BY EMAIL!!!

Why not? The OrgLaw says MZs can vote by post or telephone as well as by electronic device. So if telephone and snail mail are acceptable, rejecting email seems a bit arbitrary.

It's the rules I've published over the last what, 2 years?

And it's not arbitrary. It's because emails can end up in the spam filter and that leads to just fighting and arguing...

[Françal Ian Lux]

RZ2 – Për
RZ3 - Për
RZ4 - Për
RZ5 – Për
RZ6 - Për
RZ7 - Për
RZ8 - Për
RZ9 - Për
RZ10 - Për
RZ11 - Për
RZ12 - Për
RZ13 – Për
RZ14 – Për
RZ15 - Për
RZ16 - Për
VoC - ÜC

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Awesome! I was afraid you would miss the deadline.

BTW, you tipped the balance on RZ7 from failing to passing...