Can I ask the Leader of the Opposition for opinions on the other points in the Seneschal's post that haven't been touched on yet?  Specifically, the 6 year rule for conclave forming and the 7 year rule for automatic abdication.  Also are you ok with the Senior Justice chairing the assembly or do you envisage a conclave without a chair?  And, the bit about a Council of Regency as an emergency contingency?

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on February 15, 2021, 05:47:00 PM
I have another question actually:

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 14, 2021, 01:24:34 PM
-Eight MCs, chosen by the parties in proportion to their Cosa seats (plus the Seneschal if not an MC or Senator)
-The eight Senators
-The Justices of the UC
-The eight provincial executives
-The eight officers of the Royal Civil Service
-All Talossans who have been a citizen for at least ten years

Which eight officers? There are more than eight offices associated with or adjacent to the Civil Service, so which ones are meant by that? Or is it because there happen to be eight different people in charge of all these aforementioned offices as of now?

- Secretary of State
- Burgermeister of Inland Revenue
- Scribe of Abbavilla
- Royal Archivist
- President of the Royal Society (University)
- Chancellor of the Bar
- Squirrel King of College of Arms
- Poet Laureate

I actually do see it as a long term compromise that puts the issue to bed for quite some time. Also said in that speech was that I am not a die hard Republican and that I would steer the party on safe ground (in fact, I would have thought that the opposition would be elated and stoked that the FreeDems are about to elect a person who has been as pro-Monarchy as I have been as the next party leader).  I also think you know well enough that that section  of the speech was a call for party unity more than anything else. Nothing radical or extreme will be coming from the FreeDems on this issue; at least, not under my stewardship of the party.  The spirit of our policy of 'agnostism' will continue on. This compromise proposal, or something similar to it, should satisfy the majority of FreeDem members to cease seeking any further, more radical proposals, yes.  Although, neither of us should just expect the die hard Republican minority to just sit down and eat their cereal and stop campaigning for what they desire. Is that reason enough to not pass reforms in line with the result of the referendum?  That a political movement would do what political movements would be expected to do? You correctly identify that passing this reform will put the issue to bed for a majority of our nation.  Choosing not to pass such a reform will only allow the issue to continue being a big issue and the debate to continue being a big debate for longer.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 12, 2021, 12:45:26 PM
I must say I am concerned with some of what top Free Democrats are saying at their party convention regarding this proposal. FreeDem President-elect Grischun said in a speech earlier this week:

QuoteThe journey doesn't need to stop here.  We can stay unified and keep chipping away, slowly, surely, to achieve something closer to your [Republican's] overall visions.

Later, GV said:

Quote...if the monarchy could have been made to go altogether, so much the better.

I would like to believe the Seneschal that this proposal really is going to be a Historic Compromise, but if it is instead just another waypoint on an ultimate mission to abolish or dramatically diminish the Monarchy, then I can do nothing else but oppose it.

To oppose this compromise, which leans very heavily in favour of Monarchism, and in turn rejecting the democratic result of a popular referendum, just because the Republican caucus might want to keep campaigning for future changes is nothing short of petty.  None of us have a crystal ball, so we can't say what the future will or won't bring, but I'm sure if any future moves towards Republicanism ever happen then it would happen as a result of an election that led to a future parliament being made up of a supermajority of Republicans.  I'm not sure how likely that is.  You are basically saying that you won't help pass this compromise proposal because, what?... you thought Republican caucuses would cease to exist from this point forward?

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 31, 2021, 12:31:46 AM

Quote from: Eðo Grischun on January 31, 2021, 12:10:17 AM
If the Regent thinks it's proper to lump the Monarchy options together to "juke the stats", then it's only fair to do it for the other viewpoint...

The clearest mandate to take from this referendum is that the status quo was soundly rejected.

In round one, just 23 people voted in favour of the status quo, while 62 voted for options of change. That's 86% of first preferences seeking a change from the way things are today.  If we further look at those 62 ballots, only 4 of them selected the status quo option as their second choice.  Going to the next round only 14 of 62 ranked status quo as their third preference.

Even when lumping the two monarchy options together you only get 42%, but it should be pointed out that those two options are completely incompatible with each other.  Indeed, option 4 (for a wholly ceremonial Monarch) was the most preferred second choice to the voters who want an elected head of state as their first choice (22 of the 30).

The nation may be divided on what the future form of State should be, but it has spoken clearly in saying that the status quo must change.

I just said that.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 30, 2021, 07:11:09 PM
...

But further, as the Seneschal points out, a large majority prefers some change as their first preference even as they disagree dramatically about what that change should be.  I wish there were a clear mandate in favor of the monarchy beyond overall topline preference that we continue to be a Kingdom of Talossa, but the topline result is about as sharply divided as one could imagine.

And zero people who chose Option 1 as their first choice chose Option 3 as their second, and likewise vice-versa.  We're sharply divided, even if a majority is in favor of some form of monarchy.  Again, I'd be interested in seeing more suggestions about further action we can take.  One possibility might be re-running the referendum.  Adding the option to strengthen the monarchy -- so that the status quo didn't represent one pole versus three other options -- and running it at an actual general ballot would be one possibility.  A detailed analysis of what happened with the Republic might be another, if people are still interested in adopting their governmental structure.  I'd be happy to keep discussing the numbers here, but I think it's pretty hard to slice-and-dice this any which way where it yields some sort of resounding mandate for action either way (either in solidifying the monarchy as it is or abandoning it).  I remain overall very happy with it, though, since I think it shows that the Talossan people still support the monarchy.  I think a higher turnout would have made that clearer.

QuoteWe're sharply divided, even if a majority is in favor of some form of monarchy.

We're somewhat divided, even if an overwhelming majority favours a fundamental shift from the status quo.
(FTFY).



Here, instead of politicking the heck out of the numbers and instead of talking about re-running the referendum and instead of trying to dismiss the legitimacy of this referendum over arguments of low turnout, maybe the best option might be the one that has already been suggested by the Seneschal.  Monarchists could put forward their input on how a compromise could be achieved.  Elected Head of State does not need to mean the abolition of the Monarchy.

If the Regent thinks it's proper to lump the Monarchy options together to "juke the stats", then it's only fair to do it for the other viewpoint...

The clearest mandate to take from this referendum is that the status quo was soundly rejected.

In round one, just 23 people voted in favour of the status quo, while 62 voted for options of change. That's 86% of first preferences seeking a change from the way things are today.  If we further look at those 62 ballots, only 4 of them selected the status quo option as their second choice.  Going to the next round only 14 of 62 ranked status quo as their third preference.

Even when lumping the two monarchy options together you only get 42%, but it should be pointed out that those two options are completely incompatible with each other.  Indeed, option 4 (for a wholly ceremonial Monarch) was the most preferred second choice to the voters who want an elected head of state as their first choice (22 of the 30).

The nation may be divided on what the future form of State should be, but it has spoken clearly in saying that the status quo must change.

Quote from: Iac Marscheir on January 24, 2021, 03:31:26 PM
Vü qe dels uçeirs tiennent så mült latitüd, c'e verschain ünă idéă bună da zonar el linc àls perziuns qi non sint citaxhiéns.

(Given that users have so much latitude, it's probably a good idea to not give the link to people who aren't citizens.)

Registration rules can be tightened, but have been left very loose purposefully to make it easy for as many citizens as possible to sign up within a short period of time.  Once we have mass uptake the rules will be tightened.  The same process was used when we switched to NewWitt.  In the meantime, I'm actively monitoring new account signups and any non-citizen accounts that flag up will be deleted.

Quote from: xpb on January 23, 2021, 06:24:21 PM
I have been noodling around on the TalossaNet site and really appreciate the Ministry of Stuff efforts for this.

Question - is there a setting or parameter in regard to the Groups that would have the feed come up first when clicking on them?  I think that would be better than the current default of just bringing up the members of the group on first touch.

Done!  Thanks for the suggestion.

Vuode casts its vote for Xhorxh Pol Briga.

Quote from: Adam Grigoriu on January 14, 2021, 03:01:01 PM
In that case, let the voting begin. If you would rather not have your vote made public, then feel free to PM or email me unless there is a different procedure I am unaware of @Eðo?

No, everything from this point forward is uncharted territory as far as I know.

I move that we request the Ministry of the Interior to conduct an election as described by the member for Cezembre.

https://talossa.com/patriot-points/

The league table has been updated with the latest available info.

Quote from: Istefan Perþonest on January 13, 2021, 09:18:37 AM

Quote from: Açafat del Val on January 10, 2021, 09:31:55 PM
I have put in an order for a single coin, but also made a separate monetary contribution.

Will the @Burgermeister of Internal Revenue confirm to me publicly or privately that both things were received succcesfully?

I've received one single-coin order (from Kansas) and one $5 contribution (from Colorado) since the 8th. So I probably didn't get both of yours successfully.

The order for a coin with the initials "S.K." is the relevant one here.

To debate the Regent's point a bit further, there are instances of law that cause automatic conflict.

I don't know if we use this particular bit of Wisconsin law, so this is just for example (and not very well thought out, so forgive me please): Wisconsin's legal drinking age is 21.  This might match up to the legal drinking age of the resident places that Talossan's live in, but in a lot of cases it wont.  I think we should always try and be careful with what we legislate and how it impacts our citizens based on where they live in the world.  At present, is it technically illegal for a Talossan to drink alcohol at the age of 18 even if the place they live in has a legal drinking age of 16?  I know an obvious answer there is 'no, it isn't illegal because the laws of the place the person is in are in effect'... but, if that is true then none of Talossan law can ever be considered enforceable.

Maybe we should be deciding what bits of law Talossa actually needs to concern itself with and instead of using Wisconsin as the catch-all for everything else, have a clause stating that everything else is dependant on the resident State/country of the citizen.  ?

Point of order.

It doesn't make much sense because the Governor-General of Cézembre and the Governor-General of this council are two different things.  Cézembre's Governor-General is the Crown's Cunstaval while this council's Governor-General is the chairman of this council.  El Lexhatx also explains that the council is composed of provincial Executives (ie: Cézembre's Sénéchal) whether called Governor or not. 

If S:r Briga is elected to serve as this council's Governor-General, Sir Siervicül would still be Cezembre's Governor-General (the Cunstaval).

A conflict doesn't exist.

I repeat my nomination of XPB for Governor-General (chairman of this council). :)