Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on April 28, 2024, 05:00:07 PMOk, but why?

I understand catchment areas need to be balanced on a global scale. I don't understand why they would need to be balanced for any one specific country, as long as there is still balance overall. If anything I think the differing catchment areas is part of what makes provinces have their own unique identity. Giving all provinces an equal share of us catchment area would just make provinces more the same.

In the case of Cézembre, it being the only European province is a big part of our history. It makes sense to combine that with a relatively large European catchment area even if that means not having much catchment area elsewhere.

At most, there would appear to be three provinces that have "their own unique identity":

• Benito has the Cjovani, though obviously not all Benitians are Cjovani (I can't claim to be, for example).
• Fiova has the reviensadeirs.
• Cézembre is, as you say, "the European province".

Of these, only Cézembre's identity would appear to be based on geography. So if it makes sense to you to remove Cézembre from the US-specific catchment map, we can look at doing so. I've attached a sample of what that could look like below. (In the tables to compare different options, it's "Realignment D".)

To the more general point of "why try to balance catchment areas in general", as already covered above, catchment areas generally need refreshing from time to time to rebalance things and try to get new blood in to provinces that need it.

Hm, good point. I like designating a capital building. I'll check out the area tomorrow!

What is cool and unique about Maricopa that the other provinces don't have?

I admit that I don't quite understand your point, honestly.  His Majesty specifically endorsed the process being considered right now and said he would abdicate as soon as a successor was chosen.  It seems quite backwards to suggest that a candidate must be named before the process can be established, so I assume that wasn't what you meant?

Look, as I understand it, the major point of contention was that republicans were generally in favor of an entirely inactive monarchy rather than an invigorated one, since an inactive monarchy would continue to lead to a decline in support for monarchy in general.  Likewise, monarchists were generally in favor of supporting the king, since lending any support to change meant helping destroy one of Talossa's oldest and most valuable traditions.  But both sides have agreed to give way, with monarchists accepting a pretty dramatic and historic shift in norms, while republicans are accepting the continuation of the monarchy for at least the near future.  The king appears to be endorsing the resulting deal, offering his own abdication once it has been accomplished.  It would be a shame to scorn that healing gesture!

What is the fear?  That His Majesty will renege?  No one thinks that King John I is going to do that.  Ask Dama Miestra if she thinks that the man can stick to a deal, and she will confirm.  Hell, my own principles are known to be made of cold iron.  And if the question is delay -- well, I don't think that's realistic.  Alea iacta est, and that can't be undone.

A hard and painful bargain has been struck, so let it abide.

Has the list been updated?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 28, 2024, 05:38:29 PMUnder these terms, when his Majesty is offering exactly what was demanded, it would seem particularly ungracious for the legislature to suddenly reverse itself and insist on forcible deposing. I would hope that this body would not be so shabby.

Well, it's not exactly what was demanded. Specifically the King is asking to officially be part of the process of selecting the new King, beyond simply announcing his preferred successor. At this point we can't know who he has in mind, and whether that person would be acceptable to the various elements of our population. We do not want to end up in a situation in which the King will only nominate candidates who would not enjoy broad enough support, because then we will be exactly where we are now.

Again I point out that the King could potentially resolve this easily by announcing who he would select.

Under these terms, when his Majesty is offering exactly what was demanded, it would seem particularly ungracious for the legislature to suddenly reverse itself and insist on forcible deposing. I would hope that this body would not be so shabby.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 28, 2024, 04:52:36 PMI have no reason to believe that His Majesty has the intent to go back on his pledge to abdicate once he is "satisfied that there will yet remain to our Kingdom a monarch to safeguard her honours and her majesties". Emphasis added; the King is signalling the kind of person (with the kind of agenda) he hopes to nominate. It could be a long time before such a person can be found who would be acceptable to a Ziu supermajority.

I will consult my party ASAP but I hope we can still Clark this in time.

I hope we can move forward with both bills too. This seems like a remarkable opportunity for progress.