So, with our most recent prospective citizen, I started looking into immigration law and there are some serious problems. First, El. Lex. literally references a portion of the Organic Law that does not exist.
QuoteTo wit: E.14. An individual whose citizenship has been terminated solely by effect of Article XVIII, Section 10 of the Organic Law may apply to the Chancery for reinstatement of citizenship by providing the contact information required by section E.2. (47RZ46)
(emphasis mine).
There is no Article XVIII Section 10. I presume this was an article under the old Organic Law but since I can neither find it nor is that section even in force, what follows in El.Lex. not only makes no sense but it is also most likely unenforceable.
I would be happy to work on a revision to this portion of the law if I had a way of seeing what was being referenced in Article XVIII. Until then, some of our immigration law is murky and as it stands, I can't act legally on this portion as Secretary of State.
Note: it also doesn't help that 47RZ46 isn't even in the Wiki so I had to dig through the database to find it.
Does anyone remember what it was that
@C. M. Siervicül was trying to fix with this law?
This is a situation in which I am very glad that GV
didn't just delete the pre-Still Into This OrgLaw, which is right here still (http://wiki.talossa.com/Law:Organic_Law).
As you can see, old OrgLaw XVIII:10 read:
QuoteAny citizen who neither votes in any general election nor responds to any national census established by law for a period of two years, as calculated at any Election Deadline, shall be deemed to have renounced his citizenship.
So it's the "Three Strikes", which is X.5 in the new OrgLaw.
For the record, I knew this would happen. I was explaining to some friends of mine yesterday the rich history of Talossa and how I originally came upon it, and something along the lines of "there will be a 6 month court case while my situation is sorted out", and well, here we are.
That said, while I understand that this is lo longer in force, is that not the referenced Article XVIII, §10: https://wiki.talossa.com/Law:Organic_Law#Link18.10 (https://wiki.talossa.com/Law:Organic_Law#Link18.10)?
By my reading, that appears to have essentially been moved to Article X, §5 per 53RZ18.
That said, my argument is that at least originally, Article X, §5 either doesn't apply or shouldn't, due to my situation at the time. It turns out that I came back very briefly before (I entirely forgot that), and my status was legally in doubt then, so...
It appears there were a few clauses that could plausibly cover this specific scenario in the 1997 Organic Law, but they were removed in 2017.
References to my posting on Proboards, for reference:
https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/4921/extremely-sad-news (https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/4921/extremely-sad-news)
https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/10889/azul-citizen (https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/10889/azul-citizen)
(Please excuse my grammar, punctuation, etc. I was 14 and not very smart. I still am, but I was then too.)
Also this is the most fun I've had doing legal research in a very long time.
EDIT: My legal research took too long. Drat.
Having now actually read 47RZ46 and 53RZ22 rather than assuming they didn't exist, I now understand that there is a procedure that covers this.
My new argument (am I allowed to make arguments? I forgot to ask that before making an argument before, so I shall continue doing so now) is that potentially, El Lex 15.1 doesn't apply due to the fact that my original voluntary renunciation was not actually a renunciation, nor was it voluntary. At the time, it was very much involuntary. That said, the case could be made that by coming back and then forgetting I did so, Article X, §5 does in fact apply.
My apologies if my original post embarrassed anyone. That was not my intent. I posted to see if anyone remembered what happened when El Lex and the OrgLaw were changed. It is my interpretation as Secretary of State that Teagan did not renounce voluntarily and was deemed to have renounced by missing 3 elections to which the king did issue a pardon when initially notified of this issue.
Unless there are objections or legal arguments raised to the contrary, it is my intention to reinstate the citizenship of Teagan Elizabeth Rehard in 24 hours time. I also intend on working with the Cosa this term to clean up this section of immigration law to reflect the 2017 OrgLaw and potentially avoid any confusion in the future.
A couple of notes:
- I agree that it would be very helpful to have the wiki fully updated with the different bills that have passed, specifically for incidents like this. It is a big task though, since it's been years since it was done, so it's a big ask for the Scribery. I think GV is working on some big projects right now, but maybe that could be his next one, if he's got the energy.
- Because of the nature of a wiki, all past iterations of the organic law are included in each page. That's one of the best features of it... You can look back through the history of a page to see how it changed over time, and that's particularly helpful when it comes to a law. I would actually suggest that it's markedly less helpful to have the same law split into two documents, so you have to search through the histories of both to find any particular language, but it's not a big deal. Either way, losing previous versions of laws is not something we have to worry about, thankfully.
- This is a dramatically big decision for the Chancery, and it seems like it would be wise to get the A-X to weigh in and look at the potential precedent being set in terms of the definition of "voluntarily" for the purposes of the law.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 10, 2020, 03:44:14 PM
- This is a dramatically big decision for the Chancery, and it seems like it would be wise to get the A-X to weigh in and look at the potential precedent being set in terms of the definition of "voluntarily" for the purposes of the law.
I don't think it is a dramatic decision given the law at hand. I don't see where it says the Chancery has to consult the Attorney General. It says the SoS SHALL reactivate not seek advice from the A-X. However, I did open this decision up to debate by giving it 24 hours instead of simply acting.
QuoteEl.Lex E.14.1. The Secretary of State shall reactivate the citizenship of the individual upon confirming that the individual can be contacted at the same e-mail address previously on file with the Chancery, or otherwise verifying to the Secretary of State's satisfaction the identity of the applicant as a former citizen.
You are not mandated to consult anybody, and you can do as you wish. It was just well-meant advice.
Thanks. I may have sounded snippy so I apologize. I did reach out to the A-X on your advice.
No worries. Hope it works out.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 10, 2020, 03:44:14 PM
- I agree that it would be very helpful to have the wiki fully updated with the different bills that have passed, specifically for incidents like this. It is a big task though, since it's been years since it was done, so it's a big ask for the Scribery. I think GV is working on some big projects right now, but maybe that could be his next one, if he's got the energy.
Just chiming in with a bit of news. Gödafrïeu Valcádac'h yesterday submitted his resignation as Scribe of Abbavilla, while retaining his role as Royal Archivist. The Attorney-General has received a volunteer to take over the Scribery already, and an announcement should be made soon. So: wait to see who that is and then give them helpful suggestions.
My main suggestion would be to ask the government to fund a $100 stipend to pay someone to bring everything up to date. But they should also edit the Organic Law page to remove the phrase "and editing this to make my point again since no one's fixed this yet" from the preamble, which I added a couple of months ago when I was trying to draw attention (http://wiki.talossa.com/index.php?title=Law:2017_Organic_Law&oldid=27212) to the Lawspace issue. Oh, and they should work with the wiki administrator to make sure that only the Scribe has access to that edit power on the wiki: currently there's a long list of ordinary citizens in the Scribe group (http://wiki.talossa.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=Scribes) who shouldn't be there -- obviously, since I couldn't attract attention by leaving messages and editing even the very constitution of our nation -- and the Administrator group also has the power to edit laws at will (and they shouldn't, especially since that group has also swelled in size: http://wiki.talossa.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop). A lot of little things, but dangerous ones if unattended for more years.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 10, 2020, 05:09:20 PM
Oh, and they should work with the wiki administrator to make sure that only the Scribe has access to that edit power on the wiki: currently there's a long list of ordinary citizens in the Scribe group
You see, AD has got us coming and going. When I first got admin rights on the Wiki a month ago, I noticed that big list of people with Scribe privileges, but deliberately didn't whittle it down because it contains people who are unfavorable to the current Government and the last thing I wanted was
Scandal! Power-Mad Government Removes Citizen Rights on Wiki! in the next S'chintéia or whatever. I must admit I didn't notice the vandalism when I moved the 2017 OrgLaw to the Scribespace, though. But you'd have to be a pretty pathetic waste of human material to be laughing and crowing about your ability to commit vandalism, in the first place.
Responsible officials can do nothing right when they're "gun-shy" about being mocked, humiliated and publicly jeered at by a certain member of the public for whom that is the "fun" that he likes to have in Talossa. It's generally safer not to do anything and hope he won't "get" you this week.
Seriously, the question of who has what privileges on the Wiki will have to be decided by the Minister of STUFF and whatever Wiki Administration staff he decides to appoint once the new Government officially takes office. It just remains to me to point out the deplorable bad faith required to point out how many people had scribe status when (a) AD actually gave most of those people the privileges which I just took away, and (b) he had no issue with the Wiki being a mess when the now-LCC leader was MinStuff and doing nothing with it.
It takes a very special kind of jerk to refuse to help the Scribe when the Scribe called for help - eg. over updating the Digest of Laws - but actually commiting vandalism to make the Scribe's job more difficult wasn't any problem at all. Such behaviour is positively un-Talossan, and shameful.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 10, 2020, 05:09:20 PM
But they should also edit the Organic Law page to remove the phrase "and editing this to make my point again since no one's fixed this yet" from the preamble, which I added a couple of months ago when I was trying to draw attention
This is a dirty trick and completely counter-productive. Shame on you.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on September 10, 2020, 09:19:31 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 10, 2020, 05:09:20 PM
But they should also edit the Organic Law page to remove the phrase "and editing this to make my point again since no one's fixed this yet" from the preamble, which I added a couple of months ago when I was trying to draw attention
This is a dirty trick and completely counter-productive. Shame on you.
Repeatedly calling for the page to be moved and personally messaging GV didn't work, so I was trying something funny that I hoped would get attention. Clutch our pearls, we might, but inserting a harmless clause into the non-binding preamble of a law doesn't seem like a moral horror to me. Let's pump the brakes on our rapid descent into humorless pedantry.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 10, 2020, 08:55:02 PM
Seriously, the question of who has what privileges on the Wiki will have to be decided by the Minister of STUFF and whatever Wiki Administration staff he decides to appoint once the new Government officially takes office.
I was offering advice for the Scribe, as you asked. The fact that widening groups of people can edit the laws is a problem for the Scribery. The Scribe may address it or not, as they wish.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 10, 2020, 08:55:02 PMIt just remains to me to point out the deplorable bad faith required to point out how many people had scribe status when (a) AD actually gave most of those people the privileges which I just took away, and (b) he had no issue with the Wiki being a mess when the now-LCC leader was MinStuff and doing nothing with it.
I don't think I ever gave Scribe powers to anyone who wasn't officially in the Scribery when I was admin. I do not know who has been the wiki admin in the time since I left, but they are probably to blame. If it was Ian, then he is to blame. If it was only Ian part of the time, then he is partly to blame.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 10, 2020, 08:55:02 PM
It takes a very special kind of jerk to refuse to help the Scribe when the Scribe called for help - eg. over updating the Digest of Laws - but actually commiting vandalism to make the Scribe's job more difficult wasn't any problem at all. Such behaviour is positively un-Talossan, and shameful.
"Vandalism?" lol ok. Surely if I wanted to be difficult or make anything harder I would have done something at least remotely harmful and wouldn't have personally called it to your attention here or the Scribe's attention at the time (repeatedly).
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 10, 2020, 08:50:00 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 10, 2020, 05:09:20 PM
Oh, and they should work with the wiki administrator to make sure that only the Scribe has access to that edit power on the wiki: currently there's a long list of ordinary citizens in the Scribe group
You see, AD has got us coming and going. When I first got admin rights on the Wiki a month ago, I noticed that big list of people with Scribe privileges, but deliberately didn't whittle it down because it contains people who are unfavorable to the current Government and the last thing I wanted was Scandal! Power-Mad Government Removes Citizen Rights on Wiki! in the next S'chintéia or whatever.
I believe this very much.
Quote
"Vandalism?" lol ok.
That's the technical term. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_on_Wikipedia)
QuoteOn Wikipedia, vandalism is editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, or otherwise degrading.
(https://i.imgflip.com/4ekb9w.jpg)
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 10, 2020, 09:58:07 PM
Quote
"Vandalism?" lol ok.
That's the technical term. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_on_Wikipedia)
QuoteOn Wikipedia, vandalism is editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, or otherwise degrading.
Oh, goodness, you're right.
I mean, someone cynical might say that you're seizing on a flimsy pretext to get all huffy over just about the mildest joke imaginable because you're a little embarrassed, but that would be someone cynical.
(https://i.imgflip.com/4ekc7g.jpg)
(https://i.imgflip.com/4ekcin.jpg)
(https://i.imgflip.com/4ekcsf.jpg)
(https://i.imgflip.com/4ekcz2.jpg)
This whole incident is all the funnier in light of your own speech a few years back on the patriotism of amusing civil disobedience in the public interest, by the way.
If we can pause the hilarious meme war for a moment, I'm interested in the question of moving the 2017 OrgLaw to the Scribe's name space. Because I did that myself a few weeks ago when I got Wiki admin rights (of course I didn't see AD's vandalism), but I had never heard the issue being raised. In fact, I only had to learn about namespaces to protect the New Talossan History Project from vandalism. I must have just missed it when the
QuoteRepeatedly calling for the page to be moved
happened. Still, it's done now.
I agree to the detente.
Yes, I saw you do it, which I thought was well-intentioned but not great. The Seneschal shouldn't have the power to edit the laws at will. I didn't raise a fuss because it didn't seem likely to result in any change and I thought you'd probably just say I was raising the issue to attack you rather than out of legitimate concerns. The rights for user groups should be adjusted. It's not hard to do, and it will prevent anyone not in the Scribery (and thus with the legal authority to maintain our laws) from doing this. I set up Lawspace years ago when getting the wiki infrastructure together specifically as a preventative measure because I thought it would be pretty easy for someone unscrupulous to mess with things. You didn't mean any harm and didn't do any, but we shouldn't plan laws for only the well-intentioned.
Technically, by the way, the Seneschal or MinStuff or wiki admin could always just add themselves to the Scribe group and do it. But that necessitates at least three log entries and will stand out more, making the misdeeds more likely to be noticed.
You all know what's just happened here, right?
This is just AD noticing that his access rights got reduced on the Wiki and is now just throwing a bit of a paddy (the rights got modified almost 6 weeks ago along with a whole load of other out-of-date rights from previous administrations). The pretend problem that he claims he is highlighting to the nation on "swelling of access group membership" was fixed on August 7th. We may have missed a couple of accounts at that time - I'll check and fix that later, but, a wholesale clear-out of old accounts on both the Wiki and the main website took place back in early August immediately after Ian P. handed over control.
Today, something came up and AD went to look at the Wiki to see if he could build a gotcha and discovered that one of his sources of power had been removed from him. This annoyed him and tickled his sensitivities.
And so, because he's a bit of a wrong'un, he's tried to embarrass the government by pulling out some crazy nonsense from way back in April; something bad that he did and tried to make it look like the fault of his political rivals. I mean, how psycho is that? Amaright? But in the end, all he has done here is expose himself as a mischievous and Machiavellian vandal and a bit of a sad sack.
But, I managed to write all this without calling him my favourite 4 letter word that I have for him, so, patting my myself on the back.
Genuinely. Anybody that gives this clown another moment of their attention or energy is asking for the inevitable headache.
Everybody needs to just jog on now. Especially you, AD.
...what? I haven't had any special edit rights on the wiki for years. A quick glance at the log shows that I have been a member of the Citizen user group since 2015: http://wiki.talossa.com/index.php?title=Special:Log/rights&offset=&limit=500&type=rights&user= I demoted myself, incidentally, when I was no longer in office ;)
So I guess your case is that I was suddenly seized by rage over my loss of power on the wiki five years ago (power to do what?) and I was just forced to point out legitimate problems just to cause trouble. And even more malevolently, I sent messages to the person in charge of fixing the problem beforehand.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 10, 2020, 10:40:47 PM
...what? I haven't had any special edit rights on the wiki for years. A quick glance at the log shows that I have been a member of the Citizen user group since 2015.
So I guess your case is that I was all pepped up with righteous anger for the past five years.
My mistake. Your admin rights were removed from the main website in August. Fair enough. Apologies.
That only changes whatever your motive was. The rest still stands. You planted some seed back in April and decide to use it now for... I have no earthly idea what for.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on September 10, 2020, 10:46:42 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 10, 2020, 10:40:47 PM
...what? I haven't had any special edit rights on the wiki for years. A quick glance at the log shows that I have been a member of the Citizen user group since 2015.
So I guess your case is that I was all pepped up with righteous anger for the past five years.
My mistake. Your admin rights were removed from the main website in August. Fair enough. Apologies.
That only changes whatever your motive was. The rest still stands. You planted some seed back in April and decide to use it now for... I have no earthly idea what for.
lol, didn't even know you'd removed any rights from me on the website, sorry. Go nuts with that, though -- follow your bliss.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 10, 2020, 10:40:47 PM
...what? I haven't had any special edit rights on the wiki for years. A quick glance at the log shows that I have been a member of the Citizen user group since 2015: http://wiki.talossa.com/index.php?title=Special:Log/rights&offset=&limit=500&type=rights&user= I demoted myself, incidentally, when I was no longer in office ;)
So I guess your case is that I was suddenly seized by rage over my loss of power on the wiki five years ago (power to do what?) and I was just forced to point out legitimate problems just to cause trouble. And even more malevolently, I sent messages to the person in charge of fixing the problem beforehand.
The "problem" was fixed before we even knew about cases of vandalism though...
You left an 'easter egg' back in April (who was looking after Wiki accounts then anyway? I'm not sure) prior to us sorting out the access memberships.
In August we sort out the access rights after the previous admin left.
In September you reveal your April trick and blame it on the access groups being bloated, which was fixed before you bogus complaint, but after your vandalism.
Actual LOL.
?!?!
(You claim you haven't had any special editing rights for 5 years.. yet you managed to make that edit to a protected page in April? Am I missing something here? How could that have happened?)
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 10, 2020, 10:50:30 PM
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on September 10, 2020, 10:46:42 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 10, 2020, 10:40:47 PM
...what? I haven't had any special edit rights on the wiki for years. A quick glance at the log shows that I have been a member of the Citizen user group since 2015.
So I guess your case is that I was all pepped up with righteous anger for the past five years.
My mistake. Your admin rights were removed from the main website in August. Fair enough. Apologies.
That only changes whatever your motive was. The rest still stands. You planted some seed back in April and decide to use it now for... I have no earthly idea what for.
lol, didn't even know you'd removed any rights from me on the website, sorry. Go nuts with that, though -- follow your bliss.
Calm your narcissism. It was nothing about you. Everyone that wasn't in the current cabinet was removed.
Quote from: Eðo Grischun on September 10, 2020, 10:57:09 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 10, 2020, 10:40:47 PM
...what? I haven't had any special edit rights on the wiki for years. A quick glance at the log shows that I have been a member of the Citizen user group since 2015: http://wiki.talossa.com/index.php?title=Special:Log/rights&offset=&limit=500&type=rights&user= I demoted myself, incidentally, when I was no longer in office ;)
So I guess your case is that I was suddenly seized by rage over my loss of power on the wiki five years ago (power to do what?) and I was just forced to point out legitimate problems just to cause trouble. And even more malevolently, I sent messages to the person in charge of fixing the problem beforehand.
The problem was fixed before we even knew about cases of vandalism though...
You left an 'easter egg' back in April (who was looking after Wiki accounts then anyway? I'm not sure) prior to us sorting out the access memberships.
In August we sort out the access rights after the previous admin left.
In September you reveal your April trick and blame it on the access groups being bloated.
?!?!
(You claim you haven't had any special editing rights for 5 years.. yet you managed to make that edit to a protected page in April? Am I missing something here? How could that have happened?)
So I think you're overall confused here.
Issue 1: A bunch of people have group rights that they don't need on the wiki. Not a huge deal, as I said before, but something the new Scribe should probably fix. I see Miestra fixed a bunch of it tonight after I pointed it out, actually. Legitimate issue I pointed out in a friendly and polite manner and which was fixed.
Issue 2: Regular people in Citizens (like me!) shouldn't be able to quietly edit our laws, but our actual Organic Law wasn't in protected space. I repeatedly tried to get it moved to lawspace a few months ago, including replacing the whole thing briefly and tagging it on Recent Edits with edits and leaving a couple of messages to the person in charge. When I pointed it out in public, Miestra fixed the problem. I forgot I had left a note in the thing while trying to get the problem fixed (in the preamble, without legal effect, because duh: http://wiki.talossa.com/index.php?title=Law%3A2017_Organic_Law&type=revision&diff=27362&oldid=27344). I remembered tonight and pointed it out in a friendly and polite manner, and it was fixed.
You're conflating the two, but they're related only in that they're problems I pointed out so that they could be quickly and easily fixed.
Not that this statement bears any substantial change on the outcome, but for what it's worth, I would agree with the interpretation that Grigoriu's citizenship may be reinstated without violating the spirit of the law (although perhaps the letter of it).
Relatedly: I find it more tragic than ironic, though it is also ironic, that these threads continue to devolve into bitter and personal arguments. This is not a conducive decorum to immigration or retention of citizens. For the sake of our country, could we, for lack of a better word, chill out?
Also: While the effects of your vandalism, AD, may have been minimal, the intents and manner were not. Your actions of vandalism were born of bad faith, ill motives, and bad behavior. Help, don't hurt; be constructive, not destructive. If you can't play nice, please leave the sandbox.
Quote from: Açafat del Val on September 17, 2020, 10:35:36 AM
I find it more tragic than ironic, though it is also ironic, that these threads continue to devolve into bitter and personal arguments.
Well, it's been a week since this argument died, so I don't know why you'd decide to restart it with the rest of your post if you really don't enjoy it.
Quote from: Açafat del Val on September 17, 2020, 10:35:36 AMAlso: While the effects of your vandalism, AD, may have been minimal, the intents and manner were not. Your actions of vandalism were born of bad faith, ill motives, and bad behavior. Help, don't hurt; be constructive, not destructive.
Seems kind of the opposite, actually -- I did a technical wrong because I was trying to help. When I edited the page to delete the whole thing (http://wiki.talossa.com/index.php?title=Law:2017_Organic_Law&oldid=27343) and then undid that seconds later (http://wiki.talossa.com/index.php?title=Law%3A2017_Organic_Law&type=revision&diff=27344&oldid=27343), technically that's "vandalism," but it was one of a long series of good-faith things I did to try to draw attention to the fact that our supreme law was easily available to be edited in a way that maybe no one would even notice. That is a real problem, even if I am inconveniently the one who noticed If I was acting out of ill motives, I wouldn't point it out and ask that it be fixed.
Think how easily this could have been handled -- "lol I fixed it, thanks for reminding us to protect the page." Instead it had to become a big pearl-clutching fight because you guys have to try to pretend that it was somehow malicious.
Would you have preferred I said nothing? Should I have edited the actual law to change how elections are held? Should I have said nothing and left the changes in there? What would you prefer I do?
Alternatively, it would be
completely fine if we went back to letting this argument be over.
This ain't tribalism, bud. I'm a free agent.
I would prefer that you - and, by extension, the silent public who may be reading this - work in good faith to rectify problems and participate earnestly in public projects. It's not enough to make a covert edit, throw some tomatoes, and whinge.
I've been pretty consistent with my message, AD: I desperately want to like you, because I see that you're intelligent and can produce good work, but this incessant need on your part to tear down Miestra and the FreeDems is (a) beneath you, (b) unbecoming of what Talossa deserves from someone of your record, and (c) unproductively destructive.
I'm going to call it out whenever I see it, whether it's a week old or not. Unfortunately, my schedule does not bend to your whims and I'd have said something sooner if I had been available.
If you're not going to help clean up the Wiki, or help clean up El Lexhatx or the OrgLaw, or help do literally anything else going on, then sit down and be quiet. There are honest people in Talossa who are trying every day to push Talossa forward, whether that's SIGN and the language or GV as the Scribe, but you're not one of them. You think you are, perhaps, and maybe you were so at one point, but you are not anymore.
I'm running out of patience for your drivel, your whinging, and your hostility. Help out, or get out of the way. Your example is toxic, and it drowns out others' potential interest to get involved. The next time you want to post something to Witt, ask yourself: "Is what I'm about to say going to help this person, or hurt them?" If the latter, then keep your mouth shut.
Quote from: Açafat del Val on September 17, 2020, 12:08:14 PM
I would prefer that you - and, by extension, the silent public who may be reading this - work in good faith to rectify problems and participate earnestly in public projects. It's not enough to make a covert edit, throw some tomatoes, and whinge.
How about report the problem to the person in charge, wait a week, draw attention to it by trying to trip flags, waiting a week, second a second message to the person in charge, then editing ten times to make it dominant the Recent Changes without actually making any edits, then finally posting publicly about the problem?
Your huffy insistence that I am not allowed to point out problems unless I serve your interests in some way is bizarre and undemocratic. Golly yes, it's been a few months since I invented a big new program like the Zuavs, and it's been a few years since I codified hundreds of laws into our legal code or built the wiki infrastructure or whatever. But even if I had never done a single thing for this country then I would still stand up for my right to say, "Hey, this is a serious problem" when I see one. It might be
inconvenient for your party, but tough luck, buttercup.
Look, this is so tedious and boring. You guys do ahead and have the last word on this, since I am tired of it.
Let me repeat: I'm a free agent, bud. Consider this my formal resignation from the FreeDems so that you can stop peddling these poorly veiled strawman arguments.
Miestra, GV, or anyone else: when you see this, please remove me from the Facebook group and other FreeDem ventures.
Now that that's out of the way--
You don't have to "serve my interests" in any way, AD, and it's pretty plain that I didn't say so. Maybe I was wrong for thinking that you were intelligent. Are we sure that you read English fluently? I'm starting to think that you never went to school.
The fact that you reduced my statement to that kind of fallacy is proving the point: you don't have to serve anyone's interests but Talossa's, yet you continue to peddle your own ego and low self-esteem under some really awful disguises. Buddy, if it's a serious problem, then step up to fix it or - how do I put this in a way that you'll understand? - shut up and stay out of the adults' way.
If you had the time to edit an article ten times, then you definitely had time to do something more productive with your attention. Maybe you could have - I don't know - reached out to GV on Facebook, on Witt, or in several other avenues-- but you didn't, did you?
So, either you're a pissant with nothing better to do than harass hard-working and well-meaning colleagues, so that you can feel just a little bit bigger in your small world, or you're a loser who gets joy from vandalizing and insulting others' hard work so that you can feel better about watching your legacy be stripped away. Maybe it's both.
In either case, it's time to put actions when your mouth is or, if you can't drum up enough patriotism for Talossa, to piss off and scurry back to your hole.
It might be inconvenient for your party, but tough luck, buttercup.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 17, 2020, 01:23:14 PM
Look, this is so tedious and boring. You guys do ahead and have the last word on this and I'm going to ignore it from now on. Follow your bliss.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_playing
Quote from: Açafat del Val on September 17, 2020, 01:34:38 PM
Let me repeat: I'm a free agent, bud. Consider this my formal resignation from the FreeDems so that you can stop peddling these poorly veiled strawman arguments.
Miestra, GV, or anyone else: when you see this, please remove me from the Facebook group and other FreeDem ventures.
Resignation rejected. When you're a Jet, you're a Jet all the way.
It seems that in the 54th Cosa, two bills (54RZ8 and 54RZ13) both modified El.Lex.E.4. Both bills modified different sections of that law and both were approved by the Ziu.
As Scribe and SoS, I updated E.4 to reflect the two changes that were made. I also will from today on be adding comments on the Discussion page of both El.Lex and OrgLaw when I make changes or update it. This I think will make it easier for those who are interested to not only see what I've worked on but also to follow my thoughts.
Another thing I've started working on is fixing broken redirect links reflected in El.Lex. I know I personally tend to click those references to passed legislation to see the original bill. As I see them I will be updating them.
Thanks,
- Txec (Secretary of State and Scribe of Abbavilla)
Dr. Róibeard dal Nordselvă, thank you immensely for this effort. Know that your work is recognized, respected, and greatly appreciated.