Wittenberg

We are Talossan political parties and intervals who represent the whole range of opinion on the Constitutional issue, from monarchist to republican and everywhere in between.

We believe that the time has come for a historic compromise which settles the question for a Talossan generation or more. Talossa has other, better things to debate.

We believe that the "Talossa Shall Choose Its King Amendment" (proposed to the last Cosă as RZ21) meets the qualifications to be precisely that compromise.

We are disappointed that His Majesty King John vetoed this proposal, and we pledge that - if it is re-presented to the next Coså - we will vote for it.

Despite our disagreements on other issues, we hope, between us, to win sufficient support in the current election to thus at least present this Historic Compromise to the people in referendum, over the Royal veto.

Long live the Kingdom of Talossa!

Signed:

E. S. Börnatfiglheu for the New Peculiar Way
T. E. Davinescù for the Free Democrats of Talossa
B. Itravilatx for the Talossan National Congress
M. E. P. Tafial per el Parti Tafialistà

This is a very well-crafted statement.  But it also seems to shy away from the main point... what is the "question" being settled?

Like most people, I saw some of the positives of a proposal for a "historic compromise which settles the question for a Talossan generation or more."  After all, even though it would yield a presidency in a new Republic of Talossa, at least some of the trappings of monarchy would remain.  The president would be called a king, and this king would still have a few powers.  And at least that would be the end of this fight.  The relentless attacks on the monarchy would stop, and that at least would be a relief.

In other words, I thought the "question" was the broader one: what shall be the role of the monarch in Talossa?

So I was surprised when the incoming FDT leader posted a speech (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=793.0) about one of his next priorities: putting the honours system entirely under Government control and supervision.  Under the proposed presidency, the "king" would have few powers, but... the next goal was eliminating one of them?  And he was already planning that?

The current FDT leader and Seneschal agreed that this was entirely possible, although it wasn't her initiative.  And while some folks didn't care about this particular proposal, they still agreed that they would feel free to do it.  Senator Válcadác'h said that this just wasn't the "time to bring up that discussion," since it was a distraction.

In other words, the FDT was just upset with their leader because he spilled the beans.  And they've been trying to do clean-up ever since.

So then... if the people seeking a republic (the Republicans) are getting an elected presidency with a seven-year term, and they intend to continue diminishing the role of this "king"... what the hell kind of compromise is this, anyway?

Honestly, as far as I can tell, the Republicans are getting exactly what they want, and the sole concession is that they're willing to call the president a "king."  They're not agreeing to anything else in any way, even though they don't want to highlight that fact.

This isn't a compromise.

Whenever the Baron von Tollbooth gets involved in a political issue, he starts with the personal abuse. His opponents are sneaky. His opponents are corrupt. His opponents lie, his opponents are shameful, and they "get caught" by the virtuous Baron. I'll never forget having to take 6 months off Talossa after the Baron harassed me into insomnia and a health breakdown over wholly imaginary corruption with the Uppermost Court.

These accusations against the new Free Democrat president are exactly the kind of assuming the absolute worst about those who disagree with you that the LCC leader claims to be against. I call upon the Baron to apologise for his attempts to demonise, discredit and smear General Davinescu. I call upon the LCC leader to disavow this poisonous rhetoric, just as he disavowed the leader of the Balancéu party's nonsense about "hate".

I should also note that, if the Baron of Beef were sincere, he would offer a simple compromise: "we will support 55RZ21 in exchange for an entrenchment of the current honours system". I'd go with that.

It seems like the Seneschal is responding to the tone of AD's argument rather than its substance, which is very similar to what I said in my farewell speech.

Unless there is broad understanding that this is the last change; no more changes to the honors system or any other remaining royal powers; then the Historic Compromise is neither of those things

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 03, 2021, 08:43:51 PM
I should also note that, if the Baron of Beef were sincere, he would offer a simple compromise: "we will support 55RZ21 in exchange for an entrenchment of the current honours system". I'd go with that.

I'll ignore the weird taunting with names, since I understand that you're having a hard time keeping your composure after I dared to say that someone "spilled the beans."

But I will say that I am extremely grateful for your support of my point, and I will focus on that. Notice how she is admitting the central point? Nothing else is included in this "compromise."

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 03, 2021, 08:48:23 PM
It seems like the Seneschal is responding to the tone of AD's argument rather than its substance,

In Talossa, it is precisely the tone of discussion that causes feelings to get hurt, tempers to rise and feuds to escalate. The Baron von Rucksack knows this perfectly well, which he why he does this. If you don't think his "tone" is a problem, then please never, ever complain about the "tone" of anything I say again.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 03, 2021, 08:54:50 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 03, 2021, 08:48:23 PM
It seems like the Seneschal is responding to the tone of AD's argument rather than its substance,

In Talossa, it is precisely the tone of discussion that causes feelings to get hurt, tempers to rise and feuds to escalate. The Baron von Rucksack knows this perfectly well, which he why he does this. If you don't think his "tone" is a problem, then please never, ever complain about the "tone" of anything I say again.

I didn't make any statement about whether his tone is a problem or not, but you used it to avoid addressing the key issue under discussion (and you avoided addressing it again in your response to me)

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 03, 2021, 08:49:53 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 03, 2021, 08:43:51 PM
I should also note that, if the Baron of Beef were sincere, he would offer a simple compromise: "we will support 55RZ21 in exchange for an entrenchment of the current honours system". I'd go with that.

I'll ignore the weird taunting with names, since I understand that you're having a hard time keeping your composure after I dared to say that someone "spilled the beans."

But I will say that I am extremely grateful for your support of my point, and I will focus on that. Notice how she is admitting the central point? Nothing else is included in this "compromise."

No one "spilled the beans" AD... unlike some high tower citizens of this Kingdom, I have my own mind... my own thoughts... and my own goals. I don't need John whispering in my ear or Vice versa. I brought up a discussion topic because unlike you, I want everyone involved in topics & ideas. It's an idea... a personal one that I decided to bring up because I wanted to see where others stood. I assure you, I am likely as close to a total opposite of someone like you... you Lordship. I want people to see me for who I am and to trust that unlike you... I don't have some "secret agenda". My agenda is the HC. To see it become law EXACTLY as it stands and secure the future of this Kingdom from manipulators and schemers. I deal with that horseshit enough in my birth country and I refuse to let someone like you piss on my good name and the hard work I have done & will for years to come.

Again... you have a question. Bring it. Don't pussy foot around it. Be a man and ask me to my face

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 03, 2021, 08:58:15 PM
I didn't make any statement about whether his tone is a problem or not

Yes, I consider that a problem in itself. If only we could also reach a Historic Compromise on the question of how we treat each other in Talossa.

But if the "substantive issue" is whether the Historic Compromise is wide enough, I challenge the LCC (and the other monarchist parties, though I doubt they'll answer) to set what additional terms they would require to add to 55RZ21 so that it would be an acceptable compromise in their terms.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 03, 2021, 09:09:54 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 03, 2021, 08:58:15 PM
I didn't make any statement about whether his tone is a problem or not

Yes, I consider that a problem in itself.

By that logic, you must have a problem with every Witt post that doesn't explicitly denounce AD.

Seriously: he's on your party list. That means you guys are now responsible for him. This whole thread started because the Free Dems are being held collectively accountable for something Txoteu said! Likewise, if the Baron is a LCC candidate, what he says and how he says it becomes the responsibility of the LCC leadership.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 03, 2021, 09:09:54 PM
But if the "substantive issue" is whether the Historic Compromise is wide enough, I challenge the LCC (and the other monarchist parties, though I doubt they'll answer) to set what additional terms they would require to add to 55RZ21 so that it would be an acceptable compromise in their terms.

From my perspective, there are no additional terms that could make 55RZ21 an acceptable compromise. I don't believe that we can have a compromise on this issue that would satisfy everyone, or one that would completely end the debate on the monarchy.

If the people adopt 55RZ21, then they clearly feel that an elected head of state is the right path forward for Talossa. I disagree, but I would respect that decision. But I would not want to call the elected head of state the King (or Queen) of Talossa. They should be referred to what they are: a President, and we should then take steps to restore the political powers that should be given to a head of state who is now subject to the changing winds of the populace. If Talossa desires a republic, then we should have a republic.

It feels to me, someone who admittedly hasn't been present nearly enough since we made the switch from ProBoards, that 55RZ21 is the proposed solution to two distinct issues: The monarchy debate, which I addressed above, and the debate with our current monarch. I can understand why a Republican would want to support this compromise, but I cannot understand it from the perspective of a Monarchist. Even if I were to agree that we should depose the King for his lack of activity--and to be clear, I don't--then shouldn't the solution be to hold a convocation and elect another lifetime monarch? (Perhaps bringing back hereditary monarchy in the process?)

For me, the 7 year renewable monarchy is a uniquely Talossan solution to a Talossan problem, and therefore Peculiarist. The problem is that a human-lifetime monarchy is FAR TOO LONG for a constitutional democracy where there's an election every 8-9 months. Talossa functions in "dog years", as it were.

QE2 of the UK has reigned 69 years and has had 14 Prime Ministers. Ian I Lupul has reigned 16 years and I was his 15th Seneschál. Talossa moves too quickly for a lifetime monarchy to be appropriate. Imagine if Victoria were still Queen, and imagine someone born in 1820-something had a veto over 21st century legislation. That's Talossa.

Of course, the other issue is that the proportion of Talossans who think that the King's behaviour (especially going AWOL) is worthy of a King is getting smaller all the time. Honestly, though, I would have been just as happy with a compromise over a purely ceremonial monarch (who would give out peerages etc. only with the advice and consent of the Government). But that option came last place in the Referendum, so we went this way.

As to why any Monarchist would put up with the Compromise? Simply put: because if they don't compromise now, something much worse is coming in a year or two years, given current demographic trends. A slightly fudgy deal now, or unconditional surrender later.

AD, we are as a crossroads, I am not sure that you see it.

We had a King, who, in 2004, started attacking his most trusted supporters and no way to remove him or do anything. Most did nothing. I almost did nothing, but then people left for the Republic of Talossa and I stayed as his Secretary of State, he was left without a target, attacked me.

Ok, so that wasn't a very regal king, at least, not in the end. Some will say that he was bad for years, I wouldn't know.

So a new one was selected, and recently, he vanished and stopped being active.

It's ok! He can if he wants to. Recently, I've been dealing with my own issues, my own life crisis. I didn't want to tell everyone here about it, but it's pretty much soon to be over.

But here is the thing, my obligations were two fold: vote in the Clark, a duty I didn't neglect, and maintain the Database. I even helped the transition from one SoS to another.

If I hadn't been able to vote on the Clark, I would have resigned, or been expelled.

But the King vanished without explanation and leaving us without our head of state.

So, that's another king that didn't work.

Wait, between those two is was a kid who probably didn't know much about us.

So, what is the crossroad?

I see 4 paths before us.

Path 1 is we do nothing, and the kind comes bach. We might lose a few citizen, but we will have lost face. Unless he provides a very good explanation, how can we trust him?

Path 2 is we abolish the position of the King. After 3 monarchies ending in fire, perhaps it's time to rethink the process? That's the Republican point of view, and YOU don't want that, and a few don't want that either. We might lose a few citizens, but we would not have lost face

Path 3 is we elect another King for life, ignoring the result of the referendum. Again, we might lose a few citizens, but if the new king messes up again, it might be the end of Talossa. It was almost the end in 2004, what's do say that the new one, whoever it is, won't end up destroying us?

Path 4 is the compromise. The idea, we elect the King, like we would have done anyway, but instead of electing him for life, we put a term limit of 7 years.

Now, here is the genius of this:

King Robert I, in his first 7 years, wasn't to bad, it's over time that his attacks began, first on the liberal party and the Penguinean, then on a citizen I won't name, then on his own PC party which led to the Halloween crisis.

What if he had been replaced after 7 years, for 7 years? Someone else might have done some good.

As for our current king, remember his first 7 years? Even if he was re-elected, If someone had replaced him after those, he would have been remembered as our greatest king! He oversaw the reunison! He led us throught stability.

After 14 years, he could have just let the position to someone else, instead of trying to just stay in place when he doesn't have the time, or no longer cares for it.

Stay long enough in a position, and you can no longer see anyone but you in it. Trust me, I know. I was SoS way too long, but I still gave it up, and look at that, we've had two GREAT SoS in a row.

Sure, they were rookie at first, but both rocked.

The question isn't, should we have a new king. It's obvious we need one who is more active.

The question is: shouldn't we bake some sort of renewal, so the king, whoever it is, doen't get too bored over time?

Well, that's part of the compromise, and it's why I voted for it.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 04, 2021, 02:37:47 AM
As to why any Monarchist would put up with the Compromise? Simply put: because if they don't compromise now, something much worse is coming in a year or two years, given current demographic trends. A slightly fudgy deal now, or unconditional surrender later.

And there's the rub: I think that you folks will be pursuing the "much worse" thing before too much long, anyway.  What would that even be?  Would the president's term be reduced?  Would they no longer carry the title of "king?"  Oh, heaven forfend these calamities!

You can't threaten to remove some of the president's remaining powers, since that's already the plan!  Your incoming party leader has made that clear.

If you're going to threaten, then you need to be specific.

Quote from: mpf on May 04, 2021, 04:29:07 AM
Path 1 is we do nothing, and the kind comes bach. We might lose a few citizen, but we will have lost face. Unless he provides a very good explanation, how can we trust him?

Path 2 is we abolish the position of the King. After 3 monarchies ending in fire, perhaps it's time to rethink the process? That's the Republican point of view, and YOU don't want that, and a few don't want that either. We might lose a few citizens, but we would not have lost face

Path 3 is we elect another King for life, ignoring the result of the referendum. Again, we might lose a few citizens, but if the new king messes up again, it might be the end of Talossa. It was almost the end in 2004, what's do say that the new one, whoever it is, won't end up destroying us?

Path 4 is the compromise. The idea, we elect the King, like we would have done anyway, but instead of electing him for life, we put a term limit of 7 years.

Path 2 and Path 4 seem pretty much the same to me, though.  I understand the punishing imperative of that 1.5% margin on the mid-term referendum, of course.  But "regularly elected partisan presidency" and "regularly elected partisan presidency we call king" is not much of a difference.

Obviously, an argument could be made for a real compromise.  Ian P has been saying, for example, that he would only consider this a compromise if Republicans refrained from further diminishing the role of the president.  But that's not the deal on the table and there's nothing in the law to enforce such a promise, even if it were the deal.  And that's why you have a host of committed Republicans loudly calling it a Historic Compromise while the committed monarchists are saying: Wait, what compromise?  What do we get?

This isn't a compromise.

A x-year term of a reasonable length solves the issue of the power of veto. Periodic re-election takes the worst out of the edge of the monarchial blade and turns the post into one which with a seven-year term still promotes continuity.

In the hands of a perfectly-virtuous person, a lifetime term is the ideal.  With a perfect family who acts on perfect wisdom, a hereditary monarchy is the ideal.

Look at what Ben Madison did as King of Talossa.  We cannot blame Louis for anything.  And look at Ián Lupul's most-recent twelve months in office: disappearance with no real explanation and without a regent for the first two months.

The years 2020-2021 in Ián's reign will be remembered as being a benign prototype for the future inevitable rogue monarch whose actions, unlike Ián's, will be anything but benign.

A future rogue monarch?  With a lifetime term?  This is good for Talossa?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 04, 2021, 06:28:20 AM

Quote from: mpf on May 04, 2021, 04:29:07 AM

Path 2 is we abolish the position of the King. After 3 monarchies ending in fire, perhaps it's time to rethink the process? That's the Republican point of view, and YOU don't want that, and a few don't want that either. We might lose a few citizens, but we would not have lost face

Path 4 is the compromise. The idea, we elect the King, like we would have done anyway, but instead of electing him for life, we put a term limit of 7 years.

Path 2 and Path 4 seem pretty much the same to me, though.  I understand the punishing imperative of that 1.5% margin on the mid-term referendum, of course.  But "regularly elected partisan presidency" and "regularly elected partisan presidency we call king" is not much of a difference.

It is a MAJOR difference!

The President would be elected every 2 years or less, with massive regular electoral campaigns.

You would have parties, and people would plan well in advance their turn to run, just like our Senate elections.

But a King elected every 7 years, however, is a rare event! Think about SEVEN years ago, how the world was different! And Seven years before that. You don't get time to plan this. It's not a regular event.

The compromise offers the stability of a Kingdom, but with a King with an exit strategy.

We would have ERAS, like the Era of King Lupul, followed by the Era of King Gregorino (example), because of the long period.

You don't have that with a president, unless they get re-elected over a long periods, which isn't really a president.

AD, what you fail to grasp, is that the compromises puts water in BOTH glasses.

YOU revel at the idea that the King is elected.

Republican revel at the idea that there is a King, or that he has too much power, or that the elections are too far apart (it depends on their brand of Republicanism).

You have a shot at calming them, just by picking a new King, the same way the previous one was, but this time, for a term limit of 7 years.

Until 2028!!!

The LCC has one further options that hasn't been considered.

We, the League of Centre Conservatives, see that support for the Talossa Shall Choose Its King Amendment stems not from any magical properties of a term length of seven years, but rather out of general discontent with the current Monarch. Consequently, we also see that the current Monarch is in the process of doing grave damage to the noble institution of the Monarchy, which we believe should, for the most part, continue to exist exactly as it does today. We will endeavor to modify the Talossa Shall Choose Its King Amendment to change its focus from the periodic election of a new King to providing a periodic opportunity to have a vote of no confidence in the current King. This will reaffirm the lifetime nature of the Office while making it easier to remove a King who is not performing well in the role.

Talossa must have a king, with all its history, pomp, and circumstance which has made our country great. We must end the turmoil that has made us look inward at internal conflicts and begin rebuilding, starting a new era of our nation where we can stand tall once more. We can reemerge like the groundhog in the spring to the fresh new world that eagerly awaits us.

Quote from: mpf on May 07, 2021, 04:30:58 AM
It is a MAJOR difference!

The President would be elected every 2 years or less, with massive regular electoral campaigns.

You would have parties, and people would plan well in advance their turn to run, just like our Senate elections.

But a King elected every 7 years, however, is a rare event! Think about SEVEN years ago, how the world was different! And Seven years before that. You don't get time to plan this. It's not a regular event.

I mean... you'd get seven years to plan it, right?  Probably at least your last couple of Cosas, you're going to be thinking about how you can please the majority-holders so they will vote you back into the presidency.  Why would there not be a massive regular electoral campaign?  Wouldn't the electoral campaign be even more massive, since the term is 7 years and not 2?  Wouldn't rival candidates have good reason to try to make the sitting president look bad?

I mean, I definitely understand and appreciate the idea that 7 is a long term and would insulate the president from partisan influence for at least a few years.  But it seems a bit optimistic to assume that there wouldn't be campaigning or electioneering.  People are going to favor particular candidates for the presidency, and look to their leaders for guidance about who would be a good choice.

Quote from: mpf on May 07, 2021, 04:30:58 AM
AD, what you fail to grasp, is that the compromises puts water in BOTH glasses.

YOU revel at the idea that the King is elected.

Republican revel at the idea that there is a King, or that he has too much power, or that the elections are too far apart (it depends on their brand of Republicanism).

I'm not sure it's much of a compromise for Republicans... why, because they're not getting everything they want, right away?

Here's a parallel:

I have a barrel of apples.  You have a box of bananas.  I'd like some bananas, and you'd like some apples.

It would be a compromise if I gave you some apples and you gave me some bananas.  Depending on the exchange, maybe it's a better deal for one side.  Maybe it's equal.  Either way, that's a trade and a compromise.

But it's not a compromise if you give me nothing, but still demand all of my apples -- even if you only take half of them.  You may not have gotten 100% of what you wanted, sure... but a compromise should mean that I get something too, right?  And this is doubly true when you're already promising to grab some more apples, later, as your party leader has declared is one of his priorities.

Now, I understand I will still have some apples left right now.  Yes, the president will have a long term, and their title will be "king."  But typically, a compromise means that both sides give, not just that one side doesn't get all of their demands immediately, right?

You might have a point here if there really was some larger compromise.  But your party has made it directly and explicitly clear that there is not.  They want half the apples, and maybe later they will come back and demand the rest.

That's not a compromise.

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on May 07, 2021, 08:53:04 AM
The LCC has one further options that hasn't been considered.

The LCC's suggestion of a "compromise on the compromise" is well thought out and definitely worth considering if 55RZ21 can't get a 2/3 majority this time. I should warn, however, that it would need a 3/4 majority to have any effect. And the Baron Debate-Me-Bro (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/whats-wrong-with-online-debate-me-culture/2019/08/29/c0ec8aa2-c9ca-11e9-8067-196d9f17af68_story.html) would still be whimpering about how "this isn't a compromise", so be prepared for that.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 07, 2021, 02:39:11 PM
And the Baron Debate-Me-Bro (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/whats-wrong-with-online-debate-me-culture/2019/08/29/c0ec8aa2-c9ca-11e9-8067-196d9f17af68_story.html)

Good article.  It makes some good points.

Quote from: Donna Zuckerberg
Portnoy seems to have stopped attempting to draw Ocasio-Cortez into a debate and has instead decided to periodically call her "O'CRAZIO," reverting to the tactics of name-calling

And I agree with a lot of it.

Quote from:  Donna Zuckerberg
Of course, most men screaming "debate me!" aren't white supremacists, and most haven't violated YouTube or Twitter terms of service. Still, a man who demands that someone debate him assumes that he is entitled to his or her — usually her — valuable time and attention; she can't possibly have more important work than engaging with an aggressive man online.

It's perfectly fine to critique men like Portnoy (who is now under investigation by the National Labor Relations Board for his tweets) without acceding to their presumptuous demands. Your critique can stand on its own, and you aren't obligated to repeat it at length in a more formal setting to give such men a chance to insult you and pepper you with bad-faith arguments in real time.

I don't believe I've ever followed anyone around on this message board, demanding that they debate me in this manner or getting huffy if they declined.  I never thought it was a matter of principle that permitted me to post on every reply, taunting about cowardice and how they absolutely had to debate me.  And I think it's possible to make reasonable and polite criticisms of someone's arguments without feeling obligated to a formal debate on their terms.  I have been fairly consistent on this point, I think.



But regardless, my point still stands: this is not a compromise.  Utterly transparent attempts to troll and insult to try to provoke a fight don't change that fact.

The Senator from Florencia, the TNC leader, the person who posted this Joint Statement, has voted against 55RZ21.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 04, 2021, 04:36:05 PM
The Senator from Florencia, the TNC leader, the person who posted this Joint Statement, has voted against 55RZ21.

A feckless act of discourtesy. How utterly disappointing.

Especially incomprehensible as the Senator for Florencia quit the League of Centre Conservatives precisely because they wouldn't wholeheartedly support 55RZ21.

The only way I can parse this is: former Atatürk Senator "Guy Incognito", after his acquittal on charges of using a false name, voted against every Government bill thereafter out of sheer spite. Although I have no idea what Brenéir is spiteful towards us for.

seems, i missed a serious fun here. and i still do not understand, what is the problem about. is king-for-life of any importance to the stability and life of talossa? honestly, no. is king-for-life of any importance to fundaments of talossa? again, no. king-for-life is just one possibility of many, and talossans have democratically chosen some other issue. or, did not they, did i get smth wrong?

i can imagine people living in a representative democracy to be attracted to this king-thing, allusively a symbol of stability and duration, but it is just a façade, which may hold no content but rotten one. any permanent political position without the possibility to enforce to account for actions is dangerous.

we have now in czechia the pseudo-king serving as a president, who thinks that he is special and so so important, that he ignores not only the call of reason but also laws of the country (and our constitution was written by naïve guys who never assumed this may happen one day. does it ring a bell to you, fellow talossans?). luckily, we'll get rid of him in two years in the new elections, cos he is no real king. and that's a good thing.

renewable kingship is for me enough peculiarly talossan too, plus, it satisfies my sense for fair play.

Quote from: Ián S.G. Txaglh on August 14, 2021, 07:47:36 AM
seems, i missed a serious fun here. and i still do not understand, what is the problem about. is king-for-life of any importance to the stability and life of talossa? honestly, no. is king-for-life of any importance to fundaments of talossa? again, no. king-for-life is just one possibility of many, and talossans have democratically chosen some other issue. or, did not they, did i get smth wrong?

i can imagine people living in a representative democracy to be attracted to this king-thing, allusively a symbol of stability and duration, but it is just a façade, which may hold no content but rotten one. any permanent political position without the possibility to enforce to account for actions is dangerous.

we have now in czechia the pseudo-king serving as a president, who thinks that he is special and so so important, that he ignores not only the call of reason but also laws of the country (and our constitution was written by naïve guys who never assumed this may happen one day. does it ring a bell to you, fellow talossans?). luckily, we'll get rid of him in two years in the new elections, cos he is no real king. and that's a good thing.

renewable kingship is for me enough peculiarly talossan too, plus, it satisfies my sense for fair play.

See about joining the Free Democrats, then.  :-)

At about the time when the hereditary aspect of the monarchy was quashed in August 2020 (a year ago, believe it or not), the King disappeared from Witt for two months.

In October 2020, I made a welfare-check-phone-call and established he was not only healthy, but was also free of any crises which might have precluded him doing Talossa.  Yes, he said work was saddling him down, but from August to October 2020, he was nowhere to be found.

It was soon after my welfare-check to the King in October 2020 he appointed Alexander Davinescu as Regent.  Alexander for personal reasons was repugnant to many on the Left, and his appointment as Regent by the King was seen by many as a middle finger and an insult.

To Alexander's eternal credit, he was a very good regent: he performed his legal and ceremonial duties and maintained the high level of Talossan activity and enthusiasm he has maintained since he came to us in 2006.

There is more to tell, but this should be a good starting place.

Again, the Free Democrats are always welcoming of new people.

GV

Quote from: GV on August 16, 2021, 03:52:54 PM

Quote from: Ián S.G. Txaglh on August 14, 2021, 07:47:36 AM
seems, i missed a serious fun here. and i still do not understand, what is the problem about. is king-for-life of any importance to the stability and life of talossa? honestly, no. is king-for-life of any importance to fundaments of talossa? again, no. king-for-life is just one possibility of many, and talossans have democratically chosen some other issue. or, did not they, did i get smth wrong?

i can imagine people living in a representative democracy to be attracted to this king-thing, allusively a symbol of stability and duration, but it is just a façade, which may hold no content but rotten one. any permanent political position without the possibility to enforce to account for actions is dangerous.

we have now in czechia the pseudo-king serving as a president, who thinks that he is special and so so important, that he ignores not only the call of reason but also laws of the country (and our constitution was written by naïve guys who never assumed this may happen one day. does it ring a bell to you, fellow talossans?). luckily, we'll get rid of him in two years in the new elections, cos he is no real king. and that's a good thing.

renewable kingship is for me enough peculiarly talossan too, plus, it satisfies my sense for fair play.

See about joining the Free Democrats, then.  :-)

meirci, meirci, graschcias, i'll stay with NPW :)

i know the story as it began, i missed the recent peak of "activity" in this matter. i was here lately like two months ago, iirc, and read all the stuff on this topic. i voted as a deputy for the respective bill. anyway, thnx for the summary, it makes it intelligible for anyone, who does not follow it word by word for the last half a year.

"storm in a teaspoon" metaphor is a common occidental cultural heritage, and it fits the situation. king became too comfortable in his position. royalists are afraid of losing their game. but is it worth having a situation in which the king may go partisan? although i am republican, i do not insist on talossa turning republic, i care about the functionality of the royal institution, an elective monarchy, even with the limited serving terms, allows to keep things going on. good king may still be a king-for-life, i do not insist on a "presidential" limited number of terms. hereditary and unlimited kingship is of no benefit for talossa. and the comment with the accelerated pace of time in talossa is also valid, one year talossa maybe a decade in real life. my two groats.

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

I just give up on Talossan politics, as long as there's no way for a party to be put out of the Cosă in an election. There is just nothing to stop people making agreements and then just tearing them up without reason, logic, or explanation. You can't make multi-party deals in such circumstances and therefore doing anything "important" is impossible.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 21, 2021, 06:10:52 PM
... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

could you be more specific on "this bill"? am i missing some colloquial english thing, like "this bill" = "some unnamed bill"?

and i am not sitting in cosâ now ;) i always tried to get along the line, even we were frequently reminded by eiric what was part of the agreements. is it a conspiracy or just bad communication?

Quote from: Ián S.G. Txaglh on August 22, 2021, 06:42:02 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 21, 2021, 06:10:52 PM
... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

could you be more specific on "this bill"? am i missing some colloquial english thing, like "this bill" = "some unnamed bill"?

and i am not sitting in cosâ now ;) i always tried to get along the line, even we were frequently reminded by eiric what was part of the agreements. is it a conspiracy or just bad communication?

55rz1, The "talossa shall chose its king act"

I am told by the NPW leader, Senator ESB, that he assumed his Cosa delegation would know which way to vote, considering that that was how they voted last Cosa and they'd made a public commitment, and he didn't want to be an annoying micromanager. Well.

The lesson I have learned is that you just can't trust parties to keep to commitments in Talossan politics unless there are significant penalties for non-compliance - and our electoral system means a party can stay in the Cosa forever, even if everyone else hates them for treacherous weasels, with only their own votes.

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on August 22, 2021, 08:19:27 AM

Quote from: Ián S.G. Txaglh on August 22, 2021, 06:42:02 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 21, 2021, 06:10:52 PM
... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

could you be more specific on "this bill"? am i missing some colloquial english thing, like "this bill" = "some unnamed bill"?

and i am not sitting in cosâ now ;) i always tried to get along the line, even we were frequently reminded by eiric what was part of the agreements. is it a conspiracy or just bad communication?

55rz1, The "talossa shall chose its king act"

cofusado o_O you mean 56RZ1? cos 55RZ1 was "the tidy up your STUFF act", and originally it was 55RZ21.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 22, 2021, 04:33:34 PM
I am told by the NPW leader, Senator ESB, that he assumed his Cosa delegation would know which way to vote, considering that that was how they voted last Cosa and they'd made a public commitment, and he didn't want to be an annoying micromanager. Well.

The lesson I have learned is that you just can't trust parties to keep to commitments in Talossan politics unless there are significant penalties for non-compliance - and our electoral system means a party can stay in the Cosa forever, even if everyone else hates them for treacherous weasels, with only their own votes.

so, bad communication it is. almost all problems can be solved when people talk. if you are unhappy with NPW voting, wouldn't it be better to speak to its representative than complain in public? i am not much of a real politician, but what i know so far, taking internal dirty laundry making into public never wins political points ;)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 21, 2021, 06:10:52 PM
... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

I just give up on Talossan politics, as long as there's no way for a party to be put out of the Cosă in an election. There is just nothing to stop people making agreements and then just tearing them up without reason, logic, or explanation. You can't make multi-party deals in such circumstances and therefore doing anything "important" is impossible.

Which is why we desperately need to downsize the Cosa.

Quote from: Ián S.G. Txaglh on August 23, 2021, 04:04:47 AM

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on August 22, 2021, 08:19:27 AM

Quote from: Ián S.G. Txaglh on August 22, 2021, 06:42:02 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 21, 2021, 06:10:52 PM
... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

could you be more specific on "this bill"? am i missing some colloquial english thing, like "this bill" = "some unnamed bill"?

and i am not sitting in cosâ now ;) i always tried to get along the line, even we were frequently reminded by eiric what was part of the agreements. is it a conspiracy or just bad communication?

55rz1, The "talossa shall chose its king act"

cofusado o_O you mean 56RZ1? cos 55RZ1 was "the tidy up your STUFF act", and originally it was 55RZ21.

yes my bad

Quote from: anglatzara on August 24, 2021, 02:16:11 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 21, 2021, 06:10:52 PM
... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

I just give up on Talossan politics, as long as there's no way for a party to be put out of the Cosă in an election. There is just nothing to stop people making agreements and then just tearing them up without reason, logic, or explanation. You can't make multi-party deals in such circumstances and therefore doing anything "important" is impossible.

Which is why we desperately need to downsize the Cosa.

As I've said elsewhere, one of the reason Talossa's politics are so "immobile" is that our institutions have a built-in conservative bias, made doubly strong by the Royal veto. It is a mammoth task to get anything to change if the King or conservative forces think it diminishes their power. And those conservative forces will die in a ditch over preserving a Cosa which encourages party splintering and no-one can ever be voted out because they make obstruction of the political majority into a positive good.

An alternative to a smaller Cosa would be an explicit threshold ("you must gain X number of votes to get any seats"). It would still require an OrgLaw amendment but it would put paid to the "granularity" argument. Then we could argue firmly over where political accountability is a higher good than "everyone should get to play legislator".

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 24, 2021, 04:27:11 PM

It is a mammoth task to get anything to change if the King or conservative forces think it diminishes their power. And those conservative forces will die in a ditch over preserving a Cosa which encourages party splintering and no-one can ever be voted out because they make obstruction of the political majority into a positive good.

I really don't see how one connects to the other here. If a party splinters and thereby loses support in the next election, then sure, they might not lose every last one of their seats, but they should lose a considerable number of them, right?

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on August 24, 2021, 04:32:19 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 24, 2021, 04:27:11 PM

It is a mammoth task to get anything to change if the King or conservative forces think it diminishes their power. And those conservative forces will die in a ditch over preserving a Cosa which encourages party splintering and no-one can ever be voted out because they make obstruction of the political majority into a positive good.

I really don't see how one connects to the other here. If a party splinters and thereby loses support in the next election, then sure, they might not lose every last one of their seats, but they should lose a considerable number of them, right?

Sorry, I may have misphrased that. I didn't mean "splintering" in the sense of "breaking up", I meant it in the sense of "encouraging large numbers of micro parties", in the way stereotypically associated with Israel and pre-1994 Italy. As you know, to get monarchy reform through we had to negotiate a deal with at least 5 parties in this Cosa, and 2 of them (in whole or part) reneged on the deal without explanation, and there's nothing we can do about it because you only need to vote for yourself to get seats.

There is a real disconnect in Talossa between those who think democracy means "the majority will should prevail, with respect for minority rights", and those who think it means a kind of eternal status quo where minorities can block any serious reform (and let's face it, a Monarchy is the ultimate minority).

A smaller, more efficient Cosa would also allow for people to take on other interests in Talossa other than politics. "Not everyone gets to play legislator" is definitely a understatement given the events of recent weeks.

Our institutions are crumbling all around us while more and more people flee for the hills like we're nearing the end. Apathy has seeped in everywhere even in CURRENTLY ELECTED members of the legislature. We need to pass meaningful reforms NOW, not just half-measures—those won't cut it anymore. I swear it's like the twilight days of a great civilization around here nowadays. How many of us are left? How many more of us have to lose interest before we decide to take the hard but necessary step of making meaningful change?

I'd suggest dampening down on the apocalyptic stuff. There were eleven active Talossans in 1991. We don't want to give encouragement to the demagogues who yell stuff like "if you don't enact MY programme in full right now IT'S ALL OVER FOR TALOSSA!!!" I should also point out that it's Northern Hemisphere summer and people are at the beach.

The argument for a Cosa which requires more than your own vote to enter must be one about the ability of voters to hold politicians accountable - not one of activity. We had a Real Cosa 1997-2003 and I don't think it changed much activity-wise.

Not opposed to reducing the size of the Cosa, but I will say that if having more parties is preventing coalitions from deciding on major constitutional reform in a backroom deal rather than through debate in the Ziu I can only see that as a good thing.

At the very least more parties also means more MCs who are thinking for themselves rather than just go along blindly with whatever the party leader says.

The TNC and NPW voting against their pledge was quite surprising. I can imagine quite frustrating for someone on the other side of the debate, though I suppose many monarchist LCC voters were equally upset last term when the LCC decided to support the bill (which was decidedly not-conservative and not-monarchist) in the first place.

Not sure what to think of the abstain vote now. Although its true it was said each MC would get a free vote, the list of MCs during the election used to include Danihel Txechescu and the campaign, the promise to come up with an alternative and the word "Conservative" in the party name will surely have led many voters to believe that the party wouldnt be voting for a bill that basically left no part of the Talossan monarchy remaining, other than the name. Then again, I wasn't an LCC voter this time around, so maybe I'm wrong. Instead next election I'll have to explain to KLüP voters why we failed in convincing Lüc to become King. Our highly ideological and devoted base might not take that all too well.

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on August 24, 2021, 06:30:52 PM
Not sure what to think of the abstain vote now. Although its true it was said each MC would get a free vote, the list of MCs during the election used to include Danihel Txechescu and the campaign, the promise to come up with an alternative and the word "Conservative" in the party name will surely have led many voters to believe that the party wouldnt be voting for a bill that basically left no part of the Talossan monarchy remaining, other than the name.

I think you answered your own question. I'm not privy to internal Beaver debates, but the decision of the party majority on the constitutional issue (and maybe even on sitting in government with the hateful FreeDems?) is probably why s:reu Txechescu is not an MC. And the large vote for Balançéu and Dien (together doubling the LCC performance) surely shows where the single-issue GOD SAVE THE KING voters went and why they're unlikely to feel betrayed by the LCC keeping scrupulously to their election commitments.

Anyway, elections should have consequences. There was a certain Baron who complained, a few Cosas back, that for 9 out of the last 10 Cosas (or some number like that) the same parties had been in government. This is going to happen in a society which is very deeply divided (almost 50-50) over a basic constitutional issue, and where a party can only fall out of the legislature if its own members unanimously give up on it. So: let's make every party which wants Cosa seats work for it.

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on August 24, 2021, 06:15:09 PM
At the very least more parties also means more MCs who are thinking for themselves rather than just go along blindly with whatever the party leader says.

You say "thinking for themselves", I say "going rogue on their commitments and what they were elected for".

The argument that individuals breaking with their previous commitments and collective decisions is a good thing, to be applauded, is an essentially conservative one because it insinuates that collective action - of the type needed to make changes in a democracy - is a bad thing. I don't expect for a moment that Dixhet Fira, to pick a name at random, will suddenly become a Republican. It would be insulting to even consider it, IMHO. Party cohesion is necessary for things to change in a democracy, and to smear party cohesion as being "not thinking for yourself" is an argument which betrays an inherent conservatism.

I suppose that was more a general remark than directed at the TNC/NPW votes per se. To clarify: I don't thinking breaking election promises is a good thing, even though in this particular case, I'm glad about the result.

But MC's voting for bad laws on a partisan basis without bothering with the details has gone beyond just fulfilling manifesto planks. And even when there is a consensus about the general direction in which things should move, it could still be valuable for MCs to think about whether they are happy with the details, and often this doesnt seem to happen.

Also, collective action can happen as a result of discussion in the Ziu. It doesnt need to be done as a deal beforehand, especially when its not that strongly related to the functioning of the government.

As for the progressivism/conservatism debate, Talossa needs both.

Without change, Talossa becomes stale and politics doesnt matter because nothing ever changes so why bother. Too much change, and everything becomes meaningless because everything we build can be chucked away just as easily. What purpose is there to anything we do if next year we're going to do everything differently again?

In the RUMP days, we clearly had too little change. The rules for orglaw amendments were actually stricter than they are now. Every idea was immediately shot down by fortress senate and ther words "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" were uttered almost daily.

The past few years however, weve changed forum, pretty much every institution has seen some major reform, we've adopted an entire new constitution, and the hereditary monarchy has been abolished. This hasn't led to any major surge in activity. We've also come dangerously close to passing a deadly bill that would remove people from the rolls for not filling in the census. For citizens who are still around but not that active anymore its difficult to keep up, which I fear means many who fall behind are probably lost forever.

Not saying we should stop reforming stuff altogether and I certainly don't blame anyone for arguing for any further changes, including abolishing the monarchy, if that is what they feel is right, but fears about Talossa being hyperconservative and nothing ever changing are wildly overblown, as the amount of constitutional changes we've had in the last few years clearly shows.

I used to be clearly on the progressive side of things around here, now I'm somewhat on the conservative side. Maybe that's because I have changed, but there's no denying Talossa has too.

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on August 24, 2021, 07:54:08 PM
The past few years however, weve changed forum, pretty much every institution has seen some major reform, we've adopted an entire new constitution, and the hereditary monarchy has been abolished. This hasn't led to any major surge in activity.

All those things you mention are activity, surely? Or do you have a different definition of "activity" in mind? I was just telling one of my Cabinet colleagues that political reforms have to be justified or criticised on their own terms, not because they will increase or decrease extra-political activity.

QuoteFor citizens who are still around but not that active anymore its difficult to keep up, which I fear means many who fall behind are probably lost forever.

Which is why we instituted La C'hronica, to fill in less active citizens, in the absence of a private-enterprise press. Have you got any constructive suggestions how inactive citizens could be helped to "keep up", without - say - returning to total stasis? I should also mention that centre-Left governments enacted the National Surveys, the only serious effort heretofore to actually ask inactive citizens what they wanted.

See, what I'm frustrated with here is an overwhelming negativity from the centre-Right of Talossan politics. What the centre-Left majority doing sucks, clearly, in their eyes; but the Cosa opposition don't seem interested in holding the Government to account via Terps or via Cosa debates, or via building an alternative government. (The best compliment that can be given to the LCC is that, when they were the second-largest party, Ián P. could have theoretically formed a government and at least tried to get Peculiarist support.) Right now, the only effective opposition comes from "the Hand of the King" making extra-parliamentary speeches. This is the kind of politics which doesn't even try to defeat the Government - instead, its best hope is that the majority will decide that the minority was right all along.

I mean, my answer to what to do if the Government is running out of steam but the Opposition don't even try to use the political institutions to hold them to account / defeat them because "what's the point" is that the political institutions are busted and need to be scrapped. But that's precisely what the Opposition want least of all. If the Government aren't as active as they should be, but the Opposition aren't even trying to create a political alternative, then that is a situation guaranteed to form a spiral of dwindling activity. And let me re-iterate - the centre-Left got in its current position after long and hard struggle against a majority conservative party (the FreeDems have never had an absolute majority), so defeating and replacing an incumbent Government is possible under our present Constitution, with hard work and strategy. But the centre-Right has shown no appetite to do so since the RUMP said "what's the point" and dissolved.

I think a form of opposition which is based around stopping the Government enacting its programme, around complaining about Government failures, around a sterile insistence that it is the obligation of the Government to throw out its own programme and let its sworn enemies tell it what to do - rather than actively trying to replace the Government and enacting an alternative programme - will by design lead to a depressing effect on activity. Don't you agree?

Just to be clear I don't mean to be a hysteric on this issue, and I certainly don't have the experience as many of you do, but I think we all know what I mean when I say our institutions are in decline and in need of substantial repair. I don't think it's the number of "active" people (or lack of it) that's hindering us from this. It's people who are active but only at a bare minimum and unable to carry out the duties they took on to begin with. It's a slow drip drip drip of many things happening all at once and if we all can't get serious together as a community here, things will only get worse.

I'll just go back to my original point: we need REFORMS—real REFORMS. Preferable negotiated and passed in GOOD FAITH.