Wittenberg

General => Wittenberg => Topic started by: xpb on May 14, 2021, 04:15:08 PM

Title: "Compromise"
Post by: xpb on May 14, 2021, 04:15:08 PM
(https://talossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Compromise-ha.jpg)
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 14, 2021, 05:10:53 PM
That's right, keep talking about the FreeDems as if we were the only party that mattered; that's how we get an absolute majority this time
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: xpb on May 14, 2021, 05:18:05 PM
That's right, keep talking about the FreeDems as if we were the only party that mattered; that's how we get an absolute majority this time

I suppose it is a possibility if enough citizens want a Republic instead of a Kingdom.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: GV on May 14, 2021, 05:59:35 PM
That's right, keep talking about the FreeDems as if we were the only party that mattered; that's how we get an absolute majority this time

I suppose it is a possibility if enough citizens want a Republic instead of a Kingdom.

Let me deflect a bit and ask you this, how does John's going AWOL for five-six months for no good reason serve as a positive witness for the lifetime monarchy?
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: xpb on May 14, 2021, 06:17:26 PM
That's right, keep talking about the FreeDems as if we were the only party that mattered; that's how we get an absolute majority this time

I suppose it is a possibility if enough citizens want a Republic instead of a Kingdom.

Let me deflect a bit and ask you this, how does John's going AWOL for five-six months for no good reason serve as a positive witness for the lifetime monarchy?

I believe the time line, taking place during a period of heath issues on a global scale, also included the appointment of a Regent as requested administrative support.  Perhaps the King was not involved in detail, but who is determining the "without leave" portion of your statement?  Is that you as leader of the elected assembly?   Do you possess the authority to order another citizen to do or not do what they choose?  Or, instead are you just complaining as a pretext to acquire democratic control of the Royal powers?
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 14, 2021, 08:35:16 PM
The argument that "if you have any criticisms of how the King does his job, ever, you're a Republican" is turning a lot of people into Republicans
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Viteu on May 14, 2021, 09:08:05 PM
(https://talossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Compromise-ha.jpg)

You. Lost. The. Vote.

The fact that there is even a compromise is, per se, a compromise.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on May 15, 2021, 08:07:40 AM
(https://talossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Compromise-ha.jpg)

You. Lost. The. Vote.

The fact that there is even a compromise is, per se, a compromise.
Er, no. An amendment to completely abolish the Monarchy could not have passed the Ziu.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: xpb on May 15, 2021, 09:33:59 AM
(https://talossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Compromise-ha.jpg)

You. Lost. The. Vote.

The fact that there is even a compromise is, per se, a compromise.
Er, no. An amendment to completely abolish the Monarchy could not have passed the Ziu.
Er, yes.  The Free Dems are happy to break the Monarchy and paste the title "king" (or queen) on a president.  They are happy to bargain with that which they do not possess.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on May 15, 2021, 03:18:12 PM
(https://talossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Compromise-ha.jpg)

You. Lost. The. Vote.

The fact that there is even a compromise is, per se, a compromise.
Er, no. An amendment to completely abolish the Monarchy could not have passed the Ziu.
Er, yes.  The Free Dems are happy to break the Monarchy and paste the title "king" (or queen) on a president.  They are happy to bargain with that which they do not possess.
I was responding to V, not you.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Françal I. Lux on May 15, 2021, 04:42:25 PM
If it were up to me, I’d have this anachronistic, outdated institution scraped for a fully functional unitary Republic. The fact that I am willing to embrace this compromise and stomach the idea of having to call another human being “king” and “your highness” for the sake of contentious peace should count for something. I, along with republicans, are unabashed in our desire for a republic, while many would still prefer a monarchy—if we are to compromise, which is the government’s prerogative here after the referendum, of course we’d end up with a ceremonial head of State.

If I can’t have a republic, you can’t have the status quo.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 15, 2021, 06:15:02 PM
If it were up to me, I’d have this anachronistic, outdated institution scraped for a fully functional unitary Republic. The fact that I am willing to embrace this compromise and stomach the idea of having to call another human being “king” and “your highness” for the sake of contentious peace should count for something.

See, here's the thing: as far as I can tell, neither you nor any other Republican actually feels bound by this.  Are you saying that if your party leader Clarks a bill which would rename the king to "chief executive" or "noble leader" or "president," that you would vote "contra" on her bill?  Or that you would vote "contra" on a bill which altered the king's purview over appointments?
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Þon Txoteu É. Davinescu, O.SPM on May 15, 2021, 07:04:34 PM
If it were up to me, I’d have this anachronistic, outdated institution scraped for a fully functional unitary Republic. The fact that I am willing to embrace this compromise and stomach the idea of having to call another human being “king” and “your highness” for the sake of contentious peace should count for something.

See, here's the thing: as far as I can tell, neither you nor any other Republican actually feels bound by this.  Are you saying that if your party leader Clarks a bill which would rename the king to "chief executive" or "noble leader" or "president," that you would vote "contra" on her bill?  Or that you would vote "contra" on a bill which altered the king's purview over appointments?

I think out of everything I’ve experienced during my time in Talossa is the realization that AD will argue with a brick wall.

Why can’t someone’s answer be enough? To put it simply, a majority of the nation wants to compromise and move forward into a brighter day... counter to you arguing with anyone that doesn’t share your worldview. The HC will not be a shot in the dark or a historical oddity... it is an agreement between the majority of the nation that see the current system as it concerns the head of state is broken and needs revision. Like it or not... the Historic Compromise is an incredible opportunity that, unlike our current system of “absent monarch”, will allow the people of Talossa to chose their own course and THAT is what the FreeDems and the Historic Compromise is about both this election season & beyond!
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 15, 2021, 07:18:22 PM
If it were up to me, I’d have this anachronistic, outdated institution scraped for a fully functional unitary Republic. The fact that I am willing to embrace this compromise and stomach the idea of having to call another human being “king” and “your highness” for the sake of contentious peace should count for something.

See, here's the thing: as far as I can tell, neither you nor any other Republican actually feels bound by this.  Are you saying that if your party leader Clarks a bill which would rename the king to "chief executive" or "noble leader" or "president," that you would vote "contra" on her bill?  Or that you would vote "contra" on a bill which altered the king's purview over appointments?

I’m not Françal (or a FreeDem) so I can‘t comment on his/their behalf, but yes, I would.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 15, 2021, 07:27:09 PM
If it were up to me, I’d have this anachronistic, outdated institution scraped for a fully functional unitary Republic. The fact that I am willing to embrace this compromise and stomach the idea of having to call another human being “king” and “your highness” for the sake of contentious peace should count for something.

See, here's the thing: as far as I can tell, neither you nor any other Republican actually feels bound by this.  Are you saying that if your party leader Clarks a bill which would rename the king to "chief executive" or "noble leader" or "president," that you would vote "contra" on her bill?  Or that you would vote "contra" on a bill which altered the king's purview over appointments?

I think out of everything I’ve experienced during my time in Talossa is the realization that AD will argue with a brick wall.

Why can’t someone’s answer be enough? To put it simply, a majority of the nation wants to compromise and move forward into a brighter day... counter to you arguing with anyone that doesn’t share your worldview. The HC will not be a shot in the dark or a historical oddity... it is an agreement between the majority of the nation that see the current system as it concerns the head of state is broken and needs revision. Like it or not... the Historic Compromise is an incredible opportunity that, unlike our current system of “absent monarch”, will allow the people of Talossa to chose their own course and THAT is what the FreeDems and the Historic Compromise is about both this election season & beyond!

If you're going to try to avoid the question, you're going to need to do better than that!

Look, I know why you guys hate this issue.  This whole thing is really, really dependent on branding.  And so it's inconvenient when people ask what exactly it is that you are compromising when it comes to your Historic Compromise.

You can't say that you're compromising your vision for a completely Government-run honours system, because you feel free to pursue changing that whenever you please.

You can't say that you'd refuse to rename the king to a new title, because you don't feel like you might want to do that, too.

You can't say that you're bound to protect the king's role in appointments, because maybe you'll disagree with a decision of his and want to change it.

You can't say that you're determined to prevent any change in the length of the "king"s term, because maybe seven years is too long and you'll decide to make it shorter sometime during the first term or next.

You can't say that you're going to protect the royal veto, because maybe it needs to be reduced a little bit more.

Now, maybe you say that you don't want to change some or all of these things.  Maybe it's dependent on the president's good behavior, and you'll keep these things if they do what you want.  But that's different than a deal -- it's different than a compromise.  You want to take what you want now, and maybe you'll come back for more later.   This isn't a compromise, despite the spin.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 15, 2021, 07:31:02 PM
If it were up to me, I’d have this anachronistic, outdated institution scraped for a fully functional unitary Republic. The fact that I am willing to embrace this compromise and stomach the idea of having to call another human being “king” and “your highness” for the sake of contentious peace should count for something.

See, here's the thing: as far as I can tell, neither you nor any other Republican actually feels bound by this.  Are you saying that if your party leader Clarks a bill which would rename the king to "chief executive" or "noble leader" or "president," that you would vote "contra" on her bill?  Or that you would vote "contra" on a bill which altered the king's purview over appointments?

I’m not Françal (or a FreeDem) so I can‘t comment on his/their behalf, but yes, I would.
I'm glad :)  So you feel as though you would feel obligated for the future to vote against changes to the king's role?  If only the other three parties advocating for this presidency could make the same pledge!  It might have made it a real compromise, after all.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Eðo Grischun on May 15, 2021, 07:46:18 PM
(The below is 100% personal opinion)


The tactic being employed by the Baron De Skelped Erse (and his plus one) is very similar to the strategy used by opponents of Scottish Independence.

"You had a referendum in 2014.  We answered no. ThAtS DeMoCrAcY So YoU CaNt HaVe A sEcOnD sHoT"

They claim a second referendum can't ever happen because democracy.  It's makes no sense at all.  Surely, democracy allows for minds to change over time?  I mean, by the same logic, we might as well never, ever have any more than one election. 'The people got to choose the government way back in nineteen canteen, that was democracy, so no, you don't get another election'.  Nonsense.

So, in the same gaslighting manner, Baron Heed-da-Baw is hinging this whole thing on the idea that the Historic Compromise must be permanent. Really permanent. Never to speak about anything to do with it again permanent. Which... is nonsense.

Just like the Scottish Independence referendum, opponents like to say "it was supposed to be once in a generation!!!!".  But, they refuse to accept the fact that the material circumstances have changed since the first one.  (in that case, Brexit happened).

The Historic Compromise, no matter how long it lasts, is still an Historic Compromise.  It is utterly unfair to say that it not a compromise because it can't come with a future-proof guarantee that nothing about the monarchy ever gets mentioned ever ever ever again.  It is not only unfair, it is bad faith.  It is not only bad faith, it is absolutely and terrifyingly UNDEMOCRATIC.

You want honesty?  Ok.  The Historic Compromise will last as long as it lasts.  That's as confident an answer I can give without being able to read the future.  It will last as long as it lasts.  However, I am confident that the side that breaks it won't be us.  Supporters of the Historic Compromise will live with it and stand by it all the way up until the other side does something silly to force a material change in circumstances.

A major principle in governance is that one Parliament can't tie the hands of a future Parliament.  So, the Baron Von Bawlsax is asking for the impossible by demanding the compromise comes with some kind of guarantee that nothing in the future ever gets mentioned ever again regarding the monarchy.  Like, what if we did find some way to make that guarantee and then a King decides to just start abusing his side of the system in some way?  Well, we would just have to accept it and let him get away with it because, well, democracy had its day and the compromise is to last forever plus a day. 

Well, no.  The historic compromise will last as long as it lasts and it will only be broken in the event of a change in the material circumstances surrounding the Monarchy.  Demanding anything further, again, is absolutely and terrifyingly undemocratic.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 15, 2021, 08:09:04 PM
So, in the same gaslighting manner, Baron Heed-da-Baw is hinging this whole thing on the idea that the Historic Compromise must be permanent. Really permanent. Never to speak about anything to do with it again permanent. Which... is nonsense.

Nonsense.  Just utter nonsense.

Obviously, it would be absurd to say that any political agreement would need to last forever or else it's illegitimate.  That's not what I'm saying.

I'm also obviously not saying that the FDT should propose a law putting the honours system or veto out of reach of a future Cosa, because that's also absurd.  They might be put at a higher standard in the OrgLaw, of course, if an actual compromise is on the table.  But it's not.

So please consider that you have resoundingly defeated those straw men.  They're stone dead and you have triumphed.

My actual point is that there is no compromise at all, be it one that lasts a week or a month.  They won't even verbally commit to anything.  Republicans are just taking most of what they want now, and they plan to come back for more later.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Eðo Grischun on May 15, 2021, 08:29:14 PM
So, in the same gaslighting manner, Baron Heed-da-Baw is hinging this whole thing on the idea that the Historic Compromise must be permanent. Really permanent. Never to speak about anything to do with it again permanent. Which... is nonsense.


Obviously, it would be absurd to say that any political agreement would need to last forever or else it's illegitimate.  That's not what I'm saying.



No, that's exactly what you have been saying.  The whole premise of your opposition is based around the fact that it's impossible for supporters of the HC to guarantee they won't ever, ever, ever fiddle about with anything related to the Monarchy in the future or else it's not really a compromise.  Hence your list in a previous reply:

Quote
You can't say that you're compromising your vision for a completely Government-run honours system, because you feel free to pursue changing that whenever you please.

You can't say that you'd refuse to rename the king to a new title, because you don't feel like you might want to do that, too.

You can't say that you're bound to protect the king's role in appointments, because maybe you'll disagree with a decision of his and want to change it.

You can't say that you're determined to prevent any change in the length of the "king"s term, because maybe seven years is too long and you'll decide to make it shorter sometime during the first term or next.

You can't say that you're going to protect the royal veto, because maybe it needs to be reduced a little bit more.

Yep.  We can't say any of those things because it's utterly impossible to comment on future events that have not happened and may never happen.  You're whole argument boils down to that.  That the Historic Compromise is rubbish because at some stage in the future we might want to pass a law tinkering with something related to the Monarchy.  It's complete BS.  I applaud your effort though, because you might have managed to confuse a few voters with that tomfoolery wordsmithery.  The fact is, though, that those kind of things will only happen as a reaction to some change in material circumstances caused by future actions of the Monarch.

Quote
My actual point is that there is no compromise at all, be it one that lasts a week or a month.  They won't even verbally commit to anything.  Republicans are just taking most of what they want now, and they plan to come back for more later.

Hyperbole.  And, that last bit Won't happen.  Sheer, unfounded speculation.  Unless, again, the material circumstances are caused to change by the actions of a King's mis, mal, or non-feasance.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 15, 2021, 09:10:04 PM
Are you saying that if your party leader Clarks a bill which would rename the king to "chief executive" or "noble leader" or "president," that you would vote "contra" on her bill?  Or that you would vote "contra" on a bill which altered the king's purview over appointments?

Apologise to Txoteu for insinuating that he's not really FreeDems leader, right away. (Or misgendering Txoteu, either way.)
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 15, 2021, 09:32:57 PM
Er, no. An amendment to completely abolish the Monarchy could not have passed the Ziu.

This is right. Everyone forgets this. The Compromise was the only thing that could have got 2/3 of the outgoing Cosă and at the same time respect the (narrowest of narrow) verdict of the referendum for an Elected Head of State. Senator Plätschisch pretty much wrote the National Convocation bit himself.

Intransigent, no-compromise, monarchists are pretty loud on Witt, but if they'd mobilised just a little bit better in the referendum, they wouldn't be facing this predicament.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 15, 2021, 10:14:29 PM
No, that's exactly what you have been saying.  The whole premise of your opposition is based around the fact that it's impossible for supporters of the HC to guarantee they won't ever, ever, ever fiddle about with anything related to the Monarchy in the future or else it's not really a compromise.  Hence your list in a previous reply:

Quote
You can't say that you're compromising your vision for a completely Government-run honours system, because you feel free to pursue changing that whenever you please.

You can't say that you'd refuse to rename the king to a new title, because you don't feel like you might want to do that, too.

You can't say that you're bound to protect the king's role in appointments, because maybe you'll disagree with a decision of his and want to change it.

You can't say that you're determined to prevent any change in the length of the "king"s term, because maybe seven years is too long and you'll decide to make it shorter sometime during the first term or next.

You can't say that you're going to protect the royal veto, because maybe it needs to be reduced a little bit more.

Yep.  We can't say any of those things because it's utterly impossible to comment on future events that have not happened and may never happen.  You're whole argument boils down to that.  That the Historic Compromise is rubbish because at some stage in the future we might want to pass a law tinkering with something related to the Monarchy.

Many people think it is possible to make firm commitments about your future intentions, if you legitimately are willing.  If you honestly see it as impossible, then I think you've just begun vigorously agreeing with me, and I consider my point well-proven.

I have made many commitments in my life based on sincere beliefs and intentions, and I have done my best to uphold them.  When I got married, I said that I would love and honour my wife, and I was able to do this without prevaricating about how "it's utterly impossible to comment on future events."  It's surely possible that I will get sick in some way and be unable to hold up my end of the deal, but somehow I soldiered through and made a promise, anyway.

You won't commit to protecting the role of the monarchy, because you don't intend to do so.

Quote
My actual point is that there is no compromise at all, be it one that lasts a week or a month.  They won't even verbally commit to anything.  Republicans are just taking most of what they want now, and they plan to come back for more later.

Hyperbole.  And, that last bit Won't happen.  Sheer, unfounded speculation.  Unless, again, the material circumstances are caused to change by the actions of a King's mis, mal, or non-feasance.

Your incoming party leader already announced he intended to do this!  It's not any kind of speculation at all, it's just seeing a thing and noticing it.

It was just a couple of weeks ago that he announced his plans, and stated in firmness that they were based on principle, and even made a fiery speech about how important it was for him to speak his mind.  "We all have a voice," he wrote. "Whether I agree with you or you agree with me, shouldn’t we all have the right to engage in the public square?! I say yes! Because the more active we are, leading and engaging in spirited discussion... the better we all are!"

You're surely not saying that he was lying and he's actually not interested in immediately stripping the honours system from His Majesty, right?  And he was extremely clear about his intentions and how sincere they were.  And what is more, even though there was a lot of hinting about how this "wasn't the right time," your fellow party members were unanimous in their agreement that his goal was well within-bounds.  No one said, "Now wait a second, we have a Historic Compromise, and it's absolutely sincere!"

There is no compromise.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Françal I. Lux on May 15, 2021, 11:34:45 PM
If it were up to me, I’d have this anachronistic, outdated institution scraped for a fully functional unitary Republic. The fact that I am willing to embrace this compromise and stomach the idea of having to call another human being “king” and “your highness” for the sake of contentious peace should count for something.

See, here's the thing: as far as I can tell, neither you nor any other Republican actually feels bound by this.  Are you saying that if your party leader Clarks a bill which would rename the king to "chief executive" or "noble leader" or "president," that you would vote "contra" on her bill?  Or that you would vote "contra" on a bill which altered the king's purview over appointments?

Call him Chief Maxwell of the Boogaloo clan for all I care. I'm not hung up on the label--all I care about is the institution behind it. I have always been apathetic to the issue of monarchy in this country. Yes, I am principally opposed to monarchy, in general, as a form of governance since I find it outdated, backwards, and immoral, but to embrace the spirit of Talossan Peculiarism, fine I'll go along, I'm having too much fun exploring what this country can offer anyway. BUT let us not forget that SOMEONE dropped the ball on his responsibilities--responsibilities you yourself had to do double time and pick up! Look, I've certainly gone AWOL on here for various reasons over the years, but no one refers to me as "Your Majesty".
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Eðo Grischun on May 15, 2021, 11:36:04 PM
You've already been told that the raising of issues surrounding Honours was in response to the King acting wide.  The government instructed the Monarch to issue a National Honour and he didn't do it, instead he choose to issue a Dynastic Honour.  I'm still of the opinion the King broke the law on this.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Françal I. Lux on May 15, 2021, 11:39:44 PM
The institution is broken. It needs an update. Having the benefit of hindsight now, I believe it was only natural for the current monarch to go AWOL as he did, and for no more other reason than the fact that the role of King in this country is granted a lifetime appointment and yet not encouraged, either actively or just through cursory interest, to participate in the day to day running of the State. Of course this would lead to complacency and neglect.

I've looked and looked up and down the halls of the Ziu with my bloodhounds for a while now and I cannot find a perfect solution to this problem--and I'm not gonna find one. This Compromise could be better in my opinion, (albeit in ways I'm sure many of you would disagree with ;) ) but frankly it's the best we're going to get. It's called a compromise for a reason. We can't win and neither can you, but the problem is still there. Let's at least plug the hole before we continue to jump down each other's throats.

I fully support this compromise and I urge everyone to do so. I will defend it with integrity if and when it passes and becomes law chiefly because, as far as I'm concerned, it is a genuine attempt to remedy an existential issue in this country instead of not doing anything which we all know will lead to nothing good.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 16, 2021, 03:44:48 AM
You've already been told that the raising of issues surrounding Honours was in response to the King acting wide.  The government instructed the Monarch to issue a National Honour and he didn't do it, instead he choose to issue a Dynastic Honour.  I'm still of the opinion the King broke the law on this.

Also, don't forget: raising the stink of corruption by giving a Hereditary Peerage to his crony who did his job for him while he sulked.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Eðo Grischun on May 16, 2021, 04:16:19 AM
You've already been told that the raising of issues surrounding Honours was in response to the King acting wide.  The government instructed the Monarch to issue a National Honour and he didn't do it, instead he choose to issue a Dynastic Honour.  I'm still of the opinion the King broke the law on this.

Also, don't forget: raising the stink of corruption by giving a Hereditary Peerage to his crony who did his job for him while he sulked.

Indeed.

And, while we are on the topic of peerages, let's just point out the extremely rare times that they have been handed out by King John.

The King's most loyal subject, AD. 
The King's drinking buddy, Hooligan.
And, The King's son, Patrick.
Also, Fritz Buchholtz, which is fair enough, he actually deserved it.

That's it. 

Anybody willing to defend this as anything other than cronyism is having a laugh.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 16, 2021, 07:19:09 AM
You've already been told that the raising of issues surrounding Honours was in response to the King acting wide.  The government instructed the Monarch to issue a National Honour and he didn't do it, instead he choose to issue a Dynastic Honour.  I'm still of the opinion the King broke the law on this.

Your incoming party leader made a speech about how he wanted to strip the honours system from the king, everyone in your party agreed with him but told him to wait a bit so he wouldn't be a "distraction," and then later Miestra made a long speech on behalf of the party about the real motivation.  That all seems irrelevant.

Ultimately, the uncomfortable fact remains that you guys aren't agreeing to any larger compromise or deal.  You claim this is an agreement that will settle the question of the king's role for generations of Talossans, but all that means is that you get most of what you want now, and you'll come back for more later.

Will you rename the king to a new title?

Will you strip him of his role in appointments?

Will you shorten his term of office?

Will you remove the already-reduced veto power?

Will you snatch all authority over honours?

If this had been some sort of compromise, then you'd be giving something up.  Instead, you're already planning what you want to take next.  If this had been a Historic Compromise, then you'd have struck a real deal with real concessions.  This isn't any kind of compromise.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 16, 2021, 03:33:56 PM
Your incoming party leader made a speech about how he wanted to strip the honours system from the king,

No he didn't (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=850.0), stop lying.

But as to your questions, speaking only for myself and not my party: depends on how the King behaves. I'll keep saying it until it seeps through your mind: the King's behaviour is the chief cause of anti-monarchist feeling in Talossa.

And we struck a deal with the royalist opposition in the Ziu, the only people with any democratic legitimacy to strike a deal.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 16, 2021, 04:31:12 PM
Your incoming party leader made a speech about how he wanted to strip the honours system from the king,

No he didn't (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=850.0), stop lying.

lol

So yeah, when I said "party leader," I meant General Davinescu, who is nominally the FDT leader.  I understand the confusion, but the pronouns should have made it clear. I wasn't referring to your later speech, but to his initial one.

This is what he wrote:

I propose that, moving forward, Peerages and Knighthoods may originate from either the Crown or the Government... but, specifically in the case of Peerages, must be approved by both. Knighthoods, depending on Grade, may too originate from either... with the Government generally taking lead on approvals of Member, Officer, Commander/Knight and the Crown on Knight Commander & Knight Grand Cross.

Generally, I feel if we are going to have Peerages & Knightly Orders... we should do so in the manner that literally all other recognized nations do theirs.

Respectfully,
Gen. Txoteu Davinescu, O.SPM     

This was followed by a variety of FDT personages saying reassuring yet utterly noncommittal things, as when GV said:

Certainly, our award system needs an overhaul which can adapt to the future, but now is not the time or the place to bring up that discussion.

You folks didn't say, "Now wait a second!  We've come to a compromise about the nature of the monarchy!  It is impossible that we could already be planning our next move against it!  We have made a commitment!  An agreement!  A deal!  A Historic Compromise!"

Even your own speech, speaking on behalf of your party, was careful about this.  You don't plan on trying to eliminate the royal veto, appointment authority, honours, etc... but you obviously consider it an option.  If someone makes a decision you don't like, then you feel completely free to act. You're not bound by a compromise, after all.

And that's because there is no compromise.  You're taking most of what you want now, and you'll be back for more soon.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 16, 2021, 05:05:46 PM
So yeah, when I said "party leader," I meant General Davinescu, who is nominally the FDT leader.  I understand the confusion, but the pronouns should have made it clear. I wasn't referring to your later speech, but to his initial one.

Just preserving this in case AD realises how badly he shot himself in the foot and tries to delete it later  8)
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Eðo Grischun on May 16, 2021, 05:28:02 PM
So yeah, when I said "party leader," I meant General Davinescu, who is nominally the FDT leader.

Just so we are clear here, you are outright saying that, in your mind, Txoteu is not the leader of the FreeDems, despite him being nominated and elected in accordance with the party constitution?  That he is in some way a sock puppet of Miestra?

Yep.  You sure are fighting from a principled position and it's nothing at all to do with your trolling obsession with Miestra.

What exactly do you get out of acting like such a lamp?
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on May 16, 2021, 05:30:14 PM
What exactly do you get out of acting like such a lamp?

I spit coffee all over my screen at this point.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 16, 2021, 05:40:37 PM
Oh, my goodness.  You're right, we need to immediately change topics and start talking about this new thing.  Attention should be -- must be -- changed over to the new thing.  It would be utterly outrageous for someone to imply such a thing about another person.  This shiny object is out-of-bounds and must instantly become the new focus of attention.

Tbf to AD, on his side of politics the leader (or King) is usually a figurehead for a backroom negotiator or "chief of staff" to make the real calls, so it's reasonable to assume that's how it works on our side too. It sadly might take you a while to establish that you're not my glovepuppet  :D

There is no compromise.  No amount of clumsy distractions or outright insults are going to change that fact.  (I mean honestly, when clutching your pearls, couldn't you at least try to find some Horrid Offense you didn't commit yourself like last week?)

I know this is really inconvenient to discuss.  You have this whole branding campaign going on where you try to wrap the proposed presidency in flowing mantles and ermine: an answer to the monarchy question for generations!   But it's just not so.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Eðo Grischun on May 16, 2021, 05:45:14 PM
THERE IS NO PROPOSED PRESIDENCY.

STOP TALKING RUBBISH.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 16, 2021, 05:52:56 PM
FDT

We go by "FreeDems" not "FDT" That sounds like underwear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGzN5f-osUY
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 16, 2021, 06:04:15 PM
Yeah, he knows that - he does it to annoy and troll. And doesn't understand how he got the name Baron von Head-The-Ball in response :)
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 16, 2021, 06:05:33 PM
What exactly do you get out of acting like such a lamp?

I spit coffee all over my screen at this point.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/dac6b5830ac6445e9fd008dfb07ab3a9/tenor.gif?itemid=5715014)
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 16, 2021, 06:05:56 PM
Yep it's just that every time I see FDT I think of Milton Berle haha.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on May 16, 2021, 06:10:12 PM
A vote for the NPW is a vote for Milton Berle to be our new Presiking.

(https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=854.0;attach=273)
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 16, 2021, 06:12:01 PM
Oh, my goodness.  You're right, we need to immediately change topics and start talking about this new thing.  Attention should be -- must be -- changed over to the new thing.  It would be utterly outrageous for someone to imply such a thing about another person.  This shiny object is out-of-bounds and must instantly become the new focus of attention.

Tbf to AD, on his side of politics the leader (or King) is usually a figurehead for a backroom negotiator or "chief of staff" to make the real calls, so it's reasonable to assume that's how it works on our side too. It sadly might take you a while to establish that you're not my glovepuppet  :D

Again, preserving this before Baron von Lamp realises he's just confirmed what I said in the quote: that AD thinks that the FreeDems elected a glovepuppet as party leader, because that's what he's always done - used docile but obedient people as figureheads for his own macinations.  ;D
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Françal I. Lux on May 16, 2021, 06:12:12 PM
Who is proposing a presidential system? There isn’t anyone of any seriousness who has proposed a presidential system—I know because if there were a proposal I would be the FIRST to sign up.

Tar, feather and red herrings aside, the institution is broken and it needs an update. We can all spin around with baseball bats around our noses and go all dizzy all day long, NOTHING will change the fact that the monarchy as it stands cannot be allowed to remain as it is.

Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 16, 2021, 06:47:50 PM
This has gone way overboard. I‘ll just add my own two bence here unsolicited if no one minds.

As I’ve said before, personally, I would vote against any further encroachments on the Monarchy, as I believe proposing such legislation à propos of nothing would be a breach of the compromise and unsportsmanlike. This would hold as long as my trust, loyalty and goodwill isn’t taken advantage of, for example through unprovoked malicious actions from the Throne or its supporters.

Your Lordship, you compared committing to the compromise to wedding vows earlier in this thread, if I remember correctly. If I found out my wife cheated on me, I would consider these vows null and void. Would I start cheating on my wife in return? Probably not, I figure I would much rather ask for a divorce.

Okay, let‘s discard that metaphor for now. If the Monarchy were involved in some scandal that I would consider in violation of the compromise, would I push for more anti-Monarchy legislation? Probably not. I would rather see him removed pursuant to Article II.4 of the Organic Law, under all the conditions and procedures that this would entail of course.

Is this unreasonable of me?
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 16, 2021, 06:56:23 PM
This has gone way overboard. I‘ll just add my own two bence here unsolicited if no one minds.

As I’ve said before, personally, I would vote against any further encroachments on the Monarchy, as I believe proposing such legislation à propos of nothing would be a breach of the compromise and unsportsmanlike. This would hold as long as my trust, loyalty and goodwill isn’t taken advantage of, for example through unprovoked malicious actions from the Throne or its supporters.

Your Lordship, you compared committing to the compromise to wedding vows earlier in this thread, if I remember correctly. If I found out my wife cheated on me, I would consider these vows null and void. Would I start cheating on my wife in return? Probably not, I figure I would much rather ask for a divorce.

Okay, let‘s discard that metaphor for now. If the Monarchy were involved in some scandal that I would consider in violation of the compromise, would I push for more anti-Monarchy legislation? Probably not. I would rather see him removed persuant Article II.4 of the Organic Law, under all the conditions and procedures that this would entail of course.

Is this unreasonable of me?

No, It's not unreasonable. If we found out that His Majesty were doing something abhorrent like serious crimes or reading the Twilight series, then certainly he should be deposed.

I would not and have not ever argued any differently. I think will be absurd to claim that any aspect of our civic institutions should be considered sacrosanct. We are a democracy.

But I will put you a counterpoint, which is to suggest that you are here making a firm claim as to your future intentions and the basic principles to which you believe you are agreeing when you support the bill. And I have noticed that other supporters of the bill have scrupulously avoided doing so. When asked about their intentions, they have even suggested it's utterly absurd to even speculate about the future in any way.

I have said before and will say again that I appreciate your good faith and the fact that you seem to honestly be supporting an overall compromise and agreement. I think it would put a lot of minds at ease if more people in your camp seemed to have the same attitude. Instead, it seems to be more of an "we'll just see what we feel like doing" approach. No one but yourself seems to consider changes to the monarchy's role in our country to be out of bounds under this agreement, so they don't seem to have really agreed to anything (except getting most of what they want now).
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on May 17, 2021, 12:04:09 PM
I must say that the pledge of “we won’t make more changes to the Monarchy unless King John makes us angry again” is not very reassuring, because the FreeDems are often made angry by him (for some good reasons and some bad). Therefore it would not be hard for them to motivate taking away more powers if they were so inclined.

The proposal is meant to make it possible to remove the King without removing more of the Monarchy’s powers.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on May 17, 2021, 01:18:34 PM
I must say that the pledge of “we won’t make more changes to the Monarchy unless King John makes us angry again” is not very reassuring, because the FreeDems are often made angry by him (for some good reasons and some bad). Therefore it would not be hard for them to motivate taking away more powers if they were so inclined.

The proposal is meant to make it possible to remove the King without removing more of the Monarchy’s powers.

"LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE AT THE BACK"
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 17, 2021, 03:56:14 PM
I must say that the pledge of “we won’t make more changes to the Monarchy unless King John makes us angry again” is not very reassuring, because the FreeDems are often made angry by him (for some good reasons and some bad). Therefore it would not be hard for them to motivate taking away more powers if they were so inclined.

Yeah, and we can't do so unilaterally, unless Allà grants us a 3/4 majority. And if we thought we could get a 3/4 majority any time soon, we wouldn't be seeking a comrpoise. That is the point of the compromise.

You know this, so promoting the Baron's meme that the FreeDems could somehow unilaterally bring in a Republic is irresponsible.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on May 17, 2021, 05:02:11 PM
I must say that the pledge of “we won’t make more changes to the Monarchy unless King John makes us angry again” is not very reassuring, because the FreeDems are often made angry by him (for some good reasons and some bad). Therefore it would not be hard for them to motivate taking away more powers if they were so inclined.

Yeah, and we can't do so unilaterally, unless Allà grants us a 3/4 majority. And if we thought we could get a 3/4 majority any time soon, we wouldn't be seeking a comrpoise. That is the point of the compromise.

You know this, so promoting the Baron's meme that the FreeDems could somehow unilaterally bring in a Republic is irresponsible.
And if we thought the FreeDems and their allies were incapable of getting a sustained supermajority any time soon, we probably wouldn’t be seeking a compromise either.

I’m not saying the FreeDems are going to usher in a republic. I am saying that the individuals currently touting the Historic Compromise could very well later find themselves in a position to take more Royal powers away later. I thank the FreeDems for their statement concerning the honors system; I would appreciate a similar pledge on the other powers (obviously I am aware that the future can not be foretold, but the individuals involved are capable of making pledges concerning their future behavior)
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 17, 2021, 05:07:28 PM
"Okay then, enough of this arguing. Clearly we both would like access to your silver mine on the border. But admittedly, our army isn't large enough right now to take the whole thing by force. So we are proposing this grand and historic compromise: we're going to take most of the silver now. And then we'll just see what happens with our tank production and soldiers. But this can be an end to the conflict for generations, assuming we stay happy about how much silver we have. Isn't that a great compromise?"
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 17, 2021, 05:47:30 PM
I thank the FreeDems for their statement concerning the honors system; I would appreciate a similar pledge on the other powers

In return for what? After your former leader was overthrown for giving too much away, the LCC pledged a "free vote" on the Compromise - you'll probably vote something like 2/3 against it, if I can judge by your party list - so will this demand for surrender mean that you'll fully support the Compromise in return? Or is it in return for supporting your "Compromise on the Compromise"?

If you've moved to Baron Head-The-Ball's position that there's no point compromising and you might as well fight all reforms all the way, then just say so.

ETA: Oh, sorry. I see that you're asking for particular individuals to make some kind of pledge. Exactly which individuals?
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on May 17, 2021, 07:16:59 PM
I thank the FreeDems for their statement concerning the honors system; I would appreciate a similar pledge on the other powers

In return for what? After your former leader was overthrown for giving too much away, the LCC pledged a "free vote" on the Compromise - you'll probably vote something like 2/3 against it, if I can judge by your party list - so will this demand for surrender mean that you'll fully support the Compromise in return? Or is it in return for supporting your "Compromise on the Compromise"?

If you've moved to Baron Head-The-Ball's position that there's no point compromising and you might as well fight all reforms all the way, then just say so.

ETA: Oh, sorry. I see that you're asking for particular individuals to make some kind of pledge. Exactly which individuals?
I need my computer to respond fully, but nothing I’ve said so far is different from anything I’ve been saying for the past few weeks (for example, in my farewell address). The “demand for surrender” as you are now calling it is merely a recognition that Monarchists are actually getting anything in return for supporting either proposal (which, with our updated party list, will likely mostly support so long as we are assured it is really a compromise)
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ián S.G. Txaglh on May 18, 2021, 03:51:24 AM
*taking a seat and asking the neighbour * where could i get zero sugar soda & vegan popcorn here?

is there a deep-state in talossa too? like freedems puppet mastering talossans through some dark ritual into kingless zombies or suchs? boy, that would be fun  8)
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Françal I. Lux on May 18, 2021, 01:29:32 PM
*taking a seat and asking the neighbour * where could i get zero sugar soda & vegan popcorn here?

is there a deep-state in talossa too? like freedems puppet mastering talossans through some dark ritual into kingless zombies or suchs? boy, that would be fun  8)

I already eat children and worship the Devil in the American iteration of this storyline, why not add masterminding a coup d’état against the king in an attempt to turn everyone into republican dogs


(Sarcasm for the uninitiated)
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 18, 2021, 05:57:14 PM
I already eat children and worship the Devil in the American iteration of this storyline, why not add masterminding a coup d’état against the king in an attempt to turn everyone into republican dogs

THIS AIN'T ROCK AND ROLL! THIS IS GENOCIDE!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTIsnYPG4lU
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: anglatzara on May 19, 2021, 08:45:44 AM
To me, anything that retains a King as the head of state but introduces a working democratic way of electing/sacking them, is a compromise. Whether it's a compromise that benefits that Monarchists or the Republicans, is a different matter.

I think it's an absolutely vital compromise for Talossa. I've been a Talossan for 23 years, and I've seen the ills of having a non-elected head of state, many times, in different forms. I will never agree that it is a good idea to have a King for life, even if there is a theoretical (but not practical) way of getting rid of him/her/them.

However, I have also been a proud citizen of the Talossan republic, and I firmly believe that the choice of having a republic instead of a monarchy seriously harmed our immigration. For some stupid reason, especially Americans seem to think that Royalty are so exciting and sexy, that they are attracted to them like flies to a honeypot. So let the monarchy be our honeypot. That, and having an apolitical high-prestige citizen on the tallest stool in the Talossan kitchen, are the two main good points with having a King. Let's keep them, but make the King answerable to the nation.

Remember -- and this is vital -- discussing and tinkering with the constitution and the nature of Talossa are Talossa's life blood. Nothing should be exempt from discussing. No legislation should be set in stone. If the die-hard republicans want to take this compromise and like Fianna Fáil in Ireland use it as a stepping stone to a full-fledged republic, let them try. I will argue against them, but I will relish the discussions. To claim that a piece of legislation is the end of the road is very un-Talossan and outright harmful to our political life.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: GV on May 19, 2021, 09:07:35 AM
Many thanks, Ián, for your support!

To me, anything that retains a King as the head of state but introduces a working democratic way of electing/sacking them, is a compromise. Whether it's a compromise that benefits that Monarchists or the Republicans, is a different matter.

I think it's an absolutely vital compromise for Talossa. I've been a Talossan for 23 years, and I've seen the ills of having a non-elected head of state, many times, in different forms. I will never agree that it is a good idea to have a King for life, even if there is a theoretical (but not practical) way of getting rid of him/her/them.

However, I have also been a proud citizen of the Talossan republic, and I firmly believe that the choice of having a republic instead of a monarchy seriously harmed our immigration. For some stupid reason, especially Americans seem to think that Royalty are so exciting and sexy, that they are attracted to them like flies to a honeypot. So let the monarchy be our honeypot. That, and having an apolitical high-prestige citizen on the tallest stool in the Talossan kitchen, are the two main good points with having a King. Let's keep them, but make the King answerable to the nation.

Remember -- and this is vital -- discussing and tinkering with the constitution and the nature of Talossa are Talossa's life blood. Nothing should be exempt from discussing. No legislation should be set in stone. If the die-hard republicans want to take this compromise and like Fianna Fáil in Ireland use it as a stepping stone to a full-fledged republic, let them try. I will argue against them, but I will relish the discussions. To claim that a piece of legislation is the end of the road is very un-Talossan and outright harmful to our political life.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: xpb on May 19, 2021, 10:56:49 AM
Many thanks, Ián, for your support!

To me, anything that retains a King as the head of state but introduces a working democratic way of electing/sacking them, is a compromise. Whether it's a compromise that benefits that Monarchists or the Republicans, is a different matter.

I think it's an absolutely vital compromise for Talossa. I've been a Talossan for 23 years, and I've seen the ills of having a non-elected head of state, many times, in different forms. I will never agree that it is a good idea to have a King for life, even if there is a theoretical (but not practical) way of getting rid of him/her/them.

However, I have also been a proud citizen of the Talossan republic, and I firmly believe that the choice of having a republic instead of a monarchy seriously harmed our immigration. For some stupid reason, especially Americans seem to think that Royalty are so exciting and sexy, that they are attracted to them like flies to a honeypot. So let the monarchy be our honeypot. That, and having an apolitical high-prestige citizen on the tallest stool in the Talossan kitchen, are the two main good points with having a King. Let's keep them, but make the King answerable to the nation.

Remember -- and this is vital -- discussing and tinkering with the constitution and the nature of Talossa are Talossa's life blood. Nothing should be exempt from discussing. No legislation should be set in stone. If the die-hard republicans want to take this compromise and like Fianna Fáil in Ireland use it as a stepping stone to a full-fledged republic, let them try. I will argue against them, but I will relish the discussions. To claim that a piece of legislation is the end of the road is very un-Talossan and outright harmful to our political life.

Indeed -- discussion and debate is excellent and important!  I am pleased that this thread, like the previous one that I triggered with an image or two (worth the proverbial kiloword) has been a place where citizens can state their thoughts.  One can hope that the opinions can be the focus, and that agreement to disagree can be the context.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 19, 2021, 11:06:34 AM
To claim that a piece of legislation is the end of the road is very un-Talossan and outright harmful to our political life.

I agree.  It would be extremely harmful to our country for someone to claim that any piece of legislation closes all future discussion on a topic, forever.

But of course, no one is claiming that.  No one is asking for that.

Instead, monarchists are asking -- quite reasonably! -- what exactly republicans are conceding with their proposed presidency.  As far as I can tell, the only concession is that republicans are not getting all that they want right now.  But that's not a compromise, and it's really hard to see why a monarchist should support it.

If republicans were saying that they would commit to preserving the role of the monarchy in the future if this deal passes, then that might be a compromise.  It would be a bad deal, but at least it would be a deal.  But they are not making that commitment.

No one is saying, "You must promise to make no changes to the monarchy under any circumstances forever," because that would be an absurd request.  But it is equally absurd to pretend that it's simply impossible to make any commitments about your future intentions!  We do that all the time -- this Government has done so repeatedly in recent years.  For example, the coalition agreement states that the Government "will investigate further avenues to sell our coins and stamps."  Was that some crazed pronouncement demanding impossible fealty?  No!  It was a reasonable expression of future intentions.  If all the coins were lost in some tragic accident, then no one would be upset that they stopped selling them.

I am glad that some individuals have expressed reservations about further action.  But there is no official statement about this because there is no larger deal, and no republican considers themselves bound by any compromise.  And that's because there is no compromise.

To me, anything that retains a King as the head of state but introduces a working democratic way of electing/sacking them, is a compromise.

I will note that you are again highlighting a key problem with this "compromise," which is that the people proposing it have not made any commitment to retain the label of "king."  You don't seem to think you are bound to keep it, even if you do think it's a good idea in order to fool Americans into immigrating.
Title: I could be king.
Post by: GV on May 19, 2021, 03:12:05 PM
Then, and knowing how difficult under the current system it is to remove an incumbent monarch, I can go on vacation whenever I want!  And when people make welfare-check calls to my phone, I could just go ahead and appoint Miestrâ Schivâ as Regent for an undetermined period of time.

It's absolutely brilliant.  No wonder Ián Lupul vetoed 55RZ21 because right now, he can be king for however long he wants and go AWOL with no reprecussions.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 19, 2021, 03:41:59 PM
... and whoever steps in to cover his tracks for him gets rewarded with the hereditary honour of Duke of Earl, Sheikh of Araby, Baron von Harkonnen or whatever
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Eðo Grischun on May 19, 2021, 08:34:04 PM
To claim that a piece of legislation is the end of the road is very un-Talossan and outright harmful to our political life.

I agree.  It would be extremely harmful to our country for someone to claim that any piece of legislation closes all future discussion on a topic, forever.

But of course, no one is claiming that.  No one is asking for that.

Instead, monarchists are asking -- quite reasonably! -- what exactly republicans are conceding with their proposed presidency.  As far as I can tell, the only concession is that republicans are not getting all that they want right now.  But that's not a compromise, and it's really hard to see why a monarchist should support it.

If republicans were saying that they would commit to preserving the role of the monarchy in the future if this deal passes, then that might be a compromise.  It would be a bad deal, but at least it would be a deal.  But they are not making that commitment.

No one is saying, "You must promise to make no changes to the monarchy under any circumstances forever," because that would be an absurd request.  But it is equally absurd to pretend that it's simply impossible to make any commitments about your future intentions!  We do that all the time -- this Government has done so repeatedly in recent years.  For example, the coalition agreement states that the Government "will investigate further avenues to sell our coins and stamps."  Was that some crazed pronouncement demanding impossible fealty?  No!  It was a reasonable expression of future intentions.  If all the coins were lost in some tragic accident, then no one would be upset that they stopped selling them.

I am glad that some individuals have expressed reservations about further action.  But there is no official statement about this because there is no larger deal, and no republican considers themselves bound by any compromise.  And that's because there is no compromise.

To me, anything that retains a King as the head of state but introduces a working democratic way of electing/sacking them, is a compromise.

I will note that you are again highlighting a key problem with this "compromise," which is that the people proposing it have not made any commitment to retain the label of "king."  You don't seem to think you are bound to keep it, even if you do think it's a good idea in order to fool Americans into immigrating.


Yes.  Election pledges and manifesto promises are made all the time.  What is not done though, is asking for firm commitments on absurd hypotheticals that may never happen.  Yes, the coins might all be lost in some tragic accident one day, but it would be entirely unreasonable to demand that, today, we had the answer to solving such a hypothetical problem.  Would you like us to commit to a future crowdfunding venture that we might need to do but might equally might not need to do?

It seems like you are asking us to make commitments on future actions based on fantasy and prophecy.

I've said already.  From my own personal place in this, my future voting intentions and legislative approach will only seek to go beyond the scope of the currently proposed compromise if a fundamental shift forces it; that if the monarch in some way misbehaves to force action; that if a material change in circumstances develops.

And, again, this is not a proposed presidency.  Every time you say those words you are speaking a completely disingenuous untruth.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: GV on May 19, 2021, 08:48:08 PM
And, again, this is not a proposed presidency.  Every time you say those words you are speaking a completely disingenuous untruth.

What this is, as best as I can tell, is Malaysia.  The fundamental difference between the Historic Compromise and a 'regular' monarchy is with what will hopefully be our system, a monarch is held to task every n years.

King John with his August 2020 - April 2021 AWOL gives us a very benign demonstration of what can happen when a future lifetime monarch really does go rogue.  Ben Madison went rogue in '04 (I know I keep mentioning that) and nearly destroyed the country.

Our elected monarch keeps the veto.  He keeps constitutional authority over honours and awards.

And if John is vested with that authority for another seven years, it will be a disappointment, but a democratically-chosen one by the most-involved citizens from all political factions representing the whole of the country.

That makes all the difference in the world.  VOTEZ FREEDEMS!
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 19, 2021, 09:21:33 PM
Yes.  Election pledges and manifesto promises are made all the time.  What is not done though, is asking for firm commitments on absurd hypotheticals that may never happen.  Yes, the coins might all be lost in some tragic accident one day, but it would be entirely unreasonable to demand that, today, we had the answer to solving such a hypothetical problem.  Would you like us to commit to a future crowdfunding venture that we might need to do but might equally might not need to do?

It seems like you are asking us to make commitments on future actions based on fantasy and prophecy.

It takes remarkably little prophetic power to look at the speech by your party leader, in which he declares his sincere belief that the honours system should be put under Government power, (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=793.0) and see a near future in which your party moves to put the honours system under Government power.  We're not talking about looking through the mists at dim visions of the future so much as reading the passionate speeches in which he states his plans.

It's not an absurd hypothetical to look at the thing your party leader vowed to do and wonder if he might try to do it.  I have no power to see the future (or I would have sold my Ethereum a week ago) but I can read.


What this is, as best as I can tell, is Malaysia.  The fundamental difference between the Historic Compromise and a 'regular' monarchy is with what will hopefully be our system, a monarch is held to task every n years.

Yes, and with a seven-year term (for now, I guess) it's going to be quite a vigorous campaign, I'd imagine.  If the referendum passes, have you guys already discussed who the Free Democrat candidate for "king" will be?

Our elected monarch keeps the veto.  He keeps constitutional authority over honours and awards.

For now.  After all, you told your party leader that such a discussion was just "ill-timed," even though you said you agreed with him on every count.  I mean, just to put you a not-very-hypothetical hypothetical, when he proposes his bill to make sure that the Government can vet all potential knights or peers, are you saying you would vote against it?
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 19, 2021, 09:26:31 PM
Yes, and with a seven-year term (for now, I guess) it's going to be quite a vigorous campaign, I'd imagine.  If the referendum passes, have you guys already discussed who the Free Democrat candidate for "king" will be?
Quick question because I wasnt there when it happened: considering that the current status quo is a lifetime monarchy, how vigorous was His Majesty's election campaign in 2006/07? If I understand this correctly, the longer the term, the bigger the incentive to win.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 19, 2021, 09:33:23 PM
Yes, and with a seven-year term (for now, I guess) it's going to be quite a vigorous campaign, I'd imagine.  If the referendum passes, have you guys already discussed who the Free Democrat candidate for "king" will be?
Quick question because I wasnt there when it happened: considering that the current status quo is a lifetime monarchy, how vigorous was His Majesty's election campaign in 2006/07? If I understand this correctly, the longer the term, the bigger the incentive to win.
There was no campaign at all.  He had been one of the most prominent figures in resisting Robert I's thuggish tyranny, and he had helped organize a ton of things during the long regency of King Louis, and as I recall the whole thing was a bit of a surprise to him.  One of his closest friends, Hooligan, started it by writing a ton of people, asking them what they thought of the idea.  The circumstances were fairly unusual and there were no other real prospective candidates with his reputation for honesty and solid background.  The only contrary voices were ones that said maybe we should wait some time before choosing anyone.  EDIT: The ultimate vote was 37 to 6, with turnout somewhere north of 60%.  The opposition was confined mostly to members of the Cort who were acting as regents at the time, although I think that was more coincidence than anything else.

I don't know that it's really as simple as "the longer, the more incentive," necessarily.  After all, people can be Secretary of State for basically forever if they want to and they do a good job.  But head of state is a different bird, and the monarch still has some powers left.  Surely you agree there will be a vigorous campaign, yes?
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 19, 2021, 09:54:52 PM
I don't know that it's really as simple as "the longer, the more incentive," necessarily.  After all, people can be Secretary of State for basically forever if they want to and they do a good job.  But head of state is a different bird, and the monarch still has some powers left.  Surely you agree there will be a vigorous campaign, yes?
The longer the king's term, the bigger the incentive. A seven year term is shorter than an unlimited term.

Under the HC, the King would not be directly elected by the population at large but rather by a Conclave consisting of representatives of the Ziu, the Cort Pü Inalt, the Civil Service and provincial governments. The only way I can envision campaigning of any kind would be for the yes/no referendum afterwards, but considering that an Heir presumptive has to be chosen by two-thirds of the aforementioned Conclave, the referendums would probably end up being fairly uncontroversial.

I could be wrong about this though. I'm not sure we can really tell how it would pan out beforehand, the whole procedure is terra incognita.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 19, 2021, 10:04:56 PM
Under the HC, the King would not be directly elected by the population at large but rather by a Conclave consisting of representatives of the Ziu, the Cort Pü Inalt, the Civil Service and provincial governments. The only way I can envision campaigning of any kind would be for the yes/no referendum afterwards,

If you'll check, the referendum afterwards was removed in the version of 55RZ21 that passed the last Cosa, at the recommendation of the monarchist opposition who contributed to the Compromise. Actually, let's emphasise that - this is a true compromise, for no other reason, than to get it 2/3 in the last Cosa, the conservative opposition's suggestions on how a King should be chosen were accepted almost unanimously. True, no-one asked AD, because he's not an MZ and he doesn't bargain in good faith anyway.

I should also note that 55RZ21 also admits all Talossan citizens of 10 years seniority and more to the Conclave Convocation (that's another change that Senator Plätschisch made)
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 19, 2021, 10:09:01 PM
If the referendum passes, have you guys already discussed who the Free Democrat candidate for "king" will be?

There won't be one. The last thing we want to do is politicise this. This was something that was suggested to us, by the actual monarchist opposition in the Ziu, that would be good to establish as good faith.

In fact, they asked me to confirm that I, personally, would not put myself forward as King. Doubling over with laughter, I would like to hereby put it on record that I have no intention of ever being King or Queen or Empress or Shahbanu of anything, and if anyone offered me a crown even for 1 year, let alone 7, I would say no.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 19, 2021, 10:17:31 PM

The longer the king's term, the bigger the incentive. A seven year term is shorter than an unlimited term.

Under the HC, the King would not be directly elected by the population at large but rather by a Conclave consisting of representatives of the Ziu, the Cort Pü Inalt, the Civil Service and provincial governments. The only way I can envision campaigning of any kind would be for the yes/no referendum afterwards, but considering that an Heir presumptive has to be chosen by two-thirds of the aforementioned Conclave, the referendums would probably end up being fairly uncontroversial.

I could be wrong about this though. I'm not sure we can really tell how it would pan out beforehand, the whole procedure is terra incognita.

As near as I can tell, the electorate would at this moment comprise something like 90 citizens, roughly half of the voters, assuming some people who are eligible by their office (like Txec) kept their positions and assuming that parties leveraged their seats allotment to put in people who wouldn't otherwise be eligible.  There doesn't seem any reason to think campaigning would be any different for such an election than for any other, since this group of 90 citizens would represent the overwhelming majority of active Talossans (since the bulk of those not included are recent immigrants who don't participate or follow much).  There's a big chunk of people who presumably will vote for the Free Democratic candidate, for example, so that endorsement (formal or informal) would carry some weight in the presidential election.

If you'll check, the referendum afterwards was removed in the version of 55RZ21 that passed the last Cosa, at the recommendation of the monarchist opposition who contributed to the Compromise. Actually, let's emphasise that - this is a true compromise, for no other reason, than to get it 2/3 in the last Cosa, the conservative opposition's suggestions on how a King should be chosen were accepted almost unanimously. True, no-one asked AD, because he's not an MZ and he doesn't bargain in good faith anyway.

I should also note that 55RZ21 also admits all Talossan citizens of 10 years seniority and more to the Conclave Convocation (that's another change that Senator Plätschisch made)

Yes, Ian P contributed to the bill.  If you'll notice, he's also on record repeatedly saying exactly what I have been saying:

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

I must say that the pledge of “we won’t make more changes to the Monarchy unless King John makes us angry again” is not very reassuring, because the FreeDems are often made angry by him (for some good reasons and some bad). Therefore it would not be hard for them to motivate taking away more powers if they were so inclined.

This is no compromise, because republicans aren't giving up anything.  They get most of what they want now, and they'll be back for the rest soon.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 19, 2021, 10:31:39 PM
As near as I can tell, the electorate would at this moment comprise something like 90 citizens, roughly half of the voters, assuming some people who are eligible by their office (like Txec) kept their positions and assuming that parties leveraged their seats allotment to put in people who wouldn't otherwise be eligible.
I'm not sure how you've reached that number. Even if the FreeDems maximised their seat allotments as you said, the Cosă at large would only send at most eight representatives to the Convocation so I'm not convinced that would make a big difference. The only way I can explain this is by assuming that we just have a ton of people here who've been citizens for over a decade...? Maybe that's the case, I havent checked. But...

Wait...

If you'll notice, he's also on record repeatedly saying exactly what I have been saying:

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
(Emphasis mine)

Didnt you accuse S:reu Grischun of strawmanning earlier when he brought this talking point up...?

So, in the same gaslighting manner, Baron Heed-da-Baw is hinging this whole thing on the idea that the Historic Compromise must be permanent. Really permanent. Never to speak about anything to do with it again permanent. Which... is nonsense.

Nonsense.  Just utter nonsense.

Obviously, it would be absurd to say that any political agreement would need to last forever or else it's illegitimate.  That's not what I'm saying.

I'm also obviously not saying that the FDT should propose a law putting the honours system or veto out of reach of a future Cosa, because that's also absurd.  They might be put at a higher standard in the OrgLaw, of course, if an actual compromise is on the table.  But it's not.

So please consider that you have resoundingly defeated those straw men.  They're stone dead and you have triumphed.

My actual point is that there is no compromise at all, be it one that lasts a week or a month.  They won't even verbally commit to anything.  Republicans are just taking most of what they want now, and they plan to come back for more later.

I dont know about you, but I am proper confused now.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 19, 2021, 10:43:43 PM
As near as I can tell, the electorate would at this moment comprise something like 90 citizens, roughly half of the voters, assuming some people who are eligible by their office (like Txec) kept their positions and assuming that parties leveraged their seats allotment to put in people who wouldn't otherwise be eligible.
I'm not sure how you've reached that number. Even if the FreeDems maximised their seat allotments as you said, the Cosă at large would only send at most eight representatives to the Convocation so I'm not convinced that would make a big difference. The only way I can explain this is by assuming that we just have a ton of people here who've been citizens for over a decade...? Maybe that's the case, I havent checked.

70 citizens have been here longer than ten years.  It will be 71 by the time of the next Government, and it will be 73 by the time any Convocation could take place.  Add in the list of office-holders and strategic choices of partisan representatives, and we'll have something like 90.


Didnt you accuse S:reu Grischun of strawmanning earlier when he brought this talking point up...?

I can't speak for him, but I didn't take Ian P literally as meaning like no change, ever.  He also indicated immediately in the very next post that wasn't what he meant.

I’m not saying the FreeDems are going to usher in a republic. I am saying that the individuals currently touting the Historic Compromise could very well later find themselves in a position to take more Royal powers away later. I thank the FreeDems for their statement concerning the honors system; I would appreciate a similar pledge on the other powers (obviously I am aware that the future can not be foretold, but the individuals involved are capable of making pledges concerning their future behavior)

So yeah.

And I have certainly never asked for blanket or eternal assurances.  I haven't asked for assurances at all, really.  I don't think they would be given.  I've only pointed out that there are no assurances of any kind.  The only thing that most republicans are promising is to take now, and then we'll see.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 19, 2021, 11:17:50 PM
I should note that the Free Democrats are talking with monarchist parties - privately - about what assurances we could give them that would enable them to full-throatedly endorse 55RZ21 when it's re-presented to the next Cosa, and I do hope to have an announcement in a day or three. AD is not a party to these talks, for reasons mentioned above.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 20, 2021, 06:19:06 AM
Which parties? Voters obviously deserve to know which parties are planning to endorse the proposed presidency and change their stance after the election is over.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: GV on May 20, 2021, 06:37:57 AM
Which parties? Voters obviously deserve to know which parties are planning to endorse the proposed presidency and change their stance after the election is over.

[Talluminati]
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ián S.G. Txaglh on May 20, 2021, 07:32:18 AM
jokes aside, i am not sure what is going on here. so, some fans of good ol'times do worry, that talossa may change and that change is sure for worse?

i am by no means conservative, and definitely not that type of spooked conservative who jumps up-and-down when the date on the calendar moves on. what even would be a problem if talossa turns republic? like someone is going to lose hir aristocratic sandbox, no more fancy and empty titles, no dandy CoA-s? or republic would be so unattractive to those new prospective citizens who today stay in lines before the gates of talossa and then when let in, they swirl in social and cultural activity?

more, do not we believe in our democracy? why do we pretend to have a constitutional parliamentary monarchy? we are holding a referendum, boy, this is not a governmental or parliamentary coup d'etat.

talossa needs a practical political system, which hardly goes with king gone AWOL. anyway, aren't we already too old for micronational cosplay? talossa rather needs vivid cultural life than vain symbols. or we're going to turn into a dusty museum. don't get me wrong, i love museums, but just as deposits of well-organised artifacts, not a place to live.

let me go with this: what's in a name? that which we call talossa by any other name would smell as sweet.

¡sa viva talossa!

Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 20, 2021, 03:00:23 PM
AD: "Why won't the FreeDems give us reassurances that they won't just take 55RZ21 and keep going to Republic?"
Me: "We are asking actual monarchist politicians what kind of reassurances *they* would actually accept"
AD: "OMG WHO? GIVE ME THEIR NAMES, THOSE FILTHY TRAITORS!!!"

Because you see, AD doesn't want us to give reassurances that "we won't just keep on going to Republic" which would actually get a majority for the Compromise. He just wants to troll and annoy.

The Free Dems are open to conversations with all monarchist parties - Balançeu, LCC, Dien and I suppose Glüc - as to what reassurances and commitments of reformist/republican goodwill they would need to feel happy voting for the Historic Compromise. If they never will, no how, no way, then that's fine, such discussions are a waste of time.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 20, 2021, 05:53:57 PM
Well, it was just a couple of days ago that you were flinging names and abuse, shouting that I was just an outrageous troll for pointing out that there was no real compromise... and now it seems you are trying to negotiate one on behalf of your party leader.  So please forgive me if I find it hard to take your latest noise seriously.

I remember when the 54th Cosa coalition agreement (https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13798/54th-cos-programme-government?page=1) was announced, it included an agreement that the new Government would pass Ian P's Talossa Is Not Wittenberg Act (https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13384/talossa-wittenberg-act).  Sure enough, it passed.  But as soon as there were the votes in the 55th Cosa -- in the very first Clark! -- the Shark Tank Act (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=350.0) was passed (http://www.talossa.ca/files/cosa_vote_result.php?cosa=55&clark=1).  So whoever's negotiating this secret agreement: I suggest you try to get better terms than "we agree for exactly as long as we must."
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 20, 2021, 07:30:21 PM
Well, it was just a couple of days ago that you were flinging names and abuse, shouting that I was just an outrageous troll for pointing out that there was no real compromise... and now it seems you are trying to negotiate one on behalf of your party leader.

To be precise:
1) Txoteu is as much involved in these discussions as I am, as I'm sure he'll confirm;
2) you are an outrageous troll.

ETA: seriously? If your next rhetorical move is to tell our partners that we can't be trusted to keep any commitments we make, what is the purpose of asking us to make commitments, except to troll and annoy. This isn't a political argument at all, it's a narrative that "Free Democrats are bad and sneaky and untrustworthy people", and it's the kind of narrative that makes you personally stink in our nostrils.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: GV on May 20, 2021, 09:33:02 PM
Well, it was just a couple of days ago that you were flinging names and abuse, shouting that I was just an outrageous troll for pointing out that there was no real compromise... and now it seems you are trying to negotiate one on behalf of your party leader.  So please forgive me if I find it hard to take your latest noise seriously.

I remember when the 54th Cosa coalition agreement (https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13798/54th-cos-programme-government?page=1) was announced, it included an agreement that the new Government would pass Ian P's Talossa Is Not Wittenberg Act (https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13384/talossa-wittenberg-act).  Sure enough, it passed.  But as soon as there were the votes in the 55th Cosa -- in the very first Clark! -- the Shark Tank Act (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=350.0) was passed (http://www.talossa.ca/files/cosa_vote_result.php?cosa=55&clark=1).  So whoever's negotiating this secret agreement: I suggest you try to get better terms than "we agree for exactly as long as we must."

In other words, it's not okay to fix something which is obviously broken?  If we keep this logic, we might as well return to the 1979 Constitution.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ián Tamorán S.H. on May 21, 2021, 05:46:56 AM
...
I don't know that it's really as simple as "the longer, the more incentive," necessarily. 
...

A statement may be both simple and true: that's (partly) what good science is about. And it's (partly) what good conversation is about, too.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on May 21, 2021, 09:02:00 AM
Well, it was just a couple of days ago that you were flinging names and abuse, shouting that I was just an outrageous troll for pointing out that there was no real compromise... and now it seems you are trying to negotiate one on behalf of your party leader.  So please forgive me if I find it hard to take your latest noise seriously.

I remember when the 54th Cosa coalition agreement (https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13798/54th-cos-programme-government?page=1) was announced, it included an agreement that the new Government would pass Ian P's Talossa Is Not Wittenberg Act (https://talossa.proboards.com/thread/13384/talossa-wittenberg-act).  Sure enough, it passed.  But as soon as there were the votes in the 55th Cosa -- in the very first Clark! -- the Shark Tank Act (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=350.0) was passed (http://www.talossa.ca/files/cosa_vote_result.php?cosa=55&clark=1).  So whoever's negotiating this secret agreement: I suggest you try to get better terms than "we agree for exactly as long as we must."

In other words, it's not okay to fix something which is obviously broken?  If we keep this logic, we might as well return to the 1979 Constitution.
Whether or not that Act was "obviously broken" depends on who you ask.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on May 21, 2021, 09:05:31 AM

i am by no means conservative, and definitely not that type of spooked conservative who jumps up-and-down when the date on the calendar moves on. what even would be a problem if talossa turns republic? like someone is going to lose hir aristocratic sandbox, no more fancy and empty titles, no dandy CoA-s? or republic would be so unattractive to those new prospective citizens who today stay in lines before the gates of talossa and then when let in, they swirl in social and cultural activity?
This is pretty dismissive of aspects of the Monarchy that some people like a lot. Creating "vivid cultural life" is really hard, and I wouldn't scoff at anything that helps.

Quote
talossa rather needs vivid cultural life than vain symbols. or we're going to turn into a dusty museum. don't get me wrong, i love museums, but just as deposits of well-organised artifacts, not a place to live.
People have been saying this for years, but I don't see how getting rid of the Monarchy, or putting its powers under some other body, would help at all. The problem you are diagnosing is not the fault of the Monarchy; rather, of general apathy.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on May 21, 2021, 10:53:58 AM
Quote
talossa rather needs vivid cultural life than vain symbols. or we're going to turn into a dusty museum. don't get me wrong, i love museums, but just as deposits of well-organised artifacts, not a place to live.
People have been saying this for years, but I don't see how getting rid of the Monarchy, or putting its powers under some other body, would help at all. The problem you are diagnosing is not the fault of the Monarchy; rather, of general apathy.

I wonder about digging to the root of the general apathy.  I'm spitballing here, but it's something I've been chewing over for a while.  I wonder if the monarchy in its current iteration might not be the root of at least some of the apathy that we are experiencing.  If people are joining for courts and kings and whatnot, then the throne needs to be a vital cultural force.  If it's not, we need a way to swap out the occupant in an efficient manner.

What about Knighthoods?  Peerages?  If people are joining for the pomp of royalty, this is what they are joining for.  When one doesn't materialize in short order, they go on their way to become the Hey-Nay-Nay of Sha-na-nah or whatever.  They go to the place that gives them what they want.

I would love to see the peerage system reset itself with every new king, excepting former royal households perhaps.  New Barons and dukes and knights and whatnot.  Talossa is at its most active and interesting when it is in the process of inventing itself.  So maybe that's what we need as a shot in the arm.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 21, 2021, 02:32:05 PM
Quote
talossa rather needs vivid cultural life than vain symbols. or we're going to turn into a dusty museum. don't get me wrong, i love museums, but just as deposits of well-organised artifacts, not a place to live.
People have been saying this for years, but I don't see how getting rid of the Monarchy, or putting its powers under some other body, would help at all. The problem you are diagnosing is not the fault of the Monarchy; rather, of general apathy.

I wonder about digging to the root of the general apathy.  I'm spitballing here, but it's something I've been chewing over for a while.  I wonder if the monarchy in its current iteration might not be the root of at least some of the apathy that we are experiencing.  If people are joining for courts and kings and whatnot, then the throne needs to be a vital cultural force.  If it's not, we need a way to swap out the occupant in an efficient manner.

What about Knighthoods?  Peerages?  If people are joining for the pomp of royalty, this is what they are joining for.  When one doesn't materialize in short order, they go on their way to become the Hey-Nay-Nay of Sha-na-nah or whatever.  They go to the place that gives them what they want.

I would love to see the peerage system reset itself with every new king, excepting former royal households perhaps.  New Barons and dukes and knights and whatnot.  Talossa is at its most active and interesting when it is in the process of inventing itself.  So maybe that's what we need as a shot in the arm.

I would love to see the Monarch give out more knighthoods and peerages. The UK system gives them to a lot of different people but here in Talossa it is exceedingly rare. I believe that would draw people in. I joined for that reason and I must admit I've been disappointed at the rarity of honors in the past several years. There are people who do a lot for this kingdom and they could be recognized for that.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 21, 2021, 03:08:02 PM
I wonder if the monarchy in its current iteration might not be the root of at least some of the apathy that we are experiencing.  If people are joining for courts and kings and whatnot, then the throne needs to be a vital cultural force.  If it's not, we need a way to swap out the occupant in an efficient manner.

As I keep saying - the best argument that a life-term monarchy doesn't work is the behaviour of the incumbent, who - by the way - hasn't even spoken to his own Government since he came back from nowhere. Of course, I sure he checks in with his "Privy Councillor", Baron von Head-The-Ball, on a daily basis.

I don't think anyone can defend logically, or on constitutional propriety grounds, the argument that the King should simply ignore the elected Government if they're not of the same political mind with him. But people will make up specious arguments to defend it if they don't like the elected Government and like the King, of course.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 21, 2021, 09:26:55 PM
In other words, it's not okay to fix something which is obviously broken?  If we keep this logic, we might as well return to the 1979 Constitution.
Perhaps this illustrates why so many are afraid that next term, it will be honours that are "obviously broken."  I'm not saying you're insincere, but rather that stuff that seems obviously broken to you might be stuff we want to keep!  I mean, perhaps seven years is too long, and the term will get bumped down a bit.  Or perhaps appointments are what need to be fixed, since shouldn't need the president's approval.

Look at the Witt thread (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=350.0).  Ian posted a very reasonable list of reasons why he thought it wasn't broken.  No one even bothered to answer him on the thread.

I don't know who's involved in the secret negotiations.  But whoever it is should be sure they get explicit and firm commitments, made in public.

I wonder about digging to the root of the general apathy.  I'm spitballing here, but it's something I've been chewing over for a while.  I wonder if the monarchy in its current iteration might not be the root of at least some of the apathy that we are experiencing.  If people are joining for courts and kings and whatnot, then the throne needs to be a vital cultural force.

Not speaking of you, but a lot of people have been sneering and mocking a lot of those aspects of the nation for a long time, often referencing the Society for Creative Anachronism by way of comparison.  And while this needn't necessarily be so, most of the people who were heavily involved in those things were fairly interested in monarchy as an institution, and a lot of them have moved on.  There's a lot of reasons for that, though.

I hope that this trend will reverse soon.  I have tried to be open to all sorts of things, even stuff not in my ordinary range of interests, to try to support new initiatives.  (That's why I asked my eldest if she wanted to enter an art contest.)

I'll also point out that knighthoods and peerages are only perceived as meaningful because they are (a) rare, (b) usually given for significant achievements, and (c) connected with an institution that is seen as meaningful.  If we begin giving them out frequently or make them temporary, then I don't believe people will care about them more.  I believe His Majesty does intend to act further in these regards, though and there are several worthy recipients I can imagine in the future.

Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time doing and creating various cultural things in our country, including some very recently, I can say that it's very hard.  There's not much support, either in real terms or even emotional ones, and it can feel like you're shouting into a void.  When I ran a D&D game or when I revamped the Zuavs, there was no infrastructure to support and not a lot of real community at the start.  (Not that other people aren't involved and contributing in an amazing way.)  And I'm not trying to whine about it, since I liked it and it was interesting, but it's hard to keep that up for long without burning out.  That's true about the pseudo-feudal things, too.

I'd like to get the College more active, but there's just so few active people in general, and I can't afford to make another long-term commitment  :(
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 22, 2021, 01:59:17 AM
I don't know who's involved in the secret negotiations.  But whoever it is should be sure they get explicit and firm commitments, made in public.

Our monarchist interlocutors specifically said there wouldn't be any point making public commitments before the election, but afterwards I hope that'll be possible.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 22, 2021, 02:00:23 PM
Where did the post go?
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 22, 2021, 02:17:49 PM
Where did the post go?

Which post?
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 22, 2021, 02:43:46 PM
I briefly had a post up asking why the whole thing was going to be kept a secret from voters, but I decided that there was no real need to make that point and I should just leave it.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: GV on May 22, 2021, 08:11:23 PM
I briefly had a post up asking why the whole thing was going to be kept a secret from voters, but I decided that there was no real need to make that point and I should just leave it.

Plans within plans...
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 23, 2021, 03:09:58 AM
Why would a monarchist party who were genuinely interested in talking to Free Democrats about getting reassurances want to open themselves up to get the same levels of slander thrown at them that the Baron is throwing at the Free Democrats, for being traitors or sellouts or whatever?
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: GV on May 23, 2021, 06:07:23 AM
Why would a monarchist party who were genuinely interested in talking to Free Democrats about getting reassurances want to open themselves up to get the same levels of slander thrown at them that the Baron is throwing at the Free Democrats, for being traitors or sellouts or whatever?

It reminds me ever so slightly of why in part the Republic was so stubborn in not making a return in 2005.  We know in the Kingdom of that time, we would be looked upon as thieves and criminals not by everyone, but by enough people and enough day-to-day actives for our return for us to be a most unpleasant prospect.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 23, 2021, 06:52:46 AM
Why would a monarchist party who were genuinely interested in talking to Free Democrats about getting reassurances want to open themselves up to get the same levels of slander thrown at them that the Baron is throwing at the Free Democrats, for being traitors or sellouts or whatever?

It wasn't slander to point out that there was no compromise, because republicans hadn't actually agreed to any deal (beyond their plans to take what they want now and come back for more soon). That's why you're now engaged in these secret negotiations! And it's not slander now to ask why this information has to be hidden from the voters until after the election. This is a democracy, not an oligarchy!
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on May 23, 2021, 10:01:25 AM
Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time doing and creating various cultural things in our country, including some very recently, I can say that it's very hard.  There's not much support, either in real terms or even emotional ones, and it can feel like you're shouting into a void.  When I ran a D&D game or when I revamped the Zuavs, there was no infrastructure to support and not a lot of real community at the start.  (Not that other people aren't involved and contributing in an amazing way.)  And I'm not trying to whine about it, since I liked it and it was interesting, but it's hard to keep that up for long without burning out.  That's true about the pseudo-feudal things, too.

Awards and honours, excepting possibly the grants of arms should not be automatic or granted just willy-nilly.  That would truly rob them of import.

What I wonder, though, is perhaps there could be a nobility starter pack, for lack of a better term.  Something that gets people started in that train of action.  Like, a list of 5-6 accomplishments (or similar) earns you a Baronetcy (I think that's the lowest noble rank, but whatever).  That gives a way to get started to people who are interested in nobility and peerage.  Then anything beyond that is for extraordinary service (or just being the king's buddy as the case may be, since it is at their discretion).

I know this is similar to the Zuav system. But that could provide a scaffold for the entire Talossan honours system.  Be they military, noble, or scholarly.   
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 23, 2021, 11:56:37 AM
Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time doing and creating various cultural things in our country, including some very recently, I can say that it's very hard.  There's not much support, either in real terms or even emotional ones, and it can feel like you're shouting into a void.  When I ran a D&D game or when I revamped the Zuavs, there was no infrastructure to support and not a lot of real community at the start.  (Not that other people aren't involved and contributing in an amazing way.)  And I'm not trying to whine about it, since I liked it and it was interesting, but it's hard to keep that up for long without burning out.  That's true about the pseudo-feudal things, too.

Awards and honours, excepting possibly the grants of arms should not be automatic or granted just willy-nilly.  That would truly rob them of import.

What I wonder, though, is perhaps there could be a nobility starter pack, for lack of a better term.  Something that gets people started in that train of action.  Like, a list of 5-6 accomplishments (or similar) earns you a Baronetcy (I think that's the lowest noble rank, but whatever).  That gives a way to get started to people who are interested in nobility and peerage.  Then anything beyond that is for extraordinary service (or just being the king's buddy as the case may be, since it is at their discretion).

I know this is similar to the Zuav system. But that could provide a scaffold for the entire Talossan honours system.  Be they military, noble, or scholarly.
I like this as an idea for a way to formalize the process for Government recommendations. But you're also right that it's essentially the same system I came up with for the Zuavs. So I'd imagine we'd want to see it actually work for several years before we switched over the honours system to it. Definitely something to consider, though!
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 23, 2021, 03:43:07 PM
it's not slander now to ask why this information has to be hidden from the voters until after the election.

Well, not "the voters", just you.

If you're going to pour mud on anyone who disagrees with you, don't be surprised if people want to disagree with you privately.

However, I have no objection to you saying "these discussions are only happening because I'm such a great politician and brave truth-teller and I forced them into it". Sure, why not, you made it happen. Thanks.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 23, 2021, 03:48:33 PM
Awards and honours, excepting possibly the grants of arms should not be automatic or granted just willy-nilly.  That would truly rob them of import.

What I wonder, though, is perhaps there could be a nobility starter pack, for lack of a better term.  Something that gets people started in that train of action.  Like, a list of 5-6 accomplishments (or similar) earns you a Baronetcy (I think that's the lowest noble rank, but whatever).  That gives a way to get started to people who are interested in nobility and peerage.  Then anything beyond that is for extraordinary service (or just being the king's buddy as the case may be, since it is at their discretion).

I know this is similar to the Zuav system. But that could provide a scaffold for the entire Talossan honours system.  Be they military, noble, or scholarly.

While as you know I have something of an allergy to feudal titles, I understand that many others love and treasure them. I like the idea of a cursus honorum in Talossa, that you can earn rank (for bragging rights only, no monetary gain or political privileges) by public service. But on the other hand, when we discussed this last time, some said it really was turning Talossa into an RPG. So this is definitely where I want the next Government to go re: "keeping the interest of newbies once they're citizens", but we need a plan and someone to carry it out.

Honestly, I think it should start even to qualify for citizenship. Bring back the civics test!
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on May 23, 2021, 05:01:41 PM
Awards and honours, excepting possibly the grants of arms should not be automatic or granted just willy-nilly.  That would truly rob them of import.

What I wonder, though, is perhaps there could be a nobility starter pack, for lack of a better term.  Something that gets people started in that train of action.  Like, a list of 5-6 accomplishments (or similar) earns you a Baronetcy (I think that's the lowest noble rank, but whatever).  That gives a way to get started to people who are interested in nobility and peerage.  Then anything beyond that is for extraordinary service (or just being the king's buddy as the case may be, since it is at their discretion).

I know this is similar to the Zuav system. But that could provide a scaffold for the entire Talossan honours system.  Be they military, noble, or scholarly.

While as you know I have something of an allergy to feudal titles, I understand that many others love and treasure them. I like the idea of a cursus honorum in Talossa, that you can earn rank (for bragging rights only, no monetary gain or political privileges) by public service. But on the other hand, when we discussed this last time, some said it really was turning Talossa into an RPG. So this is definitely where I want the next Government to go re: "keeping the interest of newbies once they're citizens", but we need a plan and someone to carry it out.

Honestly, I think it should start even to qualify for citizenship. Bring back the civics test!

I mean, ultimately the training wheels have to come off and people will need to figure out how to ride their own hobby-horses.  Whether that be political reform, media, or whatever it is that they want to do.  But some sort of "starter" experience might be just the thing.  I keep thinking about games that do indeed have a central quest and progression... but that most players eventually wind up making their own fun.

Does that mean a touch of gamification?  Perhaps, and I'm not sure that is necessarily a bad thing.  "From Esquire to Baronet" as a Talossan starter "mission."  Get people acquainted with how things work.  Maybe that's before they become eligible for arms?  Honestly, we might have a thing or two to learn from the SCA structure.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 23, 2021, 08:02:24 PM
If you're going to pour mud on anyone who disagrees with you, don't be surprised if people want to disagree with you privately.

Well said!  :D
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ián S.G. Txaglh on May 24, 2021, 04:44:53 AM

i am by no means conservative, and definitely not that type of spooked conservative who jumps up-and-down when the date on the calendar moves on. what even would be a problem if talossa turns republic? like someone is going to lose hir aristocratic sandbox, no more fancy and empty titles, no dandy CoA-s? or republic would be so unattractive to those new prospective citizens who today stay in lines before the gates of talossa and then when let in, they swirl in social and cultural activity?
This is pretty dismissive of aspects of the Monarchy that some people like a lot. Creating "vivid cultural life" is really hard, and I wouldn't scoff at anything that helps.

Quote
talossa rather needs vivid cultural life than vain symbols. or we're going to turn into a dusty museum. don't get me wrong, i love museums, but just as deposits of well-organised artifacts, not a place to live.
People have been saying this for years, but I don't see how getting rid of the Monarchy, or putting its powers under some other body, would help at all. The problem you are diagnosing is not the fault of the Monarchy; rather, of general apathy.

i am not saying we should abolish monarchy to save talossa from its slow cultural decay, i am just asking, what for a change would it cause if it happens and if it is automatically for bad.

i am aware that monarchistic aspects of talossa are attractive to people especially those coming from an environment that lacks this kind of glitter or who have some feeling directly for monarchism. and i know quite some are already here.

i do not have it, i played kings and emperors when i was younger and i resigned to that kind of fun around age 18. when i joined back in my 25th the wagon of microethnicism, i was more interested in model society and suchs. now, when i turned 50, i am more into friends and kinda playful environment where things happen.

i am by no means an ideal talossan, i know. if, i would like to be a royal jester, a pricky prankster, wilie coyote of red-and-green, but i understand people here like it more seriously ;)

i also admit that i cause my fair share of damage to talossa by not participating actively as often as it would be necessary to fuel up the process of vivid culture. la cupâ à mhe. where are those times i could sit at penguinean disco board for hours a day... today, as we say here, too many hunted hares cause the wolf to die of hunger. but as they were saying in saloons of the wild west, do not shoot the pianist, he's trying his best.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: xpb on May 25, 2021, 12:56:04 PM
(https://talossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/PXL_20210525_1729543592-1600x988.jpg)

From Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language

The question is King vs kingless or kinglike
The "compromise" is to transfer from a dynastic system to an incremental lockstep political elected position.  A desired reallocation of power from those who hold it by those who desire same but don't wish to follow the existing law regarding replacement and use that as a false front for fundamental change.

The choice is King or Queen and Kingdom or Republic with something at the top with whatever name but not the meaning.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on May 25, 2021, 12:59:42 PM
6: a man who moves all the way across the board and is crowned and then can move in any direction
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 25, 2021, 01:03:06 PM
The question is King vs kingless or kinglike
The "compromise" is to transfer from a dynastic system [...]

The status quo Talossan monarchy is not hereditary. We have no dynastic system.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: xpb on May 25, 2021, 01:49:27 PM
The question is King vs kingless or kinglike
The "compromise" is to transfer from a dynastic system [...]

The status quo Talossan monarchy is not hereditary. We have no dynastic system.

You are correct in terms of heredity.  The King does currently serve as follows:

"The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency."

The King lives.  To my knowledge he has neither renounced not lost his citizenship.

Thus it is incumbent upon those who wish to remove him to make that effort under existing law, not to move the goalposts

(Sorry about previous typos from phone entry)
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on May 25, 2021, 02:11:18 PM
The question is King vs kingless or kinglike
The "compromise" is to transfer from a dynastic system [...]

The status quo Talossan monarchy is not hereditary. We have no dynastic system.

You are correct in terms of heredity.  The King does currently serve as follows:

"The King of Talossa is King John I, until his demise, abdication, or removal from the throne. Should the King at any time renounce or lose his citizenship, that renunciation or loss shall be deemed to imply his abdication of the Throne. Upon the demise, abdication, or removal from the Throne of the King, the Uppermost Cort shall be a Council of Regency."

The King lives.  To my knowledge he has neither renounced not lost his citizenship.

Thus it is incumbent upon those who wish to remove him to make that effort under existing law, not to move the goalposts

(Sorry about previous typos from phone entry)
Heh, the way to remove the King under existing law would be to either get him to commit a crime, get him to renounce, or “take care of him” as they say. I’m sure he wouldn’t want any of that (nor would I)
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: GV on May 25, 2021, 02:26:30 PM
Heh, the way to remove the King under existing law would be to either get him to commit a crime, get him to renounce, or “take care of him” as they say. I’m sure he wouldn’t want any of that (nor would I)

Well,...yes.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Viteu on May 25, 2021, 05:19:50 PM

The King lives.  To my knowledge he has neither renounced not lost his citizenship.

Thus it is incumbent upon those who wish to remove him to make that effort under existing law, not to move the goalposts

(Sorry about previous typos from phone entry)

Generally, I've become loath to weigh in on these public debates.  When I do, it is sparingly but no less than a short novel.  In keeping with that tradition, I submit the following for you to scroll passed:

I find the quoted post to be illogical and confounding and antithetical to democratic principles and our Organic Law.  (While the claim appears to cast aspersions, I will attribute such to a poorly thought-out comment in lieu of a malicious implication.)

I digress. The Talossan State, and the entirety of its authority, stems from a single predicate—that certain individuals did “ordain and establish, by and through the consent of the People, as the supreme law of our Realm, this . . . Organic Law[.]”  The most important clause in the quoted text, and, in my estimation, the preamble itself, is “by and through the consent of the People”.  For even the Organic Law at the outset recognizes that its absolute authority stems from the People’s consent to be governed, and that the People limned that consent through the Organic Law, which continues to exist only because the People accept its validity.  In other words, the Organic Law is, by definition, law onto itself—it is the Law that the People authorized.  Acting within the confines of the Organic Law is, by definition, to act within existing law.

We ought not to confuse that because the Organic Law may permit a specific occurrence under its present wording, then no such other method is permissible.  This is a folly.  The Organic Law, for all of its rules and limitations or other issues, carries with it the mechanism for change—the amendment process.  To utilize that mechanism, even if there already exist a possible avenue, is, by definition, acting “under existing law” because the amendment process is “existing law.”  To suggest that seeking to use this mechanism because something is already provided for in the Organic Law as “acting outside of existing law” is an anathema.  You do not have to like how your political opponents play the game, but the rules are there for everyone to use.  If the rules are already written, and your opponent uses a less obvious strategy, they did not change the goalpost, you simply did not read the rulebook.  Ultimately, no matter what the Organic Law may say about an issue, the only thing that matters, in this context, is how can that be changed.  So let us embark on that a bit.

Article XII of the Organic Law has five sections that set forth how the amendment process may be utilized.   Any changes to the Organic Law must follow two consecutive, overarching phases: (1) the legislative process to become a proposed amendment; and (2) the referendum process for ratification (i.e. promulgation).  Each phase carries general rules with explicit exceptions. 

First, under the general rules, a proposed amendment to the Organic Law must receive (1) two-thirds support of the Cosa; (2) simple majority support of the Senate; and (3) royal assent as set forth.  Although these rules each carry specifically enumerated exceptions, we concern ourselves only with the second prong.  An act, meeting the other criteria, must carry two-thirds support in the Senate if it were to amend (1) the amendment process; (2) the Organic articles regarding the election to and composition of the Senate; or (3) those articles speaking to the territorial subdivisions (with some other caveats to this part).   This is operative.  None of these exceptions mention or allude to a proposed amendment that would modify or amend any article related to the King or the Crown directly.  Such proposed amendments are subject to the most minimal procedure. 

Assuming, arguendo, that the foregoing is satisfied, we turn to the second phase.  The proposed amendment must be then ratified by a simple majority of the People no later than the next general election.  To this general rule, we have two exceptions—(1) if such modifies the representation of provinces in the Senate, then a majority of voters in the impacted province must also support the amendment; or (2) a proposed amendment modifying any or part of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms requires two-thirds majority of voters participating in the referendum.  Again, there lacks any mention or allusion to an amendment involving the King.  This is terribly informative—at the end of the day, when the dust settles, it will always come down to one simple precept—the People consent to this State existing under this Organic Law, and any changes to that consent must be accompanied by their approval.  That consent carries with it the means by which such changes may be proposed and adopted.  These rules surrounding those changes (i.e. amendments) are, by default, “existing law.”  To suggest that something more is needed, that the amendment process is of no concern or not enough simply because the King is involved, is itself to ignore the “existing law” and to “move the goalposts” beyond what the Organic Law contemplated, and what the People contemplated upon adopting same. 

I end with this: These are the rules. This is the existing law. This is the goal post. The supposition that those arguing for the Compromise are somehow not adhering to “existing law” or that they seek to “move the goalposts” is a mere projection and utterly without merit to the text of the Organic Law and the source of its authority. 
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: GV on May 25, 2021, 06:51:43 PM
A reading of the Big History will inform one the 1979 Constitution, which enshrined Ben as all-powerful in Talossa, was by the 1988 Constituziun overturned in its entirety.  The 1985 Organic Law was merely a corrolary and not a replacement to the 1979 Constitution, but again, 1988 did away with 1979 permanently.

It was at this moment in 1988 Talossa became democratic beyond the reach of King Robert I.  He gave away that unilateral authority to do with Talossa as he wished. 

Thus, Ben established Talossan law itself could be, within the context of its own bounds, be changed.  In 1997 and 2017/2019, this was done yet again.

Yes, we could make an attempt to overthrow the present king by current organic procedures, but that leaves in its wake the lifetime aspect of the monarchy, which is a dangerous state of affairs.

By 'changing the goalposts', we intend to kill two birds with one stone: fix the lifetime aspect and yes, dethrone King John by fully-democratic means.  If a lifetime-'Queen Miestrâ' would have gone 'AWOL' for six months and appointed, say, Viteu, as sole Regent, my oh my, how you all would have howled, and the conservative movement would have every right to have her sent packing from the palace.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 25, 2021, 07:41:04 PM
Honestly, there are two interrelated issues:

1) that John has lost the moral authority to be King of Talossa because he performs his royal duties selectively, and the criterion for that selection seems to be "annoying the political majority"; none of the ultra-monarchists seem to want to defend this past pretty much arguing that a King can and should do whatever he likes, which is not a political BDSM game I'm happy being a part of. Since 1688, the British monarchy has explicitly existed through consent of Parliament, and that's the model that Talossa should follow, not some kind of "divine right of Kings" nonsense, which makes no sense as John was elected, he didn't create Talossa, he has absolutely no rights over it other than what the Ziu and people grant him.

2) that "an elected head of state" won the Ranked Choice Referendum; the Government was thus obligated to bring forward legislation enacting this, but there was no point doing so unless it was in a form tolerable to the monarchist Ziu opposition. Hence: Compromise.

My argument against the "Simulated Coup" approach would be that it would be just kicking the can down the road. John didn't start out as interested in Talossa only in terms of his own prestige, and actively contemptuous of democracy. But he grew into the role, just as King Robert did. So I would predict any other King with a life term would end up acting the goat after a decade or so, maximum. Best we avoid that possibility.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: xpb on May 25, 2021, 09:34:39 PM

The King lives.  To my knowledge he has neither renounced not lost his citizenship.

Thus it is incumbent upon those who wish to remove him to make that effort under existing law, not to move the goalposts

(Sorry about previous typos from phone entry)

Generally, I've become loath to weigh in on these public debates.  When I do, it is sparingly but no less than a short novel.  In keeping with that tradition, I submit the following for you to scroll passed:

I find the quoted post to be illogical and confounding and antithetical to democratic principles and our Organic Law.  (While the claim appears to cast aspersions, I will attribute such to a poorly thought-out comment in lieu of a malicious implication.)

I digress. The Talossan State, and the entirety of its authority, stems from a single predicate—that certain individuals did “ordain and establish, by and through the consent of the People, as the supreme law of our Realm, this . . . Organic Law[.]”  The most important clause in the quoted text, and, in my estimation, the preamble itself, is “by and through the consent of the People”.  For even the Organic Law at the outset recognizes that its absolute authority stems from the People’s consent to be governed, and that the People limned that consent through the Organic Law, which continues to exist only because the People accept its validity.  In other words, the Organic Law is, by definition, law onto itself—it is the Law that the People authorized.  Acting within the confines of the Organic Law is, by definition, to act within existing law.

We ought not to confuse that because the Organic Law may permit a specific occurrence under its present wording, then no such other method is permissible.  This is a folly.  The Organic Law, for all of its rules and limitations or other issues, carries with it the mechanism for change—the amendment process.  To utilize that mechanism, even if there already exist a possible avenue, is, by definition, acting “under existing law” because the amendment process is “existing law.”  To suggest that seeking to use this mechanism because something is already provided for in the Organic Law as “acting outside of existing law” is an anathema.  You do not have to like how your political opponents play the game, but the rules are there for everyone to use.  If the rules are already written, and your opponent uses a less obvious strategy, they did not change the goalpost, you simply did not read the rulebook.  Ultimately, no matter what the Organic Law may say about an issue, the only thing that matters, in this context, is how can that be changed.  So let us embark on that a bit.

Article XII of the Organic Law has five sections that set forth how the amendment process may be utilized.   Any changes to the Organic Law must follow two consecutive, overarching phases: (1) the legislative process to become a proposed amendment; and (2) the referendum process for ratification (i.e. promulgation).  Each phase carries general rules with explicit exceptions. 

First, under the general rules, a proposed amendment to the Organic Law must receive (1) two-thirds support of the Cosa; (2) simple majority support of the Senate; and (3) royal assent as set forth.  Although these rules each carry specifically enumerated exceptions, we concern ourselves only with the second prong.  An act, meeting the other criteria, must carry two-thirds support in the Senate if it were to amend (1) the amendment process; (2) the Organic articles regarding the election to and composition of the Senate; or (3) those articles speaking to the territorial subdivisions (with some other caveats to this part).   This is operative.  None of these exceptions mention or allude to a proposed amendment that would modify or amend any article related to the King or the Crown directly.  Such proposed amendments are subject to the most minimal procedure. 

Assuming, arguendo, that the foregoing is satisfied, we turn to the second phase.  The proposed amendment must be then ratified by a simple majority of the People no later than the next general election.  To this general rule, we have two exceptions—(1) if such modifies the representation of provinces in the Senate, then a majority of voters in the impacted province must also support the amendment; or (2) a proposed amendment modifying any or part of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms requires two-thirds majority of voters participating in the referendum.  Again, there lacks any mention or allusion to an amendment involving the King.  This is terribly informative—at the end of the day, when the dust settles, it will always come down to one simple precept—the People consent to this State existing under this Organic Law, and any changes to that consent must be accompanied by their approval.  That consent carries with it the means by which such changes may be proposed and adopted.  These rules surrounding those changes (i.e. amendments) are, by default, “existing law.”  To suggest that something more is needed, that the amendment process is of no concern or not enough simply because the King is involved, is itself to ignore the “existing law” and to “move the goalposts” beyond what the Organic Law contemplated, and what the People contemplated upon adopting same. 

I end with this: These are the rules. This is the existing law. This is the goal post. The supposition that those arguing for the Compromise are somehow not adhering to “existing law” or that they seek to “move the goalposts” is a mere projection and utterly without merit to the text of the Organic Law and the source of its authority.

I agree with your studied analysis, that the law indeed has the ability to change and evolve. 

The question remains whether there is a tipping point being achieved incrementally.  Through use of stacked options in ranked choice referenda (which is more appropriate for selection of representatives).  Through charges leveled (not in Cort) about thresholds of participation even when they are remedied during trying times.  Perhaps most significantly - movement away from courteous discourse. 

The resulting the sea change of demeanor and direction has the potential to both attract and repel.   Many may rejoice in an upending of long standing institutions, but my opinion is that the balance of power being shifted will significantly diminish the realm.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 25, 2021, 09:42:59 PM
If a lifetime-'Queen Miestrâ' would have gone 'AWOL' for six months and appointed, say, Viteu, as sole Regent, my oh my, how you all would have howled, and the conservative movement would have every right to have her sent packing from the palace.

This is fascinating.  Just so I understand, can you clarify?  To most people, I think that this would lead to someone being accused of -- at worst -- poor communication.  After all, His Majesty did what he was supposed to do if he was unable to fulfill his duties.  Indeed, he did what you personally said he should do.  And you have also said I did a great job as regent.

What on earth is the point of the regency if it's not allowed to be used?  And do you really and honestly think that I would be calling for the removal of Queen Miestră for the terrible crime of just appointing someone I personally dislike if they went on to do a good job?

I just don't understand this point of view.  It seems an impossibly high standard.  After all, the Ziu can remove a regent at will, so if you really dislike me personally so much that my appointment is itself an act of unacceptable tyranny, why not call a vote, Senator?
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 25, 2021, 10:32:58 PM
if you really dislike me personally so much that my appointment is itself an act of unacceptable tyranny, why not call a vote, Senator?

Because, as you explained at the time, you would have simply vetoed such a vote: and then we would have had to get 2/3 of the Cosa, and then John would have just picked someone as noxious as yourself. Much better to save our effort to get rid of the real problem: John.

It's interesting that you never, ever, for a second, consider that you could behave differently and we wouldn't dislike you so much. That you could just... stop being pompous, manipulative and arrogant, putting people down, smearing them as corrupt or having a secret agenda when they disagree with you, brown-nosing to the King no matter how badly he behaves so he'll give you rewards and treats and titles, then throwing your weight around as if you deserved such a title...

...and then we wouldn't have such an allergy to you. I tried to persuade you of this years ago, in a PM, and you just said to me something like: "I can't behave any differently. I just can't!"
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: xpb on May 25, 2021, 10:37:51 PM
if you really dislike me personally so much that my appointment is itself an act of unacceptable tyranny, why not call a vote, Senator?

Because, as you explained at the time, you would have simply vetoed such a vote: and then we would have had to get 2/3 of the Cosa, and then John would have just picked someone as noxious as yourself. Much better to save our effort to get rid of the real problem: John.

It's interesting that you never, ever, for a second, consider that you could behave differently and we wouldn't dislike you so much. That you could just... stop being pompous, manipulative and arrogant, putting people down, smearing them as corrupt or having a secret agenda when they disagree with you, etc, and then we wouldn't have such an allergy to you. I tried to persuade you of this years ago, in a PM, and you just said to me: "I can't behave any differently. I just can't!"

You seem to be spelling "King" as the name John, attempting not to expell only the person but the monarchy as well.  Which you are well within your right to attempt, but at least be forthright about it.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 25, 2021, 10:44:23 PM
My theory is that power corrupts; that a life-term monarchy in the Talossan context encourages laziness, entitlement, and contempt for one's subject apart from brown-nosers. So any replacement of John would end up in the same place, unless held under periodic accountability.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Eðo Grischun on May 25, 2021, 10:49:37 PM
Could we also remember that this is NOT just about the events of the past several months where the King abandoned his role and then assigned the most divisive personality in the country to serve as his regent, and that those events are merely the most recent in a long chain of events leading to this point? (It's not even the most recent.  The most recent was his blatant disrespect to the government by not awarding a National Honour that we instructed him to award).

King John has repeatedly stonewalled his own government multiple times on multiple issues for quite some time.  He dragged his heels for months over releasing his personal control over the kingdom's website infrastructure by repeatedly ignoring his own Ministers.  He flat out ignored his Minister of the Interior when his input was requested during the drafting of the Investitures Act and the State Opening of the Cosa Act.  The list goes on...

It is no wonder that the we have reached the point of wanting to 'slam the door shut in Blackrod's face'.

Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 25, 2021, 10:54:52 PM
if you really dislike me personally so much that my appointment is itself an act of unacceptable tyranny, why not call a vote, Senator?

Because, as you explained at the time, you would have simply vetoed such a vote: and then we would have had to get 2/3 of the Cosa, and then John would have just picked someone as noxious as yourself. Much better to save our effort to get rid of the real problem: John.

It's interesting that you never, ever, for a second, consider that you could behave differently and we wouldn't dislike you so much. That you could just... stop being pompous, manipulative and arrogant, putting people down, smearing them as corrupt or having a secret agenda when they disagree with you, brown-nosing to the King no matter how badly he behaves so he'll give you rewards and treats and titles, then throwing your weight around as if you deserved such a title...

...and then we wouldn't have such an allergy to you. I tried to persuade you of this years ago, in a PM, and you just said to me something like: "I can't behave any differently. I just can't!"

I asked a senator of the Kingdom of Talossa a question, because I wanted to know what he thought.  I don't think you should presume to speak for him -- he's an independent person with his own thoughts and ideas.

I decline to engage with your personal abuse.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: xpb on May 25, 2021, 11:01:49 PM
My theory is that power corrupts; that a life-term monarchy in the Talossan context encourages laziness, entitlement, and contempt for one's subject apart from brown-nosers. So any replacement of John would end up in the same place, unless held under periodic accountability.


Fair enough, your position is clear, as it appears you believe that King John is lazy, thus are all Kings or Queens lazy because they are not elected on a schedule.  It also appears you believe those who respect a monarch are automatically sycophants (or your more vulgar term)
I suppose you may believe we are not entitled to give respect we feel is due.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 25, 2021, 11:14:50 PM
It also appears you believe those who respect a monarch are automatically sycophants (or your more vulgar term)
I suppose you may believe we are not entitled to give respect we feel is due.

I mean, you're allowed to bow your heads before anyone you want to. But it's just like religion. It's unseemly to expect doing so to be the condition of entry into Talossan citizenship. If John Woolley is no longer King of Talossa - or if he's chosen for a 7 year renewable term - how does that stop you giving him all the respect you want? I just want him deprived to the power to ruin other people's fun, obstruct the workings of our elected Government, veto popular legislation etc., if we don't bow our heads.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: xpb on May 25, 2021, 11:39:06 PM
It also appears you believe those who respect a monarch are automatically sycophants (or your more vulgar term)
I suppose you may believe we are not entitled to give respect we feel is due.

I mean, you're allowed to bow your heads before anyone you want to. But it's just like religion. It's unseemly to expect doing so to be the condition of entry into Talossan citizenship. If John Woolley is no longer King of Talossa - or if he's chosen for a 7 year renewable term - how does that stop you giving him all the respect you want? I just want him deprived to the power to ruin other people's fun, obstruct the workings of our elected Government, veto popular legislation etc., if we don't bow our heads.

I suppose that those who were not satisfied with (whatever titled) 7 year term executive leader after 3 months or 3 years would not have to wait and could act to remove, impeach, etc.  But is that not already the case now?
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 25, 2021, 11:47:06 PM
I suppose that those who were not satisfied with (whatever titled) 7 year term executive leader after 3 months or 3 years would not have to wait and could act to remove, impeach, etc.  But is that not already the case now?

The Organic Law II.4 requires either a doctor's certificate of incapacity or conviction by the UC for the elected officials to even begin to remove the King. That part remains. It was always an irony that II.3, stating who the King is, was far easier to change.

It was rather fatal to make it harder to remove the King under the Organic Law, than to simply amend the Organic Law. The life term of the monarchy would not be under threat if the Organic Law made it easier to remove a King who had "gone rogue".
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ián S.G. Txaglh on May 26, 2021, 03:25:29 AM
I suppose that those who were not satisfied with (whatever titled) 7 year term executive leader after 3 months or 3 years would not have to wait and could act to remove, impeach, etc.  But is that not already the case now?

there is a different angle to look at it. see, there is a slight difference in when selected for the job for life and for a defined period, people behave differently. shorter terms may lead to populism, but generally inspire activity cos of re-evaluation. lifetime terms should guarantee stability but easily lead to negligence.

generally, it seems to me, that you are over-interpreting miesta's statements. it is not the king-ship itself, it is really the current king who is a problem. you need like the changes which are happening, but at least we could respect the will of the people; talossa is not an authoritative regime anymore. i know how it feels when they take away your toys, but as grown-ups, we have to manage our feelings. i had my deep reservations when the republic was deciding if to re-unite with the kingdom, as i said, i am by no mean a monarchist, but i listened and understood the reasons behind it and then agreed on it.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on May 26, 2021, 08:16:16 AM
I suppose that those who were not satisfied with (whatever titled) 7 year term executive leader after 3 months or 3 years would not have to wait and could act to remove, impeach, etc.  But is that not already the case now?

The Organic Law II.4 requires either a doctor's certificate of incapacity or conviction by the UC for the elected officials to even begin to remove the King. That part remains. It was always an irony that II.3, stating who the King is, was far easier to change.

It was rather fatal to make it harder to remove the King under the Organic Law, than to simply amend the Organic Law. The life term of the monarchy would not be under threat if the Organic Law made it easier to remove a King who had "gone rogue".
With respect, I’m pretty sure this contradicts your earlier statement opposing the Simulated Coup Amendment.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on May 26, 2021, 08:18:44 AM
Also, Org II.3 still specifies who the King is
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 26, 2021, 03:25:37 PM
With respect, I’m pretty sure this contradicts your earlier statement opposing the Simulated Coup Amendment.

I went back and checked OldWitt's Hopper thread on that amendment and I can't find anything where I'm opposing it. My memory is hazy, but I think the issue that the Free Democrats had with the bill as written is that the process was too complicated, not with the principle; though I'd appreciate correction.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on May 26, 2021, 04:35:17 PM
With respect, I’m pretty sure this contradicts your earlier statement opposing the Simulated Coup Amendment.

I went back and checked OldWitt's Hopper thread on that amendment and I can't find anything where I'm opposing it. My memory is hazy, but I think the issue that the Free Democrats had with the bill as written is that the process was too complicated, not with the principle; though I'd appreciate correction.
I was speaking of a couple days ago when you said:
Quote
My argument against the "Simulated Coup" approach would be that it would be just kicking the can down the road. John didn't start out as interested in Talossa only in terms of his own prestige, and actively contemptuous of democracy. But he grew into the role, just as King Robert did. So I would predict any other King with a life term would end up acting the goat after a decade or so, maximum. Best we avoid that possibility.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 26, 2021, 05:09:51 PM
Ah, gotcha. I think what I meant is that I don't think a one-off "simulated coup" would solve anything; whereas a mechanism for triggering Votes of Confidence in the monarchy as and when necessary, one much easier than the current II.4, would be a different matter.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Béneditsch Ardpresteir on May 27, 2021, 12:51:33 AM
I fail to understand why the 'Republicans' had to rejoin the Kingdom.

The only reason that comes to mind - to destroy the social fabric of the nation and claim it for themselves; and go down in history as the Liberatadors ;)
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 27, 2021, 02:01:50 AM
^^^^^ As long as monarchists are happy making eliminationist comments like this, Talossa will never have happiness or peace.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Ián S.G. Txaglh on May 27, 2021, 04:57:02 AM
I fail to understand why the 'Republicans' had to rejoin the Kingdom.

The only reason that comes to mind - to destroy the social fabric of the nation and claim it for themselves; and go down in history as the Liberatadors ;)

yes, yes, talossan deep-state conspiracy it is! i knew it!  ;D ;D

fellow ylluminati/republican sis&bros STOP let us lyberate taloosa from the yoke of social fabric of the nation STOP implement instead an antisocial web of cosmopolitanism STOP do not forget to attend the next black mass STOP roasted children will be served with mashed potatoes and tomato salad STOP ::)

it is not healthy. we should stop assuming.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on May 27, 2021, 07:46:13 AM
I fail to understand why the 'Republicans' had to rejoin the Kingdom.

The only reason that comes to mind - to destroy the social fabric of the nation and claim it for themselves; and go down in history as the Liberatadors ;)

I think you overestimate your own importance in the Republican thought process, to be honest.  It seems really arrogant to claim we rejoined the Regipats in order to piss on your good time.
Title: Re: "Compromise"
Post by: Eðo Grischun on May 28, 2021, 02:19:14 AM
Ok, who had 'BenArd predictably and reliably wades in with comments about Reunision being the worst thing ever to happen to Talossa' on their Divisive and Bitter Figures of Talossa Top Trumps Cards?