Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 13, 2024, 06:24:00 AMI'm somewhat "on the spectrum" so forgive me if I can't tell which of the three reactions is appropriate:

a) Ha ha, well, that excuses me from taking this proposal seriously in any way.

b) I suppose if you're intermittently active in Talossa, deliberately causing uproar and chaos at the heart of the political system might be funny from a distance, but less funny for the people who keep this Kingdom going day to day to put up with this - let's re-emphasise because the good Baron insists on it - lifetime appointment.

c) Someone always seems to come up with a "wacky suggestion" just when we seem to be close to consensus on political reform. I am reminded of someone saying that nothing should really be allowed to change in Talossan politics because that would make it confusing for citizens to come back from extended break. Like, Talossa should be a daytime soap opera where nothing really changes and nothing really happens.

Well I prefer b, because it's at least a valid concern, whereas the other two just assume Im trolling and not serious about this proposal, which is wrong.

Quote from: GV on April 19, 2024, 04:38:32 PMMax would drive this country over the edge. 

How? I don't agree with that at all. Either way he has already said he's not interested in becoming King.

QuoteI absolutely do *not* want IV as King.  I'm sure he's a good man in general, but he would be too much of a politico (one way or the other) and would alienate half the country.

Highly doubt IV is even around to accept the position. The argument that he is partisan feels a bit strange coming from a republican. Do we think that an elected head of state would not be  "a politico"? At the very least we know he wouldn't be elected because of any political dealings or campaigning.

QuoteIf either were to be elected appropriately, that would be a different matter.

How so? Would they be more inclined to be a King for all Talossans if they were elected for partisan reasons?

QuoteTo have any sort of seniority system could conceivably allow the infamous Daviu Ardit to make a return, putting him first in line to the throne.

No. This couldn't happen if its done as described here.

QuoteHe would be trumped, though, by a potential resurgent G. Conâ who would be too much of a Ben-partisan.

No. This couldn't happen if its done as described here. Also there are no Ben-partisans in Talossa anymore. This is ancient history at this point.

QuoteGjermund would be fine, but a seniority system would be manipulated in the future to make sure one faction's people by a future rogue SoS would be naturalized one day earlier than those who would lean to another faction.

That would mean two prospectives at the same time and then the sos would somehow already know their political affiliation and then for it to work they have to assume both of them stick around for 15 or 20 or 30 years and both will want to be King and at that point in time still have the same political views as when they just arrived as a prospective that still match with the political views of the SoS. Seems a bit farfetched no?

QuoteConceivably, Ben Madison himself could convince enough of the country to allow him back in, making him the next monarch.

No. This couldn't happen if its done as described here. Also didn't he try this before and got a resounding no? Also he would immediately be removed.

This isn't the first time we got this absurd Ben-fearmongering. It's a complete fantasy. It's no more likely than Ben being elected or selected as heir presumptive or staging an actual military coup. Don't like my idea? That's perfectly alright. But don't let it be because of this reason.

Truth is I don't think it is at all obvious who becomes King if we do this. (Other than definitely not Ben!) I just know they won't be King because of some political dealings or partisan preferences. I think thats a feature rather than a bug.

Sure. If I'm available on the selected date I'm in! (Even though I'm gonna lose again)

AUS

I do intend to clark this next round. Any thoughts from the commission on the merits of the bill? Also, I'm interested whether there are any further thoughts on leaving business days for clarks at 19:30 or moving to 17:00 along with the elections?

If there are no further comments perhaps this could be moved back to the hopper now that it has passed the CRL so anyone is welcome to comment again before this goes to a vote.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 10:03:36 PMThe good Baron has been saying that he thinks the "simple vacancy declaration" is a trap, because the cunning Free Dems will then make sure the throne stays vacant forever, and the Senator from Cézembre agrees with him. This is both unkind and unnecessary, because the throne is already effectively vacant, if that's what we wanted we would just leave Zombie John there.

Just as a clarification. Im not saying this is your plan. If you say you intend to work towards finding a replacement I believe you. And I always believe you are acting in good faith.

However even then it's still perfectly possible for someone who didn't sponsor this bill and doesn't feel committed to any sort of compromise, to vote in favour of this plan, which would be in good faith, because they dont think King John should be King, and then also vote against any successor, which would also be in good faith, because they don't think anyone else should be King either.

It seems like a big risk. A sunset clause would solve that but I'm curious to see what that would look like. Ian's idea seems sensible enough.

Quote from: Istefan Perþonest on April 12, 2024, 05:42:03 PMThe first complication that crosses my mind is that on the early part of the list of current citizens, you have people from the era when citizenship was granted by legislative act, which you have a bunch of people who have identical first dates of citizenship because they were all on the same Clark. After Gjermund Higraff you have a two-way tie, immediately after that you have a three-way tie, and then there's another two-way tie.

Second, if it's by first date of citizenship, there's still a version of the "become citizen to become king" and "experienced, knows Talossan culture and has a track record of sticking around" issues -- someone whose citizenship lapsed long ago and re-citizenships.

These issues can even combine -- there were five other people who became citizens on the same Clark as Gjermund Higraff. If one (or more!) of them show up next week, theoretically you've got a tie for head of the line.

You raise some good points. Obviously there were gonna be some complications (though I have yet to see the first proposal without complications). Here's a possible solution:

We keep a record of the order of succession. To start with we have all currently active citizens, in order of their citizen number. From here on out however, anyone who loses citizenship is removed from the order of succession. Re-joining puts you at the bottom of the list.


- This solves the returning only to become King problem
- There are no more ties. Using citizen number to resolve ties is a bit arbitrary but this list was made long ago without considering this as a possible consequence so there wouldnt have been foul play involved.
- We dont retroactively punish people on the list for losing citizenship and returning. There isn't a good record of this anyway. Of course nobody has returned to Talossa so far just because they thought they could become King so it's fine.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 12, 2024, 05:22:40 PMLet's look at the actual figures. The succession to the throne would be:

1) Gjermund Higraff.
2) Mximo Carbonel.
3) Ieremiac'h Ventrutx.

I like Gjermund but he's less active than John. As for the others........

Not happening.

Well I was kinda trying to do the 'veil of ignorance / how would you design society if you dont know your place in it' thing here.

I'd say if the monarch isn't selected based on the personal preferences of the 5-10 most politically active citizens that might be a feature more than a bug.



That said, why?

- I don't think Gjermund is less active than John, who hasn't been spotted on witt this year so far. (And personally I dont think the King needs to be super active all the time. They must just be here in times of need, give an occasional inspiring speech, and be around enough to make appointments, potentially veto bills etc)

- Mximo I know is somewhat controversial, but he is on average about equally controversial on both sides of the political spectrum, depending on what year we live in, which might make him a good compromise candidate. And he's managed to stick around for a long time and become part of our history despite receiving quite a lot of pushback. Id be down for King Mximo. We'd certainly be in for interesting times.

- IV is less active than King John. Im not convinced hed respond in a week and I dont think hed accept the position.

Note that people not accepting would be totally fine here. We'd just have a week more of regency.

Also, we can give people a chance. If they turn out to be tyrants (which is hardly possible considering the limited power the monarch has) or, more likely, are completely inactive, we can remove them, knowing a replacement procedure is in place and we wouldnt need to go through all this mess again.


Finally, if we are looking at the list, you may also have noticed a lot of people high up on the list are former citizens of the republic. Wouldn't that be a nice resolution to the whole reunision saga?

Here's a possible solution to the whole monarchy mess.

Have whoever became citizen (of Kingdom or Republic) first be the King/Queen.

First time we do this: offer the position to the most senior citizen (in this case Gjermund). If they say no or don't respond within a week or are no longer a citizen, move on to the next one, until someone accepts.

Next time the King/Queen retires or is removed, go with the next one on the list. Only if we get to the bottom of the list and nobody accepts we start at the top again.

If it takes many weeks before somebody accepts we can still have a regency in the meantime.



Advantages:

- The monarch isnt selected by the hype of the day.
- We don't need a big partisan war every time the King is absent because the procedure is just set
- There's no point in campaigning to be King and there's no point in becoming a citizen for that reason cause you won't last that long.
- We always get a King who's experienced, knows Talossan culture and has a track record of sticking around
- Monarchists might like that there is a set order of succession
- Republicans might like that it's non-hereditary, you need to have at least achieved something to become King and it might be easier to remove the monarch for inactivity if there is a replacement procedure

I have no objections to removing King John (although considering the many things he has done for our nation,  the bill probably should make some sort of mention of that),

but I would never vote for a bill that removes the King without either naming a successor or establishing some sort of meaningful succession procedure.

Otherwise I'm not convinced we will ever have a King or Queen again. If that is the point of the bill then it should be stated as such. If not, then this is a bad idea.

RZ10 CON - Noting that I'm a bit confused by the discussion. I would support extending to the Attorney-General and I feel the hostility that proposal was received with was unwarranted.

RZ11 PER

RZ12 CON

RZ13 PER

RZ14 PER

RZ15 PER - A hesitant PER, because this is far too late.

RZ16 CON

RZ17 PER

RZ18 PER - I have mixed feelings about whether statements with no application to Talossa is what Senses of the Ziu should be used for. But I can't really not vote in favour this because, while I'm under no illusion that Nalvany was some kind of saint, I strongly identify with the message.

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on March 08, 2024, 01:58:16 AM

Quote from: xpb on March 07, 2024, 09:01:20 PM0000 (or 2300) would seem to be reasonable for CZ instead of 0230.

22:00 would be more reasonable in my opinion (I'm just suggesting)

I'd be fully on board with that. However, we do also need to keep in mind those living in America, who might prefer 17:00 over 15:00. I feel like there is a very strong argument that 2:30 am is not a reasonable time for Cézembre. I fear the case for moving to 15:00 TST / 22:00 CET would not be as strong.

I'd like to move it move it to committee please. @Sir Lüc

Quote from: xpb on March 02, 2024, 09:45:25 PM

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on March 02, 2024, 02:09:46 PMI know I said I wouldn't do anything as Senator, but I have decided to do a thing anyway, which is to propose an OrgLaw amendment which sets the deadline for election night at a time which is much more reasonable for Cézembre (midnight instead of 2:30 am)

Cézembreans are very much encouraged to have a look and provide feedback. I am interested to know if there is support for this change within our province.

https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3108.msg25629#new

You provide a quite reasonable adjustment for the GTA  How will it blend with your CAG A10
The it's about time act (confirmed by the Crown on 19 January 2021 but proposed well before that but not acted upon)?

Whereas it doesn't make much sense for Talossan Standard Time being used in Cézembre, and

Whereas in the neighbouring French Town of St. Malo Central European Time is being used, now

Therefore unless when otherwise mentioned the time used for official business in Cézembre will be UTC +1, which shall be referred to as CÉzembrean Time (CÉT), except in the period between the last sunday in March, 01:00 UTC and the last sunday in October, 01:00 UTC, when the time used for official business in Cézembre will be UTC +2, which shall be referred to as CÉzembrean Summer Time (CÉST).

Well that act doesn't set a particular deadline for any official business, it just sets the 'default' time zone for Cézembre. The Organic Law however uses Talossan Standard Time. The proposed amendment concerns the deadline for national general elections, so the two don't necessarily clash, if that is your question.

As for what it would mean from a CET/CEST perspective: the proposed deadline is 5 pm TST, which would be midnight CET/CEST*


* Except, confusingly, for elections ending November 1st, because daylight savings time in North America ends later than in Europe, so then it would be 11 pm CET/CEST instead.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on March 03, 2024, 05:26:15 AMI totally agree with the purpose of this change.
I admit I am a bit lost in the timeline, shall I understand that, supposing dissolution happens 20/M for instance :
- start of voting period is 15/M+1 (called "balloting day")
- election deadline is 1/M+2, votes to be expressed before 5 pm on that day
- certification deadline is 14/M+2

I think that's correct. Either way the only thing that changes is the 5 pm bit.

QuoteAnd why would we keep 7.30p m as the end of business day, and not 5 pm as above ?

Well, my thought was not to change it since the same reason doesn't really apply. Nobody stays up to watch the clark results reveal anyway.

But perhaps if it creates confusion to have the election and clark end at different times we should change that as well. I don't have a strong opinion on that either way.