Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 04, 2021, 06:57:24 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 04, 2021, 06:15:24 AM
Agreed!  And I will also agree with the fact that you're here implicitly recognizing that you can call anything a "king," but that some labels more accurately reflect the meaning that people intend to convey.  An "unaccountable despot" who operates based on a "cult of personality" would definitely be better called the Supreme Leader or dictator, even if that's not a very important aspect of the change.

You misunderstand. I'm saying that semantic arguments waste time, first and foremost. If you dont like the head of state to be elected, thats fine. I dont care either way but please then say that, instead of complaining about the title, because titles are malleable.

QuoteNow, you could certainly give the Supreme Leader a title like "king."  As the link you provided above shows, there have been kings with this same sort of role.

In very recent history, as well.

QuoteBut as you suggest, that's not the important thing.  The actual meaning is the important thing.

So when I say, for example, that the FDT proposal would really be establishing a presidency... that doesn't mean that it's because of semantics!  I'm not saying that technically it's not proper to call it a monarchy.  I'm saying it's functionally not what I (or most people) mean by "monarchy."

Then lets ask ourselves what we mean by "monarchy". For me, a monarchy is a state with a monarch at the top, the opposite of a republic. What is a monarch? Well, someone who is at the top of a monarchy... Hm.

Okay, maybe we can figure this out the other way.

What is a president? The head of state of a republic. What is a republic? A state that isnt a monarchy.
...Welp.

Im not trying to be facetious here, this is how republics and monarchies are defined in PolSci. Its all circular and ultimately a waste of time. Lets discuss something else please.

I agree completely, it is a semantic argument and a waste of time.  When XPB says that this would be a president and not a monarch, his meaning is clear -- even if technically it could still be a "king" because such labels are arbitratry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This isn't a compromise.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 04, 2021, 03:38:49 AMBut turning this into a matter of semantics is a waste of time for everyone involved. If you want an unaccountable despot appointed for life with a personality cult as King, I will be against that, but not because such a position should be called "Supreme Leader" instead!

Agreed!  And I will also agree with the fact that you're here implicitly recognizing that you can call anything a "king," but that some labels more accurately reflect the meaning that people intend to convey.  An "unaccountable despot" who operates based on a "cult of personality" would definitely be better called the Supreme Leader or dictator, even if that's not a very important aspect of the change.

Now, you could certainly give the Supreme Leader a title like "king."  As the link you provided above shows, there have been kings with this same sort of role.  But as you suggest, that's not the important thing.  The actual meaning is the important thing.

So when I say, for example, that the FDT proposal would really be establishing a presidency... that doesn't mean that it's because of semantics!  I'm not saying that technically it's not proper to call it a monarchy.  I'm saying it's functionally not what I (or most people) mean by "monarchy."

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 04, 2021, 03:38:49 AMI also noticed that the "uniqueness" argument has been silently dropped entirely. Why would that be?

Which argument?  Not sure what you mean.

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

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

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

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 03, 2021, 07:00:15 PM

Quote from: xpb on May 03, 2021, 06:50:46 PM
I keep hearing about this "elective monarchy" Kind of sounds like
Alone together.
Amazingly awful.
Bittersweet.
Clearly confused.
Deafening silence.
Definitely maybe.
And other oxymorons

Why not call it what it is -- a President.
... not a King

Why not state the true goal - a Republic
... not a Kingdom

Your lack of familiarity with concepts such as bittersweetness, deafening silence and elective monarchies does not make them any less real.

To be fair, this is semantic.  Very few people think of an elected monarchy with a term of seven years as a "real" monarchy, even if there are historical examples of similar.  I mean, yes, technically this is true -- you can have a king of basically any type, since there have been such a wide variety of kings across history.  In those historical examples are many which have much more in common with the American presidency than the British throne, even though they were "kings."  You could just start calling the Seneschal the "king" and point to ample historical precedent for that sort of role.

The word "king" is being used as representative of a level of independence and power in this context.  It's pretty clear what XPB means.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This isn't a compromise.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 01, 2021, 07:27:59 PM
EDIT:

QuoteKing Lüc Party, (KLüP), party leader Glüc da Dhi

Of course.

Yessssssss!

Quote from: Rick Leiner on April 30, 2021, 09:11:48 PM
I don't know if i could ever write any laws as i don't really understand "legalese" but i do occasionally have coherent thoughts on how certain things should happen in government LOL

That's the first step -- and the hardest!  A lot of people will just slam together laws before they have an idea, so you're getting off on the right foot.  Then it's just a matter of working with someone who can help, or looking for models in existing laws elsewhere. :)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 30, 2021, 07:44:20 PM
I would take those kind remarks more sincerely if they weren't coming from the person who has pretty consistently accused me of ruining Talossa with my mad schemes and visions and how it would be better for everyone if I just went away.

What I said was that "it probably would be a bit helpful if you resigned and became inactive, if only because it would create a power vacuum and be disruptive (you've been in the government for like five and a half of the last six years)." 

That's maybe a painful thing to hear and probably poorly phrased, but you mostly agree with it!  That's why you're stepping down from leading your party and the Government, conducting "an experiment to see whether our party is a real social movement with its own vision for the future, and not a Miestra Schiva fan club," as you said just two days ago.  And in your party's convention speech, amidst various personal attacks on me, you said again this painful truth: "I have come to the conclusion that I have to step aside from leadership because only that will be the test of whether this is a real political party, which can keep going independent of me."

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 30, 2021, 07:44:20 PMPeople can embrace their opponents and even their enemies, given good faith and open communication. Succinctly, we need to show each other we are trustworthy, and that we prefer everyone having fun in Talossa to getting our own way all the time. Good faith and open communication is precisely what the Talossan Centre-Left does not think we have gotten from the King. The King's recent comments re: "the law says I can stretch things out to the last minute re: vetoes, so I will," exemplify his abandonment of good faith - as does his disappearance/reappearance, which is where we started.

Respectfully, it became really hard to have open communication with you during the regency when we were discussing the community jurists appointment.  While we were discussing it in good faith and openly, you started copying snippets of what I was saying and sharing them on Facebook to try to make me look bad -- specifically trying to make it seem as though I were suggesting that Txec, our Secretary of State, were somehow corrupt or power-hungry.  (I thought that was especially wrong to do because you were so deceptive about it!  I bent over backwards in that conversation to make it crystal clear that my worries about making the SoS a judge had nothing to do with him personally!)  It wasn't the first time that you shared correspondence like that, but I had to decide that it would be the last for me.  That's why I told you that I would consider our conversations to be public ones from then on.

I know that you don't see a problem with doing that, and that's fine -- everyone approaches these things differently.  But I was badly hurt by "TalossaLeaks," when years of private correspondence were published by a former RUMP party member.  It wasn't really "my" scandal, since all it revealed was that I was consistent in public and in private.  You know how I actually feel about you, for that matter, because you got to read what I said about you privately to my friends -- about how I was glad Reunision happened and you were passionate and a great Talossan!  I don't know what you say about me in private to your buddies, but I'm sure it's rather less kind.

But the leak still hurt my feelings and I don't like that feeling of betrayal.  Like a lot of people, I let my guard down when privately chatting with people in a friendly manner.  It's hard for me to simultaneously be open and friendly while also being wary about how a sentence might look out of context.  So there's one problem for open and good faith communication, right there.

Quote from: Rick Leiner on April 30, 2021, 08:40:40 PM
The political aspect is what drew me to research micronations to begin with, i checked into several before deciding to apply for Talossan citizenship

I was the same way, a long long time ago.  I looked into the Republic of Talossa, Kingdom of Talossa, Nova Roma, the Conch Republic, and a few more that I don't remember.  I loved Talossa because I liked how it had this amazing mix of deadly-serious and goofy-as-all-hell attitude, while also having the opportunity to do things I might not otherwise get a chance to do, plus cool feudal silliness.  Being a Talossan for me has always meant the chance to jump in and do interesting things that would otherwise never enter my life, like reading and writing real legislation, practicing law, running a big organization and newspaper, and so on.  And the great thing is that it's been a remarkable investment in myself, too.  I have helped write laws in America and lead a big organization there, too, and I probably never would have done those sorts of things there... if I hadn't learned to do them here!

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on April 30, 2021, 08:26:39 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 30, 2021, 08:19:17 PM
The language is hard! I've been working at it for years, but it just hasn't come naturally to me. It's all the more embarrassing now, since I am helping the king as a sort of secretary to translate things often, and my options end up as: either I get help from someone, do a bad job, or spend literally an hour on it. So you shouldn't feel bad!

In case youre wondering, I also need an hour to translate stuff into Talossan, partially because I have to look up every word on Översteir, and partially because I have to do research on how to translate English idioms that are missing from Översteir, so theres no need to feel bad.

You're a mensch :)

And hey, looking at Txosue's latest post, you might be in luck very soon!

The language is hard! I've been working at it for years, but it just hasn't come naturally to me. It's all the more embarrassing now, since I am helping the king as a sort of secretary to translate things often, and my options end up as: either I get help from someone, do a bad job, or spend literally an hour on it. So you shouldn't feel bad!

Almost all active citizens we have are interested in politics or government for the most part these days, so if that's something that you find intriguing, you're definitely in the right place. Talossa presents everyone with the astonishing opportunity to get involved in politics in a deeply meaningful way. We are small enough and the government is currently constituted in such a way that everyone who wants to be a force in politics has that opportunity, while being big enough for your efforts to actually make a lasting difference for others.

In addition to what Txosue says, let me also add that no one who shows even the slightest continued interest is rejected. And I mean that extremely literally. You should feel zero anxiety about whether or not you will be approved for a petition. In some short amount of time, you will be eligible for a current citizen to post one for you, and it will be approved if you are still interested at all.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 30, 2021, 07:08:55 PM
It's probably just best to understand that (fill in the blank) is a nasty, poisonous person, motivated by wounded ego and hatreds, who is only involved in Talossa because it's somewhere they can be deeply cruel, manipulative and abusive like they can't be in real life. If we're going to keep Talossa going we just have to accept that that person will never "repent", will never start behaving like a decent person - fundamentally because they don't see Talossa as "real life" and don't see any reason to abide by generally accepted ethics and decency in Talossa - and if we can't accept, we just have to give up and let them have Talossa all to themselves. Which we won't do because we despise that person and won't let them "win" Talossa.

I think this formulation works for all of us, we just have different people in mind for fill in the blank. Every single one of us thinks their miéidă don't stink.

Almost none of that describes you in my mind. I admire you very much in many ways. You are passionate, deeply loyal, and seem to be a fundamentally good person. You have many flaws, but we are all flawed. I have many flaws too.