7 of 21 Cézembre citizens have voted in the election for the Ziu thus far, which may also be a most of those who are registered on these forums.  If you have personal connections to encourage greater participation please do so as my hands appear tied to only promotion of the Cézembre election for which I have already sent one message (mentioning also the current election) and the next message will be to describe the successful test of the electionbuddy system as well as to make a second call for l'Etats & Seneshal candidates.  However, that won't happen until after the election of the Ziu is complete.

Quote from: 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.

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.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 25, 2021, 10:32:58 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 25, 2021, 09:42:59 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.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 25, 2021, 10:21:22 PM

Quote from: xpb on May 25, 2021, 10:19:02 PM
To the Civil Service,

While talossa.proboards.com has been retired, might it be possible for one posting to be placed there about the current election and again to encourage joining these forums as only about half the electorate has registered here some 18 months after changeover?

That's a banner on the top of the old forum, so I don't think anyone can miss it.

But does a post within those forums trigger any messages for some percentage of the accounts that have have triggers for things such as a weekly digest?  Things that may remain white listed for email where later messages might not?

To the Civil Service,

While talossa.proboards.com has been retired, might it be possible for one posting to be placed there about the current election and again to encourage joining these forums as only about half the electorate has registered here some 18 months after changeover?

Up to 78, a mere 18 months later - with a few trickling in during the current election at an average rate of 1.5 per month.
Of 186 active and 153 permitted to vote.

Quote from: Viteu on May 25, 2021, 05:19:50 PM

Quote from: xpb on May 25, 2021, 01:49:27 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.

The next WQC has been moved to July 31 for more areas to open up. www.worldquizzing.com

I also have permission to reuse a couple of Mensa CultureQuest instances of any Talossans would like to try them.  Send a PM and I can set you up.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 25, 2021, 01:03:06 PM

Quote from: xpb on May 25, 2021, 12:56:04 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)

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.

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 21, 2021, 06:03:34 PM

Quote from: xpb on May 21, 2021, 05:36:51 PM
I am not currently a seated member in the Ziu, but have a suggestion for consideration - the creation of a Political Parties forum under the Special Interests area, and to have child boards under established under that for each party (perhaps even for past parties that wish to have a historic listing although their last statements may have been on the talossa.proboards.com system or even just in email or printed materials)

This is addition to parties or persons supporting those parties commenting on whatever posting they wish in other forums, but could serve as a point to examine details in an organized manner.

I'm not sure the Ziu needs to act on this idea. Forum/board ideas like this most likely would fall under the purview of The Chancery as that office runs Wittenberg. If there is general interest in creating separate boards for political parties I'd be open to doing that.

I suppose if child boards for specific parties were created under a general political parties forum (which I personally think is a good idea) then they would need to be created for all active parties (even if not used) to support fairness.   I might even take the time to import data from the old VCC/CRO to a child board as well, and there could be a RUMP section as well as other previous parties.

I am not currently a seated member in the Ziu, but have a suggestion for consideration - the creation of a Political Parties forum under the Special Interests area, and to have child boards under established under that for each party (perhaps even for past parties that wish to have a historic listing although their last statements may have been on the talossa.proboards.com system or even just in email or printed materials)

This is addition to parties or persons supporting those parties commenting on whatever posting they wish in other forums, but could serve as a point to examine details in an organized manner.

Yes, in case it was not clear, Balançeu / Balance supports a dynastic monarchy with only occasional, exceptional, unscheduled changes. 

You can also reach the party at balanceubalance@gmail.com or +1 ‪(414) 253-3643‬ for voicemail or text. (edited to add +1)

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 21, 2021, 03:09:22 PM

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 21, 2021, 02:33:08 PM

Quote from: xpb on May 21, 2021, 11:22:47 AM
Many people can see these forums without having an account and being logged in, however, the child boards are currently not visible to Cestours who may have interest in the content.  Is this a limitation of child boards, or can those have permissions set to public viewing?

I'll look at them to see about fixing them. I didn't realize that when I created them. My apologies.

I fixed them.

Thanks they can be seen now when not logged in - I appreciate the assistance

Many people can see these forums without having an account and being logged in, however, the child boards are currently not visible to Cestours who may have interest in the content.  Is this a limitation of child boards, or can those have permissions set to public viewing?