Quote from: Béneditsch Ardpresteir on February 10, 2021, 08:53:17 PM
Wow!

One used to get ID Cards earlier?

Perhaps we can make new ones of a different format such as https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=704.msg5634#msg5634

I am sure my Talossan &/or French could stand improvement

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on February 05, 2021, 10:48:12 AM
Reprinting my La S'chinteia article here:

Saving the Monarchy and Losing my Credibility:
Is an Elected King the Way Forward for Monarchists?

Ian Plätschisch

Between January 10th and January 25th, Talossa held a non-binding referendum to poll citizens on their preference for the future of the monarchy. The options were:
1.   Abolishing the Monarchy in favor of an elected head of state
2.   Introducing an elected "co-prince" who would share power with the King
3.   Keeping the Monarchy as is
4.   Removing all the King's political power
The referendum used Instant Runoff Voting, and the results are available at http://www.talossa.ca/files/ranked_vote.php. 72 citizens voted. Option 4 was eliminated in the first round, and option 2 in the second. In the final count, Option 1 defeated Option 3 by the very narrow margin of 34-32. In keeping with their campaign pledge, the Free Democrats have introduced an Organic Law amendment that would implement Option 1 if passed. Specifically, however, as the Free Democrats know the amendment cannot pass without some opposition support, the proposed amendment keeps the Monarchy exactly as it is now, except that the King would be subject to some sort of election every seven years (the details have yet to be worked out).

Of course, the leader of the opposition is yours truly. I take my responsibility to represent conservative Monarchists very seriously, and I know that many of them are committed to preserving the life term of the King. However, I believe that assenting to the current proposal is the best way to protect the Monarchy from future proposals that would be vastly worse. Please hear me out.

Recall that during the referendum, the main arguments I put forward for keeping a King with some power were that the King is able to act (to some extent) on the long-term perspective that accompanies the throne, and that this form of government is unique and fun. Neither of these benefits of the Monarchy would be significantly reduced by electing the King every seven years. Seven years is such a long time that even I, an accomplished Talossan citizen and politician if I do flatter myself, have not been a citizen for that long. For almost all the term, the King would be practically as insulated from political pressure as he is now and would still enjoy all the powers he enjoys now. Yes, near the election such pressure could creep in, but this would likely be counterbalanced by sentiment among Talossans that campaigning to become King would be in very poor taste, so the King would only likely to be voted out if there is a serious problem.

On the question of the enjoyability of the Monarchy, perhaps this would be increased if the King were provided incentive to exercise royal prerogatives, such as patronage of Talossan culture and granting of awards, more often. Long before his appointment of a Regent (and I wish the King the best with whatever he is dealing with right now), I had not been quiet about my disappointment in King John's low level of involvement. Having a small bit of accountability couldn't hurt.

Of course, even if electing the King every seven years would not be so bad for Monarchists, I probably would not be advocating it if I were not very concerned that the Monarchy is on its way to getting messed with somehow whether conservatives like it or not. Option 3, compared the three options for changing the Monarchy in some manner, lost 23-49 in first preferences, and the FreeDem-NPW coalition is only 11 seats shy of a supermajority in the Cosa. If those parties can pick up the needed seats (which is a distinct possibility given that conservative voters are not known for their great turnout or great recruitment), they will surely act on their criticism of the Monarchy if it has not already been addressed.

The chief complaint against the Monarchy is that the King has no accountability because he never faces election. In response, many people are calling for the complete abolition of the Monarchy or the complete removal of his powers. Given the other options in the referendum, this is most likely what the governing parties will do if they achieve a supermajority while the Monarchy exists as it does now. However, if we accede to the current proposal, Monarchists will not have to sacrifice much (as I demonstrated above), but the animating issue of the anti-Monarchy movement will be addressed. Therefore, the latter will be much less likely to take more extreme action against the Monarchy if they ever get the power to do so.

Hopefully this position does not undermine my credibility as a Monarchist. I am just trying to protect the most important aspects of this prized institution in the best way I can.

I suppose it depends on semantics.

If one wishes to have an elected executive (similar to a President or Prime Minister) then go ahead and have  elections with forced term limits.

If one wishes to have a hereditary Monarchy then one must wait for abdication or severe disability, or death with no stated heir to hold an election.

The term King or Queen, without regard to powers that they have, seems to apply to the latter case.   If you want to have periodic elections then don't refer to the position in terms of royalty.

My ID card appears to be seriously out of date!  Who do I need to contact in  the Civil Service?

In support of this proposed legislation, I went to Children's Hospital in Denver today and donated a pint of whole blood.

I withdraw my candidacy for the position,
thus
I believe that would infer that Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir should be elected.

Quote from: Béneditsch Ardpresteir on January 27, 2021, 08:07:45 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 27, 2021, 04:50:12 PM
An admirable sentiment, but:

1) For a lot of us, it's not healthy to lose weight.
2) Many of us are barred from donating blood, especially gay men.

There's so much to learn from Talossa... never was aware of the second facet (again the bigots would cry that am speaking as a homophobic).

The weight loss thing was tongue-in-cheek, loss of one pound of water weight typically replaced even after a donation as they want you to drink or eat in a recovery area at most donation centers.

It is quite understandable that for any given charitable activity, some may not be able to participate directly, but perhaps can do other things for good.

The US Red Cross estimates that only about 3% of people in the US donate blood.  If Talossa could get 10 more beyond me out of the 180 citizens to do so, we would be at double that amount.

TO THE HOPPER - DRAFT

Talossan Holiday (TBD): TO LOSE A LOUIS

Whereas a pint's a pound the world around (when using US volume) and,

Whereas there's an anecdote that a Louis was at one point defined by the price of a US pint of domestic draft beer at a bar run by Fritz von Buchholtz and was equivalent to 59 bence (now rounded up to 60), and

Whereas, many individuals could stand to have less body mass, even temporarily, and

Whereas, there's always a need for donated blood, typically taken as a pint, and

Whereas, a pint can be reintroduced carefully at a variety of fine establishments, thus

BE IT RESOLVED THAT (DATE) is TO LOSE A LOUIS DAY where Talossans are encouraged to lose one louis of weight and one louis of volume and donate blood and then replace it with a liquid refreshment of their choice.

I last did this on Veterans/Rememberance day, and plan to do it again on Groundhog Day so this will be still in the hopper, but perhaps we can find an appropriate date on the Talossan Calendar to introduce the concept.

Examples:. My weight is around 200 louis, and I should stop spending 4 louis per louis size of craft currency in order to lose louis.

In previous times, prior to modification by The Great Reform (No 2: Finance) Bill
Title C, Section 6-8 on the Royal Bank and Post read
7.4. Talossan Currency. The currency of the Kingdom of Talossa shall be beer, which has been, and continues to be, thankfully and conveniently distributed worldwide.

I am seeking additional precise citations, but from recollection,

A Louis was at one point defined by the price of a US pint of domestic draft beer at a bar run by Fritz von Buchholtz and was equivalent to 59 bence (now rounded up to 60)

There is currenlty a fixed conversion rate is $1.50 USD per Louis, alhtough the Royal Bank & Post are selling ℓ5 brass coins at the discounted rate of $5 to raise funds for the treasury.

Given the concept that "a pint's a pound the world around"
using water density at a temperature of 10 C (a good mid-range for beer temperature between lagers and ales) with https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-density-specific-weight-d_595.html of 8.3425lb per US Gallon, there being 8 pints in a gallon, thus 1.04 lbs per US pint,

Thus the CBS could consider the Louis to be a coordinated measure of mass, beverage, and currency and to establish appropriate conversion rates in the surrounding EU.

In the much earlier proposed but recently affirmed A10 It's About Time Act, Cézembre time was aligned with Central European Time. 

Considering that in a comparison of selected modern systems of numerals
Hindu-Arabic / Arabic    
1   /   ١   
2   /   ٢   
3   /   ٣   
4   /   ٤   
5   /   ٥   
6   /   ٦   
7   /   ٧   
8   /   ٨   
9   /   ٩   
0   /   ٠

One standard for digital clocks could be to use hindi-arabic numbers such as


and for 12 Hour analog clocks to honor Berbers by using arabic numbers (example is a clock I bought in Saudi Arabia)


and for official business to utilize a 24 hour analog system (example clock from my livingroom)

To inform the formation of a Cézembre Bureau of Standards, what things do citizens desire to be measured, or to have formalized in discussion?

In the recent A13 Act to secure Homesteads on the Isle of Cézembre, the following was discussed

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on January 26, 2021, 06:40:03 PM

Quote from: xpb on January 26, 2021, 06:21:24 PM
3) King John, in my opinion, which can be overridden by a majority of Cézembreans that would choose to remove me from office, continues to be King of Cézembre until such time as he of his own volition abdicates or passes away.

I realise that this has nothing to do with the referendum result anymore, but are the titles of King of Talossa and King of Cézembre separate or is the King of Talossa automatically King of Cézembre ex officio? Was this ever brought up somewhere? In case that King John is forced to abdicate the Talossan throne, would the Cézembrean government then recognise two Kings (???) or would that violate the pledge of eternal allegiance to the Regipäts Talossan? But then again, would not doing so violate the pledge of eternal allegiance to the King?

...sorry for these wild tangents, everyone.

My apologies as well as I should not continue to respond in this thread, even as it is tantalizing.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 26, 2021, 02:30:31 PM
On the subject of Cézembre:

1) when Australia was debating becoming a republic, there was debate on what would happen if individual States insisted on remaining monarchic.
2) what happens if Cézembre pledges allegiance to a different King than that chosen by the nation as a whole?
3) would the Sénéchal of Cézembre be pledging eternal allegiance to John I, even if John I were removed by Organic Law amendment without bringing in the "limited term" - i.e. if he were replaced by another Monarch for Life?

Sorry caught this comment in reverse order.

1) I will need to read up on the Australian debate.  Within the Commonwealth of Nations, Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of 16 member states, known as the Commonwealth realms, while 33 other members are republics and 5 others have different monarchs.

2) As an example, there are at least a couple of different Popes if one refers to the the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople by that title.  Hong Kong and Taiwan have different economic models than China but are claimed by some to be one county two systems.

3) King John, in my opinion, which can be overridden by a majority of Cézembreans that would choose to remove me from office, continues to be King of Cézembre until such time as he of his own volition abdicates or passes away.

Typing on my phone while on patrol sorry for any typos.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 26, 2021, 03:50:33 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 26, 2021, 02:30:31 PM
3) would the Sénéchal of Cézembre be pledging eternal allegiance to John I, even if John I were removed by Organic Law amendment without bringing in the "limited term" - i.e. if he were replaced by another Monarch for Life?

I suppose a compromise could be achieved by a post-abdication or removal Ián Lupúl being nominated as Constable/Governor-General of Cézembre.

That could be an additional title I suppose.  Ián Lupúl is already King of Cézembre.