Quote from: GV on May 20, 2021, 09:33:02 PM

Quote from: 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 was announced, it included an agreement that the new Government would pass Ian P's Talossa Is Not 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 was passed.  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.

Per C.1.1, which allows any citizen to open the Assembly Call if the M3 does not (and I am not even sure who our M3 is right now), I hereby open the Assembly Call.

I claim my seat.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 17, 2021, 05:47:30 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 17, 2021, 05:02:11 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)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 17, 2021, 03:56:14 PM

Quote from: 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.

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)

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.

Quote from: xpb on May 15, 2021, 09:33:59 AM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 15, 2021, 08:07:40 AM

Quote from: Viteu on May 14, 2021, 09:08:05 PM

Quote from: xpb on May 14, 2021, 04:15:08 PM

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.

Quote from: Viteu on May 14, 2021, 09:08:05 PM

Quote from: xpb on May 14, 2021, 04:15:08 PM

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.

Quote from: Eðo Grischun on May 10, 2021, 09:24:39 AM
But nothing in the six months changes.  The VoC fails, then six months pass, then a new King "shall" be chosen.

The waiting period doesn't actually do anything to ensure the decision is well considered.  The decision would have been made and no amount of waiting period changes that.

If there was temporary dislike of the King for whatever reason, then, by the time six months had past, the Convocation would be more inclined to select the current King again.

Quote from: Eðo Grischun on May 09, 2021, 09:18:29 AM
What is the reason behind the six month delay between a failed "VoC" and the second convening?

Essentially to stop the process from going to quickly: if the King happened to become briefly unpopular around the time of the vote, the waiting period would prevent him from being immediately replaced, and makes sure the decision is well-considered

I bought 14 dogecoin with 3 cents a while ago; alas, I sold before realizing a big return.

The wording could stand to be improved, but this is the gist of what the LCC is supporting.

WHEREAS There is no point in being longwinded here because everything that can be said about an elective Monarchy has already been said,

THEREFORE Org II.3 is replaced in its entirety with:

When the King has reigned for at least seven years since the previous Convocation, a Convocation shall be called and chaired by the Senior Judge of the Uppermost Cort, or in their absence the next available Judge in order of seniority. Such a Convocation may also be called by the Ziu at any time following the same procedure as amending this Organic Law (with the most senior available Judge serving as Chair).

The Judge shall call a Convocation by publicly submitting to the Secretary of State a message to all eligible electors announcing the Convocation and providing instructions on how and when to register to participate. Whenever the Convocation is called by the Ziu, the Túischac'h (or other Cosa official if the Túischac'h is unavailable) shall submit this message instead. Upon receiving the message, the Secretary of State shall be responsible for communicating the message to all eligible electors. The Convocation shall commence fourteen days from the moment the Secretary of State sends the message to the electors.

Any Talossan shall who has been a citizen for at least seven years as of when the Judge (or Cosa official) submits the message to the Secretary of State shall be eligible to be an elector in the Convocation, but only those who register with the Judge before the Convocation commences shall be electors.

All discussions of the Convocation shall be open, but its votes shall be by secret ballot. The votes of every elector shall have equal weight. All other operations of the Convocation shall be decided by the Convocation or prescribed by statute.

Should more than 60% of the Convocation express that they desire the King not remain on the throne, then the Convocation shall be called and meet again in six months according to the procedures above. At this meeting of the Convocation, a new King of Talossa (who may be the current King) shall be chosen. The candidate who receives the expressed support of 2/3 of the Convocation shall immediately receive the title of "Heir Presumptive". The Convocation shall also be called to choose a new King whenever there is no King.

The Heir Presumptive shall swear an oath promising to protect and uphold the Organic Law of Talossa and the rights of all its citizens, and thereupon become King of Talossa, replacing the previous King (unless both are the same person).

FURTHERMORE Org II.4 is deleted.

FURTHERMORE Org II.5 is renumbered to Org II.4 and is amended to read:

The King may, at whim, appoint, replace, or remove a Regent (or a Council of Regency, which is considered equivalent to a Regent), who shall administer the government in the name of the King, and exercise all powers Organically or legally vested in the King, except the power to appoint or replace a Regent. No person not a citizen of Talossa shall be competent to serve as Regent or member of a Council of Regency. The Ziu may by law remove or replace any appointed Regent, and if the Ziu removes a Regent appointed by the King, the King may not reappoint the same person Regent without the prior consent of the Ziu. Whenever there is no King, the Uppermost Cort shall serve as the Council of Regency.

FURTHERMORE Org II.6 is renumbered to Org II.5

FURTHERMORE The name of Title L of el Lexhatx is amended to "Laws Supplementing Article II of the Organic Law"

FURTHERMORE Lex.L.10 is replaced with the following:

10. The following provisions apply to Convocations called in accordance with Article II, Section 3 of the Organic Law.

10.1 The Convocation may, as it deems necessary, adopt a rule, procedure, or protocol to conduct operation provided a majority of Electors supports any such rule, procedure, or protocol, or change thereto.  Any rule, procedure, or protocol adopted by a Convocation will not a subsequent Convocation.

10.2 Before any vote for King is cast, the Conclave shall choose an Elector to serve as Herald in a manner it deems appropriate.  Within 96 hours of a vote for King ending, the Herald, the Secretary of State, and the Council of Regency shall, separately and independently of the other, count such votes, and the Herald, the Secretary of State, and the Council of Regency shall, separately and independently of the other, report one result to the Convocation.   After 96 hours, the vote for King is verified based on the vote count of the majority of timely reported results.

Ureu q'estadra sa:
Ian Plätschisch (Sen-MM)

Quote from: xpb on May 04, 2021, 08:45:10 AM
If the previous referendum had asked simply "Do you want a King or not" rather than obfuscating with the calcuations of ranked choice voting to stack the deck against a simple yes or no, then the question of whether this is a Kingdom would have been answered.  That is not what was asked (and I provided the math earlier in a different thread as to how the manipulation happens). With literal 2020 hindsight everyone should ask themselves do they want a Kingdom or a Republic? 

The article did not say what you are claiming it said. In an IRV election, the winner would have won against each of the other options in a series of one-on-one elections (if everyone voted with the same preferences in both scenarios).

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 03, 2021, 09:09:54 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 03, 2021, 08:58:15 PM
I didn't make any statement about whether his tone is a problem or not

Yes, I consider that a problem in itself.

By that logic, you must have a problem with every Witt post that doesn't explicitly denounce AD.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 03, 2021, 08:54:50 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 03, 2021, 08:48:23 PM
It seems like the Seneschal is responding to the tone of AD's argument rather than its substance,

In Talossa, it is precisely the tone of discussion that causes feelings to get hurt, tempers to rise and feuds to escalate. The Baron von Rucksack knows this perfectly well, which he why he does this. If you don't think his "tone" is a problem, then please never, ever complain about the "tone" of anything I say again.

I didn't make any statement about whether his tone is a problem or not, but you used it to avoid addressing the key issue under discussion (and you avoided addressing it again in your response to me)