It seems like the Seneschal is responding to the tone of AD's argument rather than its substance, which is very similar to what I said in my farewell speech.

Unless there is broad understanding that this is the last change; no more changes to the honors system or any other remaining royal powers; then the Historic Compromise is neither of those things

If you are a party leader and I have not reached out to you already, and you are interested in being interviewed for La S'chinteia, please get in touch.

With respect, Sir Briga, evocative imagery alone does not a coherent argument make.

LCC plug: Support the Monarchy without the Balance Party's very strange leaps of logic.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 02, 2021, 05:21:01 PM
The Free Democrats in this election seek 101+ seats for ourselves,

Tell me something I don't know

To the esteemed members of the Cosa and Senate,

First, let me congratulate the outgoing Seneschal on her service. There are no two ways about it; she and her cabinet this term managed to accomplish a great deal. May she find some well-deserved rest, and may the next Seneschal be just as tireless.

The main issue of the upcoming election is, of course, the "Historic Compromise" which will subject the King to election every seven years. Voters will have their choice of a wide variety of parties, each with a different take on the proposal and the overall role of the King. My own view, which is to oppose the proposal in principle, but support it in practice out of concern that even more of the Monarchy will be lost if Monarchists oppose it and lose, but still disapprove of King John's overall performance, is so muddled that it does not deserve its own party. In any case, I have words of caution to both the compromise-opponents and the compromise-extollers.

To the compromise-opponents: Fight the good fight, but realize that seven years is a very long time in Talossa. Don't let a fixation on an extremely infrequent election compel you to hang on to the bitter end if doing so jeopardizes the Monarchy in its entirety.

To the compromise-extollers: Everyone who calls the proposal "Historic" is making an promise that it is not just another proposal to incrementally reduce the King's power, and that there will not be another proposal to reduce it again in a year's time. Otherwise, there would be nothing Historic about it. Break this promise, and you will do serious damage to your relationships with everyone who believed you.

To everyone: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you." - Luke 6:27-28

Quote from: GV on April 28, 2021, 10:23:55 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on April 28, 2021, 01:50:48 PM
I should have enough time between now and then to get one out. Please let me know if you have any material you would like included.

Where do you keep back-issues?

GV, RArchivist

All of them are on my computer (which is backed up remotely), Volumes 1-14 are here: http://wiki.talossa.com/La_S%27chinteia. At some point I will get around to adding the rest.

From https://lingojam.com/BadTranslator:

The free democrats in need of to led talossa's government of that fourth successful term.  Our needed to don't only recruit new citizens, prevent found ways to have existing citizens involved again.  Our in need of that historic compromise between monarchy and republicanism, and to the grown talossan-speaking population.  Txoteu davinescu of seneschál!

LCC 50-word statement:

QuoteVote LCC For Talossa to stand tall once more. Talossa is a beacon of a nation that inspired many. We are the party that will prioritise immigration, our country will thrive as a result. We will use our national language in correspondence. If it's already great, must we change Talossa?

FreeDem 50-word statement translated from English to Ukrainian and back to English via Google Translate:

QuoteThe Free Democrats want to lead the Thulos government for a fourth successful term. We need not just to recruit new citizens, but to find ways to attract existing citizens again. We want a historic compromise between monarchy and republicanism, as well as for the growth of the thalosano-speaking population. Txoteu Davinescu for Senechal!

Firstly, I note that the FreeDem's statement is quite robust to Ukrainian translation. Secondly, I note that the FreeDem statement explicitly endorses the compromise amendment while the LCC statement focuses more on leveraging the institutions Talossa already has.

I should have enough time between now and then to get one out. Please let me know if you have any material you would like included.

Quote from: King John on April 28, 2021, 11:42:49 AM
I neither intend nor desire to abdicate the throne

I hope His Majesty understands that we would likely not be in this situation if he participated enough in Talossan life to make his statement ring true. As it stands now, it often appears he desires to abdicate all Royal responsibilities except those pertaining to preserving his own power.

I have been absolutely consistent on calling for more Royal involvement for more than two years (as the AMP Manifesto for the 53rd Cosa election, published in February 2019, will attest). I can only give so many warnings before I become inclined to support drastic measures such as the one now under consideration.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on April 21, 2021, 06:57:07 PM
Thirdly, what I do remember discussing with Senator Plätschisch is that, just as there will always exist the most reactionary conservatives, there will always exist not only Republicans but reform-monarchists, inc. those who want a completely depowered, ceremonial monarchy. The Historic Compromise does not mean "no more debate can happen ever again on the Monarchy and its role". It is not a gagging order. It is meant to set a broad consensus on the biggest issue, i.e. Monarchy vs. elected head of state.

Right, but it's not like General Davinescu is on the fringe of the Free Democrats; he is the incoming leader. It is concerning that he believes dramatically overhauling one of the King's remaining powers follows as a natural consequence of what was supposed to be a change that, once accomplished, most people could live with. It certainly gives the impresssions that people like me who are supporting the compromise in the hopes that most reformists will be satisfied are just getting played.

If you think this is part of the Historic Compromise, you are mistaken.

"The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!"

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on April 10, 2021, 02:56:32 PM

Quote from: GV on April 10, 2021, 02:28:17 PM

Quote
The strategy is not to have a monarch, but a 7 year president with veto powers, who can be re-elected, accomplished by the same techniques outlined in http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/irv.html (see "some electoral suprises" ) while a simple "do you want a hereditary King or Queen - yes or no" was diluted by shaded options to confuse the issue and split the vote.
Fait accompli.

Good or bad, a King or Queen is outside the bounds of election, (similar to a Justice of the Supreme Court in the US) after their initial appointment, until their demise or resignation.  This is fundamental concept.

This fundamental concept was Ben Madison's greatest weapon against Kane Gruber in 2004.

Although this is interesting and I have been educating myself on the topic, could we now get back to the leadership election.
There's a whole wide Witt to discuss upon this :)

The election is happening on our Facebook page; this was just an announcement

As outgoing party leader I am probably mostly responsible for the debacle which has accompanied my departure from the LCC leadership. I didn't want to reveal too many details, but I left too much out and allowed imaginations to run wild, so I'm correcting the record now.

Some members of the LCC disagreed with my assessment that supporting the compromise is the best way to protect the Monarchy. I was not going to change my mind on this, but I also wanted to respect that the only other "active" members of the party wanted to take it in a different direction. As I was thinking of reducing my activity in politics anyway, I thought the best course of action would be step down in favor of someone who would be more passionate.

Unfortunately, this whole process was a bit rushed because, of course, the term is almost over. Therefore some things were not made clear to various people:
- Unfortunately MC Itravilatx never saw the discussion at all, so he would be understandably blindsided when the first thing he sees is messaging that, shall we say, was rather different than mine.
-That leads me to MC Roibeardescu, who after our conversation where I encouraged to run for party leader, I may have left with the impression that being "more passionate" meant maximizing showboating and bellicosity over everything else. I've talked with him privately and I think that he is more than capable of making the necessary adjustments and being a great party leader.

Hopefully this clears things up.

While it's regrettable that MC Itravilatx had not heard of my intention before this announcement, it was discussed on the LCC Facebook group (of which he is a member), so I was definitely not intentionally concealing anything. Nothing nefarious is going on; I just thought this would be a good time to step down given that I was already looking to do so and there are other LCC members with a somewhat different vision of what the party can accomplish.

Keep in mind that from the beginning I have supported the compromise out of practicality rather than principle; that is, I think it's the best way to prevent Talossa from eventually turning into a Republic. Others disagree with this assessment, that's all