Welcome to Wittenberg!

Main Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Açafat del Val

The Lobby / Re: Question on Seneschal Voting
May 01, 2022, 11:56:19 PM
Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, MoFA on May 01, 2022, 11:50:45 PM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 01, 2022, 11:24:26 PMI am interpreting to my best effort the laws as written, as I will continue to do as long as I am allowed to continue in office as Secretary of State. This is by far not an easy job and I hope you all believe that I am doing this with grace, dignity, and fairness.

For what it's worth, I think you're doing a good job. Sometimes people legislate themselves into knots, it happens (that's not a dig at AdV, for reference)

Shocking as it may seem, I think that our current SoS goes above and beyond; I respect the hell out of him, and he deserves all of our gratitude and appreciation. He has done, does, and is doing a fantastic job as SoS*.

If our only complaint is that the SoS is trying to abide by the law, then that sounds like a compliment! Wouldn't we rather have an SoS like this, than someone who doesn't check the laws?


*(Notwithstanding my complaint that he could or should have foreseen a moderator deleting posts.)
The Lobby / Re: Question on Seneschal Voting
May 01, 2022, 11:51:37 PM
I'm happy to be corrected, and happier that someone read it.

For the sake of my ego, this exact current predicament wouldn't exist under my old writing. Moreover, even if it could, I reiterate that the issue is less the Organic section, and more the lack of candidates.

Why or how are people here all up in arms over "having" to pick two, and not mad that they have only two choices?! Surely we should expect more parties than just the TNC and FreeDems, right?

The very fact that people are whining proves how necessary the requirement is. The whole purpose of ranked-choice voting is upturned if MCs can just pop in and say "my party and no one else, kyhxbye". To have an actual... ranked-choice election... you have to... rank your choices. It doesn't seem unreasonable to require two picks. It's two. A whopping two. It's not three or four of five.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 01, 2022, 11:43:33 PM
Quote from: Açafat del Val on May 01, 2022, 11:41:12 PM
is there even a process in place for nomination?


Seems like the PdR leader is nominated implicitly, then! They never nominated anyone, so their leader should be assumed to be on the ballot.
Sounds to me, then, like we're reaping what we sowed when we didn't bother to consider the larger implications of piecemeal amendments.

Although I would argue that the PdR can't nominate anyone but its own leader. I mean, is there even a process in place for nomination? As far as I'm concerned, each party implicitly nominates itself.

Unless the PdR wishes unequivocally to announce that it refuses to nominate its own leader as a candidate for Seneschal, then I consider my vote valid.

Don't worry, though: the Talossan judiciary is a joke, so I won't be filing any lawsuit ;)
Actually, I am a little angry that neither I nor anyone else thought of this:

We don't have to vote for just the FreeDems and TNC.

My first preference is Ian.
My second preference is the PdR.

They have a party leader and representation in the Cosa; I should be permitted Organically to vote for the PdR's leader.
I oppose any removal of the requirement. The issue is not requiring MCs to pick two preferences; it's MCs not having more than two choices for Seneschal.

This is a solution looking for a problem.
The Lobby / Re: Question on Seneschal Voting
May 01, 2022, 11:24:54 PM
Not that being snide helps my attempt to persuade, but I'm cranky and, to speak politely, disillusioned.

The requirement that each ballot contain at least two distinct preferences was written in conjunction within a larger amendment. Piecemeal tweaks, as Talossa is so fond of doing, create more problems; I would advise that amendments to this one thing come up amendments of other things.

As for the text itself: I would beg that MZs attempt to look past the immediacy of today and try to imagine a wider picture. Constitutions are not meant to and shouldn't bother to contemplate every possible outcome; they are necessarily broad and vague. Accordingly, what are the risks of making no requirement?

Someone hinted at it before me: ranked-choice methods are bupkis without a certain number of preferences. What's the point of ranked-choice if everyone picks just one candidate? Ballots are then immediately exhausted.

I had to make a compromise between no requirement and the burdensome Australian approach. Two preferences seemed fair, especially when it's hard to predict that only two parties have put up leaders. I mean, shame on me for thinking that Talossa might have more than two Seneschal candidates at a time.

For what it's worth, when I wrote the section at issue, it came with another clause that allowed MZs to vote for more than just the political leaders. That was changed one or two Cosas ago, where now the only candidates are the party leaders themselves.

It's almost like Talossa should stop amending one paragraph at a time. Perhaps then we wouldn't be shocked when one section after another becomes broken.
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 01, 2022, 11:11:09 PM
Quote from: Açafat del Val on May 01, 2022, 10:13:27 PM
I hereby cast my single vote for Ian Plätschisch. I have no second choice.

A second choice must be listed please.

Apologies. Done.
I vote thusly...

1. Ian Plätschisch
2. Brenier Tzaracompadra

(My original vote excluded a second preference, but on account that doing so may invalidate my entire ballot, I have included now a second preference.)
Wittenberg / Re: Joint Statement on Solicitation
April 23, 2022, 07:45:37 AM
I think what saddens me the most about the TNC is that they think everyone else is as stupid as they are, as if no one else had the intelligence to see what they were doing and why it could be problematic for Talossa, her norms, her traditions, etc.

Hey, Davinescu, have you ever heard of game theory? It's this idea that says, wherever a person's dominant strategies require defection from the preferred outcome, they are going to defect every single time.

So, either the TNC leadership are donkey butts who don't think that transparency and respect are a preferred outcome, which would be really dangerous for Talossa!, or they are fraudulent tricksters who don't care and are just sad that they got caught.

I'm betting on the latter, because it was the TNC itself who argued for a Grand Coalition and made calls for a reconciliation of differences across the parties... which makes them hypocrites on top of being fraudulent tricksters.

Nixon had better charm than this. Talossa deserves so much better than the TNC.
Wittenberg / Re: Joint Statement on Solicitation
April 23, 2022, 07:37:18 AM
I speak for myself, and no one else:

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 22, 2022, 10:51:50 AM
This joint statement only indicates you are threatened by my actions. I will reach out to anyone (at any time after their immigrating to the Kingdom) that I want to solicit their support for the TNC and its policies. It will be for that person to consider and respond. Your attempt at bullying will be treated as such and ignored.

Bullying requires some manner of coercion, right? At a minimum, duress. I wonder what causes more duress or coercion?: trying secretly in the shadows to get a new citizen to secure your election as Seneschal, or issuing a public statement laying out priorities and upholding longstanding norms.

For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever heard a leader winge about being bullied. Did Nixon complain about bullying when he got caught in Watergate? I can't remember. Wait, I take that back. Trump complained about being treated unfairly. You're more a Trump guy, huh? Big bad dumb guy trying to roleplay as a leader, who really just wants to circlejerk with his buddies about feeling powerful? Man, even Nixon had more gumption!

You wanted to lead Talossa, right? Put on your big-boy pants, be more creative, and find a better comeback than "bullying", please.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 22, 2022, 12:07:45 PM
This is really interesting, and I want to be absolutely clear: are we suggesting that it is an ethical rule that it is out of bounds to reach out to MCs of an opposing party to try to convince them to support a different candidate or coalition? I would really really like to hear an answer from this from the leader of the Free Democrats specifically.

Sometimes, in brief moments of self-hatred, I wonder what it'd be like if I were your therapist. Like, purely from a psychological and sociological perspective, I am really honestly truly fascinated by you.

Somehow you are smart enough to write words, put together sentences, and manage Wiki articles (when you're not deleting other people's work, that is), but somehow not smart enough to fathom how it could be a taboo (or unethical, in any case) to conspire against a brand-new citizen in order undermine an election.

To be more clear, I think that you know the difference, but you like to play dumb. I have observed this weird pattern where, once confronted with a question, the answer to which may lose you rhetorical victory, you just... don't answer. As if the question was never asked! Or, you like to answer a question which wasn't asked, but which would give you more room to claim victory.

I was not the person whom you solicited for an answer, but I want to answer anyways – ironically, by asking you a question! (My money is that you're too chickenshit to respond, but I'll be humored if you find the gumption.)

If the TNC were not trying to do something unethical, underhanded, or otherwise unbecoming, then why was the communication sent privately? Surely a party and its leadership who want to be transparent, ethical, and forthcoming would make an announcement at large and trying to persuade MCs on the merits alone, without resorting to private secret communiques?

The Cosa / Re: Nomination of a Túischac'h
April 15, 2022, 03:43:46 PM
Quote from: mximo on April 12, 2022, 12:08:04 PM

I will support the Baron if he wish to take this job.

Mximo Carbonèl

I stand now as the lone supporter of Mximo for Túischac'h. I invite any other MCs to join me.
I await the official assignment of @the FreeDems party leader, but seeing that I am the only active FreeDems member in Florencia, I find it likely that I will be assigned the singular seat.
The Cosa / Re: Nomination of a Túischac'h
April 07, 2022, 09:30:26 AM
I wish to nominate @Mximo for Túischac'h.
Wittenberg / Re: Today, I have cast my vote.
March 23, 2022, 11:18:48 AM
Hear hear!

@Miestră Schivă, UrN has proven her record as Seneschal, and Talossa would be well-served again by her service.

Vote FreeDem!