Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 25, 2022, 05:27:06 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on June 11, 2022, 04:42:54 PM

[li$i] Creating physical items of Talossanity: 33¤20 ($50)
[/li][/list]

Sorry I'm only seeing this now, but a question: to what does this refer?  As far as I can tell, this could refer to just about any physical object

Hi, the Senechal has asked myself to respond to this, with this, it refers to costs of making physical trappings of monarchy, as per the coalition agreement, and is something have approached the CoA in designs for, but yes, this is for costs pertaining to making such items. What these are and final costs are not known yet, as those plans are in early stages, so we are reserving a sum in the budget for such a time where we are in a position to make physical items that we come up with. I know this is still vague, but the concepts are still in early stages.[/list]

Azul,

That is a difficult question to answer as this will be a large project, and is something that i plan to work with the College with over the current term.

To start with i suppose starting with designs for possible Letters patent, and templates that can be used for state awards such as those given by the Ziu, these designs are, intended to be for physical items for those who are given these awards, and when Letters patents are issued (the later more guidance on this will be worked on over the coming months). but one idea i have for that is that when arms and/or titles are granted, that could be done, by letters patent, and a physical copy of this could be sent to those who are given these awards.

Other ideas may also come up in future, and i am aware that these will need to be adopted by the Ziu, and to have legislation around them, however it is part of the Min Cultures agenda for the term, so i thought, the sooner we can start working towards designs for "physical trappings of Monarchy" and all of the things with that, the better.

Again, i know this is alot, and is something that is to be done in stages, but i thought, having it all under one request, as they all tie into each other would be the easiest path to go down.
As soon more things are firmed up, ill put them here, but for now, starting with Letters Patents seems to be the easiest place to start.

However, as indicated, this isnt a usual request for one item, more of a collaboration between the college of arms, and the ministry of culture, to make this request possible. I hope this has made some sense. And i look forward to working with the college on this.

Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir
Ministră dal Cúltură/Minister for Culture

To the Squirrel King of Arm,

I humbly request the colleges assistance from the college, as Minister for Culture, in order to create designs related to "Talossan versions of Letters Patent, State Awards, and other physical forms of the trappings of Monarchy and chivalry" so that these might be presented to the Ziu to be adopted for formal usage within the Kingdom of Talossa. As this is one of the goals of the Ministry to complete over the current term.

I appreciate this will be an undertaking, and can be done step by step, however, this is intended to seek the assistance of the college on this ongoing project, as the experts of heraldry within the Kingdom, this is in your expertise. to work with the Min Culture to make these proposals into reality.

I look forward to hearing you reply.

Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir
Ministră dal Cúltură/Minister for Culture

Túischac'h

I thank the member for his question.
First of all, one of the deputies is in charge of the Culture departments plans on the Talossan language.
With the other two, they will be helping with the other goals of the ministry in the course of the Cosa, as well as organising live events, etc. Also, as i am new to cabinet business, and mental health issues causing low engagement at times (which i did make clear to the Senechal before i was appointed) it was felt that the extra deputies could help with the slack at times, and to have less pressure on myself in the course of the Cosa.

I will try to be active as possible and make progress, and i feel so far, i am managing this, but as this question was raised, i felt the need to be open and honest with the honourable member, of the reason behind the need of the deputies i have. If my mh issues impede too much, and i am not fulfilling my duties, then i will stand aside, but until then, i plan, with the help of my deputies, to do my best running the Culture department.

Túischac'h

I thank the member for his question, with organising live gatherings, i am currently coordinating with my deputies to come up with reasonable ways that these could be organised, I hope to make an announcement on the subject when plans are more finalised, Also, i might point out to the member, what was said in the appointment post, is not the full remit of the Culture department, just the goals for the first month. The full remit can be found in the coalition agreement that was posted.

But on the subject of the terp, live gathering plans are being made, and will be announced in due course.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 01, 2022, 07:27:33 PM

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 31, 2022, 09:18:51 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 01:05:23 PM
That seems like a willful misinterpretation of a fairly clear statement from Breneir:  There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress.  You can save yourself the time and trouble of writing any threatening speeches, since the answer will always be a clear "no."  I support Breneir on this 100%: if we reward a tantrum like this now -- before the first Clark! -- then you'll be back with a different threat next week: "Support our next bill or we'll vote down all of yours, regardless of merit."

All we are doing here is pressing you to fulfill your own campaign promise. You can end this immediately without giving anything up; this is what you said you wanted!

This will only continue for as long as you persist in your dishonesty. It's becoming increasingly clear that the TNC's desire for monarchy reform was a lark. If that's true, just admit it and we can get on with our lives.

The words below still express the resolve of TNC members:
There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress.

I mean no disrespect to you Breneir, however I am not exactly sure where you got the idea that we were asking for cooperation from yourselves, all we have asked, is that you state a position on something you had promised to do, so we know if you were serious about that or not, seeking clarification from yourselves is far far away from seeking cooperation, and as i have asked in https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1480.0  to your party, if when we tried to be civil, and got radio silence, then what choices were we left with to know what your position is?
To know more of my views, i recommend reading the thread, but yeah, on the point of cooperation on this issue, i do believe you have miscalculated what was being asked of you.

But yeah, all that we have asked is your position to be put forward, in the ONLY way we could get your attention, and a response of any kind, it is sad it has come to this, however, this was the last option we had to seek clarity from yourselves. If you had engaged with us, named your position before this, and not stonewalled our attempts in the election for discourse, then this would never have happened. We are not innocent in this, however the hands of the TNC aren't clean in this either.

Hi TNC, as you know I am a big supporter of the FreeDems, however, I feel that despite obvious political differences, I myself, have generally had good interactions with individual members of your party, so I hope that you see this what it is, not trying to be threatening, or force your hand with anything, but genuinely wanting to know what you would say in response to what I am about to ask.

First of all, Monarchy reform, as I understand it was an electoral promise that was stated, whether campaigned on or not, it has been promised in some way by your party to the electorate.
I will not comment on things under the Previous Seneschal as I do not know enough about that situation, but I will say that he did accept that he may have overstepped and apologised publicly about it, which did not have a response from your party at the time, which although disappointing to see, I can also see that time might have been needed to calm things down following how both sides perceived things differently.

But then, in the election campaign, there were several attempts to seriously engage with a political discourse with the TNC, which were met with silence, on a variety of issues, including asking for clarification on your position on Monarchy reform, which again was met with silence.

So, we come to now, where the FreeDems have committed to blockading legislation, which is antagonistic in nature, is the only time we have been able to get any sort of comment from yourselves on the issue.

Given the track record of not being open to discussing reforms before this, and it being a top issue for us, and that there is support for amongst the electorate, with a majority of Seats in the Cosa won by those who support reforms (including your own party, who unless your position has changed, is still supporting monarchy reforms), but not willing to discuss it, what other options did we have to even make you comment commenting on Monarchy reform?

Yes, in the past there have been mistakes from our party and your own, and has led to clashes, but we have tried to be honest and reasonable in engaging with you during the last elections, and seeking your stance now on reforms, but with nothing forthcoming, we have had to take this drastic action, as we felt there was no other way.
We knew the risks, and were prepared for the flack that came our way for *Standing up for what the electorate voted for* I do wish we didn't need to come to this, but with being met with silence, we had little choice. So I ask, what more could we have done to engage with you on this issue before we felt we were forced to take this position we are in now?

As, as far as I see it, and despite the respect I have for the sincerity of the other side wanting what is best for the country, I don't see how we could have proceeded otherwise, as your loud silence on this issue, one way or another could not continue, you may call it threatening or other things, which I grant it is, but it is also our last resort to stand up for the rights of the Talossan people, and their electoral wishes being put into action.

So once again I ask, what more could we have done?

Quote from: Aleksandr Belkin on May 21, 2022, 02:49:38 AM
Good afternoon! Yes, I would like to get a seat in the ward (translated by Google)

Ok, in that case i shall assign you 3 seats in the HoC for this term, welcome to chamber, and province :)

Hello, i would like to appoint the following deputies:-
Mic'haglh Autofíl
Antonio Montagnha
Vicocaput per Afáes Glheþeasacas: Miestră Schivă

Quote from: Aleksandr Belkin on May 18, 2022, 05:09:01 AM
I'm not sure if I'm in FreeDems, since I just recently became a citizen of Talossa! Translated to Google)

From internal party talks, i can confirm you are a member of the FreeDems, so if you would like seats in the House of Commons, then let me know, and i would be happy to share some of my seats (also, it might help to also read the constitution of the province, to see how things work here) Also, welcome to Ataturk :)

Quote from: Aleksandr Belkin on May 18, 2022, 04:41:10 AM
Good afternoon! I'm sorry for my questions! Can I vote for myself? Can I participate? (Translated by Google)

Hi, It is fine, you are free to ask questions, and despite forgetting to end it officially, the voting period had passed, so unfortunately you are too late to join in the elections this time. However, i believe you are a new member of the FreeDems? if so, i will be happy to share some of my seats in the chamber with you, so you can participate in this HoC term.

In response to the arguments about why the vote for Senechal by the cosa is needed, some of the arguments for this has already been made, but the main reason i believe it is needed, as it is a public declaration of endorsement of the new Seneschal, and in effect, whatever agreements made to put them in place. And until this vote confirms the Seneschal, things could still go awry in the intervening time until the vote. It is essentially a ratification of the incoming government, and its programme. It is more than just electing one person, it is formalising the government approach in the incoming cosa, and showing that they have the confidence of a majority of the Cosa, which until a vote is made, is uncertain, despite what might have been agreed beforehand.
So yeah, the importance is more that certain people believe in my view.

With proposals,

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on May 02, 2022, 04:56:37 PM
My previous suggestion for a minimal tweak was simply deleting:

QuoteNo member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on his ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public.

But Açafat don't like that, so how about:

QuoteNo member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on his ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public. If there are two or fewer nominations for Seneschal, a single preference shall constitute a valid ballot.

But I prefer the first version. The question is: which can get 2/3 of the Cosa? Would TNC MCs like to express a preference? Because AD's "let the King pick the Seneschal, lol we know who he'll pick if it's at all ambiguous" is a no-go.

We might also consider language which would clear up any ambiguity about whether parties could make more than one nomination. I would err on the side of explicitly forbidding it.

deleting that part is a decent possibility, and likely a fairer way.
The second one is what is currently being proposed in the bill, i think.

I agree with more forbidding making more than one nomination by a party, except in limited circumstances, such as unexpected absence/ill tidings of the nominee, which is why im leaning to having the write in, but explicitly only as a way for a party to name a new nomination and have MC's vote for a new candidate, in this event, but otherwise write in's arent valid? (basically, have it as a failsafe to help prevent a one person election) this concept needs tweaking, but i think is workable. And i have been convinced by arguments here that a free choice write in is a bit unworkable in this case.

Quote from: Açafat del Val on May 01, 2022, 11:29:42 PM
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.

I Disagree, due to the nature of Talossa, these situations are likely not going to be a one off. And forcing an MC to vote, for a nominee, that goes against their political views, clashes with their freedoms, and is tyrannical in the approach, and the proposal, still keeps  ranked voting for above 3 in the vote.

QuoteQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on Yesterday at 04:10:51 PM
I'm sympathetic to removing the compulsory preferencing aspect, but I'm not in favour of allowing "write-in votes". Cosa elections are between parties and individual MCs act as agents of those parties. Parties should continue to determine who the candidates for Seneschal are.

Also, with the write in, that i do feel the idea needs to be thought about more, as what happens if mid election, one of the candidates has to pull out, leaving one candidate, who they in good conscience would not vote for, i feel that having that option makes the system more democratic. And as is the system is too restrictions on MC's freedoms.

I am aware that we vote and govern with parties, and MC's as agents of those parties, so maybe there be a requirement that the party has to approve a write in first. I dont know, it is something that requires some thought.

But on the whole, this is an issue i feel strongly about, and respectfully, i have to massively disagree with Açafat del Val, who i feel is missing the point.

Thought id put my ideas for slight tweaks here.


Whereas, the recent Senechal elections have revealed a flaw,

Whereas, it is not fair on MC's to force them to vote for their opposition, in a two candidate race

Therefore, the following current text of law :-

QuoteThe method of election of a Seneschál shall be Ranked Choice Voting. Each member of the Cosâ shall have as many votes in the election as the seats which he hold in the Cosâ, but shall cast his votes as one bloc and have no divided conscience. The candidates for each such election shall be nominated by each political party which shall have earned representation in the Cosâ at the most recent general election. (54RZ23) (55RZ22)

No member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on his ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public. (54RZ23)

Shall be replaced by:-

QuoteThe method of election of a Seneschál shall be Ranked Choice Voting for 3 or more candidates, for 2, a straight majority vote of the Cosa will be required, limited to voting to one candidate only.. Each member of the Cosâ shall have as many votes in the election as the seats which they hold in the Cosâ, but shall cast their votes as one bloc and have no divided conscience. The candidates for each such election shall be nominated by each political party which shall have earned representation in the Cosâ at the most recent general election (54RZ23) (55RZ22)

No member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on their ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public. If the Cosa member wishes to, as a second or third preference, they shall be able to vote for any sitting Cosa member, as long as the First preference vote is for one of the named candidates in the election. (54RZ23)

Uréu q'estadra så
Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir (MC - FreeDem)

I'm not sure the interpretation by the secretary of state is correct, as yes, organic law does say that political parties nominate candidates for the election, and that it is a ranked choice vote, but it doesn't say that MC's can ONLY vote for the candidates presented to the Cosa, it just says, that MC's votes must be ranked choice and vote for at least two candidates, but the law as written, doesn't explicitly state that the only choices for Seneschal are the ones presented by the parties, from what i understand from reading the said laws, Also, if i recall correctly, last time we had the elections of Seneschal, we weren't constrained purely by the choices from the parties.

But yeah, from what i can tell, as the law isnt specific enough, from my own reading there is enough leeway in the law to allow other votes to be cast. And

QuoteNo member of the Cosâ may abstain in the election of a Seneschál, and shall rank on his/her ballot at least two distinct preferences, which itself shall be made public. (54RZ23)

, doesn't specify that we have to vote only for the candidates presented, just that we need to make two distinct choices.

I will respect your decision, although i honestly find the thought of casting my second vote for the other candidate abhorrent and distasteful, in the matter, but i thought id point out these things, and share my thoughts (and explain why i thought as i did) with all anyway.