Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 12, 2021, 01:50:21 PM
I feel stupid, because I can't get this to work.  The help articles for Windows that I found seem to indicate that you do CTRL+SHIFT+: then a letter to put a diaresis, for example, but if I try to do that with the letter A, it doesn't work.

Thats because that shortcut only works in Microsoft Word and Outlook. If you want to type diacritics independent of the program, you'll need to either memorise Unicode codepoints or install another keyboard layout, for example US-International.

Yeah, thats how I type Talossan here as well: I created a custom keyboard layout for it.

Just because I love the irony of it, a quote from page 182 translated into the national language.

AUCÜN citaxhién Talossan non parla ladin acest 'glheþ' så nominat, es acest-là includa ça createir, ¡el Regeu...! El 'glheþ Talossan' non c'e sfigurat par la þistoriă, non c'e parlat par el pópul d'aucün päts, es vrätsmint isch solămint ün atentat sür ün  fundamaintsch glheþesc à distonçar Talossa da sieu anavatan, els Estats Viensiçeschti. ¡¿E-ça q'el pópul Talossan... vrätsmint volt ün 'glheþ Talossan' pürmint fauçeu, sinutzil, inchesclenind, es lischnat qi'st butaßat ainciün lor CERVEDOURS?! ¡NON! ¡Nunca...! ¡El Glheþ Anglesc FOST estar el Glheþ Talossan...! Noi non povent açeitar aucün altreu, es per certan NON el 'glheþ Talossan' imparlat, lischnat, ineceßat, es à pünt sinutzil es aiceanta.

I added all the townships now. Some of them are ridiculously large (e.g. Jahn·haven 2.14), but there's nothing I can do about that.

Now, the names.
I'm guessing we'll have to name Vilatx Freiric 1.4 "Vilatx Freiric" to make the baron title work?

Based on this thread, I made a quick provisional map of our province. The parishes are not official and subject to change, and the only canton with townships so far is Vilatx Freiric. Also everything is unnamed.

This is the link.

Please suggest parish and township borders, as well as names for them!

I prepared a map of the Vilatx Freiric canton and attached it to this message.

I counted 14 townships (16 if you count the ones that are all green as real townships which I don't). Parishes are kinda wishy-washy so there's no objective way of counting them, but intuitively I would split Vilatx Freiric into two parishes, a northern and a southern one. This would need to be defined by province law though.

Ever since Lord Danivescu's was appointed Baron of Vilatx Freiric, I figured future Talossan language materials should teach the titles of peerage, which is why I started researching them a bit. My research left me more confused than before, so I'll ask some questions here hoping that someone else can explain all of this (and then hopefully update the TalossaWiki article afterwards).

1) It is said that Dukes get provinces, Counts get cantons (except in Florenciă where they get parishes), and Barons get townships. How then could Lord Davinescu become the Baron of a canton?
2) Is there even a list or map of parishes and townships for every province? As far as I can tell, the only province with fully delineated parishes and townships is Vuode, while Benito has only defined its parishes (called "sexteirs"), and Florenciă has one named but otherwise underdefined parish called Thord (Lord Hooligan's county).

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: Please understand that I am not trying to undermine Lord Davinescu's peerage in any way. Who knows, maybe this could be rectified by making him a Count instead?

I'm essentially free all week except Wednesdays.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 04, 2021, 10:49:13 AM
A colloquial "definition," not a formal one.  That should be obvious at this point.
[...]
Like, I understand your point: in poli sci those are just arbitrary titles that don't signify any particular mechanisms of government or expectations of authority/role.  But clearly they do to most people, and I think you're just going to have to make your peace with that.

Until you or anyone else can explain to me what this obvious colloquial meaning of "king" is that most people apparently share, statements like these mean nothing to me. I am evidently not part of that majority, you got to help me out here. If you want to of course.

Besides, I'm not even overly attached to the HC, and neither am I a Republican. The HC was my idea, yes, and I explained my reasons for that in this thread. Should it be rejected in another referendum, I won't mind.

What I do mind is when people misuse terms for potentially insincere reasons. Objections to the HC are perfectly reasonable (my ideas arent usually that great), but please spare me the theatrics and the label stuff. This thread started off as a colourful creative way of insulting and attacking supporters of the HC, instead of arguing about the HC itself. A simple "I don't like the Historic Compromise and here's why:" list wouldve been infinitely better.

QuoteNo, it's his opinion.  While I appreciate your fierce passion for parsing language, he is certainly entitled to present his opinion of what a kingdom needs.  He's not "lying" about what he thinks a king must be or what a kingdom must be.

Of course he is entitled to his opinion, and I didnt say he is lying about what he thinks. But in that case he shouldnt phrase his opinions as if they were facts, that could lead to misunderstandings should pedants (such as myself) get involved. Not a demand (Im not in the position to demand anything from anyone, anyway), just a suggestion.

While youre at it, if you could also explain what you mean by "fierce passion for parsing language" means as well, that would be great. Otherwise I have to assume; phrasing like these give me the shivvies.

Quote from: xpb on May 04, 2021, 09:54:16 AM

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on May 04, 2021, 09:33:57 AM

This is incorrect. This is not me arguing semantics, this is XPB lying.

My thoughts on the subject are a lie?

Your thoughts on the subject are misinformed and incorrect. A statement such as "A Kingdom needs a powerful King or Queen who is not replaced on a fixed schedule" is a deliberate falsehood, a lie.

QuoteAmazing demonstration of doublespeak.

No, thats not what doublespeak means either... If anything,calling your incorrect statements earlier lies is dysphemistic rather than euphemistic.

Before this goes too overboard though, how about you adress the rest of the post you quoted from?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 04, 2021, 08:39:40 AM
They're meaningless terms in a technical, poly-sci sense.  In that sense, "king" could mean anything.  But in terms of actually communicating, it's not empty of meaning to say that they prefer a monarch to a president, or that the proposed changes would create a president who's merely called a "king."

Look, if youre not using the PolSci definitions of these words during a discussion about systems of government, itself a PolSci subject, which ones are you using? The chess definition maybe? The playing cards definition?

QuoteI do agree this particular discussion is a waste of time, though, so maybe stop banging on about it

"Maybe stop banging on about it"? Uncharacteristically forward of you.

Quoteand let him say what he wants?  It is amply clear to everyone at this point that you consider the labels to be arbitrary and meaningless, and XPB does not.

Yes, it is clear that people who are knowledgeable about PolSci know what these labels mean (or dont mean in this case), and people who are either unwilling or incapable to perform a 5 second Google search and are instead more interested in calling their adversaries hamsters for distrusting a single person to keep up appearances for literal decades with little chance of recompense do not, you figured it out.

Speaking of which:

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?

Leaving aside that this strongly resembles GOP-style election fraud conspiracy theories by now (now that I think about it, the whole thing about Cézembrean secession is also GOP-like, hm...) and the math you provided earlier doesnt state what you think it does as S:reu Plätschisch pointed out, your alternative simple yes-or-no referendum wouldve been at least just as obfuscating as you accuse the IRV referendum of being.

It is established by now that you want a hereditary monarchy with a King who gets to do pretty much whatever they want and is universally supported by the population at large. Your prefered style of monarchy (Option 3) has been rejected 23-49. Without defining what "King" means in your prefered referendum question, the result would have been meaningless, since people like you, people who wanted a completely ceremonial and powerless King and people who wanted a King-President duarchy wouldve all voted "yes" -- even though all three of these preferences are mutually exclusive! It would have been a cheap way of status quo monarchists to claim victory despite being in the minority, nothing more.

QuoteA Kingdom needs a powerful King or Queen who is not replaced on a fixed schedule

A Republic desires a less powerful leader (whatever you call it) who is replaced on a fixed schedule (and might even have term limits)

This is incorrect. This is not me arguing semantics, this is XPB lying.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 04, 2021, 07:20:38 AM
When XPB says that this would be a president and not a monarch, his meaning is clear -- even if technically it could still be a "king" because such labels are arbitratry.

You're continuing to misunderstand. If XPB says it would be a president and not a monarch, his meaning is not clear, for the reasons I listed earlier. "President" and "monarch" are meaningless terms. He is saying nothing of value and wasting everyones time in the process.

Just say "I want the head of state to be unaccountable and in office until they die", if that is indeed what you want.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 04, 2021, 06:15:24 AM
Agreed!  And I will also agree with the fact that you're here implicitly recognizing that you can call anything a "king," but that some labels more accurately reflect the meaning that people intend to convey.  An "unaccountable despot" who operates based on a "cult of personality" would definitely be better called the Supreme Leader or dictator, even if that's not a very important aspect of the change.

You misunderstand. I'm saying that semantic arguments waste time, first and foremost. If you dont like the head of state to be elected, thats fine. I dont care either way but please then say that, instead of complaining about the title, because titles are malleable.

QuoteNow, you could certainly give the Supreme Leader a title like "king."  As the link you provided above shows, there have been kings with this same sort of role.

In very recent history, as well.

QuoteBut as you suggest, that's not the important thing.  The actual meaning is the important thing.

So when I say, for example, that the FDT proposal would really be establishing a presidency... that doesn't mean that it's because of semantics!  I'm not saying that technically it's not proper to call it a monarchy.  I'm saying it's functionally not what I (or most people) mean by "monarchy."

Then lets ask ourselves what we mean by "monarchy". For me, a monarchy is a state with a monarch at the top, the opposite of a republic. What is a monarch? Well, someone who is at the top of a monarchy... Hm.

Okay, maybe we can figure this out the other way.

What is a president? The head of state of a republic. What is a republic? A state that isnt a monarchy.
...Welp.

Im not trying to be facetious here, this is how republics and monarchies are defined in PolSci. Its all circular and ultimately a waste of time. Lets discuss something else please.

Quote
Which argument?  Not sure what you mean.

Specifically this (emphasis mine):

Quote from: xpb on May 03, 2021, 06:19:28 PM
I do not hate citizens who participate in spirited debate.  I hate the proposed change from a Kingdom which is unique, to a Republic, which is ordinary.

Hereditary monarchies are extremely common in the micronational sphere. Republics are also extremely common the micronational sphere. Elective monarchies are not.

Quote from: xpb on May 03, 2021, 09:38:14 PM
<image>

Characterising your political adversaries as docile simpletons because youre too lazy to do 5 seconds of Google research tells more about you than the Republicans you seem to despise so much.

Elective monarchies are real. No amount of Boomer memes will change that.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 03, 2021, 08:28:43 PM
To be fair, this is semantic.

The "call it what it is" rhetoric is an attempt to make it semantic. In truth, the title never actually mattered. I suggested the idea in passing back in November/December because I figured it would be 1) easy to set up since it wouldnt require renaming everything — and God knows we are horrible at keeping Wiki articles up to date, and 2) something that most non-extemists could at least live with. I was more interested in a compromise that people overall would be at least okay with rather than in the highly specific and contradictory prefences of individuals. The HC is nobodys first choice.

But turning this into a matter of semantics is a waste of time for everyone involved. If you want an unaccountable despot appointed for life with a personality cult as King, I will be against that, but not because such a position should be called "Supreme Leader" instead!

I also noticed that the "uniqueness" argument has been silently dropped entirely. Why would that be?