Welcome to Wittenberg!

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.


Messages - Açafat del Val

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 18
166
The Hopper / Re: The Opting Out Of Opting Out Act
« on: July 20, 2020, 12:32:37 PM »
Probably all three should be cut and consolidated in one Title and with a clear system that the SoS is okay with.

Very much agreed; it's what I was getting at.

What I'd like to suggest is that:

(a) This bill specifically be left alone;

(b) If/When this bill may be clarked, we make it clear to everyone that citizens will be mandatorily "opted in" only for truly important Government information (for example, the death of a beloved citizen or a DDoS attack on Witt);

(c) Newsletters like La C'hronica, however apolitical they may or may not be, be sent via a different mechanism than the Chancery List; and

(d) We introduce a separate bill that rewrites/consolidates the applicable parts of El Lexhatx.

As I said, the next three questions are the ones that matter:

1) Do you want to receive information about or from elections, political parties, political campaigns, and candidates?
2) Do you want to receive information from accredited news outlets, such as newsletters or magazines?
3) Do you want to be contacted or reachable otherwise via email by other citizens?

167
The Hopper / Re: The Opting Out Of Opting Out Act
« on: July 20, 2020, 11:56:46 AM »
To that end, I recognize the merits for which the Seneschal may want citizens to receive certain news media (such as La C'hronica). I think and do suggest that that should be introduced as a whole separate bill, however.

Furthermore, after poring through El Lexhatx, it seems that there may be a greater need for reform than we realized. El Lexhatx is incredibly muddled on this subject, and it just should not have taken me or anyone else so much effort to figure out which lists are what and which lists may be opted out of.

Perhaps we could ask citizens the following questions:

1) Do you want to receive information about or from elections, political parties, political campaigns, and candidates?
2) Do you want to receive information from accredited news outlets, such as newsletters or magazines?
3) Do you want to be contacted or reachable otherwise via email by other citizens?

The default answer to all three questions is 'yes', but a citizen may elect 'no'.

This would require, as I said, some pretty hefty overhauling of El Lexhatx.

168
The Hopper / Re: The Opting Out Of Opting Out Act
« on: July 20, 2020, 11:36:37 AM »
If you're like me at all, I got my eyes crossed and head upside down trying to understand what's going on in this thread. So, I think it'd help to clarify:

The status quo creates five separate contact lists for five separate purposes, but only three of them may be "opted out" by a citizen. Those three are...

1) A list for the Chancery, via C.1.2.2.5;
2) A list for political parties, via D.8.5; and
3) A list for general citizens, via D.8.8.

The Seneschal would like to make the Chancery list mandatory, where a citizen may NOT opt out, so that newsletters and other print media may be distributed. Some opposition to this idea is that a person may NOT want to receive newsletters in the first place.

However, it should be pointed out that the Chancery list may be used only when the message...

1) Pertains wholly to official Government business,
2) Does not include whatsoever any publicity or other businesses about a political party or candidate, and
3) Is not sent so often before or after another as to be considered spam.

Therefore, I might suggest that newsletters like La C'hronica are already impermissible because they're likely not to pertain wholly to Government business and are likely to discuss politics.

If this bill were to pass, there would be no more increased danger of receiving "newsletters" or "political ads" than in the status quo.

169
The Hopper / Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
« on: July 20, 2020, 11:04:45 AM »
However, even having suggested that change, I might recommend that Senate elections be re-federalized altogether.

It seems needlessly burdensome on the Chancery that the SoS must know (or look up) eight different legal systems just to know whether a province does or does not conduct its own Senate election.

What is the opposition to this? Or, rather, why would Senate elections have been ever de-federalized?

170
The Hopper / Re: The Self-Destructing Senäts Repeal Amendment
« on: July 20, 2020, 10:56:42 AM »
What does a "breakdown of provincial Government" mean?

May I suggest the following instead?

Quote
Each province shall conduct by its own resources the election of each of its Senators as according to law, or may delegate this responsibility by law to the Chancery. In those cases when a province may be responsible for such an election but unable to carry through, whether for nonfeasance or the like, and when the inability shall have persisted and left inadequate time for other remedy, then the Chancery shall conduct the election on behalf of the province.

171
Florencia / Re: Nimlet election
« on: July 20, 2020, 10:22:30 AM »
Although this is a subform specifically for Florencia, I invite anyone of the greater Talossan public to comment or answer.

If this is truly the case, then I wrote in a terrible provision of the new provincial constitution. I had interpreted IX.3 far differently; it seems pretty plain to me that "...may...delegate the conduction of their elections to the Chancery" includes the very basic tasks of announcing the results and fixing the proportion of seats.

Florencia needs a firm answer here. If the SoS is refusing to fix the number of seats, apportion them, and delcare an arbitrary day for the commencement of the new Nimlet session, then Florencia will enter a weird grey zone because the Constitution outright specifies that the Chancery must do it. Without the Chancery, there is legally no Nimlet... and without a Nimlet, there is legally no way to amend the Constitution and prevent this.

Will the SoS do this, or not?

But futhermore, what is the extent to which a province may, under OrgLaw IX.3, "delegate" its elections to the Chancery?

172
Would Love to if I could find the lyrics, they aren't on the wiki
cancel that I found it, It's not easy to find directly on the wiki tho, had to find it via google

Could you share the lyrics here, so that they may be added to the Wiki? :-)

173
It may be too stringent to force renunciation for just one national census, so another option could be (bolded and underlined)...

Quote
...Organic Law X.5 be amended as follows:
Quote
(a) A citizen of Talossa shall have as a condition of his or her citizenship the express rights and duties (i) to vote in all those elections and referenda at which he or she may be entitled to vote, and (ii) to answer completely and in good faith any national census established by law.
(b) When any citizen should fail to vote for twenty-four consecutive months, or fail to answer a national census twice consecutively, then they shall be deemed to have renounced their own citizenship.

174
As before, I am a supporter of mandatory voting and will resist any effort to undo it. I believe very firmly that mandatory voting is good for Talossa, and that if a person cannot be bothered to vote, especially when it is made so easy, then they do not care about remaining a citizen in the first place.

Because the only functional difference between this bill and the status quo is the removal of mandatory voting, I plan to vote and campaign against it.

Might I suggest a change, so that it is palatable?

Quote
...Organic Law X.5 be amended as follows:
Quote
(a) A citizen of Talossa shall have as a condition of his or her citizenship the express rights and duties (i) to vote in all those elections and referenda at which he or she may be entitled to vote, and (ii) to answer completely and in good faith any national census established by law.
(b) When any citizen should fail to vote for twenty-four consecutive months, or fail to answer any national census at all, then they shall be deemed to have renounced their own citizenship.

(Edit: I had to change some of the language.)

175
Wittenberg / Re: New Job Vacancy site - NOW LIVE
« on: July 20, 2020, 09:34:52 AM »
This is amazing work, sir. Your work and dedication in the background is beyond commendable, and I want to recognize it here publicly.

Hopefully we can find a Secretary of Immigration.

176
The College of Arms / Re: Updated/Redesigned CoA Image
« on: July 20, 2020, 09:03:29 AM »
I have attached a vectorized image of your blazon: "Per pale wavy Gules and Azure a tyger Argent rampant to sinister armed and langued Gules".

Be aware that I did this mostly from scratch, so it is not a perfect one-to-one copy of the original emblazonment from BenArd. It's close, but not technically the same image.

Here's an Imgur link: https://i.imgur.com/mIWu3E1.png

177
The Hopper / Re: The Opting Out Of Opting Out Act
« on: July 16, 2020, 12:14:27 PM »
I don’t recall opting out of any email lists — on the contrary, I quite like to receive all Talossa communications because it keeps me informed and in the loops.

I didn’t receive any political emails in this election so far, except my ballot, nor copies of La C'hronica. Why not?

178
The Lobby / Re: Help with Wiki
« on: July 12, 2020, 06:15:29 PM »
Thanks so much!

179
Florencia / Re: Nimlet Session
« on: July 12, 2020, 06:15:13 PM »
I would like now to proclaim that the new Constitution of Florencia (2020) is live on the wiki!

May the Constable (King John) promulgate it formally sooner than later? :)

180
The Lobby / Help with Wiki
« on: July 12, 2020, 03:13:06 PM »
Could someone add my Wiki account 'adv' (short for Açafat del Val) to the 'citizen' group, so that I may make edits and such?

Thanks!

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 18