To all who may see this, Azul!

In pursuance to the powers vested in me as the incumbent Avocat-Xheneral by Sections C.2 and C.3.2 of El Lexhátx, having been thoroughly and definitively satisfied of his knowledge of Talossan law and jurisprudence, and of his good character and abilities, I do hereby recommend, endorse, and nominate to the King for appointment as the Scribe of Abbavilla the honourable Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM.

In testimony whereof,
on this day the seventeenth of September,
in the year of our Lord the two thousand twentieth,
and of the independence of the Kingdom of Talossa the forty-first,
I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed my official seal.

Not that this statement bears any substantial change on the outcome, but for what it's worth, I would agree with the interpretation that Grigoriu's citizenship may be reinstated without violating the spirit of the law (although perhaps the letter of it).

Relatedly: I find it more tragic than ironic, though it is also ironic, that these threads continue to devolve into bitter and personal arguments. This is not a conducive decorum to immigration or retention of citizens. For the sake of our country, could we, for lack of a better word, chill out?

Also: While the effects of your vandalism, AD, may have been minimal, the intents and manner were not. Your actions of vandalism were born of bad faith, ill motives, and bad behavior. Help, don't hurt; be constructive, not destructive. If you can't play nice, please leave the sandbox.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 02, 2020, 08:16:51 PM
But you're Attorney-General, there's a conflict of interest.

In any case, said Clerk would have to be pretty apolitical, almost like the SoS, to avoid suggestions that she were deliberately sabotaging the "other party"'s bills

Perhaps for another time then, but I would like to be considered. I wouldn't just be good at it; I would enjoy it.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on August 02, 2020, 08:14:59 PM
The LCC is still in very early days and just spent the entire election providing alternative proposals to the Free Democrats. I can assure you there will be no shortage of LCC participation in the coming months.

Respectfully: (a) I look forward to this participation, but (b) if Davinescu does not partake in this participate then he should be silent.

He can participate without or under the color of the LCC - his choice - but the principle remains. For that matter, it applies to other LCC members (such as the incumbent Governor of Florencia).

Ian, it is unacceptable to attack (even implicitly) a provincial Constitution which even Breneir critiqued and tweaked in concert with me. That's call intellectual dishonesty. I am well aware that this particular subject is well outside the bounds of this specific topic, but I bring it up to make a wider point: if the LCC is going to commence its opposition by slinging poo and arguing in bad faith, then it's a pretty poor opposition.

Attacking the FreeDems (and, conversely, attacking the LCC or NPW) is not how we rebuild or improve Talossa.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on August 02, 2020, 08:20:41 PM

Quote from: Açafat del Val on August 02, 2020, 07:59:00 PM
Operative word: these criticisms, not all criticisms. It's not my fault that you extrapolated past the plain language.

[picture]

;D ;)

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on August 02, 2020, 08:12:07 PM
I have been of the opinion for ages that there should be a Clerk of the Ziu whose job would precisely be legal proofreading. I.e. a real "legal janitor". That's the only way to avoid these little snafus but not exclude the vast majority from law and legislating.

I know that this is very off-topic, but I would be eminently interested and qualified to take up this job, and would do it with incredible pride. I like writing "legalese" and can do so without bias (i.e., I would do this job honorably even for political opponents).

Operative word: these criticisms, not all criticisms. It's not my fault that you extrapolated past the plain language.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on August 02, 2020, 07:21:44 PM
I do not feel personally attacked in any way by the suggestion I probably made a mistake.

Neither do I, and these incessant suggestions otherwise are a bit hypocritical. A person is more than capable of, as was said elsewhere, an excellent riposte of a criticism at the same time as not taking personal offense from the same criticism.

I never acknowledged that AD's criticisms were valid; on the contrary, I was suggesting that, if he wishes to complain, he should hopper some bills to correct the errors. "Put up or shut up", as it were.

I have been pretty consistent from the beginning in assessing that this thread was started and continues in bad faith.

An example of bad faith: the constant strawmen and other fallacies. No statement has been raised by me here or elsewhere that criticisms be invalid for being "raised too late", or that late criticisms are inherently disingenuous; that's a hasty, false, and impugning assumption. Again on the contrary, my criticism is instead that it is ridiculous - utterly ridiculous - that a particular person, but several people in general, are critiquing minutiae (or even substantial items, really) without offering alternatives or participating in the process.

This is not the United States, New Zealand, or any other major sovereignty; this is Talossa, and here we have a very low barrier of entry to participate in the political system. Moreover, it is insufficient to hide behind an excuse of "I'm just an average-day citizen" when the critic is, by others' own admission, more than just an average-day citizen.

If Alexandreu Davinescu, Breneir Itravilatx, C. M. Siervicül, or other members of the LCC desire to criticize the efforts of active citizens, then they should put up their own ideas or sit down.

You read that correctly and are more than welcome to hold it against me: If you're not willing to offer an alternative idea, an amendment, or at least a valuable piece of constructive feedback, then you should continue to stay silent.

Aye, and it is self-evidently disingenuous that these criticisms were laid out after the fact when the same critic had access to The Hopper and could well have asked these questions then.

Not to mention-- it passed the Cosa unanimously.

So, when Davinescu says that he won't participate in the process because he doesn't want to be a "legislative janitor", he's not even insulting me personally, although he thinks he did; he is actually insulting all the members of the Ziu who voted for it, such as Breneir Itravilatx and Ian Plätschisch, ultimately saying that they too failed to see the errors.

I see that those two names persons "liked" several posts made in this thread by Davinescu, so I'd like to ask them: How does it feel when Davinescu equates a bill which you voted for, and which the Cosa passed unanimously, to being dirty work that would require him to clean up like a janitor?

Constructive criticism and scrutiny are welcome and invited; smarminess or insincere statements are not. It is counterproductive to engage with or respond to actors of bad faith, and it is entirely reasonable to expect that participants of public discourse should have clean hands.

The amendment in question of this thread stands on its own, even if Davinescu cannot fathom it. As a potential member of our judiciary, I should hope that he can discern it without assistance... although I also am concerned that a person who has an outstanding nomination to the Uppermost Cort would continue to participate in political discussions.

In any case, as a gesture of good faith, I will criticize the very amendment which I wrote: in Section 5 I made a substantial grammatical error and, although the meaning can be figured out within context, it is still an issue which deserves resolution by a future amendment. To wit:

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.

By the way, I did not impugn Davinescu for having never contributed, but for having failed to contribute recently. He speaks often and loudly for someone who refuses to participate meaningfully. Moreover, he compared public service – specifically, being a member of the Ziu – to being a "legislative janitor". That comparison is unfounded and – again – for a potential member of our judiciary, it is grossly unbecoming. A person making such a comparison is deserving neither of respect nor of a seat on any of our Corts.

I will point out that the LCC lacks a majority plurality of voters' support for a reason.

Ah, but there is so much appeal in public service. There is always something to clean up, someone to help, and pride to be had in hard work.

Unless you mean that you are above these things? In which case, I could see why public service might be unfitting for you.

It requires a dedication to something more than crying or whining. Certainly it requires more than the flimsy excuse behind which so much of the LCC seems to hide!

By the way, your statement is unfair to janitors: they do more in service to their employers than you have done for Talossa in years.

I don't know about cool stories, but they are true stories. Is this a dare to attach the email chain as well as link the Google Doc? I have no qualms about disclosing proof that the Governor and the Constable had a chance to remedy this themselves and now one of them has the gumption to pretend it's not his own shared failure.

You'll have a virtual monopoly in the next term. Have at it. Hell, write a new constitution altogether. But don't condescend Florencia with this intellectual dishonesty and passive aggression.

If you had the time to use riposte in a sentence, then you surely have time to write something more constructive and befitting of your office than "cool stories, bro".

These all sound like great opportunities for you to reenter politics and hopper some bills!

It is not difficult at all to accept blame when an error has occurred.

However, I stand by my assessment: the incumbent Secretary of State is being obnoxious. Perhaps he is not an obnoxious character or an obnoxious personality, but his decision in this matter is obnoxious and unduly burdensome. It is not unreasonable on behalf of this province to interpret IX.3, which says in part...

QuoteProvinces may conduct their elections themselves or delegate the conduction of their elections to the Chancery.

...as having the power to compel the Chancery to perform a simple ministerial task of the election.

I would like to point out that the incumbent Governor was invited to, and in fact did, collaborate on the same Constitution which is now posing an issue. The incumbent Constable (and King, for that matter) was invited likewise, but neglected to offer much constructive or substantial feedback. Certainly, if they had foreseen this same issue, then they would have spoken up.

I also point out, perhaps to our collective chagrin, that both the Governor and the Constable have had to be reminded during the previous Nimlet term to perform their provincial duties and, at least in one case, failed completely to do so despite those reminders. Worse: in another case, one of them took offense at having been reminded and informed - not threatened - of a potential lawsuit to compel constitutionally required performance.

One may call it ironic that a person would have been offended by a lawsuit seeking to remedy their own nonfeasance, but would then compliment and condone a malfeasant Secretary of State whose only defense is, "If you don't like it, sue me".

It is extremely pitiful that a lawsuit, whether potential or actual, is the only thing that gets attention in Florencia and produces results.

Mea culpas aren't difficult. I do hope that the named officeholders choose also to accept blame and work to fix their own errors.

I would be very happy to become a fellow; heraldry is very much a skill that I have developed, both blazoning and emblazoning. Are there any rules, regulations, or other stipulations of which I should be aware?

It is for the above reasons, Glüc, that I wish and will be trying to move more activity off Facebok and back onto Witt. A prospective citizen should not have to find or penetrate opaque and publicly unknown Facebook groups just to become active. We need and ought to have a central avenue; it would make immigration, naturalization, and assimilation so very much easier.

For the uninitiated:

QuoteBroosking is the act of recruiting a prospective citizen of Talossa into a particular political party. It is widely regarded as unethical, though it is not illegal. To speak to a prospective citizen about Talossan politics before he or she is granted citizenship, especially in a way that would tend to colour the prospective citizen's opinion about one party or another, is considered to be broosking and is strongly frowned-upon.

In any case, I say to Muhammed and any other prospective citizen: Please reach out if you'd like to be introduced constructively (i.e., without bias) to the various circles of Talossa. I would be more than happy to help, and can do so without poisoning your well to my own political leanings.