Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 18, 2022, 02:45:13 PM

Quote from: Açafat del Val on March 18, 2022, 02:39:18 PM
Please show me where.

The below quote contains a link to my original comment, which leads nowhere, because it was deleted.

Quote from: Açafat del Val on March 18, 2022, 01:46:43 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil on March 18, 2022, 12:53:49 PM
Actually, I have drafted a constitution that merges the two extant provincial constitutions (as well as a second extra draft, on the feedback from S:reu Tzaracomprada, that takes the initial draft and makes it into a directorate). These drafts lift parts of both the Benitian and Florencian constitutions, sometimes word-for-word, sometimes not. If you would like, I can send you links for either or both.

Yes, please.

I am actually unclear on how to move them which is why they appear to be deleted. This is my first time using moderation. I will need the assistance of, I believe, the Chancery @Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM

I DO NOT appreciate your immediate assumption that I was abusing my authority. But I am not surprised by your behavior.

A good-faith actor would not have attempted to move comments before knowing how to do so. More to the point, a good-faith actor would have noticed that the posts were deleted immediately and spoken up, so as to avoid a presumption of bad faith. A person who isn't trying to squelch critical speech wouldn't be offended, but would recognize that the appearance of bad faith was created. See the difference?

Good-faith actors behaving with clean hands and fair dealing would say, "I am so sorry, I didn't mean to abuse my powers, let me get to this immediately"; a bad-faith actor who is sorry that they got caught would say, "I don't know what I am doing", and then fail to apologize or admit that they committed an actually illegal act.

It looks like we need to add something else to this list:

When the TNC wants to avoid criticism, they literally delete your posts so that no one else can see criticism or dissent.

Do we really want a Seneschal who upends your actual rights to free speech?

Please show me where.

The below quote contains a link to my original comment, which leads nowhere, because it was deleted.

Quote from: Açafat del Val on March 18, 2022, 01:46:43 PM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil on March 18, 2022, 12:53:49 PM
Actually, I have drafted a constitution that merges the two extant provincial constitutions (as well as a second extra draft, on the feedback from S:reu Tzaracomprada, that takes the initial draft and makes it into a directorate). These drafts lift parts of both the Benitian and Florencian constitutions, sometimes word-for-word, sometimes not. If you would like, I can send you links for either or both.

Yes, please.

This is, despite the title, not about our esteemed Secretary of State (that is a genuine compliment), but about Brenier. Please see the below.

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on March 18, 2022, 02:19:46 PM
Hi folks,

This is not a debating chamber. This is the office of the sitting Florencian senator.

Please take continued debate into another thread.

He just deleted an entire string of comments that were critical of him personally, and I find that to be incredibly abusive, not least because it violates my Talossan rights against censorship by the government. A proper form of remedy would have been moving the comments, or locking the thread, or any number of other decisions, other than summarily deleting them.

More to the point, he just chilled my political speech while acting (1) as a Witt moderator and (2) a publicly elected official.

Besides bringing this to public attention, if the comments are not reinstated elsewhere, I will be filing for emergency relief in the Corts. There is an ongoing election, and I am entitled as a matter of Organic right to be heard – however unfavorable to Brenier my comments may be – whenever I may have something political to say against the leader of a major political party.

I made a promise to AD that I'd post this somewhere else, so here I am...

Quote from: Açafat del Val on March 18, 2022, 10:18:10 AM
I have an idea!

   
• Remove the monarchy entirely, and replace it with an elected head of state, not unlike Ireland, Italy, or India? Note that the election may be indirect  ;)
• I see that the FreeDems abandoned this position in favor of compromise. I wonder what the @PdR thinks...

But maybe you meant some promises that are less contentious?

   
• Rewrite the OrgLaw and El Lexhatx, which are both in a terribly sorry state (if we cared about the rule of law, that is).
• Remove the monarchy.
• Make the Ziu unicameral and living.
• Remove the monarchy.
• Expand Witt formally onto Discord, encourage transparent political participation, and discourage private forums.
• 
        
  • (Even though game theory says that violently bitter, toxic, and aggressive partisanship in Talossa is inevitable, I would like to think that we could benefit from some coordination towards a better outcome.)
  • (Honestly, does Talossa as a whole benefit when parties connive and conspire in closed forums? As a matter of law there is nothing to be done about it, because citizens have a general right to free association, but perhaps the Government could use its pulpit to change minds.)
• Remove the monarchy.
• Have a heraldry bonanza! Make some new flags. Make some coats of arms. Add some pizzazz to the website.
• Remove the monarchy.
• Liberalize the law, so that it is more informal and more accessible, and so that greater numbers of citizens may be effective pro se litigants in front of lay judges.
• Remove the monarchy.
• Abolish provinces completely, or make them ceremonial, not unlike English counties.
• Remove the monarchy.
• Revamp the database, so that it is more accessible not only to its users but also its administrators (just ask the @Chancery).
• Remove the monarchy.

How's that for a place to begin brainstorming?  8)

I don't mean to diminish any accomplishments of the incumbent Government – led, no less, by the party to which I am a member – but I was hoping to ask the Justice Ministry specifically, or the Government more generally: What is being done actively or recently, if anything, to reform the bar of Talossa and/or our legal system altogether?

The law should be accessible, but isn't; judges should be more active, but aren't; and if someone wanted to seek justice under Talossan law at this very moment, they wouldn't even know how.

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on March 18, 2022, 01:25:49 PM

Quote from: Açafat del Val on March 18, 2022, 12:57:15 PM
Apparently I had not logged into Witt since January 12, 2021. My god.

Can I make this "the thread" for discussion of reform? I guess I don't care if this thread falls on deaf ears a second time, but maybe I just want someone to scream "put up or shut up" at me so that I have a good excuse to do it anyways.

Please don't derail threads from their intended purposes. Thanks.

As the one who started this thread, it feels reasonable on my part that I should widen its scope and restart efforts of a committee of legal reforms.

Apparently I had not logged into Witt since January 12, 2021. My god.

Can I make this "the thread" for discussion of reform? I guess I don't care if this thread falls on deaf ears a second time, but maybe I just want someone to scream "put up or shut up" at me so that I have a good excuse to do it anyways.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 18, 2022, 12:45:08 PM

Quote from: Açafat del Val on March 18, 2022, 12:25:29 PM
What is the latest news in reform of the bar? Or even the Corts generally? For such a small country as Talossa, our legal code, legal system, and legal everything are embarrassingly labyrinthine, Kafkaesque, and opaque.

I think it's great you're back to Talossa, but in fairness to Miestra, she has been the author of a huge amount of legislation to simplify and reform the way things like the criminal code and a bunch of other parts of the law work.  She incorporated the input of others and worked hard to make it happen, and it really improved things.  It has been a bright point of this Government.  You're coming in really hot and worked-up, but a ton of improvement has already happened, much of it over this past term.

There's more to do, especially with the bar, but credit where it's due.

I don't mean to diminish any accomplishments of the incumbent Government – led, no less, by the party to which I am a member – but I felt it fair to ask for an update on bar reform. The law should be accessible, but isn't; judges should be more active, but aren't; and if someone wanted to seek justice under Talossan law at this very moment, they wouldn't even know how.

What is the latest news in reform of the bar? Or even the Corts generally? For such a small country as Talossa, our legal code, legal system, and legal everything are embarrassingly labyrinthine, Kafkaesque, and opaque.

I am bumping this thread with wanton disregard for general forum etiquette, because this is the hill that I will die on:

We needed to scrap the whole OrgLaw, scrap the entirety of El Lexhatx, and condense both documents down to the important bits, less the pomp and ambiguity.

I have the credentials, and I have proven my grit. I'll keep banging this drum until the rest of Talossa lets me do the thing.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil on March 18, 2022, 12:15:11 PM

Quote from: Açafat del Val on March 18, 2022, 10:25:12 AMCharismatic profile photo there! ;)

May I ask generally what our intended goal of these IDs is, or what purpose they would serve? I like the idea, but unless we have a means to manifest them physically, mail them to citizens, and use them from time to time (not even often), I do not see a cause beyond vanity.

Vanity may be a good cause, to be clear. I wondered only if vanity were the only cause?

As citizens of a nation born as a vanity project, what greater cause could there be for Talossa than vanity? ;)

And in my defense, it beats the heck out of my actual license photo, in part due to the simple fact that Wisconsin prints them in grayscale...

No defense needed. Your passion and skill are recognized and admired.

If vanity be the only cause, then so be it. I merely wondered.

Also, regarding the grayscale: eeewwww. Even Kansas, Missouri, Washington, Florida, and Georgia can print their licenses in color!

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 25, 2022, 02:10:08 PM
I mean, the way the rules are written is that the CRL only has to look at a bill once, no matter how many times it's amended after that. Do people think we should change things so that they have to sign off on the final to-be-Clarked bill?

Very yes.

At some point I will hit an arbitrary deadend and stop reviving old threads today...

I voted against this amendment as a private citizen, and here's why: As we continue to amend the OrgLaw by piecemeal, it is going to become an unruly monstrous spaghetti mess again, which was precisely the thing that we hoped to rectify in 2017.

I recall a somewhat-recent amendment that the Ziu passed, which hoped to clarify some details about Senäts qualifications (the exact details escape me at the moment). No less than King John himself had authored the section and insisted that his intent should trump the plain language, which was extra ironic, because none of us could even agree on what the plain language meant.

Case in point: While the author must have thought that "never less than twice the number of Senators minus one" were clear, I would like to ask which of the following mathematical inequalities is accurate, not to the intent of the author, but to the plain language?

• a ≥ (2n) - 1
• a ≥ (2n - 1)
• a ≥ (2) × (n - 1)

While you're pondering that, I wonder if the following phrases would have been clearer?

• Never fewer than one less than a product of twice the Senators.
• Never fewer than the sum of one less than a product of twice the Senators.
• Never fewer than a product of one less than the number of Senators.*

Unfortunately, "knowing the order of operations" is a woefully insufficient excuse. If that were enough, professional mathematicians would forego the multitude of parentheses that they use in actual proofs and theorems – which is to say that, in some instances, and especially in a constitution (as the OrgLaw is), clarity should trump brevity.

I guess we'll have to file another amendment, or file another lawsuit, in order to determine this question, which is a sad state.

And, if you're reading a tone of sarcasm or bitterness, you'd be correct. I have made this complaint publicly and privately, and perhaps the most telling response that I got was: "This is democracy, so get used to it."

Woe unto me for wanting clear, concise, and complete laws so that justice is not perverted, needless lawsuits are avoided, and our Government can accomplish its duties without being bogged down by painfully ambiguous constitutional amendments.

*Edit: See how dangerous it is to introduce maths to a constitution? Even while trying to be careful, I made a mistake. I need to amend (pun intended) the third statement to read: "Never fewer than a product equal to twice the sum of one less than the number of Senators".

May the monarchy of Talossa be ended forever!