Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on January 18, 2023, 01:50:59 PMsome of the FreeDems are blatantly and openly opposed to the monarchy, many it seems are opposed to it in any manner while some seem as if they would support it but ONLY if it was a King (or Queen) who supported their personal views.

I don't think that's right at all. Some FreeDems are republicans like me - I am a consistent anti-monarchist, I would not support myself as Queen. Other FreeDems want a British-style monarchy, where the King never uses his legislative veto. Still others are happy with the current monarchy, but not the current monarch - mainly because of his inactivity, but also because he's inappropriately close to the TNC leadership.

QuoteI think removal should only happen based upon a multi-tier vote that requires AT LEAST 75% of the people, 75% of the Cosa and 75% of the Senate. This would be difficult to achieve and it should be difficult.

But do you see the logical flaw here? That is a higher bar than amending the OrgLaw, even against the King's veto. So you could simply amend the OrgLaw (with 75% of the Cosa, an absolute majority of the Senäts and a majority in referendum) to say "the Throne is vacant" or "someone else is now King" and not have to do all that. BTW, there is a current "impeachment" procedure for the King - OrgLaw II.4 - and the reason I have given is why it is useless.

Quoteif the roles were reversed, and the TNC took control of the elected government they could (and probably would) install a king that supports them. While I agree that the King should be apolitical that is not realistic.

The King should at least be as non-political as the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, although he is a member (and a former leader) of a party, goes out of his way to be politically neutral in his duties. The King should at least do the same. As well as, well, actually doing his duties.

As Senator Plätschisch previously said: if the TNC are really going to argue that the current (barely existent) level of the King's activity is fine, then they really don't think the King is important. The office might as well be empty (yes, you can have a Kingdom without a king and IMHO that would be a much preferable situation to what we have now).

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 18, 2023, 02:05:06 PM

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on January 18, 2023, 01:50:59 PMsome of the FreeDems are blatantly and openly opposed to the monarchy, many it seems are opposed to it in any manner while some seem as if they would support it but ONLY if it was a King (or Queen) who supported their personal views.

I don't think that's right at all. Some FreeDems are republicans like me - I am a consistent anti-monarchist, I would not support myself as Queen. Other FreeDems want a British-style monarchy, where the King never uses his legislative veto. Still others are happy with the current monarchy, but not the current monarch - mainly because of his inactivity, but also because he's inappropriately close to the TNC leadership.

QuoteI think removal should only happen based upon a multi-tier vote that requires AT LEAST 75% of the people, 75% of the Cosa and 75% of the Senate. This would be difficult to achieve and it should be difficult.

But do you see the logical flaw here? That is a higher bar than amending the OrgLaw, even against the King's veto. So you could simply amend the OrgLaw (with 75% of the Cosa, an absolute majority of the Senäts and a majority in referendum) to say "the Throne is vacant" or "someone else is now King" and not have to do all that. BTW, there is a current "impeachment" procedure for the King - OrgLaw II.4 - and the reason I have given is why it is useless.

Quoteif the roles were reversed, and the TNC took control of the elected government they could (and probably would) install a king that supports them. While I agree that the King should be apolitical that is not realistic.

The King should at least be as non-political as the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, although he is a member (and a former leader) of a party, goes out of his way to be politically neutral in his duties. The King should at least do the same. As well as, well, actually doing his duties.

As Senator Plätschisch previously said: if the TNC are really going to argue that the current (barely existent) level of the King's activity is fine, then they really don't think the King is important. The office might as well be empty (yes, you can have a Kingdom without a king and IMHO that would be a much preferable situation to what we have now).

Well then that leads to a simple question...what level of activity would you consider acceptable? and another question would be If the king does or says something within the law and within his power that you disagree with would you automatically start calling for his removal?

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on January 18, 2023, 02:51:26 PMwhat level of activity would you consider acceptable?

Emphasising that this is my personal view only, not a FreeDem platform: my feeling is that the monarchy's main role - if it exists at all - should be cultural. When people say they like the monarchy, I honestly don't think they mean "an unelected person telling me what to do" (unless they're kinky that way, lol); they mean the pomp, the ceremony, the quirkiness, the fanciness. You get me?

Therefore, I think at a minimum, the King has to be one of the most active people in the country, culturally speaking. I would say, at minimum: actively involved in the language; in the College of Arms; in the "Royal Society" (our university); in literature, artwork etc etc. Also, they should act as a promoter of Talossan culture outside Talossa (as the President of Molossia does for his country). King Robert I was a bully and a dictator, but he lived and breathed Talossan culture and quirkiness. I believe he "deserved to be King" in the way that no-one else ever has, but his nasty behaviour and attacks on democracy made that impossible.

I think there has to be a social contract - in return for the deference, the bowing and scraping, the "Your majesty" stuff, the King has to actively build and promote Talossan culture. I should point out that that's also what I would want an elected Head of State to do.  What really gets me is that John is capable of doing all of that. He was once one of the main users and promoters of the Talossan language. It is my honest belief that he's been sulking since his political powers started to be challenged, and that that's unbecoming of his role.

QuoteIf the king does or says something within the law and within his power that you disagree with would you automatically start calling for his removal?

If you're talking to me? I'm a Republican, I want no King at all, I'm the wrong person to ask. But the Free Democrats as a party have only this election moved to saying THE KING MUST GO, after 7 years of inactivity, sulking, and clear partisan bias. You must understand why many FreeDem leaders used to be staunch monarchists. They changed their minds when the King started behaving badly and refused to change.

In European monarchies, the King or Queen has many powers on paper which they simply do not use, because they do not want to start a fight with the democratically elected governments. King Charles III, or as I affectionately call him "Big Ears", has a legislative veto, and if he ever uses it there'll be bloody revolution. So I would say that it's not unreasonable to expect the King never do certain things that he is legally/constitutionally able to do - for the sake of social peace. In Talossa, while I would prefer the King to have no legislative veto, I would accept that he not use it without warning the elected Government / Ziu majority first and trying to reach a compromise.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 18, 2023, 03:27:22 PM

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on January 18, 2023, 02:51:26 PMwhat level of activity would you consider acceptable?

Emphasising that this is my personal view only, not a FreeDem platform: my feeling is that the monarchy's main role - if it exists at all - should be cultural. When people say they like the monarchy, I honestly don't think they mean "an unelected person telling me what to do" (unless they're kinky that way, lol); they mean the pomp, the ceremony, the quirkiness, the fanciness. You get me?

Therefore, I think at a minimum, the King has to be one of the most active people in the country, culturally speaking. I would say, at minimum: actively involved in the language; in the College of Arms; in the "Royal Society" (our university); in literature, artwork etc etc. Also, they should act as a promoter of Talossan culture outside Talossa (as the President of Molossia does for his country). King Robert I was a bully and a dictator, but he lived and breathed Talossan culture and quirkiness. I believe he "deserved to be King" in the way that no-one else ever has, but his nasty behaviour and attacks on democracy made that impossible.

I think there has to be a social contract - in return for the deference, the bowing and scraping, the "Your majesty" stuff, the King has to actively build and promote Talossan culture. I should point out that that's also what I would want an elected Head of State to do.  What really gets me is that John is capable of doing all of that. He was once one of the main users and promoters of the Talossan language. It is my honest belief that he's been sulking since his political powers started to be challenged, and that that's unbecoming of his role.

QuoteIf the king does or says something within the law and within his power that you disagree with would you automatically start calling for his removal?

If you're talking to me? I'm a Republican, I want no King at all, I'm the wrong person to ask. But the Free Democrats as a party have only this election moved to saying THE KING MUST GO, after 7 years of inactivity, sulking, and clear partisan bias. You must understand why many FreeDem leaders used to be staunch monarchists. They changed their minds when the King started behaving badly and refused to change.

In European monarchies, the King or Queen has many powers on paper which they simply do not use, because they do not want to start a fight with the democratically elected governments. King Charles III, or as I affectionately call him "Big Ears", has a legislative veto, and if he ever uses it there'll be bloody revolution. So I would say that it's not unreasonable to expect the King never do certain things that he is legally/constitutionally able to do - for the sake of social peace. In Talossa, while I would prefer the King to have no legislative veto, I would accept that he not use it without warning the elected Government / Ziu majority first and trying to reach a compromise.

Another reason I would never push to be any sort of leader above this level...the Talossan language intimidates the hell out of me...but then my first language intimidates me at times LOL

So I think what truly needs to happen is a discussion involving all concerned parties, all of the political parties and the King to put forth ideas on how the King can be more active, perhaps come to some agreement on just how active he should be, I mean it's confusing to say "we want you to be more active" and then say "don't do this, this, this or that". Perhaps I can take this idea to the leadership of my party and they can approach the King and maybe some sort of civil discussion can be had to make it clear to all concerned what is expected. I think it would also be nice to hear from the King as to why he is not more active. Perhaps personal life issues have strained his time, perhaps he is becoming less enamored with Talossa for various reasons, maybe he just doesn't find it as enjoyable as he once did due to some of the bickering that I witnessed when I first became a citizen (I almost left after my first month), maybe he sees that the general activity level on Witt is not very high, seems to be about a half a dozen active members to me.

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on January 18, 2023, 06:19:23 PMthe Talossan language intimidates the hell out of me

Hey, it's not so bad... it's the main reason I joined, at least.

Tafi, would you be willing to help on a fast phrases sheet with me?  I've been trying to drop in "C'e ______" where I remember, but I bet there are similar other sorts of stuff that would help make the language more immediately legible and less intimidating to folks.  We could do either like a single phrase-sheet, or a more involved "phrase of the week" sort of thing, where we successively introduce little useful bits.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on January 18, 2023, 06:55:47 PM

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on January 18, 2023, 06:19:23 PMthe Talossan language intimidates the hell out of me

Hey, it's not so bad... it's the main reason I joined, at least.

I think it is all of the letters that don't exist on my keyboard that throw me off, I have no idea how to pronounce most of them

could not talossa have some kind of royal non-human manifestation, which would be a titular head of state, sacred symbol, spiritual leader, popular figure, and attractive force? i would recommend a cat. it's already worked once, to quote the classics (cimrman, svěrák & smoljak - play czech heaven [české nebe]). so many problems would it solve, so much of a cuteness would it bring 8)

Quote from: Ián S.G. Txaglh on January 19, 2023, 05:08:53 AMcould not talossa have some kind of royal non-human manifestation, which would be a titular head of state, sacred symbol, spiritual leader, popular figure, and attractive force? i would recommend a cat. it's already worked once, to quote the classics (cimrman, svěrák & smoljak - play czech heaven [české nebe]). so many problems would it solve, so much of a cuteness would it bring 8)

An interesting idea! However the problem is that, sure the "King" may be more active, but the activity will be something along the lines of:

sfk;lghjsdfglheriughsdlfkjhglskhslurhglk gk jlkg hsurhgr gslughr;ggn;fdkhgbd jgrbsrgz;gb za gnba;ehjrt

Quote from: Carlüs Éovart Vilaçafat on January 19, 2023, 08:45:52 AMsfk;lghjsdfglheriughsdlfkjhglskhslurhglk gk jlkg hsurhgr gslughr;ggn;fdkhgbd jgrbsrgz;gb za gnba;ehjrt

new talossan language!

 jgyths  goms wbrt  l p=xmwno úskjwqnx  jszmd

(that wrote our zaerti, nice, mad, six-year-old tortoiseshell cat, whom i would gladly propose as a new talossan princess. she then crawled into my desk paper drawer to worship the feline corner god by tearing down some scrap papers there)

Quote from: Ián S.G. Txaglh on January 19, 2023, 02:48:24 PMjgyths  goms wbrt  l p=xmwno úskjwqnx  jszmd

loijftfrdewsa
(Så bel!)

Quote from: Bråneu Excelsio on January 19, 2023, 03:21:26 PM

Quote from: Ián S.G. Txaglh on January 19, 2023, 02:48:24 PMjgyths  goms wbrt  l p=xmwno úskjwqnx  jszmd

loijftfrdewsa
(Så bel!)

Looks like goddamn Lojban to me :D

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 19, 2023, 03:25:13 PM

Quote from: Bråneu Excelsio on January 19, 2023, 03:21:26 PM

Quote from: Ián S.G. Txaglh on January 19, 2023, 02:48:24 PMjgyths  goms wbrt  l p=xmwno úskjwqnx  jszmd

loijftfrdewsa
(Så bel!)

Looks like goddamn Lojban to me :D

.i mi tugni do
.i la jufspi melbi mi  ;D

Great thread.