What Monarchy Reform do you Want, TNC?

[Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir]

That seems like a willful misinterpretation of a fairly clear statement from Breneir:  There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress.  You can save yourself the time and trouble of writing any threatening speeches, since the answer will always be a clear "no."  I support Breneir on this 100%: if we reward a tantrum like this now -- before the first Clark! -- then you'll be back with a different threat next week: "Support our next bill or we'll vote down all of yours, regardless of merit."

All we are doing here is pressing you to fulfill your own campaign promise. You can end this immediately without giving anything up; this is what you said you wanted!

This will only continue for as long as you persist in your dishonesty. It's becoming increasingly clear that the TNC's desire for monarchy reform was a lark. If that's true, just admit it and we can get on with our lives.

The words below still express the resolve of TNC members:
There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress.

I mean no disrespect to you Breneir, however I am not exactly sure where you got the idea that we were asking for cooperation from yourselves, all we have asked, is that you state a position on something you had promised to do, so we know if you were serious about that or not, seeking clarification from yourselves is far far away from seeking cooperation, and as i have asked in https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1480.0  to your party, if when we tried to be civil, and got radio silence, then what choices were we left with to know what your position is?
To know more of my views, i recommend reading the thread, but yeah, on the point of cooperation on this issue, i do believe you have miscalculated what was being asked of you.

But yeah, all that we have asked is your position to be put forward, in the ONLY way we could get your attention, and a response of any kind, it is sad it has come to this, however, this was the last option we had to seek clarity from yourselves. If you had engaged with us, named your position before this, and not stonewalled our attempts in the election for discourse, then this would never have happened. We are not innocent in this, however the hands of the TNC aren't clean in this either.

[Ian Plätschisch]

That seems like a willful misinterpretation of a fairly clear statement from Breneir:  There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress.  You can save yourself the time and trouble of writing any threatening speeches, since the answer will always be a clear "no."  I support Breneir on this 100%: if we reward a tantrum like this now -- before the first Clark! -- then you'll be back with a different threat next week: "Support our next bill or we'll vote down all of yours, regardless of merit."

All we are doing here is pressing you to fulfill your own campaign promise. You can end this immediately without giving anything up; this is what you said you wanted!

This will only continue for as long as you persist in your dishonesty. It's becoming increasingly clear that the TNC's desire for monarchy reform was a lark. If that's true, just admit it and we can get on with our lives.

The words below still express the resolve of TNC members:
There will be no cooperation with the FreeDems or the PdR on this issue under duress.

There was no cooperation with the FreeDems on this issue not under duress either.

Also, the TNC isn't exactly covering itself in glory by acting like it is under "duress." We are asking that you take five minutes to do something that you are already under an obligation to your voters to do. The TNC is facing not a whiff of adversity.

I would firmly agree that the threat of voting against all legislation, no matter the merit, indefinitely, is also indeed an overreaction completely incommensurate with the situation. Doing something like "possibly posting more than once about it" before escalating to this absurdity would definitely have made more sense. But you have made your bed and now you have to lie in it.

I know that we in fact posed the Monarchy question to the TNC several times.

The TNC's behavior reminds me of this XKCD comic:

The reasonable response to someone telling you do something which you are already under an obligation to do is to do the thing, not moan and groan.

You keep saying that if you reveal your plans for Monarchy reform now, we will just come back with more demands later. However, this is clearly ridiculous. The TNC does not have to compromise one inch of their platform (as I keep saying, the TNC has already promised their voters they would do what we are demanding), nor spend more than five minutes on this. The logical connection between the current situation and the sorts of future demands you are expecting is non-existant.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

however, this was the last option we had to seek clarity from yourselves.

Really?  Because I think "doing literally anything beyond asking once where no one saw it" might have also been an option.

It seems kind of silly to me to claim that the Government was left with no choice.  I admire the simplicity of the two-step process, though:

   
• Ask about something once.
• Escalate immediately to demanding an answer on your own terms by way of threatening to block all legislation, no matter the topic or need, indefinitely, unless your demands are met.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

You keep saying that if you reveal your plans for Monarchy reform now, we will just come back with more demands later. However, this is clearly ridiculous.

A few days ago, I would have said it was ridiculous that the entire Government would threaten to block all bills from the Opposition, no matter how necessary they might be, until their demands were met... on the basis of a question that they didn't even both to repeat when no one saw it.  Yet here we are.

Our policy is very simple and our leader stated it very clearly: we will not engage on this topic under duress.  If in the future you find yourself inclined to make threats about this or any other topic, save yourself the time and mark us down for defiance right now.

[Ian Plätschisch]

however, this was the last option we had to seek clarity from yourselves.

Really?  Because I think "doing literally anything beyond asking once where no one saw it" might have also been an option.

It seems kind of silly to me to claim that the Government was left with no choice.  I admire the simplicity of the two-step process, though:

   
• Ask about something once.
• Escalate immediately to demanding an answer on your own terms by way of threatening to block all legislation, no matter the topic or need, indefinitely, unless your demands are met.

We asked about it several times.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

however, this was the last option we had to seek clarity from yourselves.

Really?  Because I think "doing literally anything beyond asking once where no one saw it" might have also been an option.

It seems kind of silly to me to claim that the Government was left with no choice.  I admire the simplicity of the two-step process, though:

   
• Ask about something once.
• Escalate immediately to demanding an answer on your own terms by way of threatening to block all legislation, no matter the topic or need, indefinitely, unless your demands are met.

We asked about it several times.

I am aware of one time the question was asked, and I remember at some point after the election Dama Miestra said she was challenging the TNC to produce a bill on the topic.  I've had discussions with a couple people of what that might look like.  But let me be clear: your absurd threats will not produce one iota of results, now.  We will not engage in anything under duress.

In game theory terms, you defected first from the Prisoner's Dilemma.  You'll do it again if you get away with it, just as often as you think threats will work.  So we will not agree to anything under duress, now or in the future.

[Mic’haglh Autófil, SMC EiP]

I am aware of one time the question was asked, and I remember at some point after the election Dama Miestra said she was challenging the TNC to produce a bill on the topic.  I've had discussions with a couple people of what that might look like.  But let me be clear: your absurd threats will not produce one iota of results, now.  We will not engage in anything under duress.

In game theory terms, you defected first from the Prisoner's Dilemma.  You'll do it again if you get away with it, just as often as you think threats will work.  So we will not agree to anything under duress, now or in the future.

At least speaking personally -- as someone whose confidence the Government must maintain, might I add -- I would think attempting this tactic more than once to be overplaying one's hand. Of course, as far as I'm concerned, if the discussions you mentioned bear any fruit, bringing that fruit to the public (or declaring the fruit to be nonexistent :P ) would likely satisfy my desire to know where you stand on which reforms -- what options I have as an MC to float ideas that actually have a chance at compromise, and which ones are DOA.

[xpb]

It is all well and good for anyone to propose changes that a supermajority can agree to in the way the Kingdom functions.  It is another matter to propose changes that would in the opinion of some to be an improvement, while that in the opinion of others is a radical change from one form of government to another entirely. 

And yet, in the face of a stable opposition where one party polled at a level greater than any other single party (at 39% of the whole), a coalition of other parties seeks to achieve changes that the current law of the land does not support based upon that opposition.  Ad hominem attacks seek to deflect away from this core concept.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

It is all well and good for anyone to propose changes that a supermajority can agree to in the way the Kingdom functions.  It is another matter to propose changes that would in the opinion of some to be an improvement, while that in the opinion of others is a radical change from one form of government to another entirely. 

And yet, in the face of a stable opposition where one party polled at a level greater than any other single party (at 39% of the whole), a coalition of other parties seeks to achieve changes that the current law of the land does not support based upon that opposition.  Ad hominem attacks seek to deflect away from this core concept.

... I've read this post over and over again and I can't actually work out what it means.

Can the author - a TNC MC - say what he thinks would be a good monarchy reform? "None" is an acceptable answer, and indeed the one I'm expecting.

[xpb]

It is all well and good for anyone to propose changes that a supermajority can agree to in the way the Kingdom functions.  It is another matter to propose changes that would in the opinion of some to be an improvement, while that in the opinion of others is a radical change from one form of government to another entirely. 

And yet, in the face of a stable opposition where one party polled at a level greater than any other single party (at 39% of the whole), a coalition of other parties seeks to achieve changes that the current law of the land does not support based upon that opposition.  Ad hominem attacks seek to deflect away from this core concept.

... I've read this post over and over again and I can't actually work out what it means.

Can the author - a TNC MC - say what he thinks would be a good monarchy reform? "None" is an acceptable answer, and indeed the one I'm expecting.

I believe there are some good technical elements to reform of how a convocation would be conducted, however, that would need to happen only at a time of the demise, abdication, or removal from the throne of the monarch, not as a scheduled event.

When the King has "reigned for at least seven years since the previous Convocation" remains a fundamental change from monarchy to a republican form of government, as the word King in that case is changed in meaning to be equivalent with President or Chief Executive or similar.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Ah, so what you want is the Convocation model but not the time-limiting model. That's an interesting start, and perhaps a bit surprising - I would have expected you to want the hereditary model back?

[Ian Plätschisch]

It is all well and good for anyone to propose changes that a supermajority can agree to in the way the Kingdom functions.  It is another matter to propose changes that would in the opinion of some to be an improvement, while that in the opinion of others is a radical change from one form of government to another entirely. 

And yet, in the face of a stable opposition where one party polled at a level greater than any other single party (at 39% of the whole), a coalition of other parties seeks to achieve changes that the current law of the land does not support based upon that opposition.  Ad hominem attacks seek to deflect away from this core concept.

... I've read this post over and over again and I can't actually work out what it means.

Can the author - a TNC MC - say what he thinks would be a good monarchy reform? "None" is an acceptable answer, and indeed the one I'm expecting.

I believe there are some good technical elements to reform of how a convocation would be conducted, however, that would need to happen only at a time of the demise, abdication, or removal from the throne of the monarch, not as a scheduled event.

When the King has "reigned for at least seven years since the previous Convocation" remains a fundamental change from monarchy to a republican form of government, as the word King in that case is changed in meaning to be equivalent with President or Chief Executive or similar.

Can this be taken to be an official TNC position? If so, the boycott can end.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

It is all well and good for anyone to propose changes that a supermajority can agree to in the way the Kingdom functions.  It is another matter to propose changes that would in the opinion of some to be an improvement, while that in the opinion of others is a radical change from one form of government to another entirely. 

And yet, in the face of a stable opposition where one party polled at a level greater than any other single party (at 39% of the whole), a coalition of other parties seeks to achieve changes that the current law of the land does not support based upon that opposition.  Ad hominem attacks seek to deflect away from this core concept.

... I've read this post over and over again and I can't actually work out what it means.

Can the author - a TNC MC - say what he thinks would be a good monarchy reform? "None" is an acceptable answer, and indeed the one I'm expecting.

I believe there are some good technical elements to reform of how a convocation would be conducted, however, that would need to happen only at a time of the demise, abdication, or removal from the throne of the monarch, not as a scheduled event.

When the King has "reigned for at least seven years since the previous Convocation" remains a fundamental change from monarchy to a republican form of government, as the word King in that case is changed in meaning to be equivalent with President or Chief Executive or similar.

Can this be taken to be an official TNC position? If so, the boycott can end.

I won't take anything they say as official unless it comes from their leadership.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Just a reminder to everyone why this unpleasantness has to continue:
-The TNC campaigned on Monarchy reform but is still yet to produce any actual proposal.
-The FreeDems asked the TNC several times what Monarchy reform it had in mind. It was clear that further questions would be met with silence.
-The FreeDems are making the TNC fulfill its commitment to their own voters. The TNC has responded to our very reasonable request with howling and bloviating.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, no.  You're insisting that the unpleasantness continue because your demands have not been met.  You could simply... you know, stop doing that?  And please don't make any future demands under threat, since you will find the same reply.

I mean, it's kind of turning into a bit of a farce anyway, since now you're proposing TNC bills under your own name.