What Monarchy Reform do you Want, TNC?

[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, O.Be]

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-GC]

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-GC]

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?

[Sir 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.

[King Txec]

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.

[Sir 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.