We Brought Up Monarchy Reform Several Times, AD

[Ian Plätschisch]

So once again I ask, what more could we have done?

Well, asking more than once would have been a good start.

Why do you keep saying this when it has been pointed out to you over and over that it isn't true? I found the following four quotes in less than 15 minutes of searching for them (edited for brevity):

Monarchy reform is possible if the TNC and FreeDems agree on one. The ball is therefore now in the TNC court.
It should be abundantly clear what I expect to happen from here: that no proposal will come, because the TNC is almost entirely composed of conservative monarchists who will never support any monarchy reform ever ever ever, and the TNC's 50 word statement was disingenuous. But I allow for the possibility of pleasant surprise.

The TNC's 50-word statement claims that they want to "work with King John to implement monarchical reform." I don't see how they can claim this with a straight face:

• S:reu Breneir Tzaracomprada entered the last government promising to support monarchical reform, then promptly reversed himself and offered no explanation
• Sir Alexandreu Davinescu has opposed pretty much all monarchical reform in the past seven years
• King John has vetoed pretty much all monarchical reform in the past seven years

So what reform do they want, exactly?[/b]

The point of resubmitting the bill is precisely to force the TNC to vote against it - to show, in action, what their actions in the last Cosă also showed, that they don't really mean it about monarchy reform.

Some may have forgotten that the Senator from Florencia ran in the previous election explicitly in support of this kind of compromise - then did a 180-degree-turn for reasons that he has never explained, except with personal abuse. It's best for that to be kept in people's minds.

Not a good sign here. Voters sent a message for change and the first thing the potential next government proposes is a twice-failed bill and that is now even more sure of failure a third time.

Huh?

The bill is not twice-failed, it is once-vetoed. Also, given that the TNC actually put Monarchy reform in their 50-word statement, your voters might now want to know what you have in mind. If the current proposal is not to your liking, you can vote it down and propose something else.

I also sent the TNC leader a private message asking him his stance on Monarchy reform, which was ignored (even though I know he saw it).

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I've already noted Miestra's "challenge," but sidelong references to "you should offer your own bill" are pretty thin gruel to be offering here!  If you're going to go to some crazy length like posing demands and threatening to vote against all legislation on any topic, then what we're seeing here is not the start of a policy discussion.  Maybe technically this does mean you didn't just "mention it once," but your problem here is that your method is so extreme and churlish that this just doesn't match up with good-faith efforts to actually engage on this issue.  We weren't even into the first Clark and you start demanding engagement and slinging threats, based on the fact that we didn't roll out a bill in the middle of the campaign in response to campaign debate?

You guys care about forcing a conversation on your terms enough that you're willing to kill everything else and any hope of cooperation dead.  And that's fine, but this approach is just ridiculous, and it's going to hurt the country.  I also happen to think it's going to look really bad for your party.  But even if the voters punish you for it, there's going to be collateral damage in the meantime, and that's unfortunate for us all after these disastrous years of Free Democratic leadership.  Plus you've killed chances of actually discussing this collaboratively for the time being, since we are not going to engage on this issue under duress.

Please mark this down for the future: if you try to use threats to get what you want, it's going to blow up in your face 100% of the time.  We're not going to reward it, since you'll just be back next week with another demand.  You openly defected from the Prisoner's Dilemma first, and there's only one sane response.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I also love this post title.

"Yes, we're vowing to indefinitely block all bills on all topics from you, no matter how necessary for the country, but we did bring the topic up a whole several times.  So, y'know, what choice was there aside from insane threats?"

I will happily modify my statements in the future that you began by mentioning it "several times."  Talk about missing the forest for the trees!

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

sophisma (in that good ol'greek meaning aka σόφισμα), dear baron, is not going to bring us anything, but let your yes be yes, and your no, no.

i want, not, i demand the TNC comes forward with what they want for a monarchy in talossa. tricky statements, tomfoolery, pallaksch pallaksch and other evasive maneuvres aside. cos you do not even have the two to say you are against any reform of monarchy, you just hide as hrafnasueltar behind the vetoing king.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

sophisma (in that good ol'greek meaning aka σόφισμα), dear baron, is not going to bring us anything, but let your yes be yes, and your no, no.

i want, not, i demand the TNC comes forward with what they want for a monarchy in talossa. tricky statements, tomfoolery, pallaksch pallaksch and other evasive maneuvres aside. cos you do not even have the two to say you are against any reform of monarchy, you just hide as hrafnasueltar behind the vetoing king.

We can't have a productive conversation about this issue under duress.  We will not comply with threats.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Maybe technically this does mean you didn't just "mention it once," but your problem here is that your method is so extreme and churlish that this just doesn't match up with good-faith efforts to actually engage on this issue.  We weren't even into the first Clark and you start demanding engagement and slinging threats, based on the fact that we didn't roll out a bill in the middle of the campaign in response to campaign debate?

All of our previous attempts to get you to engage on this issue resulted in being ignored; at least this time you had to respond (if only with indignation). As I keep saying, this method is not "extreme," we are requiring you to take five minutes to do something you have promised to do. Also, as I keep saying, the logical connection between this action and future threats is non-existent.

You keep on making assertions as though we have not debunked them many times over. I see now why you are so frustrating to so many people.

It's obvious at this point that the TNC was never going to propose any reform and is going to use "wE wIlL nOt CoMpLy WiTh ThReAtS" as cover to try to save themselves from admitting it.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

As I keep saying, this method is not "extreme," we are requiring you to take five minutes to do something you have promised to do.

You seem to be confusing "method" with "goal."  The method you have chosen is to threaten to indefinitely block all legislation, no matter what topic and no matter how necessary.  If you don't think that's extreme, then I'd suggest that you might need to step back a bit and re-assess the situation.

Also, as I keep saying, the logical connection between this action and future threats is non-existent.

Yes, you keep saying that, but there's no reason to think that's true.  If you find painless success this time, why wouldn't you do it next week or next month with some other demand?

That's the problem with threats: if you reward someone for making them, they're going to do it again.  And that's why we will not comply under duress.  The same goes for any future threats you and yours might consider.

It's obvious at this point that the TNC was never going to propose any reform and is going to use "wE wIlL nOt CoMpLy WiTh ThReAtS" as cover to try to save themselves from admitting it.

I'd think that past experience with Breneir and his reaction to threats would have sufficed to establish that we're serious.  All future threats will be met with the same abject refusal.

[Ián S.G. Txaglh]

sophisma (in that good ol'greek meaning aka σόφισμα), dear baron, is not going to bring us anything, but let your yes be yes, and your no, no.

i want, not, i demand the TNC comes forward with what they want for a monarchy in talossa. tricky statements, tomfoolery, pallaksch pallaksch and other evasive maneuvres aside. cos you do not even have the two to say you are against any reform of monarchy, you just hide as hrafnasueltar behind the vetoing king.

We can't have a productive conversation about this issue under duress.  We will not comply with threats.

::) so predictable, so pointless...

[Ian Plätschisch]

And that's why we will not comply under duress.

Every time you say this, you admit that the TNC is so wimpy that they would rather betray their own voters by not putting forward the proposal they promised than face one iota of pressure from the Free Democrats.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The problem is that the TNC have put themselves in a cleft stick. I'm willing to believe that Senator Tzaracomprada does, or at least at one point did, support monarchy reform of some sort. But overwhelmingly the active members of the TNC want no monarchy reform at all. Or if they do, they want to turn back the clock and give the King more powers and less accountability. So the only way to keep their large voter base together is to keep quiet about the whole thing and hope we all forget about it.

If the TNC ever actually take a position on monarchy reform, it will split their party, possibly fatally. So bluster, indignation, and victimhood-mongering are the response. "To distract yiz", in the words of Jimmy Rabbitte Sr.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

And that's why we will not comply under duress.

Every time you say this, you admit that the TNC is so wimpy that they would rather betray their own voters by not putting forward the proposal they promised than face one iota of pressure from the Free Democrats.

Listen, I'm sorry you guys got yourself into this pickle.  I am surprised you thought threats would work, but it happened, and here we are.  But I'm sorry... there's just no amount of childish name-calling that's going to get us to give in to your threat.  You can call us wimpy or even wusses, and it's still not going to work.  Since we're not seven years old.

The problem is that the TNC have put themselves in a cleft stick. I'm willing to believe that Senator Tzaracomprada does, or at least at one point did, support monarchy reform of some sort. But overwhelmingly the active members of the TNC want no monarchy reform at all. Or if they do, they want to turn back the clock and give the King more powers and less accountability. So the only way to keep their large voter base together is to keep quiet about the whole thing and hope we all forget about it.

If the TNC ever actually take a position on monarchy reform, it will split their party, possibly fatally. So bluster, indignation, and victimhood-mongering are the response. "To distract yiz", in the words of Jimmy Rabbitte Sr.

So your considered position is that we are desperate to keep things quiet, and so we've pledged to loudly and indefinitely defy a public legislative blockade?

You must be the tactical mastermind behind this plan.

[Ian Plätschisch]

We're not in a pickle. We're prepared to keep this going for as long as the TNC isn't forthcoming about their platform. Trust us, anyone who knows the TNC personnel knew this wouldn't be quick  :P

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

So your considered position is that we are desperate to keep things quiet, and so we've pledged to loudly and indefinitely attempt to change the subject so as to avoid talking, at all costs, about what our proposals for monarchical reform are?

Fixed that for ya.