"Compromise"

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

AD: "Why won't the FreeDems give us reassurances that they won't just take 55RZ21 and keep going to Republic?"
Me: "We are asking actual monarchist politicians what kind of reassurances *they* would actually accept"
AD: "OMG WHO? GIVE ME THEIR NAMES, THOSE FILTHY TRAITORS!!!"

Because you see, AD doesn't want us to give reassurances that "we won't just keep on going to Republic" which would actually get a majority for the Compromise. He just wants to troll and annoy.

The Free Dems are open to conversations with all monarchist parties - Balançeu, LCC, Dien and I suppose Glüc - as to what reassurances and commitments of reformist/republican goodwill they would need to feel happy voting for the Historic Compromise. If they never will, no how, no way, then that's fine, such discussions are a waste of time.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, it was just a couple of days ago that you were flinging names and abuse, shouting that I was just an outrageous troll for pointing out that there was no real compromise... and now it seems you are trying to negotiate one on behalf of your party leader.  So please forgive me if I find it hard to take your latest noise seriously.

I remember when the 54th Cosa coalition agreement was announced, it included an agreement that the new Government would pass Ian P's Talossa Is Not Wittenberg Act.  Sure enough, it passed.  But as soon as there were the votes in the 55th Cosa -- in the very first Clark! -- the Shark Tank Act was passed.  So whoever's negotiating this secret agreement: I suggest you try to get better terms than "we agree for exactly as long as we must."

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Well, it was just a couple of days ago that you were flinging names and abuse, shouting that I was just an outrageous troll for pointing out that there was no real compromise... and now it seems you are trying to negotiate one on behalf of your party leader.

To be precise:
1) Txoteu is as much involved in these discussions as I am, as I'm sure he'll confirm;
2) you are an outrageous troll.

ETA: seriously? If your next rhetorical move is to tell our partners that we can't be trusted to keep any commitments we make, what is the purpose of asking us to make commitments, except to troll and annoy. This isn't a political argument at all, it's a narrative that "Free Democrats are bad and sneaky and untrustworthy people", and it's the kind of narrative that makes you personally stink in our nostrils.

[GV]

Well, it was just a couple of days ago that you were flinging names and abuse, shouting that I was just an outrageous troll for pointing out that there was no real compromise... and now it seems you are trying to negotiate one on behalf of your party leader.  So please forgive me if I find it hard to take your latest noise seriously.

I remember when the 54th Cosa coalition agreement was announced, it included an agreement that the new Government would pass Ian P's Talossa Is Not Wittenberg Act.  Sure enough, it passed.  But as soon as there were the votes in the 55th Cosa -- in the very first Clark! -- the Shark Tank Act was passed.  So whoever's negotiating this secret agreement: I suggest you try to get better terms than "we agree for exactly as long as we must."

In other words, it's not okay to fix something which is obviously broken?  If we keep this logic, we might as well return to the 1979 Constitution.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

...
I don't know that it's really as simple as "the longer, the more incentive," necessarily. 
...

A statement may be both simple and true: that's (partly) what good science is about. And it's (partly) what good conversation is about, too.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Well, it was just a couple of days ago that you were flinging names and abuse, shouting that I was just an outrageous troll for pointing out that there was no real compromise... and now it seems you are trying to negotiate one on behalf of your party leader.  So please forgive me if I find it hard to take your latest noise seriously.

I remember when the 54th Cosa coalition agreement was announced, it included an agreement that the new Government would pass Ian P's Talossa Is Not Wittenberg Act.  Sure enough, it passed.  But as soon as there were the votes in the 55th Cosa -- in the very first Clark! -- the Shark Tank Act was passed.  So whoever's negotiating this secret agreement: I suggest you try to get better terms than "we agree for exactly as long as we must."

In other words, it's not okay to fix something which is obviously broken?  If we keep this logic, we might as well return to the 1979 Constitution.

Whether or not that Act was "obviously broken" depends on who you ask.

[Ian Plätschisch]

i am by no means conservative, and definitely not that type of spooked conservative who jumps up-and-down when the date on the calendar moves on. what even would be a problem if talossa turns republic? like someone is going to lose hir aristocratic sandbox, no more fancy and empty titles, no dandy CoA-s? or republic would be so unattractive to those new prospective citizens who today stay in lines before the gates of talossa and then when let in, they swirl in social and cultural activity?

This is pretty dismissive of aspects of the Monarchy that some people like a lot. Creating "vivid cultural life" is really hard, and I wouldn't scoff at anything that helps.

talossa rather needs vivid cultural life than vain symbols. or we're going to turn into a dusty museum. don't get me wrong, i love museums, but just as deposits of well-organised artifacts, not a place to live.

People have been saying this for years, but I don't see how getting rid of the Monarchy, or putting its powers under some other body, would help at all. The problem you are diagnosing is not the fault of the Monarchy; rather, of general apathy.

[esbornatfiglheu]

talossa rather needs vivid cultural life than vain symbols. or we're going to turn into a dusty museum. don't get me wrong, i love museums, but just as deposits of well-organised artifacts, not a place to live.

People have been saying this for years, but I don't see how getting rid of the Monarchy, or putting its powers under some other body, would help at all. The problem you are diagnosing is not the fault of the Monarchy; rather, of general apathy.

I wonder about digging to the root of the general apathy.  I'm spitballing here, but it's something I've been chewing over for a while.  I wonder if the monarchy in its current iteration might not be the root of at least some of the apathy that we are experiencing.  If people are joining for courts and kings and whatnot, then the throne needs to be a vital cultural force.  If it's not, we need a way to swap out the occupant in an efficient manner.

What about Knighthoods?  Peerages?  If people are joining for the pomp of royalty, this is what they are joining for.  When one doesn't materialize in short order, they go on their way to become the Hey-Nay-Nay of Sha-na-nah or whatever.  They go to the place that gives them what they want.

I would love to see the peerage system reset itself with every new king, excepting former royal households perhaps.  New Barons and dukes and knights and whatnot.  Talossa is at its most active and interesting when it is in the process of inventing itself.  So maybe that's what we need as a shot in the arm.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

talossa rather needs vivid cultural life than vain symbols. or we're going to turn into a dusty museum. don't get me wrong, i love museums, but just as deposits of well-organised artifacts, not a place to live.

People have been saying this for years, but I don't see how getting rid of the Monarchy, or putting its powers under some other body, would help at all. The problem you are diagnosing is not the fault of the Monarchy; rather, of general apathy.

I wonder about digging to the root of the general apathy.  I'm spitballing here, but it's something I've been chewing over for a while.  I wonder if the monarchy in its current iteration might not be the root of at least some of the apathy that we are experiencing.  If people are joining for courts and kings and whatnot, then the throne needs to be a vital cultural force.  If it's not, we need a way to swap out the occupant in an efficient manner.

What about Knighthoods?  Peerages?  If people are joining for the pomp of royalty, this is what they are joining for.  When one doesn't materialize in short order, they go on their way to become the Hey-Nay-Nay of Sha-na-nah or whatever.  They go to the place that gives them what they want.

I would love to see the peerage system reset itself with every new king, excepting former royal households perhaps.  New Barons and dukes and knights and whatnot.  Talossa is at its most active and interesting when it is in the process of inventing itself.  So maybe that's what we need as a shot in the arm.

I would love to see the Monarch give out more knighthoods and peerages. The UK system gives them to a lot of different people but here in Talossa it is exceedingly rare. I believe that would draw people in. I joined for that reason and I must admit I've been disappointed at the rarity of honors in the past several years. There are people who do a lot for this kingdom and they could be recognized for that.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I wonder if the monarchy in its current iteration might not be the root of at least some of the apathy that we are experiencing.  If people are joining for courts and kings and whatnot, then the throne needs to be a vital cultural force.  If it's not, we need a way to swap out the occupant in an efficient manner.

As I keep saying - the best argument that a life-term monarchy doesn't work is the behaviour of the incumbent, who - by the way - hasn't even spoken to his own Government since he came back from nowhere. Of course, I sure he checks in with his "Privy Councillor", Baron von Head-The-Ball, on a daily basis.

I don't think anyone can defend logically, or on constitutional propriety grounds, the argument that the King should simply ignore the elected Government if they're not of the same political mind with him. But people will make up specious arguments to defend it if they don't like the elected Government and like the King, of course.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

In other words, it's not okay to fix something which is obviously broken?  If we keep this logic, we might as well return to the 1979 Constitution.

Perhaps this illustrates why so many are afraid that next term, it will be honours that are "obviously broken."  I'm not saying you're insincere, but rather that stuff that seems obviously broken to you might be stuff we want to keep!  I mean, perhaps seven years is too long, and the term will get bumped down a bit.  Or perhaps appointments are what need to be fixed, since shouldn't need the president's approval.

Look at the Witt thread.  Ian posted a very reasonable list of reasons why he thought it wasn't broken.  No one even bothered to answer him on the thread.

I don't know who's involved in the secret negotiations.  But whoever it is should be sure they get explicit and firm commitments, made in public.

I wonder about digging to the root of the general apathy.  I'm spitballing here, but it's something I've been chewing over for a while.  I wonder if the monarchy in its current iteration might not be the root of at least some of the apathy that we are experiencing.  If people are joining for courts and kings and whatnot, then the throne needs to be a vital cultural force.

Not speaking of you, but a lot of people have been sneering and mocking a lot of those aspects of the nation for a long time, often referencing the Society for Creative Anachronism by way of comparison.  And while this needn't necessarily be so, most of the people who were heavily involved in those things were fairly interested in monarchy as an institution, and a lot of them have moved on.  There's a lot of reasons for that, though.

I hope that this trend will reverse soon.  I have tried to be open to all sorts of things, even stuff not in my ordinary range of interests, to try to support new initiatives.  (That's why I asked my eldest if she wanted to enter an art contest.)

I'll also point out that knighthoods and peerages are only perceived as meaningful because they are (a) rare, (b) usually given for significant achievements, and (c) connected with an institution that is seen as meaningful.  If we begin giving them out frequently or make them temporary, then I don't believe people will care about them more.  I believe His Majesty does intend to act further in these regards, though and there are several worthy recipients I can imagine in the future.

Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time doing and creating various cultural things in our country, including some very recently, I can say that it's very hard.  There's not much support, either in real terms or even emotional ones, and it can feel like you're shouting into a void.  When I ran a D&D game or when I revamped the Zuavs, there was no infrastructure to support and not a lot of real community at the start.  (Not that other people aren't involved and contributing in an amazing way.)  And I'm not trying to whine about it, since I liked it and it was interesting, but it's hard to keep that up for long without burning out.  That's true about the pseudo-feudal things, too.

I'd like to get the College more active, but there's just so few active people in general, and I can't afford to make another long-term commitment  :(

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I don't know who's involved in the secret negotiations.  But whoever it is should be sure they get explicit and firm commitments, made in public.

Our monarchist interlocutors specifically said there wouldn't be any point making public commitments before the election, but afterwards I hope that'll be possible.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Where did the post go?

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

Where did the post go?

Which post?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I briefly had a post up asking why the whole thing was going to be kept a secret from voters, but I decided that there was no real need to make that point and I should just leave it.