|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 22, 2019 17:54:39 GMT -6
It's very good and helpful to analyze the current law as applies here, and it's welcome. But it's not the end of the discussion. How I wish that were true Alex, my initial comment stated my position. You twisted that into an absolutism argument and made some legal assertions. I countered that you were incorrect. You then yelled nazis. It's pretty obvious that I know the conversation continues. To borrow (and beat to death) your metaphor, I'm pointing to a mountain. You're not talking about how to build a tunnel or go around the mountain, or even terraform, you're denying the mountain exists. My point is only-there is mountain. I may think that a road to the otherside is a bad idea, but to get there, you need to solve the problem of the mountain first. You're saying that if we don't build the road through the mountain (which doesn't exist), sharks will attack us from tornados. There. It's all stated. Let's move on. I do indeed doubt your surveying, and I think it would be perfectly permissible to regulate many forms of speech under the organic law. But I think it's kind of a secondary question as to whether or not it's a good idea. If you don't have an opinion or decline to state your position, then I guess it is a good idea for you to move on. Thank you for your legal analysis. Anyway, for everyone else, I maintain my hope that the new Witt's various board admins will continue the tradition of Wittiquette.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 22, 2019 17:58:23 GMT -6
Jesus, what an unbelievably terrible metaphor. I could have gone with any number of things, and I went with a road to Abilene.
Life is full of missed opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 22, 2019 18:07:54 GMT -6
I've already stated my position on the issue, including my position on whether Wittiquette is enforceable. You can doubt my position, but, as I said earlier, you do not know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 22, 2019 18:19:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Iason Bitxichë Taiwos on Nov 23, 2019 20:04:22 GMT -6
Seems like maybe Talossan citizenship is only for rich people who can afford internet. Wait. Maybe I'm missing something massive in the socio-economics of Ohio, but you have friends who literally can't afford any Internet access? Not even on their phones? Where you live, only "rich" people get on the Internet? Is this Ohio or Burkina Faso? Also, please don't do this "maybe... hypothetically..." thing. It sounds passive-aggressive and whiny. If these people exist, I am delighted to hear of it. This is precisely why the current Government started La C'hronicâ. I hope you print that out and give that to them. Maybe I will, maybe I won't. I grew up in southeast Texas, and I hear that passive-aggressive whininess is a personality trait down there. Maybe I have that trait, maybe I don't. As for these clandestine Talossans, that was simply a hypothetical question. Wouldn't that be cool, tho? There are pockets of immense poverty in Ohio. Maybe not Burkina Faso level, but there are areas in Youngstown and Cleveland that are pretty bad. And yes, I am aquatinted with people who don't possess cell phones and don't really have internet access, unless they want to walk to the library. (Here's a joke...what do you call an East Liverpudlian with a reliable car? A cab driver.)
|
|
|
Post by Iason Bitxichë Taiwos on Nov 23, 2019 20:17:25 GMT -6
It also seems, I dunno, kind of arrogant and...I dunno, colonialist and white supremacist to ask if other peoples don't have access to Internet? Maybe some people's don't want this stuff? Are you saying that people who don't have internet shouldn't be able to be Talossan? Fuck, I live paycheck to paycheck. Can barely afford internet access myself
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Nov 23, 2019 20:26:47 GMT -6
Having internet access is white supremacist? W. H. A. T. ?
|
|
|
Post by Iason Bitxichë Taiwos on Nov 23, 2019 20:48:05 GMT -6
Having internet access is white supremacist? W. H. A. T. ? Yeah. Better log off forever, you colonialist white imperialist slave master.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Nov 23, 2019 21:07:55 GMT -6
As for these clandestine Talossans, that was simply a hypothetical question.) So you're being a jerk and accusing people of being racist for no reason, then? Seriously, there were offline Talossans in KR1's era. Those were the people who were reliant entirely on KR1's personal intervention to know what was going on in Talossa. And they were the original "pocket votes", who didn't even want any other Talossans contacting them, and voted "however Ben said". IMHO, yes, since 1995 having an internet connection (or at least being able to check Witt and email on a weekly basis at least) is the bottom line for effective participation in Talossa. And that is just how it is, I don't say it's a good thing. Can I make something plain that was missed in the time we were dealing with RBM's attempted re-entry? You don't need Talossan citizenship to participate in Talossanity. All you need is to know one Talossan who can tell you what's up. Citizenship is only the right to vote and participate in the administration of the state. You can "be Talossan" without it, hypothetically, even if you're literally homeless, as long as you actually keep up with Talossa, somehow. If all you know about Talossa on the other hand is what one Talossan tells you, I don't think you can be considered in a position to become a citizen.
|
|
|
Post by Iason Bitxichë Taiwos on Nov 23, 2019 21:49:08 GMT -6
[/quote]So you're being a jerk and accusing people of being racist for no reason, then?[/quote] Pretty much, yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Audrada Rôibeardét on Nov 24, 2019 9:06:54 GMT -6
I don't want to help run the nation nor do I have any interest in voting. Does that mean I can be Talossan, even if I'm not a citizen?
Where would that leave me? I assume citizenship grants me some , I don't know, protection? But if a person can be Talossan without being a citizen...what does that even mean?! Haha!
Has this ever happened before?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 24, 2019 9:53:50 GMT -6
If you don't want to vote for philosophical or practical reasons, which for you includes ruling out simply voting present, then you have to answer the census. If you fail to vote or answer the census over a period of time, then you will lose your citizenship and be ejected from the nation.
I don't think that exact situation has ever come up, where someone refused to do both but still was an active citizen. We have had people who were sick or deployed in the armed forces, who still wanted to remain citizens, and in such cases they received royal pardons. The king made dispense with any strikes a citizen might have at any time. I feel very certain that his Majesty would oblige you in this circumstance, should you be in danger of losing your citizenship. Alternatively, your MZ could also file a bill on your behalf.
|
|
|
Post by Audrada Rôibeardét on Nov 24, 2019 10:06:22 GMT -6
So an active citizen who refuses to vote/complete the census could (or rather, would) be ejected but a inactive citizen who does vote/complete the census is safe from punishment?
TALOSSA: Where everything is ass backwards.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Nov 24, 2019 10:13:17 GMT -6
So an active citizen who refuses to vote/complete the census could (or rather, would) be ejected but a inactive citizen who does vote/complete the census is safe from punishment? TALOSSA: Where everything is ass backwards. This is true and I do think it's dumb. In all fairness, I do have to know that there has not been a case of anyone ejected from the country unwillingly, so far as we know. There's probably at least a few people who were ejected, came back later, and just didn't bother reapplying. But that would be very much the exception to the usual trend.
|
|
|
Post by Audrada Rôibeardét on Nov 24, 2019 11:59:54 GMT -6
In theory, a Talossan could be a Talossan without being a citizen. At least that seems to be the case.
All citizens are Talossan, non-citizens are not Talossan but a Talossan who has lost/surrendered their citizenship is...a non-citizen Talossan?
I am fascinated by this topic.
|
|