|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Mar 24, 2008 13:44:25 GMT -6
That sweater request is still out there....
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Mar 24, 2008 13:56:33 GMT -6
I thought Mick was just being funny, actually. I laughed, anyway. Oh, I was. I really don't care where Pa is located or in which Province.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2008 14:01:12 GMT -6
I don't think catty responses are mature or necessary in discussion of a Bill that's garnered some support across the board. Dude, mellow out. If you are going to react like this each time one of us makes up a funny bill that sends one of us to Pengöpäts or makes a sarcastic remark you are going to find yourself perpetually irritated.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2008 14:05:20 GMT -6
Well, I'll be uncatty. I think this is another one of those "Let change something that isn't broke" bills. I haven't heard one pip of complaint in the past 18 months decrying how the Provinces were set up, who went where, and how a map should be drawn. Now, all of a sudden, a great travesty is lain about, and we must rush to fix it!! How about asking those that live in the affected areas how THEY feel about the changes, instead of someone living out side the areas drawing new lines, so it fits their interpretation of what should be? Is that better? Not to mention, has the present system resulted in some miscarriage of justice? Do we foresee a time when the present system will result in large numbers of immigrants flocking to our fair Benito while Vuode languishes? This new system is trying to fix a problem that has been completely imagined with few reasons to realistically expect it may become a problem some day down the road. Isn't broken, quit fixin'.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Mar 24, 2008 19:23:15 GMT -6
Well, it's great that laughter is the correct debating response to Bills that are at least semi thought out. It's a great way to encourage Bills that are at least semi thought out, and a sure way to ensure that none of those horrific, ill thought out Bills return, because they weren't funny in the least.
If, in fact, we are using laughter to encourage some members here to present "at least semi-thought-out" Bills as opposed to "horrific, ill thought out" Bills, I'll tell a joke.
Why did the chicken cross the road? All his mates had died in intensive battery farming and he, like a latter day Odyseuss, was returning to his own free range Ithaca, alone and scarred, where only his dog would recognize him. And promptly eat him.
Encouraging?
|
|
EM Vürinalt
Citizen since 12-20-2007
Parletz, am?c, en entrez
Posts: 979
|
Post by EM Vürinalt on Mar 25, 2008 6:39:40 GMT -6
I view this whole "don't fix what isn't broken" thing as a major liability for the lawmaking in Talossa.
The purpose of laws is sometimes to aviod circumstances that could happen or will arise in the future. Countries such as the United States do not wait to change something until the problem is on their doorsteps since they realise that doing something to avoid the problem in the first place will be far less time consuming.
If you look at these laws with this interpretation we are helping Talossa's future as well as our current needs, which will help Talossa grow in both the short term and the long.
~MV
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2008 7:14:24 GMT -6
Ok, and again, what problem are we trying to prevent?
My contention is not that we are taking on a position that is detrimental to Talossa's future, it is that we are inventing problems that realistically will not come up. We are inventing problems that have a very specific cause and addressing that specific cause.
The only thing this will help in the future would be if we began advertising in certain areas. Population of US Cities and States does NOT affect where new immigrants come from. Or, as I said, we should have more than 3 or 4 people from NYC.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Mar 25, 2008 7:39:29 GMT -6
I have to clarify my position (and perhaps others) when I say 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'
This doesn't stem from this particular Act, or any single Act suggested. What it stems from is a spate of Acts that seemingly want to revamp all of the OrgLaws and Statutory Laws of Talossa.
In the past 6 months, we seemingly have been deluged with Acts wanting to address "wrongs" that don't eve exist yet. From mandating the Unionization of Talossan workers, to curtailing the Veto Power of the King, to hamstringing the Office of the Secretary of State. We don't HAVE any workers, this King has NEVER vetoed a bill, and the current SoS doesn't HAVE the powers suggested , that should be curtailed. These are just a few examples of "fixing something that ain't broke".
There at one point was a whole agenda that was attempted to revamp the OrgLaw to facilitate the expediting of a group of people to become citizens to the Kingdom, who they themselves didn't want.
Even recently, a hue and cry was raised that we need to desperately "fix" the tattered and torn OrgLaw. After care discussion, we find that the rush to fix the 'holes' really isn't there, in that there is only one area that is flawed. And everyone (so far) is all for fixing that.
Look at the March Clark. 8 bills were put up for a vote. 3 did pass. Some were turned down, and by surprisingly large margins. Do we want to change? Yes. Do we want to change everything , just because we can? no. Do we want to change things that do need to be changed? Yes.
Do we want to make laws, to fix things that don't even exist, to regulate actions that haven't even occurred, to right wrongs that haven't even been thought of ? No.
What you are seeing, and I do apologize here, is the result of an onslaught of "I have a really good idea to change this, and the legislate that" when no discussion takes place ahead of time of if it's needed. Every time we get a new Citizen, (and we are glad for that) , we get a fresh face ponding on the doors of Witt, suggesting that we change something we have been working on for 28+ years.
Yes, by all means- bring your ideas for change. Bring your suggestions on how to make Talossa better for the future. Understand that it may have been suggested before, and not adopted for a reason. We want the ideas - and we want to progress - but we don't want to be told that everything we have been doing is wrong, and that we have no idea how to handle the future.
==================================
Note: When I say "We" I am really expressing my views , and od not speak for anyone outside the Office of the Chauncery
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Mar 25, 2008 7:53:19 GMT -6
Actually, there's only one citizen from NYC. Me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2008 8:06:02 GMT -6
Only one eh? So basically we need to revamp our entire system so that the provinces cover more equal shares of the US population, and yet, in a city with nearly 9 million people, we have one citizen.
One.
We have one citizen from New York City, the same amount of citizens as from Northeastern Pennsylvania, despite the population of my present area being around 100,000 people and your's being nearly 9,000,000.
So what difference does it make? The populations of US cities does not have a direct impact on immigration, thus realigning these provinces in such a manner serves no purpose.
And as for travel convenience I will say this. Mussolini has a very diverse coverage of states. I will not likely get together with those in Illinois unless I happen to be traveling through that area or vice versa. I have a far greater chance of traveling to meet people in Ohio than I do meeting any future citizens who live in San Marino or Vatican City.
Well, I suppose we better break them off into their own province.
Part of the charm of Talossa is the fact that we transcend the borders established by other nations. We are citizens of Talossa, even if our physical residence is in the US State of Pennsylvania or the US State of Colorado or the wee little nation of San Marino. We do not rely on geographic proximity to survive.
Yes, I will more readily travel to New York or New Jersey to meet with fellow citizens than I would say, Illinois. And, incidentally, I AM traveling to New York in June to see you, Brandon and (hopefully) Viteu. And yet, you are a citizen of Vuode. Us being citizens of the same province has no bearing on with which Talossans we meet. Personally, it doesn't really matter to me.
(Though the opportunity to kick the crap out of our Maestro at air hockey does sound appealing..)
What are we fixing? What exactly is the problem? We have a system in place specifically so that one province does not have a whole bunch of people while another is completely empty. Why are we reinventing the wheel?
People, I am all about change. If there is a problem, not only will I vote to change it, I'll probably draft the legislation myself. But what we have here is an abundance of bills that wish to change everything rapidly. This is not "change for our future" this is "change without regard for our future." Because there are no discussions taking place in Witt prior to this legislation being drafted. There are no open discussions. There is, one day, a bill appearing in the hopper, the idea for which I am hearing for the very first time, and then a battle ensues.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Mar 25, 2008 8:27:26 GMT -6
Us being citizens of the same province has no bearing on with which Talossans we meet. Why not? That's kind of the point of provinces being geographically based. So you're (generally) closer to people in the same province than people in different provinces. There are other considerations, of course, but that's a big one. Because there are no discussions taking place in Witt prior to this legislation being drafted. There are no open discussions. There is, one day, a bill appearing in the hopper, the idea for which I am hearing for the very first time, and then a battle ensues. Dréu did start a discussion in the main forum about the provinces' geographic zones, posting maps of the zones. This specific proposal wasn't discussed there that I recall, but by the time you get to a specific proposal it's no great crime to put it in the Hopper, the purpose of which is discussing specific proposals and refining them. We have a good month to talk it over before the author has to decide whether or not to even Clark it. Then another month for the members of the Ziu to debate and decide how to vote on it.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Mar 25, 2008 8:41:05 GMT -6
The thread in question was/is : talossa.proboards32.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1205768611&page=1There is a general discussion IF the provinces needed to be re-aligned at all, and if so, why. Then some banter about how the Provinces first came about. Then some more banter about the (seeming) explosion of population in Florencia, and the Dandelions. Then some comments again wondering if we really need to change the map. Then, BAM! A Bill shows up in the Hopper, for an Act to redraw the Provinces. There wasn't even 48 hours of discussion on the first thread, before an Act is drawn up and Hoppered.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2008 8:41:53 GMT -6
Us being citizens of the same province has no bearing on with which Talossans we meet. Why not? That's kind of the point of provinces being geographically based. So you're (generally) closer to people in the same province than people in different provinces. There are other considerations, of course, but that's a big one. If that is kind of the point, then closing off provinces to immigration defeats the purpose of the provinces. If Mussolini were to be closed to immigration, say, and shortly thereafter 10 people from the nearby city of Scranton, Pennsylvania decide they wish to become citizens, we are in the same boat. People who literally live across the street from me could easily end up in another province while the people I met in Italy during my service there could already be citizens of Mussolini. While provincial lines are a great way to try to bring folks closer together, it can only work so well. Even with Dreu's proposed changes, there will still be a time when a province (or provinces) will need to be closed to future immigration temporarily because of more people falling into certain provincial categories than others, thus sending us right back to where we started, people across the street from me can end up in Vuode while I'm a citizen of Benito. This plan presupposes a direct correlation between the populations of US Cities and states and Talossan immigration. By saying we need to redistribute Provincial jurisdictions to more equitably distribute US Population centers, we are also saying that areas of high populations are more likely to be the source of new citizens. This claim is unsupported by any study. As I have pointed out, if it were true, then statistically, we should have more citizens from NYC than from towns and cities with populations 100,000 people and below. We do not. As Dreu pointed out, he is the only citizen from NYC, meaning that out of 9,000,000 people, the same number of people decided to become Talossan Citizens as a city of (slightly less than) 100,000 people. And if I succeed in convincing my friend Joe to join, our city (a hamlet compared to New York) will have double the number of Talossan citizens than the City of New York. And, incidentally, if this bill passes, I will be a citizen of Benito while he is a citizen of Vuode. So what did we accomplish? Bupkis.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Mar 25, 2008 8:47:01 GMT -6
If that is kind of the point, then closing off provinces to immigration defeats the purpose of the provinces. Quite right! Like I said, there are other countervailing considerations. The three things that the People to Provinces Acts have tried to balance are: 1. Geographic proximity and contiguity 2. Cultural considerations 3. Proportionality of provincial populations It's hard to make all three of those work together in perfect harmony. The thing with provinces closing to immigration is one of the newer features of the law. I've said before that I think it should be loosened up, giving more weight to factors 1 and 2 and less weight to factor 3.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Mar 25, 2008 8:50:38 GMT -6
Then, BAM! A Bill shows up in the Hopper, for an Act to redraw the Provinces. There wasn't even 48 hours of discussion on the first thread, before an Act is drawn up and Hoppered. Frankly, that's not at all unusual. I don't see a real need for every bill to be discussed extensively on Witt before being discussed extensively in the Hopper. The Hopper was created because bills used to (quite frequently) just show up on the Clark without ever being discussed on Witt! Was the Squirrels in Space Act discussed in the main forum prior to being Hoppered? I don't think so. Nor any number of other recent bills that have passed into law.
|
|