Down with the Catchment Area Reform Act

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

I am Vitxalmour Conductour. I am a citizen of Benito. I oppose the Catchment Area Reform Act.

[Iason Bitxichë Taiwos]

I am Iason Taiwos, Admiral of the Talossan Navy, and head of the Benitian government under Maestro ESB, and I concur with S'reu Conductour.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

Playing cut and paste with an atlas...again...is never going to fix anything.

[Iason Bitxichë Taiwos]

We also want Libya and all of France's wine regions. And Pittsburgh.

[Lüc da Schir]

As much as I disagree with S:r Conductour (playing cut and paste with an atlas is exactly the same action that put us in this mess in the first place), I respect the will of my constituents.

The compromise I would propose to you would be that I abstain on this bill, and if it fails I will propose it again with American catchment areas for all provinces bar Cézembre, which would incidentally fix my colleague Xheraltescu's concerns as well.

It would partly go against the principles of the bill, but the areas in the rest of the world would make a lot more sense (geographically and culturally) than they do now.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

You disagree that playing cut and paste with an atlas again is not the way to fix things because playing cut and paste with an atlas broke things? If it never works then let us keep trying the same thing until it does? That is nonsense.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

The principles of the bill are more broken than the details.

[Lüc da Schir]

So would you support having catchment areas reflect no discernible criteria and being reduced to Senatorial voting clubs, then?

By the way, stating that "since the areas were broken by moving their borders, moving them again is breaking them more" is a level of hot-headed conservatism I had yet to witness around here myself. It's not like trying to fix an overcooked pasta by cooking it more. And the only sloppy fart I'm smelling is the one aimed towards my face and coming from people who are utterly ignoring my efforts to work together to reach a compromise which can work for everyone.

But, alas, it's evident that a surprising number of my constituents prefers to ignore the fact that the bill stayed an entire year in the Hopper, open for contributions from all of them, and that even now that the bill has been Clarked (which would have been Clarked in its current form by someone else even if I wanted to change it according to the map I proposed, ignored, two weeks ago) I am offering to abstain on it and to modify it should it fail, a proposition that has been ignored again.

Unsurprising, but sad nevertheless.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

Hey Lüc, none of your responses have anything to do with anything I've said or think. I've never said, thought, or proposed anything resembling a lack of criteria or conservatism. I just don't believe perpetual Gerrymandering in the land of make-believe has any point, because it will never fix any of the problems it is aimed at. But I suppose since I don't have time to notice everything in a timely matter I should just keep my mouth shut. Wouldn't want to upset you and have you start going off half cocked with ridiculous accusations toward me, might reduce my quite high opinion of you.

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

May 1, 2016 10:34:01 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

So would you support having catchment areas reflect no discernible criteria and being reduced to Senatorial voting clubs, then?

By the way, stating that "since the areas were broken by moving their borders, moving them again is breaking them more" is a level of hot-headed conservatism I had yet to witness around here myself. It's not like trying to fix an overcooked pasta by cooking it more. And the only sloppy fart I'm smelling is the one aimed towards my face and coming from people who are utterly ignoring my efforts to work together to reach a compromise which can work for everyone.

But, alas, it's evident that a surprising number of my constituents prefers to ignore the fact that the bill stayed an entire year in the Hopper, open for contributions from all of them, and that even now that the bill has been Clarked (which would have been Clarked in its current form by someone else even if I wanted to change it according to the map I proposed, ignored, two weeks ago) I am offering to abstain on it and to modify it should it fail, a proposition that has been ignored again.

Unsurprising, but sad nevertheless.

As I see it, the number one important criterion for provincial assignment is to make it as easy as possible for Talossans in this digital age to meet each other in the flesh and talk provincial business. That's what we should strive for, and this bill does that reasonably well.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

Had I noticed sooner that this dead horse was being beaten again, I would have made the suggestion that any new citizen be assigned to the province of the current citizen geographically closest to then, regardless of meaningless real world political boundries. But I didn't notice sooner, so I made my discontent known and got criticized by my elected representative. So good job.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

May 1, 2016 10:52:38 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

May 1, 2016 10:34:01 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

So would you support having catchment areas reflect no discernible criteria and being reduced to Senatorial voting clubs, then?

By the way, stating that "since the areas were broken by moving their borders, moving them again is breaking them more" is a level of hot-headed conservatism I had yet to witness around here myself. It's not like trying to fix an overcooked pasta by cooking it more. And the only sloppy fart I'm smelling is the one aimed towards my face and coming from people who are utterly ignoring my efforts to work together to reach a compromise which can work for everyone.

But, alas, it's evident that a surprising number of my constituents prefers to ignore the fact that the bill stayed an entire year in the Hopper, open for contributions from all of them, and that even now that the bill has been Clarked (which would have been Clarked in its current form by someone else even if I wanted to change it according to the map I proposed, ignored, two weeks ago) I am offering to abstain on it and to modify it should it fail, a proposition that has been ignored again.

Unsurprising, but sad nevertheless.

As I see it, the number one important criterion for provincial assignment is to make it as easy as possible for Talossans in this digital age to meet each other in the flesh and talk provincial business. That's what we should strive for, and this bill does that reasonably well.

No, it doesn't. Not at all.

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

By the way, building the word ignore over and over doesn't make mean "didn't notice until nearly too late to even comment." But I'll give you a pass because I know I get a lot wrong when I'm speaking German and because I know you don't want my kind in your province anyway.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

May 1, 2016 11:05:41 GMT -6 Vitxalmour Conductour said:

By the way, building the word ignore over and over doesn't make mean "didn't notice until nearly too late to even comment." But I'll give you a pass because I know I get a lot wrong when I'm speaking German and because I know you don't want my kind in your province anyway.

I think you’re very, very pretentious, and unbearably unfair to the Senator. He has put a tonne of work into this bill, and even though I am unhappy, and even though I believe that there is much more work to be done, you are dragging this discussion ad hominem — nay, ad absurdum — and I do not appreciate that. Instead of sorely and sorrily criticising, how about coming up with a solution that would please all, or even just you?

[Vitxalmour Conductour]

May 3, 2016 13:09:36 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

May 1, 2016 11:05:41 GMT -6 Vitxalmour Conductour said:

By the way, building the word ignore over and over doesn't make mean "didn't notice until nearly too late to even comment." But I'll give you a pass because I know I get a lot wrong when I'm speaking German and because I know you don't want my kind in your province anyway.

I think you’re very, very pretentious, and unbearably unfair to the Senator. He has put a tonne of work into this bill, and even though I am unhappy, and even though I believe that there is much more work to be done, you are dragging this discussion ad hominem — nay, ad absurdum — and I do not appreciate that. Instead of sorely and sorrily criticising, how about coming up with a solution that would please all, or even just you?

You are ridiculous. I merely stated I opposed the bill and then I was criticized for that. Everything I've said since was a direct response to something said to me. So get some reading comprehension.