|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 18, 2018 13:32:27 GMT -6
Ok, well, I give up. More than a month spent waiting to improve an entire branch of the prospective government, not a single other person looking critically at the proposed new constitution... this just isn't being taken seriously. I'm not going to waste my time. Good luck. As promised, a new draft, taking into account some of your suggestions, is nearly complete. You are raising many points and it is hard for me to remember them all. Can you propose amendments to fix each problem you see individually? That way it would be easier to keep track of and debate them all. To the extent that you have already done this, thank you. Thank you, but I am sure you guys will do a fine job. I don't see much merit to this process. I tried to improve this thing -- I really, really tried (for weeks!), as anyone can see from looking at this forum. But it was always going to be hard going, when so much was intended to be fait accompli. Best of luck.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 18, 2018 14:10:27 GMT -6
As promised, a new draft, taking into account some of your suggestions, is nearly complete. You are raising many points and it is hard for me to remember them all. Can you propose amendments to fix each problem you see individually? That way it would be easier to keep track of and debate them all. To the extent that you have already done this, thank you. Thank you, but I am sure you guys will do a fine job. I don't see much merit to this process. I tried to improve this thing -- I really, really tried (for weeks!), as anyone can see from looking at this forum. But it was always going to be hard going, when so much was intended to be fait accompli. Best of luck. Yes, you proposed many changes, and I acknowledged them as soon as I could. Are you giving up just as I made my most serious effort to work with you? Also does this mean you are going to start working on BT again?
|
|
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 Dec 18, 2018 15:22:05 GMT -6
The only thing I was ever prepared to die in a ditch over was there will be a draft of a completely new OrgLaw submitted to the last Clark of this Cosa, and the Convocation will debate and amend the Seneschál's draft to make sure it has the greatest chance of passing. If some people would never vote for a complete new OrgLaw (only to amendments to the 1997 one), then perhaps their help was not needed.
If despite our best efforts it doesn't pass, and we have to trash the process and be content with amendments in the next Cosa - or perhaps start from scratch - fine. La lucia continua.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 18, 2018 15:50:48 GMT -6
The only thing I was ever prepared to die in a ditch over was there will be a draft of a completely new OrgLaw submitted to the last Clark of this Cosa, and the Convocation will debate and amend the Seneschál's draft to make sure it has the greatest chance of passing. If some people would never vote for a complete new OrgLaw (only to amendments to the 1997 one), then perhaps their help was not needed. If despite our best efforts it doesn't pass, and we have to trash the process and be content with amendments in the next Cosa - or perhaps start from scratch - fine. La lucia continua. Ok
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Dec 18, 2018 17:18:42 GMT -6
I'd understand your comments more if you had submitted a single amendment, AD. You've raised a ton of issues, but - correct me if I'm wrong - you didn't ever attempt to fix them following the process that was laid out by the Ziu. Is it because you think the Government's draft is the Government's problem, or what? Help me understand, because I'm not in the Government, yet I've gone through the proper steps (and I intend to submit more amendments in January, possibly) instead of trashing the whole thing a priori. On the contrary, by submitting your alternate "mega-amendment", it seems like you never intended to help fix the problems you saw in the draft at all. That doesn't seem particularly efficient, politically speaking, but what do I know.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 18, 2018 18:16:05 GMT -6
I'd understand your comments more if you had submitted a single amendment, AD. You've raised a ton of issues, but - correct me if I'm wrong - you didn't ever attempt to fix them following the process that was laid out by the Ziu. You are incorrect. I proposed formal language in a couple of instances. But it rapidly became clear from discussions that the government hadn't really thought this through or prepared for this whole initiative. It's only going to be three people, maybe four, usefully contributing to this thing. And they don't seem to care even slightly. I have seen literally zero - let that sink in, literally zero - efforts to draw attention to or promote this initiative after it was first begun. This is ostensibly an effort to redraw the entire constitution, scheduled at a breakneck pace, and yet it's going almost unremarked. No one can fairly accuse me of not trying. I drafted alternate language for some provisions, and I pointed out literally dozens of serious problems, some of which were systemic and many of which were substantive. I realize that they piled up and that I didn't draft new language to solve all the problems, but that's also kind of a factor of the sponsor of the bill and its author both being largely missing for a couple of weeks. So, respectfully, I decline to participate further. I will continue to check in at intervals, and any other good ideas that might be usefully salvaged, I will make sure that well written and actionable language makes its way into my amendment or a series of amendments. So then I cannot be accused of sabotage or some other insanity, since apparently weeks of continuous commentary and text based feedback weren't enough, I will be sure to include a clause in my amendment that states that it will not take effect if this thing passes instead. Have a good one.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 18, 2018 19:27:55 GMT -6
As promised, a new draft, taking into account some of your suggestions, is nearly complete. You are raising many points and it is hard for me to remember them all. Can you propose amendments to fix each problem you see individually? That way it would be easier to keep track of and debate them all. To the extent that you have already done this, thank you. Thank you, but I am sure you guys will do a fine job. I don't see much merit to this process. I tried to improve this thing -- I really, really tried (for weeks!), as anyone can see from looking at this forum. But it was always going to be hard going, when so much was intended to be fait accompli. Best of luck. People get busy with personal lives. In fact, you were absent for quite an extended period of time during which the UC became more active, and then you relied on your very inactivity as a basis to try to intervene notwithstanding the extended period the UC offered for public commentary. Nobody questioned the reason for your absence. I raise this to make this very point - I find it highly arrogant of you to throw your hands up now. The Cort offered literal months for the public to comment on the ESB matter, and you did not do so in a timely fashion because of your own choice to take a leave of absence from Talossa. Nobody questioned why you were gone - we accepted it as part of Talossa. But you came back and made a huge deal, accusing the Cort and me of silencing an opposing position while ignoring your own culpability. In essence, not only were you asking the Cort to set a special rule for Sir Davinescu, which is quite evident a personality trait of yours and something to which you think you're entitled, but you never even bothered to offer a reason why the months long absence was justified as to permit an untimely submission. Now, I took an absence, unintended but it's what occurred, for personal reasons. I have not come back and demanded that you all undo the work that has been done during my hiatus. In fact, I've been reading through posts and looking at the rules to figure out the procedure by which I can contribute. But now that people are returning and becoming active, you are not even affording them an iota of courtesy that, simply put, personal life issues come up. Not to mention,they're not even remotely making the privileged demands that you made in the aforementioned circumstance. This speaks volume that, as stated, you think you are entitled to a separate set of rules than the rest of us. Davinescu, throw your hands in the air because we can't accommodate your schedule. That's your prerogative. But don't you ever assume that your time is more valuable than any other Talossans, because that is exactly what you are doing. Shame on you.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 18, 2018 21:03:00 GMT -6
On the contrary, you are not entitled to my views or my assistance in this matter. I do not owe you aught. I tried to help with a month of close reading and argument because I thought it would help the country, and I no longer believe that. I think it harmful.
I have not inquired as to why you were absent. I am sure it was a very good reason. The fact that everything ground to a halt for a month doesn't speak to you... but it does speak to the proposal.
Best of luck.
|
|
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 Dec 18, 2018 22:05:01 GMT -6
On the contrary, you are not entitled to my views or my assistance in this matter. I do not owe you aught. I tried to help with a month of close reading and argument because I thought it would help the country The way in which you went about it made it very difficult for anyone to take it in good faith. We keep telling you, I've told you for years: your trolling and supercilious manner, in which you seemingly can't contribute without putting your interlocutors down, always makes it look like you're acting in bad faith. I told you, for example, during the funding application process that you were infuriating V, but you just airily laughed off my advice and told me that you were sure it wouldn't make any difference. It may be that we'll be worse off without you - but I beg you - for once in your Talossan light - look at your own behaviour and find out why it infuriates people.
|
|
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 Dec 18, 2018 22:25:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 19, 2018 6:46:20 GMT -6
Then you are no poorer for my lack. Bon chance.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Dec 19, 2018 12:03:23 GMT -6
I'd understand your comments more if you had submitted a single amendment, AD. You've raised a ton of issues, but - correct me if I'm wrong - you didn't ever attempt to fix them following the process that was laid out by the Ziu. You are incorrect. I proposed formal language in a couple of instances. But it rapidly became clear from discussions that the government hadn't really thought this through or prepared for this whole initiative. It's only going to be three people, maybe four, usefully contributing to this thing. And they don't seem to care even slightly. I have seen literally zero - let that sink in, literally zero - efforts to draw attention to or promote this initiative after it was first begun. This is ostensibly an effort to redraw the entire constitution, scheduled at a breakneck pace, and yet it's going almost unremarked. No one can fairly accuse me of not trying. I drafted alternate language for some provisions, and I pointed out literally dozens of serious problems, some of which were systemic and many of which were substantive. I realize that they piled up and that I didn't draft new language to solve all the problems, but that's also kind of a factor of the sponsor of the bill and its author both being largely missing for a couple of weeks. So, respectfully, I decline to participate further. I will continue to check in at intervals, and any other good ideas that might be usefully salvaged, I will make sure that well written and actionable language makes its way into my amendment or a series of amendments. So then I cannot be accused of sabotage or some other insanity, since apparently weeks of continuous commentary and text based feedback weren't enough, I will be sure to include a clause in my amendment that states that it will not take effect if this thing passes instead. Have a good one. ...so I am correct after all - as I said, you've raised a ton of issues but didn't submit amendments for any, and I'm not accusing you of not trying, by the way. I would just have preferred those fixes to actually make it into something we can vote on, instead of (apparently?) expecting the Government to merge them in the draft without a proper vote. Shame, because I liked some of your points and would have been glad to support them in debate and vote.
Further to that point, do I understand correctly that you and/or your party don't intend to take part in any of the pseudo-Clarks?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 19, 2018 12:27:05 GMT -6
You are incorrect. I proposed formal language as amendments in a couple of instances.
I can't speak for other members of my party, who are about as engaged in this process as any other party. I will be checking in here at intervals just to see if things have gotten serious. I can't speak to any voting since I am not aware of any defined procedure or timeline. If this whole thing were being taken seriously, then I'd expect such things to have been established, but it looks like it's just sort of floating along. Maybe they want to keep it flexible so it can be shaped to arrive at the fait accompli outcome? Hard to say.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Dec 19, 2018 12:42:16 GMT -6
I can't speak to any voting since I am not aware of any defined procedure or timeline. As the presiding officer, I am refraining from commenting on the merits of the draft or amendments. I will say, the procedures for voting have been available for quite sometime now, which you should be aware of as you lodged an objection to them. If you believe them to be unclear, please make me aware of what exactly is unclear with the voting process so that I may be assured every Ziu member has equal and ample opportunity to participate in the voting process. To the extent I can summarize the current rules, offering amendments to be published on the first pseudo-Clark will begin five days prior to publishing. The first Clark will be open on January 1st coinciding with the opening of the SoS’ official Clark. Voting shall be conducted in a dedicated thread which I will open at the requisite time. Those able to vote will consist of all Ziu members plus the King as of the time of the publishing of the Clark. Each individual able to vote will only be counted one time, and all votes (Cosa, Senate, or otherwise) will weigh the same. Though I possess the ability to vote, I will only exercise my vote in the event of a tie. Finally, unless things change, the Clark will end coinciding with the end of the SoS’ Clark. If we switch to a two week pseudo-Clark, I’ve described how the rules might change elsewhere on the thread devoted to describing the rules and procedures, but regardless, there will be voting beginning on January 1st.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 19, 2018 13:11:38 GMT -6
As far as I can see, the adoption of the new draft and timeline for pseudo-Clarks appears to be spur-of-the-moment, as decided by the Seneschal and separate from the guidelines first outlined. Didn't discussion just end on adopting the new draft without following the previous procedure? Isn't a discussion going on right now about switching the schedule to half the specified time?
|
|