Cosa candidacy

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Mar 14, 2019 8:51:00 GMT -6 Ián Tamorán S.H. said:

I trust I am not being sanctimonious, but precise.

Why a given action has been done is not always relevant. The morality of all actions, however, is relevant, and is always relevant.

(The gentle offer is heard more carefully and attentively than the shouted one: screaming a statement does not make it any more true.) 

Talossa is meant, at base, to be fun. If we use anger rather than respect - which must include respect for (but not necessarily agreement with) the opinions of others - then we are being civilised, rather than being confrontational. And angry discord is not fun. I may disagree with your opinions - or what your opinions have been expressed to be - but that does not give me the right to say your mother smelled of elderberries (etc.). And - more importantly - it does not give me the right to say that because I disagree with your (expressed) opinions therefor you personally are repugnant and unworthy of respect. We must always remember - always - that what we see is just appearance, and we cannot (ever) be 100% sure that the appearance is the same as the underlying reality.

Talossa is not, of itself, dying: if anything, Talossa is being killed. It is being killed by its politics and its political fighting. Outsiders who come to see what Talossa offers, see first the discord and dissension of the politics, and the (endless!) arguments about government. What they do not first see (and are partially denied from seeing, by not being privy to Chat) is much of the language, and the music polls, and the jokes (yes, they do exist!), and the games, and the existence of pi drink-mats, and the three-word stories, and... well, you know what I mean.

Talossa is not a community of linguists, nor a community of musicians, nor a community of experts on science-fiction, nor - especially -a community of politicians. It is a community of people - people who can aspire to be, and should be, friends. Within Talossa we have had (and I trust shall continue to have) conversations about our personal mental states, and some of the pressures of and worries in outside life, and so on - conversations between friends.

And despite the negative observations I have made, and that Sir Alexandreu Davinescu may have made, perhaps Talossa is not dying? Perhaps Talossa is moving away from the dictatorial (mono-maniacal?) cabal it once was. Perhaps Talossa is moving out of the 20th century into the 21st century. Perhaps, for each of us, Talossa is not mine or yours, but ours.

And that, friends, would be a good thing.

Great. Then you can see why I am eager to try to provide a way for newbies to get directly involved in stuff that matters and is significant to the country. That's what I found most delightful when I joined.

Yes, it's possible that Talossa is not in decline. That is my opinion based on my best estimate of overall activity and stuff going on. It is possible I am wrong. I hope dearly that I am wrong. But I am going to act on the assumption that I am right and that we need to fix it, and that business-as-usual isn't the way.

There just isn't much for people to do or for people to be interested in. The essential problem remains that, as a predominantly internet-based community, we have only a few competitive advantages over other places to chat. This is the only place you can get involved on a real level in certain activities that tend to be rarefied, like politics, and it's the only place to chat about Talossan. We need to help create more specifically Talossan activities, and make it as easy as possible for people to be involved in the existing ones.

I 100% agree that nasty fights are bad and should stop, both for the sake of our country and the people involved. You will never see me start one, and I have been trying to be more gracious and not get them going. In this thread, for example, I tried to politely move past Miestra's comments, even though they struck me as unnecessary and unkind -- I didn't say anything about her. And I greeted your post with as much grace as I could muster, considering how you were accusing me personally of killing the country. I am trying to do my part, despite my combative instincts, and I hope you will do yours.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Mar 14, 2019 9:27:50 GMT -6 Sevastáin Pinátsch said:

Mar 14, 2019 5:02:32 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

I guess if sanctimony will save Talossa, you got us covered.

He has a right to be angry. The fact that you consider it self-righteous of him to be upset that you co-opted his name and reputation for your political list is... really disturbing. 

I didn't, though. I just double-checked.

Mar 14, 2019 9:27:50 GMT -6 Sevastáin Pinátsch said:

I asked you: How difficult is it to contact people to secure their permission? You responded, "Pretty hard!" Okay, fine, but your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.

I don't think anyone has a right not to be offered seats. I still believe that. I would definitely not have assigned seats to people who didn't want them. I just thought your argument that it would be misleading was correct. I don't want people to somehow think that people endorse the RUMP when they do not.

Mar 14, 2019 9:27:50 GMT -6 Sevastáin Pinátsch said:

I don't think you're a bad person, but you can be guided by expediency rather than empathy. I think we all can, given that participation here is something we have to budget into busy personal lives.

But the more often we short-change each other in the interest of doing the most in the least amount of time, the more we harm each other, and the less community cohesiveness we'll feel to keep us coming back here at all.

That's fair. I'm not sure I agree that it was unwelcoming to open the offer of giving out seats to people, but if it can be perceived that way, then it was a mistake.

[Sevastáin Pinátsch]

Mar 14, 2019 9:32:35 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Mar 14, 2019 9:27:50 GMT -6 Sevastáin Pinátsch said:

He has a right to be angry. The fact that you consider it self-righteous of him to be upset that you co-opted his name and reputation for your political list is... really disturbing. 

I didn't, though. I just double-checked.

Mar 14, 2019 9:27:50 GMT -6 Sevastáin Pinátsch said:

I asked you: How difficult is it to contact people to secure their permission? You responded, "Pretty hard!" Okay, fine, but your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.

I don't think anyone has a right not to be offered seats. I still believe that. I would definitely not have assigned seats to people who didn't want them. I just thought your argument that it would be misleading was correct. I don't want people to somehow think that people endorse the RUMP when they do not.

I don't know what to say, AD. It's not what you intend, but the actual effect that is important.

When you take a shortcut, adding people to a list without their permission, it's wrong.

When the resulting candidate list completely dwarfs that of the other parties with verified entries, it's misleading to casual browsers and undecided voters.

When someone is upset that you've co-opted them in a scheme like this and is upset, it's not sanctimony, it's a normal human reaction. Predictable. Justified.

I understand that you don't see things the way others do. It's the huge divide between you and average people -- and particularly the decidedly un-average handful of people that delight in pecking at you -- that provides the basis for so much disagreement around here. Sometimes it's just political sparring, but at other times this place has felt like Troll Battle Royale. People disagreeing just to be disagreeable. Absolutely needing to have the last word in any exchange and be "right" at any cost.

I get why people leave Talossa, or don't come. It's this toxic environment that drives so many people away, and deters so many more from becoming securely attached in the first place.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I don't know how many times I can say that I saw your point and acted within minutes to fix it. Take yes for an answer.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I support and defend the Party Lists Law and I would actually want it amended, not only to stop stunts like putting people on it without their consent or even knowledge, but to make sure that only listed candidates can have seats.

Why? The simple democratic right for people to know who they're voting to put in the Cosa.

The RUMP party leader certainly seems to prefer the pre-list model of Talossan political parties, where a party leader got a "blank cheque" to dole out seats in a patron-client model to reliable hand-raisers. Luckily we changed to a secret ballot system where you couldn't dole out seats to whoever voted for you - a shockingly corrupt system which led to perpetuation of one-party government, which was just fine when yours was the one party.

His argument of "being in the Cosa is fun" - even if it's not disingenous - is just silly. Being King is even more fun, but I've never gotten to do that. Cosa seats are a privilege granted by voters, not a right. If AD were actually honest - or intellectually consistent - he would call for the Cosa to become a direct democracy where every single citizen was entitled to one seat. Like we have in Fiova. I would not object to that in principle though I would note that Fiova has its own activity problems.

You can't have it both ways. Either our national legislature is just a fun part of Talossa in which everyone should participate and the actual politics don't matter - OR we have a system based on political parties which compete to persuade voters of alternative visions of Talossa. If we were to move to a non-partisan system, though, AD would have to stop smearing people with a different vision of Talossa than he has as corrupt dictators-in-waiting, and dragging them through court cases in an attempt to stop their reform agenda.

You can't complain about "ridiculous partisanship" after you've spent a whole Cosa making sure a government with a 60% majority couldn't enact the most important parts of its program. AD seems to want to close down Talossan politics altogether - but not in an honest way, in a way which would return us to the pre-Reunision setup where his club of friends ran everything.

(I should note that this is my personal opinion, not FreeDem policy, and I believe my party secretary thinks I'm full of miéida on this one.)

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I suppose I should ask. Would anyone prefer a non-partisan Talossa, with a direct-democracy Cosa (with or without the current Senäts)?

[Viteu Marcianüs]

If I understand correctly, AD has amended the list and removed everyone who has not given consent from the RUMP party list. I post to offer the following commentary.

I agree wholeheartedly with Sevastáin Pinátsch about the optics of this action. Including everyone, without their consent, in the list of individuals the Party intends to award seats is an expressive act by the Party that those individual support that Party.  All of those individuals must appear on the ballot. This implies that the individual has given consent and that they endorse that Party. It's grossly misleading to voters who are not involved in Talossan politics. Further, a voter looking over the ballot may want a certain person in the Cosa. Including them on the RUMP party list, even though they are also included on a list of a Party competing against the RUMP means that you needn't vote for the other Party, the one to which the individual actually belongs, because the RUMP has told you that they intend to award them seats.

Further,  a voter seeing their name on a party list but not on another, even if they do not follow Talossan politics, could assume that one Party cares more about them than the other, even though without that voter coming forward, the RUMP does not actually intend to give them a seat in the First Clark. This unfairly tilts the scale away from a free and fair election where we vote based on policy, ideas, and governance.  

The optics here are terrible and grossly misleading. To be fair, I am not saying, at this moment, that AD intended to mislead the electorate, but that is the natural consequence of that course of action.

Legally, I think the RUMP would be on shaky grounds. "The ballot must include, for each party contesting the election, a list of citizens to whom the party intends to award Cosa seats" (Lex.B.2.2.3)  Glüc is Secretary of State and cannot serve in the Cosa.  The Party's intent must actually be realized in a realistic way.  Mere speculation that he could resign, thus making him eligible, without an affirming statement to the public of his intent to resign, rebuts that that the RUMP would actually intend to award seats.  Further, there is an implicit good faith aspect to the intent requirement.  That is, the RUMP must, in good faith, intend to award seats to an individual.  Dame Schivâ is the Party Leader for the Free Democrats of Talossa.  We all know that the FreeDems will get, at very minimum, some votes to receive seats in the Cosa, and Dame Schivâ, in her role as Party leader, is likely to get at least one. The RUMP's purported goal was to ensure that everyone can participate. Well, if that is, in fact, the case, a Party leader that, with a fair degree of certainty, will be able to participate is already covered. The RUMP would have to bypass giving that person a seat so it goes to the next person who wasn't on a Party list. That means that that the RUMP never really intended to award that person, such as in my example, Dame Schivâ, a seat.  This makes the action contrary to the election law. The RUMP has full knowledge that some of those individuals will have seats in the next Cosa. Their participation is already, for the most part, guaranteed. Under its premise, it does not actually intend to award them seats. 

Cumulative of the foregoing, I would argue that such an action is inherently inOrganic. The Eighth Covenant protects a Talossan's right to political speech expression or affiliation (see Org.L.XIX.8th). The Third Covenant protects a Talossan's right to peacefully assemble and organize themselves into political parties, but outlaws an organization that would "restrain any person or group of people from the exercise of their rights as granted under these Covenants" (Org.L.XIX.3d).  A person having the explicit right to assemble and organize themselves into political parties means that they cannot be included in a political party without their consent.  It would restrain that person from their right to properly engage in political speech, their right to assemble, or their right to freely associate.  Had the RUMP persisted in including everyone in that list, I would argue that, for this election, the Third Covenant would have rendered the RUMP an inOrganic association, thus forfeiting their votes.  

Further, if this is attempted again, it would likely contravene the Fourth Covenant. Such an action would constitute an "intentional withholding of political information which reasonable voters might find helpful, profitable, or informative" thus violating "the pubic's right to know" (Org.L.XIX.4th).  Having now been fully informed that many Talossans except to this action, in my estimation, would be sufficient grounds to find that the aforementioned deception was an intentional withholding of political information.  I do not think there is any ability to cure that deception. 

For any of my argued Covenant breaches, a person could petition the Corts, and the Cort could impose putative and compensatory damages (see Org.L.XIX.10th).  

Nothing in what I said should be understood to prevent Parties, with the consent of their members, from including members on their list.  For instance, a small group of RUMPers may want to run under a new party called "V is a Clownhorn."  If one did so, I would not say that an agreement between that group or individual and the RUMP to cross-endorse each other's candidates, provided it is done with the consent of those members, would violate the foregoing. The important factor here, of course, is a person having control over their own voice. That is the fundamental right we're all speaking about. 

To sum up- AD, if I am correct that you have modified the lists, I'm glad you did so.  But please realize that many people do not want to be spoken for without their consent. You may not agree with the statutory requirement of party lists. Then work to change it. But this attempt to nullify the law is no the way to do it. Try to understand why many in this thread are insulted and look beyond your perception that they are grandstanding or acting sanctimoniously. Have a little more faith in your fellow Talossans here. 

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Keeping with what I have said about my goals, I am going to decline to engage in an extended debate on this subject because it is tiresome and likely to become acromonious. I acted to correct the error within a couple of hours when someone pointed out the problem. Suffice to say that I do not agree with much of the legal analysis above, and I maintain that mandatory party lists are harmful and not democratic.

I tried something. It was an error because it gave a false impression. I fixed it within a couple of hours and apologized.

I will continue to try new things to get people interested and make more opportunities for people to get involved. It is possible I will make more errors. In fact, it is likely I will make more errors. I am doing my best.

Miestra, please do not continue to call me dishonest or say that I want to shut down politics here. I don't know if you agree with everyone else that the destructive discourse around here is a problem, but please take a cue from V, who spoke here with civility and courtesy. When you say that I am dishonest or trying to shut down politics, making pretty nasty aspersions on my character and motivation, it is really hard for me to resist replying in kind. Right now, this feels like unilateral disarmament, and that's not going to work. You might honestly believe that I am trying to destroy politics, although that is hard to believe, but you and I and everyone need to start showing the self-restraint to not voice every opinion that we might have.

My immediate instinct here was to write a long thing about how you are wrong and blah blah blah, but then it's just going to start a big thing, and we all know how it's going to end. You won't admit you are wrong or being rude, and I won't admit I am wrong or being rude, and maybe someone else says something short-tempered or nasty, and soon it spirals until the civil people stop reading Witt for a while.

Let's just both actually try to do better, okay? It is possible to discuss things that you disagree about without going after someone personally. Let us all do that in the future, and emulate V in this thread.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Mar 14, 2019 16:33:16 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Miestra, please do not continue to call me dishonest

You dragged me through the courts and accused me of corruption because of the Proclamation Crisis. You made me so upset I had to take six months off Talosa.
You accused V of corruption because he had doubts about giving you money to start a newspaper (which you never did).

Everything you don't like, you accuse its promoters of corruption or of a sneaky plan to establish a dictatorship. For you to start begging for "courtesy" now is the height of chutzpah. What goes up must come down.

We do need civilized debate, but the word "debate" belongs in that sentence. Bad behaviour must have consequences; and bad ideas must be debunked.

===

More seriously: giving Cosa seats to all and sundry who ask for them would destroy politics, defining politics as different parties putting forward different visions of the future, the people choosing between them, and representatives of those ideas sitting in our legislature. You seem to have ignored the idea of a direct-democracy Cosa, which would give "everyone a seat" without returning to the days of ruling-party co-optation and patronage of all talented Talossans.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Saying that something I want to do will destroy politics is a claim about possible consequences and seems completely okay to me.

Saying that it is my intention to destroy politics is a personal attack.

Those two things are different, and one of them does nothing but invite more personal attacks. Attacking me personally will not advance the debate or your argument. Whenever possible, we need to avoid going after each other personally because it never leads to positive consequences of any kind, ever.

V also made a passionate and lengthy post describing his opinion and engaging in debate. But even though I disagree with it, I think it was excellent and legitimate and positive debate. That is especially praiseworthy considering that I know he often dislikes me personally and disagrees vehemently on this particular point. Do what he's doing.

I know you have grudges. I don't agree with that version of events, but I know you believe it. A lot of people have grudges. I have some too. For everyone's sake, we all need to move on.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Mar 14, 2019 17:36:08 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

For everyone's sake, we all need to move on.

So that means you're no longer going to publish your exposé about how the outgoing government was corrupt because the Distáin was unwilling to give you State funds, for a project that in fact you never carried out? Well, that's something, I suppose. However, the damage is already done, in that you managed to provoke V to furious anger and just about push him out of Talossa altogether. And you have suffered - as yet - no political consequences for this.

That whole nasty episode is something which the voters need to be reminded, because IMHO it shows exactly the kind of behaviour we don't want in our elected officials. I consider it fair to remind the voters of your record. Please feel free to remind the voters of my record - although I'd prefer if you didn't throw the word "corrupt" around again, this time. That would be civil debate.

===

Also, that's twice you've dodged the question of what you would think about a direct-democracy Cosa.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Mar 14, 2019 18:02:19 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Mar 14, 2019 17:36:08 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

For everyone's sake, we all need to move on.

So that means you're no longer going to publish your exposé about how the outgoing government was corrupt because the Distáin was unwilling to give you State funds, for a project that in fact you never carried out? Well, that's something, I suppose. However, the damage is already done, in that you managed to provoke V to furious anger and just about push him out of Talossa altogether. And you have suffered - as yet - no political consequences for this.

That whole nasty episode is something which the voters need to be reminded, because IMHO it shows exactly the kind of behaviour we don't want in our elected officials. I consider it fair to remind the voters of your record. Please feel free to remind the voters of my record - although I'd prefer if you didn't throw the word "corrupt" around again, this time. That would be civil debate.

Miestra, not only am I not publishing a story about it, I never even brought it up in public. I asked questions in private, decided that the whole thing would be messy and nasty, and just kept quiet. And that was that. So if you're offended by such things, then probably stop asking me repeatedly about them. You will find that I will continue to remain silent.

Yes, I know you want to remind people of the things you're holding a grudge about. Everyone knows it. Most people who read Witt and don't have us blocked are forced to learn about these things, since they get brought up in virtually every discussion. It is incredibly tiresome for the people who have to endure it. Maybe just accept that the thirtieth rendition was sufficient, and move on with your life?

Honestly, let's just go do fun things, instead. When we need to discuss or debate, try to avoid nasty personal attacks. And beyond that, focus on fun things that won't degenerate into exhausting tedium that drives everyone away. Let's just do better, both of us.

For the sake of following my own advice, I will decline to participate further in this. Take the last word, and much good may it do you.

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM.]

I don't know about corruption, but people like Schiva are actually mentally corrupt. In fact for her blabbering and naming me in one of her FB posts with vindictive remarks, I chose to block her posts.

My advice to fellow Talossans: Choose your friends/ foes well in Talossa, or they may create havoc with your life outside.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Definitely not helpful, man.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Mar 14, 2019 19:22:36 GMT -6 Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. said:

blabbering and naming me in one of her FB posts with vindictive remarks

I have just searched my Facebook posts and I have never named you by your "outside" name OR as BenArd in any public post. I have mentioned you several times within private cabinet forums and on the Free Democrats forums, admittedly not as a compliment, but this is a free speech issue, and you shouldn't know anything about those posts anyway.