Broosking Discussion.

[Ian Plätschisch]

(and, honestly, the less words you use the better; just to prove how silly this particular rule is thus giving us more of a reason to scrap the rule). 

This seems like broosking to me...

Does the Interior Ministry notify prospectives of this requirement? If not, it should be no surprise that it is never met until the last minute, because immigrants do not know to be thinking about it.

[Eðo Grischun]

You seem to have a very,  very different definition of broosking than the rest of us then.  No political party recruitment happening or implied in anything I suggested above.

And, no, the Ministry hasn't actually notified any prospectives of this. If you could point me to the clause in the Witt is not Talossa Act or anywhere else in Lex.E where that requirement is placed on the Ministry then I'll be sure to change policy.  I've always seen the requirements of that Act as falling more on the Chancery's side of immigration than on Interior's. Also, I don't see why the onus should be on the incoming applicant to seek a non-Witt conversation though. Plenty of existing citizens who could do something about it...

Take it round the back of the barn...

[Ian Plätschisch]

You seem to have a very,  very different definition of broosking than the rest of us then.  No political party recruitment happening or implied in anything I suggested above.

To quote directly from the wiki page about it:

To speak to a prospective citizen about Talossan politics before he or she is granted citizenship, especially in a way that would tend to colour the prospective citizen's opinion about one party or another, is considered to be broosking and is strongly frowned-upon.

To speak to a prospective citizen in a way that would make them tend to support a bill that is explicitly mentioned in a coalition agreement that favors the party involved clearly meets this criterion.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

To quote directly from the wiki page about it:

Just because it's on the wiki doesn't make it real or accurate. In fact, that particular definition was written precisely by the members of one political party, if you'll check it out - it was certainly never a pre-National Schism idea. KR1 used to make up words for things to port his own personal prejudices/political vendettas into Talossan culture; this is a modern version.

Of course prospectives should not be recruited to political parties while they're still in, or fresh out of, the immigration pipeline; but it's "false advertising" to shield them from our politics. Imagine if there were a law that it was illegal to discuss US politics with new immigrants to that country.

[Eðo Grischun]

You seem to have a very,  very different definition of broosking than the rest of us then.  No political party recruitment happening or implied in anything I suggested above.

To quote directly from the wiki page about it:

To speak to a prospective citizen about Talossan politics before he or she is granted citizenship, especially in a way that would tend to colour the prospective citizen's opinion about one party or another, is considered to be broosking and is strongly frowned-upon.

To speak to a prospective citizen in a way that would make them tend to support a bill that is explicitly mentioned in a coalition agreement that favors the party involved clearly meets this criterion.

Yeah.  That particular definition was made up by a RUMP member one time, and the rest of the party bought it because it suited their agenda.  Just because the same member that came up with that definition then wrote it into the Wiki doesn't actually make it so.

I'm completely fine with talking politics with prospectives, including sharing my opinion on particular Bills. 

Broosking is the active recruiting of prospectives by political parties. Nothing more.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Fair enough, but it can’t be that I’m the only one with who has based their understanding of broosking on that article. It’s been around for years, it’s public knowledge that it is there, and no one had complained before now that the definition there is partisan.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The existing definition has always been how I thought it was commonly understood. The basic idea was that it was wrong to recruit potential immigrants into a political party, either by discussion of party platforms or outright promotion. If the biggest political party decides that only the latter is wrong to do, then the norm is defined down accordingly. It's not like anyone can stop them. That's the thing about norms... they're not laws. A lot of people have thought it was important to keep political influence as far away from the immigration process as possible, but we have freedom of speech, so no one could ever make it illegal. If someone wants to chat with prospectives about a referendum on the monarchy or a Real Cosa possibility, then no one can stop them, really, even if that sort of thing starts to influence the immigration process.

It's actually kind of fascinating how fragile the stuff is. I mean, this conversation is probably basically it on the matter... the whole event. One politician suggests to another that they are coming close to violating a norm, the other politician replies that they have a different definition, and that's that. Sometimes in other circumstances, the politician will declare that they have no choice because everyone was going to do it anyway or that the other person's reaction is forcing them into it. In the United States, it's happened a lot in the Senate, particularly, over the last 40 years.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Specifically, I was thinking about the Supreme Court nomination process. There used to be a norm that the Senate would not reject a nominee on the basis of their ideology, but when Robert Bork was nominated, Democrats in the Senate rejected him for what were thought to be ideological reasons. And then more recently, the current Republican majority in the Senate outright refused to hold hearings for a nominee by President Obama, observing that the letter of the law didn't require them to do so. The whole thing is fascinating.

sorry for contributing to the derail, by the way, but watching stuff like this happen close up is one of the most interesting things about Talossa for me

[Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM]

This discussion was distracting from the thread’s stated purpose so I moved it.

Thanks,
Dr. Nordselva

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

In any case, this affirms my belief that the incoming Government should get many more people contributing to the Wiki, because it's too easy to be "gamed" by one or more determined editors with an axe to grind.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

This discussion was distracting from the thread’s stated purpose so I moved it.

Thanks,
Dr. Nordselva

Out of curiosity, what statute or rule gives you this ability, by the way?  Not trying to be combative, but just surprised.

[Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM]

First off it was an immigration thread and second the SoS is the administrator of Witt. You all were burying the immigration portion with your ceaseless fighting.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I don't doubt it all that you thought it should be moved, I'm just asking for the rule or statute that gives you the power to do that. I had not thought we set things up so that the Secretary of State would be proctoring discussions like that. If you do indeed have that arbitrary power, then I'm going to contact my representatives to ask them to change that.

[Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM]

Do whatever makes you happy Sir AD. I’m on a phone at the moment so I can’t look things up. It’s also possible I erred in my understanding but I think we can all agree someone needed to get that thread back in track. So many complain about the slow pace of immigration and I felt the immigrant deserved to be heard just in case an actual petition was made for him.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm not talking specific to this thread, since I agree that it's good for the discussion to have been moved here. And there's no rush, either, if you're on your phone. But this is kind of a big deal and a surprise. I know that your predecessor had this power on the last forum, but I also thought we specifically set things up otherwise on this one. I might be wrong, which is why I'm asking. Please let me know whenever you get a chance.