Wittenberg

Part of the problem with the Chancery's decision to allow all parties to send out mailers a month before Balloting Day is that it caught my party, the Union of Free Reformists, on the hop, with our Seneschál candidate overseas for two weeks. This unfortunately allowed our opponents to get out to those parts of the nation who don't "live on Witt" early with what can only be described as rank dishonesty.

I would have liked to explain to my old friend @Françal I. Lux that what the Progressive Alliance discussed in its mailer about 61RZ27 bears no relation to Talossan reality, as I went into detail here (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4465.0). But my experience is that once someone's made a decision based on falsehoods, and made a public commitment to it, it's almost impossible to talk them out of it.

Telling a whole heap of falsehoods, very quickly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop), is an effective rhetorical technique. As a Talossan said elsewhere (lightly edited for anonymity):

QuoteIt's impressive how someone can simply make up talking points and issues out of thin air and have everyone take them seriously. Similarly, they can just discard issues that have outlived their political usefulness and everyone else just goes along with it.

Did you notice, they're really quiet about immigration as an existential problem that is all the fault of sitting governments fault now that we've had an immigration boom (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4492.0)?

It forces you to acknowledge these issues as if they were real and develop counterarguments. If you didn't do that, you'd be ceding that point to them.

The Union of Free Reformists will proudly stand on the record of the outgoing government. I personally made a decision *not* to go "toe to toe" with the Davinescu Gallop because no-one can be bothered reading those huge, angry, threads. But simply disengaging is not politically effective - as shown by my old friend Françal getting recruited, and not even waiting to hear any counterarguments.

So, what is the new tactic?

(TO BE CONTINUED)

I think that Francal should certainly hear you out.  And if you have better arguments, I think he'll change his mind.

Also, a speech attacking me is a weird way to respond to the charge that you're running a negative campaign.  If you absolutely have to write another long speech just attacking me, maybe space them out more.  You don't want your whole campaign to just be personal attacks.   An angry campaign just doesn't sound fun.  Let's be positive!

I mean, Mic'haglh is a great guy, so it might make sense to focus on him.  Talk about his personal attributes.  He's usually kind, he helps people in the Coletx a lot, he's an amazing graphic designer, and het gets along with people.  And there's nothing to make me think he wouldn't also be an effective leader.  And the point you guys made about him being a fresh face is a great one!  That would be a great thing to focus on!

Or talk about the things you're proud of accomplishing.  After two full terms, there must be a decent list of them.  You simplified the immigration reform a couple of months ago, for example. 

Or even better, a discussion of some of the specific policy plans and promises you guys intend to accomplish would be great.  We're asking them to trust us with our vote, so let's tell them what we want to get done!  Mic'haglh has some posts up with a few things, so you already have a start with that.

Overall, I just think it would be better for Talossa if both parties are running positive campaigns full of pride and promises.  People will feel more comfortable, it will make us seem friendlier, and overall it will also be more fun.  It's certainly our plan, at least.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 03:18:04 PMAn angry campaign just doesn't does fun.

The English teacher in me wondered how someone "doesn't does" :-)

-Txec R

Typo! "Doesn't sound fun."

Thank you, Your Majesty!

Ah, good. I was worried it was some new slang term my 53 year old brain can't comprehend!

-Txec R

That's not very skibidi toilet Ohio sigma 67 41 of you.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 03:18:04 PMAn angry campaign just doesn't does fun.

Having people plain lie about you and your record isn't much fun, either. But trash needs to be taken out.

Anyway, Part two. The tactic to deal with an opponent who just tells arrant falsehoods, stokes up moral panics, and then resorts to "you can't get angry, I'm just a smol bean, a little birthday boy, contradicting me doesn't does fun!" is to say to voters: consider the source.

It is appropriate to critically examine Baron Davinescu's record and personal style, especially as he is open that this election campaign is one about making him, personally, Seneschal. (Which is an improvement from some previous Senescháis he's supported, I suppose.)

Baron Davinescu is on record that he feels a Talossan political party is simply a brand associated with a political leader. He's supported abolishing party lists (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=3963.0), so that party leaders can just appoint whoever they like to the Cosa. So, given that he is the 'brand leader' of the PA, extra scrutiny of his personal qualities and record is appropriate.

This nonsense about Sekrit Immigration Crime is nothing new. Baron Davinescu has a track record of falsely accusing his opponents of criminality and corruption going back almost a decade to the "Proclamation Crisis", the "Ex Parte Corruption" scandal, etc. I don't want to bore newbies with history lessons, but he does this over and over again - to me, in particular, And I'm supposed to just shrug it off, because being angry "doesn't does fun".

If you want Talossa to be something different than it has been for the last decade or two, then electing one of the central political figures of the last decade or two would probably be counterproductive. In contrast, the Union of Free Reformists is a team, led by the fresh ideas and energy of relative newcomer @Mic'haglh Autófil, backed by the experience and wisdom of my good self and others, at the head of a small group of Talossans of various experiences united behind a political program. Not a program which is meant to shame people out of doing politics at all.

A vote for the URL is a vote for the current Government's record of success. We look forward to the debate between the party leaders.

Listen: I have said, over and over and over again, that I'm specifically not accusing anyone, including you, of abusing the current government power to secretly control immigration.  I think I've been careful to say that almost every post I've made about this, actually.  Here's just a few examples:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 08, 2025, 09:18:52 AMThe Government also claims that they have never used this power.  There is no evidence to the contrary, and we believe them.
...
We believe the Government when they say that they're not using their secret power to control immigration.  But we also don't think they should even have that power.  The Progressive Alliance doesn't think a bureaucrat should get to secretly control who gets to apply to immigrate.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 22, 2025, 09:33:18 AMFrom the start, we've been very clear: we believe the current Government when they say that they haven't done this.  But they're not the only government we've ever had.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 02, 2025, 09:08:13 AMFrom the start, we've been very clear: we believe the current Government when they say that they haven't done this.  But they're not the only government we've ever had.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 02, 2025, 01:47:04 PMBut... I didn't accuse you of criminality?  I didn't threaten to subpoena anything?  I've actually said, over and over, that I believe you when you say that you're not engaging in this abuse of power.  I said it like five times in this thread!

Maybe you're just confused, since you also keep saying that you're not reading my posts?  But you're very angry at me about something that isn't true.  You invented some threats and now you're angry at me about your own imagination.

For like the twentieth time: we are not saying you abused this power.  We are saying the Government shouldn't have this power, whether or not it has been abused.  And we're saying we want to investigate to see if this power has ever been abused by anyone.  Please stop lighting yourself on fire and shouting about arson.

There are so very many reasons why the government shouldn't be allowed to secretly discard immigration applications.

• A minister who's a bit prejudiced might quietly delete the application of a member of the queer community if that person seems "off" or "weird."
• A minister who has strong political beliefs might delete the application of someone who's likely to join another party.
• A minister who just doesn't like someone might delete their application because they don't have the right "vibes."
• A progressive might delete the application of a conservative.
• A conservative might delete the application of a progressive.
• Someone might just not like an applicant.

Let's join forces and pass my Public Process Act (https://database.talossa.com/ziu/bills/61RZ27) and reform this problem!  And then if you're worried, you can even volunteer to help look into possible abuses of the practice... surely if you're helping doing the investigation, you can't be afraid of it!  It will be like a buddy cop movie.  We're unwilling partners, but the Chief demands that we solve the crime together!  We've got just 24 hours to solve it, or we're off the force!

I'm not gonna engage in ad hominem attacks, but I would appreciate some answers from my old friend, the former Seneschal.

I would like to know why your government seemingly allowed this glaring gap in accountability to go unresolved.

The Ministry of Immigration was already under scrutiny because of perceived biases towards certain applications. Now, the validity of those allegations are a different conversation. What is relevant to my question is how come, given the heat the government was already getting, it didn't act more proactively to resolve this issue?  If Baron Davinescu's bill wasn't sufficient enough to resolve the problem in your view, how come no amendments were offered? Was there any effort to collaborate at all? It seems to me that this was an easily avoided mistake had the government acted more decisively.


F. I. Lux

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on Yesterday at 07:12:39 PMI would like to know why your government seemingly allowed this glaring gap in accountability to go unresolved.

I explained all this in a post last week. (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4465.0) It debunks several of the things you say in your post, so I guess you haven't read it yet. But I'd like your input.

Here's the explanation from the Most Honourable Seneschal for why she lobbied her party to kill the bill:

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on October 22, 2025, 02:37:30 PMThe Baron put the Public Process Bill in the Hopper at the height of his dudgeon ... I made one snide comment, then more or less ignored it. I hoped he would calm down about it and it would go by the wayside; so I was disappointed that he took it to the CRL for the Sixth Clark. It was clearly too late by then to make further principled arguments against it. So, I just decided to lobby my party to vote against it.

With the utmost respect, I think this shows a lot about priorities.

This is a question of civil liberties, good government, and transparency.  The Seneschal claims that they have the power to take any immigration application and "chuck it in the bin" in secret, as she puts it.  It is completely unacceptable for any government to have this power, and the Progressive Alliance proposed a bill that would require them to disclose any "binning" to the public.

It should have been a priority.  Instead, the URL killed it.

Let me say this right now:  If I am fortunate enough to get the support to lead our amazing little country, I won't be turning away anyone's help.

• If you present a bill fixing an important issue, I'll vote for it.  Even if you're not in my party.  If I don't agree with the bill, I'll work with you to amend it.  If that's not possible, I'll try to fix it myself in my own version.  We won't ignore it or fight it, just out of partisanship.
• If you pose a terpelaziun identifying a problem, I will listen to you.  And if you're right, I'll try to fix that problem.  I won't always succeed.  Some problems are difficult and thorny.  But we'll try, and we'll commiserate together if we fail.
• If I fall short in representing Talossa, speaking intemperately, I will apologize.  And I'll try to do better.  I'm only human, but one of the best things about being human is that we can always try to improve.
• If you want to help the country with something, or you have an idea, or you have a question: we'll be there to try to help you.  We're all in this little community together, and we can all help make it a great place to be.
• If you remind me of this pledge when I have broken it, I will thank you for the reminder.  And I'll try again.

Yes, but you haven't answered my question. I'm not accusing you or anybody of misconduct, I'm simply trying to understand the reasoning behind this decision.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on October 22, 2025, 02:37:30 PMFirst things first. I agree that El Lexhatx E.5. gives too much discretion to the Immigration Minister to just "yoink" an immigration application at any time for any reason. I think the next Cosa should look at this topic again.

You acknowledge that this issue exists as quoted above. Why didn't the government act more proactively to rectify this gap in accountability? Why wait until after the election? Again, if 61RZ27 wasn't sufficient in your view, how come no effort was made to collaborate? I'm sure Baron Davinescu would've be open to amendments.

My issue here is by voting down this bill and then deciding to address this problem some other time makes it seem like the government either does not take the matter seriously or made the decision because of personal animosity towards the sponsor. Either way, it reflects badly on the government.


F. I. Lux

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 08:11:48 PMWith the utmost respect, I think this shows a lot about priorities.

Yes it does, unfortunately.


F. I. Lux

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on Yesterday at 08:19:27 PMMy issue here is by voting down this bill and then deciding to address this problem some other time makes it seem like the government either does not take the matter seriously

No. Frankly, we do not take this matter seriously. Because there is no shred of evidence to suggest that this provision has ever been used improperly by any Minister of Immigration, ever. It will be good to close it, but the panic about it is ridiculous and fraudulent.

And that panic has been stirred up only because:

• Baron Davinescu was preparing to run an election campaign on the idea that the incumbent Government was "killing immigration" - either negligently or for corrupt purposes;
• Talossa started going through an immigration boom, which put paid to that;
• Baron Davinescu cynically and dishonestly started a different immigration related panic.

@Françal I. Lux , you were around at least one of the times he did this before - during the Proclamation Crisis. Do you remember how he almost got the Secretary of State - now the King - to renounce his citizenship? Do you remember how I had to take six months off Talossa because his smear campaign/moral panic had meant I had to take sleeping pills to function?

The Baron is a Talossan patriot who cares about this Kingdom deeply, and I respect that. I have spent most of a year mainly ignoring what he says - partly because there is a much worse person in Talossa whom we have a united front against, and partly because I'm too old to want to fight any more. But it seems that that is losing my party the election, because I'm not rebutting deliberate falsehoods in time. Enough.

And yes, I'm sorry to say, I do have personal animosity towards the Baron. I'm not ashamed of it. Thankfully, you can work constructively with someone despite personal animosity.

It is increasingly clear that the excessive discretion given to the Immigration Minister to abort immigration applications has become a Glonzo issue. (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Glonzo+Issue)

We are in an immigration boom. Fear that immigration applications are being thrown in the trash, without trace, is - in the words of the late Frank Zappa - to leave the realms of mumbo-jumbo and to enter the realms of mumbo-pocus.

At absolute best, the Most Honourable Seneschal is confused about events.  Thankfully, the thread is right here (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=4316.0).

Original Context
I wrote and posted my simple bill on August 12th.  At that time, there had been zero immigration for four months.  Literally, zero.  We hadn't yet lucked out with the Tiktok video or magazine article of last month.

The Process
MC Somelieir objected to one of the introductory clauses, since I said the bill was to resolve a legal ambiguity.  She said that I wasn't allowed to say that.  We argued about it briefly, but I decided that it wasn't important and just deleted the entire clause to which she objected.

Then the Most Honourable Seneschal posted what she calls a "snide comment," saying "I do think that E.5 probably is a bit wider in scope than appropriate. And the Government would be willing to discuss softening it - if we weren't having these discussions with an individual whose whole political 'shtick' right now is angry condemnation that the Government isn't jumping and hollering and doing political theatre around immigration."

Then when I Clarked it, she has already confessed to lobbying her party to vote against it.  And so it failed to pass.

The Motivation
Please notice that I am directly recounting and often quoting from the public record about this, whereas the Most Honourable Seneschal feels free to be a little more creative.

That's also why she says, over and over again, that she's afraid she's going to be prosecuted.  At this point, this has to be called what it is... a falsehood.  She's lying.  She knows that I have repeatedly told her that's outright impossible.  But it's a more sympathetic story than killing a necessary bill just because you don't like the sponsor.

The Most Honourable Seneschal feels caught out on a deeply unpopular decision, knows that there will be a reckoning with the voters, and she's looking for an excuse to explain it.  But there's no excuse that holds water, folks.  There's no good explanation for the Government demanding the power to secretly control immigration.  There's no good explanation for lying about it.

Riddle me this, Batman:

- if the PA admits that they have no evidence that I'm not throwing immigration apps in the trash, and that they don't even think I'm doing it;
- and that I'm going to be immigration minister at least until December 1;

then: why was reforming this law last month such an urgent priority that people would flip parties over it?