If we are able to gather useful and neat information without the breakdowns for any of the faiths and it is marginally easier to compile the data then I'd recommend we just remove the denominations. Or we simply add the options for the other faiths too. The current framework allows only Christians and Muslims to express a more specific subset. I don't think this is fair to Talossans who are not Christian or Muslim (however few they may be).

Quote from: Munditenens Tresplet on June 09, 2025, 11:08:51 AM

Quote from: King Txec on June 09, 2025, 10:22:33 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 08, 2025, 07:48:45 PMOne suggestion: we might want to remove the denominational options for Christianity and Islam.

There are many in the Christian religions who would consider a protestant as NOT a Christian and many who would consider a Catholic as NOT a Christian. I'm unsure if the same thing applies to Suni and Shia in Islam or not. I see no issue with keeping this distinction and I don't think it was an issue during the last census.

-Txec R

Would "Christian (Other)" and "Islam (Other)" options satisfy the denominational concerns?

It's more about the lack of options for Judaism and Buddhism which also have subdivisions and therefore being presented differently as options. I am thinking we should present the options in a standardized way so include denominations for all or remove denominations for all. Seeing that we really don't need the detailed information, I was suggesting removing the denominations for all of the faiths.

Quote from: King Txec on June 09, 2025, 10:22:33 AM

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on June 08, 2025, 07:48:45 PMOne suggestion: we might want to remove the denominational options for Christianity and Islam.

There are many in the Christian religions who would consider a protestant as NOT a Christian and many who would consider a Catholic as NOT a Christian. I'm unsure if the same thing applies to Suni and Shia in Islam or not. I see no issue with keeping this distinction and I don't think it was an issue during the last census.

-Txec R

As someone who was raised catholic and recalls protestants claiming we were not real christians I am not sure  that this is something we want to accommodate, King. You are probably not intending to suggest that but your example brought forward that immediate experience from my childhood. We should either add distinctions for the other religions (Judaism has reform, orthodox, reconstructionist, conservative, etc.) and (Buddhism has theravada, mahayana, and vajrayana. Or we should remove them for all for the purposes of a non-preferential standard as a global nation.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on June 08, 2025, 12:23:44 PM

• Gender, with the listed options of Male, Female, Nonbinary, and Other
• Household size, expressed as a range from 1 to 10+
• Industry, instructing respondents "choose category that best describes your occupation" and with the listed options of Agriculture, Arts, Business and Finance, Clergy and Community Services, Construction and Trades, Education and Childcare, Engineering and Computer Science, Healthcare, Homemaking, Hospitality and Food Services, Legal Services, Manufacturing, Military, Sales, Sciences, Transportation, Unemployed, and Other.
• Ethnic self-identification
• Religious Affiliation, with the listed options of Buddhism, Christianity (Orthodox), Christianity (Protestant), Christianity (Roman Catholic), Hinduism, Islam (Shia), Islam (Sunni), Judaism, Nonreligious, and Other.
• Household Income, with options allowing for a wide range of answers and denominated in both louise and euro and United States dollar equivalents.

[/list]

• Place of residence, with a suggestion respondents reply down to the precision required by provincial catchment legislation.

[/list]

This is a good general list of interesting information to collect nationally. One suggestion: we might want to remove the denominational options for Christianity and Islam. There are breakdowns in Buddhism and Judaism if we apply that approach universally so we might just want to leave only higher level options.

Quote from: King Txec on June 06, 2025, 09:50:12 AMQuestions from MC's regarding the treaty:

• What are some of their interesting ideas for joint projects?  Could they interact with us in some way and tell us about them?
  
  
• They're a small community that lives on their territory -- where is that territory?  How many people?
  
  
• Hastyr Aldebaran is an assumed name (again, taken from the book) and the other name on this treaty has initials.  Their website doesn't say anything about anyone else.  It's almost entirely about their form of government, but who is the "Mandator," who is in their four (!) houses of legislature, who is on their Supreme Court, who is in the "Yellow Reserve," etc?

Should any of our Carcosan visitors see these questions it would be very helpful to know the answers. The Kingdom's representatives will vote next month on the proposed treaty and more information might increase the chances of that vote's success.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 05, 2025, 12:02:50 PMThank you.  I think you are now misplacing the proposed new Lexh.F.5.4, personally, but in form and function there are no other problems.

I vote to approve.

Thanks for your review, to address the potential misplacement I removed the statement. The renamed day of observance makes a sufficient moral statement.

Hello Mr. Secretary, I'd like to move this to the CRL when possible @Sir Lüc

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 06, 2025, 09:58:24 AMI don't fault them for using assumed names, but my concern is that this is really two or three people, and that most of their group and plans are otherwise theoretical.  Like... maybe they have a lot of ideas for how things could be run, but that basically none of this stuff really happens.  It's possible that  they have a Supreme Court with people who have been appointed to it and who have heard cases, or a Yellow Reserve that does their bureaucratic tasks, etc... but right now I'd guess that it's more of an hypothetical plan for what could happen someday, rather than anything that's really happening. 

On the other hand, maybe all of this is happening, but entirely offline.  More like Talossa in the eighties and early nineties, in other words.  In which case... how are we going to do anything with them?

The work of the Foreign Minister on this is commendable and I certainly support Talossa increasing its intermicronational relations. But, I agree, with Alexandreu that Carcosa is still too much of an unknown to warrant the establishment of diplomatic relations. I've reviewed their website and even sent a message. If this were Sealand, Westarctica, Molossia or Ladonia then there would be a wealth of information to review and base a decision on. I presently can't support this treaty.

Mr. Speaker,

I rise with an enquiry for the Minister of Technology @Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be

Minister Autofil, recalling your response to my enquiry concerning control of the back-end in May which was as follows:

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on May 24, 2025, 01:18:03 PMEstimat Tuischac'h,

I thank the Member for this question; the Ministry is working on getting the Burgermeister of Inland Revenue access to the team on DigitalOcean. While we likely could get by on having everything registered under the Ministry's email address, having people use personal funds to pay, and then reimbursing them from the Treasury, it seems to me a much cleaner option for the future to simply set up direct payment now and cut out the middleman.

What is the status of the Burgermeister's access to the team on DigitalOcean?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 05, 2025, 05:37:06 PMI don't want to put any limits on what can be asked... What if we allow the Leader of the Opposition to ask unlimited questions per month, but limited backbenchers to just 3 max?

What problem would this solve?

Quote from: King Txec on June 05, 2025, 12:50:32 PMhttps://carcosa.cc/

-Txec R

Perfect, thanks.
Edited to add, it is a bare but beautiful site.

Quote from: Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on June 05, 2025, 12:32:22 PM2. Each nation of Talossa and Carcosa shall set up "Embassies" and appoint ambassadors to represent our nations, and to create a point of contact for each nation. Whilst formally maintaining diplomatic relations

I'm unable to find a website for Carcosa just a Discord link. Where would the embassies be located?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 05, 2025, 12:02:50 PMThank you.  I think you are now misplacing the proposed new Lexh.F.5.4, personally, but in form and function there are no other problems.

I vote to approve.

Thanks Baron, I will address the misplaced addition soon.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on June 05, 2025, 10:53:57 AMSure

Thanks SoS Luc

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 05, 2025, 10:59:35 AMPlease identify the titles you're proposing to amend.

I think I have edited to add that information.