I would like to thank the Seneschal, the King and, I understand, the Opposition, for their cooperation in resolving the matter for now. Looking forwards to properly putting the matter to rest in the upcoming term.

(I know citizen number 600 is looking tantalisingly closer and closer, but sadly the actual number of all-time citizens is lower than 590; we have 129 present-day citizens, 405 former citizens, and 8 Talossans din els Efs, so the actual number of all-time full-citizens is 542; there's 31 Dandelions/Implinds, 15 fake citizens, one removed duplicate and one mystery gap inflating the numbers.)

TANDI QE Cameron McInnis tent compiaçat toct i resquiraziuns lexhitais per l'aðmiçiun àl Regipäts Talossan, es tent comvimçat la naziun es noi da sieu intereçù in la citaxhienità Talossan (la Mhiglhor Cosă Qe L'Erxhent Non Put Comprar), da sieu intenziun es desireu à partiçipar in noastră vidă naziunal, es da sieu leialtà àl Coronă, noi sint rat es þonourat àð aðmiçar perventüră Cameron McInnis àl statüs exaltat del 590-l:t CITAXHIÉN VEITAT DEL REGIPÄTS TALOSSAN, es dal provinçù Atatürk, cün toct i drepts, privilexhuns, es deveirs qi sint iherinds à ça.

Fäts par va mha in la nómină del Regeu Txec es sub sieu Saxhel Rexhital li 21. Listopäts in l'anneu dal eră comun 2025, in el prüm anneu del röin da noastra soveran cortös Regeu Txec, es el 46-l:t dal independençù da Talossa.

---

WHEREAS Cameron McInnis has completed all the legal requirements for admission to the Kingdom of Talossa, and has satisfied the nation and us of his interest in Talossan citizenship (the Best Thing Money Can't Buy), of his intention and desire to participate in our national life, and of his loyalty to the Crown, we are pleased and honoured hereby to admit Cameron McInnis to the exalted status of the 590th NATURALISED CITIZEN OF THE KINGDOM OF TALOSSA, and of the province of Atatürk, with all the rights, privileges, and duties thereunto appertaining.

Done by my hand in the name of King Txec and under his Royal Seal this 21st day of October in the year of the common era 2025, in the first year of the reign of our gracious sovereign King Txec, and of the independence of Talossa the 46th.



Sir Lüc da Schir
Secretar d'Estat / Secretary of State

It seems like two identical petitions have been presented for the same prospective. Given that this does not contradict the language of Lex.E.7, I think this is functionally the same as a single petition being "Micked", and I am sending the oath over.

As this one was posted second, I will be using the other thread to track the petition.

It seems like two identical petitions have been presented for the same prospective. Given that this does not contradict the language of Lex.E.7, I think this is functionally the same as a single petition being "Micked", and I am sending the oath over.

As this was posted first, I will be using this thread to track the petition.

Thank you everyone for your kind words of encouragement. It's no small thing to know it may be a difficult job, but I'm not alone while doing it.

Both pieces of literature received by the Chancery since last night have been forwarded. Both parties may submit an additional mailer a week from now (if in the meantime the registration for the upcoming General Election has already opened, they must have already re-registered as well.)

So finally, coming back to the purpose of the ill-advised post I deleted and replaced with this whole writeup:

• One mailer per week;
• For existing parties: starting October 13th, but suspended from when party registrations open up again until you re-register;
• For new parties: starting from when you register;
• You can send more than two mailers, and they will get sent within a day of me getting them, not just once ballots are out.

This framework, except for the extended period, is in Rule A.3 in both the old and the new set of rules (except that the new set is written more clearly, but the meaning is the same).

We now come to the D.8.5 issue. In this instance, we are dealing with one particular piece of national legislation which potentially places me in hot water, macronationally speaking, due to the provisions of the GDPR. Thankfully I think the posts above this one prove there is broad agreement that it needs to go, and the parties that made the D.8.5 request all withdrew it.

However, D.8.5 is statutory law, and I can't just pretend it doesn't exist. If a party wishes to send a mailer based on its provisions, then I better at least give them something they can work with. The compromise I proposed was to use the existing forwarding service instead, by extending its application so it was immediately available to existing parties, keeping in mind the rules over forwarding literature as they actually exist on paper right now (one per party per week, not two per party, ever). By immediately, I did mean "from October 13th", with the tacit understanding that once the new party registration period opened up, all mailers would pause until a new registration was made; but regardless, I did indeed expect that, since parties had the right to send emails according to D.8.5, they could and would do so using the new compromise if they wished.

One misunderstanding then arose from the issue outlined above - the two mailouts thing is no longer a thing, as of February 2025, and the change seemingly went unnoticed not just when it was made, but also when it caused minor controversy around the last Balloting Day. Parties could have potentially sent one email per week for eight weeks, under what, again, is a compromise to refrain from using D.8.5 to send unlimited emails using a plaintext list. But in my original public response to this, I definitely was discorteous at best (out of frustration for sure, but also of the urgency to make sure everyone knew what the actual rule was).

But then this led to another issue of potentially being "too many mailouts", if this scheme is allowed to exist and continue, which could asymptotically bring us to something akin to permanent campaigning. Specifically, I have been asked whether, under my interpretation of the rules and the law, "registered parties are allowed to do weekly mailouts all the time". My reply was that, while the electoral database of D.8.5 exists in law, then yes, parties can already basically do mailouts using that list as often as they please. Ideally, clearly no, weekly mailouts meant for electioneering would not happen all the time, but this extension that's happening right now is a compromise to sidestep D.8.5 and its macronational implications; we're just using something that's tried and tested and that Talossan citizens have agreed to, until the next Ziu hopefully rectifies the issue.

Azul,

I would like to apologise for some misunderstandings that arose in private surrounding the Chancery's forwarding system, and over the changes in handling electoral literature that happened during the transition between one occupant of the Chancery and another. Hopefully this clarifies some of that and can lay the foundations for handling the issue as smoothly as possible.

First off, the rules for the last General Election were written by me, largely based on the previous, much smaller set of written rules. I endeavoured to put as much as possible into writing precisely to avoid controversies, but evidently in certain places I did not perfectly reflect what was past practice. Specifically in this instance, party literature forwarded through the Chancery was limited to two mailers sent during the actual voting period; but in the rules I wrote, it was changed to a mailer per week, at any time after a party had registered.

I did not actually mean to change anything; but as it was an unwritten custom, and I didn't receive mailers myself, I simply had no idea it was wrong (and I had no reason to suspect it was!) As the rules passed muster by the Electoral Commission, I had no idea my version was not quite right, except it was of course perfectly right, operationally and legally - just not consistent with the past. And apparently, the past version is still the law of the land in the minds of many, despite the fact it was never written in any set of past election rules as far as I could tell.

(continues below)

Oath sent.

Azul all,

the Electoral Commission has been served with the proposed set of rules to be used in the upcoming General Election. You can find the proposed rules at this link.

The changes with respect to the previous set of rules (beyond the obvious changes to update the months and number of Cosă to be elected) are all listed as comments, but most are only for clarity. The substantial ones are:

• A.1 allows to list authorised agents that may send out literature and edit the party registration on the party leader's behalf;
• A.3 has been wholly rewritten for clarity, but the new version also removes the ability of parties to request plaintext lists of public emails;
• B.4 has been added to allow Senate candidates to also send literature through the Chancery;
• D.1-3 have been edited to better reflect the informal arrangement of the last GE (seat claims, self-determining electoral law, and elections to provincial executives)
• F.3 has been amended to remove the requirement to shuffle ballots presented for certification (which was determined by the previous Commission to be a pain point)

The Commission will now review the rules for compliance, suggest amendments (if any) and proceed to certification by October 31st.



Sir Lüc da Schir, UrB
Secretary of State

GROUP 4
3. La Bouche - Be My Lover
2. Scatman John - Scatman (ski-ba-bop-ba-dop-bop)
1. Neja - Restless

GROUP 5
3. Nu Genea - Marechià
2. Snap! - Rhythm Is a Dancer
1. Alice Deejay - Better off Alone

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on October 07, 2025, 08:39:26 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 06, 2025, 07:50:44 PMIsn't GHST Luc's team?

Possibly but on the site in some cases the team owner is listed under the players real name and I do not know everyone's real name LOL

Whoops, apologies. GHST is indeed my team.

I will no doubt attempt to either present a proposal myself or chip in with my thoughts on an existing one, for sure. I think Baroness Litz has already made some very sound points in this comment on the related Hopper thread.