I have asked for a word to be coined for this new approach, and we intend to do them fairly regularly.

As much as possible, we need to begin expanding the ways in which we interact with each other. We have to move beyond words on a screen and start seeing each other's faces. This will help bridge gaps as we begin to see each other's common humanity.

It's surprising! People have generally used this power in a responsible way, but I still think it's a real danger and undemocratic.

If you would be willing to defer this bill, I have some ideas about reforming the whole process.

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on December 29, 2025, 02:44:12 PM

Quote from: Mximo Malt on December 29, 2025, 02:41:02 PM

Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on December 29, 2025, 02:40:01 PM

Quote from: Mximo Malt on December 29, 2025, 02:15:11 PMThe funny thing is, I don't really know how to make a fandub, can someone give me a helping hand by DM?

You just... record the necessary lines and put them over the audio whilst having first isolated the dialogue from a video?

Ok. First, I need to find a free app to do that, do you know of one?

Your phone should have a recording app already preinstalled. Record on there and just send the files to your computer.

Audacity is also a wonderful free app to use for recording and editing audio.

The fox is cooked with beans, and all rightly mixed by the tripped top purple left purple.

The Progressive Alliance is happy to announce a further confidence and supply agreement with the Independent Greens.  In exchange for support for a Government, the Progressive Alliance will facilitate some weird messaging at times.

I don't think it would have that effect? But you're right that it's in question and the ambiguity is unnecessary. I will add a clause to grandfather in previous PDs.

Chris LeDoux, for those curious: https://tidal.com/artist/10251

Stop casually throwing umlauts on his name and making me look bad.  Think of us poor ignorant folks over here with no diacritics on our travel keyboards.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on December 28, 2025, 10:02:06 PMBegging the Seneschal's pardon, but it appears in his edit to his bill, he altered the text of the "currently reads" as opposed to the "shall be amended to read" portion in Item 1.

Yes, I noticed that, lol -- I had to change the text as you had it to be a bit more clear (since member of the Opposition is too loose, and could just mean any person and you clearly meant an MZ) and I screwed it up when fixing it.  Should be okay now.

It's essentially the change suggested by Mic'haglh: 5. If the Immigration Minister and a Member of the Ziu associated with the Opposition determines that the prospective immigrant shall not be considered further, the prospective immigrant shall be informed of this decision, and shall be made aware that a Grant of Citizenship may yet be obtained by the disappointed applicant if an act of the Ziu be passed directing that such a grant be issued. Any account created for the applicant on Wittenberg shall then be terminated.

I also briefly had it screwed up a moment ago when I was fixing it, since I originally just had "a member of the Opposition" and I thought that was unclear, so you might have just been looking at a version with the change in the wrong spot.

I obviously need to make this an act and amendment to address the downstream effects on el Lexhatx, but this is the start.

Whereas currently the Seneschal can simply write any laws they wish by themselves, bounded only by the Organic Law and His Majesty's agreement, and

Whereas that's an absurd amount of power for one person to have, and there is insufficient check on this power,

THEREFORE the fourth section of the sixth article of the Organic Law, which currently reads

QuotePrime Dictates (PDs) are public declarations which affect government policy and have the force of law. They take effect upon their countersignature by the King and function as laws for all purposes, with such exceptions and subject to such conditions as the Ziu may enact by statute. Prime Dictates are exempt from all provisions relating unto legislative proposals, but may never be used to amend this Organic Law.

shall be amended to read

QuotePrime Dictates (PDs) are public declarations which affect government policy and have the force of law. They take effect upon their countersignature by the King and function as laws for all purposes, with such exceptions and subject to such conditions as the Ziu may enact by statute. Prime Dictates are exempt from all provisions relating unto legislative proposals, but may never be used to amend this Organic Law.  All Prime Dictates, excepting only those appropriating monies or with ephemeral effect, shall automatically cease effect after the passage of three months unless affirmed by the Ziu.

I apologize, @Sir Lüc , and you're right that I should use this thread.  I have been in the habit of doing it the other way by tagging you, but I should respect the process you have laid out.  In the future, I will be sure to do so.

I wonder if I could trouble you to please re-Clark it with a slight change?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on November 05, 2025, 05:33:59 PMWHEREAS the immigration process should be open to all, without regard for the religious or political views of the Minister of Immigration, and

Whereas this should be true whether we have a politically conservative Minister, who must not be allowed to block progressives, or a politically progressive Minister, who must not be allowed to block conservatives, etc etc, and

Whereas there are some concerns people have about things which can be easily addressed in this second version,

THEREFORE the fifth section of Title E of el Lexhatx, which currently reads

Quote5. If, at any point during the process, either before or after creation of the Wittenberg account, the Immigration Minister determines that the prospective immigrant shall not be considered further, the prospective immigrant shall be informed of this decision, and shall be made aware that a Grant of Citizenship may yet be obtained by the disappointed applicant if an act of the Ziu be passed directing that such a grant be issued. Any account created for the applicant on Wittenberg shall then be terminated

5.1 Any person, whose citizenship is denied, may in the first case appeal this decision by application to the Secretary of State, and be given the Chancery's contact details to enable them to do so. The Secretary of State may, if they believe the Ministry of Immigration has misused their discretion under Talossan law, report to the Ziu with their reasons for so deciding and recommend that the applicant or prospective citizen be given citizenship by act of the Ziu. Alternatively, the applicant or prospective may reapply by undergoing the entire procedure (minus any successfully completed portions) following the next general election.

shall be amended to read

Quote5. If the Immigration Minister and a Member of the Ziu associated with the Opposition determines that the prospective immigrant shall not be considered further, the prospective immigrant shall be informed of this decision, and shall be made aware that a Grant of Citizenship may yet be obtained by the disappointed applicant if an act of the Ziu be passed directing that such a grant be issued. Any account created for the applicant on Wittenberg shall then be terminated.

5.1. This decision may only be made after the application has been processed and posted, and the public must be informed of the minister's decision and the justification for the decision.  The public need not be informed if an application is merely returned as insufficient or nonsensical under the terms of Lexh.E.2.4.

5.2. Any person, whose citizenship is denied, may in the first case appeal this decision by application to the Secretary of State, and be given the Chancery's contact details to enable them to do so. The Secretary of State may, if they believe the Ministry of Immigration has misused their discretion under Talossan law, report to the Ziu with their reasons for so deciding and recommend that the applicant or prospective citizen be given citizenship by act of the Ziu.

5.3. Alternatively, the applicant or prospective may reapply by undergoing the entire procedure (minus any successfully completed portions) following the next general election.

FURTHERMORE, this bill shall not be construed as an ex post facto attempt to criminalize any associated behavior within ministerial duties of the past, and shall not be grounds for prosecution.

FURTHERMORE, there will be a new Lexh.E.2.6, which shall read:

Quote2.6.  Immigration applications shall all be automatically forwarded to an email address that is under the control of His Majesty the king and that is not accessible to any member of His Majesty's Government, and His Majesty will give access to this email address to the Leader of the Opposition.

Uréu q'estadra så
Alexandreu Davinescu, Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial (MC-URL)

I am here assuming that @Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP doesn't object to this change -- please correct me if this is wrong, Tafi.

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on December 28, 2025, 09:13:47 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on December 28, 2025, 04:08:18 PMSo what's the deal? Why would we want to alter the immigration procedure so that the government no longer has the ability to halt the process, and instead requires the cooperation of the opposition?

The simplest answer would be that the Seneschal himself has campaigned against the Immigration Minister having a secret, unilateral veto over citizenship applications. One of his most zealously-delivered criticisms was his concern that the Immigration Minister could simply reject applications they found objectionable, including on political grounds. While this was obviously not happening under the previous Immigration Minister, it is a valid concern more generally, and an effective way of addressing this would be to require the permission of a politically-opposed individual in order to terminate an application. His bill, after feedback from others, finally addresses the "secret", but not the "unilateral". Why settle for fixing one when we can fix both?

That makes sense to me.  I will withdraw my bill from the Clark and amend it to that effect.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on December 28, 2025, 04:57:45 PMThere are a grand total of two choices to get any Government legislation passed this term:

1) the PA and the URL make a mutually satisfying deal.
2) the PA shames and condemns the URL for angry, cynical gamesmanship and illegitimate motives, and hopes at least one URL Senator will admit you're right and surrender.

Lol... most people would probably include a third option, where neither party is whipping the vote to achieve maximum leverage, and instead approves of a bill based on its merits.

Listen, you can scroll back through the thread and see that I have been really active and engaged in discussing this thing. When it was introduced 5 days ago, I immediately asked some clarifying questions so I could better understand it. After a few days, Mic'haglh got back to me with answers, and I've continued to try to get some clarity about why this particular change is important (outside of rebranding), Even though I'm not easily able to access a computer over this holiday season. But if getting this done fast is a priority, I do really think we should get to actually talking about why we would want to change the immigration process to require the opposition leader (Mic'haglh right now) to approve of halting immigration.

As my understanding had it, this would be a emergency thing we would need to do because of serious and immediate harm. When we last discussed this, for example, it was brought up to me that people could say really horrible things and hurt others if the government didn't have the power to stop the process on a dime. So this seems like a strange new requirement - almost the contrary of that. I'm obviously open to it, but I do think we need to actually talk about it.

We assign all of our seats to Mximo C.

Azul, Progressives! Just an alert that a vote has begun for you to weigh in on!

Our bill was our flagship bill that we made a focus point of our campaign, frequently promised to work hard to pass, and amended with feedback over the course of the months and months it was available. Again, it's been months.

Five days ago, this version was proposed. It's an almost identical copy. I have repeatedly and frequently engaged about it, but I'm not going to derail the main focus of our campaign at the last minute.

If this change is a good one, then I can pull the bill from the Clark and add it, if we're in time. I'm happy to do that, and there's precedent for that happening. Or we can just make this a stand-alone bill. I don't actually have any immediate objection to the change, and it's not directly related to the main focus of the bill, so it wouldn't be a problem. Some in my party have suggested that this is just an effort at gamesmanship, to provide a cynical reason to kill a popular piece of legislation. I don't think that's true, though, and so I do still want to discuss this proposed change.

So what's the deal? Why would we want to alter the immigration procedure so that the government no longer has the ability to halt the process, and instead requires the cooperation of the opposition?

Please put this on the Clark, @Sir Lüc .