Okay, I will admit that my chances are no longer looking very good.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 02, 2026, 11:48:38 AMMy prediction is that we're going to see that change over the next month again.  We'll see: either I'll be right and we'll do a lot better, or I'm going to be eating a lot of crow as my hypothesis falls flat!  Copy this down and remember it, to hold me accountable, folks!

Like clockwork: when we resumed promotion, we saw results.  It was a little nerve-wracking to make that prediction, since a lot could have gone wrong that wasn't related to our experiment.  But it worked!

Within a few weeks, we acquired two wonderful new immigrants, and there are more in the pipeline.  My computer is broken, so my ability to make new videos is suspended, but we'll do other forms of promotion.  The efforts seem to be very amply rewarded: not too much work is required to generate substantial benefits for the country.

I know that a lot of this stuff is new.  This is the first time in our country's history that we have kept track of things like this, and this is the first time we've had a sustained promotional plan that we applied in this way.  As we proceed, I think we'll get better and better results.  Building up a multimedia library of videos means that we can generate promotional short-form video clips, so I'm going to try to record some more speeches with zippy bits that can be clipped out without a lot of effort.  His Majesty has promised me some footage, also, and maybe we can get some from other reputable Talossans.

The future is looking very bright, my friends.



For period: 1 June 2026 to 1 July 2026
----
Incomplete: 3
No Wittenberg: 10
No post: 0
In progress: 10
No petition: 0
Successful: 2
Total applications: 25

'Incomplete' refers to those applications which were not filled out correctly or completely, and which were returned with an explanation. 'No Wittenberg' refers to those applications which were complete, but in which the applicant did not go on to make an account on Wittenberg. 'No post' refers to those applications from the period in which the prospective never made a post and so the process has been terminated.  'In progress' refers to those applications from the period which were complete and in which the applicant is still being considered. 'No petition' refers to those applications which were complete and considered, but for which no petition was received. 'Successful' refers to naturalizations completed.

Quote from: Iason Taiwos on July 03, 2026, 10:54:17 AMI can see that Kubb is somewhat similar, but seems more challenging than what I came up with.
I "invented" this dumb game when I was laid off from my job. I was at home alone, bored, was messing with some fishing tackle. I happened to have a cat box that looked like this:

https://ibb.co/Y7gxs7Fq

Out of boredom, I tied one of my lead fishing sinkers to a bit of nylon rope I had, and decided to try and throw it into the holes in the cat box. Maybe it seemed more fun and challenging than it actually was because I was bored, but anyhow, I quickly made up some rules for it. I took the cat box and sink line to an Easter family gathering, and coaxed some family members to try it. The grandkids seemed to have fun. But that was the one and only time the game was ever played. I left the cat box outside, and it started to rot, so I threw it out. But anyway, here are the rules:

The rules of Lencularh/Lancerat
https://ibb.co/MkFNqFBD
Lancerat is a game created by Iason Taiwos in 2010. The object of the game is for players to score points by tossing a line with a weight on the end into a cylindrical shaped box with three holes in it.
Game rules (first revision, April 2010)
In all games of Lancerat, whether played by individuals or teams, a coin toss decides who plays first. A coin toss also determines who plays first in a tie breaker game
Players, standing behind the tossline, have five turns of three tosses to score as many points as possible. In team play, players alternate on each turn. The player or team with the highest score after five turns wins. In case of a tie, a tie breaker round is played.
THE TOSSLINE - Players must toss the plomb from behind the tossline. In basic Lancerat, the tossline is measured 16 ft from the front face of the sinkbox. In the process of tossing, a players arms and/or upper torso may cross the tossline, but their feet must remain behind it. Stepping across the tossline is an illegal move, and any points scored in such a toss are not counted. In Tournament Lancerat, the tossline is measured 20 ft from the front face of the sinkbox.
THE PLOMB AND SINKLINE - The plomb must weigh no more than 5 oz. It may be attached to the sinkline in any fashion the player chooses, provided it is secure and will not fly off during a toss. The sinkline should be an ⅛" polypropylene cord. It may be of any length suitable to the player, provided it is long enough to go into the sinkbox from the tossline.
TIE BREAKING - Should a tie breaking round end in yet another tie, players can simply play another round, or play a tournament round. Here, the tossline is moved back to 20 ft from the front face of the sinkbox. Tournament rounds are played just like a game of basic Lancerat, except that players are allowed only one toss per turn. The first player to score three points in a tiebreaker round wins the game.
ILLEGAL TOSSES - A toss is considered illegal or incomplete if: 1, the players feet crosses the sinkline. 2, an insecure plomb goes flying off the sinkline during the course of a toss. 3, the player loses hold of the sinkline during a toss. Any points scored in an illegal toss are not counted.
LANCERAT 23 - 23 is played the same as basic Lancerat, with two exceptions. 1st, the goal of the game is to score exactly 23 points. The player who scores 23, or closest to 23 without going over, wins the game. Any player scoring over 23 is automatically out of the game. 2nd, players are allowed only one toss per turn.
TOURNAMENT LANCERAT - Tournament Lancerat is played the same as basic Lancerat, except that the distance from the front face of the sinkbox to the tossline is 20 ft. When teams play in a tournament, team members alternate at every turn. In a tie breaker round, players are allowed only one toss per turn, and the first player or team to score three points wins.
JUNIOR LANCERAT - For junior players, the tossline is 12 ft from the front face of the sinkbox. The rules are otherwise the same as basic Lancerat.

I am really enamored with this and I might build a set to play.

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on July 05, 2026, 10:04:57 AMI am a bit older, so my list is : France (obviously), UK, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Switzerland, Monaco, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, Russia (only Saint Petersburg), Czech republic, Greece, Turkey, Lebanon, Marocco, Tunisia, Senegal, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, South Africa, India, Indonesia, Thailand, China, Vietnam, United States (only NYC, Chicago, Houston, Dallas), Cuba, Dominican Republic, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. We should go on family trip to South Korea in August.

Holy smokes, wow!

Where in Korea will you be going?

Quote from: Glüc on Yesterday at 06:24:35 AMSidenote: corruption in football isn't a new, but the way FIFA is currently rigging the tournament in favour of the US at the request of orange dictator guy is really quite something else.

Yes... a lot of even people I normally like are saying stuff like, "FIFA is always corrupt."  But that kind of callow cynicism is always the problem with American politics!  We must demand better!

Thank you for organizing this, guys! I feel like my team has really good vibes this round.

Maritiimi-Maxhestic Mençeis are on the road!

Quote from: Iason Taiwos on July 02, 2026, 10:25:43 AM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on July 02, 2026, 10:00:19 AMWow! That's super interesting. That would be the second Talossan sport, and it sounds like a pretty good one!

I did come up with another game not long after I became a Talossan, and thankfully no one remembers it. It was called "Lencularh" ("Lancerat" in English.) The gist of it was tossing a rope with a weight on the end into a series of stacked boxes to score points. I actually field tested that one and wrote out several pages of rules. The family members I coaxed into playing it seemed to enjoy it while we played, but it must have been fairly lame, because no one ever mentioned it again. (I know I posted about it on the old Witt.)

This actually sounds a little more feasible to play! Can you tell us more or dig up the rules?

Well, I'm sure they've seen your message, so if you're sure, I think you have. Welcome!

Wow! That's super interesting. That would be the second Talossan sport, and it sounds like a pretty good one!

Quote from: Moses Henry Emefiele on July 02, 2026, 09:01:50 AMI think they are going to send my Certificate of Citizenship to me through my email address. Or by Post Office.

We don't send a physical certificate of citizenship, usually. However, we do send physical IDs. It sounds like you already passed the civics test and applied for one? In which case you will be included in the next batch, I'm sure! They look really nifty!

Please be aware that you should not attempt to use your ID to drive, show proof of identification at a bank or government office, or other similar purposes. Your Talossan ID is valid for Talosssan purposes. We don't want you getting in trouble!

Please be aware also that you don't need to belong to any particular party to get your ID. We would love to have you in the Progressive Alliance, but I don't want you to think that you need to join us to enjoy all the benefits of being a citizen! Join us if you believe in moving the country forward with reforms to make it better, but without abandoning our traditions and achievements.

As to 62RZ26   Democracy Act and Amendment, I vote per.

As to 62RZ27   We Have a New-ish King Amendment, I vote per.

As to 62RZ28   Data Protection Act, I vote per.

As to 62RZ29   Citizenship Oath Reform Act, I vote contra.

As to 62RZ30   Citizen Oath Redux Act, I vote per.

As to 62RZ31   Citizenship Oath Deadline and E.7 Untangling Act, I vote per.

As to 62RZ32   Sense of the Ziu: Contributing to Me Too, I vote contra.

As to 62RZ33   Caretaker Clarification Act, I vote contra.

Quote from: Moses Henry Emefiele on July 02, 2026, 04:11:02 AMI would like to join.

We would be happy to have you join us, but it sounds like you are a member of a different political party, the URL. They are also a fine group, but you can't belong to both. If you would like to change your mind, you should speak to them first. Until then, I'm afraid we can't admit you to the Progressive Alliance or give you access to our forum.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 11, 2026, 10:08:42 AMhttps://bracket26.com/b/GT8lJm6vfd

It's happening!

Quote from: Iason Taiwos on July 01, 2026, 01:31:02 PMI just realized that today is the fifteenth anniversary of my gaining citizenship in our glorious Kingdom. https://ibb.co/Cs3tV900
And I think I'm the only person with three IDs...

Congratulations!

Quote from: Sir Lüc on July 01, 2026, 09:52:08 AMThis would be perfectly applicable if the CRL actually operated as a committee and took votes like a mini-Cosă or mini-Senäts, but it does not. No committee would cast conditional votes, for instance. The 2.1.6 clause, "After the CRL has given its recommendation", is extremely vague either way.

I agree that it is vague, but it's also pretty hard to read that text and interpret it to mean anything other than a decision by the body. And there are no entities in the country that make decisions in this way.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on July 01, 2026, 09:52:08 AMSetting bad precedents in the case of the CRL is also something I was strongly opposed to in previous instances, but my concerns were generally ignored. One of the comments I wanted to make in the fuller writeup I couldn't complete on time is precisely this - the provisions governing the CRL have been inadequate for a long time, and even if the CRL as a whole is not abolished or replaced, they need to be seriously looked at.

So yeah, I don't like the situation one bit and I loathe intentionally setting a bad precedent, but I'm happy to force the Ziu to take a look at the issue so this same precedent can be made irrelevant soon. And thankfully, the result of my decision here is that the Ziu can still consider the bill as it stands, both on the basis of its form and merit - no big harm done.

I agree that there's no big harm done, but I don't think you should intentionally set a bad precedent to try to force the legislature to make changes. I think you should try your best to interpret the law as it seems to mean, or ask for guidance if you're not sure.

That said, I do think you are acting in good faith and you're just trying to do your best in a bad situation. Really, the problem is the 11th hour attempt here, frankly. It's not realistic to expect people to be able to give a full and fair review of something in such a short amount of time.

Just for the record, approval has never been taken in this way before in other votes and contexts, which is really going to serve as the operative precedent here absent anything else. Generally, we do not take a body's vote of approval to mean that at least one person voted in favor and no one has yet voted against it.

I don't have any particular objection to this bill passing (although I had asked a question because I had a concern about the form, and I did have a suggested amendment!) But my main concern is just making sure that this does not actually become a precedent.

Quote from: Owen Bottu on July 01, 2026, 01:19:27 AMHi,

Could I join your party?

Welcome! I'll add you to our private party forum.

Well, I would suggest that you might want to rephrase and remove the last clause. "Whichever occurs first" ends up reading ambiguously because the appositive phrase in the sentence can be misread as another series without an Oxford comma, like in the next sentence. Replacing it with either/or seems like a better way to go in terms of the form here.

I don't quite understand the possible triggers here... So no one can be appointed unless someone has presented a petition for appointment of a seneschal or unless no one has and the Clark is being put together? Was that your intention with this bill?