Either one is fine with me.

No, sorry -- we arranged it a while ago and now we're just working out the details.  I'd be happy to also debate with you, if you'd like?

If both moderators agree there's a problem, then there's probably a problem.  Sir Ian and His Majesty are pretty fair-minded.  They've certainly also given me feedback :)

All five Progressive questions are set, and so are two of the URL's questions, folks!  We're nearly there!

Side note: Can we agree to aim for fifty minutes total?  I'd like to help my wife with something right after the debate.  She's spent a few weeks organizing a big local event about some books, and I want to be supportive.

Quote from: King Txec on Yesterday at 02:14:21 PMI'm trying to weigh in but Google Docs are always conflicting with my work Google account. I'm doing my best though (even though getting them in the correct orange highlight is not fun on a phone haha)

-Txec R

I fixed your highlighting for you -- in retrospect, maybe we should have used the comment function.  Sorry about the difficulty.

Really need the moderators to weigh in again on a few of these questions, please.  @King Txec and @Sir Ian Plätschisch

Okay, the new version of the bill is finished.

• As before, the bill eliminates the ability of the government to secretly block people from applying to immigrate, requiring public disclosure if they do so, and
• As before, the bill does not require this disclosure if the application is returned as incomplete or nonsensical, but now this is also explicitly stated in the bill, and
• As before, it would be completely impossible to prosecute anyone for breaking this law in the past, since it's not currently the law, and ex post facto laws are illegal, but now this is also explicitly stated in the bill, and
• There's a new requirement that immigration applications be automatically forwarded on to an email address controlled by the king, inaccessible to the government, and accessible to the Leader of the Opposition (as already defined by law).

Let's get this passed and end the power of the government to secretly control immigration!

Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on November 09, 2025, 01:44:04 PMI will review the questions though.

Okay, thanks!  I shared them with you last week, so check your Drive shared.

It seems to make more sense to make a new thread about the debate; my apologies to the URL for cluttering up their thread.  I'm just glad we're able to make it happen!

Right now, it's scheduled for this Saturday, Balloting Day, at 11 TST.  The questions are partially set -- we're waiting to hear back again from Mic'halgh and the moderators ( @Sir Ian Plätschisch , take a look!)  It's going to be very exciting!

I posted a video on the Progressive Alliance Tiktok so that our legions of loyal followers will know about the debate, by the way!

What do we mean when we talk about infrastructure?  We're talking about making it possible for you to do the things that you want to do!  Check out the latest Tiktok from the Progressive Alliance here.

WHEREAS it has been more than a fortnight since @Jason Drzewiecki  first posted on Wittenberg, following his introduction to the citizens of the Kingdom by officers of the Immigration Ministry, and

WHEREAS he has, in that time, demonstrated an active, genuine, and continuing interest in Talossan life, language and culture, and

WHEREAS he desires citizenship in the Kingdom of Talossa, and

WHEREAS by all indications it appears that he would be a loyal and dedicated citizen, and a credit to this nation if he obtains the grant of citizenship he requests,

THEREFORE I, the Baron Alexandreu Davinescu, a citizen of good standing of the province of Maritiimi-Maxhestic and of the Kingdom of Talossa, do hereby petition the Chancery to issue a grant of citizenship to Prospective Citizen Jason Drzewiecki, as specified by law.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on November 09, 2025, 04:43:23 AM50-word statements for the Senate are not typically required and/or shown on the ballot

I know!  It's required under Maritiimi-Maxhestic law, though.

To make it easier to track when both parties agree on a question and it's set, I added checkbox lists for each party.  Right now, two of the URL questions and two of the Prog questions seem in dispute, with existing objections from one or the other of us.  Not too shabby!

Yes, 11 TST is fine with me.

I will stand for the Senate seat for Maritiimi-Maxhestic's special election.  Hopefully this won't end up hurting my party's ability to hold its seats.

My 50-word statement is:

Talossa is ready for some forward progress, with government assistance with infrastructure, real energy for outreach, protection for our assets, and a breath of fresh air with government transparency. Vote for the Progressive Alliance, as well as Davinescu for Senate in the majestic province of Maritiimi-Maxhestic.

Okay.  I really would have preferred to do it this weekend, so it could be out before the polls open, but you kind of dropped off the map there for a little bit and we still don't even have the questions finalized.  IIRC you just moved and got a new job, though, so it makes sense that you're pretty busy right now.

All ten suggested questions are up, but the moderators need to take a look at them and suggest any rephrasing they like.

The fact that we're both okay with either Sir Ian or His Majesty as moderators should make scheduling a little easier.  How about Saturday morning, maybe ten TST?

Quote from: Sir Ian Plätschisch on November 08, 2025, 07:59:25 AM(The 16th is next Sunday)

Look at this guy with all of his fancy book learning and calendar knowledge.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to do it tomorrow.

I have three little kids and scheduling a quiet hour in the house requires a little advance notice. Tomorrow, some of them have a birthday party and I believe we're going apple picking all afternoon.

How about this upcoming Saturday, the 16th?

@King Txec and @Sir Ian Plätschisch , it looks like all questions are in for your perusal.

We've proposed some questions and heard from one of the moderators, but there's still no suggested questions from the URL... At this rate, I don't think we can do this Saturday.

Thank you, Your Majesty!

Okay, I'll write the language for the legislation when I have a chance, maybe this weekend.

I was about to say, "I'd be very surprised if anyone voted against this," but I was surprised last time, too! Nonetheless, I think we will be ready to take a big step towards transparency at the start of the next term!

Okay, the conversation continued:

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on November 06, 2025, 03:29:20 PMAs Mic'haglh pointed out earlier, it's a bit pointless to criminalise something that is impossible to detect afterwards, so making it detectable in the first place is worth much more than 10% to me, especially if the proported purpose is furthering Government transparency. But admittedly, this is firmly in hair splitting territory.

I suspect we're close to finding an even better version of this, and we'll keep up the pressure and get it passed in the first Clark!

So it looks like we're going to mirror the emails to another account, give access to the official Opposition Leader (already recognized under the law), and then someone else will also need access so we don't lose control of the account.  Your Majesty @King Txec , how would you feel about that?  You wouldn't need to do anything but give the password to people once a term.