I was trying to summarize where we stand right now, as a party. Because we didn't make speeches about our feelings about the URL, and because we tried really hard to steer any such conversations back towards positive policy promises, I thought it might be helpful to describe where we're at. This was especially true after the recent chaos.

I also thought it would be fair to give you guys a chance to react to the situation. While I didn't think there would be an apology in the offing, I thought there was the potential to move forward with a different approach. Like, maybe you thought that all of us who spoke up at different times were just pretending to be upset for political advantage or something? Maybe you didn't understand our hesitance to enter into an agreement where we'd have to watch every word we said in private, for example.

From the first, we have said that we're we're ready to work with everybody, as much as we can. That is true yesterday, it's true today, and it'll be true tomorrow. We want to serve our country, in addition to our own political goals of reform and good governance. The door will remain open.

I don't quite understand the logistics, but I'm open to the idea in general.

Here is a material idea I had about how to potentially increase cooperation and trust, no matter how things turn out: perhaps the leader of the opposition should be "read in" on major decisions in private. Any interest in that idea?

Okay, well, I don't think we're going to agree.  I'm going to leave it there.  I hope that however things turn out, we can find a productive way to work together on things in the future.

The URL blocked the original Public Process Act, voting almost unanimously against it.  While later during the campaign and under immense pressure for this decision, Mic'haglh proposed an intervention which would allow Opposition lawmakers to be a part of a secret process, it is entirely a factual statement to note that the URL voted overwhelmingly to retain the government power in question.

But listen, I'm not really interested in an extended argument about this.  I'm describing the feelings of my caucus -- as well as a lot of our voters, who specifically mentioned some of the URL mailers that motivated them to vote Prog.  The broad feeling is that the general tone of aggression, condescension, and anger, joined with what we feel are some very knowing deceit, undermined our confidence in the URL as potential partners.  It's not impossible to fix, and there's a path forward, but please don't try to convince us that we're wrong about how we feel.

Obviously, we're going to feel differently in some respects.  You might feel that you made no mistakes in tone or rhetoric, and that I'm just trying to spin.  But please think back and just remember the speeches and mailers, and what you said, and consider what effect that might have had.  I also tried for even just a broad summary, leaving out a lot of things... even the recent account of our negotiations, which said a URL offer was presented that we never even saw.  Maybe it was intended to send it at some point, though?  I want to step back from the urge to just attack in response.  Can we change the dynamic, instead?  Move past it, now that the air is cleared?

We just publicly reversed ourselves on a coalition decision, since sometimes we make mistakes.  Everyone makes mistakes.  Let's move forward from them.

After emerging from the last campaign with a rousing victory, the Progressive Alliance was faced with tough choices.  We fell short of a majority, commanding 87 seats in the Cosa.  If we wanted to form a Government and start to bring change to Talossa, we'd need support from another party.  There were three other parties with sufficient seats to make that happen: the Greens, the very new IDT, and the incumbent URL.

The Green Party wasn't seriously considered.  S:reu Tzaracomprada is one of the few people in our history to be condemned by the Ziu for his past behavior.  To this day, he maintains that he didn't do anything wrong when he sexually harassed another citizen.  And since the most important thing is that our citizens feel safe, it would be irresponsible to put him in any position of authority.  He's the only active member of the Greens; it would be impossible for him to hand off leadership to someone else.

Initially, we forged an agreement with the IDT.  While the only IDT legislator, S:reu Malt, had very different views from own, we firmly believe that even people with very different views can find some common ground.  For us, it was his enthusiasm for our language.  Accordingly, our agreement confined him to working exclusively on language issues unless otherwise authorized.

Unfortunately, this agreement was reached before he began expressing the full range of his ideas and acting in an erratic manner.  Specifically, he expressed sympathy for a known neo-Nazi and doubled-down on his support for autocratic policies.  This is not acceptable.  We spoke with S:reu Molt and made it clear that his behavior had made it impossible for us to entrust him with a position of authority or power over others.  Again, the most important thing is that our citizens feel safe.  There will be no coalition with the IDT.

S:reu Malt has since apologized for some of his statements, however, so there is some possibility of accepting his participation in a supply and confidence agreement.  Any such agreement would not permit him to be in a position of authority, but would accept his support in the Cosa under the express understanding that this support would not come with any policy or legislative expectations. 

Our last option was the URL.  Their initial request for a possible coalition entailed a very deep collaboration, ceding them five of the eleven Cabinet offices among other requests.  There was no appetite for working with the URL to this extent after the recent campaign.

The Progressive Alliance works hard to be positive, but that often put us in a position of simply absorbing insults and falsehood from the URL leadership.  We deliberately chose not to "hit back," since it was our view that nasty scuffles were bad for the country and not what our base wanted from us.  We tried to push back, but always tried to be constructive at the same time as we discussed our policy plans or larger goals.

At times, this was a challenge.

• The URL repeatedly and knowingly lied about our flagship Public Process Act, saying that it would allow their leaders to be prosecuted for innocent mistakes.  Even though it's impossible for a law to criminalize past behavior, thanks to the protections of the Organic Law, the URL attempted to deceive voters that we had promised to "weaponize the justice system to punish political opponents."  There's no other way to see it: this was a knowing falsehood, cynically stated for political gain.
• One of the URL leaders, our current Seneschal, took a phrase out of context from a private conversation in order to lie about its meaning.  She was messaging with a past ally to scold him for his decision to support the Progressive Alliance, and she demanded that he denounce me publicly.  He said in dismissal of such a demand, "we're trying to win an election here."  Since then, this phrase has been touted as evidence of wrongdoing, rather than a phrase torn from conversation and re-interpreted.  He didn't mean that, and she knew he didn't mean that.  This was shabby behavior.
• The URL also spent a considerable amount of time attacking the Progressive Alliance as an organization, saying we weren't a "real party," that we wanted to "backslide into Madisonianism" and "yearn for those days" and think that "democracy doesn't matter," in addition to direct personal attacks on individual Progressive Alliance members.

We don't begrudge the URL their particular brand of aggression, but it was a rough thing to endure.  We didn't respond in kind, though, and we made sure to acknowledge the URL as valid choices with passionate and decent Talossans in their leadership.  We still believe that's true.  Still, it's hard to work with anyone when you know that private conversations are impossible, when they've spent months aggressively attacking you in personal terms, and when you wonder at times about their good faith.  Nonetheless, we were open about the possibility of turning the corner, and so we are still open to a confidence and supply agreement (a more typical one in this case).

At this time, we are still voting on how to proceed, deciding whether to seek a no-strings no-influence confidence and supply agreement with the IDT, or seek a confidence and supply agreement with the URL.  The vote will conclude within the week, and then we will move forward.

Whatever happens, we will continue to try our best to live up to our ideals and help make Talossa a better place, and that will always be true.

This coalition agreement has been dissolved.  The IDT will not have a place in Government in the upcoming term.  S:reu Malt will still hopefully assist us with language matters, but given our concerns about his views and certainty about his erratic choices, we have opted not to put him in a position of authority.

The Progressive Alliance wants to work with everybody, even when our views differ, but sometimes the choices people make are a harsh limit on the extent to which we're able to welcome their contributions.

We are still open to a confidence and supply agreement which does not grant S:reu Malt any authority or discretion, but a vote is currently ongoing and no decision has been made.

Remember, Progressives, there's a few days remaining on the vote to determine which path we take forward as a party!

We've talked privately, and I've told you that we don't traffic in racism around here.  It's universally condemned and unequivocally shunned.  I'm hoping that you were hasty before, and that this recent controversy reflects this haste and your youth.  I think your resolution to back off, quiet down, and spend some time learning is a smart one.  This is a good first step.

We will be picking a new Culture Minister. A vote is already in progress as the party decides on its options.

Happily, the record reflects that I didn't oppose this.  Instead, I actively encouraged you to work on the project, and mentioned it frequently as something I wanted to see happen.  Here's an example. It was just a question of the sheer amount of work. And I'm not afraid of hard work.

Being the most progressive member of a conservative party was sometimes awkward, of course. I know some people in my party at the time opposed it, just like some people in your party at the time opposed it, but I'm not sure how that's really relevant when I've been consistent on this the whole way through. It's false to suggest that I ever stood in the way. I remember when I was defending the bill to establish the secret ballot, I had to argue for quite a while with Cresti. Sometimes that's how it goes.

I'm not a big believer in the idea that it's good to "rattle" someone -- I'm not sure it says much about the truth of the matter.  So I don't know that it matters a lot if someone is getting upset. But people should have learned at this point not to believe you, Most Honourable Seneschal.

That's why I was asking! I won't.

To clarify, I mean the total number of seats each individual was permitted to hold.  For example, this Cosa it's 20 seats maximum per person.  Would it be 2 seats maximum per person under this new law?

EDIT: Okay, so it sounds like it would be 2 per person for an election like this one.

I was thinking about sponsoring this as a Government bill, but I don't want to put any cross-party sponsors in a tough spot.  Would there be any objection to this?

I definitely think it's worth considering this change.  But I think that the fact that the Cosa is so representative is a significant good thing.  It's really a matter of weighing both factors, and deciding which is more important: respecting the democratic vote as much as possible or making political power more rarefied.

Will there be any effect on things like the party seat rules or the number of seats a person can hold?

At week four, the Mençeis were dishonouring the name of their province every single game:

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on November 03, 2025, 07:26:15 AM1. Manager-less Team 1 3-0-0 902.80
2. Vuode Villains 2-1-0 1,139.20
3. Banqeu da Cézembre Zambonis 2-1-0 915.60
4. Cjovani Squilats 2-1-0 913.10
5. Els Talossaes Rexhitais 2-1-0 847.00
6. Tigreux dal Belacostă 1-2-0 993.50
7. Gordon Hiatus Support Team 1-2-0 859.90
8. Cézembrean Amateurs on Ice 1-2-0 795.90
9. Maricopa Havana Hijinks 1-2-0 745.40
10. Maritiimi-Maxhestic Mençeis 0-3-0 681.60

But now we've risen to #6, in a storybook development that can only be rivaled by epics like Air Bud.

Songs will be written and monuments will be built.

Have you ever wanted to be a journalist?

Have you ever wanted to report on the news, analyze what's happening, and be heard by hundreds of people?  Then we have a project for you!

@Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP is our current Landitsch Naziunal, or national Talossan-user, and he's looking to start a new journalistic effort.  I'm just trying to help give a leg up: this would be an independent outlet that's not under government control, covering the news of the day.  In a country with very little reporting, you'd have a lot of influence and you'd be helping your country!

Imagine reporting out an exciting election campaign, or the latest development in national trends from Infoteca, or the surprising events of the day!  Imagine seeing your words translated into our national language, and running simultaneously in both Talossan and English... informing people and helping them learn!

I'll be reaching out to some specific people with experience in this, but maybe you have always thought it would be interesting to have that kind of influence?  If so, reach out to myself or Tafi today through Discord or private message!

Quote from: King Txec on December 07, 2025, 07:45:12 PMI don't know, but it seems like someone should ask the actual, reigning king, his thoughts on his role in Talossa. Just an idea.

-Txec R

Your Majesty, what are your thoughts on your role in Talossa?

Barclamïu, I have a pretty long track record in Talossan politics, and I've spent a lot of time fighting for democratic reforms.  The old system of laws was just a crazy hodgepodge of dozens of individual things that only a few people knew about, until my project of coming up with el Lexhatx.  Or even recently, only a few people would know where to find information on things like the government budget or immigration statistics, until my project of developing Infoteca.  My legacy in Talossa is one of good-government reforms and systems, and I plan on continuing in that tradition.

But don't take my word for it.  Stay engaged and hold us accountable!  If you see me sponsoring a bill to favor Christianity -- unlikely, since I'm an atheist, but let's just speculate -- then you should speak up!

There's a reason why I insisted that we leave the door open to work with the URL, even after everything, and it's because I sincerely believe that it's better to hear everyone's voice.  And that goes for you, too.

I think probably just that it's more granular, which this bill is specifically supposed to change.  So I guess it depends on whether or not you think it's good that the Cosa more closely resembles the actual vote.