I will say one thing and leave this discussion to the experts. Many people in Talossa (including Miestra and the Baron) have condemned the current leadership of our big brother nation surrounding most of Talossa for making immigration difficult to nearly impossible, requiring new citizens to show they will be useful citizens among other things. Then I see our leadership attempt to impose the very same things. Essays and tests to prove you will be "useful" citizens. I have said before that if I had been required to type out an essay I likely never would have been admitted as a citizen, I may not have even made the effort. Furthermore I have never tested well, there is a reason I am a truck driver in real life, I am not smart enough to have achieved a college degree, hell I barely graduated from high school and the reason for this is that I have never done well at tests. I don't know the answer to creating a better, more active citizenry but I don't think making it more difficult is the right answer. Then again perhaps some citizens here would rather the dumb old truck driver wasn't a citizen and wishes I could have been blocked.

In reference to some comments I saw somewhere on here about immigration. Someone stated that Talossa is rooted in immigration and this is an irrefutable fact. This was used as a way of condemning our larger neighbors immigration policies. With this in mind I feel it must be pointed out that our immigration policy in some ways is very similar to our larger neighbors policies. We do not allow just anyone to become a citizen, one must fill out a form and be vetted before one is given citizenship, our neighbor also wishes to vet immigrants. I for one as a citizen of both countries have no problem with LEGAL immigration, however I would (and do) have major issues with illegal immigrants. How would we as Talossans feel if someone figured out a way to hack our system and set up dozens or hundreds of illegal citizens?

Will things such as my real name, email address, home address be available to this "AI" or the company controlling it?

It is also very possible that it will expose the less than stellar former citizens. It could expose Talossa as a harborer of criminals. I don't know how much the media representative can see so I won't go into details here except to say that the incident in question was resolved and the person is (as far as I know) no longer a citizen.

Quote from: King Txec on June 03, 2025, 08:12:36 AMThe big story is not the AI, but the media exposure for Talossa. The worlds press will train its attention on the first ever country to have an AI minister. That seems pretty cool to me. Beside that, what do you think this AI will do? Take over everything? It will be a novelty. Allow Max to answer some questions at the very least. I'm not saying we should do it, but we should keep an open mind.

-Txec R

As evidence I give you all of the AI generated migrant applications we have been receiving.

61RZ04-Per
61RZ05-Per
61RZ06-Per
61RZ07-Per
61RZ08-Per
61RZ09-Per
61RZ10-Contra
61RZ11-Contra
61RZ12-Per

VOC-Uc

I'm old and I've seen too many movies probably but I dislike and fear AI

Okay, as a censure I can get behind this but when we actually create a law, with teeth, regarding harassment, sexual or otherwise, I feel that all reference to the person being censured here should be removed. This is something that should apply to all individuals here in Talossa and should not reference any single individual. Furthermore I would suggest striking this part and reserving this for the future law as it really has no place in a censure

*Similarly, anyone else acting in such a way must meet firm consequences in a timely manner.  We encourage the administrator(s) of Wittenberg to be more proactive in general in their efforts to curtail personal or sexual harassment by other citizens.  Heated debate is wonderful, sharp words might be necessary, but persistent and unapologetic harassment needs to be addressed.

The Chancery is hereby further encouraged to appoint an official to whom this power is delegated, considering that the Secretary of State might feel conflicted if they are the personally the target of harassment.*

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 24, 2025, 11:25:26 AMYeah -- it's more like a statement than a law.

Well in that case it is simply a waste of time

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 23, 2025, 07:38:45 PM

Quote from: King Txec on May 23, 2025, 11:50:21 AMI am curious why your rebuttal must use Dame Miestra as your example? Why not simply say "Jane" or "Joe" or something similar?

It sounds like my name got dragged in here because, since Lüc and Brenéir have preferred not to take the lead, Tric'hard sees me as the protagonist here, and is seeing all this as a political ploy to "get" Brenéir rather than a response to real, damaging, antisocial behaviour.

Not at all Miestra, I simply used your name because you are someone I am familiar with the spelling of your name LOL I fully support the idea behind the law, I simply have a problem with the fact that as written it singles out ONE individual. This makes it sound like it ONLY applies to him. If anyone is a protagonist behind this I would say it is the Baron, but even that is not what I was trying to say. I don't care who the "protagonist" is I just don't like the idea of codifying a law and naming a single individual. It should be more generic to make it clear that it applies to ALL citizens.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 23, 2025, 01:47:41 PM

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 23, 2025, 11:26:02 AMAs written I would vote against this. I think it comes off as a personal attack against an individual. While I agree with the intent I think the "naming and shaming" part should be removed. It comes off as petulant and childish. I also am concerned about the possibility of this being used as a weapon against future individuals. For example Miestra Schiva says Munditens is "cute" and Breneir then states that Munditens privately told him that he was offended (whether it was said or not) at which point Miestra's good name is dragged through the mud until such time as Munditens comes forward and says that no such thing was actually said. By that time the damage could be done. Accusations need to be done personally not through channels and they need to be made in a timely manner.

Well, it's definitely describing one person's behavior in particular. I wouldn't characterize it as a personal attack, since it's describing things that are easily verifiable. It sounds bad because his behavior was really bad. It was so bad it motivated an unprecedented interparty meeting to try to figure out what to do.

My fear is that if we just say something generic, then there really isn't much point to this at all. If we are afraid to actually call someone out for their behavior, then that is just going to be continued permission for them to continue acting that way.

I don't see any particular danger that this could be used as a weapon, because there's no actual new law being made here. It's a statement of support for specific actions and condemning specific behavior.

I don't see the need to use anyone's name as part of the law. Yes in the future should people violate the law then certainly they should be named, but it isn't necessary in the law itself. It comes off as an attack against that individual, it almost makes it sound like "anyone else can do it but we are going to bury this person" to me

Quote from: King Txec on May 23, 2025, 11:50:21 AM

Quote from: Tric'hard Lenxheir on May 23, 2025, 11:26:02 AMAs written I would vote against this. I think it comes off as a personal attack against an individual. While I agree with the intent I think the "naming and shaming" part should be removed. It comes off as petulant and childish. I also am concerned about the possibility of this being used as a weapon against future individuals. For example Miestra Schiva says Munditens is "cute" and Breneir then states that Munditens privately told him that he was offended (whether it was said or not) at which point Miestra's good name is dragged through the mud until such time as Munditens comes forward and says that no such thing was actually said. By that time the damage could be done. Accusations need to be done personally not through channels and they need to be made in a timely manner.

I am curious why your rebuttal must use Dame Miestra as your example? Why not simply say "Jane" or "Joe" or something similar?

-Txec R

I just picked random names that I am familiar with...I don't know everyone's name LOL

As written I would vote against this. I think it comes off as a personal attack against an individual. While I agree with the intent I think the "naming and shaming" part should be removed. It comes off as petulant and childish. I also am concerned about the possibility of this being used as a weapon against future individuals. For example Miestra Schiva says Munditens is "cute" and Breneir then states that Munditens privately told him that he was offended (whether it was said or not) at which point Miestra's good name is dragged through the mud until such time as Munditens comes forward and says that no such thing was actually said. By that time the damage could be done. Accusations need to be done personally not through channels and they need to be made in a timely manner.

Eðo Grischun I support the idea of a provincial constitutional convention if there are enough intelligent active people available to participate in creating a new constitution. I will follow along and try to put in my suggestions when I feel something is important but I am in no way intelligent enough to be an author of such an austere document.

Quote from: King Txec on May 07, 2025, 09:35:35 AMdirnalaiset mortescu maybe?

You are the King so what you say is law! LOL Team name is changed!