Quote from: Barclamïu da Miéletz on June 02, 2026, 07:53:06 AM

Quote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on June 02, 2026, 01:00:09 AMHowever, there was one citizen who was waiting on their ID from a previous round

Can said citizen update their photo? Asking for them.

The citizen in question is free to submit an updated photo if they would like, yes. :P

Quote from: Moinul Moin on June 02, 2026, 10:47:13 AMCan any citizen request for ID card now?

Citizens are welcome to fill out the application and take the Civics Test whenever they would like. However, in order to keep things moving on the current batch of ID cards, applications received after the deadline will simply make up part of the next group of IDs.

Ah, see, had you been at the March Informal Session you would have been present for the Baron stating that he intended to re-appoint several Permanent Secretaries on the way out the door. Not "paranoia-based" when it's based on explicit statement of intention.

That being said, in many parliamentary democracies, caretaker status does in fact restrict certain government decisions, and rightfully so. With no legislature in session, the question of whether a caretaker government truly retains its mandate is unresolved until the electoral results are known. With the status of that mandate in question, it is inappropriate for the Government to make major policy decisions, including creation of Permanent Secretary offices within its ministries.

As we begin to look towards the end of this Cosă term, we in the URL want to take stock of the issues currently facing the nation. Make no mistake, we still intend to campaign on the Democracy Agenda, our package of long-overdue reform. But we're not going to campaign solely on the Democracy Agenda -- we need a Government that can work towards its goals while also addressing the problems of the day. And what are some of these problems? Well, to be blunt, a lot of them can be boiled down to double standards. In this 62nd Cosă term, the Government of Baron Davinescu has repeatedly acted in direct opposition to his campaign promises.

On Transparency: The Baron and his party made "transparency" one of the main themes of the last election. He made claims that the previous Government was hiding something over immigration, and he made promises to be open and honest in government; both the claims and the promises clearly resonated with voters. But when it comes to who sits in the Cosă for the current government, the Baron has gone before the Cort pü Inalt to argue that the transparency to voters only extends to the election itself -- after that, what the party boss says, the party boss gets. We in the URL feel that if you saw the list of Progressive Alliance candidates in the last election, decided you supported those people representing you in the Cosă, and voted for them, that's your right as a voter -- but that's the list you should get as your representation!

To be clear, the Government can't be blamed for two of its leading Cosă members dropping out, but we believe their voters should have had a say in who would replace them. We're also not disputing the outcome of the Cort's advisory opinion -- we think it makes sense given the current wording of the Organic Law, to the point that URL Secretary Miestră Schivă noted this possible result in a brief to the Cort. What we're saying is that the opinion shows the need for drastic reform. The law as worded allows for party leaders to make a mockery of accountability to voters between elections -- and that's a good reason to change the law. Regardless of which party list you vote for on the ballot, the URL has long advocated for your right to be represented by those people in the Cosă -- not whoever the party boss says you'll get.

On Immigration: Another key theme of the Baron's campaign in November was immigration. Unfortunately, since taking office, the Baron has managed to lose more citizens than we've had immigrate.
- Seven new citizens have been naturalized since the Baron's government was appointed in mid-December.
- We are now past two full months without any naturalizations.
- Eight former citizens lost their citizenship after failing to vote in recent elections.
- Two more have renounced their citizenship, including the Baron's Attorney General, who renounced in solidarity with a sexual harasser unanimously condemned by the Ziu.

That's a net loss of citizens so far this term. For a guy who spent most of the previous term comparing Talossa's population trends to a house on fire, the Baron seems to be taking the current decline awfully coolly.

In the last term, we argued that levels of immigration are not the direct result of Government action or inaction. The current Seneschal disagreed, and won over many voters by falsely accusing the previous Government of deliberately ignoring immigration and recruitment. A few months ago, he even met concerns about the lack of election candidates by blithely assuring us that there would be no problem keeping the Ziu properly staffed if we doubled the population – something he seemed to consider realistic, with the right government. We are now further from the Baron's own population goals than we were when he took office -- can he claim to be that "right government"?

Now that immigration is his responsibility, however, he has claimed that immigration levels are based on luck -- effectively admitting that everything he blamed the previous Government for was wrong. There is no shame in being wrong. There is shame in winning an election by telling a simple untruth, and then not correcting the record when found out.

On top of this, when the URL suggests possible remedies for the nation's stagnating immigration, they are evidently ignored. We argue that one valuable source of prospective citizens would be political simulationists -- people who engage in sort of "model government"-type situations online. Some of these people are already part of the micronational world, some may be participants in online games such as NationStates, but wherever these people can be found, we ought to be trying to recruit them with the appeal of Talossa's long-running and substantial political system. Why aren't we? Well, it's apparent that these folks and their political interest would go against the Baron's desire to keep Talossan politics apolitical. We've called him out on this contradiction before, and it is apparent his apolitical desires are now choking the country of citizens.

On Active Leadership: One of the duties of a leader is fixing things that don't work. Sometimes this means changing policy within the boundaries of current law; sometimes it means changing the law to allow for better policy. As it is, legislative activity from the Government has dried up completely. Should we take this to mean the Government thinks the nation is in fine shape as it is, or do they intend to put out policy changes to address our problems? If the latter, why have they not done so?

On Concentrating Power: Perhaps the worst of the Seneschal's double standards so far has been the concentration of power. In the last election, he criticized the previous Government for "stacking" -- people holding multiple Cabinet portfolios in order to balance manpower and workload. Some stacking, of course, is understandable, especially when the work is divided among many positions. However, the Seneschal is now into the territory we've said he's been aiming for all along: "Government by One Person". Of the ten Cabinet posts, he now holds five of them personally -- half the Government in one man's hands.

- Seneschal (obviously)
- Minister of Immigration (officially appointed himself to the role)
- Minister of Defence (holding de facto as he never appointed anyone else)
- Minister of Public Records (holding de facto as he never appointed anyone else)
- Avocat-Xheneral (holding de facto after his previous A-X resigned in solidarity with the sexual harasser as noted above)

We in the URL believe that democracy should be a "team sport"; that a successful party should be a team rather than a one-man band. This is why we defend party lists and call for other Ziu reforms, to make sure the voters are choosing a team for government, rather than placing the power into the hands of a strongman. In contrast, when the Baron is in power, to paraphrase an old French saying: el parti, es el Governamaintsch, c'è lo.

To sum up, these are the key issues currently facing the nation, on which the Union of Free Reformists will campaign for a Cosă majority in the next election:

• Ziu reform to shift to a system where voters chose candidates as well as parties.
• Immigration to target sources like politics simulators, and to target quality (which we can control) rather than quantity (which we cannot).
• Team government rather than the dominance of a single personality.

Estimat Túischac'h, I rise today with a Terpelaziun for the Immigration Minister, @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu .

The nation last welcomed a new citizen on the 23rd of March, over ten weeks ago. On top of this, the nation's population has actually declined since the current Government has taken office, with seven citizens immigrating and ten emigrating (including two outright renunciations).

In past terms, the incumbent Immigration Minister has compared multi-month spans with no immigrants, such as the one in which we currently find ourselves, to a house on fire. He also criticized the previous Government on immigration, at one point noting "Talossa is losing citizens faster than she's gaining them", the same situation in which his Immigration Ministry now finds itself.

In his response to a different Member's Terpelaziun on May 5th, the Minister stated:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 05, 2026, 11:57:06 AMI thank the MZ for his question.  In response, I think I'd like to hold off until a few more people are confirmed as possible assistants.

I don't feel there's any immediate time pressure, since we've already been implementing a lot of the other Royal Commission recommendations in extraordinary form:

• The Prime Minister's Patriotic Award has been restored, and we actually have produced a bunch of physical awards that can be sent out to recipients.  They are designed to be displayed on the lapel, collar, or pocket, and that will make them visible in pictures or on Zoom and unusually prestigious (as the only physical award).
• The New Citizen's Guide has been updated, reformatted, and restored in collaboration with the Secretary of State, and will soon be formally unveiled.  You can see a preview here.
  
• Our diplomatic efforts have been very fruitful, with a lot of communications both formal and informal.

We will continue to do even more, of course.  If the MZ hears of anyone of good character who is interested in volunteering for the TalossAssistant program, please send them my way.

To begin with, I would like to follow up on each of these responses, namely:

• Have any Prime Minister's Patriotic Awards been awarded to date?
• It has now been a month since the Minister noted an updated New Citizen's Guide had been completed. Can he state why it has not yet been "formally unveiled"?
• Can the Minister provide to the Ziu or public any evidence or results of the "very fruitful" diplomatic efforts he has described?
• Given that zero new citizens have been naturalized since the above response was given, is the Ministry re-assessing the situation to acknowledge any "immediate time pressure"?

Thank you.

Good evening all! Just to provide a quick update:

No one actually applied for a new ID prior to the deadline's expiration, unfortunately.

However, there was one citizen who was waiting on their ID from a previous round, and two more who did fill out the old MinSTUFF application late last year, including passing their Civics Tests, so I'm treating these three as the current "batch" of IDs.

The updated tracker sheet can be viewed here.

I am currently still waiting to hear back from two of the applicants regarding some of their info. Since there are only three cards to make, the workload on my end will be pretty light. If everyone communicates on a reasonably-timely basis, I believe the initial target can be met of having these in the mail by the start of the Sixth Clark at the beginning of July.

I didn't really intend it as something you "join", if I'm honest. If you tinker and want to post about it, then post about it, no membership required.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 01, 2026, 11:47:05 PMOkay, so if everyone's agreed that what we're looking for is a series of OrgLaw and Lexhatx amendments that:

a) will mandate that all Members of the Cosa will be candidates who stood at the election (given some relaxation of seat limits);
b) will allow either a closed-list or open-list system to be established by normal statutory law (by the 63rd Cosa onwards);

then I think we can press forward with this. But I just want to make sure we're all on the same page with this.

I'm on board with this -- at least at first glance, it doesn't seem like the proposed changes would prohibit a more candidate-centric electoral method, whether that's the standard open-list system you and I have been advocating, or something like Sir Marcel's SPAV method. As long as the statute in question describes how the list is to be ordered for the purposes of awarding seats under the proposed Org.IV.2.2; maybe the proposed text should clarify that this list shall be ordered as determined by law? It mentions reaching the bottom of the list, going back to the top, etc., but does not clarify if the list is simply ordered as submitted, or assembled by the results of the election, or what. Explicitly having some flexibility there will ease the adoption of a new method, I think.

Congrats!

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP on May 31, 2026, 08:45:40 PM

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2026, 11:08:17 AMI do think that you're going to probably have to leave party leaders in control of submitting a list, subject to their internal processes, since I don't know how else you'd do it.

Aside from legislation mandating that parties follow democratic procedures and allowing legal redress if not, switching to a candidate-based voting system instead of one that strictly hinges on parties would also solve this problem. The power to set up and submit lists is much less serious if voters are free to defy those lists as they please.

My two bence is that such a change would be preferable to Miestra's suggestion, as it appears to get two birds with one stone. (A phrase we do not seem to have a Tolassan equivalent for, if you'll forgive the aside.)

Good evening S:reu Secretar,

Under Lexh.H.2.1.6. the Freedom of Conscience Act is now able to be Clarked, despite attempts from certain CRL members to delay it indefinitely. Please do so (and thank you).

And since fate has been kind, I had two weekends in a row where a repair project went smoothly. Several weeks ago, my girlfriend plugged in her vacuum and immediately tripped the circuit for the entire second floor. After a little investigation, we figured out the power cord was fraying internally -- the two wires were contacting inside the cord, so plugging it in would immediately short out the circuit.

Well this week a new cord came in, so you can imagine what I've been up to. This repair job went pretty quickly -- if you don't count the hour spent on a trip to Lowe's for wire nuts.... Disassembling the vacuum was fairly easy. Disconnect the belt from the motor, take the "body" off the "base", then undo the screws that hold the front and back halves of the body together. Inside -- under where the waste container sits -- is staggeringly simple. A switch, a set of wires, and a motor that powers both the impeller for suction and the belt for the beater brush.


The old power cord came out easily. The new one went in...easily enough. I was expecting two blade connectors. Nope, only one; the neutral wire had a crimp-on connector. Not having any of those -- and not having the wire nuts I thought I did -- it was time for a quick trip to the hardware store with everything sitting disassembled in my dining room. (What I have seen some DIY'ers refer to tongue-in-cheek as every job's "halftime".)

Thankfully, once I was back with the right size wire nuts, everything went back together smoothly. A quick test showed that the house's circuit breakers were happy, suction was good, nothing was rattling, etc.

Last year, we had some mullings about a possible Talossan "Tinkers' Union" -- a place for people to talk about their various projects. Well -- here it is!

Introducing what I am tentatively calling el Verbånd Talossan Cufabrichind -- the Talossan Tinkering Society. (I'd also considered el Verbånd Talossan d'Impreschtsch, the Talossan Society of the Toolbox. We can workshop the name, no pun intended.)

What this is: a sort of megathread for whatever projects you might be working on to maintain, repair, and improve...whatever! Be it automotive, electrical, plumbing, woodworking, appliances, electronics, knick-knacks, show your fellow Talossans what you're working on. Whether you want to show progress, get suggestions, or just give a summary of a successful (or maybe not-so-successful) project, this is the place to do it.

---

I guess it's only fair I go first! As those of you who have seen me over our Zoom meetings (or on my Mad Chicken review from 2024) may be aware, based on the browline glasses and whatnot, I have a soft-spot for mid-century things. Old electro-mechanical stuff that's built to last, the aesthetics of the Jet/Atomic/early Space Age, etc. So it's probably no surprise that I bought a fountain pen recently. This is a Parker 45, and much like Talossa itself, it hails from Wisconsin! Parker, now headquartered in France, is originally from Janesville, a city in southern Wisconsin, near the Illinois border, about a 1.5-hour drive from the GTA. The 45 was introduced by Parker in 1960; mine dates from somewhere in the 1970s based on several characteristics.

Purchased for cheap on eBay, last weekend I disassembled it, gave it a bit of a soaking in some distilled water with a light bit of dish soap, and let it dry overnight. The next day I disassembled it further; several pieces around the pen's nib were stuck together by caked-on ink from a previous user and needed the first soak just to unscrew properly. Then I gave the parts another soaking, and let dry a second night.

The 45 comes with a "converter" (the internal refillable ink reservoir), but it also accepts Parker's long-running cartridge design, and that's what I've used here. I seem to still have a few mild issues with ink flow, but that may be due to a bit of soap residue affecting the ink -- or maybe there's still some old red ink in there somewhere. When this cartridge runs out I intend to buy a little bottle of pen flush and give it a good internal rinse to see if it can't be improved further.

WHEREAS, the inclusion of any citizen on a political party's electoral list is currently and entirely up to that party's leadership; and

WHEREAS, it seems reasonable to ensure that the person involved should have some sort of say in their inclusion; then

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZIU that Title B of El Lexhatx, Section 2.3.2 is created to read as follows:

Quote2.3.2. The Secretary of State shall confirm to their satisfaction that all citizens appearing on a party list consent to do so. Only citizens so consenting shall be recognized as being on a party's list for the purposes of Lexh.B.2.3, and only said citizens will appear on the party's list as shown on the ballot.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Mic'haglh Autófil (MC - URL)

WHEREAS, Cabinet ministers may currently appoint Permanent Secretaries at any time, including in a "lame duck" or "caretaker" period following the close of an election; and

WHEREAS, this could conceivably permit an outgoing Government to staff ministries with Permanent Secretaries in contradictory ways to the desires of an incoming Government; and

WHEREAS, this seems an obviously unfair move that ought to be prohibited; then

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZIU that Title C of El Lexhatx, Section 1.1.1, which currently reads as follows:

Quote1.1.1. A Minister of the Cabinet may recommend to the King the creation of an Office within their Ministry and the appointment of a Permanent Secretary to that office based upon their qualifications, willingness to work and taking into consideration the applicant's performance in prior positions. All Permanent Secretary positions shall exist within the Royal Civil Service and shall be non-political appointments which shall be held until lawful dismissal, resignation or incapacitation.

Shall be altered to read:

Quote1.1.1. A Minister of the Cabinet may recommend to the King the creation of an Office within their Ministry and the appointment of a Permanent Secretary to that office based upon their qualifications, willingness to work and taking into consideration the applicant's performance in prior positions. No recommendations or appointments to a Permanent Secretary role shall be made in the period following a dissolution of the Cosă, until either a petition to name a Seneschal has been presented to the King, or the first Clark of the following Cosă term has opened, whichever occurs first. All Permanent Secretary positions shall exist within the Royal Civil Service and shall be non-political appointments which shall be held until lawful dismissal, resignation or incapacitation.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Mic'haglh Autófil (MC - URL)

I know we had discussed it a bit over PM, but I'm very glad you chose to resurrect this particular bit of provincial fun. And I'm flattered to be made a Kernel!

Ok, so this list is basically in order of where things appear in the proposed constitution.

• Can you elaborate on Chapter I, Section 7 a bit?
• Would it perhaps make sense to render the new constitutionally-defined motto in Talossan instead of English?
• I notice that I.6 and III.4, while perhaps not directly in conflict, appear to be redundant and possibly contradictory. In other words, you could say they're trying to "talk past each other". Would it make sense to maybe combine them into one section to clarify the subordination of provincial law to national law, and the order of precedence within the former?
• The current Constitution bars the Constable and the Sovereign from the legislature. This new proposal does not. Is this something we consider desirable?
• For that matter, it does not seem to grant Florencians the ability to opt in or out of a Curia seat for the term. What was the reasoning here?
• Much like I myself was advised during the drafting process for the Belacostan constitution, I would recommend having the "failure to act" provision in IV.3 match that of the Crown at the national level (bill not otherwise acted upon takes effect at the end of the month in which it is passed). To do otherwise may call into question the Organicity of this provincial constitution under Org.IX.4.4.
• How is the Paramount chosen if both Directors either do or do not want to be the Paramount?
• Given the issues Florencia has had with filling provincial offices of late, is the separation of the Chancellor into a different role, barred from another provincial office, the best course forward? Could the duties of the Chancellor perhaps be held by the non-Paramount Director, either de jure or de facto? Made an office of the Instrumentality, etc?
• For that matter, would it be wise to place a length on the term of Instrumentality offices?
• Is a simple majority to remove any officer appropriate? Would "impeachment" (since that is in effect what this would be) perhaps be better served by some higher threshold?
• Directory elections always occur during general elections, and also between them as necessary, yes? These seems like a lot, what happens if there's an early dissolution of the Cosa?
• Does the Curia ever have any sort of recess or end to the term? Does it ever suspend business?
• If all citizens are members of the Curia, is the amendment-by-referendum process necessary?

I know this is a fair number of questions, but a big part of my role here is to effectively play the role of deableu sè avocat, to refine the proposal.

Vice-Chair @mximo , do you have any input on Vice-Chair Tzaracomprada's proposal?

To be clear, I have been reviewing this over the weekend here-and-there when I get a moment. I will be posting my thoughts when complete (should be mid-week, I'm just trying to do my due diligence is all).

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on May 06, 2026, 10:19:08 AMJust to be clear, I'm not arguing against party politics at all, I'm just not a fan of lists in principle because, in my view, it robs the voters choice. As I stated previously, it forces voters to elect their representatives as a block and prevents them from scrutinizing individual candidates. Let's say I ideologically align with Party A, but there's one or two individuals on their party list I disagree with for whatever reason, why should I be forced to elect them into office? What if I want to split my vote because there's someone in Party B who I actually know will be a good MC despite some political disagreements we might have?

Again, with a 20-seat Cosa, I would argue it's even more important that voters get to scrutinize individual candidates and ascertain whether they'd be good, responsible and serious public servants. Having to rely on a party list prevents that from happening because the party itself can pave over whatever flaws their candidates may have. If someone running for office can't stand on their own two feet and articulate why they should be in the Cosa, or if they lack the commitment or time to truly be present and active enough, I'd argue they have no business running for office.

I appreciate you going into further detail! In addition to the SPAV system Sir Marcel is a fan of, you may also be interested in panachage, at least based on that bit I've bolded.

@Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP , could you maybe elaborate a bit on what happens in the event there are fewer than 20 candidates on the ballot? Would everyone end up getting a seat and then we cycle around to the beginning and do the whole thing again until all 20 seats are allocated? My concern there is that in such a scenario, larger parties may unduly benefit by virtue of being able to field more candidates. It becomes less about your share of the vote and more about how many names you can put on the ballot, if that makes sense. Alternatively, could we rework the system to give someone a second seat if they've earned it before everyone else has been given one?

I'm also wondering if there's an easy way to work in a "disapproval vote" into an open-list method. That may technically also fall under the panachage umbrella, now that I think about it.
- Vote for party of preference
- Give a +1/0/-1 to every candidate on said list.
- Party gets seats proportional to list vote.
- Candidates with negative totals are not granted seats.
- Everyone else receives seats in order of total score, cycling back around to "top" of party list as necessary.

Quote from: Françal I. Lux on May 05, 2026, 10:58:21 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 01, 2026, 09:21:30 PMIt's even less democratic when the party leader just picks the MCs, unrestricted by any list.

Isn't this, in practice, the current system we have now?

As Miestra pointed out, this is not quite the system we have; party lists do provide restriction on who the leader may appoint to seats in the Cosa. Granted, at least one party leader seems to disagree, but that's a job for the judiciary at the moment.

QuoteSince we're moving to a 20-seat Cosa, I would argue that individual candidates' ideas and principles should be scrutinized more during an election and voters should have a direct say in who's representing them instead of being forced to pick lists of people.

This is just my two bence, but I would argue that the provincial seats in an MMP setup could satisfy this preference, no? Yes, it does still factor into a partisan distribution of seats, but hear me out:

* Talossa as a country does have a fair amount of its activity revolve around politics, regardless of what one may think of this.
* Quite a few Talossans prefer a political system that actually features, well, politics. Discussion, debate, and organization based on ideological and ethical stances, as opposed to politics-as-a-popularity contest. (Some Talossans, to be fair, clearly do not share this preference.)
* An electoral system that seeks to balance the evaluation of individual candidates and evaluation of ideological groupings would, to my eyes, function as a compromise between these two approaches to Talossan politics.
* If we have an MMP system and the party list seats are also chosen via an open-list system, that would be a massive shift towards an individualized approach to politics, but it doesn't completely abandon modern, ideology-based partisan politics, either.

@Sir Lüc , please forgive the early tag; as I will be travelling tomorrow for a funeral I may not be on Witt much. However, in the event the CRL does not inappropriately delay the Freedom of Conscience Act outside their limited scope of responsibility, I would ask that you add it to the Clark once it receives the requisite approval.