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 Today at 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 Sir Iason. Talossa is richer for your presence. I have two IDs myself.

-Txec R

It's a shame that this event just kinda, fizzled out without resolution, but I thought it was fun, and I'd be up for another one of these next time one is organised.

There are a number of still in the Kingdom with about 25-26 years of citizenship.  It's good to be a Talossan.  :-)

Quote from: Iason Taiwos on Today at 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...

If we are still doing the citizenship milestones project then this would be a great occasion for a certificate. Might actually be a good idea for a page on Talossa.com too.

Quote from: Iason Taiwos on Today at 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: Iason Taiwos on Today at 01:31:02 PMAnd I think I'm the only person with three IDs...

Three? That's interesting. I'll be in posession of two soon (hopefully).

I 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...

Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on Yesterday at 10:31:45 PM

Quote from: xpb on March 14, 2026, 10:23:19 PMnote: data collected by Breneir duing impulse #1 for Asgardia not including SWOT analysis has been submitted to their foreign ministry for review of accuracy - this is an information gathering step only, not establishing any specific relationship

Hey @xpb

In starting to finally get to work on the second report for the Dominion of Vancouver Island I noticed this note concerning the Asgardia report. Have you heard anything back from Asgardian Foreign Ministry?

Asgardia did not reply to my March 2 inquiry: Establishing Asgardia information for Talossan Factbook 2026.  I most recently received from them their general newsletter on June 18th (their unity day) indicating that their upcoming 10-year anniversary 12 October 2026.

meanwhile there's an effort by Microcon/Slowjamistan to create a more terse directory that wouldn't have the details of the fact book but could be a starting point to collect information from.

Quote from: Sir Lüc on Today at 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 Today at 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.