a minor party debate between the Orthodox absolute monarchists represented by @Max Maltezos and the Anarcho-surrealists represented by @Garth Spencer .

Come on, guys. You know you want to. To sweeten the deal, we'll do like Canadian debates and have half the questions in Talossan.

So you have no objection to the question if we replace the words "lead a fishing expedition" with "go through"?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on Yesterday at 01:11:03 PMAs you know, we offered to rephrase the word "fishing expedition" as too provocative

Actually, Mic'halgh has declined to rephrase.  But you're right: the problem is that the phrasing is way too provocative.  And I'm glad you agree.  That's my concern, too.

The basic approach is fine, since believe me when I say that I'm more than happy to talk about The Public Process Act and the need for transparency.  The problem is exactly what you say: the phrasing is absurdly provocative.

There is nearly unanimous agreement on that fact, it seems!  So please: let's rephrase this question.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 05:37:27 AMCan the PA confirm that, if they lead the next Government, they will lead a fishing expedition through all the available immigration records of the last two years, seeking for improperly processed or not-processed immigration applications?

That's exactly what you promised to do.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on October 21, 2025, 09:12:40 AMPast abuses must be sought out, investigated, and brought to light.  We believe the Government when they say that they've never used the secret power that they want to keep.  But it's possible that other governments have not been responsible in this regard.  The Progressive Alliance will investigate any past abuses and bring them to light.  The people have a right to know whether a bureaucrat has been secretly controlling immigration.

As you know, we offered to rephrase the word "fishing expedition" as too provocative, but this is what you have promised to do. And as I say, if you try it, I'm gone.

See, this is why I think that Baron Davinescu, although he clearly knows right from wrong and what dishonesty is, has a blind spot towards his own behaviour when he gets into "political animal" mode.

If he thinks something is a problem, even if it's something he made up - eg. "the Immigration Minister is throwing applications into the trash" - it's a five alarm fire that requires a full investigation and a new Government.

If someone else thinks something is a problem, and he doesn't, he pretends it's not real and the victim is being irrational. (Ironic, considering how he rightly identifies that as scandalous behaviour in other people.)

I have reason to believe that the moderators for this debate - former political allies or no - agree with Mic'haglh - that they thought they would be vetting the questions, that they did not expect the debate opponents to be trying to set the agenda themselves. If you want any post-election cooperation, it would be wise not to follow the Sex Pest's example, but to acknowledge that your behaviour is upsetting others and play fair.

WHEREAS it has been more than two weeks since @Tong Mun Kit Tong Mun Kit 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, Breneir Tzaracomprada, a citizen of very good standing of the province of Florencia and of the Kingdom of Talossa, do hereby petition the Secretary of State @Sir Lüc to issue a grant of citizenship to Prospective Citizen Tong Mun Kit, as specified by law.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on November 07, 2025, 01:32:09 PMWhile this would be great spectator sport, I'm afraid Talossan defamation law is very weak. I refer you to the 1997 case of Gallagher v. Madison, where the CpI ruled that KR1 telling outright lies about E. Gallagher was not defamation because "no-one believes what he says anyway".[/url]

I looked back at this by the way, and found the following:

• It was called Glaçâ v. Støtanneu
• The CpI didn't rule on this, the case was withdrawn
• The idea that you can't be defamed by someone who lacks credibility is not directly Talossan predecent, but based on US precedent.

Sorry for reviving this thread, I can't help it.

Yeah, I don't mind.

That'd be fine with me!

My friend, the whole point of a shared Google Doc, used by all four of us, was so that we could all comment on the questions together.  Otherwise we would have just sent them to the moderators.

But if you had wanted a rule for the debate where we had to remain silent about each other's questions, then you definitely could have asked for that.  It would be unusual, but okay.

You just suddenly seemed to have a problem with the process when your questions came under fire.  And I mean... come on, you're demanding that the moderators ask outrageous things:

Quote from: Mic'halghCan the PA confirm that, if they lead the next Government, they will lead a fishing expedition through all the available immigration records of the last two years, seeking for improperly processed or not-processed immigration applications? Given the immigration boom we've seen this term, why is he calling for a level of scrutiny that has NEVER been applied to the performance of any past Cabinet Minister?

It's not a surprise that they're asking you to rephrase.

No, I wouldn't like to switch to a debate form where you can submit the questions rejected by the moderators.  I'd like you to please come up with three more questions that aren't just campaign statements, and that a neutral moderator could ask with a straight face.  Sir Ian has already suggested some rephrasing you could use.

Sir Ian and His Majesty are both completely reasonable and not liable to be swayed just because I object to a question.  And prior to their current positions, they were both also close political allies of the Most Honourable Miestra Schiva.  So if they agree that there are problems with some of your questions, it's possible that they're right.

Let's finish up some questions that you can get the moderators to agree to, and let's debate as agreed.