Compare and contrast:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 09:29:21 AMThe URL repeatedly and knowingly lied about our flagship Public Process Act,

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu, presumably, in a PA mailer, 20th OctoberWe're only a few days away from the end of the voting for the Clark, and we're very close to the current URL government killing The Public Process Act.  Your Talossan government is trying to keep the power to secretly control who even gets to apply to immigrate!

(emphasis added)

The latter outright lie won a plurality of votes for the PA.  Unfortunately, when we chose not to "hit back", these lies were broadcast to the broad masses by mailer, so that didn't work. Here's another one:

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Yesterday at 09:29:21 AMOne 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 people get upset when I quote them, let's quote what I actually said to provoke this response:

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on November 05, 2025, 06:08:46 PMI mean, AD's latest post is just what I mean. He is outright lying about what Mic'haglh has said to him to try to score a political point. And you're going along with it?

In what way is this a "demand to denounce [AD] publicly" as opposed to, say, an objection to someone telling outright lies? It is of course possible that the Baron hasn't actually seen the message, in which case he's not lying, but is instead being lied to. So it appears to be lies all round up in this joint.

I used to enjoy playing the board game, I was never very good but I can give it a shot

Great name for a great cat.
May he chase little strings and take naps with the belly up forever.

I am interested in playing too. So now we have three.

I love a warm, soft, and salty pretzel fresh from the oven as much as the next guy. Even better with some of Talossa's favorite beverage.

The PA's recent statement increases the still low likelihood of another election. We still see the likelihood as high that there will be an arrangement between the two largest parties and this most recent PA statement is a face-saving measure.

Fellow Talossans, once the big party arrangement is announced please know that the Green Party having agreed collectively remains committed to not taking the lead as the Opposition. We will be using terpelaziuns for government accountability where absolutely necessary but we remain committed to building community in the Kingdom and will focus on those types of initiatives as our priority.

Should there be another election, we will reiterate our recent messages and welcome your support so that the Green Party can form government.

Tough spot you're in. I send wishes for a wise decision by the PA, we might be headed for another election pretty soon.

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.