Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 28, 2025, 08:09:23 PMI just realised that this debate is happening on your Party's forum. Sorry, I didn't realise, I usually wouldn't go into someone's house and tell them they're talking nonsense. I'm going to respond, but feel free to tell me to move it elsewhere if it's not appropriate.

It's okay, since we're already discussing, but I appreciate the thought :)  Typically discussing it elsewhere would be my preference, but also I'm happy to post a clean version of this policy page in the future.  Not a big deal.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 28, 2025, 08:09:23 PMBut the central point remains: you know perfectly well, though you are using rhetorical trickery to bury it, that Talossa is getting more than enough citizenship applications. If we acknowledge that Government policy is currently suceeding in this regard, the next question is twofold:

- how to turn applicants into citizens?
- how to attract good quality applicants, who are actually interested in becoming active citizens?

It's clear that you actually understand the real problem, in that you're talking about reaching out to specific communities who might be interested in participating Talossan life. You give the example of heraldry nerds. So you agree that there are a specific *kind* of person we should be looking for. Fine. The Government has its own ideas on that regard. Opening the Landing Pier to broad micronational society is part of that.

The Government's interest in putting an end to spam applications which use ChatGPT essays is entirely of a piece with that. Face facts - no-one, not never who has produced an essay written with ChatGPT or whatever has ever gone on to successfully become a citizen. Not one. Because use of ChatGPT shows that they're not really interested in becoming part of our Talossan community. You really seem to think that we should let all kinds of spam entries through because spammers might decide to become citizens after participating. I disagree.

The central point is that immigration has plunged by almost 50% under this Government.  And while I suppose we might argue about whether policing essays made things worse, it kind of seems besides the point, since we still have the problem!

If a wall in our house is crumbling, then it might not have made any difference when the construction crew hung some shelves on it.  Doesn't make any sense to me to do that, but okay... in the end, does it really matter?  "We probably didn't make it worse" isn't much to brag about, and we still have a crumbling wall!

You're in charge, and you've dropped the ball: immigration levels have plummeted by almost half.

The people of Talossa deserve a government that sets this as a major priority, not one that has to be forced into thinking about the topic.  As I explained initially:  If this was a priority, what would we expect our Government to do?

Draw attention to the problem.  One of the most fundamental parts of leadership is helping to direct attention.  Since this is a serious crisis, and the Government has admitted they are at a loss, they should be shouting to the rooftops for help.  We have many citizens who pay only intermittent attention: perhaps one of them might have an idea.

Try new things.  The Government's signature policy on immigration was to make it harder to immigrate by barring any applicants with an essay of low quality.  This approach has rightfully been abandoned, but what has replaced it?  If we can't just advertise our "pile of garbage," then there must be other ideas.

We should be trying lots of things, since if we try nothing, we're certain to achieve exactly that: nothing.  Maybe we focus on our strengths with heraldry, and appeal to the online heraldic community?  Maybe we incentivize recruiting with awards, and publicize those awards with recorded video speeches?  Maybe we explore reaching out to former Old Growthers to invite them back?  Maybe we offer prizes for Talossan language writing, and then advertise those prizes on conlang forums?

Set goals.  The immigration rate has nearly halved during this Government's time in office.  Faced with that problem, a Government that was serious would set a goal for recovery.  An actual goal would demonstrate accountability.  It's much better than simply accepting decline.

I just realised that this debate is happening on your Party's forum. Sorry, I didn't realise, I usually wouldn't go into someone's house and tell them they're talking nonsense. I'm going to respond, but feel free to tell me to move it elsewhere if it's not appropriate.

But the central point remains: you know perfectly well, though you are using rhetorical trickery to bury it, that Talossa is getting more than enough citizenship applications. If we acknowledge that Government policy is currently suceeding in this regard, the next question is twofold:

- how to turn applicants into citizens?
- how to attract good quality applicants, who are actually interested in becoming active citizens?

It's clear that you actually understand the real problem, in that you're talking about reaching out to specific communities who might be interested in participating Talossan life. You give the example of heraldry nerds. So you agree that there are a specific *kind* of person we should be looking for. Fine. The Government has its own ideas on that regard. Opening the Landing Pier to broad micronational society is part of that.

The Government's interest in putting an end to spam applications which use ChatGPT essays is entirely of a piece with that. Face facts - no-one, not never who has produced an essay written with ChatGPT or whatever has ever gone on to successfully become a citizen. Not one. Because use of ChatGPT shows that they're not really interested in becoming part of our Talossan community. You really seem to think that we should let all kinds of spam entries through because spammers might decide to become citizens after participating. I disagree.

Hi folks,

Information gathering continues for our Mid-Term Review but we have noticed something associated with one of our platform planks in the last election. That being longer Cosa terms. If you are following some of the exchanges between the two largest parties in their groups and recent terpelaziuns then you are aware of early maneuvering for the next election.

In the last election, we proposed extending the Cosa term from 6-8 months to a standard and fixed 10-12 months. Because we continue to believe the election cycle needs to be slowed down. And we need more time for actual governing and less for the constant contentious electioneering. The Government has a somewhat successful record of expanding use of the Civil Service for the purpose of increasing apolitical service opportunities. This will need to be expanded along with the reduction of political ministries.

Longer terms will not lead Talossa's campaign gurus and politicians to starve for want of activity but it might allow those more interested in non-political activities the chance to flourish. And a less frequent cycle of fevered campaigning might make Talossa more attractive at our Immigration offices and at the Landing Pier. Politics is not fun for everyone and we need to acknowledge that by ensuring Talossa has a balanced relationship to it.

As you might recall, the phrase that you used, D:na Seneschal, was "quality over quantity."  You said you wanted to "raise the bar" for applicants.  It's unclear how much effect the policy change of rejecting some applicants due to their essays might have had, since it was applied under considerable scrutiny and abandoned after a couple of months, but it doesn't seem to have helped at all.  And just recently, you signaled the Government's intent to institute a test for citizens.  This is the wrong direction for the country.

I also think there's questions of management -- a cheerful and colorful public image, along with actually trying things like looking at the process.  The immigration form has something like thirty steps, including boxes to be expanded and questions and checkboxes and an essay -- have we looked at this and seen if it can be improved?  Have we looked at our websites and seen if they can be made more welcoming?  What exactly has even been attempted?

Usually, this question might be muddled.  Usually, there's no clear and obvious lever to pull.  But for the upcoming election, the choice is between "we don't know what's wrong with this pile of garbage" and "let's try some things."

Nothing the Government has done has made it harder to make an immigration application, you just made that up

BTW, can I have some indication from the Progressive Alliance's actual leader, @þerxh Sant-Enogat , that this really is the policy perspective of his party?

I think the "stop making it harder to immigrate" lever would work great.  Also, I'd pull the "try some different things like the things I suggested" lever.

Please to be Clarking:

the Terpleziuns Reform Bill
the Immigration Reform (Antispam) Bill

See, I'm not the one who should be embarassed, because you know there is no magic lever that the Government could pull to turn more prospectives into citizens. To hope that you can win an election by making people believe there is, and you're going to pull it, is pretty dishonest.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on June 24, 2025, 01:29:07 AMWHEREAS the Túischac'h of the Cosa has requested amendments to the law on Terpelaziuns to enable him to more effectively moderate official questions to the Government, responses, supplementary questions, and to maintain decorum therein:

BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosa and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that:

1. El Lexhatx H.1.2.3.2, which currently reads:

Quote1.2.3.2 Once the first (round of) supplementary question(s) have been answered, the floor shall be considered open to contributions from other Members of the Cosă and Senators. Any questions posed in this stage shall not be bound by any formal time constraints.

is hereby deleted in its entirety.

2. A new section to be added to El Lexhatx, numbered H.1.2.5, as follows:

Quote1.2.5. The presiding officer of the questioner's House shall enforce decorum in both Terpelaziuns and answers to Terpelaziuns. The presiding Officer may require questioners to rephrase Terpelaziuns, or Ministers or their substitutes to rephrase answers to Terpelaziuns, to maintain decorum. In cases of continued violations, the presiding Officer may instruct the questioner or the Minister or their substitute to withdraw or apologise for a statement or comment, and remove any such statement or comment from the record in the absence of such withdrawal or apology; or disallow any further supplementary questions and responses to the Terpelaziun at issue.

This bill looks fine in form and function, with one exception: it needs the sponsorship at the bottom.  Assuming that's fixed, I vote to approve.

This will not mandate such a donation by my reading.  If that's the intention here, then it's otherwise fine, and I vote to approve.