The Talossa is Not Wittenberg Act

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

A lot of people think Talossa is Wittenberg. They are increasingly correct. Maybe put it up for consideration again and speak to people who voted against it about why they opposed it?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 30, 2019 19:03:06 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Well, I abstained because it seems to be tinkering for tinkering's sake and I didn't see how it would help OR hurt anything.

What say you to my explanations of why I think it would help?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I would repeat what, I think, CCX said in the voting thread: that it would be better to publicise non-Witt avenues of Talossanity than to make participation in them compulsory.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 30, 2019 19:27:22 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I would repeat what, I think, CCX said in the voting thread: that it would be better to publicise non-Witt avenues of Talossanity than to make participation in them compulsory.

We already publicize them a lot, but that doesn't seem to get many prospectives to partake in them.

Don't misunderstand the nature of the bill; it would not require continuous participation on a different platform. It would require participation *one time.* There is a big difference between hearing about something and actually doing it yourself, even one time, and that is what this bill seeks to capitalize on.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I think we're confused here. If the idea of this bill is to support non-Witt avenues of Talossanity, well and good; but surely in that case we should be requiring current citizens, even the Government/state agencies, to use them, rather than prospectives?

If the thought is that requiring a higher standard of engagement from prospectives would increase their enthusiasm for sticking around, then that's an interesting argument - but if it's true, then I much prefer the idea of bringing back the compuslory Civics Test!

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 30, 2019 19:37:37 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I think we're confused here. If the idea of this bill is to support non-Witt avenues of Talossanity, well and good; but surely in that case we should be requiring current citizens, even the Government/state agencies, to use them, rather than prospectives?

If the thought is that requiring a higher standard of engagement from prospectives would increase their enthusiasm for sticking around, then that's an interesting argument - but if it's true, then I much prefer the idea of bringing back the compuslory Civics Test!

I am not confused at all, although maybe my argumentation hasn't been clear enough.

We can't very well put more requirements on current citizens, since they are already citizens. However, we can put more requirements on the immigration process since the Ziu has authority over that. So, it is really a new requirement aimed at making new immigrants more knowledgeable about what Talossa is and how they can participate, even though I would really love for everyone to have this knowledge. The primary aim is not to simply increase a prospective's engagement since, as I have already pointed out, the actual requirement is minimal.

[Amada Merþedes]

hypocrisy detected

[Ian Plätschisch]

Dien, you better get the Ham Sandwich Amendment ready, because I'm going to give this one another go.

[Amada Merþedes]

I personally am in favour of this act, however would their need to be evidence presented in the petition ?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jul 26, 2019 6:49:29 GMT -6 Amada Merþedes said:

I personally am in favour of this act, however would their need to be evidence presented in the petition ?

Good catch