Clarifying RZ16

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 14, 2019 7:50:51 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

RZ16: CONTRA - Whilst I'm sympathetic with the thrust of the argument that Wittenberg =/= Talossa, the reality is that our immigration is such that we all should be encouraged to get to know new citizens. As such, if prospectives are able to sail through the process whilst only ever corresponding with one citizen, I think this could be opened up to abuse.

RZ16 does not take away any requirements, only adds one. The requirements are AND, not OR.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Jun 16, 2019 11:18:01 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Jun 14, 2019 7:50:51 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

RZ16: CONTRA - Whilst I'm sympathetic with the thrust of the argument that Wittenberg =/= Talossa, the reality is that our immigration is such that we all should be encouraged to get to know new citizens. As such, if prospectives are able to sail through the process whilst only ever corresponding with one citizen, I think this could be opened up to abuse.

RZ16 does not take away any requirements, only adds one. The requirements are AND, not OR.

Then what's the point of it? I don't really see much benefit. If your intention is to try and decrease the significance of Witt presence on Talossanity (a very worthy goal) as you state in the preamble to the bill, then why continue to posit it as a requirement?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 16, 2019 11:56:25 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

Jun 16, 2019 11:18:01 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

RZ16 does not take away any requirements, only adds one. The requirements are AND, not OR.

Then what's the point of it? I don't really see much benefit. If your intention is to try and decrease the significance of Witt presence on Talossanity (a very worthy goal) as you state in the preamble to the bill, then why continue to posit it as a requirement?

The reality that the majority of Talossan activity still occurs on Witt must be taken into account. As you say, if there was no Witt requirement, many citizens would not have a good way to meet the prospective.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Jun 18, 2019 17:16:10 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Jun 16, 2019 11:56:25 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

Then what's the point of it? I don't really see much benefit. If your intention is to try and decrease the significance of Witt presence on Talossanity (a very worthy goal) as you state in the preamble to the bill, then why continue to posit it as a requirement?

The reality that the majority of Talossan activity still occurs on Witt must be taken into account. As you say, if there was no Witt requirement, many citizens would not have a good way to meet the prospective.

I do see what you're aiming at, but what I don't see is how this bill would in any way improve things.

[Ian Plätschisch]

Jun 20, 2019 9:18:52 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

Jun 18, 2019 17:16:10 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

The reality that the majority of Talossan activity still occurs on Witt must be taken into account. As you say, if there was no Witt requirement, many citizens would not have a good way to meet the prospective.

I do see what you're aiming at, but what I don't see is how this bill would in any way improve things.

By making sure that prospective know about places other than Wittenberg and understand the importance of using them.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Jun 20, 2019 10:43:30 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Jun 20, 2019 9:18:52 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

I do see what you're aiming at, but what I don't see is how this bill would in any way improve things.

By making sure that prospective know about places other than Wittenberg and understand the importance of using them.

Do you think legislation is necessary to accomplish this?

[Ian Plätschisch]

Yes, given that the only way to add immigration requirements is through legislation, and making it a requirement is probably the only way to prod people into doing it.

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

Jun 22, 2019 16:29:38 GMT -6 Ian Plätschisch said:

Yes, given that the only way to add immigration requirements is through legislation, and making it a requirement is probably the only way to prod people into doing it.

So to clarify, you believe that legislating is the only way to make people aware of the importance of using non-Witt forms of contact?

[Ian Plätschisch]

It’s not the only way to conceptually make people aware that other platforms exist, but it is probably the only way to make sure everyone actually uses them when they immigrate.