Pirate Congress 2021/Minutes/Log

Meeting Minutes This document is a record of a meeting. Do not edit this document without contacting the relevant group first.

Meeting Log This page contains a transcript or log of a meeting that occurred on the 31st of July and 1st of August 2021. It should be used for reference only and does not need to be edited.

This is Alex Jago's raw log of the IRC chat for Congress 2021. Please note that all log times are in UTC+8:00, but the main time for Congress was AEST, which is UTC+10:00.

This log may be referred to in conjunction with recordings of the live stream:

• Saturday 31st: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nbWs57nNRE
• Sunday 1st: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVTqEFWuq8Q

###############################################################################
##### Congress Day 1 commences formally at 10:00 AEST, 31st July 2021.    #####
##### Please note that log times are in UTC+8, two hours behind AEST      #####
##### Further note that this Congress featured discussion on both Discord #####
##### (marked with [D]) and IRC. This log is taken from the IRC side.     #####
###############################################################################

--- Log opened Sat Jul 31 07:13:27 2021
07:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Log test...
07:16 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> ... successful
07:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> --------- Welcome to National Congress 2021 --------
08:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Can you message in here when Congress is starting
08:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Will do
08:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Gonna finally have a chance to find out whether or not FreeTube works with live video too, which will be neat
08:09 < alexjago> Starting at 10:09 AEST or so - stream is live
08:10 < alexjago> Stream delay is under 30 seconds, hurray!
08:10 < alexjago> Maybe as low as 5 seconds. Great work, mandrke's computer :)
08:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> All good for me, and it turns out youtube-dl can grab active livestreams too! Unexpected but nice.
08:12 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> can you guys hear and see the stream ok?
08:12 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> yep, you're live
08:14 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​ilspec> I'm tuned in 😃
08:14 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aka Santa
08:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Is there a YouTube stream link yet?
08:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nbWs57nNRE&ab_channel=PiratePartyAustralia
08:16 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> That is incredibly low resolution. Very Fuzzy.
08:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Thanks for the link though
08:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Looks like Miles is talking but I have no audio
08:18 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Very
08:18 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I just heard that Satch ... just then though, had nothing before
08:18 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I have audio from David and Mandrake
08:18 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Audio for me, everyone on stream please mute their YouTube
08:19 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Can you all try to say something to the stream as a test
08:19 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I have nothing from Miles still
08:19 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> everyone else is confirming the audio is good
08:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> roger i think the problem is on your end
08:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> as in YouTube?
08:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> doubt it
08:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I can hear Satch, Alex and Bryn
08:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Confirm no Miles on YouTube
08:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> yes Miles on video chat
08:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Audio through YT is good. Video quality is terrible, to the extent that  the people are barely recognizable.
08:22  * RelayBot [D] <a​lexjago> wonders if turning the video quality down for me impacted everyone
08:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Looks ok to me (albeit small)
08:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/580190396110340107/870823686658207784/unknown.png
08:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @andrewdpirate is your YT quality turned down to potato mode
08:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Also @mandrke your audio specifically is getting hella echo
08:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Huh. It was on Auto, but for some reason that was defaulting to terrible
08:24 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> Here are the standing orders for everyone to peruse while waiting https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/National_Congress_Standing_Orders
08:24 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> I put it on 720, and now it looks good
08:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Miles' audio working on YT now
08:26 < alexjago> is anyone else getting massive echo though?
08:26 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> not through YT
08:27 < alexjago> and we still have an echo
08:27 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> which is everyone yeah? 😉
08:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Remote rules:
08:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> 
08:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Begin statements in chat with the Remote Chair's chat name. [Satch]
08:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Follow this with the action, such as "MOTION", "QUESTION", or "COMMENT"
08:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> The remote chair will then read this out at an appropriate juncture.
08:33 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> MOTION: To accept the Standing Orders for National Congress 2021
08:33 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> Place your votes
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> ⏱ Voting closes in three minutes. Please respond "Aye", "Nay" or "Abstain".
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> I vote aye
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> aye
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​RQ> aye
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> aye
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> aye
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​ilspec> Aye
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
08:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Aye
08:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <8​MA_JBH> Aye
08:38 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> OK, that's been more than 3 minutes. I count 13 Ayes, 0 Nays, 0 Abstains.
08:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> yes, cool
08:46 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Almost 1.5% in Griffith
08:46 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Good for 4th out of about 12
08:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Comment: to be fair, party leader in the Greens context means parliamentary leader (i.e. not Miles-equivalent)
09:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​RQ> Comment:Despite being unsuccessful, that sounds like a massive membership effort, well done.
09:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> Good speech Miles, though being on the NC, a bit of a conflict of interest 😉
09:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> Good effort there Alex 🙂
09:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> no audio on YouTube stream
09:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> coffee break?
09:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> MOTION: Break for 10 mins
09:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> place your votes
09:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
09:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
09:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
09:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> aye
09:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
09:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> aye
09:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
09:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> Aye
09:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​RQ> aye
09:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <8​MA_JBH> Aye
09:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Aye
09:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> close votes
09:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​ilspec> Comment: I would love more PP content that I can share on social media (eg. Reddit). Articles, podcasts, interviews, etc. I'm only new here though so maybe I'm just not looking at the right places.
09:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @Milspec how's your writing? First step is to have longer-form content to share 😉
09:19 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​ilspec> Haha fair point.
09:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​ilspec> Your interview was really cool though. More like that :)
09:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> milspec, check out https://www.youtube.com/c/PiratepartyOrgAu/videos
09:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​ilspec> Will do, thanks 😃
09:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> we also have a bunch more here https://www.facebook.com/piratepartyau/videos
09:30 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: yes, the main disadvantage of deregistration is that we can't have our name on the ballot paper
09:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> (let's get re-rego'd, folks 🙂 )
09:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Yes, we need 100 signatures per candidate to nominate, and $2000
09:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Re-rego is honestly an easier task than running indie
09:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <8​MA_JBH> QUESTION: Just curious, who does PPAU bank with?
09:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <8​MA_JBH> Interested in knowing if we use ethical banking in how we operate
09:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> ANZ
09:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <8​MA_JBH> *shudders*
09:33 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> That would've been set up a very long time ago I believe, long before the current NC (or the banking royal commission, for that matter).
09:33 < gry> i've been meaning to find a bank that invests in local businesses instead of global comglomerates such as facebook
09:33 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Comment: for context my other organisation banks with Commonwealth and their online banking tools are even worse
09:33 < gry> they are pretty reliable, but leave the country in a weaker position
09:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> I'm aware that a number of civil society organisations have gone with Bendigo Bank, and that those decisions were made in part to get away from ethical issues of dealing with the major banks, but I don't know how recently those decisions might have been reviewed.
09:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: the member DB is a double edged sword, because people forget to renew
09:37 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Question: In regards to how-to-vote pamphlets and the like, has there been any consideration given to the likely increase in postal/early votes in a post-Covid world
09:37 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> ?
09:38 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Alex is muted
09:39 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​RQ> Yup, muted.
09:40 < alexjago> Prepoll is double-edged - being at a polling booth is great for brand awareness, but also we aren't at many anyway
09:40 < alexjago> And I take Miles' point about weeding out inactives, but we have an overly high collateral damage 
09:46 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> yep
09:47 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2021/Motions
09:50 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> it'll be easier to use Alex's screen share so he can control the screen
09:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> bigger please
09:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Both FM-1 and FM-2 are designed to give us more flexibility in how we contest
09:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Yeah, that's unreadable in the YT stream
09:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> @Sicarious @andrewdpirate would you two like to speak on the stream for the marriage policy update?
09:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I could. Got nothing prepared, but I could.\
09:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> ok actually i see you both have contributed to a number of PAMs
09:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> you can participate in the stream for as many as you like over video + audio
10:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> I'm happy for the marriage policy proposal to just be read out as written.
10:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <8​MA_JBH> QUESTION: would we be notified of pre-negotiated deals before doing the membership preference vote, or after?
10:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <8​MA_JBH> Because negotiated deals may influence membership votes if we know there's an arrangement that is ready to go e.g. I may preference a party that we have a deal with within the top 6 if we are already in final stages of negotiations etc.
10:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <8​MA_JBH> 👍
10:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <8​MA_JBH> Yeah I know, it's been crippling for practical party negotiations. We should've done this many elections ago
10:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Restriction to top 6 positions from pre-polling makes it seem pretty reasonable. I do actually have a comment though
10:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Which is what do we do if there are say, 4 parties with significant support for joint tickets and campaigns
10:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> QUESTION: Can the pre-authorization be more specific in the sense of members explicitly agreeing/not to negotiation with specific parties, as opposed to this more blanket pre-auth ?
10:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> You just answered the question I was gonna ask. My issue with the motion as it stands is:
10:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> 1) It strictly limits number of potential dealing partners even should there be more than 6 parties with widespread approval within the party
10:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> 2) It simultaneously grants permission to deal with undesired parties should there be *less* than 6 parties with common approval across the party
10:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> Proposal: amend FM-2 to read "Any deals negotiated by the National Council under FM-1 are automatically ratified by the party, and do not need a specific membership referendum."
10:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> In practice, this seems unlikely to cause issue, but it is a flawed system in theory.
10:12 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> Proposal v2: amend FM-2 to read "Any joint ticket or campaign deals negotiated by the National Council are automatically ratified by the party, and do not need a specific membership referendum."
10:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I think something *like* this is necessary, especially in the leadup to the next election, and it's probably not a good time to try draft a novel approval voting system (literally during congress) but I would like to address these theoretical issues
10:16 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I would propose a combination then, to at least address issue #2
10:16 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> COMMENT:  From our constitution - "The National Congress has the exclusive right, by two-thirds majority vote, to allow the Party to merge with, affiliate with or disaffiliate with any other organisation."
10:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> COMMENT:  From our constitution - "The National Congress has the exclusive right, by two-thirds majority vote, to allow the Party to merge with, affiliate with or disaffiliate with any other organisation."  I think this clearly counts as an affiliation. (edited)
10:18 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> National Congress, not National Council
10:18 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I read that statement as being regarding a specific organisation. There is no specific organisation being proposed during this Congress.
10:19 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> It says "ANY other organisation"
10:19 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Yeah, but national congress is literally what is happening right now
10:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <8​MA_JBH> Difference between a technicality and the intention of the original clause...
10:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> It says that we could all vote to merge with some other group if we wanted without needing to send out a party-wide referendum
10:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Not that particular thing though. I think I might have misinterpreted Andrew's meaning though
10:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> COMMENT:  If we're expecting our members to campaign for another party, then it's hard to interpret that as not being an affiliation.
10:26 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> QUESTION: Does our preference ranking system allow us to determine approximate approval rates in any way? For example, could we mandate something like "Top 6 preference ranking, and ranked in top 6 by >15% of party respondents"?
10:28 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> In reply to Alex: I think the key criteria is that the membership needs to approve specific organisation affiliations, and by a 2/3 majority.
10:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Quite likely, yes. My main concern is what if the party can only really agree on 4 or 5 parties
10:29 < alexjago> If the party only agrees on say 4 parties than we only try to negotiate with 4
10:30 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> COMMENT: We could put a check box on the preference ordering poll, to authorize affiliation against specific parties.
10:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> So joint tickets and such should be done on an approval-voting basis, and require 2/3rds majority?
10:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Yep - what Alex said. I'd agree to that.
10:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> 2/3rds absolute majority, or only of respondents?
10:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> What's the quorum on the preference poll?
10:33 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> The referenced clause in the constitution is specific to national congress attendees
10:33 < alexjago> All votes of that nature have to go out to email vote
10:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Well, who wants to actually type out the formal amended motion?
10:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Yep, it's respondents. 2/3 of the actual votes + 1
10:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Sounds like the controls around the new FM-1 would be sufficient
10:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Yeah, pre-authorisation done at same time as preference poll sounds good to me
10:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Potential for post-authorisation with parties that didn't meet the mark in the preference poll remains, right?
10:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Seems unlikely to be relevant
10:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> @ sean it would be implied we dont i think, but technically yes
10:37 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> But might be, in case we have a bunch of parties that each hit like... 50-60%
10:37 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Authorise the National Council to negotiate joint tickets and campaigns for the next election with other parties or independents, similar to what has previously occurred with preference deals, provided that they have a 2/3rds approval from the previous membership-wide preference poll. All deals must be balanced and reciprocal. ?
10:38 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> * MOTION: Amend FM-1's motion to read as follows:
10:38 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> 
10:39 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> > Authorise the National Council to negotiate joint tickets and campaigns for the next election with other parties or independents, provided that said party or independent exceeds two-thirds approval in a membership-wide poll. All deals must be balanced and reciprocal, but will not require subsequent ratification by another membership vote.
10:39 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Don't vote yet
10:39 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> (proposed motion)
10:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> That's a price likely demanded by the constitution
10:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> be specific then, if it's only relating to this election, then call out the membership-wide vote to be held for 2021/22 federal election
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> * MOTION: Amend FM-1's motion to read as follows:
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> 
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> > Authorise the National Council to negotiate joint tickets and campaigns for the next election with other parties or independents, provided that said party or independent exceeds two-thirds approval in a membership-wide poll held not more than one year prior. All deals must be balanced and reciprocal, but will not require subsequent ratification by another membership vote.
10:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> wrap negotiate AND approve into FM-1? Then no need for FM-2?
10:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> * MOTION: Amend FM-1's motion to read as follows:
10:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> 
10:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> > Authorise the National Council to negotiate joint tickets and/or campaigns for the next election with other parties or independents, provided that said party or independent exceeds two-thirds approval in a membership-wide poll held not more than one year prior. All deals must be balanced and reciprocal, but will not require subsequent ratification by another membership vote. (edited)
10:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Yeah
10:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> That's what's happening
10:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> COMMENT: The constitution appears to be silent on the topic of whether the National Council can change the nature of an affiliation once it's approved, so FM-2 is probably not required if FM-1 passes.
10:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> It addresses all the issues I had by not fixing it to a fixed 6 regardless of context
10:47 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Santa or Garden Gnome?
10:47 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Is there a mechanism for party member intiatives within the constitution that could potentially overturn a disastrous deal by some future incompetent council?
10:48 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> vote of no confidence
10:48 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Can be initiated at any time?
10:48 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> no, only during congress
10:48 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i think there are mechanisms for a party to hold an emergency national congress though
10:49 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I have acccepted my own amendment for FM-1
10:49 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I withdraw FM-2
10:50 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Yup, 25% petition can force a congress
10:50 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Cool, I have no issues
10:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> * MOTION: Approve FM-1
10:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> 
10:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> > Authorise the National Council to negotiate joint tickets and/or campaigns for the next election with other parties or independents, provided that said party or independent exceeds two-thirds approval in a membership-wide poll held not more than one year prior. All deals must be balanced and reciprocal, but will not require subsequent ratification by another membership vote.
10:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> AYE
10:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Aye
10:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> Aye
10:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
10:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> aye
10:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
10:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> start voting
10:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
10:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
10:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
10:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> aye
10:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
10:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Aye
10:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
10:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> you have until 12:55 AEST to get your votes in
10:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <8​MA_JBH> Aye
10:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​olzy> Aye
10:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​arkG> Aye
10:53 < jedb> aye
10:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> close voting
10:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Might need to be some kind of limit on the number of proxies you can hold, to avoid anyone acquiring arbitrarily great power to force decisions.
10:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> MOTION: break for lunch 1 hour
10:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> place votes
10:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
10:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
10:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
10:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> aye
10:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> aye
10:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> aye
10:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> aye
10:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
10:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
10:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
10:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​olzy> aye
10:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
10:59 < jedb> abstain
11:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> That passes, and that's lunchtime!
11:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Is audio only okay? I literally do not own a webcam lol, but I do have a fully functional mic now
11:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> close voting, congress resumes at 2.02pm AEST
11:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> yes
11:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> time for emergency lockdown grocery shopping
11:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> well, we can go grocery shopping anyway
11:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> but im hungry so its an emergency
11:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Also, to whomever this may concern: I never actually got the email for this event? I just went and doublechecked my email address on the members page, and it's correct, but I never received the email.
11:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Since I'm active on the discord I knew anyway, but if somebody else wants to check that the email actually went out, that would be a good idea
11:15  * jedb renews his objections to Discord
11:27 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> I got an email at 9:09am today
11:27 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> yep, that's when I sent it
11:28 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Sean's issue is an old address on the mailing list, no big deal
11:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I also did not receive an email. Thank god for discord.
11:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Yours reports bounced, which is more concerning.
11:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Would explain why I wasn’t aware of any PP activity until I jumped on Discord. Am I an edge case or are others in the same boat I wonder?
11:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> From investigation, I would be extremely unsurprised if our mailing list server is blocked by all of Hotmail right now
11:46 < gry> what mailing list is it? how do i sign up?
11:47 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> lists.pirateparty.org.au
11:47 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> but particularly, https://lists.pirateparty.org.au/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi/list/Anno/
11:48 < gry> is there a list of all lists somewhere please? i've been to the on-board and wiki homepage, afaik lists are not mentioned
11:48 < gry> thank you
11:49 < gry> actually scratch that, i think https://lists.pirateparty.org.au/cgi-bin/dada/mail.cgi has the list of lists in the drop down :)
11:50 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> If it's blocked by all of hotmail, it's likely blocked by any email running on outlook and/or office365
11:51 < gry> i use fastmail, hope i'm fine
11:51 < gry> these lists run on a self hosted (by PPAU) server right?
11:51 < gry> is it debian or something
11:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Self hosted server, probably Ubuntu
11:52 < gry> nice
11:52 < gry> i host an ircd at home, but not email server, fastmail seems to do a good job
11:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> I had to deal with something like this from Hotmail/Outlook recently, may be worth looking into if this is the same issue impacting you.
11:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook_com/forum/all/hotmailoutlook-block-list-s3140-blocks-all-new/699f3a56-406e-4804-97e2-cbe23b9bb01c?page=2
11:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> I'll just leave this here. 😉
11:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/580190396110340107/870876594414166036/219751482_272821364609354_6525049355671148079_n.png
11:53 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> I'll just leave this here. 😉 (edited)
11:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> anyway, Congress is restarting imminently
11:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> We'll worry about this another time, gotta resume shortly
12:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> we're just chasing a couple of tech issues
12:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> otherwise we're about ready to resume
12:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> We resuming soonish?
12:24 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> yeah, interview with Jpeg now
12:28 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Wavell Heights I think? Don't ask me why I know that
12:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> * former head
12:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=studio%209001
12:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> Anyone wanting to check out JPEG's work can visit facebook.com/studio9001 or instagram.com/jpeg.studio9001
12:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> https://www.facebook.com/Studio9001
12:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Procedural motion: do PM-6 after PM-2
12:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Aye
12:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Dunno if procedural motions need votes
12:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> they do, but the order of agenda items is up to the chair
12:37 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Someone wanna send me a link for the voice chat?
12:37 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> it's in #technology
12:38 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Miles and Roger, you're talking simultaneously
12:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Would anybody like to speak against PM-1 or to amend it?
12:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> (signal intent, then compose the big speech please)
12:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Was just gonna say PM-1 is pretty solid 😛
12:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> MOTION: Accept PM-1
12:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> AYE
12:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> ⏱ Voting closes in three minutes. Please respond "Aye", "Nay" or "Abstain".
12:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
12:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
12:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
12:44 < jedb> aye
12:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
12:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> aye
12:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Aye
12:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
12:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> aye
12:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
12:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
12:46 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​olzy> aye
12:47 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Motion CARRIED, PM-1 proceeds.
12:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Could we make a slight ammendment to remove the dot point 'Adults in legally recognised unions from overseas will be recognised under this Act.' or reword it slightly to make it clear that this won't include acceptance of marriage with minors?
12:53 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> Yes, have a lot of sympathy with the idea of making a "loud" statement about our progressive / libertarian credentials.
12:53 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> that's actually part of the current policy
12:54 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> "Adults in legally recognised relationships" does not include minors. Hence "adults".
12:54 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> COMMENT:  If we're going to do that, then it would be better to just say that we will recognize any overseas marriages that would be recognized had they occurred here.
12:54 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> they're not considered adults in Australia
12:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> It's worth noting that there are circumstances where Australians can get married under the age of majority
12:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> As is
12:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> Yes, Alex - main point about non-consensual marriages, regardless of their origin.
12:56 < jedb> COMMENT: it would perhaps be better to replace "LGBT persons" with "homosexual and bisexual people" as transgenderism isn't about who someone is attracted to
12:57 < alexjago> COMMENT to jedb: yeah, but trans people in relationships still face abuse
12:57 < jedb> alexjago: agreed, but this isn't a domestic violence policy
12:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> It's still relevant in the legal sense though as a heterosexual transman and a ciswoman were ineligible for marriage under the same rule
12:58 < alexjago> ... and not just from their partners
12:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Proposed update to the line @Satch raises
12:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> 
12:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> "Adults in legally recognised unions from overseas will be recognised under this Act, provided such unions meet Australian standards"
12:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I'm fine with that
12:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> I'm also fine with that.
12:59 < jedb> Sean O.: still seems like it is confusing the issue of legal recognition of what sex a person is with the issue of who someone is attracted to
13:00 < alexjago> jedb: it's saying that the cisheteronomativity made life shittier for everyone else
13:02 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Still relevant enough to not deliberately narrow the concept in the preamble though
13:04 < jedb> how does one propose an amendment anyway?
13:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​olzy> COMMENT in response to jedb: it's in the commentary section of the policy text, not one of the implementation details - as written it is not directly attached to commentary about who people are attracted to. On top of that, the language seems to be taken from the linked source document in footnote 8 - changing it to something else might imply needing a different source document?
13:05 < jedb> adding more letters to the ever-growing acronym is just silly...
13:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​olzy> COMMENT in response to jedb: it's in the commentary section of the policy text, not one of the implementation details - as written it is not directly attached to commentary about who people are attracted to. On top of that, the language seems to be taken from the linked source document in footnote 2 - changing it to something else might imply needing a different source document? (edited)
13:06 < jedb> molzy: agreed, it is a minor thing
13:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Shall we move on?
13:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I consider that amending it to specify homosexual and bisexual would risk alienation of other queer identities who feel they were harmed by the previous incarnation of the Marriage Act and its 2004 amendment.
13:09 < jedb> I think I'll withdraw my suggestion because if the sentence is changed it would no longer reflect the source being used
13:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Keeping it as broad and universally recogniseable is preferable for me.
13:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> MOTION: Accept PM-2 as amended
13:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> ⏱ Voting closes in three minutes. Please respond "Aye", "Nay" or "Abstain".
13:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> AYE
13:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
13:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
13:10 < jedb> aye
13:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
13:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
13:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> aye
13:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> aye
13:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
13:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
13:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
13:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Aye
13:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​arkG> Aye
13:14 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> voting closed
13:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> (PM-2 carried and advances to member vote)
13:17 < jedb> there are a few tiny errors in that statement
13:18 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> In PM-6?
13:18 < jedb> I'm referring to PM-6
13:18 < jedb> hold on
13:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Star_Tube is also providing a response ... please hold
13:21 < jedb> MOTION: amend PM-6 to add " it" to the end of the second sentence of the fourth paragraph, split the last sentence of the same paragraph at the semicolon to make two sentences, and replace the word "steamrollered" with "steamrolled" in the ninth paragraph
13:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​tar_Tube> I have no comment. I was confused when I joined the chat. disregard.
13:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I find it hard to criticise much since it's simply a position statement rather than an official policy that requires precise wording.
13:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I have incorporated JedB's copy-edit amendment
13:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Thanks Jed!
13:23 < jedb> ha, I didn't notice that
13:24 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​tar_Tube> could the phrase 'as a result' be used to conjugate?
13:24 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> All that I really have to say is that it doesn't address everything good I have to say about Right to Repair, but that would take a full essay which would not be appropriate for a position statement
13:24 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> it's not so much that it's as a result, but that it mistakenly implies such
13:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> +1 for removing that line
13:26 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Alternitvely: "Corporate abuse ..."
13:26 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> PROPOSAL: Replace "Abuse of Intellectual Property is rightly increasing in prominence." in Paragraph 2 with "People have started to take notice of the widespread abuse of Intellectual Property protections in Australia and beyond, particularly in the repair sector."
13:28 < jedb> Sean's amendment leaves the second sentence alone, right? so the repair cafes are still mentioned
13:30 < jedb> leaving the second sentence alone would've worked better, imo...
13:30 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> We're building a Camel here 😉
13:30  * jedb shrugs
13:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> MOTION: Adopt PM-6 as amended.
13:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
13:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
13:31 < jedb> aye
13:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> ⏱ Voting closes in three minutes. Please respond "Aye", "Nay" or "Abstain".
13:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> aye
13:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
13:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> AYE
13:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
13:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
13:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Aye
13:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> Aye
13:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> aye
13:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
13:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​arkG> Aye
13:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> It's for the clock, for now
13:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> 3 minutes John
13:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
13:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> aye
13:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​olzy> aye
13:33 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> one minute left on the timer
13:33 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Why is your keyboard so loud Alex
13:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I think the keyboard noise is Miles 😉
13:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Andrew will speak for PM-3B
13:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Alex's mic icon was flickering green whenever the keyboard noise was happening 🤷‍♂️
13:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> It's been three minutes, so I'm declaring the PM-6 motion passed
13:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> voting closed
13:35 < jedb> if we discuss PM-3B first and it passes then half of the remaining PM-3A and PM-3C is made redundant, since they're both "repeal the position statement *and* amend policy as per X"
13:37 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I would actually suggest 3B is discussed last
13:37 < jedb> I'd also suggest that, since both others have more extensive changes, but oh well...
13:37 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> 3A and 3C attempt to directly address the request made in PS-2020-02
13:38 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> 3B just says "we considered the request and have chosen to ignore it"
13:38 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Precommitment: While obviously I prefer 3A over 3C I would be happy to withdraw 3A in favour of 3C.
13:38 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> (or at least willing)
13:38 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Honestly, I don't see why the position statement needs to be repealed at all. The position statement standing doesn't seem incompatible with the changes of either 3A or 3C being made.
13:39 < jedb> Dr Liam: the position statement is thoroughly incompatible with the core party value of freedom of speech, it must go
13:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> The position statement (PS-2020-02) is just the bit which committed us to reconsider the actual policy at this congress
13:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> (well, the last paragraph of it did)
13:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> I'm not going to re-argue the points that were already discussed last year. Suffice it to say that I do not believe the position statement is in any way incompatible with the party values. As the position statement itself notes, "advocacy for violence or harm cannot be considered "free" speech, as it comes with the cost of reducing the "freedom" of the victims. None of us can be  <clipped message>
13:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> free until all of us are free."
13:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Platform#Freedom_of_speech
13:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Position_Statements/Free_Speech_Hate_Speech_18C
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> "Repeal section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), ensuring that pre-existing common law protections are sufficient to manage all cases of intimidation and harassment."
13:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> COMMENT: The PS says things like "the unofficial party position prior to 2020 has been that Section 18C is currently doing more good than harm"
13:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> 3B's entire point is *purely* to repeal the position statement we adopted last year
13:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I was being quite literal when I said that it obliged us to reconsider the policy
13:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I.e. "we need to take a look at it and decide if we want to change it"
13:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Yes, so it seems.
13:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> yes
13:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I'll jump back on video
13:46 < jedb> COMMENT: there are a couple of options here (1) we can keep the position statement and drop the repeal of 18C, but this would go against the core party value of freedom of speech, (2) we can keep the position statement and current policy, but that would be contradictory, (3) we could drop the position statement and soften our position on 18C, but this would weaken our core party value of freedom of speech and still would attract criticism as the Turnbull 
13:46 < jedb> govt did when they tried the same thing, or (4) drop the position statement and reaffirm core party values
13:49 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> COMMENT: I drop my support for PM-3B, and instead support PM-3A. That includes dropping the position statement.
13:51 < jedb> andrewdpirate: I cannot support PM-3A as the rationale of being concerned with "tribal issues" is not something PPAU should be doing
13:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> jedb: Only to the extent that it involves harassment.
13:53 < jedb> COMMENT: people who would knee-jerk dismiss us as racists due to wanting to repeal 18C are bigots by definition
13:54 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> Must say I'm getting more relaxed with 3A and 3C but struggle to pick between them.
13:54 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> The Pirate Party does need to be concerned with "tribal issues". Presentation matters. The way we've presented our position on this up until the position statement last year was actively detrimental to the party. There is absolutely a way forward for the party that is true to our values of free speech, while also affirming that not all speech is free speech.
13:54 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> It has caused problems, including the loss of members who felt strongly in support of the act.
13:55 < jedb> Dr Liam: the voting numbers do not back up your assertion that it was actively detrimental to the party
13:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Clarification Satch: I don't think people were strongly in support of the act as such. More that they didn't want to outright repeal it without *simultaneously* making sure that the necessary protections for minority groups, etc, were enshrined in law.
13:56 < jedb> Dr Liam: and our existing policy includes ensuring that necessary protections were there...
13:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Our existing policy doesn't come off that way, because of the focus on 18C.
13:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> And because of the way that repeals of 18c have been discussed in the broader community.
13:57 < jedb> Dr Liam: it's explicitly written there in the same bullet point
13:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Reform of 18C is much more palatable.
13:57 < alexjago> jedb: yes, and I've seen it selectively quoted
13:58 < alexjago> (IIRC)
13:58 < jedb> alexjago: by people who will misquote anything to score cheap points and/or outright bigots as previously mentioned, sure
14:00 < jedb> COMMENT: the only way to make it stop being an issue in a non-harmful manner is to reaffirm PPAU's committment to freedom of speech and firmly tell censorship advocates to piss off
14:00 < jedb> people will *always* take us out of context if they want to
14:01 < jedb> COMMENT: as got missed in some of my last comments, amending 18C will still attract the same criticism as before as demonstrated by when the Turnbull govt tried to do the exact same thing
14:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Procedural question: is there any reason why we can't vote in favour of 3B, then also 3A or 3C?
14:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> If we want PS-2020-02 repealed regardless, but also want the policy reformed?
14:03 < jedb> this is a case where if we say we want to touch 18C *at all* then we will attract criticism from the same group, whereas if we don't do anything about 18C we stop supporting freedom of speech
14:04 < alexjago> yeah, but we don't have to make it easy for them. they can quote "repeal 18C" out of context all day, but "reform 18C" is much harder
14:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Right wing parties trying to make changes to 18C always lacked credibility, because the advocates for it on the right were basically the ones who wanted the "freedom to be a bigot" in public. Reform coming from a left-libertarian perspective has much more credibility, especially when we're being forthright about why we feel reform is necessary, and we can be clear that this not l <clipped message>
14:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> ead to harm being done against minority groups, etc, who rightfully fear harm from outright repeal of 18C.
14:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​tar_Tube> Is there a link to the document containing the PM's that I could access?
14:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2021/Motions#PM-3B @Star_Tube
14:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> I would suggest we keep the position statement in place, while also making the policy changes as suggested in 3A or 3C.
14:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​tar_Tube> thankyou.
14:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> The position statement is guidance and it serves to give additional nuance to our intentions with the policy that we're putting forward.
14:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Either Sean or I would have to substantively amend one of our motions
14:06 < jedb> Dr Liam: oddly enough the people who are criticising us over 18C are bigots by definition, as previously mentioned, and things like harrassment and intimidation are already illegal
14:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I'm happy for 3A to be the test case for Liam or whoever putting an amendment to keep PS-2020-03
14:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I'm happy for 3A to be the test case for Liam or whoever putting an amendment to keep PS-2020-02 (edited)
14:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> unless all 3 fail?
14:07 < jedb> Dr Liam: do you support freedom of speech? because at the moment it sounds like you don't
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> As I quoted from the position statement earlier Jeb, "advocacy for violence or harm cannot be considered "free" speech, as it comes with the cost of reducing the "freedom" of the victims. None of us can be free until all of us are free."
14:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Advocating violence is already illegal without 18C
14:10 < jedb> Dr Liam: intimidation and harrassment are already illegal, and credible advocation for immediate violence is indeed not considered free speech, but the rest is indeed free speech
14:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> hold oup
14:11 < jedb> Dr Liam: you should observe the example of the United States' rulings on freedom of speech in their supreme court
14:12 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Not exactly. Inciting violence is illegal. Advocating violence at a political level is both legal and effectively constitutionally protected according to the doctrine of freedom of political speech under Australian jurisprudence.
14:13 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> You can't rally a mob, you can organise a political party
14:14 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Most basic example, advocating war is constitutionally protected
14:14 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Organizing a political party is not advocating violence
14:14 < jedb> Sean O.: actually, does that mean the socjus types who want to make everything about politics were actually in favour of freedom of speech all along? </sarc>
14:15 < jedb> andrewdpirate: uhhh... the various socialist parties of the last century may disagree with you there
14:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> if the position statement is repealed, can a NEW motion be introduced ... say tomorrow ... to introduce a new position statement?
14:16 < jedb> Dread Pirate Roger: making position statements on the run was how we got into this mess, so no
14:16 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> We could but we really don't want to
14:16 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> very true
14:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> If the position statement was going to be replaced with another one, that should be done in a single vote.
14:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> (Which really, is getting back to the exact issue with this 18C policy. It'd be very different if we were saying "repeal 18C and replace with X", but we've never offered a strong enough X.)
14:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> My Proposal for 3A
14:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> 
14:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> * Delete the final paragraph of PS-2020-02
14:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> * Change the 18C policy to be the following line:
14:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> ** Remove the words "offend, insult" from section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
14:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> (for amending 3A)
14:18 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> I'm relaxed with that ....
14:19 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> PROPOSAL: I propose that we separate alterations to policies and position statements
14:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> Maybe, but being so inflexible we are paralysed seems bad too.
14:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> OK, if we do that then we probably need to take over John's PM-4 for the position statement amendment
14:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> Yes, I'm comfortable with that. I'm not outrageously attached to my proposal, but am happy if others can see it doing good.
14:24 < jedb> what? this sounds nonsensical
14:24 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Miles would like to disentangle changes to the Platform and the Position Statement
14:25 < jedb> COMMENT: all we need to do is amend PM3-A and PM3-C so that neither of them seek to repeal the position statement, and then everything is disentangled
14:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> So PM3 becomes policy amendment, PM4 becomes position statement amendment?
14:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> correct @ sean
14:26 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Ditto Sean
14:26 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​arkG> John's text would work better in the position statement
14:26 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> No, 3B stays as is
14:27 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> 3B is purely "repeal the Statement"
14:27 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I amend my motion to remove "Repeal PS-2020-02 and " from the beginning of the motion
14:27 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> @MarkG That is the intent of PM4, "In the preamble to whatever position we put forward regarding 18C, insert the following:".
14:27 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> But if we adopt 3B then 4 amending PS-2020-02 is a bit redundant - but we'll deal with that later
14:28 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I amend my motion, PM-3A, to remove "Repeal PS-2020-02 and"
14:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> 3A and 3C both amended on the wiki
14:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> and the floor motion?
14:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Which floor motion?
14:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> you wanted to amend PS2020-2
14:33 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I'll cover that in PM-4
14:33  * jedb just noticed the directive to have 3A, 3B, 3C be mutually exclusive...
14:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> If we adopt 3B then I don't need a motion to remove the last line of PS-2020-02
14:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> If we don't adopt 3B then PM-4 can be worked into amending PS-2020-02
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> MOTION: Adopt PM-3B
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> Place your votes
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Nay
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
14:40 < jedb> aye
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Aye
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> AYE
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​olzy> aye
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> abstain
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
14:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> abstain
14:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​sh> abstain
14:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> abstain
14:42  * jedb remembers the abstain for/against discussion...
14:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> lol @jedb
14:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> motion passed
14:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> isn't that covered under other harassment law as opposed to discrimination?
14:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> Is someone speaking?  I never heard a word of 3C
14:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Harassment is targeted at an individual
14:52 < jedb> also never heard a word of 3C, but I read it so meh
14:53 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> A reformed 18C would allow prosecution for generalised harassment of protected groups
14:54 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> TL;DR I seek the most minimal, 18C reform targeting the most egregious problems, and one that can be the least taken out of context
14:54 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I think it was Sean that was missed in audio
14:54 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> On balance, I'm more supportive of 3A, but if 3C included humiliate would be comfortable with it. Not suggesting 3C be changed, would make things too complicated.
14:54 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> Alex was fine for me but Sean???
14:54 < jedb> alexjago: if this goes through, then when the Guardian still takes it out of context and criticises PPAU over it I am going to say I told you so
14:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Vote one versus the other to decide which goes to the floor?
14:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​olzy> If Sean was speaking earlier regarding 3C I only heard silence for a few minutes. I heard Alex regarding 3A without any audio issues
14:55 < jedb> lol fair
14:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> ... dangerous, but put out a PR challenging the guardian - but be ready this time around ....
14:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> ... and FB / twitter campaign, locked and loaded ...
14:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> That is annoying.
14:56 < jedb> JohnA: what we should've done to begin with, challenge them about why a bunch of journalists are criticising support of free speech
14:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Procedure: vote on 3A, then 3C. If 3C passes, that subsumes 3A
14:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I am going to say that "humiliate" is problematic as it is a substantially vague and subjective term
14:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> By leaving it in, we are effectively leaving the legislation up to the courts
14:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> MOTION: advance PM-3A if 3C doesn't also advance
14:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
14:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> aye
14:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> aye
14:59 < jedb> Sean O.: leaving the legislation up to the states, you mean
14:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> aye
14:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> aye
14:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
14:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
14:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​sh> aye
14:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> nay
14:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
14:59 < jedb> nay
14:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
14:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Nay
14:59 < jedb> Sean O.: wait, nevermind
14:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
15:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​olzy> aye
15:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> aye
15:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> abstain
15:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> No, leaving it up to the courts to decide what "humiliate" means in the legal sense. That definition would be up to the courts as no legal guidance is provided in legislation and the term itself is vague and encompasses important topics like satire, charicature, and plain old insult
15:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> No, leaving it up to the courts to decide what "humiliate" means in the legal sense. That definition would be up to the courts as no legal guidance is provided in legislation and the term itself is vague and potentially encompasses important topics like satire, charicature, and plain old insult (edited)
15:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> close voting
15:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I count 12 Ayes, 3 Nays, 1 Abstain
15:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Motion carried.
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> MOTION: Advance  3C as amended
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> place your votes
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> AYE
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> abstain
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> nay
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> abstain
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Nay
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​sh> aye
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> aye
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> nay
15:04 < jedb> abstain
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> aye
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Nay
15:05 < jedb> (since 3A passed and I support neither I can't really vote against this)
15:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> If this exact motion passes, 3C and 3B will both go to the membership
15:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> If this exact motion fails, 3A and 3B both go
15:06 < jedb> exactly, I'd prefer if just 3B went
15:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Cool cool
15:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> close voting
15:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I count 8 Aye, 4 Nay, 3 Abstain
15:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> We'll want to do some "committee" work on any changes to PM-4
15:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> MOTION: close congress day one
15:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> place your votes
15:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> aye
15:10 < jedb> +1 on math/physics
15:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
15:10 < jedb> aye
15:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> aye
15:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
15:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
15:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
15:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
15:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
15:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​olzy> aye
15:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​sh> aye
15:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> aye
15:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
15:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Aye
15:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Aye
15:12 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> close voting
15:12 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> END OF DAY ONE FORMALITIES
15:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> Thank you everyone for attending
15:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> if you want to hang out and chat, jump in one of the voice channels
15:27 -!- jedb [[email protected]] has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
17:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> @alexjago have you uploaded minutes from today, or will you do that later? i want to double check a couple of points
17:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I've linked this from the wiki as "draft minutes" https://pad.pirateparty.org.au/p/r.f1fe3d44dba4c3cdc01d4e2503e4cd15
17:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> thanks
18:41 < gry> hi
18:41 < gry>  are any positions still not filled - for nominations?
18:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> We've had:
18:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> 
18:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> - 8 nominations for 9 National Council positions (as it stands, most likely Deputy Secretary will be unfilled)
18:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> - @andrewdpirate has nominated for both Councillor and Policy Development Officer, which is legal but unprecedented IIRC
18:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> - 0 nominations thus far for the one DRC position that @MarkG is presumably vacating
18:48 < gry> what is DRC?
18:49 < gry> hello alex
18:49 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> We should create a new position of "Mascot", and elect Catty McCat to the position.
18:49 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Dispute Resolution Committee
18:49 < gry> is there a sysadmin role or something?
18:49 < gry> oh ok
18:49 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Not an elected position
18:49 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> IT Team is the biggest keys-to-the-kingdom role of them all lol
18:50 < gry> i would be interested to volunteer, just i dont talk with people on audio, and dont have a strong politics knowledge
18:50 < gry> so dispute resolution - i would probably pass
18:50 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> The secret to a successful career on the DRC is to never be asked to do anything
18:58 < gry> would be interesting what else to do
18:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> gry: https://pirateparty.org.au/gettinginvolved/
19:04 < jedb> andrewdpirate: I dunno, I reckon Boaty McBoatface might give Catty McCat a run for his money
19:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Catty McCat has been in every election we've had, and never wins a position.
19:08 < jedb> shame, I think he'd do a good job at DRC
19:09 < jedb> have you ever seen anyone stay mad while a purring cat is making its home in their lap?
19:09 < jedb> no?
19:09 < jedb> thought not :P
19:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> huh, we probably should've done a motion to accept the reports lol
19:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> huh, i didnt know that page was a thing @alexjago how old is it? when was it last updated?
19:26 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> It predates my time on NC but I have had a hand in updating it
--- Day changed Sun Aug 01 2021

###############################################################################
##### Congress Day 2 commences formally at 10:00 AEST, 1st August 2020.   #####
##### Please note that log times are in UTC+8, two hours behind AEST      #####
##### Further note that this Congress featured discussion on both Discord #####
##### (marked with [D]) and IRC. This log is taken from the IRC side.     #####
###############################################################################

05:14 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> good morning everyone
05:14 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> my record yesterday was i think 7 coffees, not sure i will break that today
08:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> PROCEDURAL MOTION: let's have a motion to accept the reports please 🙂
08:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> is that a motion for a motion?
08:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> yuuup
08:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> MOTION: accept the President's, Secretary's and Treasurer's Reports *en banc*.
08:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> oh we've started?
08:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> MOTION TABLED
08:18 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> yes, just getting the preliminiaries out
08:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Yes Santa you legend! Friday night social drinks are the future of politics!
08:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> MOTION: accept the President's, Secretary's, Treasurer's and Councillor Reports *en banc*.
08:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> ⏱ Voting closes in three minutes. Please respond "Aye", "Nay" or "Abstain".
08:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> abstain
08:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
08:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
08:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Aye
08:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Abstain
08:25 < jedb> aye
08:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
08:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
08:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
08:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
08:27 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Aye
08:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> close voting
08:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> (I count 8 Ayes, 2 Abstain, 0 Nay)
08:30 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> MOTION: that the Standing Orders section 1.2 (1) (Nominations) be amended to read "Nominations for electable positions must be made by the start of business on the second day of Congress, excepting nominations for the Dispute Resolution Committee."
08:30 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> begin voting
08:30 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> temporarily amended
08:30 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
08:30 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
08:30 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
08:30 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
08:31 < jedb> aye
08:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
08:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> aye
08:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
08:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Abstain
08:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye (as temporariness will be achieved by simply agreeing to the un-modified form for next year)
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> close voting
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> And that's time
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I count 9 Ayes, 1 Nay
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> Does anyone want to nominate for DRC?
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> https://pirateparty.org.au/constitution/#part-iii-12
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> (Note that you can't be on both DRC *and* NC)
08:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> What prior nominations exist?
08:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2021/Nominations
08:37 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> It's not that I mind opening up nominations, it's just that we're about to move into elections
08:37 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Aye
08:38 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I see no issue with the current suite of nominations
08:38 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> tl;dr we have 9 people nominating for 9 NC spots
08:39 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> @Archaic are you able to act as RO for the elections?
08:39 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> (for today)
08:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Sorry, I was AFK when your question came in, getting a drink. ^^;; Yes, I can.
08:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> If I withdraw from Dep Pres, does that mean we win election Tetris?
08:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> yep
08:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> I'm not on voice currently, but I could be. What do you need me to jump on? I'm assuming it's not a voice channel on Discord?
08:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> yeah but Brandon has re-nominated
08:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I withdraw my nomination for Deputy President and Councillor.
08:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> or you can stay with existing nominations and make a choice later when the votes come sin
08:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> thanks
08:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> or you can stay with existing nominations and make a choice later when the votes come in (edited)
08:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> yes, can hear you. Suggest listening to audio through ninja and mute the YouTube stream while you're talking.
08:46 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> I've closed off my YouTube stream completely, just to be safe.
08:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I have just updated the wiki to reflect @Nemesis withdrawing from Dep Pres and Councillor
08:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> While nominations are ongoing, I'm formally relinquishing chair of National Congress in favour of the Returning Officer Dr Liam
08:53 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Speeches will be run by position nominated for. We will start with the non-NC position of Policy Development Officer, then the speeches for Councillor, then Treasurer/Deputy Treasurer, then Secretary/Deputy Secretary, then Deputy President, then President.
08:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> So the order will run (name and positions nominated for)
08:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Andrew Downing - PDC & Councillor
08:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> David Kennedy - Councillor
08:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Fred Gerner - Councillor
08:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Mitchell Curnoe - Deputy Treasurer
08:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> John August - Treasurer
08:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Roger Whatling - Deputy Secretary (withdrew nominations for Councillor and Deputy President)
08:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Alex Jago - Secretary
08:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Brandon Selic - Deputy President
08:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Miles Whiticker - Deputy President & President
08:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @AsylumRunner are you around?
08:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> im dropping out of stream, as i will be presenting last
09:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <A​sylumRunner> yep
09:02 <+RelayBot> [D] <A​sylumRunner> hang on looking for link
09:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @AsylumRunner when you're ready 🙂
09:12 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> @JohnA  You're up 😉
09:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> lmao
09:18 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Roger herding the pirate cats
09:19 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> Wake up Alex!
09:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> No voice?
09:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> No camera on this rig, with apologies
09:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i can hear brandon n stream
09:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> yep, can hear
09:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i can hear brandon on stream (edited)
09:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I totally dropped out huh
09:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> Ya did.
09:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i can hear alex on stream
09:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> Sorry Alex
09:28 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> Everyone - if you want to check out the policy motions page, I've started editing up two "replacement" position statements. I did presage some flexibility in my original motion, so hopefully this one can slide on the radar ... 😉
09:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Question for all candidates involved in party recruitment efforts: What plans do you have involving recruitment efforts have for outreach beyond a single degree of separation? (I.e. recruits who have no involvement with the party, and do not know anyone involved with the party)
09:48 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT to Roger: we might need to do an interim Environment Policy update before the election, so hold that thought
09:49 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> Ah, link is : https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Pirate_Congress_2021/Motions/Policy_and_Platform/18C-preamble#Motion - I'm a bit confused in terms of merging it into the main page.
09:49 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @JohnA allow me
09:49 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> #arrr!
09:50 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Keen
09:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Nice. We're stealing accountants from the Liberal Party.
09:54 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> john is dropping out
09:54 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Once we finish these responses to Mile's question we'll move to Sean's question.
09:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> (And it might surprise you to know Mitchell that I was actually a right-libertarian Liberal voter at the time I joined the Pirates, back in the day)
09:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> heck, I think that's a surprise to everyone
09:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> That is a shock
09:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> I still have my F.A Hayek "The Road to Serfdom" on the shelf next to me.
09:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> Ha!
09:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I mean, that's a classic
09:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> And yeah, that is a shock
09:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> im dropping from the stream, the upload speed has tanked
09:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> Yeah, you went full Potato
09:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
09:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> A Kawaii Potato, but still
09:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I'm specifically interested with promoting engagement outside of ordinary party channels. How are we reaching these people to begin with?
10:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i hear fred on stream
10:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Make a few TikToks, get the kids on board! 😛
10:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> Alex was doing pirate party promotional posts on FB, with moderate success, as he has detailed.
10:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> You didn't watch the 4 Corners story? 😛
10:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​ilspec> I'm a big fan of Hayek too
10:02 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Not sure that I have
10:02 <+RelayBot> [D] <A​sylumRunner> like I like capitalism as it does give people a lot of freedom and income mobility for the working and middle class and societies with it constiently have higher quality of life it's what happens on the higher multinational corporations funding corrupt political parties in the government to destroy the competitors which is a problem
10:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> Hear hear
10:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Another Doctorow fan here too.
10:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> Stickers and badges!
10:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> We need pirate party masks
10:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> I have one of those on my fridge
10:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> @alexjago those are the ones i had made, i have a bunch
10:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> and you told me they were literally illegal 😢
10:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> the ones mandrake has are the ones i gave him
10:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> pre-auth tag? 😦
10:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> yeah there is no auth tag on them iirc
10:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i have a banner 🏴‍☠️
10:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> and about 20 pirate flags
10:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> I need that shermagh, Fred 😛
10:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i had 2 banners but @Darcrider pirated one during the election
10:06 < jedb> BrandonS: skull and crossbones masks? I think those already exist :P
10:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> I gave that back!
10:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> It's just they're incredibly comfortable. I think in the future everyone will be wearing them.
10:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i cant find it, i think you still have it
10:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> "Merchandising! Merchandising! Where the real money from the movie is made."
10:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Pity we probably couldn't get wholesale prices on Pirate Lego for sale to members. 😉
10:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> Didn't Yogurt say Moichendising
10:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> You telling me International Pirates don't have anyone in the Lego Corporation?
10:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Once this current discussion is over we'll return to your question.
10:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> hey @Darcrider my merch talk was intended as a response to Sean
10:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> Is someone speaking?
10:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> no audio
10:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> brandon has no audio on stream
10:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i hear brandon just then
10:13 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Science Party has a CDC policy also ... just saying
10:14 <+RelayBot> [D] <A​sylumRunner> yeah I got disaffected from the labor party when they started prioritising feminism over environmental or anti- corporate concerns. I switched to the liberal purely because I saw it as the other party and their main talking points concerning rural and working class I liked.
10:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> I'll look into it. I can't say I'm shocked though
10:18 < jedb> Dread Pirate Roger: the Science Party also has a page called "Repeal Watch" that lists stuff they want to repeal
10:19 < jedb> we should steal that idea
10:19 < jedb> s/steal/pirate/
10:19 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> *Plunder*, little bot. *Plunder*
10:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> It's only stealing if us taking the idea makes them lose it 😉
10:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> great idea
10:21 < gry> why didnt they repeal it
10:21 < gry> i mean
10:22 < gry> covid is going to be with us forever from what i understand
10:22 < gry> the vaccine doesnt stop the spread as they say
10:22 < gry> so why wait
10:22 < gry> what to wait for
10:22 < gry> it only prevents severity of illness
10:22 < gry> so all the laws related to this phenomenon need to be eliminated from the start, not 'after pandemic is over'
10:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> It does slow down the virus rather than "STOP" an infection.
10:26 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> grrr pppl with greens affiliation who love sharing their stuff to our pages.
10:27 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Something interesting from our current policy which is what actually finally got me to sign up was the policy on reforming the treaty-making process
10:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I knew the party existed for years ever since it showed up when researching minor parties for an election, but didn't know too much about it. I was like "oh, they're a relatively good option, I'll rank them pretty high up" and forgot about you
10:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @Archaic lunch time is ... here ... -- shall we move on to elections?
10:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Honour among theives and all that.
10:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <A​sylumRunner> yes probably
10:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> VOTE CTHULHU - fuck voting for the lesser evil
10:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​aus> the only difference between privateers and pirates was that pirates weren't state-sanctioned and therefore criminalised.
10:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <A​sylumRunner> sweet meteor of death
10:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @Archaic the procedure is to formally ask candidates if they accept their nominations. Do it top-down, please.
10:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <A​sylumRunner> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/580190396110340107/871219605002141726/iu.png
10:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I accept
10:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i accept
10:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Later on, I ended up finding out about how... fucked, treaties were. The fact that they're effectively about as binding as constitutional changes within the Australian parliamentary system, yet have absolutely no oversight beyond the executive. I was pretty shocked about this, looked for what parties were trying to fix this, and found that actually, basically no progressive parti <clipped message>
10:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> es are seeking reform on the matter *except the Pirates.*
10:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> I accept
10:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> I accept my nomination
10:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> I accept my nomination.
10:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> i accept
10:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <A​sylumRunner> I accept my nomination.
10:37 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I accept my nomination.
10:38 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> @Darcrider Can you please formally accept your nomination in the chat, for the record.
10:39 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> yes, let's leave that open til the end of the day
10:39 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I'll self-nominate from the floor for DRC
10:39 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> If you need new members
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> 🗳️  MOTION: adjourn for lunch
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> 
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> ⏱️  Voting closes in three minutes. Please respond "Aye", "Nay" or "Abstain".
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> DRC election will likely be uncontested
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> aye
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> Aye
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> aye
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Aye
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Aye
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
10:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Aye
10:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
10:42 < jedb> aye
10:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <A​sylumRunner> Aye
10:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> Aye
10:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @Darcrider accept your nomination 🙂
10:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> For those who might be coming in late, we're expecting to resume at 1:45
10:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> I accept my Nomination as Deputy President.
10:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> @Archaic hand back chair after the elections are finished
10:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Brandon has accepted before the three minutes are up for the Lunch motion, I'lll take it
10:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> andrew has a presentation to give after lunch, which we can either do when we return or after the elections
10:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Just double checking if I understand the role correctly: DRC's job is basically mediating conflicts between members, and rules lawyering the constitution?
10:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> yep
10:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> heck, Dep Pres is first port of call for mediation
10:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> DRC is also emergency backup NC
10:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Cool, those are both jobs that I can manage. Was unsure about having sufficient time to commit to joining council, but DRC seems much more hands-off, and in cases of emergency I can probably make time
10:46 <+RelayBot> [D] <A​sylumRunner> also what shade of blue is our official pirate colour like sometimes I see it as light blue almost cyan and other times its mid blue or dark.
10:46 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> https://pirateparty.org.au/wiki/Identity_Style_Guide
10:47 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Yes, DRC is quite hands off in most cases. In my case, that means often intentionally not getting involved in a lot of discussions outside the congress and some NC meetings, so I can maintain distance and objectivity in the event I am called in to mediate something.
10:47 <+RelayBot> [D] <A​sylumRunner> thanks
10:53 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​randonS> As Alex has already pointed out, DP is first port of call for disputes, and my door is always metaphorically open for any such discussions, informally or otherwise
11:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @JohnA I have now had time to read your proposed edits to PM-4 and I like the two proposed statements
11:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> good - hope you will have a chance to check my covid speech at some stage. Recording done.
11:24 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> well my Monday did just get a lot less busy
11:26 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Getting back to PM-4, we should have ONE passage of text, that's agnostic to whether or not PM-3C passes. We should phrase the motion is "If PM-3B passes, adopt this text as PS-2021-01. If PM-3B fails, use this text to replace PS-2020-02."
11:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> therefore the possible outcomes are: 
11:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> 
11:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> - 3B and 4 both pass: 4's text adopted as PS-2021-01
11:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> - 3B passes, 4 fails: we just don't have a policy statement on the matter
11:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> - 3B fails, 4 passes: 4's text replaces the existing statement
11:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> - 3B fails, 4 fails: PS-2020-02 stays as is.
11:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> ok happy for you to make that edit. 3C definitely not a goer?
11:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> It should be agnostic to whether or not 3C passes.
11:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> text is different based on other law or 18c amendments. like to keep that.
11:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> we can discuss at meeting.
11:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> @Sorokyne You realise we can all hear and see you stuffing your face, right? ;p
11:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> can you tell what im watching?
11:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> We can hear it, yes.
11:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> guess the show
11:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> The timing of that line about being beautiful right as we were talking among ourselves about you stuffing your face was very well timed. ;p
11:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> lmao
11:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> I don't recognise the show myself.
11:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Though I do know you're probably violating copyright by streaming that without a license. 😉
11:46 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> it's ok, it's being distorted
11:47 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Voyager - Cold Fire
11:47 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> Recognised it as soon as I heard the character name, no idea who the person was in the previous scene.
11:47 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> that's it
11:49 < jedb> why is this modification of PM-4 allowed? at this point it's sneaking in an extra PM with no notice
11:51 < jedb> lol extended lunch
11:53 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> @Archaic we are overtime for lunch and should resume
11:54 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> @mandrke can you resume the stream please
11:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I dislike both of the alternatives proposed compared to PM-4's original text
11:56 < jedb> I dislike that we're back to making position statements on the run
11:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> sticking my oar in: https://pad.pirateparty.org.au/p/2021-PM-4-fix
11:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I would suggest that both alternative texts put forward are too substantively different to the original text
11:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I acept
11:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Still not a fan of that text
12:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> We started working on it yesterday, and I flagged in my original rationale "The exact wording is open to debate, particularly depending on what position we end up taking. " It was always my plan for the text to be a starting point, not the conclusion.
12:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> Is someone talking?
12:01 < jedb> JohnA: that just points to the PM needing more time for consideration before it gets put to congress
12:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> (I've dropped out of the call in order to reduce any potential issues I might be contributing to with having me still in there when I'm no longer needed)
12:02 < jedb> if someone is talking on stream then there's nothing making it through to youtube
12:02 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> I can't hear @Sorokyne, so I'm guessing something happened?
12:02 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i had to quit and rj so mandrake is resetting me
12:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> Thee's a lot of background noise
12:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> There's a lot of background noise (edited)
12:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​r Liam> (I'm not going to be able to stay for most of the afternoon, so I'm glad the election didn't drag on. ^^; )
12:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> yep it's a great milestone this year that welve managed to fill all open positions
12:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Thanks for facilitating that @Archaic
12:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <A​sylumRunner> I'll drop out now
12:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> thanks mitch
12:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ayStephens> IYn hearing voice thru YT
12:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ayStephens> I'm hearing voice thru YT (edited)
12:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> COMMENT: At our workplace the standing order of online meetings is that we mute microphones when we are not talking
12:12 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> thank you 🙂
12:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> RE Energy, China are set to release their LFTR very soon. https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/china-unveil-worlds-first-waterless-molten-salt-re/
12:17 < jedb> Satch: so they're about 60 years behind the US still, except the US is busily standing still
12:19 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> The U.S. have never used them for actual power generation, so China will win this race.
12:21 -!- jedb [[email protected]] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
12:22 < jedb_> Satch: China is only just up to building a working small scale prototype, and the US had that back in the 1960s - the problem is only that the US is standing still on the matter
12:22 -!- jedb_ is now known as jedb
12:24 < jedb> COMMENT: the trouble with predicting stock market crashes is that the stock market can remain irrational for longer than you can remain solvent
12:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @JayStephens
12:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> QUESTION: what happens when you put that NASDAQ graph on a log scale?
12:37 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I do have a question, just give me a sec
12:38 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> The point about endless economic growth being an environmental disaster is why I am interested in the cross over between environment and economy.
12:39 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: absolutely it'll look less dramatic, it's just that even garden-variety inflation can make a dramatic linear-scale graph
12:39 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> (which is why I asked)
12:40 < jedb> QUESTION: any thoughts about how cryptocurrency seems to exchange ever-increasing inflation for ever-increasing computation requirements to keep up?
12:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> If trade is untaxed and savings grow continuously in value, does this mean that massive, industrial scale arbitrage (e.g. stock trading) would become essentially an untaxable source of massive wealth? Do we simply expect tax costs to be passed on and eventually flow upwards from the resource usage to this untaxable stockpile of wealth?
12:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> jedb: That only really applies to Proof-of-work currencies. Proof-of-stake doesn't suffer the same issue.
12:43 < jedb> as a side note, going by Japanese pronounciation "doge" should sound something like "doggy"
12:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> "suffer the same issue" is probably a poor way of putting it
12:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Proof of stake suffers other issues though, whereby it removes the very possibility for the poor to participate in validation and thus you end up with the rich simply sitting on money and turning that into more money.
12:45 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Proof of work is still proof of capital, just with extra steps
12:46 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Difference being that it has a much lower barrier to minimum entry comparatively, relative to proof of stake
12:46 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Proof of commited capital, not transient capital
12:47 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Demand encourages innovation
12:47 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> You can get into proof of work crypto without any prior investment in that particular crypto. Proof of stake requires prior investment *in that particular crypto.*
12:48 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> QUESTION: I'd like a currency that costs less than the order of $10 per transaction. What do I do?
12:49 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> lol
12:50 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Gonna bump my question from earlier since it wasn't answered. This is a particular question that I have about Austrian economics as it relates to non-consumptive forms of wealth accumulation.
12:53 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> So tax-wise, you're arguing for an eventual shift to resource/consumption taxes in terms of exclusive usage of property, minerals, pollution?
12:54 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @Sorokyne when do we want Congress to end? Still got two PMs and PM-4  in particular needs work
12:55 < jedb> PM-4 should be kicked back to PDC or equivalent at this rate
12:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Income tax has the biggest bang/buck for 20th century states 😉
12:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​ilspec> Love resources tax
12:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> MOTION: adjourn congress for a 10 min break
12:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> MOTION: Take a 10 min break\
12:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> lol
12:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> aye
12:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
12:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> aye
12:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> Aye
12:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
12:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
12:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
12:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
12:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
12:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Aye
12:58 < jedb> abstain
12:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Another big downside of income taxes is that they make labor intensive services like healthcare, education, child care, aged care etc vastly more expensive to operate.
12:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> close voting
12:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> we will return at 3:11
12:59 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Income tax reduces social caring.
13:02 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @Sorokyne if nobody wants to fight over PM-5, let's get it out of the way first?
13:02 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I expect fights over PM-5
13:03 < jedb> I expect minor quibbles over PM-5
13:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i want to fight over PM5
13:03 < jedb> lol
13:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> sorry that should be *i want to fight for PM5*
13:03 < jedb> oh, okay
13:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> It was controversial while I was drafting it
13:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> So unless I was better at arguing my case than I thought during that process
13:04 < jedb> I was just laughing that we've almost reached the stage of formalised declarations of intent with our argument scheduling
13:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> what about this one https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6680
13:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I expect at least one person to fight me over it
13:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> why has no-one written me a press release calling this one shit
13:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i'll fast track it to approval
13:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> ```establishes a power for the eSafety Commissioner to request or require internet service providers to disable access to material depicting [...] abhorrent violent conduct```
13:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I'll rephrase: if nobody wants to speak against PM-5 then let's get it out of the way
13:06 < jedb> Miles: that sounds like the same thing that PM-5 wants to denounce
13:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> it is
13:06 < jedb> might as well add it to the pile then
13:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> too late now
13:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​ilspec> I completely agree. Andrew, I would love your thoughts on a Sovereign Wealth Fund built up using resource, and pollution taxes, for funding a UBI?
13:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Dangit, I asked people if there was any other new legislation that we had to add to the repeal pile
13:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> jedb: Not sure we have a pile.   I should make one as the new PDO.
13:08 < jedb> Miles: considering timeframes you should remember that bill and put a PM for 2022 congress to repeal the relevant sections
13:09 < jedb> andrewdpirate: that's what I was talking about earlier, we should plunder the Science Party's idea to keep a list around of bullshit laws we want to get rid of
13:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> We actually do. Take a look at our Freedom of Speech section in the platform, there's a list with a bunch of stuff that we want to repeal
13:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> We can always have, say, a one day Policy Meeting in Feb
13:09 < jedb> Sean O.: that's only partially complete, since there are other things elsewhere we want to repeal too
13:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> We have historically staged mid-term minor congresses for the purpose of policy alone.
13:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> the party Constitution specifically considers a Policy Meeting as distinct from a Congress for this rason
13:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> @Sicarious What are you thinking people would want to fight about with PM-5 ?
13:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> oi
13:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> @Sicarious do you want to come on stream?
13:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Probably a bit late to add something addressing the Online Safety Act though. It would require a fairly extensive rational section
13:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Yeah I will
13:12 < jedb> Sean O.: the only reason to add something about it now would be if you want to try and set a record for quickest PPAU policy response, as the Online Safety Act was only passed about a bit over a week ago
13:13 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Those things are already policy. The pile we want is of pending new items to include.
13:13 < jedb> oh, you meant that pile
13:14 < jedb> I was talking about the complete pile of everything to repeal, including stuff both in and not in current official policy
13:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> We can't publish those together
13:15 < jedb> true
13:15 < jedb> more of a conceptual pile
13:16 < jedb> ...is someone on audio?
13:16 < jedb> still nothing on stream...
13:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i can hear stream fine
13:17 < jedb> okay, now's fine
13:18  * jedb tests ping
13:19 < jedb> okay, about 45 seconds lag between irc and stream
13:19 < alexjago> ouch, it's not normally that bad
13:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> damn
13:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Terrorism is often just a poor persons war
13:20 < jedb> it maaaay have something to do with me both being outside Australia and using a VPN
13:23 < jedb> COMMENT: in regards to that Criminal Code Amendment, it will always be a mistake to follow the example of a censorship-happy country like how New Zealand currently is
13:24 < jedb> COMMENT: by definition a legal killing is not murder, and hence killing someone in self defence is not murder (dysfunctional Aust self defence law notwithstanding)
13:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Nice that they included acknowledgement for trans people though. 😉 "For the purposes of this section, the genitalia or other parts of the body of a person include surgically constructed genitalia or other parts of the body of the person."
13:26 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> @Sicarious time to start warpping up
13:26 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> @Sicarious time to start wrapping up (edited)
13:28 < jedb> well yes, self defence is always argued as you did the thing but that it wasn't murder, it was a legal killing
13:29 < jedb> not all killings are murders is my point
13:31 < jedb> COMMENT: I'm... mostly sure that it is possible for a rape victim to also be one who engaged in rape, as in the example of two drunk-beyond-consent people having sex
13:31  * jedb decides to stop being pedantic
13:35 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> My concern also. After the negative coverage regarding 18C, I can only imagine the potential backlash from seeking to repeal these ammendments.
13:37 < jedb> COMMENT: I've said this before, but the party needs to get used to advocating for freedom of speech in the face of unfair opposition and also needs to remember that legislation like this would be struck down should we ever succeed in enshrining freedom of speech in the Aust constitution
13:38 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: I'm actually not too concerned about this one, there's plenty of other freedom of speech laws we want to repeal that might raise eyebrows if someone thought to care - nobody does
13:39 < jedb> I think the lib dems are arguing to repeal 18C under the same freedom of speech justification as PPAU
13:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> We only need to punt to PDC if we want to make major changes, and ... we don't
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> MOTION: Advance PM-5
13:42 < jedb> PM-4 should be put to PDC, PM-5 is fine
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> place your votes
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> abstain
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Abstain
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> AYE
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> aye
13:42 < jedb> aye
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> nay
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​sh> aye
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> Aye
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Aye
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> abstain
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
13:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
13:44 < jedb> political parties that genuinely support freedom of speech in Australia are exceedingly rare btw, at the 2019 election by my count there were only 6 running for Senate in NSW, and that number has since reduced
13:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> close voting
13:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I count 9 Ayes, 3 Abstains, 1 Nay
13:46 < jedb> wasn't just me
13:47 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I agree with Miles that I think the changes are too extensive
13:49 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> In particular, the alternative wordings posed  directly incorporate many of the elements of PS-2020-02 that we just voted to remove from the platform
13:49 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Not more than one day before
13:52 < jedb> COMMENT: substantive changes aside, and excessive similarity to the likely removed PS-2020-02 aside, adopting either revised PM-4 would result in almost doubling the preamble for the freedom of speech policy over a single item of repeal
13:54 < jedb> COMMENT: all of these versions of PM-4 also fall into the trap of considering minorities as the only possible targets of racism/sexism/etc
13:54 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> COMMENT: We can write position statements at any time, and ratify them at the subsequent congress or policy meeting. Therefore, we don't absolutely need to do this right now if we consider it too rushed.
13:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> I prefer the wording of 3C over 3B in any case.
13:56 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> COMMENT: I consider 3B and 3C excessively similar to the prior PM-2020-02 which we just voted to remove. While the idea of adding a reference to either common law protections or existing policy based on the outcome of PM-3 is okay, I believe it could have been achieved in a far smaller and less drastic alteration to the wording of the text
13:57 < jedb> COMMENT: we already have statements that explain our stance on things like 18C in the existing preamble for the freedom of speech policy
13:57 < alexjago> jedb: yes, I just think they're insufficient
13:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> +1 to @andrewdpirate . Suggest waiting until after PM-3x is decided on by the members and then organise a Policy Meeting to follow
13:57 < jedb> alexjago: more like too many people just don't read things these days
13:58 < jedb> and oddly enough, adding more text won't solve that particular problem :P
13:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I think we should vote on PM-4, but not the variants
14:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> MOTION: Adopt PM-4 as a replacement position statement
14:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> place your votes
14:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> AYE
14:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
14:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Nay
14:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> Aye
14:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Nay
14:00 < jedb> PM-4 does read better if it is a position statement, I will admit
14:00 < jedb> nay
14:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> nay
14:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
14:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> nay
14:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
14:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> aye
14:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​sh> abstain
14:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
14:01 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> aye
14:02 < jedb> the simplest interpretation would be that PS-2020-02 becomes repealed and PM-4 becomes PS-2021-01
14:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> jedb: exactly
14:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> close vots
14:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> close votes (edited)
14:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> The question is what a vote against PM-3B and in favour of PM-4 would look like
14:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I have Aye: 8; Nay: 5; Abstain: 1
14:05 < jedb> Sean O.: by the letter of procedure it would look like PS-2020-02 and PS-2021-01 existing simultaneously, as silly as that would be
14:06  * jedb shrugs as he's lost track of the minutae of what's going on, apparently
14:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> And if you prefer PM-4 as a policy statement, but would still prefer the old one over the new one, vote against PM-3B and in favour of PM-4
14:06 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> ?
14:06 < jedb> I'unno?
14:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> if you want to keep the old statement vote no for both motions
14:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> a No vote is always for status quo
14:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Misstated that
14:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> What I meant is the following:
14:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> And if you prefer PM-4 as a policy statement, but would still prefer the old one over no position statement at all, vote against PM-3B and in favour of PM-4?
14:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> yes
14:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> So long as we can make that clear in the member voting, because if both end up passing, we'd end up with John's preamble AND the old PS.
14:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Okay. Wanted to figure out what the punnet square of voting options on the two motions meant
14:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
14:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> by one hour, or until a specified time?
14:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> MOTION: extend National Congress 2021 by 1 hour until 5:15pm, in order to hold a general party strategy and improvement discussion
14:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> (hold votes)
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> No, we can't keep both. PM-4 replaces the old one, whether PM-3 passes or not
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> I think they should be made mutually exclusive options if possible.
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> AYE
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> no, John ended up putting a motion to "replace" and I have taken that as an edit to get the appropriate punnet square
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> place your votes
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> AYE
14:09 < jedb> aye
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> aye
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> Aye
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> abstain
14:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> arrr
14:10 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> yes dad
14:10  * jedb is starting to regret not disabling his VPN for the duration of congress
14:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> FYI I'm not in voice chat anymore Mandrke
14:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Nice, fixed it just as I typed that
14:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> close votes
14:12 < alexjago> many Ayes. 1 Abstain. 0 Nays
14:12 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Is the voting on policy changes a 2/3 majority, or simple majority?
14:12 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Congress floor is simple majority
14:12 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Council requires 2/3rds absolute, congress only requires simple majority
14:13 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> brb
14:13 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Side note: we also have to pick a location for the next congress
14:14 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> Online again?
14:14 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: I will note that re-registration is *easier* than running as an independent
14:14 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> Purely online
14:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Just a technicality.
14:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> (running as independents, rather)
14:16 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I can speak a bit on strategy
14:16 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Yeah @Nemesis let's go through that document of yours
14:16 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> COMMENT: I maintain that it's important to find a way to extend our reach two 2+ degrees of separation in some way. Potentially organising some involvement with unaffiliated popular media personalities involved in digital rights, cryptocurrency, or IP criticism.
14:18 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: I don't think DRW can usefully formally support us without compromising the reason for their existence
14:19 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: I have been looking into dropshipping
14:19 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> White-label print-on-demand
14:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> The trouble is that we have to do stickers differently, because auth tags
14:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I had one of them as a kid I bought from retail and was bummed when it died. Definitely keen to get another!
14:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Me and Mitchell
14:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I can do it
14:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I'm already thinking about it
14:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> same ... I kinda went ahead by myself for this shirt anyway
14:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> As an aside, my partner recently registered a few domains which could be used (or abused). http://saltyliberaltears.com/
14:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> ooooh now there's a poster
14:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> COMMENT: A potential option would be negotiating discussions/interviews with channels that have related topics.
14:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> 
14:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> E.g. Naomi Brockwell, her outlook is more lib-right-leaning than ours in many ways, but she's Australian and regularly posts videos with tens or sometimes hundreds of thousands of views relating to matters of privacy, cryptocurrency, censorship and online security.
14:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> She was hoping to do something by way of online reselling, cashing in on U.S. Liberals.
14:24 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @JohnA I like how you're leaning into this now
14:24 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Keen to go through the content of my doc
14:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> yes background noise
14:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Appearances on popular but unaffiliated shows  that discuss related topics are a staple of political marketing
14:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> https://pirateparty.org.au/w/images/c/c1/Rebuilding_Pirates_-_an_Opportunity.pdf
14:26 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Been a common means of promoting political views and visibility for as long as radio shows have been a thing
14:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Oh yeah lol I was considering a policy motion to reorder the platform a bit and put copyright first
14:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> COMMENT: Copyright first really should be first. It's literally the defining principle of the pirate movement, and that's what we should be presenting first and formost
14:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: we can also achieve this largely in terms of what we call out on the front page of the website
14:31 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> COMMENT: Copyright reform really should be first. It's literally the defining principle of the pirate movement, and that's what we should be presenting first and formost (edited)
14:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​sh> COMMENT: I dont mind organising the policies into these groupings, but to reach a broader member and voter base, advocating the secondary policies is important
14:32 < jedb> Sean O.: yeah, copyright/patent reform first, civil rights second, everything else third
14:32 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> UBI?
14:33 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Universal Basic Income
14:33 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Gigabit Fibre NBN 🙂
14:33 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/580190396110340107/871279352669691935/unknown.png
14:33 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​ilspec> Big fan of UBI
14:33 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: our UBI is mathematically equivalent to a flat tax and flat payment. I sometimes call it a basic income rather than universal BI but I don't think this should constrain us
14:33 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: also this is close to policy weeds
14:34 < jedb> COMMENT: a UBI based on NIT as we have in our policy and a flat "here's some cash" no matter who you are with income tax adjusted to compensate is mathematically equivalent
14:34 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> Interesting, science party have got some criticism, though perhaps it has been unfair criticism.
14:34 < jedb> alexjago: hivemind?
14:35 < alexjago> jedb: only, like 60% of the time
14:35 < jedb> true
14:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> QUESTION: Is UBI any interest to non-techie people or a platform that will engage non-pirate people?
14:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> it is our best option for engaging non-pirates IMHO
14:36 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> I suggest people interested in "social justice" and "a fairer society".
14:37 < jedb> morphs: it would appeal to low earners because money, it would appeal to high earners in its current form because there's technically a tax drop in there last time it was costed, and it would appeal to anyone who is fairness/efficiency minded
14:37 < jedb> JohnA: people interested in "social justice" are often bigots
14:38 < jedb> wait, this has drifted into policy discussion which was forbidden
14:38 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​ilspec> Three big policies that have appeal to me: UBI, Resource Tax, and Carbon Tax
14:39 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> COMMENT: I guess the circles I move in, they'd be interested in supporting Live music or alternative transport such as cycling.  I think they're eyes would glaze over if I started chatting about UBI
14:39 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> It does seem far more popular among low and no income earners, so with the middle working class, it's important to highlight the efficiency in comparison to Centrelink.
14:39 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> tell them we'll give them a $5K effective tax cut
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> a tax cut will do very little for live music lol
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> many musicians have unpredictable incomes
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> it's the same kind of rhetoric from the LNP
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> no, that's how our numbers work out
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> COMMENT: As a non-techie myself I was attracted to the PPAU primarily for the negative income tax, MMT, and the concern for civil rights and free speech. I'm agnostic on the patents and copyright stuff, although I understand the importance of not allowing big corporations to acquire and hold intellectual property. I also appreciate the fact that Pirate politics allows one to be a <clipped message>
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat>  leftie without also being a dogmatist, censor, no-platformer, etc.
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> for middle income earners
14:40 < jedb> last I heard the live music industry was literally on life support due to covid
14:40 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> COMMENT: That list approach works for us in our core areas like privacy, where we get matched well against the Australian Privacy Foundation's check list.
14:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Stream is dropping frames?
14:41 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> QUESTION: Is it possible to inject ourselves into mainstream media shows on the topics of arts and tech? E.g. when there are ABC interviews trying to educate people about arts and culture and copyright, can we try to finagle a place to include an IP-critical view when discussing these materials leveraging the desire/requirement for neutrality of content?
14:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> naughty!
14:42 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> It's difficult to discuss strategy without making reference to our policy platform. 😉
14:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: yeah there are some list issues which we need to look at
14:43 < jedb> Sean O.: attempting to leverage those nonsense "fair and balanced" policies? devious, I like it
14:43 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: there needs to be least one "you're a member, you get an email" list so we can tell people about Congress :p
14:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​ilspec> Agree with local chapters. Maybe even have state discord channels?
14:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> There won't be a post-COVID world. We still haven't gotten rid of influenza. It's only a question of mitigating it to manageable levels.
14:44 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: we desperately need more in-person groups, despite our failed efforts, because we need them for election logistics
14:45 < jedb> Satch: nonsense, that's not how pandemics based on cold/flu viruses tend to work
14:46 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> jedb: The common flue has a much lower death rate, sure.
14:46 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: yeah I don't know how to get people to show up IRL, but we'll never be truly successful until we master it
14:46 < jedb> Satch: and the common coronavirus has an even lower death rate
14:48 < jedb> COMMENT: judging by university experience, the trick to getting people to turn up IRL is handing out free food
14:50 < jedb> no, no, the alcohol almost always cost extra
14:50 < jedb> but the food was free
14:50 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I mean, if the budget can support it, 100%
14:50 < jedb> lol
14:50 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: as someone at UQ, it is not fairly open
14:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> (to be fair UQ has special issues)
14:51 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> My understanding from having been heavily involved at UoM was that it's restricted to student-led groups
14:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> same at UQ
14:52 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I don't see what we can offer to young people that we don't already offer to adults
14:53 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> I'm just thinking more about targeting rather than offering anything different
14:53 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Had stuff like that at UoM, but they were in fact all student led lol
14:53 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: I mean, you can walk around with a sign or whatever but expect security to shut you down
14:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: yes, noticeboards are part of the general "more people putting up posters" line
14:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> COMMENT: The biggest clubs at UoM were "young" political groups of various parties, religious organisations, and faculty organisations
14:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> All student led
14:55 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Then there were smaller interest groups which is what I was involved in
14:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Fun fact: UoM actually has a pirate club, but it's completely unrelated to pirate politics. It's actually just rum and cruise enthusiasts
14:57 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> haha, at UQ we have the Yacht Club filling this void
14:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: when I figure out a way to parse JSON from the database dump I'll let you know
14:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> what
14:58 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> JSON is easy to parse
15:00 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Addresses in particular are a little bit of a mess because of how they're buried inside the JSON, whereas everything else I needed for call lists are just fields
15:02 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I'd go at postcode granularity
15:02 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> It gets even worse when you're trying to de-dupe customer records with the same address in multiple different formats. 😉
15:02 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Thoughts on a Pirate Newsletter?
15:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> I just want someone to have the energy to write a fortnightly "here's what we're up to" email
15:03 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> If customer-facing staff can't find the existing customer for an order, they just create a new one. It becomes rather painful.
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Shout out to @JayStephens as a travelling Northern Rivers man
15:04 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I'm thinking maybe something more like a seasonal newsletter, less frequent but more worth reading. If you really wanna help with engagement, *physically mailing them out* would do absolute wonders for member engagement and retention I bet as well.
15:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Do you want to spend $500 a newsletter?
15:05 < jedb> alexjago: postcode and neighbouring postcode granularity
15:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Sure
15:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Sounds good
15:05 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> I don't know what the costs are, but I'm just gonna say that physical mail is far more impactful than email
15:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Costly, but if you can budget for it, I bet it would do a better job of engaging people
15:07 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Side note, it's also significantly more public which might actually be useful weird advertising
15:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Somebody gets an email from the Pirate Party letting them know about what's happening, progress with policy drafting, recent political actions like submissions, etc., it stays private to that  person.
15:08 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> But if they get a physical newsletter? There's a solid chance that other people in the house see that newsletter
15:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> That it gets shared
15:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> https://github.com/ppau/piratedb
15:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> 
15:09 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> here's our membership DB, where most changes will need to route through
15:11 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> COMMENT: there's a lot of people who RSVP to the Eventbrite but don't show up. So there are definitely tweaks to be made.
15:12 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> (or at least they don't seem to show up)
15:12 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> COMMENT: I think some kind of physical interaction with party members is important. Not necessarily an in-person congress, but there being some kind of meatspace reminder of the party
15:13 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Hence my earlier discussion of potential physical newsletters
15:13 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @Sicarious yep, local groups social friday the night before lol
15:14 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> local letterbox drops makes sense
15:14 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @Satch oh you're getting a flyer pack with the sticker pack
15:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @Satch we almost have the infrastructure to do this today
15:15 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> @alexjago , need to continue to make your auth tag script and some templates
15:16 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> More accurately, need a couple more pamphlets on the site and to put it on official party infra
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​sh> Leaflets etc are pretty good close to election to determine which party youll choose, if you are hesitant of the big couple. Some policies should be mentioned
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> COMMENT: <Miles> We are over the agreed time
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> MOTION: hold national congress 2022 online
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> place your votes
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i vote aye
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> aye
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​sh> aye
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
15:17 < jedb> abstain
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> aye
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> Aye
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
15:17 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​olzy> aye
15:18 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> COMMENT: I was talking more about mailouts to party members specifically, even just an annual newsletter to remind them of their connection to the party might do wonders. Perhaps in the leadup to or immediately after National Congress talking about proposed policy updates, information from everyone, and reminding them to respond to the email about ratification
15:18 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Aye
15:18 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Aye
15:18 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> if the lockdowns continue, it could be a good excuse for a 1 hour per day "exercise" break
15:19 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> we're at like a dollar a letter
15:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Yeah, I wasn't sure how the budgeting for it worked out. But if we're having longstanding issues with member retention, I think this is important.
15:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> WOW! It's been a long time since I sent a physical letter.
15:20 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> That's been three minutes for voting - motion CARRIED without dissent; Congress will be online next year
15:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> close voting
15:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Roughly once-per-membership-lapse-period
15:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> MOTION: end national congress 2021
15:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> i vote aye
15:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Aye
15:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <t​he-fred> aye
15:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> aye
15:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> aye
15:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​ean O.> Aye
15:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​andrke> aye
15:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​ilspec> Aye
15:21 < jedb> aye
15:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> aye
15:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Aye
15:21 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​olzy> aye
15:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <B​ig_Money 2.0> Aye
15:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Aye
15:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> I'm definitely working toward some answer in the digital currency space
15:22 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​ilspec> Where's a good place (outside Congress) to discuss policy?
15:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​eadbeat> Czech election coming up on Oct. 8 & 9. The president has stated that if they win he won't ask them to form govt. Be interesting to watch.
15:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Policy discussion in #ID:737183319283728394 \
15:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> Round of applause to @mandrke !
15:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​ndrewdpirate> Yay!
15:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> https://tenor.com/view/meryl-streep-yes-yeah-cheer-cheering-gif-5163144
15:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> close voting
15:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> national congress is over for 2021
15:23 <+RelayBot> [D] <m​orphs> 👏
15:24 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> Also.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRdA7KpJctE&ab_channel=justsayyeah7 lol
15:24 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> They were a crossover metal band 😉
15:24 <+RelayBot> [D] <J​ohnA> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3TibfE0boQ
15:24 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> @AsylumRunner @Nemesis we'll hold an onboarding for new NC members at our next scheduled NC meeting
15:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> which is this coming thursday
15:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> you will hopefully be setup with a party email before then
15:25 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> ive also just given you national council roles
15:26 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> @andrewdpirate
15:28 <+RelayBot> [D] <a​lexjago> @andrewdpirate I have just reactivated your email and added you to the appropriate things
15:28 <+RelayBot> [D] <D​read Pirate Roger> Thanks @Sorokyne. This is awkward, but depending on lockdowns here in Brisbane, I have prior commitment this coming Thursday evening and I definitely don't want to miss onboarding and first NC meeting as part of NC.
15:28 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> I've really messed up the youtube algorithms for me 😛
15:28 <+RelayBot> [D] <S​atch> https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/580190396110340107/871293320909975592/unknown.png
15:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <A​sylumRunner> should i give you my email, I already have one of you have it?
15:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> the onboarding is just checking to see your email is working, that you are familiar with the operations of the NC, and your responsibilities, and to help you start thinking about something to work on
15:29 <+RelayBot> [D] <M​iles> mitch you'll get a new party email to use, alex will handle it
--- Log closed Sun Aug 01 17:00:27 2021