[Discussion] Citizenship Act (October 2018)

[Amerion]

Current Version​

 

[Amerion]

A few remarks about the proposal:

• Is listing the current and previous affiliations/identities sufficient or should the language be amended to include provision for 'major identities' which may go beyond the 12 months prior to the application?
• I'm unsure about the requirements to maintain citizenship. At the moment, I have it written down as posting on the forum at least once a month but I can amend that depending on what people think.
• In regards to revocation of citizenship because of bad behaviour, I understand people may be apprehensive about this but I think recent events in other regions have shown that it is necessary for the authorities to have instruments available to them for the removal of disruptive members.
• I expect that a future judicial act will contain the procedures for reviewing matters relating to citizenship.

Edit: I'll have the specific terminology defined and added to this bill sometime tomorrow. I'll also add a section explicitly stating that this is a constitutional law.

 

[Milograd]

(1) A person is eligible to become a citizen if the person has a nation residing in Lazarus.

Ah man.

c. engaged in conduct with the intention of attaining multiple accounts.

 

[Cormac]

I have a few things:

- I'm against limiting citizenship to residence in Lazarus. Make that normative, if you want, but there should be a process for waiving the normative requirement. I don't see any reason not to have Milograd here, basically.

- I'm against activity requirements, even a one post per month requirement. This is a Sinker. Inactivity happens. Activity checks serve no positive purpose and just burden the person responsible for doing the checking. They're busywork.

- Instead of "extending to no less than 12 months prior to the application," could we say something that makes it clear no one will be required to disclose affiliations longer than a year old? I've been playing this game for six years now and I can't remember everywhere I've been. Every time a citizenship application requires this information by law, I will inevitably forget something and my citizenship could be revoked on a technicality. I'm far from the only one with that situation. I think you did mean to restrict it to a year, but your wording doesn't quite do that.

- I don't like that the Delegate can only deny a citizenship application if someone is declared a security threat by the CLS. The Delegate ought to be able to decide if an applicant is a security threat, provided there is opportunity for appeal (more on that in a minute).

- I don't like this appeals process. The Court doesn't need more to do -- NS courts are dysfunctional and prone to corruption. I would love it if people would stop trying to give the Court more to do. Instead, why not do what multiple other regions do and have the appeals process go through the Assembly? Maybe make it a 2/3 threshold to overturn the Delegate's rejection or removal of citizenship.

- Section 3(3) is probably unconstitutional as it contradicts Article II, Section 6 of Mandate 12.

- There probably needs to be some process for forum administration to OOC approve citizenship masking. Rejection by forum administration shouldn't be subject to appeal. The absolute role of forum administration in deciding masking is made clear by Article VIII, Section 3 of Mandate 12, but it would still be a good idea to include a formal process here.

I think that's all I have. Pretty good work for a first draft.

 

[Amerion]

Ah man.

I will rewrite that subsection to allow for Delegate's discretion.

How would you rephrase it?

 

[Amerion]

I'm against limiting citizenship to residence in Lazarus. Make that normative, if you want, but there should be a process for waiving the normative requirement. I don't see any reason not to have Milograd here, basically.

I shall amend the subsection to include an allowance for the Delegate to use their discretion in handing out a waiver.

I'm against activity requirements, even a one post per month requirement. This is a Sinker. Inactivity happens. Activity checks serve no positive purpose and just burden the person responsible for doing the checking. They're busywork.

I disagree. If a person is inactive for an entire month without a leave of absence then it would stand to reason that the value of Lazarus to them is disappointingly low when in relation to a commitment like citizenship. This subsection does not mandate even a large commitment, only one post a month - which can be anywhere which interests the citizen: roleplay, the Assembly, spam, etc. It is not an unreasonable request, even in a Sinker.

Maintenance of a citizenship roll can be easily done by checking a citizen's post data, such as mine.

Instead of "extending to no less than 12 months prior to the application," ... I think you did mean to restrict it to a year, but your wording doesn't quite do that.

What would be a more appropriate phrasing?

I don't like that the Delegate can only deny a citizenship application if someone is declared a security threat by the CLS. The Delegate ought to be able to decide if an applicant is a security threat, provided there is opportunity for appeal (more on that in a minute)

I don't like this appeals process. The Court doesn't need more to do -- NS courts are dysfunctional and prone to corruption. I would love it if people would stop trying to give the Court more to do. Instead, why not do what multiple other regions do and have the appeals process go through the Assembly? Maybe make it a 2/3 threshold to overturn the Delegate's rejection or removal of citizenship.

...

- There probably needs to be some process for forum administration to OOC approve citizenship masking. Rejection by forum administration shouldn't be subject to appeal. The absolute role of forum administration in deciding masking is made clear by Article VIII, Section 3 of Mandate 12, but it would still be a good idea to include a formal process here.

I shall amend the relevant sections accordingly.

Section 3(3) is probably unconstitutional as it contradicts Article II, Section 6 of Mandate 12.

Ah. I did not notice that it was already specified. Thanks for pointing that out.

The subsection shall be removed.

 

[Amerion]

Spoiler: Version 2

---

Citizenship Act (September 2018)Proposed by: Amerion [/align]

Preamble

In order to make provision for the acquisition, maintenance, and removal of citizenship, this Act shall codify the formal membership of the citizenry in Lazarus.

Section 1. Acquisition of citizenship

Eligibility

(1) A person is eligible to become a citizen if the person has a nation residing in Lazarus.

Citizenship applicationOath of membership

(4) The oath of membership is:
From this time forward, I voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion, pledge my loyalty to Lazarus and her people, whose community ideals I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

Denial of citizenship application

(5) The Delegate may refuse to approve an application if the applicant has:
a. not met the criteria for eligibility;
i. the Delegate may, at their discretion, issue a waiver in instances where the applicant has not met the criteria;
b. not satisfactorily completed the citizenship application;
b. been rendered an adverse security threat by the Delegate or the Council of Lazarene Security; or
c. engaged in conduct with the intention of attaining multiple accounts.

(6) Off-site property administration may refuse to approve an application based on risk to the security or safety of off-site property or its users, or violation of terms of service.

Period of a confirmation vote

(7) The Delegate may not approve an application during the period in which a confirmation vote is occurring in the Assembly.

Section 2. Maintenance of citizenship

(1) A citizen shall maintain their citizenship should they:
a. continue to fulfil the eligibility requirements of citizenship; and
b. post a message on the forum once a month, unless they have an approved leave of absence.

Leave of absence

(2) A citizen may apply for a leave of absence in a designated area. The Delegate may approve an application.

Section 3. Removal of citizenship

Renunciation

(1) A citizen may make a formal application to the Delegate in a designated area stating their desire to renounce their citizenship. The Delegate shall comply.

Removal by review

(2) Within the first week of a calendar month, the Delegate shall conduct a review of all current citizens and shall remove the citizenship of persons who fail to meet the requirements necessary to maintain citizenship.

Section 4. Appealing a denial of a citizenship application or a removal of citizenship

(1) A person may appeal a denial by the Delegate of a citizenship application or a removal of citizenship to the Assembly. The Assembly may overturn such decisions by two-thirds vote.

(2) A person may not appeal a denial by the off-site property administration.

Section 5. Constitutional law

(1) The Citizenship Act is a constitutional law, and further amendments to it must meet constitutional amendment requirements.

Section 6. Definitions

Work-In-Progress

---

---

---

 

[New Rogernomics]

Well, the problem would be that this doesn't cover OOC actions which don't always have a NS court case behind them, and are often more harmful to players than Gameplay.

These include:
COPS like acts i.e. forum deletion and destruction.
Sexual Harrassment
Hacking i.e. Llamas
Harrassment/Bullying/Abuse

 

[Amerion]

Deleted

 

[New Rogernomics]

(5) The Delegate may refuse to approve an application if the applicant has:
a. not met the criteria for eligibility;
i. the Delegate may, at their discretion, issue a waiver in instances where the applicant has not met the criteria;
a. not satisfactorily completed the citizenship application;
b. has violated community standards through their out of character activities;*
c. been rendered an adverse security threat by the Delegate or the Council of Lazarene Security; or
d. engaged in conduct with the intention of attaining multiple accounts.

 

[Amerion]

Noted with thanks.

I've amended it accordingly

Spoiler: Version 3

---

Citizenship Act (September 2018)Proposed by: Amerion ​

Preamble

In order to make provision for the acquisition, maintenance, and removal of citizenship, this Act shall codify the formal membership of the citizenry in Lazarus.

Section 1. Acquisition of citizenshipSection 2. Maintenance of citizenship

(1) A citizen shall maintain their citizenship should they:
a. continue to fulfil the eligibility requirements of citizenship; and
b. post a message on the forum once a month, unless they have an approved leave of absence.

(2) A citizen may apply for a leave of absence in a designated area. The Delegate may approve an application.

Section 3. Removal of citizenship

(1) A citizen may make a formal application to the Delegate in a designated area stating their desire to renounce their citizenship. The Delegate shall comply.

(2) Within the first week of a calendar month, the Delegate shall conduct a review of all current citizens and shall remove the citizenship of persons who fail to meet the requirements necessary to maintain citizenship.

Section 4. Appealing a denial of a citizenship application or a removal of citizenship

(1) A person may appeal a denial by the Delegate of a citizenship application or a removal of citizenship to the Assembly. The Assembly may overturn such decisions by three-quarters vote.

(2) A person may not appeal a denial by the off-site property administration.

Section 5. Definitions

Work-In-Progress

Section 6. Constitutional law

(1) The Citizenship Act is a constitutional law, and further amendments to it must meet constitutional amendment requirements.

---

---

---

 

[New Rogernomics]

Thanks. That works. 

 

[Amerion]

No worries 

 

[Sheepshape]

augh post eaten by forum. Trying to respond to NR's post on the last page about denying cit to predators etc.

"I don't think you're necessarily right there; if admins ban someone from the forum for the behaviors you mention, they wouldn't be able to get citizenship since they'd have no way to request it. And if they already had citizenship, it would expire once they don't post for 30 days (or whatever we ultimately decide on).

I am going to post a separate response to the bill itself, because long. :silly:"

 

[New Rogernomics]

augh post eaten by forum. Trying to respond to NR's post on the last page about denying cit to predators etc.

"I don't think you're necessarily right there; if admins ban someone from the forum for the behaviors you mention, they wouldn't be able to get citizenship since they'd have no way to request it. And if they already had citizenship, it would expire once they don't post for 30 days (or whatever we ultimately decide on).

I am going to post a separate response to the bill itself, because long. :silly:"

Actually, they wouldn't necessarily be banned. If a proven harasser/forum destroyer from another region comes here, then there is no scope to argue that they committed a crime in Lazarus. Which is why the community standards for ooc actions part was pretty important to include. With that added, we can exclude COPS violators,etc with ease.

 

[McChimp]

I'm not convinced OOC conduct needs to be mentioned in any legislation. The admin team's authority is implicitly absolute, as is the trust in their judgement to use that authority appropriately. If they believe that somebody ought to be excluded from the community for any actions anywhere, they can do that regardless of the processes defined by law.
They are an entity entirely separate from and above legislation.

If that trust is broken, no legislative process could resolve that issue anyway. Drastic action would need to be taken by another mechanically powerful entity (the delegate, I suppose.)

 

[New Rogernomics]

I'm not convinced OOC conduct needs to be mentioned in any legislation. The admin team's authority is implicitly absolute, as is the trust in their judgement to use that authority appropriately. If they believe that somebody ought to be excluded from the community for any actions anywhere, they can do that regardless of the processes defined by law.
They are an entity entirely separate from and above legislation.

If that trust is broken, no legislative process could resolve that issue anyway. Drastic action would need to be taken by another mechanically powerful entity (the delegate, I suppose.)

The section relates to the delegate (whoever that might be), not the forum admin team. Admins will always act to keep the community safe and keep out genuine OOC threats.

That said, there are cases that might be too complex to deal with alone, as they delve into politics. Too much admin intervention can breed resentment.

 

[Cormac]

Instead of "extending to no less than 12 months prior to the application," ... I think you did mean to restrict it to a year, but your wording doesn't quite do that.

What would be a more appropriate phrasing?

I think "extending no further back than 12 months prior to the application" would do it. Extending "no less" could mean it has to go back at least 12 months, but could go back further.

I continue to disagree with you in regard to the activity requirement, because my experience with it in Osiris was that it was completely useless busywork for the person required to track it. If someone's citizenship was removed, they just reapplied and were accepted, so the tracking was a useless waste of time and energy for the person doing it and the citizenship reapplication was a useless waste of time and energy for the person whose citizenship had lapsed. I don't see the point. That said, I don't consider it a make or break thing as long as I'm not the one who has to do the tracking. I'm not, but the Delegate is, and if I were the Delegate I'd genuinely consider vetoing this just to avoid the useless busywork it entails. But I'm not the Delegate, so I won't vote against an otherwise good bill because of this one issue that isn't a vital matter.

 

[Amerion]

That is a good suggestion. I shall amend it accordingly in the latest draft of the bill.

I understand your point of view. I am interested in hearing if other people share your concern. I am also considering the possibility that the act will allow the Delegate to 'delegate' their responsibility for maintaining a citizenship roll, and only exercise their authority when it comes to enforcing the revocation of citizenship.

 

[New Rogernomics]

Instead of "extending to no less than 12 months prior to the application," ... I think you did mean to restrict it to a year, but your wording doesn't quite do that.

What would be a more appropriate phrasing?

I think "extending no further back than 12 months prior to the application" would do it. Extending "no less" could mean it has to go back at least 12 months, but could go back further.

I continue to disagree with you in regard to the activity requirement, because my experience with it in Osiris was that it was completely useless busywork for the person required to track it. If someone's citizenship was removed, they just reapplied and were accepted, so the tracking was a useless waste of time and energy for the person doing it and the citizenship reapplication was a useless waste of time and energy for the person whose citizenship had lapsed. I don't see the point. That said, I don't consider it a make or break thing as long as I'm not the one who has to do the tracking. I'm not, but the Delegate is, and if I were the Delegate I'd genuinely consider vetoing this just to avoid the useless busywork it entails. But I'm not the Delegate, so I won't vote against an otherwise good bill because of this one issue that isn't a vital matter.

I am not arguing the feasibility/whether there should be an activity requirement.

That said, in terms of forum administration, a plugin that is installed allows us to set forum groups to move to another based on forum activity level. It also places it in an admin log, which could potentially be shared publicly/updated each month to meet the requirement in the Act.

Link: https://community.mybb.com/mods.php?action=view&pid=915