[Discussion] Citizenship Act (October 2018)

[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 citizenship

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

(2) A person, hereinafter referred to as applicant, may submit a citizenship application in a designated area.

(3) The application shall include the applicant’s:
a. nation in Lazarus;
b. World Assembly nation, if applicable;
c. current or previous affiliations to foreign entities, extending to no less than 12 months prior to the application;
d. current or previous identities, extending to no less than 12 months prior to the application;
e. criminal record, if applicable; and an
f. oath 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.

(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;
c. violated community standards through their out-of-character activities;
d. been rendered an adverse security threat by the Delegate or the Council of Lazarene Security; or
e. 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.

(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.

(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.

---

[/spoiler]

[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. illy:"

[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. illy:"

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]

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. 

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