Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[Discussion] Citizenship Act (October 2018)
#6
Cormac Wrote: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.
Cormac Wrote: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.
Quote: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?
Cormac Wrote: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.
Cormac Wrote: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.


Messages In This Thread
RE: [Discussion] Citizenship Act (September 2018) - by Amerion - 08-29-2018, 10:23 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)