Mysterious Player;4204 Wrote:The problem is that a "notable" identity is subjective. Although, i think it would be fine if the Delegate had authority on what constitutes a "notable" identity.
If the Delegate thinks that a player was found guilty through a show trial, then they should just ignore it. The Delegate wouldn't be required to deny somebody citizen due to committing a crime in another region.
I think that you have fundamentally misunderstood how this bill works. The Delegate may give anybody citizenship no matter what they write in each of the in the application's fields. So long as they have made an application containing the information requested by the bill, the delegate or whoever is acting on the delegate's behalf may approve it. If the application is declined, then they may appeal to the CLS, who may only grant citizenship if they meet certain requirements (which are essentially not being a security threat and not being a criminal).
You say people ought to have to write their entire criminal record, others have said that that's not necessary. As the law stands, the Delegate wouldn't have to deny anybody citizenship no matter what they wrote.
My argument regarding the subjectivity of "notable" is this: the word "identity" in itself is subjective. Every puppet, every switcher, even nicknames other people have given you might be construed as an "identity". Laws may be subjective so long as there is an authority who makes the decision on a case-by-case basis according to well defined procedures. It just so happens that such an authority exists-the Court. If there was an identity omitted that people felt ought to have been included, a criminal review can occur and the court will come to a conclusion regarding whether the identity omitted was notable enough that the applicant could have forgotten it or just thought it wasn't notable and whether or not it was therefore fraud.