[Discussion] Citizenship Act (October 2018)

[Amerion]

That is very useful.

Is it based on the number of days or can it be adjusted to the first of every month?

[New Rogernomics]

That is very useful.

Is it based on the number of days or can it be adjusted to the first of every month?

Number of days from the point it is set. So we would have to activate it on the 1st, for it to be active on the 1st of the next month.

[TempestShadow]

Could we maybe hold off on the activity requirement for now, until we see what the standard activity levels on the forum are going to be?

[Ryccia]

Can we have a clause where, if not denied entry because of OOC reasons, the applicant may appeal to the Courts? We must be extra safe regarding political games in the future, where Imki nor Treadwellia might be present (remember Funk's coup? The flood of citizenship applications for electoral fraud, maybe even from both sides?).

Also, since the Delegate can deny entry due to OOC reasons, and since this is the realm of the Administrative team, perhaps we can add "violated community standards through their out-of-character activities, if the Delegate has sought consultation with the Administrative Team;"? In this form, more than one person can discuss and/or point out such severe accusations of importance.

I apologize if I have misrepresented or missed something in my opinion. Do point that out.

[Amerion]

Could we maybe hold off on the activity requirement for now, until we see what the standard activity levels on the forum are going to be?

I am partial to removing that particular subsection and will do so in the upcoming edit.

[Amerion]

Can we have a clause where, if not denied entry because of OOC reasons, the applicant may appeal to the Courts? We must be extra safe regarding political games in the future, where Imki nor Treadwellia might be present (remember Funk's coup? The flood of citizenship applications for electoral fraud, maybe even from both sides?).

Also, since the Delegate can deny entry due to OOC reasons, and since this is the realm of the Administrative team, perhaps we can add "violated community standards through their out-of-character activities, if the Delegate has sought consultation with the Administrative Team;"? In this form, more than one person can discuss and/or point out such severe accusations of importance.

I apologize if I have misrepresented or missed something in my opinion. Do point that out.

There is a clause which addressed your concern:

[table][cell]

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.

[/cell][/table]

The issue which you are referring to was a case where new citizenship applications were being accepted by the Sovereign (Funk) and who were voting en masse in a noticeable way. Our current system has no mechanism designed to counter this specific threat other than prohibiting the acceptance of citizenship-applications during a confirmation vote. On that thought, it may very well be feasible to perhaps install a 'challenge system' wherein a Citizen can challenge the acceptance of a new Citizen by the Delegate, and the Assembly can revoke that acceptance by three-thirds vote. What are people's thoughts on this?

I am leaning towards removing the subsection allowing the Delegate to reject an application on OOC grounds as the forum administration has been granted that power.

[Ryccia]

Sorry for missing that. But I'd still suggest the Courts, as they tend to be less prone to outright voter fraud and populism (imagine the Funk-controlled rubber stamp legislature seeing an appeal from one of Funk's political enemies lol). Sure, the Courts can also be horrifically corrupt, but I feel it is the more organized and principled of the two branches. Besides, it should be their job to rule on matters of cases and such. Anyone have an idea on another appealing body, or why the Assembly might be better?

First, regarding this "challenge" system, I could be open to the idea. It could even make the appeal to the Assembly valid as well in my eyes.

[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:"

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.

They don't need to have committed a crime in lazarus for forum administration to ban them, and someone who's done something like that should be banned without question. It's not necessary to address their political citizenship, since administratively banned people can't access the forum to apply and have no IC rights to appeal.

[Amerion]

[spoiler=Version 4]

---

 

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 no further back than 12 months prior to the application;
d. current or previous identities, extending no further back 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) The Assembly may overturn the Delegate’s approval of an application by three-quarters vote.

(7) 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.

(8) 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 continue to fulfil the eligibility requirements of citizenship.

(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 removal of citizenship

(1) A person may appeal a denial by the Delegate of a citizenship application or 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

‘Delegate’ is defined as the Delegate or in the event the Delegate has delegated this responsibility to a government official(s) of their choosing, the aforementioned official.

‘Three-quarters vote’ is defined as a 75%+1 vote.

Section 6. Constitutional law

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

---

[/spoiler]

[Amerion]

I have updated the bill in the above post.

As I don't think it is full-proof yet, I'm going to leave it open to discussion for an indefinite period.

I'm unsure whether the denial of citizenship applications by off-site forum administration should be open to appeal (to the Courts) so I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks.