[Discussion] Citizenship Act (October 2018)

[Arlo]

Can I say I dislike oaths. They are entirely useless.

I see your point. However, they are present in almost all the regions I am familiar with. I am open to removing it if others feel very strongly about it.

I don't feel particularly strongly about it.

My aversion to them is likely due to me considering oaths as very serious things IRL and therefore finding them a bit inappropriate for an in game community.

[Amerion]

Firstly, I can see a problem more related to court action, and limitation of citizenship rights till it is cleared up/change of masking to 'banned' if the court judges it severe enough:

1. Person X commits/accused of Y crime.
   
2. Person X has their citizenship limited for length of the trial.
   

Secondly, I can see a problem in regards to improper OOC conduct:

1. Person X posts vaguely sexually graphic content/engages in harassment/has just been made DOS from NS/viciously trolls someone.
   
2. Person X has their citizenship limited till a decision is made on their posting privileges for Y time, or till it is passed onto a court (if it also deals heavily with IC actions).
   

These situations, to name a few, will tend to fall outside of that one or two week period. 

It might be useful to have a section related to 'Limitations on Citizenship' to outline areas where temporary limitations may be put in place for court reasons or for community reasons.  

Regarding your proposed limitations on citizenship and the given examples, citizenship only grants a person the right to vote in the Assembly; a resident can still post such material on our Discord channels. Would it not be more appropriate to outline moderation/administration policy in another document?

[Amerion]

I am still very uncomfortable with the prospect of having an indefinite number of citizens.

The possibility that once you receive citizenship, you can sit back and do nothing and still have formal membership in Lazarus two years from now seems illogical and unbeneficial to the region.

Given that the forum allows for an automatic reorganisation of citizens to 'non-citizens' based on their activity count, that is the way I am inclined to move this bill in the direction of. It requires no effort on the part of the Delegate or the Speaker -- so it alleviates the concerns that it creates cumbersome work for these officials -- and honestly, it just makes plain sense.

Inactive nations ceases to exist in NationStates following 28 days of inacitivity. That is the exact standard that shall be applied in this bill.

[Arlo]

So people have to post in some silly spam topic every 27 days to keep citizenship? Rules like this do not produce activity. They are just tedious.

[Amerion]

As is logging into my nation. But I do it because it is not difficult.

[Cormac]

I will vote against this bill if the activity requirement revokes citizenship rather than suspending it. Which is to say, citizenship should automatically be reinstated upon posting again, rather than requiring a new citizenship application. That is, in my view, a decent compromise with those concerned about bloated citizenship rolls.

I would strongly encourage that you take that compromise. A majority of voters were against an activity requirement, and as this is a constitutional law, you'll need 3/4 of votes to pass it. If even just a few others feel as I do, that they won't vote for this bill if the activity requirement results in revocation rather than suspension of citizenship, you're going to have a problem if you keep that provision.

[Amerion]

I will take this under advisement.

[Amerion]

As discussed with Cormac in Discord, we have been able to reach a compromise between our two positions.

Citizens who do not post on the forum in 28 days will automatically be reorganised into an 'inactive citizens' category. Should an inactive citizen post in the following 28 days, they will be automatically reinstated into the citizens category. However, if they fail to post once in 56 days, they will be removed entirely and reclassified as a member. They will then have to (re)apply for citizenship if they so desire.

I have been informed by New Rogernomics that this is possible on the forum.

It will be written into a new version of the bill, to be published within the day.

[Cormac]

Just confirming that I'm good with the above compromise. I hope others will be too!

[Arlo]

I still don't see the point but I'm not against it.

Like why move citizens into an inactive citizen category, if they can restore their citizenship automatically just by posting? What does that achieve? I don't really get the overall purpose of the activity requirement -- because the only logical purpose I can think of is to encourage activity, but the reality is that doesn't work, I've never seen it work.