Amending 6.1 Citizenship

The Grim Reaper

The Grim Reaper

TNPer
Recent events regarding the selection of a Deputy Minister of Entertainment have resulted in concerns that the citizenship code restricts those who, for varying reasons, do not wish to retain accounts on the Nationstates.net site, whilst still being interested in actively participating in and contributing to the North Pacific forums.

As a result, the following amendment is proposed, to allow forum members to apply, with approval from either the delegate, vice-delegate, or speaker, for a 'motion of validation'. Such a motion would require a majority vote by the Regional Assembly, and would allow the forum member to substitute the existence of their forum username where the laws of TNP require the existence of a resident nation of TNP.

Chapter 6 "Government Regulations", Section 1 "Citizenship" of the Legal Code will be amended to add the following clause:

2. Any forum member may petition the Delegate, Vice-Delegate, or Speaker to motion for validation, passage of which would allow them to use their forum account username as a substitute for a resident nation in the The North Pacific in any and all instances required by law. A motion for validation requires a majority vote by the Regional Assembly to pass.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I question how hard it is to maintain a puppet nation in TNP in-game. Create a puppet and set it in vacation mode (60 days until CTE), and just pop in every two months. I don't think it requires a lot of work on the part of the player....
 
Grim Reaper:
Recent events regarding the selection of a Deputy Minister of Entertainment have resulted in concerns that the citizenship code restricts those who, for varying reasons, do not wish to retain accounts on the Nationstates.net site, whilst still being interested in actively participating in and contributing to the North Pacific forums.
Click to expand...
Hah. The selection you are talking about 'can't' retain a nation in NS. DoS player.

Grim Reaper:
As a result, the following amendment is proposed, to allow forum members to apply, with approval from either the delegate, vice-delegate, or speaker, for a 'motion of validation'. Such a motion would require a majority vote by the Regional Assembly, and would allow the forum member to substitute the existence of their forum username where the laws of TNP require the existence of a resident nation of TNP.
Click to expand...
This amendment only covers the Legal Code. There is this from the Constitution:

Article 2; TNP Constitution:
1. Resident means any person with a nation in the region of The North Pacific.
Click to expand...
and:

Article 7; TNP Constitution:
7. All government officials, with the exception of members of the Security Council, must maintain citizenship while in office.
Click to expand...
So, this amendment would allow a validated resident to apply for citizenship, hold appointed positions as government officials (the motivation behind this), and perhaps even run for office:

Proposed amendment:
2. Any forum member may petition the Delegate, Vice-Delegate, or Speaker to motion for validation, passage of which would allow them to use their forum account username as a substitute for a resident nation in the The North Pacific in any and all instances required by law.
Click to expand...
Rewriting the Law to allow a DoS ex-player to circumvent citizenship and government official requirements is laughable at best. It requires a constitutional provision as well. Count my vote as hell no. That's all I'm saying about this so-called proposal.
 
I am not sure i want to move away from the principle that this is the off-site community for players of the game Nationstates in the region of The North Pacific.

This is not about accommodating "those who, for varying reasons, do not wish to retain accounts on the Nationstates.net site." It is about enabling people who are DOS in Nationstates to hold office in TNP.

I will certainly be voting against.
 
Can someone educate me on how Delete On Sight works in the big scheme of the Moderation world? Like, do they give you chances before giving the DoS order or what? GP has always confused me a little bit, so if someone could clarify this that would be helpful.
 
Nobody much who has been declared DOS ever thinks it is justified, so it sort of depends who you speak to. DOS status would rarely be given for a first offence, from what i hear.

But NS admins are not as cute and cuddly as those on this forum.
 
In fairness, I think DOS players generally breach the rules often enough to warrant the punishment. It's not like the mods do it nilly willy.
 
To allow DOS players in NS to participate in an off-site community that is entirely based upon and related to the on-site gameplay of NS makes absolutely no sense and defies any sense of logic.

As far as I am concerned this proposal is D.O.A.
 
The current amendment, as it stands is unworkable.

Let's not beat about the bush. We don't want every DOS player to be allowed to hold ministerial roles, etc; we are looking for a means to allow Nierr to legally hold a position in the government given how much time, work and effort he has put into our roleplaying and cultural sections.

I will support a logical effort to facilitate that. Despite having a "Ministry of Entertainment" covering roleplay, the position is pretty much non-political.

Nierr admits his DOS was justified. Nierr was mainly based out of Osiris during the period in question (2013) that saw a lot of his warnings and issues with the Mods, and at the time the region's politics was toxic. It was all personal. There wasn't a single thing going on in that region that wasn't personal to the people involved. It was a stressful, horrible and utterly horrific time. I went through it as well.

His DOS came later, last year. These offences weren't three in quick succession.

Nierr contributes a lot to our forum community. We've encouraged that. It's been acknowledged by various figures in this region, both admin and non that he does a lot of work and has improved the quality of our cartography.

Given that he is no longer involved in NationStates.net do the normal rules apply? Do the political processes apply if he is separate from them? Could the Administration Team decide to handle matters like this on a case by case basis? Do we need a huge legal faff, red tape galore for this? It's one person who has served TNP faithfully, who admits their own misdeeds and has worked to try and make up for them where he can.

No one is asking for the moon, but a change to recognise Nierr's dedication and work to TNP. Let's avoid all the strawman arguments about allowing DOS players into TNP, because no one is seeking that. We're seeking a method to allow Nierr to contribute properly and be recognised for his hard work.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
To allow DOS players in NS to participate in an off-site community that is entirely based upon and related to the on-site gameplay of NS makes absolutely no sense and defies any sense of logic.
Click to expand...
Hate to break it to you, but we've had a DoS player as a member of our community, serving as Cartographer and generally helping out in the RP section, for quite a while now. Your sense and logic be damned, it's the truth.

As for the proposal itself, I haven't quite made up my mind on the underlying idea, but certainly we would need to do more to make this fly. A non-resident citizen might not be covered by the BoR (depending on how you interpret, but at least on a strict literal one definitely not), and could not be legally punished for committing treason (the punishment for which requires ejection and banning). So we'd have to change things more than just one clause if we want non-resident citizens to be protected by the BoR.

It's also obvious that a DoS player could not run for Delegate or Vice Delegate or seek to join the SC. SC at least we've accounted for by the actual nation requirements, but we'd need to directly bar them from running for the two elected spots.

But once we start restricting basic rights like that, we get into first and second class citizens... and I'm not sure I like where that goes.
 
I'm leaving personalities out of this. I'm not willing to see our entire rationale for existence and purpose bent in whatever which way just to play favorites. It is inappropriate and unfair to those who do play NS by the rules, and thus, haven't earned a DOS by the NS game mods.

If they can't be in TNP in game because of their behavior earning a DOS, then any such player does not belong here. I'm not willing to destroy our entire rationale for existence as a community just to appease one player and his friends. Period.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
If they can't be in TNP in game because of their behavior earning a DOS, then any such player does not belong here.
Click to expand...
I'd love to hear what you plan to do about it. Since well, this person in question has contributed a lot to the community since his DOS and was part of our region before that. The North Pacific is not entirely based on politics, there are different aspects to this community - we cannot, and should not overlook that.
 
If a DoS player wants to participate in RP and other non-governmental activities because they wish to remain part of the offsite community then I personally have no issue with that.

But I do not like the idea of giving them citizenship and rights equal to those that are actually part of TNP, which is what the whole purpose of the government here is meant to represent.
 
I support the basic idea of this proposal, but I am far from certain this is the best way to implement it.

I will continue pondering this matter when I can.
 
I'd welcome suggestions and ideas which could make this workable.
 
I am not in favor of any proposal to extend voting rights or government office to individuals without a nation in TNP. If the goal is to allow non-residents to contribute meaningfully, there are a variety of acceptable work-arounds that require no change to the current laws.
 
My position is basically unchanged. That the legal code should not be amended in this way for this purpose.

I wish the proposer of the bill would withdraw the proposal.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
My position is basically unchanged. That the legal code should not be amended in this way for this purpose.

I wish the proposer of the bill would withdraw the proposal.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't count on that, considering this.
 
The proposer of the bill is no longer a citizen, so action on this proposal is not possible. No substantive debate of the issue has occurred in this thread for quite some time, so I am going to lock it. If a citizen wishes to address this issue through discussion or legislation, they may begin a new thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top