proposed change to citizenship requirements

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
At present we have a simple procedure for validating forum accounts. Account holders must make three posts, then their accout moves automatically from the "validating" group to the "members" group, which has more viewing and posting permissions.

However, this validation procedure can be circumvented if the first post is the citizenship oath. then, after checks, they move straight from the validating group to being a full citizen.

Many people who become citizens this way move through the maskings from validating straight to citizen to resident to member to former member only ever making one post on the forum: their citizenship oath. this is not only a waste of speaker, Admin and VD time, it also makes a nonsense of the whole point of validation.

I would like to propose a simple change to our laws, which would mean that someone could only apply for citizenship after having made three posts on the forum.

from:

Section 6.1: Citizenship Applications
2. Any resident may apply for citizenship using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:
Click to expand...

to

Section 6.1: Citizenship Applications
2. Any resident may apply for citizenship using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for citizenship in The North Pacific.
Click to expand...

Should the applicant not be using a validated account, their application shall be processed once they have achieved validation:
Click to expand...

and a change to our legal code as follows:

from

10. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has not been approved or rejected within that time, they will be automatically granted citizenship.
Click to expand...

to

10. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has a validated account and not been approved or rejected within that time, they will be automatically granted citizenship.
Click to expand...
 
As an admin, you know better than most that the current system entails a significant burden on your time. Measures promoting efficiency generally have my support.

What does the rest of the admin team think of this proposed change?
 
I know that both admins and speakers have found it frustrating spending lots of time administering and masking people who only ever make one post on the forum.

Personally, I would change citizenship to require a much greater evidence of activity BEFORE granting citizenship. But this has never gained much support in the regional assembly
 
I am inclined to support this - it is as Flem states.

Although we should perhaps change that - not so much "resident" but "validated member", since we can't have a validated resident - resident is a group given to those who seek it, not automatically given once they have 3 posts.
 
I want to point out something that I said in Discord a few days ago. As part of the Mentoring Program, the Ministry of Home Affairs goes through and contacts every single new member who registers on our forums. We divide the them into several categories based on their account status. For validating members, we reach out to them via telegrams with a "reach out" message asking them to make 3 posts on the forums and explaining the importance of having your account validated. For players who are already members on the forums, we send a PM encouraging them to participate further and explaining various aspects of TNP. For players who are members on the forum, but appear to have failed to make any posts on the forum or have failed to come back and log on, we contact them in-game through telegrams as well with a check-up telegram.

I say all of that to point out that this is not a neglected area. It is something that's being worked on. While our Mentoring Program is not perfect, I am confident that it is making a difference.

Now in regards to Flemingovia's proposal, I am not strictly against it, but I don't see a point in it. What difference does 2 more posts make? The reason that the Ministry of Home Affairs sends out messages to validating members is not because we think that making 2 more posts is going to commit them to staying in TNP. It is rather to allow them to have greater viewing and posting permissions on our forums (gives them more to do and see while their citizenship applications are processed). In regards to the administration team, I can guarantee that the workload is not going to get any lighter. I understand all the administrators have lives, but they have the liberty to appoint additional administrators should they need some.

I don't see any meaningful reform here, and for that reason I cannot support this.
 
I think the intent of this is to both compliment what HA does currently - remembering that HA will not always do this, given how hard it is to sustain the mentoring program - while encouraging prospective citizens to make an introductory step into the community and seeing whether TNP is where they want to be before jumping into the frying pan.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
I think the intent of this is to both compliment what HA does currently - remembering that HA will not always do this, given how hard it is to sustain the mentoring program - while encouraging prospective citizens to make an introductory step into the community and seeing whether TNP is where they want to be before jumping into the frying pan.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the response. But it does not really clarify how the proposal would improve citizenship retention, or make administrators' lives easier. Making an introductory statement is not an indication/guarantee that person X won't disappear tomorrow. Plus, not everyone is comfortable with starting an introduction thread, and that should not be a requirement to becoming a citizen of the region.
 
I, for one, joined this region without ever making an introduction topic about myself.
 
I do wish to decrease the admin burden. Perhaps instead of requiring three posts before applying, it could be before they are approved? I don't want to discourage citizenship applications, or force good-faith applicants to reappy because they hadn't made the requisite number of posts. The speaker could post something to the effect of "conditionally admitted, pending the post count requirement and whatever checks."

EDIT: I haven't thought much about the merits of adding this requirement, but I think my suggestion would improve the bill
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
I do wish to decrease the admin burden. Perhaps instead of requiring three posts before applying, it could be before they are approved? I don't want to discourage citizenship applications, or force good-faith applicants to reappy because they hadn't made the requisite number of posts. The speaker could post something to the effect of "conditionally admitted, pending the post count requirement and whatever checks."

EDIT: I haven't thought much about the merits of adding this requirement, but I think my suggestion would improve the bill
Click to expand...
I don't really see how that's any different than what Flem is suggesting.
 
Tomb, the distinction is that under flem's current language, an application that is submitted before the applicant is validated would be invalid. It would be rejected and they would have to reapply after being validated. My suggested change would make it so that such an application would be valid, and could be accepted once the member was validated, without the need to reapply.
 
If people can't even make 3 posts on this forum, I don't see why they should be masked as citizens here.

Support.
 
Syrixia:
If people can't even make 3 posts on this forum, I don't see why they should be masked as citizens here.

Support.
Click to expand...
It's not as simple as that, Syrixia.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Tomb, the distinction is that under flem's current language, an application that is submitted before the applicant is validated would be invalid. It would be rejected and they would have to reapply after being validated. My suggested change would make it so that such an application would be valid, and could be accepted once the member was validated, without the need to reapply.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying that, COE. So basically, under your proposal an applicant with less than 3 posts would remain as "pending" until they reach that number?
 
Yes. I wouldn't call it my proposal, since I haven't decided if I'm in support of such a requirement, but if we are going to implement something like rhis, I don't think we should disqualify un-validated users from applying, just from citizenship.
 
Syrixia:
If people can't even make 3 posts on this forum, I don't see why they should be masked as citizens here.

Support.
Click to expand...
Not everyone have time posting throughout the forum. As for me, when i join the forum, i only apply for citizens and post two times in roleplay topics. Then later i log in after 2weeks.

So do not waste time waiting for members posting three times for promotion.
 
Not that hard to make 3 posts. Getting 3 posts on your own introductory thread is easy. If you can't make 3 posts, your not gonna be doing anything useful here anyway.
 
Is this even necessary? Wouldn't it to be easier to restrict posting permissions in the citizenship application thread until validation is complete? Mind you, I never did understand why posting three times is necessary (to show activity presumably). That said, posting in the spam games forum 3 times isn't exactly onerous.
 
Falapatorius is right[note]:courtmadearuling:[/note] that if the admin team felt this was necessary they could implement it without any change in the law. I'm honestly not sure if the admin team is correct in deferring to the RA, or if it would be proper for the RA to defer to the admin team on this.
 
Mystery Player:
Not that hard to make 3 posts. Getting 3 posts on your own introductory thread is easy. If you can't make 3 posts, your not gonna be doing anything useful here anyway.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty absurd assertion. Care to back it up with facts?

Here's one to start you off: I did not make an introductory thread when I joined TNP, and after becoming a citizen I went on to do all kinds of useful[note]Alternatively, malicious and democracy-destroying[/note] things. I am hardly the only one; there are plenty of people who feel awkward or uncomfortable with introducing themselves but who will go on to participate in other areas once they have the masking to do so. Not to mention, I think it's highly likely that there are citizenship applicants who would be active, but who we are losing due to how long it is taking to process their applications.

I'm heavily skeptical of any push to restrict citizenship access, and this one does not seem like a good idea to me. Rather, I think it's obvious that the admin team is understaffed - and based on their open applications at the moment, they agree - and if there were more than like, 1 person doing all the checks every 2 weeks, this would not be the burden or problem that it's being presented as.

I also take issue with the absurd notion that the admins can simply unilaterally make a change like this; the Constibillocode grants all residents of TNP the right to apply for citizenship, and enacting a posting restriction on citizenship without going through the RA would be blatantly unconstitutional, an abuse of admin power, and a dangerously tyrannical precedent to set.[note]For example, what would then stop the admins from changing the number of posts to validate oneself from three to thirty? Or changing the type/location of posts required for the remasking? Or instituting a minimum length requirement for qualifying posts?[/note] There's a reason we heavily restrict admins' power to muck around in the citizenship process.
 
I agree 100% with what SillyString said.

Plus, many people fail to realize that validating members are really restricted in where they can post to begin with. If we're gonna pass this, you're really restricting them to either signing up for things they do not necessarily want to, or you'll have to increase their permissions around the forums.

Currently, TNP has about 3 active administrators who actually complete administration tasks -- Flemingovia, Raven, and Elu. That's 3 administrators performing the needs of the largest region in NS. And I think that is the issue that should be addressed.
 
I personally believe that in order to retain new members and remask them as citizens more effectively, a couple of things need doing.
  1. As SillyString has already said, more maskers need to be recruited, therefore creating a higher work rate and a more equally shared workload. I most definitely agree with this.
  2. Put more energy into developing the HA Forum Mentoring Program. This way, new members will know who can help them and what they can help them with. New members will be more willing join this community if they get the right help and encouragement, there'd be no need for extra posting requirements if new and validating members got that 'push' to maintain interest.
This bill might not put across the strongest of points regarding citizenship, but I am happy that the topic has been brought into the spotlight for further discussions. I can see a lot of potential in the forum mentors program, and if that potential was realized and utlized, I do not believe there would be any need to improve the posting requirements for validating members, as they'd already have contacted people about the region and the community and hopefully would have retained their interest until they are masked as a citizen.
 
Silly String:
I also take issue with the absurd notion that the admins can simply unilaterally make a change like this; the Constibillocode grants all residents of TNP the right to apply for citizenship, and enacting a posting restriction on citizenship without going through the RA would be blatantly unconstitutional, an abuse of admin power, and a dangerously tyrannical precedent to set.[2] There's a reason we heavily restrict admins' power to muck around in the citizenship process
Click to expand...
I was referring to masking. Residents are restricted from posting in the Legislature, private halls, etc. I would also argue that in order for a resident to have a forum account, they would have to go through the validation process (unless I'm mistaken about that).

Seems like the best option is to get rid of validation altogether. Since people can go directly to applying for citizenship, why bother? Formalizing a restriction in the Legal Code, while making it legally defensible, is still a restriction on citizenship.
 
I would agree with COE that requiring 3 posts for admission rather than application would be better.

I am also undecided as to whether I would agree with that change either, however.
 
Requiring citizens to have posted three times won't make any difference to retention rates. It's extra work and extra faff and extra bureaucracy for very little gain.
 
Not at all. It would have weeded out loads and loads of applicants who only made one post (their oath) on the forum.

We are not suggesting applicants have to run a full marathon with a backpack on. If they cannot be arsed to make just three posts they are not worth having on the citizenship rolls anyway.
 
I suspect that many of our one-post wonders probably would have just posted three times and then posted their oath, and then never again.
 
Does this work as a revised edit:

Section 6.1: Citizenship Applications
2. Any resident may apply for citizenship using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:

....

Should the applicant not be using a validated account, their application shall be processed once they have achieved validation
Click to expand...

Or something like that?
 
falapatorius:
Seems like the best option is to get rid of validation altogether. Since people can go directly to applying for citizenship, why bother? Formalizing a restriction in the Legal Code, while making it legally defensible, is still a restriction on citizenship.
Click to expand...


Just responding specifically to this - validation was added as a substitute for requiring manual admin approval of accounts. Unfortunately we were spammed a lot by advertising bots and manual spammers, so we introduced manual approval. With the three post validation we have found that most spammers do not bother to post due to their restrictions and simply leave. Validating only exists really so we can differentiate between real accounts and spam accounts, without needing to check every account in detail before we approve it to full status.

Regarding the actual bill, I like COE's suggestions and would support that proposal.
 
For information,

At the Speaker's request I just remasked 14 people, removing their citizenship. Six of them had only one post to their name. Only two of them had managed more than ten posts in total.
 
I think a better solution would be an adjustment aimed at preventing unvalidated accounts from applying in the first place (through forum permissions). Although I maintain that it likely won't make much of a difference.

Frankly, I think the time it takes cit apps to process is a big driver of this phenomenon. People apply, get bored of waiting, and take their attention elsewhere.
 
Evidence suggests otherwise. I have been back through citizenship applications and the retention rate among those whose applications are delayed seems little different from those who are processed quickly.

Look through the application thread and see for yourself.
 
Since the revision has been up for three days without objection, i will edit the OP to reflect the change. If anyone has any edits, please post soon because I would like to move to formal debate and vote soon.
 
The revision looks good to me. To those who object: the primary purpose of reform is to address known deficiencies by doing something different and seeing if it works. If further reform is needed, then after a time we shall revisit the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top