Amending Citizenship

Eluvatar:
Nierr has, as far as I understand the matter, been appointed a Deputy Minister, and a Role Play Moderator. Putting aside the distinctions between duties and privileges, I don't understand the notion that he hasn't been appointed.
Click to expand...
I didn't say he wasn't appointed (obviously). My point was that he enjoys privileges that most citizens in TNP never will.

Eluvatar:
Furthermore, the implication of corruption is unfortunate, particularly as I have no idea how such corruption can be imagined in this case.
Click to expand...
How you interpret my statement is your prerogative. It doesn't make it true.
 
My additional concern with Elu's alternative proposal is that it could be used by former rouge dictators who have been banned to regain a foothold in TNP. The multiple use of "former" would create a create a loophole so wide one could drive a Mack Truck though it. Which is why that idea is no better than the current bill. It may be worse.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
My additional concern with Elu's alternative proposal is that it could be used by former rouge dictators who have been banned to regain a foothold in TNP. The multiple use of "former" would create a create a loophole so wide one could drive a Mack Truck though it. Which is why that idea is no better than the current bill. It may be worse.
Click to expand...

Former rogue dictators can already apply for Citizenship... We don't even have any of them banned.
 
Since the issue of being ejected from the region has been raised, it has been the policy of this office for quite some time that ejection is not equivalent to leaving, since the nation did not take the action of leaving. Citizens who have been ejected remain citizens until they either 1)fail to post on the forum for 30 days, 2) cease to exist, or 3) voluntarily move to another region.

To interpret it otherwise would allow the delegate to remove someone's citizenship at will - and whether or not the ejection was legal, the removal of citizenship would still happen, and that would be problematic, particularly in the case of a rogue delegate.
 
Technicalities aside, nothing would prevent a forum banned nation from making the argument and there have been enough examples of that sort of reasoning in our past not to be concerned that it could be raised and accepted in spite of the technicalities. Ignoring the problem won't be enough, which has been a hallmark of the codified legal code, over and over again.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Technicalities aside, nothing would prevent a forum banned nation from making the argument and there have been enough examples of that sort of reasoning in our past not to be concerned that it could be raised and accepted in spite of the technicalities. Ignoring the problem won't be enough, which has been a hallmark of the codified legal code, over and over again.
Click to expand...
I think their forum ban would prevent it. :P
 
SillyString:
Grosseschnauzer:
Technicalities aside, nothing would prevent a forum banned nation from making the argument and there have been enough examples of that sort of reasoning in our past not to be concerned that it could be raised and accepted in spite of the technicalities. Ignoring the problem won't be enough, which has been a hallmark of the codified legal code, over and over again.
Click to expand...
I think their forum ban would prevent it. :P
Click to expand...
"Would" and "should" doesn't mean "Will."
 
Grosseschnauzer:
SillyString:
Grosseschnauzer:
Technicalities aside, nothing would prevent a forum banned nation from making the argument and there have been enough examples of that sort of reasoning in our past not to be concerned that it could be raised and accepted in spite of the technicalities. Ignoring the problem won't be enough, which has been a hallmark of the codified legal code, over and over again.
Click to expand...
I think their forum ban would prevent it. :P
Click to expand...
"Would" and "should" doesn't mean "Will."
Click to expand...
Should doesn't mean will, but would does mean will. Consider this:

1. If X were to happen, then Y would happen.
2. X will happen.
C. Therefore, Y will happen.

SillyString's post takes the form of premise 1, above (albeit with some parts implied): If a forum banned nation wanted to apply for citizenship, their forum ban would prevent them from doing so.

This is, on its face, correct, since applications for citizenship take place solely on the official forum.
 
I can think offhand of several ways in which the ban could be evaded. As such, my response was correct. And if I can think of some, others could as well. (And I am not going to foolish enough to actually list and describe them.)

One thing to keep in mind. When Cathyy was banned from the forums, we weren't able to block every IP she had used. Some were roving and were owned by a then well known ISP. So that sort of scenario has always been possible for the past decade. We've been able to avoid it, but there is no certainty that it can always be avoided.

Like I said, I stand by my earlier post as it is logically correct.
 
As this bill has been rather comprehensively defeated, I'm going to close this thread. If a member wishes to make another attempt at the proposal, or a variation upon it, they ought to make a new thread to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top