I move to vote.
proposed change to citizenship requirements
- Thread starter Flemingovia
- Start date
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
flemingovia:
The proposal is now in formal debate. Formal debate concludes in five days, at which time a vote will be scheduled.
On the Bill itself, might I ask that the oath of citizenship be included in the new text, as it does form a substantive part of the law, and it would be unfortunate if the oath was replaced with "(oath goes here)" due to a strict reading of the proposal.
Bootsie:
Seconds are not necessary for legislative proposals.
falapatorius
TNPer
I realize you were exercising due diligence, but I found that chuckle-worthy.Zyvet:
I quite understand. I was trying to save ink. I will amend the OP. For clarity the proposal is that the North Pacific Legal Code should be amended to read as follows:
Could I add that, using the logic you have used, the correct oath used in application should use the words "[INSERT YOUR TNP NATION]" rather than the actual name of the nation involved. I am sure that is not the intention.
Sometimes i think we need to credit the RA with a little bit of common sense.
Could I add that, using the logic you have used, the correct oath used in application should use the words "[INSERT YOUR TNP NATION]" rather than the actual name of the nation involved. I am sure that is not the intention.
Sometimes i think we need to credit the RA with a little bit of common sense.
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
Formal debate is now concluded. A vote on the proposal is scheduled to begin in two days (18.11.2016).
Upon further reading, the wording of this bill is very ambiguous when it comes to dealing with citizenship applicants once their applications are 14 days old. It says, with bolding mine,
"Should the applicant not be using a validated account, their application shall be processed once they have achieved validation:"
However, the Legal Code states:
"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."
This amendment would create a massive contradiction and headache for the speaker's office - they would be simultaneously prohibited from processing applications from unvalidated accounts, and required to process them within 14 days, and those accounts would be automatically granted citizenship (with the required remasking) after the 14 days passed.
Yowch.
"Should the applicant not be using a validated account, their application shall be processed once they have achieved validation:"
However, the Legal Code states:
"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."
This amendment would create a massive contradiction and headache for the speaker's office - they would be simultaneously prohibited from processing applications from unvalidated accounts, and required to process them within 14 days, and those accounts would be automatically granted citizenship (with the required remasking) after the 14 days passed.
Yowch.
Lord Emmanuel
TNPer
This is good.
Gracius Maximus
Tyrant (Ret.)
Was that sarcasm? (Sometimes hard to tell on here.)Lord Emmanuel:
Otherwise, I would suggest you read Stabby's post just before yours. This is bad legislation.
Oh, that's who "Stabby" is. Where did you get that?
I think Silly's analysis is insightful. Perhaps Flem's proposal requires a re-working. Let's start with the basics and answer the question, "What do we want a newcomer's experience with our process to look like?" Answer that, and then craft legislation to support our goals.
I think Silly's analysis is insightful. Perhaps Flem's proposal requires a re-working. Let's start with the basics and answer the question, "What do we want a newcomer's experience with our process to look like?" Answer that, and then craft legislation to support our goals.
So we know who stabby is, but why Stabby?
hmm. I think this issue with the legislation could be solved quite simply, if the Speaker will allow a short delay. I note the vote should have opened already, so this may not be possible.
If the Speaker will allow it, this may work:
So 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:
to
and a change to our legal code as follows:
from
to
Does that solve the issue raised by Sillystring?
So 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:
to
and a change to our legal code as follows:
from
to
Does that solve the issue raised by Sillystring?
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
flemingovia:
flemingovia:
I will cancel the vote and allow the changes (I will also say, it is not wholly correct to say that the vote ought already to have opened, as the vote was scheduled to open on this day, not a particular time on this day). Once a version of the Bill is finalised which resolves the concerns raised, motion to vote again, and at that point I will make a determination as to how to proceed, either scheduling a new vote or, if there are particularly extensive changes to the Bill, beginning formal debate again.
falapatorius
TNPer
Can you cancel a vote without 3 citizens first objecting to it? I realize time is a factor, and the proposal has been shown to have a significant conflict with the current Legal Code, but procedure is fairly clear (unless I'm overlooking something).Zyvetskistaahn:
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
It is within the Speaker's discretion to vary the times of and to cancel scheduled votes. The Rules require me to cancel votes which are objected to by three members, however, it does not follow from that that there are no other circumstances in which I may cancel votes. It is discretion that is not often exercised, as most proposals by this point are in a state in which the proposer is content with, however, there have been occasions when it has been necessary (such as when the Assembly considered the treaty with TEP).falapatorius:
Abbey
TNPer
I still think this leaves us with a..complicated legal situation for applicants who aren't validated at the 14 day point.
This still doesn't fix two problems, in that there is no concept of 'validated' in TNP law, and the subsequent fact that this would allow the administrative team to effectively change who is eligible for citizenship.
This still doesn't fix two problems, in that there is no concept of 'validated' in TNP law, and the subsequent fact that this would allow the administrative team to effectively change who is eligible for citizenship.
- Discord
- COE#7110
I sympathize with the admin team, and I understand the frustration of doing work that seems unworthwhile. I would point out, though, that such bureaucratic busy work is the main function of the admin team. think this proposed change requires far too much extra red tape to impose a minimal extra requirement for citizenship that doesn't help the region so much as it gives a bit of a break to the admin team. Again, I sympathize, but this is the job. Also, I note that a process has already begun to increase the number of admins, which should help with the problem.
There are no concepts of many things in TNP law - but that does not stop them being there. I do not think "Moderators" are recognised. Every concept gets introduced at some point. If the notion if validated accounts is introduced in this law, does that make it ma bad thing?Abbey Anumia:
On the second point, admin team would do essentially what we do now - check valid applications. This just nuances what is a valid application. It is this law, and the RA, who are deciding who is eligible for citizenship.
Do you have any further suggestions about how the legislation might be worded, or do you just not like it per se?
I am not sure if that change is sufficient. It does appear to fix the "problem" of unvalidated applicants automatically gaining citizenship, but it also still instructs the speaker to both process and not process their applications.
I also retain my concerns about the inclusion of "validation". Flem is right: We don't define "moderators" or "admins" in the law, and I think this is wise for two reasons: One, the law is a very blunt instrument to be wielding when determining who has access to edit or delete content or censure people; personal judgement calls are far more nuanced and better applied. Two, it leaves the law and its application independent of any adjustments forum administration may decide to make to improve the running of the forum, and prevents any kind of conflict in requirements or policies that could derive from that.
Similarly, I think introducing the concept of a "validated" user into the legal code is risky from both sides. If we simply leave it undefined, we give the admin team immense power to define who is and is not validated - like I said earlier, there would be nothing stopping them from changing how many posts it takes to become validated, or imposing a minimum word count on the posts counted for validation, or whatever else would be allowed by software constraints. If, on the other hand, we include a strict definition of "validated" (say, "any account that has made three posts on the forum"), we prevent the admin team from being free to adjust the terms of validation as required by our needs. For example, if we suddenly faced a large influx of pornspammers, admins would not be freely able to turn on manual validation; to do so would threaten the rights of residents and would-be citizens.
I also retain my concerns about the inclusion of "validation". Flem is right: We don't define "moderators" or "admins" in the law, and I think this is wise for two reasons: One, the law is a very blunt instrument to be wielding when determining who has access to edit or delete content or censure people; personal judgement calls are far more nuanced and better applied. Two, it leaves the law and its application independent of any adjustments forum administration may decide to make to improve the running of the forum, and prevents any kind of conflict in requirements or policies that could derive from that.
Similarly, I think introducing the concept of a "validated" user into the legal code is risky from both sides. If we simply leave it undefined, we give the admin team immense power to define who is and is not validated - like I said earlier, there would be nothing stopping them from changing how many posts it takes to become validated, or imposing a minimum word count on the posts counted for validation, or whatever else would be allowed by software constraints. If, on the other hand, we include a strict definition of "validated" (say, "any account that has made three posts on the forum"), we prevent the admin team from being free to adjust the terms of validation as required by our needs. For example, if we suddenly faced a large influx of pornspammers, admins would not be freely able to turn on manual validation; to do so would threaten the rights of residents and would-be citizens.
We adjust the system; we adjust the law. It's not as if we are the Founding Fathers here.
I think the edits made and accepted by the speaker answer the concern that led to the delay of the vote. I have edited the OP to reflect the new wording of the law.
I suspect that there are some who just do not like the concept of this bill on principle, and so no amount of tinkering will satisfy all objectors. Therefore I am happy for this bill to go to vote.
Personally i do not feel that the changes are radical enough to warrant a whole new full debate period, but that is the Speaker's call.
I suspect that there are some who just do not like the concept of this bill on principle, and so no amount of tinkering will satisfy all objectors. Therefore I am happy for this bill to go to vote.
Personally i do not feel that the changes are radical enough to warrant a whole new full debate period, but that is the Speaker's call.
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
The amended proposal is scheduled for a vote, which will begin in three days (23.11.2016).flemingovia:
thank you.
If you honestly believe the admins (and it would take all the admins) would do such a thing then you really ought to be suggesting that the community move forums and appoint a new admin team.Guy:
the admins on this forum have been widely acknowledged as one of the best teams in NS, and have been serving TNP through thick and thin for years and years. For you to suggest that the admins might do such a thing is contemptible.
D
Deleted User (Guest)
Guest
Admins can also ban users, issue warnings that prevent users being able to post without prior approval, send messages, upload an avatar... your point?Guy:
Here, have a tin-foil hat.
Ash
TNPer
Not to pile on, but it seems necessary here. Being an admin is a job, and not a particularly glamorous one at that. The admin checks alone consume an ungodly amount of time per applicant (up to 30 minutes in some cases). I have a lot of faith in the admin team we have, who perform their job without compensation. To suggest that an admin would just arbitrarily keep someone in limbo betrays a complete and total ignorance of the admin team and the duties they perform.
If the admins ever do such a thing, for that specific reason, you have much bigger problems on your hands. I'm sure if they do change things (which btw it never was since the Validating group was created according to LR), you can feel free to ask for reasoning or even for them to change it back. I trust the admins; in fact, they're the most trustworthy in the region. Even if one goes bad, there's a whole team to take care of it, and I have no doubt that you would never see the whole admin team cook up any sort of conspiracy like that.
- Discord
- COE#7110
I don't think admins would abuse their oversight over the definition of a validating member, but that oversight does present a legal difficulty. It is problematic to put the term "validated" into the law with no definition, because the meaning could change with no action from the government - for example, if the admins decide to increase the post requirement to 5 or 10, or remove it altogether. This means that our citizenship requirements may be subject to change without warning, and without any legal process for changing them. This could potentially run afoul of the Bill of Rights:
But defining it in law can lead to its own set of problems. If the admins change the requirements for becoming a validated account, we would similarly have to change the definition, or else create an extra headache for admins - if they made the post requirement more stringent, then they would have to start checking non-validated accounts again. If they made the post requirement more lenient, then they would have to double-check everyone's post count before clearing them to make sure they matched the lawful post requirement in addition to being validated.
Either way, this bill either delegates a governmental matter to a non-government body and thus makes us less accountable and less transparent (potentially violating the BOR) or we trespass as legislators into a matter that ought to be under admin control.
By outsourcing part of the definition of citizen to the admin team to change or eliminate at will, we may be compromising our accountability and transparency in the process. The admins are, and ought to be, unaccountable to the government, in general, so that they can execute their duties independently of political concerns. It is precisely this (good and necessary) unaccountability that may restrict us from using the term "validated" and leaving it up to the admins to determine what it means.Bill of Rights:
But defining it in law can lead to its own set of problems. If the admins change the requirements for becoming a validated account, we would similarly have to change the definition, or else create an extra headache for admins - if they made the post requirement more stringent, then they would have to start checking non-validated accounts again. If they made the post requirement more lenient, then they would have to double-check everyone's post count before clearing them to make sure they matched the lawful post requirement in addition to being validated.
Either way, this bill either delegates a governmental matter to a non-government body and thus makes us less accountable and less transparent (potentially violating the BOR) or we trespass as legislators into a matter that ought to be under admin control.
Rather than requiring the users become validated why don't instead we require that they have three posts on the forum? This would accomplish the same effect but eliminate the involvement of the admins (not that I believe it really matters but those who do not like the current wording may prefer it).
- Discord
- COE#7110
Praetor:
Crushing Our Enemies:
I'm no admin, so take this with a grain of salt, but I think it would be worth it to specify the number of posts (without mentioning the Validating mask), considering the post count requirement hasn't changed at all since the mask was created. To make it easier, we could ask (but, naturally, not require) the admins to propose an amendment to the RA before changing the validation requirements, which could potentially avoid that headache. If the vote fails... well, I don't know what would avoid headaches in that situation. I would, of course, love to hear from admins on the legally-defined post count idea.
Guy
TNPer
I think my point has been misconstrued.Lord Ravenclaw:
It's not that I anticipate Admins would ever manually adjust an account's status so to ensure a person cannot gain citizenship.
However, by making being a "validated" account a prerequisite for citizenship, and otherwise remaining entirely silent on this matter, in the context wherein the validation of accounts is entirely within Admins' remit, it arguably leaves far too wide a discretion on Admins, whether or not they would exercise it.
There is also the separate point that COE raises, wherein the requirements for account validation is a discretionary matter for Admins. Again, I would think that is contrary to public policy.
But hey, we can lose our shits and draw hysteric inferences, as flemingovia is prone to doing.
You really need to work on your insults. they lack rhythm.
thank you to those who supported the proposal. Although it failed, in the end the vote was closer than I anticipated at one point.
It was very close. The Green Party may demand a recount.
We lost the popular vote; but i suspect that if we had an Electoral College system in TNP we would have won the day.