Citizenship Changes: An Alternative Approach

Darcania

Darcania

official floof
-
Pronouns
he/they
TNP Nation
Darcania
Discord
@zephyrkul
As stated by flemingovia in the original version of this bill:
flemingovia:
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.
Click to expand...

Within the debate for that proposal, concerns were raised about using the term "validated" in the law, since that would give the admins too much power to change the requirements for citizenship, intentionally or not. Meanwhile, defining "validated" raised the issue that it would block admins from doing their job as admins, as there may be circumstances where they'd have to manually place a user in the group or change the post count requirement for validation.

The below version attempts to solve both of the above by not using the term "validated" at all, and simply requiring three posts.

SillyString also raised an issue that I attempted to resolve ("...but it also still instructs the speaker to both process and not process their applications."), but I am unsure if my attempt is sufficient. I look forward to feedback on my attempt. If my interpretation of the strict wording is correct, applicants will still obtain Citizenship after fourteen days under clause 10 even if they do not have three forum posts. I have done this on purpose, as I believe that regardless of post count, applicants should still receive Citizenship if the process takes so long with no input.

I thus propose the following changes to the Legal Code:

Citizenship Bill:
Section 6.1 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate, or who have fewer than three total posts on the forum seven days after their initial application.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Citizenship Bill:
Section 6.1 of the Legal Code will be amended as follows:
Clause 6.1.2:
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...
The Speaker shall not process the application until after either the applicant has at least three forum posts in total or seven days have passed, whichever occurs first.
Click to expand...
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate, or who fail to reach three forum posts in total within seven days of their application.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Finally, as I wish to ensure that the above proposal is in perfect shape (this is my first proposal after all) and the RA isn't flooded with such a similar proposal, I won't be moving for a vote anytime soon.
 
So let me get this right. this means that new applicants will have seven days to make three posts, or their citizenship will be rejected?

I think this gets around the problem raised concerning the "14 days", since inactive applicants will be weeded out before this point.
 
flemingovia:
So let me get this right. this means that new applicants will have seven days to make three posts, or their citizenship will be rejected?

I think this gets around the problem raised concerning the "14 days", since inactive applicants will be weeded out before this point.
Click to expand...
Yep, that was the goal. The number could always be changed though. I couldn't decide between seven or ten, but I figured if they didn't manage in seven they wouldn't very likely manage in ten.
 
Should the applicant not have three forum posts after applying, the Speaker shall not process the application until after either the applicant has three forum posts or seven days have passed, whichever occurs first.
Click to expand...

this reads a little clumsy, and implies FOUR posts in all - the applcation and three more (or potentially more, if the application is not the first post). I actually think that first clause is redundant, since it is covered in the second.

If I may, I would edit down to simply read:

The Speaker shall not process the application until after either the applicant has at least three forum posts in total or seven days have passed, whichever occurs first.
Click to expand...
 
flemingovia:
this reads a little clumsy, and implies FOUR posts in all - the applcation and three more (or potentially more, if the application is not the first post).
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. Yeah, that is quite unclear; I meant having three posts total after they posted the app. I put in your suggested edit.
 
I unfortunately cannot and will not support bills that get nothing accomplished and only add bureaucratic red tape to a system that is working fine right now as it is. You can read the rest of my comments in Flem's proposal thread.

Humor me for a minute, and tell me, where can a validating member post three times assuming they do not want to start an introduction topic or apply for regional programs? When I started out, I never published an introduction thread, and many other members of this community haven't either.

Requiring people to sign up for things, or forcing them to introduce themselves to a new community that they're just here exploring, makes absolutely no sense.
 
I respectfully disagree; I personally do not think the system works "perfectly fine" right now.

It is working well, that's for certain, but I'm seeing a lot of, as Flem calls them, one-post-wonders. Certainly, for you, SS, and others, you didn't do an introduction thread, but I do believe that doing so could help them get involved in the community better. If it doesn't, we can always undo this piece of legislation. I'd be happy to gather statistics on what would be "three-post-wonders" if you'd like, and would personally undo this legislation if such three-post-wonders are an issue. Plus, with the Mentoring program reaching out to people who register an account but don't post, that should help with any zero-post-wonders that result.

Finally, I'd just like to say... if a person is "just here exploring", I don't believe they should waste so much of volunteer time by applying for Citizenship and disappearing... plus I don't believe that's very good exploring. An introduction thread would do much better for giving these people a sense of these forums, helping with that exploring, in my honest opinion.

There's also the standard argument that if people can't make three posts then they likely wouldn't make more, but that sound fallacious to me and that argument's been tread over plenty of times already.
 
Put in a small edit ("...or who fail to reach three forum posts in total within seven days of their application.") so the language of clause 6 matches that of clause 2.
 
This is more a question for the admins, but what can people masked as Residents see on the forum, as opposed to Citizens or Members?
 
I...um. Most people start out as just exploring the TNP forums and our community. This applies to all regions. I cannot think of anyone who has ever joined as a new member without wishing to explore the region prior to getting involved and committing their time and energy to it. In your post, you have just basically confirmed that you're indirectly requiring newer members to post introduction threads and sign up for programs that they may not even be interested in.

All regions face the fact that members come and go. This will happen whether you require one, three, or no posts. This how we can improve: by offering more to newer members. The Mentoring Program works very hard to try and integrate and retain new members into the region. But it needs improvements, and it needs help. The Ministry of Culture can play a huge role in member retention by holding regional events. The last time the Ministry really endeavored to do that was during R3n's term. Festivals, contests, and regional events helps to show off our community as an active, fun one. Not just a place for political gameplay. I can keep going on about how the government can work to improve member retention.

I'm gonna close off by saying that TNP is known for being one the most open and democratic communities in all of NS. And I really find it disturbing that we're now considering closing it off like this just because the administration team is understaffed.
 
Tomb:
I...um. Most people start out as just exploring the TNP forums and our community. This applies to all regions. I cannot think of anyone who has ever joined as a new member without wishing to explore the region prior to getting involved and committing their time and energy to it. It's common sense, Darcania.
Click to expand...
It seems once again I'm not very good at explaining my thoughts on things. I'll give it another go later and hope I'll do better at explaining next time.
 
I've talked with SillyString over Discord over the mechanics of this law, and it seems it could be much more concise if clause 2 remains unchanged and clause 6 instead looks like this:
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate, or who have fewer than three total posts on the forum seven days after their initial application.
Click to expand...

As for Tomb, I do agree with several of your points, even if I disagree with others. In short, while I believe this bill would address the issue I see with member retention and preventing one-post-wonders, your method of getting the Executive more focused on member retention would be far more effective. For this reason, don't expect me to move for a vote on this bill until at the very least after some time into the next General term.
 
Darcania:
I believe this bill would address the issue I see with member retention and preventing one-post-wonders
Click to expand...
It would eliminate one post wonders perhaps, but not member retention (not by a long shot). The Speaker would have a better picture of citizenship turnover stats, but a quick look at the admin requests thread regarding masking/demasking of citizens shows anything but member retention. We lose a bunch, gain a bunch.. rinse.. repeat.

What about:

Section 6.1: Clause 10; Citizenship Applications:
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...
Does this proposal eliminate/amend this?

I still think this is unnecessary (even on the second go around).
 
Perhaps some context would help illustrate the scale of the issue?

I am working on the premise that each citizenship application takes 15 minutes of staff time: I have done an time-and-motion study on the admin side, and guessed at the speaker/Vice Delegate time. If anything, I have underestimated the time each applicant takes.

in 2016 thus far we have processed 857 applications to the Regional Assembly. that represents 214 hours of volunteer time processing all the applications: equivalent to over six weeks of full-time work.

of those applicants, only 309 have ended up making more than five posts on the forum in total. that is 36%.

That speaks of an appalling record in retention and activity. I set the bar low at just five posts. I was surprised that only 36% managed that.

274 of the applicants made only one post, period. That was their citizenship oath. That represents 68 hours of work this year processing one-hit-wonders.

It would be easy to say, as some have "just get more admins to spread the labour." But wasted time is wasted time, whether it is one person or a dozen people.

We have a problem with citizen retention; we also have a problem with admin retention. Of the eight admins we have on paper, many are active in fits and spurts, doing a few admin checks then disappearing. Over the years we have had fifteen different admins on the forum. that is actually quite a high number.

Speaking as one who is quite active in adminning, i do not mind working for the forum. But I DO mind my time being wasted. Limiting the number of pointless tasks - cutting down the 68 hours spent processing one hit wonders - would help enormously.
 
Reflecting a little more on the 36% figure, it seems that we are doing a fairly good job in inviting people to the forum, and i know the government has been working hard at that.

We seem to be doing a less good job at retaining people on the forum.

I wonder if the government has ever considered contacting the "one post wonders" to ask why they did not stay? Are we not providing what they were looking for? were they recruited away? was the forum hard to navigate?
 
Quoting myself in your discussion thread: "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 (0 posts) on the forum or have failed to come back and log on (ex. 5 days, no post), we contact them in-game through telegrams as well with a check-up telegram." - Tomb

Flem, the government is working very hard on retention through the Ministry of Home Affairs. You can feel free to join the HA Executive Staff and check out our retention efforts for yourself. We would really appreciate any constructive feedback, because while our programs are working well, they are not perfect. It is important to note that retention is not a 1-ministry effort. If you want to keep members, sending them PMs begging them to stay is not enough. As of late, our region has been lacking a cultural identity. I can't remember the last time that we held a cultural event or a festival. You have to engage these newer members and provide them with something fun to do.
 
I think the issue of retaining members is worthy of a separate thread, and i apologise to Darcania for moving us onto a side issue to the OP.

On the main issue, i hope i have demonstrated that dealing with "one post wonders is not an occasional inconvenience, but what we face with about a third of applicants to the Regional Assembly. I see no reason to waste valuable time processing people who post the oath and that is it.

We are not exactly "clsoing off" (to use Tomb's phrase) access to citizenship. Asking for three posts is just about the most modest indicator of interest that you could come up with.
 
flemingovia:
I think the issue of retaining members is worthy of a separate thread, and i apologise to Darcania for moving us onto a side issue to the OP.

On the main issue, i hope i have demonstrated that dealing with "one post wonders is not an occasional inconvenience, but what we face with about a third of applicants to the Regional Assembly. I see no reason to waste valuable time processing people who post the oath and that is it.

We are not exactly "closing off" (to use Tomb's phrase) access to citizenship. Asking for three posts is just about the most modest indicator of interest that you could come up with.
Click to expand...
What you have demonstrated proves that the majority of the forum workload is being handled by a few administrators. I appreciate that, but as you know, administrators can always appoint more people to help them. There is an ongoing effort to do that, and hopefully with an adequate amount of administrators dividing the workload, you won't feel as pressured. Like I said, people are going to register on our forums, apply for citizenship, and the sad reality is that the majority are going to leave whether you require 1, 2, 3, or no posts. Can retention rates be improved? Absolutely. I want to point out that we have amongst the BEST retention rates in all of NS. I'd say we're right on edge with Europeia. Our region is not facing a retention crisis as some people are trying to make this to be. Anyways, there's more work to do, and the Executive Branch is responsible for that.

As for my comments, essentially, you are closing off the community with this proposal. You're requiring new members to sign up and invest their time and energy in areas where they may have no interest in; yet, they must do so in order to gain the magical three posts. How would that help with retaining members? It would only drive them away. As a new arrival, your first instinct would be to get your citizenship, so you can gain access full access around the forums, and explore the region. If the region and overall concept of the game interests you, then you would naturally commit more time and energy.
 
Umm, no. I cannot help but feel that you are not listening to me. I know that we can appoint more administrators. We have done that in the past and will do it in the future, I have no doubt.

My point is that 68 real time hours wasted is 68 hours whether that is one person's time or a dozen people's time.
 
flemingovia:
Umm, no. I cannot help but feel that you are not listening to me. I know that we can appoint more administrators. We have done that in the past and will do it in the future, I have no doubt.

My point is that 68 real time hours wasted is 68 hours whether that is one person's time or a dozen people's time.
Click to expand...
And my point is that requiring 3 posts will not solve the problem. Making 3 posts is no godly guarantee that a member will not disappear the next day. Like I said, people are going to register on our forums, apply for citizenship, and the sad reality is that the majority are going to leave whether you require 1, 2, 3, or no posts. You view the 68 hours of administration that you perform on 1-post members as wasted time. I understand where you're coming from, but the same thing could be said for people who make 2 posts and then disappear, 3 posts and then disappear, or no posts and then disappear. I view those 68 hours as a normal trend/occurrence that happens when you're the largest GCR in the game, and when you have one of the best recruitment departments in the whole game.
 
I'm sorry Flem, but if you'd like less work (wasted as some of it might be), then resign from adminning. You signed on for whatever the job entails. I respect your effort, but don't use the RA to compensate for the team's lack of dedication to the nuts and bolts of TNP government. Perform the requisite checks. Move on. :shrug:
 
I don't think that time spent validating people who go on not to be involved in the region is actually wasted. It is time spent in furtherance of our democratic ideals, and devoted to keeping the region and its government open to all.
 
falapatorius:
I'm sorry Flem, but if you'd like less work (wasted as some of it might be), then resign from adminning. You signed on for whatever the job entails. I respect your effort, but don't use the RA to compensate for the team's lack of dedication to the nuts and bolts of TNP government. Perform the requisite checks. Move on. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Thank you for your helpful suggestion, but i do not quite see how one of the more active admins resigning would help the situation.

Perhaps you are right thought, Adminning is a team, and I have been focussing on my own time that has been wasted. Obviously my efforts need to be refocussed.
 
flemingovia:
falapatorius:
I'm sorry Flem, but if you'd like less work (wasted as some of it might be), then resign from adminning. You signed on for whatever the job entails. I respect your effort, but don't use the RA to compensate for the team's lack of dedication to the nuts and bolts of TNP government. Perform the requisite checks. Move on. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Thank you for your helpful suggestion, but i do not quite see how one of the more active admins resigning would help the situation.

Perhaps you are right thought, Adminning is a team, and I have been focussing on my own time that has been wasted. Obviously my efforts need to be refocussed.
Click to expand...
I have to side with Flemingovia on this whole issue. The current citizenship arrangement is too much work for the admins (myself, being an admin of two large and non-NationStates related boards, can attest to the amount of work involved in keeping up with maintaining a board).

People who become 'citizens' of TNP should demonstrate that they actually are involved in some kind of stable fashion. Perhaps a 'residency' requirement in terms of time as well as a certain number of meaningful posts. Personally, I view "citizenship" as a privilege and something not to be handed out willy-nilly to every transient Tom Dick and Harry, so to speak.

Maybe some kind of "Citizenship Test" concerning the Constitution and how the government is arranged/organised and a few questions about the operating theory and principles behind our Constitution. Make people actually work for citizenship and show they deserve citizenship. You know, in an RL historical context, the Ancient Romans required certain things to be accomplished before someone became a Citizen of Rome. Once the Romans handed out citizenship to any and all comers, it resulted in the total collapse and division of the Roman Empire. Just sayin'.
 
Romanoffia:
I have to side with Flemingovia on this whole issue. The current citizenship arrangement is too much work for the admins (myself, being an admin of two large and non-NationStates related boards, can attest to the amount of work involved in keeping up with maintaining a board).

People who become 'citizens' of TNP should demonstrate that they actually are involved in some kind of stable fashion. Perhaps a 'residency' requirement in terms of time as well as a certain number of meaningful posts. Personally, I view "citizenship" as a privilege and something not to be handed out willy-nilly to every transient Tom Dick and Harry, so to speak.

Maybe some kind of "Citizenship Test" concerning the Constitution and how the government is arranged/organised and a few questions about the operating theory and principles behind our Constitution. Make people actually work for citizenship and show they deserve citizenship. You know, in an RL historical context, the Ancient Romans required certain things to be accomplished before someone became a Citizen of Rome. Once the Romans handed out citizenship to any and all comers, it resulted in the total collapse and division of the Roman Empire. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...
Roman, a couple of things. Number one, this is not the Roman Empire, as much as you would like for it to be. Number two, I am sure you're aware of this, but you can't translate all aspects of RL law into NS. This is an online game no matter how close we try to base it on Real Life.

Citizenship is a privilege indeed. We don't hand out citizenship to "every transient Tom Dick and Harry". A new member undergoes checks by 3 different departments before being admitted to TNP. Once admitted, they have to keep their nations active, and they must commit to making a certain number of posts every month, or they lost citizenship. Citizenship is what allows new members to actually participate in TNP. How do you expect someone to prove themselves if you don't allow them the right to hold office, debate legislation, and you limit the parts of the forum that they can access?

And I am confident in saying that TNP will not be collapsing anytime soon. Quiet the opposite. With the number of applicants we have, we constantly get new members, and in the process, new talent. It is the Executive Branch's job to retain those members and show them what TNP has to offer them.
 
gosh, hyperbole muchly (on both sides)? Anyone would think this proposal was the end of the world!

Look, it simply says that folks should show some interest in the region by posting three times (not a hundred and three, or an essay) before their citizenship application will go through checks.

We will still get some time-wasters, of course. Three posts is not much. But it is a very modest step towards making the processing of the RA applications more worthwhile. it neither puts up stazi-like border controls or brings the barbarian hordes to our gates.
 
Like I said, Flemingovia, I appreciate your efforts as an administrator, and I value the work you do. I also appreciate and understand your concerns in here. However, like I said, I just don't see this as a solution to anything. There is no reason for us to keep repeating the same thing in different words over and over again. You can simply go back and reread the issues/concerns that I and others had with this. If you're feeling frustrated, feel free to talk to Darcania to see if he can move this to a vote.
 
As someone who has recently joined the forum (and nationstates in general) and received citizenship, I can certainly see the arguments against this amendment. When first approaching the forum, it can be slightly overwhelming. There are well-established traditions, lingo, threads, etc that can be imposing at first.

That being said, three posts is a very small burden when put into the context that flem provides. The important thing, however, is not saving time for the sake of saving time, though that does have significant value, but the potential for (at least some of) that time to be invested instead into such areas as community events and activities. Which, along with simply being fun, would likely further increase retention (as has been pointed out earlier in the thread).

If this amendment goes to a vote, it will have my support.
 
It seems like Flemingovia's currently only doing admin checks on applicants with at least three posts. In light of this, I suppose I might as well move this bill forward.

I move for a vote.
 
I think it's probably a good idea, honestly. There has to be a tradeoff between admin work time and the benefits to a region. If a process such as this could be automated, that would be one thing, but it required tons of time for everyone to – which seems an unfair tradeoff if there is so little contribution to a region.

Three posts is not really a burden in any sense of the word. You can get three posts in about ten minutes.

I don't really see the democracy arguments as all that relevant. Why induct people to the voter rolls if they either don't or can't exercise their voting privileges?
 
I am opposed to further barriers to citizenship, especially token ones. If it's not going to prevent anyone from applying, why add to the complexity of the process? The process for gaining citizenship should be as easy and painless as possible. "Your application is denied because you don't have enough posts yet" is not a message I would like to see our government deliver to would-be citizens.
 
And yet we are happy to demand a token one post every now and again to prove that you are still active and interested in retaining citizenship. This is an extension of the same principle we already apply to keep citizenship to gaining it.
 
No, applying the same principle would be to require one post, which we already do: the application. Three is not actually the same as one.
 
I've been informed that there's been a PM campaign happening en masse to vote against this proposal.
 
this is an unwelcome delvelopment in TNP politics. Always before, as far as I know, debate has been open and transparent.

Let's see what happens in the future with other proposals.
 
flemingovia:
this is an unwelcome delvelopment in TNP politics. Always before, as far as I know, debate has been open and transparent.

Let's see what happens in the future with other proposals.
Click to expand...
Seeking support for or a support against a proposal was never considered un-welcomed. A you know, not all discussion and debating happens and occurs in this thread, and our laws permit that.

In fact, this debating and campaigning, this is what makes TNP the democracy that it is.
 
My vote stays aye.

If people wanna get more involved, they should make an introduction thread and say hi to people. They should learn about the Executive Staff and get involved.

If I show up at a new school and wait a week before getting involved in activities, I won't have any friends. But if I just jump right in and learn as I go, I'll make new friends.

Plus, it's easier on the Admins, and by golly we don't thank them enough for their service!

RECOMMENDED VOTE: AYE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top