Proposal: Citizenship Oath Amendment

[SillyString]

I would like to present the following proposal and petition the Regional Assembly to take up discussion of this matter and, ideally, approve it.

As some or all of you may know, I accidentally lost my citizenship recently due to lack of posting activity. When I applied to rejoin, I was rejected as my oath was not considered acceptable. Specifically, I said "I, SillyString, pledge...", and not "I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of SillyString, pledge...".

I have not taken another oath as I find myself unable to use the "correct" language. I am SillyString, not its leader. It's my name. I am uncomfortable making a profession of RP-ing-ness that I do not in fact hold. To me, it waters down the gravity of my oath.

So, I suggest the following change:

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.

Implementation of how to provide the name of one's nation would be left to the Speaker, who may experiment with designing an easily filled-out application. My intuition is that something along the lines of the following would be simple enough to not cause any problems:

TNP nation: [INSERT YOUR NATION NAME HERE]

I 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.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Makes sense. I support this.

 

[Siwale]

Full support.

 

[Pallaith]

I didn't even know I wanted this until now. Do it.

 

[Sasten]

I always found that bit odd in a place where we're almost never speaking in-character as our nations.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I've proposed this to the assembly.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

As I have said elsewhere, I’ve made a modification to my oath every time I have given it and it has never been rejected because traditionally we have accepted that the form of personal address is less significant than the substance of what is being agreed to. I don’t see why this should have been any different or why the original application would be denied under the traditional way we do things here.

I, SillyString or I, the leader of SillyString or I, Stabby, the leader of SillyString all reflect the same thing in the context of the oath.

If a search of the Harbour Bottom is undertaken you will find that I have altered my title in the oath on multiple occasions and have been granted leave to do so by Speakers in the past. I do not understand why this application was rejected on those grounds and dare say a challenge in the Court could be in order.

 

[Eluvatar]

I always found that bit odd in a place where we're almost never speaking in-character as our nations.

That's nothing

 

[RPI]

Seems logical; I would support this in a vote.

 

[SillyString]

I am glad to see that my proposal has gotten support!

I always found that bit odd in a place where we're almost never speaking in-character as our nations.

I always thought that that phrasing was a concession to the RP-minded folks among us. I am intrigued by Elu's link showing that it was, instead, an attempt to fix a problem caused, as always, in the Court.

I do not understand why this application was rejected on those grounds and dare say a challenge in the Court could be in order.

I will grant that I did alter the text of the oath, deliberately and willfully. I don't fault the Speaker for not accepting it based on that alteration, since it did not align with the required text laid out in the law.

One could argue disparity in treatment, since that same altered phrasing was accepted under a prior Speaker... but I'd really rather deal with this within the RA, and not go to Court over it.

 

[Darcania]

One could argue disparity in treatment, since that same altered phrasing was accepted under a prior Speaker... but I'd really rather deal with this within the RA, and not go to Court over it.

Dictatorial, arbitrary, capricious.

We shall have no sillyness in the RA! Least of all silly string!

 

[Liberal1545]

I support this it makes the application process more quicker.