Understood, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize. I was merely responding to a question. We should get back on topic.
Citizenship Amendment
- Thread starter Siwale
- Start date
Understood, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize. I was merely responding to a question. We should get back on topic.
- Pronouns
- He/Him, They/Them
With respect to your position as speaker, I'm afraid I have to decline your request. This isn't a personal squabble, this is me responding in my role as the Lead Roleplay Moderator of The North Pacific, a role that requires me to be aware of the concerns of both the RMB and Forum Roleplay communities. I will not allow mistruths about the communities I manage to go unchallenged.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
With respect to IP check evasion, I think we would have to institute stronger IP checks at election time... including of private voters. Our current election laws do not allow that.
- TNP Nation
- sil_dorsett
- Discord
- sildorsett
Alright, first of all, I apologize for this remark I made last night. It was insensitive and the insinuation that there isn't a single one who cares was proven to be a falsehood, and I withdraw it.
I still think the coup concern is still valid, but others here seem to think it's a nightmare scenario that is difficult to pull off.
So,...
I'd like to approach this bill in another way. What is the purpose of citizenship? It confers the right to vote on regional legislation and non-legislative motions, it confers the right to vote for elected government officials, and it confers the right to be a government official, elected or otherwise (in most cases? all?).
If someone is exercising the rights conferred to them as a citizen, they have the right to have their citizenship maintained, whether that be by posting in the RMB or on the Forum every so often. However, if one is not exercising those rights, if they are not participating in legislative votes, not voting, or not participating in the government, then do they need to retain citizenship so easily?
I offer a compromise idea. In addition to allowing RMB posts to count towards citizenship maintenance, add a participation requirement. Make it so if one doesn't participate in enough consecutive legislative votes or elections and they're not holding office, they still have that citizenship revoked regardless of if they are posting on the RMB or the forum.
Thoughts on this idea?
- TNP Nation
- Castle in Confidence
- Discord
- .wonderess
You are free to correct mistruths as long as it does not include judgements about the person you are correcting. Of course you can tell someone they are wrong, but go no further in your characterization of fellow citizens here.
Just a small note, I am still against this bill and will be voting against it, not due to the goal of the proposal (I'm all for it) but because I still have concerns over the other "cosmetic changes" this bill introduces.
- Pronouns
- Any/All
- TNP Nation
- Frances_Francis_the_First_of_Frances
- Discord
- Just_a_Lore
Its an interesting idea, needs more discussion but this version I just can't get behind. I'm open to the idea of allowing RMB being used to maintain citizenship between elections but if this is about allowing people the ability to vote and interact with elections then there should be a mandatory forum posting requirement. Specifically you already have a very good timeline for it. 60 Days the time between General and Judicial Elections.
You could get me on-board with getting rid of 12 and making the following changes to 15.
15. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizen who has reached all of the following conditions
- 1. Failure to post on the regional forum or regional message board with a registered nation within 30 days
- 2. Failure to post on the regional forum within 60 days
You could get me on-board with getting rid of 12 and making the following changes to 15.
15. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizen who has reached all of the following conditions
- 1. Failure to post on the regional forum or regional message board with a registered nation within 30 days
- 2. Failure to post on the regional forum within 60 days
I do like having that 60 days with a regional forum post.
In regards to the earlier comments by @Sil Dorsett and @Prydania, I’d like to point out the following:
I don’t think I have harped enough on the additional benefits to furthering election accessibility. Besides increasing voter turnout, drawing more gameside nations in for bimonthly elections increases the chances of these nations sticking around and participating more often on the forum. It is quite possible that these elections will be what gets these nations hooked on our regional government and increases the desire for joining the Executive Staff, NPA, RA, and even forum RP.
It is also important to note that not all nations have a real reason to frequent the forum. As I have said in previous posts, if you are not interested in direct government involvement, forum RP, or forum games, there is not a huge urge to frequently visit the forum. The forum’s main purpose has always been to house our regional government. It is unreasonable to expect every nation to have an interest in this detailed level of government involvement. For some, voting is the extent of their government participation and that is perfectly fine.
Gameside active nations are also still directly impacted by decisions and programs implemented by government officials. The Delegate and Vice Delegate, in particular, play a huge gameside role. Why should an active member of our community not have a say in who represents their region?
In terms of the security nightmare being suggested, I think it is fair to say that this is an extreme scenario with a very little probability of ever becoming reality. The benefits of this amendment far outweigh these improbable risks.
TNP is simply too large for this scenario to be feasible. And even if someone did obtain 60 puppet nations linked to citizen accounts, they would still need to vote under each account come election time (which would raise huge red flags in terms of duplicate IPs).
For those concerned about the wording of clauses 11 and 12, I am planning on revising these or maybe even removing them. Rest assured they will get changed within the next few days (and certainly well before any formal debate). The primary focus of this bill is on clause 15 and I don’t want the other clauses to detract from it.
I would like to conclude this post by pointing out that history does indeed repeat itself. The arguments being used to oppose this bill are nearly identical to some of the arguments employed during the Voting Rights Act debate. A truly controversial bill at the time is now something that TNP could never live without. Imagine reverting back to a time when election participation was largely limited by legislative activity in the RA...
- The RMB RP community is only one of many groups of nations who utilize the RMB. The vast majority of RMB users are posting as a means of socializing with others in the region, seeking help or providing assistance, or just plain having fun. It is a huge generalization to assume that all RMB posters are there for RP.
- A true democracy fosters an environment in which a diverse set of individuals are granted an equal say in government. While you may not agree with the ideologies and values of all individuals, they are still members of the larger community and deserve voter equality.
- It has come to my attention that the frustration you express towards some of the individuals in the RMB RP community stems from OOC or RP IC concerns. These concerns are to be handled by the admin and moderator teams, not through TNP’s legal system.
- Do you really blame some RMB posters for expressing frustration with the forum community in the past? We haven’t always been very accommodating to nations wishing to remain strictly on gameside.
Unification techniques already exist through executive government functions. We have implemented projects such as Meet the RMB, RMB trivia, manual recruitment TGs, gameside advertisement of cultural events, etc. We have a whole ministry dedicated to these functions as well as a delegate-appointed group within this ministry focusing mainly on RMB outreach. This legal change is simply the next step in furthering community integration and overall regional democracy.
I don’t think I have harped enough on the additional benefits to furthering election accessibility. Besides increasing voter turnout, drawing more gameside nations in for bimonthly elections increases the chances of these nations sticking around and participating more often on the forum. It is quite possible that these elections will be what gets these nations hooked on our regional government and increases the desire for joining the Executive Staff, NPA, RA, and even forum RP.
Darc’s response really nailed the counterargument to this right on the head. Our community originally transitioned to a forum platform since it allows for a more sophisticated level of organization due to the various features available here that are not available on NS. This transition was not intended to divide our community or neglect the gameside components. A nation that does not to regularly visit our forum is no less a member of our community than a nation predominantly active on the forum.
It is also important to note that not all nations have a real reason to frequent the forum. As I have said in previous posts, if you are not interested in direct government involvement, forum RP, or forum games, there is not a huge urge to frequently visit the forum. The forum’s main purpose has always been to house our regional government. It is unreasonable to expect every nation to have an interest in this detailed level of government involvement. For some, voting is the extent of their government participation and that is perfectly fine.
Gameside active nations are also still directly impacted by decisions and programs implemented by government officials. The Delegate and Vice Delegate, in particular, play a huge gameside role. Why should an active member of our community not have a say in who represents their region?
Please see my arguments directly above. I will also add: is an RMB post any less valuable than a forum post? We have nations who currently maintain citizenship through a monthly post on the spam subforum. How are these citizens any more knowledgable or valuable to our community than someone who posts engaging and thoughtful messages on the RMB daily?
As I have hinted at above in this post, grouping all RMB poster under the same category is entirely inappropriate. That would be the equivalent of grouping all forum posters together even though we clearly all have drastically different personalities, beliefs, and values. And while we may not be a fan of every nation found on the RMB, the fact remains that they are just as much a TNPer as any of us are.
In terms of the security nightmare being suggested, I think it is fair to say that this is an extreme scenario with a very little probability of ever becoming reality. The benefits of this amendment far outweigh these improbable risks.
I think it would easier to join TNP and work your way up the chain the legitimate way than to recruit 60 or so of your closest friends to apply for citizenship on the forum using your puppet nation.
TNP is simply too large for this scenario to be feasible. And even if someone did obtain 60 puppet nations linked to citizen accounts, they would still need to vote under each account come election time (which would raise huge red flags in terms of duplicate IPs).
I don’t think the idea is unreasonable. It would also eliminate the concern for indefinite citizenship for banned forum members that Darcania mentioned above. I am willing to add it in if the RA feels it is necessary. Maybe failure to post in 3 consecutive elections?
For those concerned about the wording of clauses 11 and 12, I am planning on revising these or maybe even removing them. Rest assured they will get changed within the next few days (and certainly well before any formal debate). The primary focus of this bill is on clause 15 and I don’t want the other clauses to detract from it.
I would like to conclude this post by pointing out that history does indeed repeat itself. The arguments being used to oppose this bill are nearly identical to some of the arguments employed during the Voting Rights Act debate. A truly controversial bill at the time is now something that TNP could never live without. Imagine reverting back to a time when election participation was largely limited by legislative activity in the RA...
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
- TNP Nation
- Prydania
- Discord
- lordgigaice
The RMB RP community is my frame of reference. I deal with the RMB RP community on a regular basis.
And I have to wonder. If a RMB-centric Delegate is elected and they appoint a RMB-centric MoC then what? Can we count on that Ministry to have the best interests of the forum RP community in mind? Can we count on that potential RMB-centric MoC to keep up the even-handed approach the forum-based MoC has had? Given the attitudes I see in the RMB RP community? I have no faith in either of those prospects.
- TNP Nation
- Veniyerris
- Discord
- BMWSurfer#1965
One thing about an election activity clause is that the Election Supervisors would have to let the speaker know who voted in private. Idk if that’s an issue @Sil Dorsett
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
- TNP Nation
- Prydania
- Discord
- lordgigaice
I can't think of any situation where the VRA could have threatened the forum based-RP community. And that is indeed my concern, because I am very much against a bloc of voters hostile to that community gaining influence.
And rather then come back at this with "well what do you expect of course they're hostile" or "you have to accept that there will be people who disagree with you!" you ought to be concerned that there are elements in the RMB that are hostile to a vital forum-based community.
Truth be told your "just deal with it" approach pales in comparison to the compromise @mtboy66 came up with on Discord, where he suggested the RMB and forum communities hash any differences out themselves. That's an idea that looks to solve the issue at hand, that could potentially alleviate the concerns myself and others have.
It's better than the brute force approach you've trotted out.
- Discord
- kyle.kyle
Yeah, now that I've slept over it (and thought about it), such a puppeteer would need to still vote in the forum to vote in elections. Which just leaves the banned-members-but-still citizens as a loophole. Ehich can easily be addressed by also putting a clause that says banned members from the forum are ineligible to become cits... which, though, may raise their own complications...I think it would easier to join TNP and work your way up the chain the legitimate way than to recruit 60 or so of your closest friends to apply for citizenship on the forum using your puppet nation.
TNP is simply too large for this scenario to be feasible. And even if someone did obtain 60 puppet nations linked to citizen accounts, they would still need to vote under each account come election time (which would raise huge red flags in terms of duplicate IPs).
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
- TNP Nation
- Prydania
- Discord
- lordgigaice
This is a solid idea, and the author should consider this as a compromise.
- TNP Nation
- sil_dorsett
- Discord
- sildorsett
It still leaves a nation able to maintain citizenship by posting in a spam game. The more I think about it, the more I just don't like that workaround. If the distance between elections is approximately 60 days (it's not exact), then what about 90 days not posting on the forum? Gives them time to participate in an election without their citizenship disappearing in the middle of it. I'd still like to see some other criteria though.
As long as the list of private voters was shuffled when delivered to whoever would maintain an activity spreadsheet so that ballots cannot be matched up with voters, I don't see too much of an issue. Maybe even give the Election Commission access to edit such a sheet.
I also wasn't focusing in on elections. I was also considering RA votes as well, as that constitutes activity that utilizes the rights afforded to a citizen.
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
- TNP Nation
- Prydania
- Discord
- lordgigaice
That's a good idea. And 90 days wouldn't be unreasonable either. If the goal to expand the electorate, and elections are held on the forums? Then any RMB citizen maintaining citizenship via RMB posts who wishes to participate in the democratic process wouldn't have an issue posting at least once every 90 days.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
A cursory look doesn't show me any way to see what IP address was used to send a particular Private Message (nor would any forum admins necessarily see the private messages sent to the voting booth as things are). The election commission would have to send a list of private voters to the forum admins, who would have to check every public vote and every account that voted privately and verify the use of a distinct residential IP. This would be a similar level of work to processing on the order of 100 citizenship applications in five days. (And it would be work I find myself unable to help with due to my onsite role.) It would also introduce the question of what to do when someone posts a vote from school or work.
Unless this is done, it would be quite practical for one person, without co-conspirators, to vote several times.
I like the direction this bill would take us but am worried about the ability to implement it.
Unless this is done, it would be quite practical for one person, without co-conspirators, to vote several times.
I like the direction this bill would take us but am worried about the ability to implement it.
Would it be possible to set up an Election Supervisor group that has the ability to do IP checks on votes as they come in? If I recall correctly with Xenforo Groups something like that would be possible under the General Moderator permissions. There are about 4 checks that can be done; a registration IP check, content (post) IP check, shared IP check and full IP Address checks which offer an option to check for other users.
So it would be possible that the Election Supervisors could perform IP checks if that is something that would help alleviate the Admin team on performing checks on election ballots in addition to their other duties.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
Ever since the Limitless Events incident, when the Minister of Immigration and Internal Affairs was caught sharing IP information with a hostile group, some of whom (likely unbeknownst to that Minister) were known to have attempted OOC harm to our members, our admins have been fairly reluctant to share IP information with anyone not quite carefully vetted. In most cases, IPs have only been accessible to TNP forum admins since then.
This isn't an immutable policy, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't be considering giving this ability and responsibility to the Election Supervisors, but that would change what election supervisor means considerably and would mean they needed a whole new set of skills and qualifications.
This isn't an immutable policy, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't be considering giving this ability and responsibility to the Election Supervisors, but that would change what election supervisor means considerably and would mean they needed a whole new set of skills and qualifications.
While I appreciate the intent of the proposal, I hope there will be a better way engage wider voter participation. My concerns, as always, are protecting the security of the delegacy and safeguarding the private information of our forum members. I may be just a worrywart, but I've seen bad things happen in the past.
Acria(Hardonius)
Northern Wulf Gameside Advocate
All in all, I see nothing wrong with this. Except for some regulatory issues, but other than that, not too much of an issue.
- TNP Nation
- Ethnon
- Discord
- Marcus Antonius #8887
I appreciate the proposals intent and agree with it in principal. An extension of time to post on the regional forum is a good idea. The amended version to the original proposal is better.
I found the concerns regarding the two additional clauses I originally added to be quite valid, and thus decided to remove them entirely from this bill. The primary focus of this bill is centered around the changes to clause 13. The other additions simply detracted from the bill’s main purpose.
Prydania,
As I have mentioned over Discord, I understand that the forum RP and RMB RP communities have had their differences. However, these disputes have little to do with this bill which serves to increase voter accessibility to the gameside population. The gameside population is much broader than just RPers and it is beyond unfair to clump together all nations who choose to regularly engage through the RMB into a single entity. Regardless of personal disputes, it is quite difficult to call a gameside active nation any less of a TNPer than those who choose to spend their time primarily on the forum. Our goal as a democratic community should be to foster an environment in which the greatest number of TNPers are able to cast their vote come election time (without jeopardizing region security). Differing opinions and points of views only strengthen our community and lead to more comprehensive community-based decisions.
While I do not intend to pick apart your arguments piece by piece for the reasons stated above, there is one argument you made regarding the VRA which I feel needs to be addressed for the sake of understanding my point of view:
You’re entirely right, the VRA did not threaten the forum based-RP community, it helped the forum based-RP community significantly. If it weren’t for the passage of this bill, a large portion of the forum RP-based community would not be able to participate in elections today.
Remember that before the VRA, only legislatively active nations were able to vote in elections. As was true back then and just as it is now, a large portion of the forum RP-based community did not regularly engage in RA legislation. This led to significant voter suppression of sub-communities such as RPers and NPA members, similar to what is happening with our RMB posters today.
Was this suppression of forum RPers and NPA members the right course of action? If I asked that question today, I guarantee the answer I would receive would be an overwhelming “NO!”. The passage of the VRA drastically increased voting numbers on election days and increased overall forum participation as a whole. In my eyes, the current bill only expands upon these successes by increasing voter accessibility to yet another currently-suppressed population.
Moving on to the concerns regarding voter impersonation (especially via private vote) I would like to point out that this concern already exists with our current legal structure. The biggest security measure to prevent this is the required administrative check for all citizenship applications. This check would still be required for all citizens if this bill were to pass, therefore preserving one of TNP’s most vital defenses. Obviously, we have no control over who citizens hand their accounts over to beyond this check, which is where TNP’s second largest defense comes in: The Election Commission. It should raise red flags when a bunch of nations we have never heard of suddenly appear and all vote the same way. Events like this should prompt the supervising ECs to notify admins to perform a proper IP check immediately. That’s part of the beauty of having a consistent group of experienced election commissioners running elections.
With every legal change, there are going to be associated risks and benefits and it is our job, as members of the RA, to weigh the benefits against the risks. I understand that it is easy to get lost in the worst-case scenarios, especially for those who have experienced TNP in its early years. But we have grown significantly over the years and have evolved into one of the most (if not the most) stable GCR in the game. And while the thought of increased votes from those outside our “usual circle” can be scary at first, I believe we will find this change to strengthen our region community like the VRA did. This bill will lead to increased voter turnout come election time, increased forum participation due the increased frequency of gameside engagement during election seasons, and decreased workload for the Speaker, VD, and Admin who find themselves re-processing previous citizenship apps on a rather often basis.
Prydania,
As I have mentioned over Discord, I understand that the forum RP and RMB RP communities have had their differences. However, these disputes have little to do with this bill which serves to increase voter accessibility to the gameside population. The gameside population is much broader than just RPers and it is beyond unfair to clump together all nations who choose to regularly engage through the RMB into a single entity. Regardless of personal disputes, it is quite difficult to call a gameside active nation any less of a TNPer than those who choose to spend their time primarily on the forum. Our goal as a democratic community should be to foster an environment in which the greatest number of TNPers are able to cast their vote come election time (without jeopardizing region security). Differing opinions and points of views only strengthen our community and lead to more comprehensive community-based decisions.
While I do not intend to pick apart your arguments piece by piece for the reasons stated above, there is one argument you made regarding the VRA which I feel needs to be addressed for the sake of understanding my point of view:
Prydania:
You’re entirely right, the VRA did not threaten the forum based-RP community, it helped the forum based-RP community significantly. If it weren’t for the passage of this bill, a large portion of the forum RP-based community would not be able to participate in elections today.
Remember that before the VRA, only legislatively active nations were able to vote in elections. As was true back then and just as it is now, a large portion of the forum RP-based community did not regularly engage in RA legislation. This led to significant voter suppression of sub-communities such as RPers and NPA members, similar to what is happening with our RMB posters today.
Was this suppression of forum RPers and NPA members the right course of action? If I asked that question today, I guarantee the answer I would receive would be an overwhelming “NO!”. The passage of the VRA drastically increased voting numbers on election days and increased overall forum participation as a whole. In my eyes, the current bill only expands upon these successes by increasing voter accessibility to yet another currently-suppressed population.
Moving on to the concerns regarding voter impersonation (especially via private vote) I would like to point out that this concern already exists with our current legal structure. The biggest security measure to prevent this is the required administrative check for all citizenship applications. This check would still be required for all citizens if this bill were to pass, therefore preserving one of TNP’s most vital defenses. Obviously, we have no control over who citizens hand their accounts over to beyond this check, which is where TNP’s second largest defense comes in: The Election Commission. It should raise red flags when a bunch of nations we have never heard of suddenly appear and all vote the same way. Events like this should prompt the supervising ECs to notify admins to perform a proper IP check immediately. That’s part of the beauty of having a consistent group of experienced election commissioners running elections.
With every legal change, there are going to be associated risks and benefits and it is our job, as members of the RA, to weigh the benefits against the risks. I understand that it is easy to get lost in the worst-case scenarios, especially for those who have experienced TNP in its early years. But we have grown significantly over the years and have evolved into one of the most (if not the most) stable GCR in the game. And while the thought of increased votes from those outside our “usual circle” can be scary at first, I believe we will find this change to strengthen our region community like the VRA did. This bill will lead to increased voter turnout come election time, increased forum participation due the increased frequency of gameside engagement during election seasons, and decreased workload for the Speaker, VD, and Admin who find themselves re-processing previous citizenship apps on a rather often basis.
My apologies for posting this rather late, RL was rather busy the past while. I did want to ensure my post was comprehensive. There is a TL;DR at the bottom.
I agree with the individuals who are posting on the forum or on the Discord noting that we only want educated voters who are informed and committed to the region participating in creating legislation, voting and running for offices. We do not want individuals who are not interested and committed to the region coming in and influencing how the region is run. They do not understand how The North Pacific (TNP) works and will drastically change the region for the worse due to their oversized influence. This proposal is heading in the wrong direction I think and we should be moving in the opposite direction to make sure citizenry in TNP are actually committed to the region. With that, I would like to propose an alternative proposal: citizenry is restricted to nations that vote in the Regional Assembly (RA) on legislation.
Sound familiar? That is because that is how TNP used to determine who could vote in elections. With how the rhetorics of the discussion that has gone on (especially on the Discord) I get the feeling that for some citizens, this would be preferable in theory to our current model.
However, this is not the direction TNP should be going and it is not the direction that we went when r3naissanc3r (r3n) introduced the Citizenship Bill back in December 2014.
His bill back then expanded how one was able to maintain the activity requirements in order to remain a citizen (the name for citizens back then was different: Regional Assembly member). His bill back then repeated several arguments that the proponents of this one has mentioned, similarly, the detractors to that bill previously made the arguments that I have seen several opponents of this bill make. Most notably, since then, the number of individuals able to vote has expanded significantly, many of citizens who were not interested in the RA have profited from this change from army members to those in the Executive Staff and roleplayers.
While given this past legislation may give the impression that TNP is moving in a direction of removing restrictions on on who can participate. I would like to pre-empt those concerns that this is not a fact. For example, in 2014, a policy was instituted which required an enforcement of only WA nations being able to vote on how the Delegacy before this rule we had at one time over 38 individuals voting on how the Delegate should vote despite not having their WA in TNP. Nowadays, we have only had one resolution come close in recent time to reaching that level of activity.
I used to quite frequently post on the Regional Message Board (RMB) and was generally considered an “RMB regular”. Due to my current RL, I generally do not post on the RMB as I do not have too much time to interact. Nevertheless, I do have a considerable amount of experience with the RMB. I was the Lead RMB Guardian (the precursors to the RMB Advocates) and after the disbandment of the RMB Guardians and the institution of the RMB Advocates (which I helped create with at that time Delegate Ghost and Minister of Home Affairs Siwale), for a short period of time I was the Lead Advocate. My activity on the RMB was generally limited to general discussion, I am by no means an expert however I was generally pretty popular (by name recognition, whether people liked me or not depended on a lot of stuff ) and despite having been gone for several months, I placed 3rd in TNP’s 2017 RMBae. I think I have a relatively good understanding of the RMB and its users.
I am for this proposal and will go more into depth about why; however, I would like to note I am not attached to this specific legislation but rather to the spirit of the bill. I understand the issues both technical in wording and administrative and look forward to a solution that addresses them while maintaining the intent of the original bill.
However, before I get too much into my arguments I want to clarify what the spirit of this proposal is:
I would like to note before I begin my main arguments and rebuttal that I do not think it is helpful to divide the community of TNP until the categories of forumite and RMBer. I have seen it used in this debate in terms of creating generalizations of either side. Neither side is homogeneous. On the forum we have individuals who partake in spam games, roleplay, the Executive government, the Regional Assembly, the North Pacific Army, etc. While the different activities that are commonly partook in on the forum, it appears to me it seems less evident as to the different activities that nations on the RMB get into. On the RMB, while we do have roleplayers (which seem to be the most prominent ones in many citizens’ awareness), there are many who post on the RMB about general information or about issues as well as others. Many of these nations only interact with each other minimally if at all. For example, as I previously mentioned, I have not roleplayed on the RMB. Tarring them all with the same brush is just the same as saying all the citizens in TNP use the forums for the same purpose.
So now, just before I get into arguments I would like to discuss what is citizenship, why we have it, and why the current activity requirements are in place. This may not be why current practices came about but this is why I think current practices continue to exist. In TNP, citizenship can be defined as a member of the group that runs the region: the RA. Obviously, it is impractical to run a region gameside. No one has argued for this so I will not discuss why it is a bad idea. If you think this is a good idea though, direct message me so we can talk. Given the limitations of gameside, using a forum is logical. As is the citizenship application process as well. Considering the ability to use login scripts, it makes sense to have some sort of measurement to ensure that nations are not just abusing membership on TNP. In the past we used posting in the RA, nowadays we use forum posting. This proposal is to use forum posting and RMB posting as a measurement of nations being active.
Why am I for this?
I am for this because while in theory, the current citizenship requirements do not pose an undue burden on citizens, in practice, they do. It does not seem like posting in the RA every 30 days and participating in one out of every 4 votes is an undue burden. It is. It does not seem like posting your oath of office is an undue burden. In one case it can be. We are all human, we all make mistakes, we forget things. For most of us active in this discussion, we have been part of TNP for quite some time that we are aware of the activity requirement and would naturally meet it. For newer nations, who, let’s be honest, probably have not read all of the laws, they may not have yet discovered their interest yet in TNP or discovered that their primary interest is not on the forums. However, they may remain active on the RMB as it is part of how they wish to play the game. Sometimes, even the best of us forget to do things we should.
There are many individuals on TNP RP’s server that are not on the general server, similarly, there are individuals who used to have citizenship on the forums and lost it, yet they remain active on the RMB. For example Arstotzka1, Radicaster and Milleniumsword are nations I have looked it to demonstrate. I am sure there are others who used to be citizens but are no longer due to not meeting the activity requirement despite being active on the RMB.
And activity on the game is contribution to the region, just as posting a bill in the RA, noting participation in an NPA op, creating a campaign for an election, submitting your monthly ambassador report or spamming is contribution. A post on the RMB may be asking someone how their day was, welcoming a new nation to the region, directing someone to the off-site, a comment on an issue or an RP post. Are some spam? Yes. Are a lot spam? Yes. Are some posts on the forum spam? Yes. Are a lot of posts on the forum spam? Yes. I do not see the difficulty in how a post on the RMB is unable to be a contribution to the region.
However, the RMB is the easiest way to interact with the rest of the region given its prominence. For many nations, it is where they first get involved. The RMB was where I first started posting.
Expanding the number of citizens in TNP will help us in the event of voter importation by other individuals to counteract and needing more imported voters which increases the chances of detection.
So, in conclusion (of my argument for, still got the addressing concerns of opponents to go through), as we measure if a citizen is active on the forums to see if they are contributing to the region, it makes sense to see if a citizen is also active on the RMB.
I would now like to address some of the concerns I have seen brought up on the forum and on Discord over the course of this proposal.
The most common concern individuals have is that by expanding how individuals may satisfy the activity requirements for citizenship is that the government will be relocated from the forums on the RMB. This line of attack is a fallacy. It is a slippery slope: in no way does it follow from broadening the citizenship requirements that the government relocates to the forum. It is a strawman: no one, no one, has even remotely suggested that the government should be relocated to the RMB. It is a waste of time arguing that the government should not be relocated to the forums. We know. We agree. So please stop telling us it is a bad idea, should someone bring such a proposal to the RA, I will campaign against it just as I will campaign for this one.
The next major argument against I have seen is that the RMB community is hostile to the forum community. As mentioned before, I do not believe it is either conducive to the TNP community nor accurate to make such a distinction. As I mentioned closer towards the introduction, I have been quite active on the RMB. I have been both a very vocal supporter and critic of both the TNP government and the RA at times. I can tell you that in all four cases, I have been both supported and opposed by individuals who are not active on the forums. Generalizing RMB posters with such hostility does first nothing to abate any hostility if there is any, and secondly, is inaccurate. Given the rhetoric employed by some, I would not be surprised if certain citizens also see them as uneducated, uncivilized barbarians. Any individuals who are in such strong disagreement with how TNP is run would have to join the forums to change. Of course, they would never do such a thing would they? Try to make a change and not have the support of the RA? But then end up sticking around and remaining a citizen? Absolutely would not happen.
Similarly, to this argument, there is a reasoning proposing that RMBers will have too much influence over the region. First off, we are all TNP. Second, as previously established, the nations that post on the RMB are not homogenous and will most certainly not vote as a unit. Lastly, even if this proposal did end up with increasing our citizenship roles by such an amount those who posted on the RMB are more in the RA than those who post primarily on the forums, is there anything wrong with that? While we may all prefer certain activities, some of them are more popular than others. We have more RPers than WA authors. More legislators than issue authors. There is nothing wrong with individuals preferring certain activities to other activities. I do eagerly await a proposal in the RA on how we can restrict the undue influence the RPers have over TNP though.
I have been told that the community does not want this proposal which is just a weird line of argument. For one, this is not designed to help a community. It is to expand how one can satisfy activity requirements. I do not think I need to go into too much depth on this one so I will leave it be but if I do need to expand on this point, do let me know.
Similarly, I find the argument that posters on the RMB do not care about the affairs of the government bizarre. They definitely do care on what goes on in government as I can attest to in my prior experience. They definitely have strong opinions and have resulted before in policies being changed, individuals on the RMB were responsible for changes in the RMB Guardians I mentioned previously. For those of you who are bored, I would invite you to start a discussion on the RMB. Suggested topics of discussion include but are not limited to: lowering the endorsement cap, what posts should be suppressed or not and whether RP should be allowed on the RMB. And again, I reiterate this proposal is not about including a different community but increasing how the definition of contribution to the region is made.
Again, a similar argument that individuals on the RMB are the RMB are not affected. Obviously untrue considering items such as polls, suppression powers and endorsements caps are decided on the forums. This issue also is not a criticism of the proposal as well. As I repeatedly note, this proposal is not about including a different community but expanding how we determine whether a citizen is contributing to the region.
Continuing the line of arguments that attack individuals on the RMB and are not addressing the actual issue of this bill is that individuals on the RMB are not informed of what happens off-site. In many cases, when there is an issue that is controversial, we see both proponents and opponents—such as this debate—who are quite vocal. We then see education efforts to the citizenry at large which are often quite successful. TNP’s citizens as a whole tend to be quite informed.
The technical issue of implementation has already been addressed by Siwale as he noted that r3n has created a techy thingy that will take care of it for the Speaker’s Office similar to how there is already a method for them to check citizens meeting the posting requirement. Given the RMB is easily searchable by poster any concerns the Speaker’s Office would be unable to manually verify satisfying activity requirements in case of a technical issue are unfounded. Should technical issues arise with both the forum script and the RMB script (I have no idea how the backend works but I will assume that problems may occur with the automated verification of meeting citizenship activity requirements separately for both the RMB and the forums), as the Speaker’s Office would need to manually check posting history of citizens on the forum, I do not believe it would be too much harder to, after checking if nations met the posting requirement on the forums, checking for those that have not posted on the RMB. In fact, it may be easier searching the RMB than the forums given that the RMB lists posts as being posted “X days ago” whereas the forum only gives dates. The idea that this proposes an undue burden on the Speaker’s Office in the minuscule chance of a technical issue arising with solely the RMB script. The RA is not here to make sure the Speaker’s Office job is easy. The Speaker is here to make sure the Regional Assembly runs, and they are able to have staff to support them. I doubt that we will experience such a significant amount of growth that the citizenship will double. Realistically, I expect over time for the number of citizens to increase by around a dozen with an upper limit of 20 more citizens. I do not think checking the posting history of 20 citizens is too difficult. If I am missing something and it is the RA’s job to make sure the Speaker’s Office has an easy job, please inform me and additionally, do request to the other proponents of a bill in the RA to withdraw their bill, they are giving the Speaker’s Office work to do.
Now, I do know I have repeatedly stated we should not divide TNP community into two sects of homogeneous residents, some who post on the RMB and others who post on the forum. However, I do wish to address an argument made based upon this misconception. I have seen an argument made that we should work towards uniting the two different communities in a different way before this proposal. In which case, I would like to refer you to the Delegate’s Government, the Regional Assembly, the Speaker’s Desk, the Office of Attorney General or the Court depending on who is best permitted to implement your idea. Should you have any issue recognizing who to contact regarding your proposal to unite the two communities, feel free to contact me and I can help direct you. That being said, this proposal is not about “uniting” or anything. As I have previously stated, this proposal is not about bringing two different communities together. It is about expanding on how individuals may satisfy the activity requirements of citizenship. The spirit of the proposal is not too do this and I do not believe the act will have this effect. Nevertheless, for all of those who believe it does have this intent, yet is not appropriate as there are other ideas, I eagerly wait your suggestions.
The last issue that I would like to address is how it will be difficult for administrators to check for individuals who would have their friends post for citizenship and then afterwards use the RMB to maintain activity before finally voting using VPNs. I would like to note that currently, there is nothing to stop someone from doing so. It is possible that I have my friends join the region before the January elections and then have them vote for me privately. This proposal does not increase the ability for dedicated individuals who wished to infiltrate.
If I have missed any issues or if there is any confusion, do not hesitate to ask.
I am open to changes to the bill that maintain the spirit.
TL;DR:
The activity requirement for citizenship is used to prevent voter importation, this proposal expands on how nations may satisfy the activity requirement.
EDIT: Because Darc is a critic.
I agree with the individuals who are posting on the forum or on the Discord noting that we only want educated voters who are informed and committed to the region participating in creating legislation, voting and running for offices. We do not want individuals who are not interested and committed to the region coming in and influencing how the region is run. They do not understand how The North Pacific (TNP) works and will drastically change the region for the worse due to their oversized influence. This proposal is heading in the wrong direction I think and we should be moving in the opposite direction to make sure citizenry in TNP are actually committed to the region. With that, I would like to propose an alternative proposal: citizenry is restricted to nations that vote in the Regional Assembly (RA) on legislation.
Sound familiar? That is because that is how TNP used to determine who could vote in elections. With how the rhetorics of the discussion that has gone on (especially on the Discord) I get the feeling that for some citizens, this would be preferable in theory to our current model.
However, this is not the direction TNP should be going and it is not the direction that we went when r3naissanc3r (r3n) introduced the Citizenship Bill back in December 2014.
His bill back then expanded how one was able to maintain the activity requirements in order to remain a citizen (the name for citizens back then was different: Regional Assembly member). His bill back then repeated several arguments that the proponents of this one has mentioned, similarly, the detractors to that bill previously made the arguments that I have seen several opponents of this bill make. Most notably, since then, the number of individuals able to vote has expanded significantly, many of citizens who were not interested in the RA have profited from this change from army members to those in the Executive Staff and roleplayers.
While given this past legislation may give the impression that TNP is moving in a direction of removing restrictions on on who can participate. I would like to pre-empt those concerns that this is not a fact. For example, in 2014, a policy was instituted which required an enforcement of only WA nations being able to vote on how the Delegacy before this rule we had at one time over 38 individuals voting on how the Delegate should vote despite not having their WA in TNP. Nowadays, we have only had one resolution come close in recent time to reaching that level of activity.
I used to quite frequently post on the Regional Message Board (RMB) and was generally considered an “RMB regular”. Due to my current RL, I generally do not post on the RMB as I do not have too much time to interact. Nevertheless, I do have a considerable amount of experience with the RMB. I was the Lead RMB Guardian (the precursors to the RMB Advocates) and after the disbandment of the RMB Guardians and the institution of the RMB Advocates (which I helped create with at that time Delegate Ghost and Minister of Home Affairs Siwale), for a short period of time I was the Lead Advocate. My activity on the RMB was generally limited to general discussion, I am by no means an expert however I was generally pretty popular (by name recognition, whether people liked me or not depended on a lot of stuff
) and despite having been gone for several months, I placed 3rd in TNP’s 2017 RMBae. I think I have a relatively good understanding of the RMB and its users.I am for this proposal and will go more into depth about why; however, I would like to note I am not attached to this specific legislation but rather to the spirit of the bill. I understand the issues both technical in wording and administrative and look forward to a solution that addresses them while maintaining the intent of the original bill.
However, before I get too much into my arguments I want to clarify what the spirit of this proposal is:
- Expands how individuals may satisfy citizenship activity requirements.
- It does not move the government or their functions to the RMB.
I would like to note before I begin my main arguments and rebuttal that I do not think it is helpful to divide the community of TNP until the categories of forumite and RMBer. I have seen it used in this debate in terms of creating generalizations of either side. Neither side is homogeneous. On the forum we have individuals who partake in spam games, roleplay, the Executive government, the Regional Assembly, the North Pacific Army, etc. While the different activities that are commonly partook in on the forum, it appears to me it seems less evident as to the different activities that nations on the RMB get into. On the RMB, while we do have roleplayers (which seem to be the most prominent ones in many citizens’ awareness), there are many who post on the RMB about general information or about issues as well as others. Many of these nations only interact with each other minimally if at all. For example, as I previously mentioned, I have not roleplayed on the RMB. Tarring them all with the same brush is just the same as saying all the citizens in TNP use the forums for the same purpose.
So now, just before I get into arguments I would like to discuss what is citizenship, why we have it, and why the current activity requirements are in place. This may not be why current practices came about but this is why I think current practices continue to exist. In TNP, citizenship can be defined as a member of the group that runs the region: the RA. Obviously, it is impractical to run a region gameside. No one has argued for this so I will not discuss why it is a bad idea. If you think this is a good idea though, direct message me so we can talk. Given the limitations of gameside, using a forum is logical. As is the citizenship application process as well. Considering the ability to use login scripts, it makes sense to have some sort of measurement to ensure that nations are not just abusing membership on TNP. In the past we used posting in the RA, nowadays we use forum posting. This proposal is to use forum posting and RMB posting as a measurement of nations being active.
Why am I for this?
I am for this because while in theory, the current citizenship requirements do not pose an undue burden on citizens, in practice, they do. It does not seem like posting in the RA every 30 days and participating in one out of every 4 votes is an undue burden. It is. It does not seem like posting your oath of office is an undue burden. In one case it can be. We are all human, we all make mistakes, we forget things. For most of us active in this discussion, we have been part of TNP for quite some time that we are aware of the activity requirement and would naturally meet it. For newer nations, who, let’s be honest, probably have not read all of the laws, they may not have yet discovered their interest yet in TNP or discovered that their primary interest is not on the forums. However, they may remain active on the RMB as it is part of how they wish to play the game. Sometimes, even the best of us forget to do things we should.
There are many individuals on TNP RP’s server that are not on the general server, similarly, there are individuals who used to have citizenship on the forums and lost it, yet they remain active on the RMB. For example Arstotzka1, Radicaster and Milleniumsword are nations I have looked it to demonstrate. I am sure there are others who used to be citizens but are no longer due to not meeting the activity requirement despite being active on the RMB.
And activity on the game is contribution to the region, just as posting a bill in the RA, noting participation in an NPA op, creating a campaign for an election, submitting your monthly ambassador report or spamming is contribution. A post on the RMB may be asking someone how their day was, welcoming a new nation to the region, directing someone to the off-site, a comment on an issue or an RP post. Are some spam? Yes. Are a lot spam? Yes. Are some posts on the forum spam? Yes. Are a lot of posts on the forum spam? Yes. I do not see the difficulty in how a post on the RMB is unable to be a contribution to the region.
However, the RMB is the easiest way to interact with the rest of the region given its prominence. For many nations, it is where they first get involved. The RMB was where I first started posting.
Expanding the number of citizens in TNP will help us in the event of voter importation by other individuals to counteract and needing more imported voters which increases the chances of detection.
So, in conclusion (of my argument for, still got the addressing concerns of opponents to go through), as we measure if a citizen is active on the forums to see if they are contributing to the region, it makes sense to see if a citizen is also active on the RMB.
I would now like to address some of the concerns I have seen brought up on the forum and on Discord over the course of this proposal.
The most common concern individuals have is that by expanding how individuals may satisfy the activity requirements for citizenship is that the government will be relocated from the forums on the RMB. This line of attack is a fallacy. It is a slippery slope: in no way does it follow from broadening the citizenship requirements that the government relocates to the forum. It is a strawman: no one, no one, has even remotely suggested that the government should be relocated to the RMB. It is a waste of time arguing that the government should not be relocated to the forums. We know. We agree. So please stop telling us it is a bad idea, should someone bring such a proposal to the RA, I will campaign against it just as I will campaign for this one.
The next major argument against I have seen is that the RMB community is hostile to the forum community. As mentioned before, I do not believe it is either conducive to the TNP community nor accurate to make such a distinction. As I mentioned closer towards the introduction, I have been quite active on the RMB. I have been both a very vocal supporter and critic of both the TNP government and the RA at times. I can tell you that in all four cases, I have been both supported and opposed by individuals who are not active on the forums. Generalizing RMB posters with such hostility does first nothing to abate any hostility if there is any, and secondly, is inaccurate. Given the rhetoric employed by some, I would not be surprised if certain citizens also see them as uneducated, uncivilized barbarians. Any individuals who are in such strong disagreement with how TNP is run would have to join the forums to change. Of course, they would never do such a thing would they? Try to make a change and not have the support of the RA? But then end up sticking around and remaining a citizen? Absolutely would not happen.
Similarly, to this argument, there is a reasoning proposing that RMBers will have too much influence over the region. First off, we are all TNP. Second, as previously established, the nations that post on the RMB are not homogenous and will most certainly not vote as a unit. Lastly, even if this proposal did end up with increasing our citizenship roles by such an amount those who posted on the RMB are more in the RA than those who post primarily on the forums, is there anything wrong with that? While we may all prefer certain activities, some of them are more popular than others. We have more RPers than WA authors. More legislators than issue authors. There is nothing wrong with individuals preferring certain activities to other activities. I do eagerly await a proposal in the RA on how we can restrict the undue influence the RPers have over TNP though.
I have been told that the community does not want this proposal which is just a weird line of argument. For one, this is not designed to help a community. It is to expand how one can satisfy activity requirements. I do not think I need to go into too much depth on this one so I will leave it be but if I do need to expand on this point, do let me know.
Similarly, I find the argument that posters on the RMB do not care about the affairs of the government bizarre. They definitely do care on what goes on in government as I can attest to in my prior experience. They definitely have strong opinions and have resulted before in policies being changed, individuals on the RMB were responsible for changes in the RMB Guardians I mentioned previously. For those of you who are bored, I would invite you to start a discussion on the RMB. Suggested topics of discussion include but are not limited to: lowering the endorsement cap, what posts should be suppressed or not and whether RP should be allowed on the RMB. And again, I reiterate this proposal is not about including a different community but increasing how the definition of contribution to the region is made.
Again, a similar argument that individuals on the RMB are the RMB are not affected. Obviously untrue considering items such as polls, suppression powers and endorsements caps are decided on the forums. This issue also is not a criticism of the proposal as well. As I repeatedly note, this proposal is not about including a different community but expanding how we determine whether a citizen is contributing to the region.
Continuing the line of arguments that attack individuals on the RMB and are not addressing the actual issue of this bill is that individuals on the RMB are not informed of what happens off-site. In many cases, when there is an issue that is controversial, we see both proponents and opponents—such as this debate—who are quite vocal. We then see education efforts to the citizenry at large which are often quite successful. TNP’s citizens as a whole tend to be quite informed.
The technical issue of implementation has already been addressed by Siwale as he noted that r3n has created a techy thingy that will take care of it for the Speaker’s Office similar to how there is already a method for them to check citizens meeting the posting requirement. Given the RMB is easily searchable by poster any concerns the Speaker’s Office would be unable to manually verify satisfying activity requirements in case of a technical issue are unfounded. Should technical issues arise with both the forum script and the RMB script (I have no idea how the backend works but I will assume that problems may occur with the automated verification of meeting citizenship activity requirements separately for both the RMB and the forums), as the Speaker’s Office would need to manually check posting history of citizens on the forum, I do not believe it would be too much harder to, after checking if nations met the posting requirement on the forums, checking for those that have not posted on the RMB. In fact, it may be easier searching the RMB than the forums given that the RMB lists posts as being posted “X days ago” whereas the forum only gives dates. The idea that this proposes an undue burden on the Speaker’s Office in the minuscule chance of a technical issue arising with solely the RMB script. The RA is not here to make sure the Speaker’s Office job is easy. The Speaker is here to make sure the Regional Assembly runs, and they are able to have staff to support them. I doubt that we will experience such a significant amount of growth that the citizenship will double. Realistically, I expect over time for the number of citizens to increase by around a dozen with an upper limit of 20 more citizens. I do not think checking the posting history of 20 citizens is too difficult. If I am missing something and it is the RA’s job to make sure the Speaker’s Office has an easy job, please inform me and additionally, do request to the other proponents of a bill in the RA to withdraw their bill, they are giving the Speaker’s Office work to do.
Now, I do know I have repeatedly stated we should not divide TNP community into two sects of homogeneous residents, some who post on the RMB and others who post on the forum. However, I do wish to address an argument made based upon this misconception. I have seen an argument made that we should work towards uniting the two different communities in a different way before this proposal. In which case, I would like to refer you to the Delegate’s Government, the Regional Assembly, the Speaker’s Desk, the Office of Attorney General or the Court depending on who is best permitted to implement your idea. Should you have any issue recognizing who to contact regarding your proposal to unite the two communities, feel free to contact me and I can help direct you. That being said, this proposal is not about “uniting” or anything. As I have previously stated, this proposal is not about bringing two different communities together. It is about expanding on how individuals may satisfy the activity requirements of citizenship. The spirit of the proposal is not too do this and I do not believe the act will have this effect. Nevertheless, for all of those who believe it does have this intent, yet is not appropriate as there are other ideas, I eagerly wait your suggestions.
The last issue that I would like to address is how it will be difficult for administrators to check for individuals who would have their friends post for citizenship and then afterwards use the RMB to maintain activity before finally voting using VPNs. I would like to note that currently, there is nothing to stop someone from doing so. It is possible that I have my friends join the region before the January elections and then have them vote for me privately. This proposal does not increase the ability for dedicated individuals who wished to infiltrate.
If I have missed any issues or if there is any confusion, do not hesitate to ask.
I am open to changes to the bill that maintain the spirit.
TL;DR:
The activity requirement for citizenship is used to prevent voter importation, this proposal expands on how nations may satisfy the activity requirement.
EDIT: Because Darc is a critic.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
- TNP Nation
- Prydania
- Discord
- lordgigaice
I've had RMB RP mods confirm to me that RMB RP hostility to the forum community is real. And that's on top of me seeing such hostility first hand. So please don't tell me that my own experiences on the matter are inaccurate just because they don't line up with yours.
Because I, as a forum RPer, don't want a large voting bloc added to the electorate that is hostile to my community within TNP. That's why.
Now I am working with a prominent RMB RP mod to set up some sort of event where forum and RMB RPers can get together on Discord and, in a moderated environment, clear the air. Seeing as I feel as if most of the hostility directed to the forum is based on misunderstandings? I am positive that such an event will ultimately be for the better.
And if the air is cleared at that point? I will strongly consider supporting this amendment. Until that time though? I am opposing this because I feel it is in the best interests of my community here.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
I appreciate that @Praetor has given this matter considerable thought. I would ask that Praetor please also give consideration to my concerns regarding security.
In case my concerns haven't been made sufficiently clear in earlier posts, I will attempt a hypothetical.
Suppose some nation, let's call it Alberto Gonzales Land for the sake of argument, decides they want to vote many times in an election in The North Pacific. Perhaps they want to get their friend, Unlimited Happenings, into the delegacy. Suppose they are willing to be patient and work toward this goal for several months in advance.
Each week, having made sure that their dynamic residential IP address changes, they register another nation as Citizen (i.e. Carly Rae Jepsen Land, Wakkawakkaland, Presentini...). They maintain the citizenship of all these nations through occasional RMB posts, avoiding any IP-aware scrutiny of their activity on the forum.
The election between Unlimited Happenings and, let's say, Vigoriath, is close. Alberto Gonzales Land can swing the election with just half a dozen votes. They do so, using proxies to send personal messages from the forum accounts of a half dozen of their citizen accounts to the Voting Booth. They don't vote the same way with each account: they only care about the Delegate election, so they mix things up with the Speaker and Attorney General votes of these accounts. They make sure to space out their votes over the voting period, keeping some accounts in reserve in case more votes are needed to swing the balance further (at the risk of drawing more attention).
How would we catch this?
In case my concerns haven't been made sufficiently clear in earlier posts, I will attempt a hypothetical.
Suppose some nation, let's call it Alberto Gonzales Land for the sake of argument, decides they want to vote many times in an election in The North Pacific. Perhaps they want to get their friend, Unlimited Happenings, into the delegacy. Suppose they are willing to be patient and work toward this goal for several months in advance.
Each week, having made sure that their dynamic residential IP address changes, they register another nation as Citizen (i.e. Carly Rae Jepsen Land, Wakkawakkaland, Presentini...). They maintain the citizenship of all these nations through occasional RMB posts, avoiding any IP-aware scrutiny of their activity on the forum.
The election between Unlimited Happenings and, let's say, Vigoriath, is close. Alberto Gonzales Land can swing the election with just half a dozen votes. They do so, using proxies to send personal messages from the forum accounts of a half dozen of their citizen accounts to the Voting Booth. They don't vote the same way with each account: they only care about the Delegate election, so they mix things up with the Speaker and Attorney General votes of these accounts. They make sure to space out their votes over the voting period, keeping some accounts in reserve in case more votes are needed to swing the balance further (at the risk of drawing more attention).
How would we catch this?
- TNP Nation
- Castle in Confidence
- Discord
- .wonderess
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
- TNP Nation
- Prydania
- Discord
- lordgigaice
Is that how you think our Discord talk on the issue has gone? This is the first instance of you actually acknowledging the concerns I raised on that platform in any way beyond brushing them off.
Regarding your point though? No, it very much has something to do with this bill.
Different opinions in a democracy are all well and good. The problem I have isn’t an opposition to that idea. There are plenty of forum-based activities I don’t engage in regularly because they don’t appeal to me, and I hold no ill-will towards those who do.
Likewise I don’t hold it anything against a RMBer who spends their time discussing politics, history, economics, current events, comic books, etc...on the RMB.
Hell, RPing on the RMB isn’t even something I have anything against. It’s not how I like to RP but if others dig it? Cool. In principal? Your bill is sound and comes from an agreeable position.
My concern isn’t the introduction of voters to the electorate who like to engage with TNP in ways I don’t. My concern is the introduction of voters to the electorate who are hostile to how I, and many others here, like to engage with TNP.
And that’s where the tension between the TNP forum and RMB RP communities becomes relevant to this debate. It becomes relevant because, as I have stated before, it introduces a voting bloc into TNP that is often openly hostile to my community within the region. And as such I have good reason to oppose that. If this hostility within the RMB RP community did not exist? I would have no reason to oppose to this bill, and I would guess that the other forum RPers who are weary of it would be supportive of it as well.
And while I am well aware that the RMB RP community is not the totality of the RMB? It is a significant portion of it.
So given all of that? And given the genuinely positive intent behind this bill, Siwale? Well it makes me kind of frustrated to be honest.
You seem to care a great deal about this issue, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge the concerns that have come from the forum RP side of things.
I keep thinking surely attempting to bridge this gap and eliminate the issue would be a good way forward. To both acknowledge these concerns and eliminate them as an onbstacle to the bill. As I said? I would have no reason to oppose this bill, personally, if the hostility within the RMB RP community didn’t exist. And again, I don’t believe I’m the only one in that position.
So why not try to bring these communities together? It seems better than brushing aside the forum RP community’s concerns. Which to me is indicative of a hostile attitude towards that community. One I’m shocked to see given the positives your term as Delegate has meant for us.
- Pronouns
- He/His/Him
- TNP Nation
- Prydania
- Discord
- lordgigaice
@Siwale
And if you want proof of my intentions? Again, I’m working with @mtboy66 to try and set up a discussion event on the TNPRP Discord with the goal of clearing the air and finding common ground between the two RP communities. And if this is successful? Again, I don’t see any reason for me to oppose this bill.
So I’m not coming from a place of “fuck RMB RPers, they don’t like us? Well they can suck it!” If that were my position I wouldn’t be doing what I’m doing to try an alleviate my own concerns.
My problem here is that your approach, as the bill’s author, has been “your concerns don’t matter, you need to accept a group of voters into the electorate that are hostile to your community within TNP.”
Which isn’t good enough.
And if you want proof of my intentions? Again, I’m working with @mtboy66 to try and set up a discussion event on the TNPRP Discord with the goal of clearing the air and finding common ground between the two RP communities. And if this is successful? Again, I don’t see any reason for me to oppose this bill.
So I’m not coming from a place of “fuck RMB RPers, they don’t like us? Well they can suck it!” If that were my position I wouldn’t be doing what I’m doing to try an alleviate my own concerns.
My problem here is that your approach, as the bill’s author, has been “your concerns don’t matter, you need to accept a group of voters into the electorate that are hostile to your community within TNP.”
Which isn’t good enough.
- Pronouns
- Any/All
- TNP Nation
- Frances_Francis_the_First_of_Frances
- Discord
- Just_a_Lore
I can not get behind this bill. It fails still to put into effect a forum based requirement. There needs to be a longer term removal criteria for not posting in the forum at all. Plus the language that strikes Office out of part 13 worries me because if the Speaker knows of a time frame where they will not be able to access the forums it strips the Speaker's ability to delegate the ability to a Deputy for a time without naming them Acting Speaker.
@Praetor And you hit the nail on the head, it does just that, but it does it in a way where IP checks and Administration can not verify identities. Also I find it hilariously flippant that you accuse people with concerns of creating strawmen and then in the next paragraph allude that those people creating strawmen are "uncivilized" "uneducated" and "barbaric" definitely the way to go insult all the people who have concerns, you know what why not go further and accuse us of witchcraft, demon worship, hell just blame us for Hitler while you are at it.
@Praetor And you hit the nail on the head, it does just that, but it does it in a way where IP checks and Administration can not verify identities. Also I find it hilariously flippant that you accuse people with concerns of creating strawmen and then in the next paragraph allude that those people creating strawmen are "uncivilized" "uneducated" and "barbaric" definitely the way to go insult all the people who have concerns, you know what why not go further and accuse us of witchcraft, demon worship, hell just blame us for Hitler while you are at it.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
If one can maintain citizenship through RMB activity, without using this offsite forum, then one can avoid one's (current) IP address getting logged by this forum.
I have rearranged my quotes to in order to better respond. At this time, I am primarily focusing on addressing issues with the spirit of the bill rather than the technical as the technical concerns are subservient to other concerns.
As a note, I have only addressed posts after my first post. I took all previous posts into considering in mine. If you feel I have missed something, please inform me.
Generally, most of my responses are questions asking for clarification though.
I am not trying to diminish your own experiences with those who do RMB RP; I am unaware of the issues you have had but I have no doubt you have experienced some hostility from individuals who post on the RMB. My reference to a statement being inaccurate was a generalization of RMB posters as them all being hostile. I do not know who stated that if any, however, I had a perception opponents of the bill were making this generalization. Hopefully I have adequately addressed your concern here?
Regarding your second point which seems to be a concern of the effects of the bill. If I understand your concern right, it is that we will see an influx of citizens who are hostile. Am I understanding you right here?
I have responded to your concern about the "voting bloc" below.
Are you able to go into more depth on what the hostility from individuals on the RMB towards the individuals on the forum is like? If you have any specific posts, that would be appreciated.
I disagree with the characterization of RMB RPers acting as a bloc and would also like to inquire as to why you think that is the case?
Lastly, is your issue with "voting blocs" or more with individuals hostile to Forum RPers (and in this case, you believe several individuals coming from the same sub-community)?
The reason I ask these questions is because I am slightly confused and want to make sure I am properly addressing your concerns.
I would just like to inquire as to when you say "accept a group of voters into the electorate that are hostile to your community within TNP", are you stating all those that will most likely be citizens under this bill and were not in the past are hostile to your community?
I will not address what Si's approach is.
With reference to your first paragraph is your concern with the technical side or with a belief that citizens must be making forum posts at least once in a certain period?
I will leave the issue with clause 13 for @Siwale to address either way.
It seems there has been some miscommunication. I did not allude to any of the individuals I allude to creating strawmen as "uncivilized", "uneducated" or "barbaric". When I used those words it was in reference to a perception I received over the first few days I observed this debate that some opponents of the bill seem to have of those who post on the RMB. I am confused as to how you find my flippant. Do you mind elaborating on that?
I am most certainly not accusing anyone of witchcraft, demon worship or blaming anyone for Hitler. I will note I have no issue with the first two, although I do with the latter.
@Prydania and @Lord Lore, do either of you have any issues with the spirit of the bill excluding issues we are already discussing?
I believe I have addressed all the concerns with the spirit of the bill raised since my first post. Should there be any additional concerns with the clarification please let me know.
Moving onto the more technical concerns now.
I do appreciate you looking into possible solutions as well.
I had a few questions I wanted to ask prior to responding to it. I realize you may not be able to respond to all of these concerns given some information on how TNP checks for admin is secret.
How often are posts by citizens that are not the citizenship oath checked? Secondly, how much of a flag, if any, is sent up by use of a VPN?
As discussed on the Discord but noting here for posterity, it is currently possible but it must be done within 30 days to only have to make one post. Technically, under the current proposal, this would be possible for longer-term infiltration.
EDIT: Elu beat me to it.
On a more general note, it is unfortunate embedded quotes are not available. Would make my life easier.
As a note, I have only addressed posts after my first post. I took all previous posts into considering in mine. If you feel I have missed something, please inform me.
Generally, most of my responses are questions asking for clarification though.
Thank you for your unconditional support.
I believe the first issue is from some miscommunication. Requoting the excerpt you posted here for ease of reference:
Praetor:
I am not trying to diminish your own experiences with those who do RMB RP; I am unaware of the issues you have had but I have no doubt you have experienced some hostility from individuals who post on the RMB. My reference to a statement being inaccurate was a generalization of RMB posters as them all being hostile. I do not know who stated that if any, however, I had a perception opponents of the bill were making this generalization. Hopefully I have adequately addressed your concern here?
Regarding your second point which seems to be a concern of the effects of the bill. If I understand your concern right, it is that we will see an influx of citizens who are hostile. Am I understanding you right here?
I have responded to your concern about the "voting bloc" below.
Are you able to go into more depth on what the hostility from individuals on the RMB towards the individuals on the forum is like? If you have any specific posts, that would be appreciated.
I disagree with the characterization of RMB RPers acting as a bloc and would also like to inquire as to why you think that is the case?
Lastly, is your issue with "voting blocs" or more with individuals hostile to Forum RPers (and in this case, you believe several individuals coming from the same sub-community)?
The reason I ask these questions is because I am slightly confused and want to make sure I am properly addressing your concerns.
Not disputing your intentions here. I don't doubt anyone who has posted in this thread (so far) has TNP's best intentions so far.
I would just like to inquire as to when you say "accept a group of voters into the electorate that are hostile to your community within TNP", are you stating all those that will most likely be citizens under this bill and were not in the past are hostile to your community?
I will not address what Si's approach is.
I acknowledge the issue with IP checks and am discussing that further down.
With reference to your first paragraph is your concern with the technical side or with a belief that citizens must be making forum posts at least once in a certain period?
I will leave the issue with clause 13 for @Siwale to address either way.
It seems there has been some miscommunication. I did not allude to any of the individuals I allude to creating strawmen as "uncivilized", "uneducated" or "barbaric". When I used those words it was in reference to a perception I received over the first few days I observed this debate that some opponents of the bill seem to have of those who post on the RMB. I am confused as to how you find my flippant. Do you mind elaborating on that?
I am most certainly not accusing anyone of witchcraft, demon worship or blaming anyone for Hitler. I will note I have no issue with the first two, although I do with the latter.
@Prydania and @Lord Lore, do either of you have any issues with the spirit of the bill excluding issues we are already discussing?
I believe I have addressed all the concerns with the spirit of the bill raised since my first post. Should there be any additional concerns with the clarification please let me know.
Moving onto the more technical concerns now.
Hi Eluvatar, thanks. I did consider it but it was only for a short portion of the text. I was attempting to address issues with the idea of the proposal first. I do recognize your concern and was not trying to hide it. I think this proposal has a wide range of possibilities in which it can be implemented (several have been mentioned).
I do appreciate you looking into possible solutions as well.
I had a few questions I wanted to ask prior to responding to it. I realize you may not be able to respond to all of these concerns given some information on how TNP checks for admin is secret.
How often are posts by citizens that are not the citizenship oath checked? Secondly, how much of a flag, if any, is sent up by use of a VPN?
As discussed on the Discord but noting here for posterity, it is currently possible but it must be done within 30 days to only have to make one post. Technically, under the current proposal, this would be possible for longer-term infiltration.
EDIT: Elu beat me to it.
On a more general note, it is unfortunate embedded quotes are not available. Would make my life easier.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
I haven't been doing these checks personally in some time, as it would present a conflict of interest, so take my responses with a grain of salt.
A) The IPs used in other posts are always reviewed whenever a member applies or reapplies for citizenship. I won't comment on whether or not they see other review, ad-hoc or otherwise.
B) It draws attention. As a rule, we're generally tolerant of proxies that appear forced on people by their internet provider (but will still try to get a residential IP on record) but not tolerant of VPNs or other proxies that someone elects to use.
- Pronouns
- Any/All
- TNP Nation
- Frances_Francis_the_First_of_Frances
- Discord
- Just_a_Lore
If anyone who supports the bill had bothered to read or consider the criticism that I posted you would already know that I do not. I proposed a way to make it better and I was flat out ignored by everyone except those who had criticism of the bill. Its also not damn miscommunication. You berated people for strawmaning and then you yourself dove right in and strawmaned those who don't agree with you, if you want to tell people to stop strawmaning then power to you I hate that as well, but you then alluded that those who don't agree with you are stupid and barbaric.
Flippant; adj. "Not showing a serious or respectful attitude"
Calling people you don't agree with barbarians is damn well not treating their concerns seriously and is in no way being respectful to their views.
This concern is unfounded. The Legal Code specifies powers that the Speaker may use in most clauses already; in fact of the 15 clauses plus the preamble, only two clauses specify the Office. The Constitution's Article 2, clause 10 gives the Speaker the power to delegate their powers and duties as they see fit already.
If you believe this to be in error there are hundreds of actions illegally taken (under your view anyway) by Deputy Speakers that you may submit for an R4R or criminal complaint.
- Pronouns
- Any/All
- TNP Nation
- Frances_Francis_the_First_of_Frances
- Discord
- Just_a_Lore
Actually Article 2 Clause 10 does not actually give the Speaker the explicate authority to delegate their powers and duties as they see fit. The plain text reading of it gives the Speaker the ability to "appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of their powers and duties" which has currently been used to delegate abilities to the delegate, but the current wording as "The Speaker's Office" would allow deputies to maintain the citizenship roles in the event of an unexplained absence of a Speaker while the wording of the "The Speaker" would bar Deputies from doing so without express delegation of the ability. I will concede that I am wrong that it would not allow them to Delegate but I think that the wording as "The Speaker's Office" is superior
Then you are free to propose a separate bill fixing this issue, but it isn't particularly relevant to this bill since it follows language used in the rest of the legal code.