Citizenship Amendment

Darcania:

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.

Click to expand...

So your argument is that something written in a proposal shouldn't be discussed before it is even motioned to a vote and instead should be ignored and only fixed in the future? Call me crazy but anything a bill seeks to change is valid to discuss.

Eluvatar:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, you're more qualified to answer my questions than I am.

Personally, I was not aware the forum admins were not tolerant of individuals electing to use VPNs or proxies.

I was afraid you would not comment on that matter. I do understand why though.

I think generally then, that turns this debate into more of a debate on whether taking the previously debated risk is worth having an expanded citizenship (ignoring what is below). Regardless of my own feelings on the matter, I am sure, several citizens will not be comfortable with the risk.

Despite you not commenting, I am going to assume, generally most posts are better for the admins to check and we are more concerned about the long-term implications of voter importation here (since short-term is already theoretically possible). Although I would obviously prefer having no mandatory requirement for forum posting, would it be able to assuage the concerns you have Eluvatar by having some combination of forum posting and RMB posting permitting a nation to meet the citizenship activity requirements?

I have heard of a few suggestions such as requiring forum posts in a longer time such as every 90 days (Lord Lore's original suggestion and modified by Sil) or requiring mandatory public voting for those not meeting forum activity requirements by posting on the forum. I am not attached to anyone of them in particular but given there does not appear to be a solution to the technical issue, I am not opposed to modifying the bill.

Lord 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.

Click to expand...

I apologize for not adequately addressing your concern in my first post. I do think I did not go into as much depth as I could have so I will respond to it now. This is the post in question:

Lord 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

Click to expand...

The idea behind the bill is to redefine the activity required for maintaining citizenship. I do not think it should matter why a resident decides to become a citizen. I do not think it is necessary to have forum posting in order to maintain citizenship (excluding technical concerns), it is possible for citizens in the region to have less interest in certain elections and more in others. This would also depend on who is running and whether the candidates are doing any outreach.

I was asking if you had additional concerns in addition the ones we are currently discussing. I will take your answer as a no.

Did you read my post? I did not call anyone that. I have quoted the paragraph in which you believe I called them that.

Praetor:

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.

Click to expand...

Nowhere did I call anyone stupid, especially those that disagreed with me. If for some reason, you still think I said that, let me know and I will go further in depth. Pretty sure it is miscommunication when you think I said something I did not.

I remain confused given your characterization of myself as flippant given the length of posts I have written on this topic and how I have attempted to address every concern.

I saw there were some more posts on legal stuff which I'm just going to let the law people fight over.

Lord Lore:

So your argument is that something written in a proposal shouldn't be discussed before it is even motioned to a vote and instead should be ignored and only fixed in the future? Call me crazy but anything a bill seeks to change is valid to discuss.

Click to expand...

I think you'll find we're discussing it right now, in the past several posts. Please, put on your glasses and read them if you wish, I'll wait here for your undue snark and hostility to subside.

Praetor:

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.

Click to expand...

The one case specifically that got me thinking about this in a political context was a RMB RPer's run for the Delegacy just before the forum changeover. And how they, and their supporters, treated the accumulation of power as a zero sum game between the RMB and forum.

There was a primarily RMB poster who, just before the forum changeover, ran for the Delegacy. And their platform amounted to "some RMBers feel overshadowed by the forum, and so if I'm elected Delegate I will do everything I can to promote the RMB above all else."
Now I think it's fair to say that, under the current status quo, our government is very forum-centric. And yet as a Deputy Culture Minister? I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that we do everything we can to ensure that RP events we promote are open to both the forum and RMB, and that we promote both RP communities equally. And yet we had a RMB RPer going on about winning the Delegacy and shifting the focus to that of an RMB-centric one, rather than the even-handed approach we currently use.
Again, they didn't say "there's a disconnect between forum users and RMB users, let's bridge the gap." They said "some RMBers feel overshadowed, my plan is to over-correct and focus on promoting the RMB at the expense of the forum."

Now you might say "this person's campaign was cut short, they didn't re-nominate themselves when the forum came back online, and they got banned for unrelated reasons anyway, so what's the problem?" The problem is that in sharing my concerns with some RMBers? The answer I got back was "what you're saying is you don't want the RMB to have any power at all!" Which, if you've followed me so far, you should know wasn't my problem with the campaign in question.
And these ideas didn't evaporate when the user in question was banned. The sentiment is still very much alive among circles of RMB users. Which is where my fears of an anti-forum bloc first started to form.

I think the reasons for this sentiment are miscommunication and misunderstanding (accusing me of opposing this person's candidacy due to some desire to make the RMB powerless was certainly a misunderstanding) but they are there and we have to grapple with them as a community.

Praetor:

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?

Click to expand...

I think that there are a number of RMB RPers who have hostile attitudes towards the forum broadly and forum RP community specifically who will become citizens should the Amendment pass. And it makes it easier for a similar campaign to the one outlined above to get off the ground.
That campaign said "some RMBers feel overshadowed. My solution is to fully promote the RMB at the expense of the forum." What I'm saying is that we ought to figure out why there's that gap in the first place and work to bridge it. This bill could be part of that puzzle, but clearing the air between the two RP communities is going to be another part.

As someone who frequently posts both on the RMB and the forum I appreciate what this proposal aims to accomplish. I don't see any reason to oppose this proposal.

I support this proposal

As someone involved in both communities, I support this proposal

Lotion:

Spoiler: Long thing I wrote, pls read

Hello,

So, before I continue, I'm just gonna state two things quickly. Firstly, I am for this bill. And secondly, I realize that I may be bias for the RMB in what I'm about to write.

Now, that's out of the way, I'm going to continue.
I personally think that mostly everyone in this thread has been "judging" the RMB way too harshly. I have seen a great deal of people referring to the RMB, even the RMB RP in a negative light. I have seen a large amount of people calling the RMB an overly toxic message board/community. And I have seen people who.... Basically make fun of the RMB, and the community. Now, the specific group of people I have seen this mostly come from, are Eras RPers/Forumers. Same with a few specific RMB RPers, and hell, I acted harshly on the RMB, and RMB RP a few times, but nevertheless. Most of the people who do this, never been in the RMB/RMB RP. (More specifically, the current RMB, and the RMB RP) and the few times that the Eras RPers/Forumers come to the RMB RP, they usually don't stick around the community for long, and just move back to the forums. Or in some... "special" cases, they came at the wrong time, and based the entire RMB RP/RMB community off one toxic event. (Of course, there are a few times a Eras RPer/Forumer goes on the RMB, and they stay there for abit)

I've also saw a bunch of people saying that the RMB RP/RMB has the largest amount of Forum haters(Or something similar), and to that I say - Of course. What, you think after a bunch of people who, insult you, clearly showing that they hate/despise/etc the community your in, and most likely hate you as well, are going to think that you like them?
Of course not. I understand that it's terrible, and should absolutely be avoided. But I think its.. Quite frankly, despicable, to think that the RMB RPers are mainly at fault about it.

I think it would be fair to say that the RMB community is not perfect. It absolutely went toxic. It absolutely has a few RPers that make the "image" of the RMB terrible. It absolutely has drama, and so on. However, I feel that it's important to bring up that..... All communities has its problems, drama, and toxicity. And to purposely overstate it for the RMB RP/RMB is harsh.

I understand that the RMB RP/RMB community has problems needing fixing, and I'll be glad to hear some of the proposals to fix some of the issues in the community.
However, I think it definitely should be noted that most points here, in this thread that paint the RMB RP/RMB communities negatively, are harsh, unneeded, and if the forums has done a few things similar what the RMB done, to bring it up, so it doesn't look like people are being biased towards the forums, and hating on the RMB.

I didn't explore too much into the points I made, and other points I could've brought up, but at the moment, that's all I have got to say.
Also, if I gone off topic from the thread, I sincerely apologize, but I feel that I should bring this up for future relevancy sake.

Click to expand...

I didn't want to go back to this topic, but I feel like I have to, as off-topic as it is. My gripe (and let's be honest, it's my gripe as I don't think we wouldn't have gotten this far if it weren't for flippant off-the-wall remarks that I made) is not a matter of Forum RPer vs RMB RPer. I just happen to be a forum RPer.

My concern primarily had to do with government security. Even beyond the boundaries of RP, I've heard prominent RMBers, mostly RMB RPers, which is why they got singled out initially, flip out over the fact that we won't give them border control privileges so that they can banject spammers and trolls when they appear. We've tried to work out a solution to this. I hope the solution we came up with with the Gameside Advocates was sufficient, but I have a feeling it wasn't. My fear was that a subcommunity of TNP unfamiliar and distant from the forum community, the latter of which through the regional assembly establishes the laws of the region, would have taken advantage of an easier mechanism to maintain citizenship while not being on and participating with the forum subcommunity to eventually be capable of changing the law to allow the more liberal application of border control powers. That's all I'm concerned about. I never intended for this to be an Eras RP vs Strangereal RP debacle.

I believe it is important to carry forward the effort to bring the gameside community deeper into the overall TNP community. I have never been a fan of group punishment, and depriving people of greater access just because some bad eggs ruin it for everyone else. I appreciate where Prydania and Sil are coming from, I think we can all acknowledge there are problems and sure, there are a lot of things that could potentially go wrong. That's pretty much par for the course, though. A lot of people are making a lot of assumptions and predictions, so I would like to make a few of my own. I believe that everyone who has posted in this thread will oppose an effort on the part of anyone to change the government from this forum to the RMB. I believe that everyone here will consider the pros and cons of any suggested change to how we handle gameside permissions or other policies and anyone with insufficient information will be disabused of any false notions they may have. I believe that everyone here will continue to support candidates who put forward the best platform and have the most comprehensive understanding of the whole region, not just the RMB, and not just the forum. There's too many opinionated, passionate people to let anyone pull a fast one on them.

This proposal will expand access to government and voting. More people will be citizens and avoid unexpectedly losing their citizenship. People who even the strongest critics of this bill would consider to be ideal and unproblematic citizens will maintain their citizenship. Maybe this is a leap of faith, maybe some nervous and cautious people will need to trust some members of this community they haven't had much trust in. I don't see this as a one and done move, I see this as part of a continuum, a piece of a larger puzzle we're all trying to solve that will ultimately bring all of us, gameside and offsite, together. It is not the job of this bill to come up with a solution to the ongoing mystery of how to engage more with the gameside community. But I hope it can be seen that this bill will make it possible for us to make greater strides in that area. Prydania has already said he has a promising opportunity to do just that.

Even the critics have said they support this bill. What concerns them is unintended consequences, things going wrong. We can put all the strings we want on this, that won't change those outcomes from being a remote possibility. So I ask all who support this bill, to make a commitment to be a forum mentor, to be a gameside advocate, to teach people and answer their questions. Making it easier for gameside players to take this next step, and to keep the citizenship once they have it, is important, but so is making them feel welcome and keeping them engaged. We want them to be more invested in us, but we also have to invest in them. This bill is an investment, but it cannot work on its own. Patting ourselves on the back for doing this great thing an then going about our business as we did before would be, in my view, no different from the hypothetical gameside people who only show up to vote and run in elections and otherwise stick to their own stomping ground. If we all do a little more to keep each other close and be actual neighbors, I don't see why anyone would ever have to fear there would be some tumultuous chaotic shift or power struggle.

If you read all of this, see the debate that's transpired, and still decide you just can't put your doubts to rest; if you decide you can't take a leap of faith, fine. Make the effort I suggested anyway. That will still help to avoid the things that make you nervous. I won't pretend that I don't worry about of that too, but I'm taking the leap of faith because TNP has been around for a long time, and we've figured out bigger issues than this. If we find something scary when we land after taking that leap, we'll figure out what to do again. And there's no shortage of people here who will be instrumental in finding the right way forward.

Elu note: Eluvatar has identified what I think is a real concern with this bill. I don't think I believe it is likely, but it is worth considering. The bill is fine in its current form, but I would be fine modifying it to try to navigate that potential issue. I'm not sure how that would work but, I don't think it would hurt the ultimate purpose of the bill

Sil Dorsett:

Spoiler: snip

]I didn't want to go back to this topic, but I feel like I have to, as off-topic as it is. My gripe (and let's be honest, it's my gripe as I don't think we wouldn't have gotten this far if it weren't for flippant off-the-wall remarks that I made) is not a matter of Forum RPer vs RMB RPer. I just happen to be a forum RPer.

My concern primarily had to do with government security. Even beyond the boundaries of RP, I've heard prominent RMBers, mostly RMB RPers, which is why they got singled out initially, flip out over the fact that we won't give them border control privileges so that they can banject spammers and trolls when they appear. We've tried to work out a solution to this. I hope the solution we came up with with the Gameside Advocates was sufficient, but I have a feeling it wasn't. My fear was that a subcommunity of TNP unfamiliar and distant from the forum community, the latter of which through the regional assembly establishes the laws of the region, would have taken advantage of an easier mechanism to maintain citizenship while not being on and participating with the forum subcommunity to eventually be capable of changing the law to allow the more liberal application of border control powers. That's all I'm concerned about. I never intended for this to be an Eras RP vs Strangereal RP debacle.

Click to expand...

I recently had a heart-to-heart with one of the RMBers about the issue and even what I last posted was a bit too sensational. I forget if it was Lotion or Vapia that did it, but they recently held a poll that showed that most RMBers don't necessarily mind the government as long as we just leave RMB RP alone and not try to regulate it in any way. That's fine with me, and as long as the GAs keep things tidy and SCers keep spammers off the board, everything's going to be fine. Lesson learned: I should just stop talking nonsense, honestly.

I think we should end debate on the theoretical side of things and resume talking about the technical side that Elu has brought up.

Lotion:

[

I've also saw a bunch of people saying that the RMB RP/RMB has the largest amount of Forum haters(Or something similar), and to that I say - Of course. What, you think after a bunch of people who, insult you, clearly showing that they hate/despise/etc the community your in, and most likely hate you as well, are going to think that you like them?
Of course not. I understand that it's terrible, and should absolutely be avoided. But I think its.. Quite frankly, despicable, to think that the RMB RPers are mainly at fault about it.

Click to expand...

RMB and Forum RP are separate. The IC worlds are 100% separate continuities and the RP (obviously) takes place on separate platforms with largely separate player bases (there are some that RP in both, to be fair). And on Discord? Forum and RMB-specific channels are separate.

What I am getting at is that your characterization of Forum RPers is WAY off the mark. The only difference between Forum and RMB RP is preference. The RP styles are different, and it just comes down to which you prefer. And so there is no reason for Forum RPers to "hate/despise/etc" the RMB RP community because it has no barring whatsoever on Forum RP.
And likewise RMB RPers should have no reason to be hostile towards the Forum RP community because it has no baring on RMB RP. And yet there's this hostile element towards the Forum RP community among the RMB RP community.
And no, it's not one sided, but the onus isn't on the Forum community. Not entirely. We all have work to do.

Hopefully the event @mtboy66 and I have planned will help clear the air, across the board.

Sil Dorsett:

I didn't want to go back to this topic, but I feel like I have to, as off-topic as it is. My gripe (and let's be honest, it's my gripe as I don't think we wouldn't have gotten this far if it weren't for flippant off-the-wall remarks that I made)

Click to expand...

With all due respect Sil, your remarks merely served as a convenient sounding board for my own concerns. I don't want you to beat yourself up over any controversy that may have arisen as a result of a position I chose to make an issue out of.

Here is my main question on the substance of the bill:

Citizenship grants the right to vote (*on the forum*) and to serve as a government official (*on the forum*). Residents otherwise have all the same protections and rights to be left in peace that citizens have.

So... How does citizenship benefit people who *don't want to participate or post on the forum* and who *don't want to be government officials*?

King SillyString:

Here is my main question on the substance of the bill:

Citizenship grants the right to vote (*on the forum*) and to serve as a government official (*on the forum*). Residents otherwise have all the same protections and rights to be left in peace that citizens have.

So... How does citizenship benefit people who *don't want to participate or post on the forum* and who *don't want to be government officials*?

Click to expand...

Well it could allow them to have a say in the delegate election for instance, without bothering with anything else forumside.

(Also, hello, full support to this bill.)

King SillyString:

Here is my main question on the substance of the bill:

Citizenship grants the right to vote (*on the forum*) and to serve as a government official (*on the forum*). Residents otherwise have all the same protections and rights to be left in peace that citizens have.

So... How does citizenship benefit people who *don't want to participate or post on the forum* and who *don't want to be government officials*?

Click to expand...

Bingo. There is absolutely no reason why we should cater to such persons, who show an antipathy to our system. We have seen RMBers who want to become citizens and government officials join the forum and become citizens and government officials just like we all did when we first joined the forum. There is no reason why we should cater to those persons who show no interest like this just because forum-RMB integration is increasing. Interested RMBers have already come over to vote and to join the government and I definitely think more will come in the future. That is integration. The fact is that this bill is just not the way to go about it. It will create more harm than good. It's a Pandora's Box.

I believe this to be a good and fair amendment. I support this bill.

King SillyString:

Here is my main question on the substance of the bill:

Citizenship grants the right to vote (*on the forum*) and to serve as a government official (*on the forum*). Residents otherwise have all the same protections and rights to be left in peace that citizens have.

So... How does citizenship benefit people who *don't want to participate or post on the forum* and who *don't want to be government officials*?

Click to expand...

Decisions made by the regional government affect ALL nations in TNP, not solely those who frequent the forum. Lack of regular involvement directly in the government (i.e. through the Executive Staff, Regional Assembly, or public office) does not mean that these nations do not care about/want a say in the officials who govern over the entirety of TNP or the laws and policies that surround the region.

As much as we would all like to see everyone actively involved in the regional government, the unfortunate reality is that not every nation is interested in the day-to-day government operations. But it would be quite the stretch to extrapolate this lack of regular forum activity to show complete lack of interest in the regional government. Every nation, and the way they choose to interact within the NS community, is unique. Nations that are not necessarily active on the forum every day may still care about the big picture events, such as General Elections and major legal changes through the RA. These types of events are typically separated by greater than 30 days and thus creates an obstacle for primarily gameside-active nations looking to make their voices heard.

I completely agree with this philosophy. I think it would be quite an accomplishment if we could get as much as 5% of TNP to turn out for an election. I would host a celebration with barrels of rum. Yet I still have concerns security-wise in terms of the implementation of this amendment. I would like someone to spell out how we will be able to ensure that one nation = one vote.

Great Bights Mum:

I completely agree with this philosophy. I think it would be quite an accomplishment if we could get as much as 5% of TNP to turn out for an election. I would host a celebration with barrels of rum. Yet I still have concerns security-wise in terms of the implementation of this amendment. I would like someone to spell out how we will be able to ensure that one nation = one vote.

Click to expand...

The requirements for citizenship would remain the same (including the admin check). My other thought was adding a loose forum posting requirement (i.e. once every 120 days) to easy some of the concerns. Thoughts?

Out of curiosity, why 120? Not saying that's a bad idea, but my suggestion was 90, so I wonder why the even more relaxed requirement.

Sil Dorsett:

Out of curiosity, why 120?

Click to expand...

As fun as Judicial Elections are for us, I think it unrealistic to expect a large gameside turnout for these elections since the role is entirely forum-based. The General Elections are what will draw in the largest numbers. 120 days (maybe a little more?) will prevent citizenship from lapsing for the general election voters.

Siwale:

As fun as Judicial Elections are for us, I think it unrealistic to expect a large gameside turnout for these elections since the role is entirely forum-based. The General Elections are what will draw in the largest numbers. 120 days (maybe a little more?) will prevent citizenship from lapsing for the general election voters.

Click to expand...

Depends on when their citizenship started. They could end up as one of those removed during the election if they're not careful. If you're bidding 120, I'm bidding 150.

I feel it is worth pointing out that perhaps just forum activity for elections not be the only course to base activity on. Why not encourage people to participate in the RA and day to day happenings of the region in between elections? I say a 30 day range for RMB and 60 day range for forum could be a valid possibility.

Wonderess:

I feel it is worth pointing out that perhaps just forum activity for elections not be the only course to base activity on. Why not encourage people to participate in the RA and day to day happenings of the region in between elections? I say a 30 day range for RMB and 60 day range for forum could be a valid possibility.

Click to expand...

We should be encouraging forum participation through outreach efforts by the regional government (i.e. through recruitment telegrams, cultural activities, regional events, elections, and legislative votes), not through punitive measures like citizenship revocation. We also need to acknowledge that the RA is not always as exciting as it is right now. There are often weeks, or even months, with little activity. And even during periods of immense legislative action, not all bills are relevant to nations who primarily spend their time gameside.

Now that I have some time, to elaborate on my support of this amendment:

I'm of the strong opinion that to have TNP Citizenry remain strong and active, we shouldn't be enforcing forum activity via citizenship loss, we should be promoting forum activity through engaging debate, positive atmosphere, and interesting discussion. Of course, complete removal of activity quotas is not what I'm suggesting, but the harshness of the current system needs addressing.

That's why I am for this amendment.

Hello,

I support this. I have limited time and logging into extra-NS things like Discord and forums is just not a priority for me. Its not that I do not care, or want to harm anything, but just a matter of where can I use my little daily/weekly activity. As a long time game player I almost exclusively use the NS interface, so it would be very convenient to just post there. Also, its one less password to remember! I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in, and get my monthly forum post out of the way at the same time

I move for a vote on this amendment.

,

Xyre:

I move for a vote on this amendment.

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as this is a legislative proposal since it modifies the legal code, then the current standing procedure is that only the author of the proposal may motion it to a vote.

Standing Procedures: Legislative Proposal Procedure:

3. The citizen who introduced the proposal may call for a vote by posting "motion to vote", or a functional equivalent in the thread.

Click to expand...

Sil Dorsett:

,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as this is a legislative proposal since it modifies the legal code, then the current standing procedure is that only the author of the proposal may motion it to a vote.

Click to expand...

Oh, you are correct. Consider my motion withdrawn then - apologies.

Xyre:

Oh, you are correct. Consider my motion withdrawn then - apologies.

Click to expand...

That's ok. You aren't the first one to do that.

After much deliberation, I have decided to move forward with the bill in its current form. I considered adding in a lenient forum posting requirement, but came to the realization that doing so would largely defeat the intent of this bill. I appreciate the concerns raised by Eluvatar and others regarding election tampering, but the reality is that these unlikely scenarios could still occur under our current citizenship system if someone was dedicated enough. While this bill could make these tactics slightly easier to carry out, it is not a large enough concern to justify restricting voter accessibility.

I move for a vote.

Siwale:

After much deliberation, I have decided to move forward with the bill in its current form. I considered adding in a lenient forum posting requirement, but came to the realization that doing so would largely defeat the intent of this bill. I appreciate the concerns raised by Eluvatar and others regarding election tampering, but the reality is that these unlikely scenarios could still occur under our current citizenship system if someone was dedicated enough. While this bill could make these tactics slightly easier to carry out, it is not a large enough concern to justify restricting voter accessibility.

I move for a vote.

Click to expand...

The Formal Debate period has begun and will last for 5 days unless the author waives the formal debate period. Amendments to the bill may still be made.

Regional security has always been of paramount importance to me. For most of you, Great Bight, Pixiedance, and Westwind's Crimson Order are something you have only read about. But for me, living through those times, seeing the damage done to the community and the pain of rebuilding, has made me fiercely protective of TNP.

The coming to power of each of those delegates was the result of "unlikely scenarios." The different methods used by each has informed our security procedures and the systems we have in place. Great Bight tarted his way to the top. These days, with the scanning tools we have and the sheer amount of endorsements and influence needed, I believe we have made that method of take-over truly unlikely.

With Pixiedance, we had the unlikeliest of scenarios. If a duly elected delegate hands off their nation to another player, sells it on ebay or whatever, what can we do? With a rogue delegacy, we count on the VD and the SC to be in a position to step up and restore democracy.

Westwind was also elected, but the voter turnout was, in a word, pathetic. With low turnout, an outsider wishing to stack an election has a much easier time of it. Our best defense against that lies with a large, well-informed electorate. So from a security standpoint, seeking to increase regional participation in our elections is a solid goal.

Implementing this proposal does carry risks. It will require us to make eligibility decisions based on a very limited amount of data. Will a single IP address at registration be enough? Are IP addresses from PMs to the Voting Booth verified? Are there other measures we can or should put in place to mitigate the risks? Remember, the one person seeking to game the system does not have the best interests of TNP at heart.

I’ve thought about this quite a bit.
And after last night? Well I’ll just say I’m very proud of both our forum and RMB communities for how they care together and how they bridged some of the divides that separated us.

My concerns as a forum RPer have been alleviated for the most part.
As such I am willing to cast a vote FOR the amendment up for debate.

The security risks do concern me, however. And I admit the technical side of things is not my wheelhouse. I will have to defer to those who are knowledgeable in such matters regarding the risk this brings. I’m willing to hear them out and see what they have to say.

Glad to see the author pushing forward despite the potential security risks brought forward by our root administrator, and a member of our Security Council. I will be voting against.

I wanted to provide some clarifications regarding security. It seems to me that many citizens are worried about new security risks that will supposedly be introduced by this bill. I understand the hesitation from some of our veteran members, who have experienced firsthand the worst times in TNP history. However, it is important to note that our current citizenship system suffers from the same exact security risks as the citizenship system proposed in this bill.

Consider the scenario posed by Eluvatar: Some infiltrator tries to cast multiple votes, by registering multiple accounts and using all of them to obtain citizenship. Under the current system, they can have all of these accounts apply for citizenship less than a month before the election. The infiltrator has all accounts apply with a different residential IP (something possible if your wireless provider assigns you a dynamic IP, as is most commonly the case), and as a result all of these accounts will be granted citizenship. Since the election is fewer than 30 days away, these accounts never have to make another post, so they will never be checked again for a new IP. Come election day, all accounts will use the PM system to submit private ballots. And there we go, the infiltrator has successfully, and easily, cast multiple votes, with nothing having changed from the current citizenship system.

Under the proposed system, the same single IP check at the time of applying for citizenship, as well as the forum-based election voting mechanism, remains in place. Nothing changes in terms of these security measures. The ability of an infiltrator to cast multiple votes remains exactly the same as before.

What does change, however, is the effect this infiltrator’s actions will have. Under the proposed system, the infiltrator’s ability to influence our elections will be lessened, because they will need to overcome a much larger number of votes from legitimate citizens. Therefore, the proposed system not only does not create any new security risks, but it alleviates the dangers posed by existing loopholes in our system. The proposed system makes our elections safer.

I appreciate the security concerns raised in this discussion. It is always a consideration we need to take into account before passing new legislation like this. However, the various scenaria that have been brought up during the discussion either do not accurately represent the comparative pros and cons of the current and proposed system, or are risks that are entirely unlikely to occur and are blown out of proportion.

The expansion of suffrage to all active forum members four years ago did not bring about the end of our government, despite several of the (so-called back then) RA members claiming it would. Nothing of the sort is going to happen this time either. What will happen is the same thing that happened with the Voting Rights Act: Increased activity, prosperity, and security for our region, and a more democratic system of government that allows us to continue to claim the role of the vanguard of democracy in NationStates.

I've got an idea (though potentially controversial.)

How about this:
non-WA people have to post once per month on the TNP forums to keep their citizenship
and WA people don't have to post anything on TNP forums to keep their citizenship?

That's safe, and I doubt many people would risk WA-multying. Plus many of the RMB RPers have WA nations in TNP.

-----

However, if this is the bill that goes to vote, I will for sure vote FOR it. A lot of TNP people spend all their time on the RMB, and not these forums, then lose their citizenship accidentally a month before elections and can't vote/run.

Yuno:

I've got an idea (though potentially controversial.) How about this: non-WA people have to post once per month on the TNP forums to keep their citizenship and WA people don't have to post anything on TNP forums to keep their citizenship? That's safe, and I doubt many people would risk WA-multying. Plus many of the RMB RPers have WA nations in TNP. ----- However, if this is the bill that goes to vote, I will for sure vote FOR it. A lot of TNP people spend all their time on the RMB, and not these forums, then lose their citizenship accidentally a month before elections and can't vote/run.

Click to expand...

I like the idea but here's why in my opinion that wouldn't be a good idea.
This is the Citizenship oath (currently):

Legal Code Chapter 6 Section 1:

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.

Click to expand...

Noting "Responsible action as a member of her society." I believe being Responsible member of our society is to become a Citizen which is like a way of taking part of the Government by being able to vote, run for office, and propose and debate proposals before this august assemble. Let's take a look at the Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights Section 3:

Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the World Assembly shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region.

Click to expand...

Most people may not want to be in the WA but want to stay in, we would have more inactive citizens probably. Not to mention most maybe busy and in an organization like the North Pacific Army. They still maybe in TNP and become a Resident because they won't be able to use their Residenting nation in TNP with WA. You were part of TWPAF and others so you know how it's like maybe not being able to have your main have WA because of organizations. We can use Loz as an example but he lost his Residenting nation in TNP. Nevertheless you get my point (hopefully). I'm not saying this would be illegal or anything but this is how I view it.

Dinoium:

I like the idea but here's why in my opinion that wouldn't be a good idea.
This is the Citizenship oath (currently):

Noting "Responsible action as a member of her society." I believe being Responsible member of our society is to become a Citizen which is like a way of taking part of the Government by being able to vote, run for office, and propose and debate proposals before this august assemble. Let's take a look at the Bill of Rights

Most people may not want to be in the WA but want to stay in, we would have more inactive citizens probably. Not to mention most maybe busy and in an organization like the North Pacific Army. They still maybe in TNP and become a Resident because they won't be able to use their Residenting nation in TNP with WA. You were part of TWPAF and others so you know how it's like maybe not being able to have your main have WA because of organizations. We can use Loz as an example but he lost his Residenting nation in TNP. Nevertheless you get my point (hopefully). I'm not saying this would be illegal or anything but this is how I view it.

Click to expand...

I do understand these points. But currently, citizens are required to post once per month on these forums. So we're not requiring people to join WA in order to remain a TNP citizen. The idea is to let people have the option to buy a forum-posting opt-out waiver by using their WA status. ( I have a strange obsession with the WA lol, hopefully didn't derail this too much :3 )
Bill of Rights: "Participation in the governmental authorities of the region is voluntary. Participation in the World Assembly shall not be a condition of participation in the governmental authorities of the region."
My argument is that it's not a condition, it's an option to use to opt-out of a DIFFERENT condition(the 1 forum post per month condition.)
Anyway, take this post with a grain of salt. I'm just dropping ideas.
I find this current bill is more generous than the approach I currently listed.

I've done some thinking and I think my opinions at this point are a combination of Bootsie's and Pry's.

I definitely think yesterday's event solved a lot of the formerly existing bad blood that existed/may have existed between the communities; and while I'm still really iffy on all the drama I saw/have seen before, during, and after my time there, my opinion of the RMB community at large has improved significantly.

That still, however, doesn't change what I believe before about the forum from the systemic end of things; which I've said before- the forum's not hard to learn, and there are RMBers who come here to participate in government already. In fact, after yesterday's event, perhaps more RMBers may be inclined to join in.

I'm also very concerned about the possible security issues that were recently highlighted, and about how not only did the Delegate motion to vote anyway but actively tried to form an argument against these concerns, which were both very valid and introduced by a Forum Administrator.

All in all, I remain/lean against.