Citizenship Amendment

Syrixia:
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.
Click to expand...
Would you mind pointing out what is flawed or factually incorrect in the argument I laid out here? In my view, I did not "form an argument against these concerns", but rather rebutted them.
 
@Siwale:

However I worded it, the issue remains the same. You're attempting to rebut/debunk the very valid concerns of someone who knows demonstrably more about both the technology of the forum and the region's history than you do. Now, one may say: but the bill has nothing to do with the forum's technology. And sure. I'll grant you that. But I mean, how do you really know that there's less of a risk? Neither you nor I were here when Great Bight and Pixiedance took over. There's always a way to game the system, Siwale- what if someone sends some mass TGs to citizens through an alt account or a co-conspirator who aren't really in the loop, for example? Sure, the nucleus may still be the forum, but by further exposing the system to NS the risks are increased, not decreased.

Someone could probably game the system right now, but it's much harder. A larger citizenry means there's a larger likelihood that there're gonna be idiots. In the post you linked, you mentioned one way of gaming the system. But whether it be straight up demagoguery, or cunningly convincing out-of-the-loop and/or just dumb citizens to vote one way, it can happen from within too. Now sure, maybe this bill does neutralize the method you noted, but it amplifies the one I've noted. And considering it's already hard to use the outside-infiltration method, as the admins (if they know anything, which they do; or otherwise they wouldn't be admins) are likely gonna find those infiltrators...is it really worth it to tip the scales?

I should also note to the greater public that I'm not saying that RMBers are generally more clueless or dumb. So if anyone here thinks this post says that, I hope that that's now cleared up. Hell, there are and have been dumb forummers too. For example, Flakey, or Tribekistan. I can go on. Every community has its dummies. What I am saying is that while this bill makes one way of gaming the system much harder to pull off, it makes another way much easier to pull off. You failed to address this in your post, whilst simultaneously rhetorically appealing to some sort of greater principle of democracy in order to romanticize this bill. I take issue with all of that.
 
Last edited:
Siwale:
Would you mind pointing out what is flawed or factually incorrect in the argument I laid out here? In my view, I did not "form an argument against these concerns", but rather rebutted them.
Click to expand...
I have to admit, I still have my doubts on the security end of things.

You say that potential infiltrators will have to overcome a much larger voter pool, but this assumes that the number of potential infiltrators will remain constant even after the voting pool expands. Is it not possible that expanding the voting pool- and the perception that the change in TNP citizenship law will make infiltration easier- will increase the number of potential neerdowells?

I have also seen it argued by the FOR camp that the same vulnerabilities that would exist in this proposed system exist in our current system. Yet the concerns of GBM, Elu, and other tech savvy admins and citizens that this amendment increases the likelihood of that risk has yet to be addressed.

And while concerns over RMB and Forum community interaction can- and have- been overcome by faith in our fellow TNPers and a willingness to listen? Security concerns such as those raised cannot as easily be discarded.

I admit that I’ve moved to a point where I want to support this amendment, but when it comes to matters of regional security and the tech aspect behind it? I pretty much defer to Elu, as he knows far more about such matters than I ever will.
 
I pointed out that the loophole Eluvatar highlights is doable just as easily right now, and therefore it is not a new risk. It doesn't take being an admin or having a computer science degree to know this, given the simplicity of the scenario: you can read Elu's post and my post and see it for yourselves. However, to settle the concerns of the RA, I invite forum administrator @Eluvatar to assess the validity of the statements made in my previous post.

If anyone can point to any actually new security risks arising from this bill, I'd be glad to discuss them. But so far, the only one that has been posted about in the RA is not a new security risk. If anything, the proposed bill ameliorates the risk.

Syrixia:
A larger citizenry means there's a larger likelihood that there're gonna be idiots.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I follow this argument. You, yourself, argue just below this statement that RMB posters are not any more “clueless or dumb” than forum users. So where exactly are all of “these” idiots going to come from?
 
Siwale:
So where exactly are all of “these” idiots going to come from?
Click to expand...
...the RMB.

I just said this. Every community has its dummies. The more people there are in total, the more likely that there are more dummies.
 
Last edited:
Siwale:
I pointed out that the loophole Eluvatar highlights is doable just as easily right now, and therefore it is not a new risk. It doesn't take being an admin or having a computer science degree to know this, given the simplicity of the scenario: you can read Elu's post and my post and see it for yourselves. However, to settle the concerns of the RA, I invite forum administrator @Eluvatar to assess the validity of the statements made in my previous post.
Click to expand...
I would very much like to hear Elu’s thoughts on your rebuttal.

My own gut feeling though? Which is admittedly not quite well-informed...

Your rebuttal is not a sufficient counter to Elu’s concern.
Elu’s scenario held that RMB posting would allow a potential infiltrator to keep the citizenship of all of their puppets active, and that TNP Administration will have no real way to check for this. If all puppets are maintaining citizenship on the RMB? Our Admins cannot catch them. And in doing so they become puppets that are viable for more than one election.

Your rebuttal, to me, illustrated the strength of the status quo position.
Under your scenario? A collection of puppets would spring into existence less than a month before an election (compared with Elu’s example, where they would be established over the course of a few months).
And a series of new citizens who did nothing but register and then all vote for a single Delegate candidate would raise suspicions among our Admin team.

Or at least I would hope it would.

And even if it didn’t? These puppets, under the current status quo, would need to post on the forum at least once a month. Increasing the chance that Administration can catch them.

Essentially? Using RMB posts allows puppets of infiltrators to sidestep TNP Admin IP checks, allowing them to maintain citizenship longer, and thus pose a more long-term threat to regional security.
And given the business with the NPO? We should be taking that very seriously.

Again, I’m not an expert when it comes to this stuff. I’m pretty much a luddite by the standards of my generation.
So if anyone who know more about this than I goes “Pry, you’re an idiot, you’ve got it all wrong” I’ll concede the point.

I’m just outlining what I see as a flaw in your rubuttal to Elu’s concern.

And I think anyone rushing to support or oppose this bill on matters of security do themselves and our region a disservice to make up their minds before one of TNP’s top admins has a chance to respond to the Amendment author’s rebuttal.
 
plembobria:
bolding this doesn't make it true m8 .
Click to expand...
You misinterpret me. What it does is make it more visible to someone who by his own admission didn't understand what I was very clearly saying.

Semi-related: it is true tho m8 .
 
Someone who like to crunch numbers for fun more than I do can take a look at the statistics of the last few elections. We see most voters have post counts over 100. IP data on 100 posts is going to give us a significant degree of confidence that the vote is legit. The number of voters with low post counts is incidental. It is what we would expect given our current rules, and it is really not enough to make a difference in the outcome of a delegate election. (Security-wise, that is the only race that matters.) Change the rules, though, and we should expect to see more voters who do not post on the forum. How many? We don't know. More than currently? Almost certainly. Enough to be significant? Hard to say.

Voter fraud has not been a problem because most voters have been very active on the forum. If we suddenly saw a big uptick in new voters it would be noticeable. Eliminate forum posting requirements, and that same uptick is more likely to escape notice. Now I'm thinking how nice it would be if we could get our hands on NS data to verify voter eligibility. :ph34r:
 
Syrixia:
...the RMB.

I just said this. Every community has its dummies. The more people there are in total, the more likely that there are more dummies.
Click to expand...
The problem with this argument is that, to reduce the chance of idiots, we should be shrinking suffrage as much as possible. Following what you say, we should be repealing the Voting Rights Act, or even abolishing voting altogether. To fully eliminate the chance for "dummies", a small committee of wise members should be making all decisions for the community.

All this talk of a demagogue coming along and getting the "stupid" RMB masses to vote for them is not only insulting to our gameside community, but also rather unrealistic. RMB posters, and gameside nations more broadly, have a general awareness of whom to trust and whom not to. That's the reason why someone can't come by, send an unendorsement telegram, and just like that unseat the delegate. We've seen again and again in the past that such misinformation campaigns are ineffective, and that's because the RMB crowd are not that gullible.

Moreover, if the government neglects the gameside community so much that a situation such as the above becomes plausible, then shame on us. It won't be the proposed system's fault. It will be our fault for forgetting that the gameside community is an integral part of the region that we need to stay tightly connected to. The gameside community is as much the government's constituents as the forumside community. It is the gameside nations that prop us up with their endorsements and let us maintain control of the region. This bill reinforces the government's responsibility to engage the gameside community and retain its confidence, and I hope it will bring about an increased emphasis by the government on gameside-centered programs like the Gameside Advocates etc.

Great Bights Mum:
Someone who like to crunch numbers for fun more than I do can take a look at the statistics of the last few elections. We see most voters have post counts over 100. IP data on 100 posts is going to give us a significant degree of confidence that the vote is legit. The number of voters with low post counts is incidental. It is what we would expect given our current rules, and it is really not enough to make a difference in the outcome of a delegate election. (Security-wise, that is the only race that matters.) Change the rules, though, and we should expect to see more voters who do not post on the forum. How many? We don't know. More than currently? Almost certainly. Enough to be significant? Hard to say.

Voter fraud has not been a problem because most voters have been very active on the forum. If we suddenly saw a big uptick in new voters it would be noticeable. Eliminate forum posting requirements, and that same uptick is more likely to escape notice. Now I'm thinking how nice it would be if we could get our hands on NS data to verify voter eligibility. :ph34r:
Click to expand...
The reasoning behind the absence of voter fraud currently does not stem from increased security granted by the current citizenship system. It is just as easy to have many people who sign up for citizenship and vote under both systems. Instead, the reasoning stems from the impracticality of infiltrating an election with an upwards of 70-100 votes. This impracticality will only heighten once the number of voters increases even further.

In terms of the diminished amount of IP data that would be available under the new system, this would be entirely dependent on each individual citizen. We do have members under the current system who simply sign up for citizenship just to vote in an upcoming election. This is especially prevalent, given the recruitment drives run by HA and potential candidates in the past. Under these circumstances, there would only be two IPs for admins to work with: the one at the time of applying for citizenship and the one at the time of voting. This would be the same number of minimum IPs we would expect to record from an RMB poster under the new system. Importantly, both of these IPs are checkable by admins if a vote is flagged as questionable.



Seeing that we now have less than 48 hours of formal debate remaining and a number of RA members are awaiting a response from @Eluvatar in regards to my post, I recall the motion to vote to allow adequate time for Elu's response to be made and any new security concerns, if identified, to be addressed.
 
Siwale:
All this talk of a demagogue coming along and getting the "stupid" RMB masses to vote for them is not only insulting to our gameside community, but also rather unrealistic.
Click to expand...
Flagrant strawmanning. I did not say that a demagogue would be able to get all the RMBers to vote for them because they're stupid or whatever. You're right- that is insulting, and I'm not here to insult; I'm here to defend what I believe is right for our region.

What I said was that purely because there is a larger citizenry, there is a threat to regional security; because the more people there are in any situation, the more likelihood there are going to be more impressionable people. This has nothing to do with the RMB community- it's just human nature and math. As well, this is a different situation from the Voting Rights Act, because the Voting Rights Act was on the forum.

Stop right there. I'm guessing you were about to default to your "Syrixia hates RMBers" pseudo-ad hominem argument. No. The reason I'm saying that the Voting Rights Act was different due to it being on the forum is based solely in fact- that fact being that we can control the forum. We can't control NationStates. And again, this ties back into the security risks of this amendment.

If you were to ask me what the best way to integrate the gameside community with the forumside community was, I would say it's: 1) to host more events such as the Greater Dienstad event and the event Prydania and Sunaiya hosted; to bring the two communities closer together without risk to our region, and 2) to encourage more pro-integration government programs. We've already got Gameside Advocates. We did a Cabinet AMA. That's the good stuff.

This amendment is dangerously radical, blindly rushing into things too quickly; and consistently justified by yourself with a glorious appeal to the enlightened principles of democracy...yet another logical fallacy. I've now argued the same points to you over and over again and you still don't seem to get them.
 
Syrixia:
...the RMB.

I just said this. Every community has its dummies. The more people there are in total, the more likely that there are more dummies.
Click to expand...

the vast majority of these so called dummies are just young teens who don't even know we have a forum.

As someone that is actually not sure about this amendment (mostly for the security and checking reasons) you aren't presenting yourself very well with wording like this.

Prydania:
I would very much like to hear Elu’s thoughts on your rebuttal.

My own gut feeling though? Which is admittedly not quite well-informed...

Your rebuttal is not a sufficient counter to Elu’s concern.
Elu’s scenario held that RMB posting would allow a potential infiltrator to keep the citizenship of all of their puppets active, and that TNP Administration will have no real way to check for this. If all puppets are maintaining citizenship on the RMB? Our Admins cannot catch them. And in doing so they become puppets that are viable for more than one election.

Your rebuttal, to me, illustrated the strength of the status quo position.
Under your scenario? A collection of puppets would spring into existence less than a month before an election (compared with Elu’s example, where they would be established over the course of a few months).
And a series of new citizens who did nothing but register and then all vote for a single Delegate candidate would raise suspicions among our Admin team.

Or at least I would hope it would.

And even if it didn’t? These puppets, under the current status quo, would need to post on the forum at least once a month. Increasing the chance that Administration can catch them.

Essentially? Using RMB posts allows puppets of infiltrators to sidestep TNP Admin IP checks, allowing them to maintain citizenship longer, and thus pose a more long-term threat to regional security.
And given the business with the NPO? We should be taking that very seriously.

Again, I’m not an expert when it comes to this stuff. I’m pretty much a luddite by the standards of my generation.
So if anyone who know more about this than I goes “Pry, you’re an idiot, you’ve got it all wrong” I’ll concede the point.

I’m just outlining what I see as a flaw in your rubuttal to Elu’s concern.

And I think anyone rushing to support or oppose this bill on matters of security do themselves and our region a disservice to make up their minds before one of TNP’s top admins has a chance to respond to the Amendment author’s rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Heres my thoughts: What if we still required you to join the forum to gain citizenship but allowed you to keep it with rmb posts? this would in theory allow you to check the persons ip.

EDIT: nvm that's literally in the bill. wew that's embarrassing.
 
Last edited:
Vapia:
Heres my thoughts: What if we still required you to join the forum to gain citizenship but allowed you to keep it with rmb posts? this would in theory allow you to check the persons ip. I know it sounds like it defeats the point, but it would be a lot more convenient.
Click to expand...
That's what this bill's been proposing from the very start, and is still what the bill proposes. Elu's issue is that while one can register on the forums and gain citizenship, one can rather simply pass their forum account to another and maintain citizenship solely via posting on the RMB, which means that only one IP, one that is no longer in reality owned by the original IP, is associated with the account. The third party can then gather these multiple accounts over an indefinite period (which would raise no eyebrows) rather than within 30 days (which would raise eyebrows). The third party can then vote privately with these accounts in elections, bypassing an actual forum post and thus not touching the IP records of that account, or at least not enough to raise suspicions. Indeed, this third party could keep up this fraud for multiple elections with the same accounts without being caught, rather than influencing a single election and having to either discard the accounts or risk discovery via making a public post on the forums.

I'm not an admin of these forums so I don't have the details but that's the gist of what I gathered from Elu's post.
 
Darcania:
That's what this bill's been proposing from the very start, and is still what the bill proposes. Elu's issue is that while one can register on the forums and gain citizenship, one can rather simply pass their forum account to another and maintain citizenship solely via posting on the RMB, which means that only one IP, one that is no longer in reality owned by the original IP, is associated with the account. The third party can then gather these multiple accounts over an indefinite period (which would raise no eyebrows) rather than within 30 days (which would raise eyebrows). The third party can then vote privately with these accounts in elections, bypassing an actual forum post and thus not touching the IP records of that account, or at least not enough to raise suspicions. Indeed, this third party could keep up this fraud for multiple elections with the same accounts without being caught, rather than influencing a single election and having to either discard the accounts or risk discovery via making a public post on the forums.

I'm not an admin of these forums so I don't have the details but that's the gist of what I gathered from Elu's post.
Click to expand...
Caught me right before I realized my mistake. As for the passing of accounts, it seems like a bit of a stretch. you would need a lot of friends who are willing to make new accounts. In reality, while it may be possible for a group of people to gather a few extra accounts, it would take a lot of work and dedication. you couldn't ask family members due to being in the same house. It doesn't seem like you would be able to muster enough accounts to actually sway the vote, but that's just my ignorant pov.
 
Vapia:
Caught me right before I realized my mistake. As for the passing of accounts, it seems like a bit of a stretch. you would need a lot of friends who are willing to make new accounts. In reality, while it may be possible for a group of people to gather a few extra accounts, it would take a lot of work and dedication. you couldn't ask family members due to being in the same house. It doesn't seem like you would be able to muster enough accounts to actually sway the vote, but that's just my ignorant pov.
Click to expand...
A dedicated group large enough (for example, a region we're at war with or that we have had sour relations with in the past) would easily be able to set that up with enough time. Yes, it would take some work (though not much honestly) and dedication (mainly to keep it up over a few months), but it's perfectly possible. This bill would have some built-in defense in terms of there being more votes in general and thus needing more accounts to sway the vote, but there have been some very close votes in the past, and some very dedicated people.

If one leaves a security hole open, there will be someone with the required dedication and malice of intent to make use of it. That's just how security works.
 
Darcania:
A dedicated group large enough (for example, a region we're at war with or that we have had sour relations with in the past) would easily be able to set that up with enough time. Yes, it would take some work (though not much honestly) and dedication (mainly to keep it up over a few months), but it's perfectly possible. This bill would have some built-in defense in terms of there being more votes in general and thus needing more accounts to sway the vote, but there have been some very close votes in the past, and some very dedicated people.

If one leaves a security hole open, there will be someone with the required dedication and malice of intent to make use of it. That's just how security works.
Click to expand...

If only we have a non invasive way of proving identities.
 
It seems after a conversation with @mcmasterdonia in #ra-private that Elu's security concerns aren't applicable to the new forums - if someone logs into an account and sends a PM, the IP is associated with that account and an alert is raised in the admin panel that there may be multiple accounts owned by the same person. He'll have to post with more details but if that's the case then the security concerns of this bill simply vanish, leaving me solidly For the bill.

Here's hoping @Eluvatar comes back with a followup to his post regardless.
 
Vapia:
Caught me right before I realized my mistake. As for the passing of accounts, it seems like a bit of a stretch. you would need a lot of friends who are willing to make new accounts. In reality, while it may be possible for a group of people to gather a few extra accounts, it would take a lot of work and dedication. you couldn't ask family members due to being in the same house. It doesn't seem like you would be able to muster enough accounts to actually sway the vote, but that's just my ignorant pov.
Click to expand...
This caused me a little concern as my Son and two of his mates have used the same 'wifi' as myself in our house. They are all TNP, so I can spy on them :) . They don't use the forum though, as far as I know.
Darcania:
It seems after a conversation with @mcmasterdonia in #ra-private that Elu's security concerns aren't applicable to the new forums - if someone logs into an account and sends a PM, the IP is associated with that account and an alert is raised in the admin panel that there may be multiple accounts owned by the same person. He'll have to post with more details but if that's the case then the security concerns of this bill simply vanish, leaving me solidly For the bill.

Here's hoping @Eluvatar comes back with a followup to his post regardless.
Click to expand...
This looks promising - Security is paramount.
 
The security concerns don't make any sense to me and here is why:

Our current forum software is 100% more secure than even Zetaboards was. I will outline some of the security procedures below. However, I want to state very clearly that this proposal would have worked just as well on our old forum.

Regardless of forum software, we still require the nations to actually apply for citizenship. The only difference is the method by which their citizenship may continue: RMB post and/or forum post, or forum post only.

When someone joins the forum their IP address and email on zetaboards was not automatically checked. It was only checked at the point that account applied for citizenship. We would check their IP history against other accounts on the forum. We would check them against blacklists. We would check to make sure their IP is a unique residential IP address. We would check their email address. All of this was done manually. Future accounts with similar IP addresses would be picked up by us manually. Our greatest security risk with zetaboards was human error. This resulted in Durk AKA Bokeryville getting citizenship on two accounts directly under our watch. However, even with Zetaboards as our forum, this proposal's benefits would have far outweighed any potential security risks.

When someone joins our forum on Xenforo, their IP address, email account etc are automatically checked. The admin panel automatically blocks accounts suspected of being spam bots or otherwise risky accounts. It automatically identifies any new account that may be a security risk. This shows up in the ACP as an alert. When any individual eventually applies for citizenship, we'd double check these alerts, and also do a manual check of the accounts details. This combination of automation and manual checks is highly effective at identifying these problem accounts and users. These security protocols will only get more advanced as we update the forum and install additional add-ons. These add on's are on my priority list as soon as the forum software is upgraded.

On both pieces of forum software, a user's various IP addresses over the lifetime of their accounts use are recorded in our databases. I had probably the most IP addresses of any user on the old zetaboards forum - all of them were there. From my Ecuador holiday in 2012, to my time living abroad in 2015. The same is the case here. Whenever you visit the forum or click on anything on either forum software your IP address is recorded in the database. Even if you change WIFI connections and click on another post or whatever it might be, it would still be recorded. Eluvatar mentioned the PM issue. The only difference is that in zetaboards the PM would have an IP address recorded on the individual PM. On Xenforo, while it does not do this specifically, the IP you're using while you send the PM, browse the forum, or do just about anything here is still recorded. It not being listed against a specific PM does not mean that it is not recorded.

I want to make very clear though, that in my opinion, these security concerns are not specific to this proposal. The same concerns apply to giving people citizenship. Posting on the forum once a month doesn't inherently make us more secure than someone who simply browses the forum occasionally - either way, their IP addresses are recorded in our database and are useful in our multiple account detection.

Finally I would say that ensuring the security of the regional forum is a responsibility of administration. You should be rest assured that whatever proposal you seek to enact through the legislative branch regarding this, that we will adapt our security and IP checking procedures accordingly. In my view, this proposal will require no change to our existing security protocols.

I fully support this proposal.
 
@Vapia Neither you nor Siwale clearly got the (frankly obvious) meaning of what I said. Stop interpreting everything I say as an attack on you.

sighs
 
Although I believe I've responded comprehensively, I am going to respond directly to Eluvatar's "security concerns".

Eluvatar:
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.
Click to expand...

Eluvatar, this is just utter nonsense.

IP addresses are flagged whenever a person uses the forum. This includes whenever they open the forum and click a link. Presumably they would need to do so to send a private ballot to the voting booth. The IP address is already recorded. It does not need to be recorded against a PM for it to be verified. Simply by accessing the forum at all they would have their IP recorded. This would naturally filter into our systems and into routine checks for multiple accounts.

Eluvatar:
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.
Click to expand...

Again this is not true. They are still required to apply for citizenship. Not only that but to vote in the election, they are still required to either a) post in a thread or b) send a PM to the voting booth. Both options require them logging in and their IP addresses being recorded.

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...

If this presents a conflict interest then I seriously question why you were advising on this at all. Especially as your advice has been fundamentally incorrect and has resulted in this debate being taken seriously off topic. You have not shown a full picture of how this is working and how we will continue to get more secure as we update the forum and install add ons.

The issues you have identified are issues that could hypothetically apply to our current law. Whether or not they maintain citizenship by RMB post or by forum post is simply not relevant at all. As I've identified in my earlier post, simply by logging into the forum at all even to vote, or to apply for citizenship, we will get their IP address. Each time they want to vote again, or otherwise participate, IP addresses are recorded. This so-called security situation you've identified is not a problem at all.

I have also consulted widely on this issue with r3n, another admin highly experienced in IP addresses and forum security. We both agree that these security risks do not make any sense. They simply do not stand up to this forum's security arrangements or even the last forum.

To respond to some of the other comments:

Great Bights Mum:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm only quoting the above post (Rather than your subsequent post, as a point of reference). With the greatest of respect, you were making these very same arguments against our proposal to liberalise citizenship in The North Pacific and to abolish the concept of a separation of RA membership and Citizenship -> citizenship and residency. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

I understand that change like this can be somewhat daunting and we anticipate a wide range of fanciful scenarios. The reality however, and indeed, what recent experience has show us is that these scenarios do not eventuate. The so-called security concerns that have been alleged in this thread are based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of how our IP security works on this forum, and even, how it worked on our last forum.

You yourself have identified the large number of voters we already have turning out in our election. We're talking about allowing our RMB participants to maintain their ability to vote for an election. That's all we are talking about. They are still required to login to the forum to apply for citizenship. They are still required to login to the forum to vote. If someone wanted to infiltrate our elections they would have to overcome our significant IP security procedures and the automated security protocols of our forum. They could attempt to do that now. The RMB posting requirement is completely irrelevant.

@Syrixia your posts in this thread have been shockingly bad. By your logic, we should simply be ending all democracy now. We should have the smallest and most disenfranchised populace possible. Allow the Delegate and perhaps a Council of Elders to decide what passes and who win's what election. As the wider our electorate gets.. the more dumb people we expose ourselves to. That is seriously your argument and it makes even less sense than anything else posted in this thread so far.
 
I have digested all of the information on this debate. Whereas I had concerns over the Security aspects of this proposal, I am now reassured thanks to MCM's detailed explanations. This proposal now has my support.
 
Darcania:
That's what this bill's been proposing from the very start, and is still what the bill proposes. Elu's issue is that while one can register on the forums and gain citizenship, one can rather simply pass their forum account to another and maintain citizenship solely via posting on the RMB, which means that only one IP, one that is no longer in reality owned by the original IP, is associated with the account. The third party can then gather these multiple accounts over an indefinite period (which would raise no eyebrows) rather than within 30 days (which would raise eyebrows). The third party can then vote privately with these accounts in elections, bypassing an actual forum post and thus not touching the IP records of that account, or at least not enough to raise suspicions. Indeed, this third party could keep up this fraud for multiple elections with the same accounts without being caught, rather than influencing a single election and having to either discard the accounts or risk discovery via making a public post on the forums.

I'm not an admin of these forums so I don't have the details but that's the gist of what I gathered from Elu's post.
Click to expand...

As a xenforo admin of another forum, I can say that it logs ips from all logins. If the admins see continuous hits from several accounts they can investigate .

(Ok, mcm preempted me on that one)
 
I'm going to be quoting Syrixia's post above and addressing it as patiently as I can, not for him since he's made it clear he's done with this debate, but for any others who may agree with his points. The quote below is without credit mainly so it doesn't alert him, out of respect for him leaving the debate.

However, before I address the points of the post I'd like to address the post directly. If someone is responding to your argument with a fundamental misunderstanding of what your argument is, then one should first apply not only Occam's Razor but also due respect for the other participants in a debate. It is far more likely, especially in the generally friendly atmosphere of TNP, that the opposition simply misunderstood your argument. One should not immediately attribute malice of intent and label the misunderstanding as a strawman argument. Communication, especially in debate, is a two-way street: You should go out of your way to make your own argument clear as much as you should go out of your way to understand and clarify your opposition's argument.

Now, on to the points of the post.
What I said was that purely because there is a larger citizenry, there is a threat to regional security; because the more people there are in any situation, the more likelihood there are going to be more impressionable people. This has nothing to do with the RMB community- it's just human nature and math. As well, this is a different situation from the Voting Rights Act, because the Voting Rights Act was on the forum.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're partially right - the more people there are, the more uninformed, impressionable, and frankly stupid people there will be in the situation. China has more people with an IQ below 75 than there are people in the United States, after all.

But: There will also be more informed, stubborn, and intelligent people. In the same line, China has more people with a genius IQ than there are people in the United States. More importantly, there will be more people. Just by itself, more people increases the difficulty of swaying an election one way or the other. We already have over 100 regular voters for the General elections. While the now-debunked security risk was a threat due to only requiring one dedicated person in the end and allowing the attempted tampering to fly entirely under the radar, now a dedicated person has to make their grandiose public speeches to the world and sway others to his side, something that is far more public and which we can act on if necessary, under the very rare chance of the demagogue getting enough backers in the first place.

I also can't help but point out that your argument is the same as an argument used against the VRA - if we open citizenship to active forum users rather than active RA voters, then we'll have more citizens and more uninformed, impressionable, or unintelligent citizens. Yet here we are, after that bill's passage, and those of us who joined after the VRA couldn't even conceive of such a limited roster of citizenry - such a thing would disenfranchise so many valuable voters, like the forum RP bloc or the NPA bloc. Sure they could reapply for citizenship... but I personally would get too annoyed by the constant reapplying and constant red tape (we have to wait for three checks, after all) to apply again before every election. Now here we are allowing active NS players to keep their citizenship, with both all the risks and all the benefits. And the benefits far outweigh the risks, given that we, the RA, are a democratic body who have long ago accepted the inherent risks to democracy.

Finally, remember: if I misinterpreted your argument, I am not strawmanning you. If I misinterpreted your argument, all I can say is that I did my best to understand your concerns, and if I'm still off the mark... well there's not much I can do after that. You can try and clarify again if you want but if so many people are misunderstanding your points then maybe it's not a focused effort against you but a simple honest mistake on your part on explaining your concerns, and an honest mistake on our part for not reading your points as you intended.
 
Syrixia:
@Vapia Neither you nor Siwale clearly got the (frankly obvious) meaning of what I said. Stop interpreting everything I say as an attack on you.

sighs
Click to expand...

Did I say you were attacking me? No. What I did say is you gotta watch how you say things. If someone misunderstands what yu say, its not always their fault ya know.
 
Question for Siwale:

If the point of allowing citizenship to be retained for non-foruk posters is so that they can still vote in elections, why remove the suggested compromise of still requiring a forum post every so often (was it 120 days?)? If someone's not posting on the forum in general, *and* has no interest in *voting*, what's the point of retaining their citizenship?

---

The other thing I want to raise is the question of removing citizenship from individuals who are banned. Without a forum posting requirement of *some* kind, someone could be permanently banned from the forum for an OOC offense like harassment, but able to keep their citizenship by residing in TNP and continuing to post on the RMB. This wouldn't be *meaningful* citizenship but it doesn't look very good for us to have to defend why Gropey McCreeps is still on the rolls.

--

Actually I thought of a third thing, but this one goes in the other direction. Right now, the delegate could illegally ban someone from the region and thereby cause their citizenship to be forfeited when they were unable to post on the RMB. We have provisions protecting citizenship when someone does not leave voluntarily; we probably need to account for this scenario also to protect people from abuses.

Edit: by "right now" obviously I mean "if this bill passed as written". Not "literally right now".
 
@King SillyString raises a good point about banned members retaining citizenship.

That said? The security and community issues I had have both been sufficiently adressed.
The amendment has my full support, and I’m sure the above issue is one that can be ironed out with future legislation.
 
If this legislation passes, I do hope that there will be time granted to construct a means of tracking RMB activity in the spreadsheets.
 
King SillyString:
Question for Siwale:

If the point of allowing citizenship to be retained for non-foruk posters is so that they can still vote in elections, why remove the suggested compromise of still requiring a forum post every so often (was it 120 days?)? If someone's not posting on the forum in general, *and* has no interest in *voting*, what's the point of retaining their citizenship?
Click to expand...
The suggested forum posting compromise does not address private voting. Casting a ballot through PM would not satisfy the forum posting requirements. Therefore, the proposed compromise has the potential of removing citizenship from gameside-based members who choose to vote privately in elections. Out of respect for nations who wish to keep their ballots and their presence in an election private, I have chosen to proceed with the bill as is.

King SillyString:
The other thing I want to raise is the question of removing citizenship from individuals who are banned. Without a forum posting requirement of *some* kind, someone could be permanently banned from the forum for an OOC offense like harassment, but able to keep their citizenship by residing in TNP and continuing to post on the RMB. This wouldn't be *meaningful* citizenship but it doesn't look very good for us to have to defend why Gropey McCreeps is still on the rolls.
Click to expand...
Considering Gropey McCreeps wouldn't be able to do anything with their citizenship, I don't see this as a major concern. Even under the current system, they would maintain citizenship for about 30 days following a forum ban which would give TNP critics plenty of time to blow things out of proportion.

King SillyString:
Actually I thought of a third thing, but this one goes in the other direction. Right now, the delegate could illegally ban someone from the region and thereby cause their citizenship to be forfeited when they were unable to post on the RMB. We have provisions protecting citizenship when someone does not leave voluntarily; we probably need to account for this scenario also to protect people from abuses.
Click to expand...
If this was to happen, the individual would still be able to post on the forum to maintain citizenship. However, I am certainly open to suggestions on how to protect the gameside citizenship components from a legislative perspective.

EDIT: I would also like to point out that the relocation of a nation is a much more urgent matter in the eyes of the Speaker's Office. The need for protective legislation surrounding the residency requirement is incredibly high here since nation movement can result in an almost instantaneous removal of citizenship if the Speaker keeps on top of things. With the RMB posting requirement, a RMB-active nation illegally ejected by the Delegate will have 30 days to sort things out before their citizenship becomes eligible for removal (assuming they don't post on the forum).
 
Last edited:
@King SillyString
Wouldn't a banned persons citizenship just be revoked manually? Or have some other means of just having it removed? Or just be banned from the in game region?

EDIT: nevermind you already answered this.
 
I have been following this debate closely, and I must say I had my doubts concerning security, but McM's post cleared them.
 
I support this reform. I want the whole region, not just subsections of it, to control the government. I've pursued endeavors in the past to have the nations of the region vote on regional policy. I love that we have a poll on how to approach Z-day every year. I want us to go where this proposal takes us.

My concerns are real (and not nonsense...), but should be understood in perspective. Despite them, it's by no means necessarily true that this bill as written would worsen our security. It could improve it, by enlarging the pool of "natural" voters and making any "imports" have less weight. It could, however, worsen it, by making "imported" voters just a bit easier to pull off with less manpower.

Back in 2012, I ran a special polling site that used unique codes telegrammed to nations of The North Pacific and IP and other checks to reduce the risk of people voting multiple times. I used this to elect an Executive Council, which selected itself as my (and, for a time, mcmasterdonia's) Cabinet. I believe that when all nations of the region were invited to take part we got better results than when only those active on the forum were invited. It appears that wider participation encouraged more politics (mostly around policy) and narrower participation allowed a small group to cause the narrow election of a widely reviled candidate (presumably as a joke).

However, checking the IPs used in these elections was a very laborious process. To this day, I still wonder if the large number of Californian votes in one of the elections was simply because California is large, or also because a certain Californian was voting multiple times.

It's a trade-off.

I want us to trade as efficiently as we can, to win the most good for The North Pacific.

Returning to the substance of the concerns I raised earlier, I think they may be solvable by explicitly allowing the Election Commission to share the list of private voters with this forum's administration, (but still prohibiting their publication, at least except in cases of suspected multi-ing). That would make the the trade-off look better to me. Future revisions would remain possible.

Edit: as apparently some still believe I'm spouting nonsense, I can attempt to elaborate on those concerns:

Currently, to maintain citizenship requires making a post once in a while on the forum. These posts, over time, get logged. If one has multiple citizenships, this makes maintaining them without using proxies extraordinarily difficult, and keeping them difficult.

Separately from posts made over time, we have the capacity to do checks at specific times. For example, when a forum member applies for citizenship, we examine the IP addresses they've used and compare them to all other forum members.

Similarly, we could do a review of IP addresses used in an election, and apply a similar kind of strictness to them as we do to citizenship applications: that there must be a recent unique residential IP, and that school or work proxies alone are inadequate evidence of being a distinct person.

However, such a review is less practical if the people with access to IP address information from the forum do not know which particular members have actually voted in this election, and require such checking.

It would not be sensible for me to suggest that sharing the list of private voters with the Election Commission by itself changes the security picture from awful to wonderful. I don't know exactly how much risk there is, or would be reduced. I don't know how effective such sharing will be. I simply believe that the increased capability to secure our elections from ballot-stuffing is worth adding it to the proposal, and that I will be more comfortable with that simple improvement included.

If need be, I could devote some time to drafting appropriate language in the next couple of days, but I hope it can be done by other, less fatigued minds.
 
Last edited:
Any thoughts on adding Elu's suggestion to the Overall Election Law? Something like "Private Votes shall be certified by forum Administration."
 
Great Bights Mum:
Any thoughts on adding Elu's suggestion to the Overall Election Law? Something like "Private Votes shall be certified by forum Administration."
Click to expand...
I would support adding such a clause to Chapter 4 of the Legal Code. An alternative option would be for the Election Commission to amend their internal set of rules to allow for admin verification of private ballots. Regardless, this bill is not intended to alter election laws. Forum admins have always lacked access to private ballot data. This bill does not change that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top