[Private] Request for Review: Citizenship Oath Amendment

[Eluvatar]

https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9189865/

My unvarnished thoughts:

1. Legislative history suggests the purpose of the Citizenship Oath Amendment or Overdue Common Sense Oath Tweak was to remove a requirement. Introducing a new one (that no leader be specified) wasn't discussed.
2. Plain text reading of the law as passed suggests that the oath should be sworn verbatim.
3. Enforcement by the Speaker's office since the bill was passed suggests an administrative interpretation that the oath law should be interpreted flexibly and embellishments regarding who, exactly, is swearing it permitted:
   1. Should we give administrative interpretation deference?
   2. Should we give administrative interpretation precedential value? (Is a government official bound to follow a reasonable interpretation followed by their predecessors?)

Possibly relevant Bill of Rights provisions:

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.
...
9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.
10. Each Nation entitled to a vote in any manner under the fundamental laws of the region is entitled to the equal treatment and protection of that Nation's right to vote.

 

[SillyString]

I have similarly unfocused thoughts. This is a tricky one! Will keep pondering and hope to post a more complete set of thoughts tomorrow.

 

[Limerick1]

Okay here is my view.

Bill of rights section 2 is null and void, nations have a right to free speech sure, however if there is an oath required by law that is meant to be posted verbatim, the speech they entered that veered off the original oath would be a failure to take the oath as established by law. The only argument to be seen against this is that an oath all together is a violation of the Bill of rights but that is not the case at hand. (This is too assume that the office believes it should be verbatim which is currently not clear but would seem likely as they clarified that deviations were the mistake of a previous administration)

Bill of rights section 9 is to be considered, as if we are to decide the question of whether or not the speakers office should be granted deference to their interpretation we must consider that phrase "nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection." As if we are to grant deference, we cannot rule that deference should not be granted in this case.

Bill of rights section 10 is consequential for the same reason as section 9 due to the phrase "equal treatment and protection"


Now I will agree with Elu's interpretation of both the legislative history as well as plain text arguments. As to whether or not the administrations interpretation should be granted deference, I would argue not. This is due to the fact that the office is still inconsistent on what it wants. In some cases it allows deviations from the norm, in other cases it does not.

As to whether or not the administrations interpretation should be taken as precedent. I again argue no, as in the view that the office is inconsistently accepting and denying based on the same reasons would act as a violation as equal treatment and thus by using it as precedent we would be taking a breach of the law as precedent.



These are early thoughts and are subject to change but I will leave these here for now. Please pick it apart

 

[Eluvatar]

Judging the administrative precedent (in this case, of the Speaker's office) to be binding would mean they'd have to stick with whatever they did the first time someone embellished the "I".

I believe that means they'd have to take back the December 24th announcement/reminder.

That being said, I can see a case for "you keep being inconsistent, no precedent for you".

 

[Limerick1]

The problem I have is that, should we consider their first response to a deviation to be taken as precedent, it would be understood that the office failed to do their duties for any of the responses that did not follow this precedent.

 

[SillyString]

I think no matter how we rule, we'll be saying that the Speaker's office did not properly carry out their duty. Either they improperly admitted several folks, or they improperly denied several folks.

I think there are two issues we have to rule on. Firstly, in what manner did the Speaker's Office act improperly (since their inconsistency makes it undeniable that they did)? Secondly, what is the correct course of action for them to take going forward?

I can think of four possible answers to the second question.

1) The correct course of action is to admit only those people who take the oath exactly as printed with no deviation;
2) The correct course of action is to admit anyone who takes the oath as reasonably printed, with variance allowed for expansion on the "I"
3) The correct course of action is for each speaker to establish a policy and then follow it consistently
4) The correct course of action is for the current speaker to establish a policy and for all future speakers to follow it consistently

I dislike 3 and 4. 3 would lead to inconsistency in how applications are treated based on who the speaker or deputy speaker happens to be - that seems problematic when it comes to something as fundamental as accepting or denying citizenship. And 4 doesn't work for me because it gives the individual who is currently filling the seat an inordinate amount of power to control the actions of future speakers; if it's appropriate for one speaker to invent a policy, surely it must be appropriate for a future speaker to change that policy.

So I don't think we can responsibly punt answering the underlying question back to the speaker's office and point to whatever they do as setting precedent going forward.

As for actually answering the underlying question...

I'm not terribly swayed by GM's argument that this is a violation of his right to free speech. He is free to identify himself however he wishes; omitting "the Minister etc etc" from following "I" does not actively negate his chosen self-expression - in other words, he is not being required to say "I, not the Minister".

I think it's reasonable in this case to conclude that "I, the Minister etc" is not materially different from "I", but I have concerns about introducing an interpretation and enforcement requirement in the future. If someone wanted to swear an oath as "I, secret controller of Pallaith and Siwale", that would materially change the meaning of their oath - but it's not different from GM's desired identifier in a way that's easy to define in the law.

Additionally, allowing someone to add language to "I" opens the risk of adding language elsewhere (especially in TNP). While it's obvious that "I pledge disloyalty to The North Pacific, disobedience to her laws, and irresponsible action as a member of her society" is a change that alters the meaning of the oath and should be disqualifying, what about "I pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, copious drinking of her rum, and responsible action as a member of her society"? That's much less clear cut. Technically the person is swearing all of the required elements... but they're adding their own flavor text which probably (but not definitively) can't be enforced.

Right now I'm leaning to disallowing changes to the oath, instructing the speaker to follow this going forward, and clarifying, if necessary, that individuals incorrectly granted citizenship are still citizens (under the Douria precedent).

I also have a question for GM so I'll post that shortly. His response might change my thoughts.

 

[Eluvatar]

To me, this question devolves to who ‘I’ am in regards to the North Pacific. If I take the oath as it is written, without the opportunity afforded others to qualify who ‘I’ is then there is an assumption, in my opinion, that this is a uniform application for me in an OOC sense. As the administration of this forum has been generous and provided me with the opportunity to play the game as I see fit historically, I am one of the few players to have multiple accounts on this forum. I maintain that those accounts are separate in regards to how they deal with TNP and when I post my oath it is definitively as the leader of Gracius Maximus and not as any other entity which might be linked to me on this forum, IC or OOC.

Therefore, I believe it to be imperative that I be afforded equal opportunity to apply with a qualifier, just as the 113 other applicants that have done so since the passage of the law have been.

I don't have much bandwidth right this minute, but I wanted to note that I think that based on this reply we may want to note the following in our ruling:

1. Nobody gets to have their other nations treated specially. All TNPers have the same obligations.
2. Nations you may have under other personas or in other regions are only subject to TNP considerations insofar as they involve TNP: no using TNP secrets outside TNP [Espionage], no invading or couping TNP or its allies [Treason], and to be safe no being part of outright enemies [at war] with TNP [Treason]; and insofar as they violate what TNP wants GP-wide standards to be: no forum destruction. (The latter also being a bit of an OOC matter...)

 

[SillyString]

I agree.

The question of flavor text within the oath has come up, but one thing we haven't discussed is when that appears outside the oath. To take COE's example from his brief, if someone takes the oath correctly but then signs it "JAL who is logged into someone else's computer", a reasonable person would think that that casts doubt on the validity of that oath. Or, perhaps sillier, if someone takes the oath and then below it says "NOT!!". Does and should the Speaker have the power to deny such applications, if the oath itself is accurate? Or would that be solely a matter for the Vice Delegate to evaluate?

The relevant portion of the law is:

5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate the citizenship applicant and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security evaluation and pass or fail the applicant. The Vice Delegate must consult the Security Council if there is reasonable concern as to whether an applicant should be admitted.
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly shall immediately debate the rejection and will hold a majority vote on whether to uphold it. The vote must begin two days after the rejection occurs.
8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
9. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.

Having thought it over, I personally think the law makes clear that that would be the Vice Delegate's job to consider, and to reject applicants who seem not to be taking a serious oath. At that point, it can go to the regional assembly for consideration.

I then began to wonder if that couldn't apply to the inclusion of such embellishments within the oath itself, but on that I am still leaning toward no. A resident submits a valid application by swearing the oath - it's absolutely the speaker's role to verify the oath taken is valid and accurate, just like it's the speaker's role to determine if their nation is located in TNP. If someone goes in there and posts a completely different oath that they copied from, say, TSP's laws, the speaker is entirely in their rights to say that that is not a valid application because they didn't take our oath. Having to draw an extremely precise line of exactly how much variation to the oath is permitted before the job of evaluating the content switches from vice delegate to speaker is not, I think, a good use of our time or a good interpretation of the law.

So that we can get a ruling out in not too much longer, please vote on the following:

a) Is the oath's text be required to be taken as-is, with no changes?
b) Does the speaker have the power to reject citizenship based on embellishments included in the application post but outside of the oath?

I vote Yes and No.

 

[Eluvatar]

I think that embellishments or additions which suggest the oath is not being sworn sincerely are grounds for the Speaker to reject an application, and indeed should require the Speaker to reject it.

Edit: For clarity, Yes and Yes.

 

[Limerick1]

^ In agreement

 

[SillyString]

Upon deeper consideration, I will agree that the Speaker has some power to determine what constitutes a valid application, as defined in the Legal Code: "2. Any resident may apply for citizenship using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:"

So anything which indicates that the person is not swearing the oath (such as text that says "I am not swearing this oath:") would be grounds for denial.

But I do NOT agree that the speaker has broader authority to reject a valid application if they don't like how the person identified. I think if a forum account declares their TNP nation, swears the oath, and signs off on it "JAL in disguise", that's 100% a matter for the Vice Delegate to evaluate, not the speaker.

If either of you disagree with me, please make a case based in the law on why I am wrong?

I will work on a draft for what we DO agree on. Hopefully we can get this out this weekend.

 

[Limerick1]

I agree to your above statement SillyString, but it should be known that it should be defined what is and what does not constitute swearing the oath

 

[SillyString]

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific​

In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by Gracius Maximus on Alterations to the Citizenship Oath
Opinion drafted by SillyString, joined by [[name(s)]], with [[name(s)]] [abstaining | dissenting]​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Gracius Maximus.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Gracius Maximus, and the clarification submitted here.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by bootsie.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Artemis.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Crushing Our Enemies.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:

1. All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign. Each Nation has the right of self-determination in that Nation's domestic policies, including, but not limited to, issue selection and WA membership.

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:

Section 6.1: Citizenship Applications
2. Any resident may apply for citizenship using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:

I 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.

3. A copy of the laws applicants are pledging to obey must be available to them at all times.
4. An application for citizenship ceases to be valid if at any time the applicant's declared nation in The North Pacific is not located in The North Pacific.
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate the citizenship applicant and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security evaluation and pass or fail the applicant. The Vice Delegate must consult the Security Council if there is reasonable concern as to whether an applicant should be admitted.
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly shall immediately debate the rejection and will hold a majority vote on whether to uphold it. The vote must begin two days after the rejection occurs.
8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
9. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
10. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has not been approved or rejected within that time, they will be automatically granted citizenship.

The Court took into consideration the previous version of the citizenship oath:

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

The Court opines the following:

[[Whatever it is we opine]]

---

I believe this is all of the citations to cite.

Now simply to rule.

 

[SillyString]

Here is a list of the topics I think we can include in our ruling, as they were raised in some fashion in the r4r and briefs. We are not obligated to rule on all of them if we don't want to, so please chime in on which ones you think we should actually include, and, also importantly, if you disagree with my thinking on how we would rule if we did.

1) Whether the text of the oath of citizenship can be altered and still be a valid oath. I believe we are in agreement that it cannot. I think this is logical based on the text of the law as well as similar treatment of the governmental oath of office. Answering this question is mandatory as it is the subject of the review.

2) Whether BOR 2, free speech, is infringed by not accepting variations on an oath of citizenship. I believe we are all in agreement that free speech is not infringed. No nation is required to take the oath, and the Speaker has indicated that identifying themselves via their leadership or nickname outside the oath will not present a problem for acceptance. Answering this question is mandatory as it is the subject of the review.

3) Whether BOR 1 applies only to actions internal to nations, or if it can also be applied to other actions taken such as on the forum. Personally I think GM is off base on this one. The phrasing of the right states "nations" and gives as examples for "domestic policies" two things which can only be done in-game by nations affecting their own stats and info. By my reading of this right, it only protects the right to decide things within your nation.

4) Whether the Speaker's inconsistency in accepting or denying applications based on oath variations constitutes abuse of power; a failure of democracy, accountability, or transparency; or a lack of equal and fair treatment under BOR 5 and 9. I don't think this goes so far as to be abuse of power, since we've seen no indication that the variation was done maliciously instead of due to simple oversight. However, it does seem to qualify as unequal and unfair treatment. I am uncertain of the best remedy to this difference, though - we cannot fairly remove citizenship from those individuals who were given it and should not have been, and I think it would undermine our ruling that the oath cannot be altered if we order the speaker to give citizenship to people who have not, in our view, actually sworn the oath. We might only be able to point out this violation and leave it in the hands of the citizenry whether it is sufficient cause to recall, or to bring criminal charges.

We may, however, want to explicitly rule that individuals who were admitted prior to our ruling due to a faulty oath will be legally bound by the text of the oath they did swear. That avoids future problems of someone who tries to assert that because they changed the text and were admitted, and then we said that that wasn't valid, they can freely commit crimes - and it ensures that citizens who did not alter the text are not held to a higher behavioral standard, or subject to an additional crime (Grosse Misconduct), than those who did alter. Going forward, of course, altered oaths would not be valid or binding.

5) How far the Speaker's power to determine what constitutes a valid oath extends, and at what point it becomes the VD's role to determine if the applicant represents a potential threat. This one is tricky but I've laid out my stance above.

6) Whether duality has any legal standing in TNP. I would agree with Eluvatar that it does not. The oath's bindingness on GM is not affected by whether he inserts his name, signs it at the end, or does neither. And IMO he can be charged with any crimes that he commits under his identity as Pierconium.

 

[Eluvatar]

Here is a list of the topics I think we can include in our ruling, as they were raised in some fashion in the r4r and briefs. We are not obligated to rule on all of them if we don't want to, so please chime in on which ones you think we should actually include, and, also importantly, if you disagree with my thinking on how we would rule if we did.

1) Whether the text of the oath of citizenship can be altered and still be a valid oath. I believe we are in agreement that it cannot. I think this is logical based on the text of the law as well as similar treatment of the governmental oath of office. Answering this question is mandatory as it is the subject of the review.

Yes the oath cannot and yes the question is mandatory.

2) Whether BOR 2, free speech, is infringed by not accepting variations on an oath of citizenship. I believe we are all in agreement that free speech is not infringed. No nation is required to take the oath, and the Speaker has indicated that identifying themselves via their leadership or nickname outside the oath will not present a problem for acceptance. Answering this question is mandatory as it is the subject of the review.

Yes free speech is not infringed and yes the question is mandatory.

3) Whether BOR 1 applies only to actions internal to nations, or if it can also be applied to other actions taken such as on the forum. Personally I think GM is off base on this one. The phrasing of the right states "nations" and gives as examples for "domestic policies" two things which can only be done in-game by nations affecting their own stats and info. By my reading of this right, it only protects the right to decide things within your nation.

I think this question is more-or-less mandatory to answer as the original R4R attempts to apply BoR 1 in this context.

I agree that saying "I" does not say anything about the domestic policies of the nation in question and therefore requiring it cannot be a BoR 1 violation.

4) Whether the Speaker's inconsistency in accepting or denying applications based on oath variations constitutes abuse of power; a failure of democracy, accountability, or transparency; or a lack of equal and fair treatment under BOR 5 and 9. I don't think this goes so far as to be abuse of power, since we've seen no indication that the variation was done maliciously instead of due to simple oversight. However, it does seem to qualify as unequal and unfair treatment. I am uncertain of the best remedy to this difference, though - we cannot fairly remove citizenship from those individuals who were given it and should not have been, and I think it would undermine our ruling that the oath cannot be altered if we order the speaker to give citizenship to people who have not, in our view, actually sworn the oath. We might only be able to point out this violation and leave it in the hands of the citizenry whether it is sufficient cause to recall, or to bring criminal charges.

We may, however, want to explicitly rule that individuals who were admitted prior to our ruling due to a faulty oath will be legally bound by the text of the oath they did swear. That avoids future problems of someone who tries to assert that because they changed the text and were admitted, and then we said that that wasn't valid, they can freely commit crimes - and it ensures that citizens who did not alter the text are not held to a higher behavioral standard, or subject to an additional crime (Grosse Misconduct), than those who did alter. Going forward, of course, altered oaths would not be valid or binding.

We probably want to lament the problem in our ruling.

We may not remove citizenship with retrospective effect. We should not remove citizenship in a blanket manner in this instance, but we should leave open the possibility of removing citizenship if a duplicitous oath is identified. We probably need not specify this explicitly.

Similarly I don't think we can hold to an oath someone who did not actually swear the oath... but such a person if brought up should not retain citizenship. We have no cause, duty, or authority to take on an investigative responsibility and look for such persons as a Court, however.

5) How far the Speaker's power to determine what constitutes a valid oath extends, and at what point it becomes the VD's role to determine if the applicant represents a potential threat. This one is tricky but I've laid out my stance above.

I don't think we should step too far outside of talking about insertions between "I" and "pledge loyalty to". I might suggest stating that the Speaker's office must reject applicants who swear something other than the verbatim text of the oath, or who clearly indicate in their post that they are not sincere about swearing the oath. It's up to the Vice Delegate to consider other indications of insincerity. I don't think we should pre-decide what putting "I'm JAL" outside of the oath itself means right now. Only one brief brought this up, and as an example in their argument about the core subject of this review. We should lay down what we think is clear and directly related to the question.

6) Whether duality has any legal standing in TNP. I would agree with Eluvatar that it does not. The oath's bindingness on GM is not affected by whether he inserts his name, signs it at the end, or does neither. And IMO he can be charged with any crimes that he commits under his identity as Pierconium.

Yes. Assuming it is within the four corners of our review, I would add that this does not mean all actions by, say, Pierconium can be prosecuted in this court. Only such actions as are directly contrary to Gracius Maximus' obligations as a citizen (in the social contract sense) of The North Pacific can be subject to criminal prosecution by The North Pacific. Actions in a region neither allied nor at war with The North Pacific, that do not involve sensitive information obtained from The North Pacific or an ally thereof, are not prosecutable. I'm far from convinced that this tangent is appropriate to include in a ruling.

 

[SillyString]

After a discussion of the other r4r on Discord, Elu and I are in agreement that we should include the rationale for granting standing in any rulings we issue as a court. I am personally in favor of this because it helps to clarify what is and is not standing - right now there's not a lot of legal guidance.

Luckily, in this case, I think it's an easy one!

As an individual denied citizenship by the Speaker, Gracius Maximus was unquestionably directly personally affected by the Speaker's actions and this case hinges on the question of whether his rights, specifically, have been violated. Accordingly, the Court finds that Gracius Maximus has the standing to bring this request for review.

 

[SillyString]

***UNDER CONSTRUCTION***
This is a draft. Getting some thoughts out. Feel free to reply but not everything is fully fleshed out.

Alteration of the Citizenship Oath

The fundamental question before the Court is whether the oath of citizenship must be taken exactly as it appears in the Legal Code, or if alterations to its content to allow for personal identification can be permitted.

The Court finds that alterations to the oath cannot be permitted, and that they render the oath invalid. The Attorney General's brief lays out a succinct argument for why this is the case. Permitting applicants to change the text would force the Speaker to adjudicate the fine line of what is and is not a valid identifier, or a change to the content of the oath that alters its meaning. It is also quite likely that, when the holder of the office changes, so too will the Speaker's interpretation of what is permitted. There is too great a risk that permitting the Speaker to make a judgement call on the content of the citizenship oath will result in unequal treatment under the law. The Speaker is therefore ordered to reject any application not yet accepted where the oath does not conform to the text laid out in the law.

Violation of the Right to Free Speech

The petitioner has asserted that not being permitted to alter the citizenship oath to include his identifier of choice violates his right under Article 1 of the Bill of Rights to free speech.

The Court does not agree. As is asserted in the brief submitted by the Speaker, the Petitioner is free to self-identify as he feels proper and necessary within his citizenship application, so long as such identification is done outside the specific text of the oath. The Court does not find that this small restriction on the location of one's identifier constitutes an infringement of a nation's right to free speech, as that speech is free to occur within the exact same post as the oath.

Violation of the Right to Set Domestic Policy

The petitioner has asserted that the oath, as written, violates his right under Article 1 of the Bill of Rights to set domestic policy in his nation.

The Court does not agree. Article 1 protects only those decisions and actions taken by a nation on the NationStates website which affect its tracked statistics, or its appearance or description when being viewed. It does not protect interactions between nations or between players, whether that be via in-game telegram, on the Regional Message Board, or on an external platform, as those cease to be "domestic".

Violation of Fair and Equal Treatment

The petitioner has asserted that the Speaker has violated his right to fair and equal treatment under the Bill of Rights due to inconsistency in accepting and denying citizenship oaths whose texts have been altered from that which was set out in the law.

In reviewing the evidence presented, the Court agrees with the petitioner. His right to fair and equal treatment has been violated, and so has that of other nations who submitted altered citizenship oaths in their applications. Accepted or denied, they have not been treated equally.

The Attorney General is absolutely correct that the scale of this unequal treatment is beyond the power of the Speaker to remedy. Establishing a policy now and enforcing it consistently going forward would not address prior missteps, and would not change the citizenship status of anyone who has it and should not, or who does not have it and should.

However, the Court does have the power to alleviate some of the iniquity. In accordance with precedent set on the question of continued citizenship of Treize Dreizehn, we find that the citizenship previously granted to individuals who altered the text of their oaths is valid. They may continue to be counted as citizens, entitled to all of the rights and privileges afforded to any other citizen under our laws until and unless they lose citizenship by normal legal processes.

Additionally, we find it necessary to address the validity of the oaths these citizens took. Although the Court has found that alterations to the oath render it invalid, we also believe it would do irreparable harm to rule that altered oaths which have heretofore been taken and accepted are invalid and not legally binding. Such a move would introduce iniquity between citizens who swore the correct oath, and who could therefore be prosecuted for Gross Misconduct, and those who did not. We therefore find that citizens admitted prior to the issuance of this ruling will be legally bound by the text of the oath that they took. Any citizen whose citizenship is erroneously granted from here on out, despite having taken an incorrect oath, will not be bound by an oath. It is the Speaker's responsibility to ensure that all oaths are sworn correctly.

The Court would also like to note that the frequency and type of oath alterations, as pointed out by the petitioner, indicate that new citizenship applicants are likely copying an old oath from the early pages of the citizenship thread. The Speaker is empowered to make changes to that thread, such as splitting and archiving old posts or closing the thread entirely and making a new one, which would address that tendency and, we would guess, vastly diminish the number of altered oaths that are being sworn. We suggest the Speaker make use of this power.

The Speaker's Power to Determine a Valid Oath

Duality

 

[Eluvatar]

Additionally, we find it necessary to address the validity of the oaths these citizens took. Although the Court has found that alterations to the oath render it invalid, we also believe it would do irreparable harm to rule that altered oaths which have heretofore been taken and accepted are invalid and not legally binding. Such a move would introduce iniquity between citizens who swore the correct oath, and who could therefore be prosecuted for Gross Misconduct, and those who did not. We therefore find that citizens admitted prior to the issuance of this ruling will be legally bound by the text of the oath that they took. Any citizen whose citizenship is erroneously granted from here on out, despite having taken an incorrect oath, will not be bound by an oath. It is the Speaker's responsibility to ensure that all oaths are sworn correctly.

I disagree with this ruling. We should not rule on any specific oath posts without examining them, and we have not seen any arguments on any of the particular posts in question. I would much rather rule on this point in generalities rather than explicitly ruling on all such oaths.

We definitely shouldn't rule that cosmetic changes to the oath make it non-binding going forward. That's not helpful guidance, IMO.

The Court would also like to note that the frequency and type of oath alterations, as pointed out by the petitioner, indicate that new citizenship applicants are likely copying an old oath from the early pages of the citizenship thread. The Speaker is empowered to make changes to that thread, such as splitting and archiving old posts or closing the thread entirely and making a new one, which would address that tendency and, we would guess, vastly diminish the number of altered oaths that are being sworn. We suggest the Speaker make use of this power.

I'd rather make any such guidance far more obliquely. Perhaps something like:

When the Oath required by law has changed in the past, Speakers have typically started a new topic for the swearing of the oath. It appears possible that the choice not to do so following the most recent change to the required text may have led some applicants to post the wrong oath. It should be noted that there is no legal impediment to the Speaker starting a new topic for oaths.

 

[SillyString]

I disagree with this ruling. We should not rule on any specific oath posts without examining them, and we have not seen any arguments on any of the particular posts in question. I would much rather rule on this point in generalities rather than explicitly ruling on all such oaths.

We definitely shouldn't rule that cosmetic changes to the oath make it non-binding going forward. That's not helpful guidance, IMO.

I am concerned that if we don't address this question up front, we're leaving ourselves open to an immediate r4r challenging whether citizens improperly admitted can be held to any oath.

I am also concerned that if we don't clarify how the oath is to be handled, the Speaker has absolutely zero need to follow our ruling that the oath must be taken exactly as laid out in the law. At the very least, if citizens admitted despite changing their oath are not bound by an oath, the Speaker will have an incentive to be careful and pay attention to details.

And yet I can see where you are coming from. It is certainly not ideal for the court to categorically state that people are bound by whatever oath they happened to swear... or that they are not bound at all if they omit a comma going forward.

I considered whether we should state that people are bound by the oath they should have sworn, under the thinking that the presumption of good faith (by which Douria's citizenship was maintained) goes both ways. If they truly intended to swear the correct oath and be upstanding citizens, as we assume, then there should not be an objection to being held to that correct oath. However, I am not convinced that this would be legally sound, in that I am not sure it is valid to hold people to an oath they did not take.

We can punt this down the road to a future court who can make such a determination when and if grosse misconduct charges against such a citizen arise, but my preference would be to address the question if we can find a way to do so elegantly.

Finally, the oath has changed so infrequently that I don't think we can correctly say what is typical in this instance. I continue to favor a more direct "we suggest but don't require this" approach; I think obliqueness to the extent you've suggested comes across poorly.

 

[Eluvatar]

There's one prior process from 2006 that might be worth reviewing. When in 2006 during the Lexicon war the sentence "I understand that if any nation under my control directly wages war against the North Pacific, or allies themselves with a region waging war, declared or not, against the North Pacific, this shall warrant the summary withdrawal of my right to vote from all my Nations, past, present, and future, as well as possible expulsion from the Region." was (after a failed try) added to the constitutionally required oath of RA members, current members were required to swear the new oath.

Granted, the above-linked process was legislated in the implementation clauses of the amendment that adopted that oath change. Nonetheless, it would be conceivable for us to advise or order the Speaker's office to require those members who swore something other than the oath to swear the correct oath or forfeit their membership.

I'm not sure if we should.

 

[Eluvatar]

Wait a minute, my links are wrong. Looks like there were two oath changes that required reswearing. Just a minute...

 

[Eluvatar]

year	adoption	oaths
2006	VOTE: Oath Amend	Current RA members: New Oath
2008	PASSED: Law on RA Membership	Suspended RA Members Oath Renewal

 

[SillyString]

I'm not sure that's something we want to do at all. >_>

 

[Eluvatar]

Regardless, concern that a question will be asked doesn't mean we should address it before it is asked. It hasn't formally been asked and there hasn't been opportunity to comment on it.

 

[SillyString]

It's less concern that a question will be asked, and more concern at introducing an uncertainty into the system. We know that this is a problem, and I don't like leaving it one.

 

[Eluvatar]

We could hand down algorithmic guidance:

For any application where it's reasonably clear that the oath has been sworn and the Speaker's office admitted the applicant, citizenship should be retained. (Implicit: they are bound by the oath)

For any application where it's not reasonably clear that the oath has been sworn but the Speaker's office admitted the applicant, they should take the oath again or lose citizenship. (Implicit: they are not currently bound by the oath, but should be)

For any application where the oath was not sworn verbatim and the Speaker's office rejected the applicant, no action is necessary.

 

[Owenstacey]

We could hand down algorithmic guidance:

For any application where it's reasonably clear that the oath has been sworn and the Speaker's office admitted the applicant, citizenship should be retained. (Implicit: they are bound by the oath)

For any application where it's not reasonably clear that the oath has been sworn but the Speaker's office admitted the applicant, they should take the oath again or lose citizenship. (Implicit: they are not currently bound by the oath, but should be)

For any application where the oath was not sworn verbatim and the Speaker's office rejected the applicant, no action is necessary.

I think that this would be very hard to expect the Speaker's Office to go through every oath that has not been recited verbatim and decide whether their oaths are reasonably clear. I think their time could be better spent looking at their internal workings and policies with regards to training of members to ensure that it does not happen again.

And with regard to SillyString's drafts, I agree with the wording that it currently shows.

 

[SillyString]

Yeah I agree that that's too much to ask of the Speaker's office - that sort of wibbly wobbly is why we don't want to let the speaker interpret if the oath is ok in the first place.

After further thought I think the following approach to oaths might work:

Additionally, we find it necessary to address the validity of the oaths these citizens took. Although the Court has found that alterations to the oath render it invalid, we also believe it would do irreparable harm to rule that altered oaths which have heretofore been taken and accepted are invalid and not legally binding. Such a move would introduce iniquity between citizens who swore the correct oath, and who could therefore be prosecuted for Gross Misconduct, and those who did not.

Based on the evidence the court has reviewed as part of this request, the majority of incorrect oaths appear to be unintentional - likely copied, or based on, an earlier legal version of the current oath. Therefore, we extend the principle of good faith that was established in the ruling on Treize Dreizehn's citizenship. Those citizens who took an incorrect oath are granted the presumption of having acted in good faith, of having intended to swear the correct oath but making a simple mistake. As such, they will also be presumed to be bound by the correct oath as it stood in the law at the time of the citizen's admittance.

However, the court cannot categorically determine that there are no current citizens who intended to swear an incorrect oath and did not intend to be bound by the correct citizenship oath, but who were nevertheless granted citizenship. Accordingly, the court will allow any citizen who swore an incorrect oath to reject the presumption of good faith and petition the court to release them from the obligations of the citizenship oath. Anybody released from the oath in this fashion will simultaneously forfeit their citizenship.

I'm not sold on this wording but what do you two think of the basic idea?

 

[Owenstacey]

I agree with the idea of the post and I'll look at it properly when I can but the wording doesn't seem too bad to me

 

[SillyString]

Elu and I did some working and came up with this draft:

Ruling of the Court of The North Pacific
In regards to the judicial inquiry filed by Gracius Maximus on Alterations to the Citizenship Oath
Opinion drafted by SillyString, joined by Eluvatar and OwenStacey​

The Court took into consideration the inquiry filed here by Gracius Maximus.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Gracius Maximus, and the clarification submitted here.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by bootsie.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Artemis.

The Court took into consideration the legal brief filed here by Crushing Our Enemies.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Bill of Rights of The North Pacific:

1. All Nations of The North Pacific are sovereign. Each Nation has the right of self-determination in that Nation's domestic policies, including, but not limited to, issue selection and WA membership.

2. Each Nation's rights to free speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the governmental authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only in the best interests of the Region, as permitted and limited under the Constitution.

5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region. Any Nation of The North Pacific has the right to request the recall of any official of a government authority of the region in accordance with the Constitution, that is deemed to have participated in such acts.

9. Each Nation in The North Pacific is guaranteed the organization and operation of the governmental authorities of the region on fundamental principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. No action by the governmental authorities of the region shall deny to any Nation of The North Pacific, due process of law, including prior notice and the opportunity to be heard, nor deny to any Nation of The North Pacific the equal and fair treatment and protection of the provisions of the Constitution. No governmental authority shall have power to adopt or impose an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder as to any act for purposes of criminal proceedings.

The Court took into consideration the relevant portions of the Legal Code of The North Pacific:

Section 6.1: Citizenship Applications
2. Any resident may apply for citizenship using their regional forum account, by providing the name of their nation in The North Pacific, and swearing an oath as follows:

I 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.

3. A copy of the laws applicants are pledging to obey must be available to them at all times.
4. An application for citizenship ceases to be valid if at any time the applicant's declared nation in The North Pacific is not located in The North Pacific.
5. Forum administration will have 14 days to evaluate the citizenship applicant and verify that they are not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. The Vice Delegate will have 3 days to perform a security evaluation and pass or fail the applicant. The Vice Delegate must consult the Security Council if there is reasonable concern as to whether an applicant should be admitted.
6. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
7. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, the Regional Assembly shall immediately debate the rejection and will hold a majority vote on whether to uphold it. The vote must begin two days after the rejection occurs.
8. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
9. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
10. The Speaker will process applications within 14 days. If an applicant has not been approved or rejected within that time, they will be automatically granted citizenship.

The Court took into consideration the previous version of the citizenship oath:

I, the leader of The North Pacific nation of [INSERT YOUR TNP NATION], pledge loyalty to The North Pacific, obedience to her laws, and responsible action as a member of her society. I pledge to only register one nation to vote in The North Pacific. I pledge that no nation under my control will wage war against the North Pacific. I understand that if I break this oath I may permanently lose my voting privileges. In this manner, I petition the Speaker for membership in the Regional Assembly of the North Pacific.

The Court opines the following:

On Standing in this Inquiry

The Court has determined that Gracius Maximus does have the standing to bring this request for review. As an individual denied citizenship by the Speaker, Gracius Maximus was unquestionably directly personally affected by the Speaker's actions and this case hinges on the question of whether his rights, specifically, have been violated by these actions. Any person who believes they have been wrongfully denied citizenship by the Speaker would have the standing to request a review of the legality of that denial.

On Violation of the Right to Set Domestic Policy

The petitioner has stated that being required to take the citizenship oath as written and not being permitted to alter the it to include his identifier of choice violates his right under Article 1 of the Bill of Rights to set domestic policy in his nation.

The Court does not agree. Article 1 protects only those decisions and actions taken by a nation on the NationStates website which affect its tracked statistics, or its appearance or description when being viewed. It does not protect interactions between nations or between players, whether that be via in-game telegram, on the Regional Message Board, or on an external platform, as those cease to be "domestic".

On Violation of the Right to Free Speech

The petitioner has also argued that being required to take the citizenship oath as written and not being permitted to alter the it to include his identifier of choice violates his right under Article 2 of the Bill of Rights to free speech.

The Court does not agree. As is stated in the brief submitted by the Speaker, the Petitioner is free to self-identify as he feels proper and necessary within his post applying for citizenship, so long as such identification is done outside the specific text of the oath. The Court does not find that this small restriction on the location of one's identifier constitutes an infringement of a nation's right to free speech, as that speech remains free to occur.

On Alteration of the Citizenship Oath

The fundamental question before the Court is whether the oath of citizenship must be taken exactly as it appears in the Legal Code, or if alterations to its content to allow for personal identification can be permitted.

The section of the Legal Code which deals with citizenship applications defines the specific oath that must be sworn, and does not make any allowance for oaths that are textually distinct but functionally identical. Additionally, in examining the rights granted to all nations by the Bill of Rights, the Court has found nothing which requires an alternate oath to be permitted or accepted by the Speaker.

Therefore, the Court finds that alterations to the oath cannot be permitted, and that they render the oath, and thus the application for citizenship, invalid. The Attorney General's brief lays out a succinct argument for why this must be the case. Permitting applicants to change the text would force the Speaker to adjudicate the fine line of what is and is not a valid identifier, or what qualifies as a change to the content of the oath that alters its meaning. It is also quite likely that, when the holder of the office changes, so too will the Speaker's interpretation of what is permitted. There is too great a risk that permitting the Speaker to make a judgement call on the content of the citizenship oath will result in unequal treatment under the law.

On Violation of Fair and Equal Treatment

Finally, the petitioner has stated that the Speaker has violated his right to fair and equal treatment under the Bill of Rights due to inconsistency in accepting and denying citizenship oaths whose texts have been altered from that which was set out in the law.

In reviewing the evidence presented, the Court firmly agrees with the petitioner. His right to fair and equal treatment has been violated, and so has that of other nations who submitted altered citizenship oaths in their applications. Accepted or denied, they have not been treated equally.

The Attorney General is absolutely correct that the scale of this unequal treatment is beyond the power of the Speaker to remedy. Establishing a policy now and enforcing it consistently going forward would not address prior missteps, and would not change the citizenship status of anyone who has it and should not, or who does not have it and should.

However, the Court does have the power to alleviate some of the iniquity. In accordance with precedent set on the question of continued citizenship of Treize Dreizehn, we find that the citizenship previously granted to individuals who altered the text of their oaths is valid. They may continue to be counted as citizens, entitled to all of the rights and privileges afforded to any other citizen under our laws until and unless they lose citizenship by normal legal processes.

Additionally, we find it necessary to address the validity of the oaths these citizens took. Although the Court has found that alterations to the oath render it invalid, we also believe it would do irreparable harm to rule that altered oaths which have heretofore been taken and accepted are invalid and not legally binding. Such a move would introduce iniquity between citizens who swore the correct oath, and who could therefore be prosecuted for Gross Misconduct, and those who did not and therefore could not.

Based on the evidence the court has reviewed as part of this request, the majority of incorrect oaths appear to be unintentional - likely copied, or based on, an earlier legal version of the current oath. Therefore, we extend the principle of good faith that was established in the ruling on Treize Dreizehn's citizenship. Those citizens who took an incorrect oath are granted the presumption of having acted in good faith, of having intended to swear the correct oath but making a simple mistake. As such, they will also be presumed to be bound by the correct oath as it stood in the law at the time of the citizen's admittance.

However, the court cannot categorically determine that there are no current citizens who specifically intended to swear an incorrect oath and did not intend to be bound by the correct citizenship oath, but who were nevertheless granted citizenship. Accordingly, the court will allow 60 days for any citizen who swore an incorrect oath to reject the presumption of good faith that has been afforded to them, and to petition the Court to release them from the obligations of the citizenship oath. Anybody released from the oath in this fashion will simultaneously forfeit their citizenship. The Speaker, or any individual authorized to act on their behalf, must contact the citizens affected by this ruling and advise them of their right to relinquish citizenship.

On The Speaker's Responsibility and Authority to Determine a Valid Oath

The Speaker and their designees are expected to accept valid applications not rejected by forum administration or the Vice Delegate. This language necessitates they determine the validity of applications, and not blindly grant citizenship to anybody who posts anything in the application thread.

The Speaker is therefore instructed to accept applications only if they contain the citizenship oath exactly as specified under the law. Further, the Speaker is instructed to reject any application which contains text that clearly indicates an intention not to abide by the oath, or by which the applicant makes clear that they are not swearing the oath or applying for citizenship.

On Duality

Lastly, the petitioner has raised the idea of multiple accounts, nations, or identities belonging to a single player being treated differently based on the phrasing used in swearing the citizenship oath. The Court wishes to make clear that the use of “the leader of” in a citizenship application does not mean that the oath applies only to the actions taken by that specific nation. Any player bound by the laws of The North Pacific is not released from their legal obligations solely by acting under another name or capacity.

 

[Owenstacey]

Yeah it is fine with me

 

[SillyString]

Excellent!!

Once we post this ruling, your active service as a THO will be over (unless someone posts another r4r before the election is over... ), but I hope you will be willing to stay on in a, uh, seat-warming capacity until the court has 3 justices again.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Included below are logs of Discord discussions concerning this matter.

Spoiler: times GMT (UTC)

January 21, 2019

[9:34 PM] SillyString: @Limerick1 @Eluvatar we have a request for review
[9:34 PM] SillyString: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9189865/
The North Pacific
Request for Review: Citizenship Oath Amendment
1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
The enforcement of the 'Citizenship...
[9:35 PM] SillyString: I believe ivan has sufficiently established his standing to file this request for review, and I intend to accept it unless either of you has any strong objections?

January 22, 2019

[11:31 AM] Eluvatar: Makes sense

January 24, 2019

[3:02 AM] Limerick1: Currently reviewing apologize for my absense
[3:27 AM] SillyString: no worries
[3:39 AM] Limerick1: I posted my very early thoughts

February 2, 2019

[2:08 PM] SillyString: @Eluvatar @Limerick1 If you could both respond to this post I just made, I can get started drafting a ruling https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9189871/#post-10216444

February 10, 2019

[8:27 PM] SillyString: @Eluvatar @Limerick1 pls read and respond in court... we need to get this ruling out
[8:27 PM] SillyString: I'm working on a draft atm
[8:48 PM] SillyString: ty limerick!
[8:48 PM] SillyString: I just posted a template that I've filled out with (I think) all the citations, but no actual meaningful content yet
[8:56 PM] SillyString: Hey @Limerick1 are you available to chat a bit?
[8:59 PM] SillyString: (just in discord, not over voice or anything)

February 11, 2019

[...]
[2:07 AM] Eluvatar: Unrelated question: shouldn't we split https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9189865/#post-10215251 out of the R4R topic?
The North Pacific
Request for Review: Citizenship Oath Amendment
1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
The enforcement of the 'Citizenship...
[2:20 AM] SillyString: possibly. it didn't devolve into an argument so I left it there
[...]
[2:23 AM] SillyString: @Eluvatar I think you accidentally a word
[2:23 AM] SillyString:

Similarly I don't think we can hold to an oath someone who did not actually the oath

[2:24 AM] Eluvatar: "It has been split from the Request for Review topic as the period for briefs has closed (and it is not a brief)."
[2:24 AM] Eluvatar: I I did
[2:24 AM] Eluvatar: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9189939/#post-10218604
The North Pacific
Peanut Gallery: [R4R] Citizenship Oath Amendment
A query. What have you done, lately, to warrant additional forbearance from admin?


Edit: In this aspect?
[2:25 AM] SillyString: also quick question
[2:25 AM] SillyString: It sounds like you want to include 1-4
[2:25 AM] SillyString: and are cautious on 5 and 6
[2:25 AM] SillyString: is that accurate?
[2:26 AM] Eluvatar: I am certain we need to address 1 and 2, I am reasonably sure we should address 3, I want to address 4, I want to address 5 and 6 but am more cautious about them
[2:27 AM] Eluvatar: Correction, I actually don't want to address 5 in detail, I'm not just trying to restrain myself
[2:27 AM] SillyString: gotcha
[2:27 AM] SillyString: makes sense. It's really tangential to the issue
[2:28 AM] SillyString: this isn't "r4r: the speaker didn't accept my oath where I said "I'm JAL"
[2:28 AM] SillyString: "
[2:28 AM] Eluvatar: For a brief moment I was all "what does r3n have to do with the price of tea in china"
[2:29 AM] SillyString: xD
[2:29 AM] Eluvatar: but then I realized the line was "r4r" not "r3n"
[2:29 AM] Eluvatar: Now I have a joke
[...]
[2:30 AM] Eluvatar: What do you get when you put a r3n, an r4r, and litmus paper together?
[2:30 AM] SillyString: um
[2:30 AM] SillyString: um
[2:30 AM] SillyString: ummm
[2:30 AM] SillyString: um
[2:30 AM] SillyString: a ... test
[2:30 AM] Eluvatar: (joke might scan better as "a litmus test", idk)
[2:30 AM] SillyString: oh
[2:30 AM] SillyString: um
[2:31 AM] SillyString: a long-ass ruling?
[...]
[2:31 AM] Eluvatar: ph34r
[2:32 AM] SillyString: ugh u sux
[2:32 AM] SillyString: also it's innit
[2:32 AM] Eluvatar: sure
[...]
[2:40 AM] SillyString: I just wish madjack had MADE that argument well so we could accept it and it could make sense
[2:40 AM]Eluvatar:

I have a question for the petitioner or friends of the court to address in briefs:

Does StGeorge have standing to make this request without first making a request, blanket or specific, for this information of the Delegate per clause 35 under the same act?

[2:41 AM] SillyString: but as it is, all the next court has to go on is what he said, and that we found it sufficient. Unless we want to explain our finding of standing in the final ruling
[2:41 AM] SillyString: eh idk about that
[2:41 AM] Eluvatar: +as an affected party+
[2:41 AM] Eluvatar: We should explain any finding of standing.
[2:41 AM] SillyString: Like I said, I'm generally opposed to knocking a r4r out for standing after it's been accepted, unless things change dramatically
[2:41 AM] SillyString: ok
[2:43 AM] SillyString: I can live with explaining it in the ruling
[2:43 AM] SillyString: heck we can do that with GM's too
[2:44 AM] Eluvatar: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9189940/#post-10218612
[2:45 AM] Eluvatar: With GM's it'll be easier :smiley:
[2:46 AM] SillyString: yes
[3:05 AM] SillyString: @Eluvatar opinions on suggesting (but not ordering) that the speaker archive the current citizenship application thread and open a new one, or at least split off all the old posts? I think we are continuing to see people taking the WRONG oath because they're copying oaths from the first page or whatever
[3:05 AM] SillyString: instead of copying from the text in the OP

(NB: omissions have been made from the above log where the discussion concerned the request for review relating to the Freedom of Information Act, save where parts of that discussion provide necessary context for discussion of this request for review)