Resolution on Boston Castle

El Fiji Grande

Over 40000 km and counting
-
-
-
Pronouns
he/him
TNP Nation
El_Fiji_Grande
Discord
El Fiji Grande (#3446)
Both @Robespierre and @Nimarya listed @Boston Castle as one of their two preferred choices for Minister of World Assembly Affairs of The North Pacific. Unfortunately, Boston Castle cannot serve in this role, because he cannot become a citizen of TNP. This is because he cannot pass the Admin check, which requires citizens to use residential IPs.

Given the extent to which Boston Castle has involved himself in our community, specifically including his role as Deputy Minister of WAA last term, I strongly feel that some recourse be found to resolve his situation. Boston Castle is committed to our region, has a strong work ethic, and could otherwise serve an active role within this or future administrations’ Executive Councils. I think if there’s anyone for whom an exception should be made, it is Boston Castle.

I think there are a few different ways that the Regional Assembly could help rectify this situation:
  • The RA could propose new legislation that changes the Legal Code
  • The RA could petition forum administration to loosen restrictions
  • The RA could pass a resolution affirming that recourse should be found for Boston Castle.
I’ve taken the initiative to create this resolution to satisfy the third option. I think that if the RA votes to approve this resolution, that further action may be worth taking.
 
Last edited:
Ghost pointed out to me earlier that the Regional Assembly does not always have to act directly through legislation, and that passing resolutions is also an option, if somewhat rare. For full disclosure, I also have a piece of legislation drafted for the RA that proposes a change in the Legal Code that would allow the RA to potentially override Admin checks. However, I would be the first to admit that I don't have all the answers, and I don't know that the legislation I have written will be without its own issues. I would hate for the RA to overlook Boston Castle's situation in the case that my legislation fails. Rather, my intent is to help set the legislative agenda by affirming that the majority of the RA is united on this issue.
 
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 
My position is that I think Boston Castle should apply with a unique residential IP address in order to get citizenship, just as every other applicant has done.

As much as I like the guy and think he does a phenomenal job, I don’t think it’s a good idea to change the law or our overrule procedures for one particular case.
 
I'd support a resolution affirming that recourse should be found for BC, but as McM has pointed out - that recourse is BC applying for citizenship with a unique residential IP.
 
Glad you brought this up, Fiji. I too would like to find a path for citizenship for Boston Castle. I also suspect that this is an issue which may arise more frequently with more players as time goes on. The main idea behind the law is to ensure the integrity of the RA. Is there another method we could use to prevent multi-ing? I'm sure we would be willing to explore alternative options.
 
Could someone explain why Boston Castle can't pass the Admin check? If it's what I suspect it is, home internet based on mobile technologies (5G Home Internet, maybe?), I have a feeling we're going to see a lot more of this as the technology matures. What we don't want is to force people to pick a specific internet provider to play an online game, or for us to be more invasive in identifying users.
 
Perhaps an amendment to allow for exceptions to the government official citizenship requirement would work better than a RA override for admin decisions.
 
Could someone explain why Boston Castle can't pass the Admin check? If it's what I suspect it is, home internet based on mobile technologies (5G Home Internet, maybe?), I have a feeling we're going to see a lot more of this as the technology matures. What we don't want is to force people to pick a specific internet provider to play an online game, or for us to be more invasive in identifying users.
Just to be clear, our policy is not to give out explicit details on how people are accessing the forum. If @Boston Castle wants to describe their situation, we can then talk about the means by which they are accessing the site.

Potentially, if a general law is crafted, the admin would be in the position of not being able to say *why* someone is being denied beyond the general "non residential IP" or "school IP". We won't reveal where people are publicly, or other IDs unless the user claims them.

Scenario wise, a general change like one of the proposals could allow someone to have multiple accounts over time. All you would have to do is maintain the discipline of the means by which you login to our forum from. Without forcing citizens to be part of the WA, the IP checks are pretty much the only preventative measure we have against vote stacking.

I personally feel more in favor of what Cretox is suggesting, that someone could be a Minister (or any non-elected official) without being a citizen. Regional security wise that seems fine.
 
From Boston Castle (cause this is in the RA where only citizens can post, not the Agora :P)

Boston Castle:

I don’t have posting perms one that thread, so here’s good enough. I do not have home internet via an internet provider, and thus no residential IP. I have not since I was 12, largely due to IRL financial issues. While these have lessened in recent years, we still cannot afford a residential IP and thus I’m doing any work either on my phone or via a hotspot connection from my phone to my laptop. If I’m not using that, I’m at school or at a local business/library and using their hookups, none of which are residential (I know because I’ve tried applying using my school’s IP).(edited)



 
Perhaps an amendment to allow for exceptions to the government official citizenship requirement would work better than a RA override for admin decisions.
So basically a waiver for Boston Castle? Like the Congressional waiver for Lloyd Austin to be the SecDef?
 
Such a change would require a constitutional amendment, a pretty simple one, but a constitutional amendment nonetheless.

Example:
Article 6, Section 7 of the Constitution shall be amended as follows:
7. All government officials must maintain citizenship while in office unless a waiver is granted by the Regional Assembly by majority vote.
 
Last edited:
Such a change would require a constitutional amendment, a pretty simple one, but a constitutional amendment nonetheless.

Example:
That might also have to be accompanied by a change to the legal code, which details how those waivers are granted, specifically how large a majority in the RA needs to be.
 
That might also have to be accompanied by a change to the legal code, which details how those waivers are granted, specifically how large a majority in the RA needs to be.
I'm thinking a simple majority (over 50% of the vote) like Cretox here.
 
I would like to see a requirement that they have to apply for citizenship first before seeking an RA exemption. so the VD and Admin can at least run their checks to help off set some of the security risk we are introducing here.
 
I would like to see a requirement that they have to apply for citizenship first before seeking an RA exemption. so the VD and Admin can at least run their checks to help off set some of the security risk we are introducing here.
Yes. Maybe I can structure the amendment like this:
Article 6, Section 7 of the Constitution shall be amended as follows:
7. All government officials must apply for citizenship in advance and maintain their citizenship while in office. If their application for citizenship is denied, they may seek a waiver, which shall be granted by the Regional Assembly by a simple majority vote, to serve in their position.
Longer and bulkier, but I think it covers everything.
 
You wouldnt necessarly need to make that part of the consitution, we can draft a addition to the legal code
 
You could do this without a constitutional amendment, by establishing an alternative path to citizenship in the legal code.
 
I'm not understanding why the law itself needs to altered to allow for waivers when a simple resolution would satisfy this particular case. I doubt the RA will get in the habit of overriding Admin Checks beyond this very specific situation.
 
I'm not understanding why the law itself needs to altered to allow for waivers when a simple resolution would satisfy this particular case. I doubt the RA will get in the habit of overriding Admin Checks beyond this very specific situation

because there is no legal mechanism for the RA to overide an admin check short of changing the law
 
We don’t want to create an opening to override admin checks. The better approach is messing with the minister government official requirement, or shifting the citizenship process itself. I think the government official requirement is fine though, so I would prefer some sort of exception for the RA to make to grant citizenship in situations like Boston’s. I suspect they will be rare, and we should encourage that by establishing some sort of standard that people seeking this option would have to meet before it would even get to the RA. I’m not sure what those would be if we listed them, but my thoughts would be tenure in the region, regional service, and a truly extraordinary situation that our normal process cannot accomodate.
 
Amending the Constitution to allow non-citizens to serve as government officials would generate too many issues. In my opinion a government official needs to be a citizen: the Regional Assembly is a crucial part of TNP's democracy and it is unthinkable to have a government made up of one or more officers who cannot access it.
An amendment of section 6.1 of the legal code is probably the most viable solution, allowing the RA to overturn the admin decision similarly to when an applicant fails the Vice-Delegate's check. According to section 6.1.7 of the Legal Code:
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.
If we adopted a similar approach in case of failure of an evaluation by the Admininstration, how would that work? Would we have to hold a vote for every applicant that fails? It seems unfeasible. Moreover, pursuant to section 6.1.6 the Speaker must reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
We could amend the law and leave to the discretionality of the Speaker whether to allow a vote over an applicant failed by the Admininstration. We would then need to establish objective criteria which the Speaker should use to start a vote over the administration's decision such as: long and documented history of service to the region, having passed the Vice-Delegate check and of course not having multiple accounts or not using a proxy or evading a judicially-imposed penalty. If the criteria are met the Regional Assembly shall immediately debate the rejection and will hold a majority vote on whether to uphold or not the Admin's decision. If the RA overturns the Admininstration's decision the applicant will be granted citizenship. The new citizen would have the same rights and duties of the other citizens and would therefore lose their citizenship if they leave the region or if they fail to post for 30 days on forum or rmb.
Should they apply again for citizenship the previous decision to uphold the the rejection will remain valid unless replealed by a majority vote (section 6.1.8), allowing them to regain citizenship without having the RA vote again.
 
Your comparison to the Vice Delegate check doesn't really hold water. The difference between the two checks is that the Vice Delegate's check is an in-character political/"security" check, while the Admin check is an out-of-character anti-cheat and anti-evasion check. Common reasons people fail the admin check is using their phones, using proxies, using their work internet, and using a university network, all of which make it difficult to verify that someone isn't using multiple accounts. I do think some changes to administration's checks may become necessary as the situation I described before with mobile technology for residential internet becomes more common, but there is no legitimate reason to overrule the out-of-character administration's check with an in-character mechanism.

Amending the law to allow non-citizens to be appointed to non-constitutionally mandated offices with confirmation by the RA (maybe on a two-thirds majority vote) I think is the best approach.
 
Last edited:
Sil makes a good point about mobile technology in the future. I trust the admins can retool their process to apply their check with those things in mind. I don't think the RA ought to try to do that. We also shouldn't subject their checks to up or down votes. Creating another process to get citizenship if the normal one isn't possible is something the RA can do, even if it really would only be sidestepping the admin check, since what I propose below maintains the residency requirement and specifies non-security rejections, and that only leaves the admin check as the one causing failed applications. Those are both situations I simply cannot imagine other proposals like this would ignore. But just because we can do it doesn't mean we should - I think it's a big deal. It is easier to just play with the underlying problem - appointing someone who can't be appointed because of a lack of citizenship. I will explore both possibilities though, and how I would approach them.

I'm really not sure how to carve out an exception without completely defeating the purpose of the admin check. There may very well be people like Boston Castle who I trust and believe is a unique and good-intentioned player, and we can put all the safeguards we want, but at the end of the day, we're establishing a means to disregard a crucial part of our citizenship process that exists for a very good reason. With additional thought, I'm not longer convinced this is undeniably the better approach, but it is the only other way we can do this, so I wanted to imagine how it would work. Creating an alternative path to citizenship needs to be very carefully done, and create a very high bar for people who would use it (because by definition these would be people who can't jump through what are honestly pretty simple hoops), since this wouldn't just open the door to people like Boston Castle. Citizenship confers a lot of privileges and opportunities, and once granted can be purposely difficult to take back should we ever feel the need to in the future. For that reason I think a 2/3 majority RA vote makes more sense in that context. This change would require only a legal code amendment, so it's easier to do. If this were to be considered, I think it would require the Speaker reviewing a formal request from the would-be citizen in question, following a prolonged period of uninterrupted residency (say, 6 months) that consists of frequent posting and participation in regional activity and involvement in the executive staff. The ministers who had this resident in their staff would have to confirm this service and vouch for the applicant to the Speaker. And obviously, this person would have had to have previously applied for citizenship and been denied for non-security reasons. If the Speaker decides it's worth the trouble, they will present the question to the RA as a whole, giving the RA a chance to question and debate the applicant as well as the Speaker's evaluation in bringing the applicant to them in the first place. They will then have a vote, requiring a 2/3 majority, on whether this person should be granted citizenship. If they pass the vote, the Speaker declares them a citizen like anyone else in the normal citizenship process.

With Sil's suggestion in mind, I think the simplest mechanism for changing appointment rules is if the Delegate appoints someone who is not a citizen, they have to take it to the RA for approval. The RA can then decide if the pick is substantial enough to warrant a vote letting them ignore the citizenship requirement for government officials. Of course, citizenship is rather easy to get, and most non-citizens aren't putting in the time and commitment someone like Boston Castle is. I think the RA can discern those special exceptions to the rule. This would be a majority vote - if the VD check can be overturned with a majority, I don't see why essentially giving a waiver to someone to do an executive job needs to be at a higher threshold. This change would require a constitutional amendment. My problem with this method is that I think requiring government officials to be citizens makes sense, and not just for security. I believe citizenship means something, and there should be things to aspire to when you commit to citizenship in this region. This is sometimes the highest peak many citizens will reach in this region. For that reason, I agree with Sil's stipulation that mandatory ministries are off-limits for this exception - they tend to be the most significant and crucial roles in the executive, and some of the most sensitive. The final category ("at least one Executive Officer charged with focusing primarily on matters of internal interest to The North Pacific") is a little harder to regulate, since we have a lot of those. I think it may just be better to say no to appointing them to the mandatory positions overseeing foreign or military affairs. I would place this change in Chapter 7, as a clause at the end of the Mandatory Ministries section, because honestly I don't know where else it would go, though it is a tad awkward there. And of course, this would make the appointee a government official, so they are subject to the same restrictions and accountability as other government officials.

I really do feel for Boston's situation. I don't think I can remember anyone else in my time in this region who so clearly was an accepted, regular part of our community, someone who put in the work and the time to be one of us, and became a beloved and appreciated part of our region, someone who would absolutely have become a citizen if he could, but cannot due to factors outside his control. I'm kind of surprised it hasn't happened before. I know other people couldn't get citizenship because of internet access issues, but unlike Boston they never stuck around or distinguished themselves to the extent he has. Like Fiji, I wish there was something I could do to help him. This post, these suggestions I'm throwing out there, I think this is the best thing I can do now. I would hate for there to be future Boston Castles, because I want to open the door to opportunity and all the great things that come with citizenship to aspiring and dedicated players like him. I don't want to discourage or turn them away because of the quality of their internet, because some sneaky people years ago made us come up with additional security methods. I want to strike a balance, come up with reasonable restrictions to what should be an unusual digression from our normal citizenship process or our appointment of government officials. I want to respect the spirit of those restrictions without simply being blocked by them just because that's what the rules say. I hope what I outlined above accomplished that, and I hope that we can find a agreeable path forward not only for those of us in the RA, but also for Boston, all the people we never got to know in the past just like him, and all the people who will come after.
 
For the record, I suppose I've been using the wrong terminology, but the effect is the same. I've been referring to "constitutionally mandated officers" when the correct term is "constitutionally mandated elected officers", meaning I was only referring to Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, Security Councilor (Yes, that's included too...), and Justice. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Defense, and whatever third office fulfills LC 7.5.30, are mandated by the Legal Code, not the Constitution. However, Ghost, I do agree with you that with those two ministries being very sensitive, a non-citizen should not be granted an exception to be the Minister there. I am curious what third ministry fulfills the "internal interests" category. I would think Home Affairs has that now. I also think it would have been Gameside Affairs if we hadn't abolished that ministry.
 
As long as the amendment doesn't involve constitutionally mandated elected officers I think it could be an acceptable temporary solution. The RA could be allowed to uphold the appointment of a non-citizen as Minister (maybe with a 2/3 majority vote), thus granting an exeption to Article 6.7 of the Constitution. I believe this option should only be limited to those ministries that currently don't require citizenship to be a part of (like WA affairs).

However, I agree with Sil that a change to the way Admin checks are performed is of paramount importance. In the future we may lose many outstanding individuals, like Boston Castle, because of a system that doesn't keep up with the advancement of mobile technology. I'm sure the Admins will figure out new ways to fingerprint citizens without the requirement of a unique residential IP .
I'm sure Boston Castle will remain an outstanding contributor to this community even as a Resident, but I believe that granting them citizenship would be an act of justice, the recognition of all the hard work they have done during their time here.
 
As long as the amendment doesn't involve constitutionally mandated elected officers I think it could be an acceptable temporary solution. The RA could be allowed to uphold the appointment of a non-citizen as Minister (maybe with a 2/3 majority vote), thus granting an exeption to Article 6.7 of the Constitution. I believe this option should only be limited to those ministries that currently don't require citizenship to be a part of (like WA affairs).

However, I agree with Sil that a change to the way Admin checks are performed is of paramount importance. In the future we may lose many outstanding individuals, like Boston Castle, because of a system that doesn't keep up with the advancement of mobile technology. I'm sure the Admins will figure out new ways to fingerprint citizens without the requirement of a unique residential IP .
I'm sure Boston Castle will remain an outstanding contributor to this community even as a Resident, but I believe that granting them citizenship would be an act of justice, the recognition of all the hard work they have done during their time here.
To clarify one point, ministries requiring citizenship for their staff is subject to whoever the delegate or minister is. It’s something they could change without touching the law, but in practice we rarely see that restriction. Ministers on the other hand have to be citizens because of how the law is currently written.

Can one of you explain why you’re so set on the 2/3 voting requirement for the minister appointment exception? That’s a very high bar, and while I do prefer ministers to be citizens, if we’re excluding the foreign affairs and military positions, I’m not sure this exception is so significant that we have to have that big a vote supporting it.

Should I also assume based on this initial feedback that you’re not even considering the alternative citizenship process I outlined as a real option? Some of you seem to think we have to look forward and have something in mind for future Boston Castle situations, what do you think of what I suggested? I will say upfront I’m not even sure I’m sold on it, but I wanted to imagine what it might look like.
 
Back
Top