Obviously a lot of people have felt that perfecting the approach I have laid out from the start is still leaving too many people behind. Balancing the security concerns with giving people a fair chance to get citizenship when they are otherwise unable has been tricky, and it's easy to tip too far to one side in doing so. I had initially planned to outline two possible paths, the other being something close to the often mentioned "open the floodgates" proposal. I do believe the admin check has a valuable place in our process, and its aim is one we ought to continue to pursue. But I think it is important to recognize, as my pal
@Praetor has in discussions with me on this bill, that the method I have selected, while obviously and intentionally difficult for most people to get through, still provides an opportunity for villainous bad actors. Bad people trying to abuse or get around rules is not reason enough in my book not to attempt to write rules, but I understand his point. The floodgates being completely opened or close to it presents the same risk (albeit one that is greater as it is easier for the bad actors to take advantage of it), but also places way less of a burden on everyone else. And we're doing this for them aren't we?
Before I get into that, I want to quickly deal with these points.
Interestingly, I have previously neglected to read (or just forgotten) the clause which provides for the admin check - clause 5 - which remains unaltered in this bill. It says:
"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."
I feel like there's quite a few things wrong with this sentence. First, as was already previously discussed, the admin check in reality covers more scenarios than this. Which means...admins have been violating the law for years? Obviously all the checks that admin do are necessary, so the scope of this clause is wrong. Secondly, there's no way to completely verify that a citizenship applicant isn't evading a judicially-imposed penalty. Admin have decided that a non-residential IP address is the bar where they are not comfortable with verifying that the applicant isn't trying to sneak past a penalty, but that doesn't really mean someone using a residential IP is verified to be not evading a penalty.
So uh, maybe we should change this clause too while we're at it?
Everything the admins highlight as reasons for failing fall under that, because that is their methods in enforcing that clause. Eras did a good job explaining how with the multiple accounts. Changing that clause would negate any need for us to do any exception or alternative path to citizenship, but I don't think we want to do that. I'm open to your suggestions on how to do that though. If we were going to make a chance to one of the existing clauses for checks, I'm wondering if we want to look at the time table for debating the Vice Delegate's rejection. Since the Vice Delegate's check can last a week now instead of the original 3 days, perhaps the debate on the rejection can also last a week rather than 2 days? Just something I was mulling over, and something we might as well throw into this if there's interest in the idea.
Just to clarify one thing,
This covers the multiple accounts look for.
I don't think that it's my place as admin to put a particular opinion forward on this. We do this as a service to TNP. If TNP as a whole thinks things should change then that's appropriate. But as a geezer citizen...
Historically, we have had at least one user (JAL/Durk) succeed in gaining dual citizenship by logging into one account at home and another at work. This is part of why we're so strict now about no work or school IPs (including mobile) as the sole IP. We already got burned.
The sponsorship aspect to this bill seems like a reasonable way to lessen the danger.
Breaking out the tinfoil hat... I wonder, if we had a delegate with nefarious intent, they appoint their Executive, so assuming the Speaker didn't notice anything particularly suspicious (which I would assume could happen if the sleeper accounts stayed pretty quiet for awhile) , couldn't that just result in a pretty easy vote packing? You can get 5 people to conspire in such a thing if you could get one of them elected delegate.
I appreciate more insight into why this mobile ip thing is crucial to the check. Obviously someone like JAL could manage to get past the checks I have tried to put into the bill, you can't really discount the dedication of such players (which is a big part of the argument people like Praetor make about the trade off between barriers for the innocent applicants and barriers that bad actors can still manage).
A nefarious delegate is already a problem in itself, but we'll set that aside here. I wonder what scenario would allow them to rush people though our process without it being really obvious. The RA vote is going to be the death knell of that plan, because I don't see the RA rubberstamping any number of mobile ip applicants that would materially affect a rogue delegates attempt to vote stack.
As for the simpler method, here is a draft for what I think it might look like:
10. If an applicant is rejected for failing an evaluation by forum administration, the applicant may appeal the rejection to the Speaker.
11. In order to appeal the rejection, the applicant must do so within one week of the rejection, must not have been confirmed by administration to have been linked to another forum account or using a proxy, and must have a resident nation that is a member of the World Assembly.
12. The Speaker will formally grant the applicant’s appeal if the above criteria are met, and will overturn the rejection.
13. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
14. 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.
Section 6.2: Administration and Loss of Citizenship
15. The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of citizens and their registered nations.
16. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose removal is ordered by the Court, or whose registered nations in The North Pacific leave or ceases to exist.
17. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens who, for over 30 consecutive days, neither post on the regional forum, nor post on the regional message board with their registered nations.
18. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose registered nations in The North Pacific leave the World Assembly, except as part of an operation with the North Pacific Army, if those citizens successfully appealed failing an evaluation by forum administration.
I have to give a shout out to
@Praetor again as utilizing WAs was his idea. My concern with that approach was on a couple of points, firstly whether it was consistent with our Bill of Rights and our tradition of WA membership being a choice for all nations. Citizenship is not explicitly joining the government, so at first glance I think this could work as far as compliance with the Bill of Rights. Secondly, I personally believe it is way too easy for anyone to meet that standard, and locking their WA in TNP may be a sacrifice they are willing to make to cause mischief. If it's unlikely to happen no matter what method we go with, I feel it is more likely with this one, because of how easy it is. However, this could potentially get citizenship for everyone affected by the mobile ip issue, which would be huge.
I believe it is important for this to be an appeal, because not every person will utilize this option - we have seen cases where people re-apply successfully using the methods the admin requests, and I still believe that is the ideal scenario, so I want them to initiate that process when they cannot comply with the admin request. I also believe that we shouldn't open this up for people who are tied to multiple accounts or proxying. Let them sort that out and if the ip is still an issue, proceed from there. I also retained my language about doing it within one week of the application because I want them to get a fresh look with all 3 checks, and I do not want this process to be open for people who applied months back. For one thing, maybe they wouldn't be rejected if they applied today, but mostly, we need fresh data. The new thing is obviously WA membership - as long as these people have it on their TNP nation, their citizenship is good (assuming the other 2 checks are successful). As soon as that changes, it goes away just like the other situations where people lose citizenship. Tracking this on the spreadsheet may be tricky, but it's a must if we go this route. When the Speaker confirms they have WA, bam, the check is considered passed. No complicated hoops, no arduous conditions, no checks and balances. One could say locking their WA is an extra burden, though I suspect for many people looking for citizenship here, that won't be an obstacle at all, and they may already have had it anyway. There is an exception for the NPA, because I do not believe we should lock any citizens out of the ability to join the NPA, and obviously that is verifiable.
I am very interested to hear what people think of the "express" option I have laid out above, because I felt there was a taste for this sort of approach, but I don't know how much of one there is. I have spent a long time getting the deliberate, careful appeal process I have already presented just right to balance everyone's concerns, but at the end of the day, such caution and deliberation will only go so far. To tell you the truth, I really don't see the appeal process as more than another stop-gap measure, like the Reject Fascism bill was last year, until our administration finds a more permanent and broader solution. I would hope they pursue such a solution whether in the wake of my first proposed option or this latest one, and I suspect they will be quite inclined to do so if this second option is the approach we end up taking. But that's not to say I personally don't have reservations about this "express" option. It's riskier than the first option, and however easy you may think it is for bad actors to take advantage of the appeal system I designed originally, this second way is undoubtedly easier. But this has always come down to how much risk you're willing to take on to help the greatest number of people. I feel it is only appropriate to see in stark contrast what two paths focusing on different levels of risk management look like. This is rougher than my first proposal at this point, so any way you can sharpen it, assuming you want to go more in this direction, would be greatly appreciated.
