[PASSED] Citizenship Reform Act

Another major priority of our delegate in this new term is reforming the citizenship process to allow residents who are unable to show a residential ip a chance to become citizens. Currently this requirement exists because the citizenship process requires the admin team verify if someone is proxying or evading a judicial ban on holding citizenship. Evidently they do not have an alternative method to do this, so unfortunately many applicants who simply rely on mobile connections are prevented from becoming citizens. As time goes on, this is only going to become more of an issue, and it is something that could impact those whose financial or living situations do not afford them the luxury of a residential ip. It is not fair to penalize these players because we lack reliable means to double check if they are trying to sneak around a ban on citizenship (which, I would point out, is something that currently applies no one that I am aware of). However, if this is the only way such a check can be done, completely bypassing it could be a security issue and could encourage more people to try to get around the admin check.

There is no way to do this without eliminating the admin check entirely or rendering it virtually toothless and pointless, either by removing the judicial ban component or making it an advisory check. So once more I am forced to conclude that the solution is creating an exception to the check, but making the process of granting that exception robust and placing several checks on it. I previously outlined an approach I felt could be used to do just that, and I have adapted this bill from the proposal I outlined during the debate that led to the Boston Amendment. It is my hope that we will have a process for dedicated and committed members of our community to become citizens despite their technical limitations.

I will admit that my bill does not help newcomers to our region who want to become citizens and are shown the door - such a rejection could discourage them from further involvement, and unfortunately further involvement is essential to successfully appealing the admin check rejection in my bill. But it does create a path, and that could hopefully be communicated to anyone who is rejected. Maybe the hope will keep them interested and allow them to explore how far residency can take them. It is an imperfect solution, and I call on the admin team to do everything they can to review their options and find a solution on their end that will make this bill's process unnecessary in the future. Of course I also welcome any additional information I may be lacking, or insight into that process that I may have overlooked which can better inform the admin check and why this bill or the other solutions I mentioned at the start may not be worth considering. But I agree with MadJack - we need to take action and do something for those residents who through no fault of their own, cannot jump through this particular hoop in a time where mobile internet connections are increasingly the norm. If nothing else, I hope this bill will put focus back on this issue so that we have a plan for it before it becomes a bigger problem in the days ahead.

Citizenship Reform Act:

Chapter 6 of the Legal Code is amended as follows:

Section 6.1 Citizenship Applications:

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 7 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 Vice Delegate will automatically fail any applicant who identifies as fascist or has engaged in the promotion of fascism.
7. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
8. 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.
9. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
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, must have a resident nation that is a member of the World Assembly, and must not have already had their rejection upheld by the Regional Assembly.
12. The Speaker will formally grant the applicant’s appeal if the above criteria are met.
13. If the appeal is granted, the Regional Assembly shall debate the rejection and will hold a majority vote on whether to uphold it.
14. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote, unless forum administration has passed the applicant in a subsequent citizenship application, in which case the previous decision to uphold the rejection is automatically overturned.
15. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
16. 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.

Click to expand...

Section 6.2: Administration and Loss of Citizenship:

17. The Speaker will maintain a publicly viewable roster of citizens and their registered nations.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. The Speaker will promptly remove any citizens whose registered nations in The North Pacific are not in the World Assembly, except as part of an operation with the North Pacific Army, if their citizenship was granted by the Regional Assembly after failing an evaluation by forum administration.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

A few words on the process I came up with: I did try to model this appeal on the Vice Delegate check, but there's a key difference. The RA vote is meant to uphold what is essentially a bar on someone's ability to become a citizen, whereas in the process I have outlined, they are voting to allow someone to become a citizen full-stop. This is because in the process I outlined, the Speaker is determining whether or not to grant an appeal to a rejection already given, and once someone is a citizen, they're a citizen. It was important to me that once granted it could not be turned off by a subsequent RA vote, so there is no provision for them changing their minds down the road.

Additionally, the Speaker's evaluation leaves a lot up to the Speaker's discretion. The language in the bill specifies involvement in regional government because this is considered a key sign of commitment and involvement, and is one of the only concrete ones we have to go off of. It is by no means the only criteria that should or can be considered. This process places a lot of trust in the Speaker, because the RA vote only takes place if the Speaker grants the appeal, and the steps taken by the Speaker are not written to compel the Speaker to grant an appeal. I figure this can be a matter of policy that the Speaker decides to handle as they see fit, but if anyone feels this should be stricter and the criteria I outlined are good enough, we can perhaps tie the Speaker's hands on granting such appeals.

The specifics are things I feel can be adjusted, but my goal for this was that some sort of review take place for a long-time resident involved in the community who has built up trust with other trusted members of our community. The Speaker handles citizenship checks and I felt they were the best person to handle this review, with plenty of help and advice from others who will have hands-on knowledge of the applicant. If the community in the form of the RA overwhelmingly agrees with that judgment, then the person becomes a citizen (hence, the 2/3 requirement). I actually feel this could probably also be a majority vote, but given the security implications and how hard citizenship is to lose once you get it, I felt this could be an acceptable starting point.

First thoughts
- Given that a government official includes, but not limited to: an Election Comissioner, a Court Justice, an Executive Council member, Deputy Speakers, members of the Security Council, and even the Delegate themselves count as a government official, is the bar intended to be this low? Should we change it to only allow certain government officials, eg SCers, or elected officials.
- Thinking from the perspective of someone who may attempt a coup using this mechanism, could there be a change as to which government officials can make such a recommendation, or requiring a spectrum of government officials from different parts of the government to make such a recommendation?
- Is there a possibility of tying the requirements of the level of majority to the number of recommendations? Basically it would be similar to how SC nominations work - eg. if the nominee gets the support they need, they can just obtain a 2/3rd majority, but if not, they can still get citizenship with a 3/4th majority.
- Overturning a Vice-Delegate rejection has a fixed time frame for the process, per the law. Will there be a time frame in mind for this particular citizenship appeal process?

Fregerson:

First thoughts
- Given that a government official includes, but not limited to: an Election Comissioner, a Court Justice, an Executive Council member, Deputy Speakers, members of the Security Council, and even the Delegate themselves count as a government official, is the bar intended to be this low? Should we change it to only allow certain government officials, eg SCers, or elected officials.
- Thinking from the perspective of someone who may attempt a coup using this mechanism, could there be a change as to which government officials can make such a recommendation, or requiring a spectrum of government officials from different parts of the government to make such a recommendation?
- Is there a possibility of tying the requirements of the level of majority to the number of recommendations? Basically it would be similar to how SC nominations work - eg. if the nominee gets the support they need, they can just obtain a 2/3rd majority, but if not, they can still get citizenship with a 3/4th majority.
- Overturning a Vice-Delegate rejection has a fixed time frame for the process, per the law. Will there be a time frame in mind for this particular citizenship appeal process?

Click to expand...

I'm with Speaker @Fregerson on this one. These are some great points that I definitely think need consideration. A more...balanced (still doesn't feel like the word to use here) approach might be the best way to address the Delegate's concerns.

Without going into the details of the mechanism first, I feel like the issue with the kind of system proposed here is that it is more likely to be used by bad actors than genuine newcomers. My intuition is that passing such a bill would just signal to the bad actors that if they just come and apply with a mobile/school/business IP, and then stick around to participate in the government, then they could get around the admin checks. On the flip side, if we're honest with ourselves there probably aren't many genuine newcomers who would decide to stick around and prove themselves after being rejected citizenship. I mean, there's a reason we've never thought about this issue before Hulldom came along.

Granted, there are benefits to this approach. By requiring the applicant's community record to be evaluated, it provides for opportunities to identify if the applicant is actually a previously banned member based on behaviour. But of course people's intuitions aren't foolproof. If this were to be passed I would prefer more government officials being required to endorse the applicant, or a narrower selection of officials to choose from, as Fregerson suggested. Perhaps the Security Council should have more involvement in this? At least a few Security Councillors have a long history in the region and are probably more likely than anyone else to be able to identify if the applicant is an old banned player.

Ultimately this whole thing is about risk vs. reward. How many new, contributing citizens can we get out of this proposal? Not many, I feel, and there would be an increased risk that some of them are actually banned players in disguise. What if we just opened the floodgates and abolished the admin check? Sure, a few bad actors would probably get in, but we would also get a good bump in new citizens. I'm not convinced that's any less acceptable than this proposal. I witnessed a debate in TEP over the same kind of issue when they were changing their citizenship system, and one argument that stuck with me was that if a banned player is really determined to sneak in, they could probably find a way around an IP check, so perhaps there's no point even in having an IP check. Now of coursethere is the issue of effort - the less effort it takes for a banned player to get in, the more likely it is they are gonna try. So I'm not saying we should just abolish admin checks, but with any proposal on this subject we need to carefully consider if it's more likely to let more genuine newcomers in or encourage banned players to try and sneak in. I'm not sure yet where this proposal stands on that scale.

I have some thoughts, but they are too long to be typed on my phone, I’ll post them later. In the meantime, though, I recommend using the [.in] and [.out] tags for the markup, without the periods of course.

Oh boy where to start. How about a blanket reminder for everyone that the admin check is designed to look at two things - proxying and whether someone is evading judicial punishment. That’s it. I get the feeling you’re concerned that people banned from the region would suddenly not be watched or something. Let’s not forget the nature of the thing we’re discussing. Alright then, on to the specifics.

Fregerson:

First thoughts
- Given that a government official includes, but not limited to: an Election Comissioner, a Court Justice, an Executive Council member, Deputy Speakers, members of the Security Council, and even the Delegate themselves count as a government official, is the bar intended to be this low? Should we change it to only allow certain government officials, eg SCers, or elected officials.
- Thinking from the perspective of someone who may attempt a coup using this mechanism, could there be a change as to which government officials can make such a recommendation, or requiring a spectrum of government officials from different parts of the government to make such a recommendation?
- Is there a possibility of tying the requirements of the level of majority to the number of recommendations? Basically it would be similar to how SC nominations work - eg. if the nominee gets the support they need, they can just obtain a 2/3rd majority, but if not, they can still get citizenship with a 3/4th majority.
- Overturning a Vice-Delegate rejection has a fixed time frame for the process, per the law. Will there be a time frame in mind for this particular citizenship appeal process?

Click to expand...

So you feel the bar is too low having only three government officials vouch for the player. I find it hard to believe some random resident who barely does anything outside of wait out the clock would muster even one recommendation, let alone three. But feel free to suggest a different number - as I said, this kind of specific isn’t really a big deal, we can change it up. We can also specify which officials need to vouch for them. Maybe you say elected officials instead, or specify members of the executive or Security Council. Give me the specific formula you want to see and maybe we tweak the bill accordingly. I wouldn’t change the needed vote threshold based on those recommendations though, I don’t really see the connection.

I got to admit, you have me curious - how would someone coup the region successfully because they became a citizen this way over a different way? This bill allows a specific type of resident to become a citizen when they otherwise wouldn’t. What advantage do you see this process giving a would-be couper? Because let’s get real, anyone we let become a citizen is a potential couper. Is your fear that the admins could stop someone dangerous who somehow sneaks in? Because they can do that anyway. In one hand this may seem to be easier, but they would have had to invest a lot of time being able to do very little to even qualify for this process.

Finally there’s the matter of the time frame. Since I did model the RA vote in part on the VD check process, why did I not specify a time frame? Well, the Vice Delegate has a week to review an applicant and decide if they want to block their citizenship. The Speaker has a lot more things to review than the VD, and doesn’t get to start doing it until the applicant attempts an appeal. I don’t think the nature of this process makes a rush advisable, and that includes the discussion that takes place in the RA. The nature of the process also isn’t the same as an otherwise normal applicant. The VD check happens when someone applies for citizenship, and their prior residency isn’t directly relevant to that process. Here, it’s a prerequisite, so the person in question has already been denied citizenship but has been in the community for a long time. I don’t see the need to rush the process when they arent

Black Phoenix:

I'm with Speaker @Fregerson on this one. These are some great points that I definitely think need consideration. A more...balanced (still doesn't feel like the word to use here) approach might be the best way to address the Delegate's concerns.

Click to expand...

I know you said it wasn’t the right word, but what would a more balanced approach look like exactly?

Gorundu:

Without going into the details of the mechanism first, I feel like the issue with the kind of system proposed here is that it is more likely to be used by bad actors than genuine newcomers. My intuition is that passing such a bill would just signal to the bad actors that if they just come and apply with a mobile/school/business IP, and then stick around to participate in the government, then they could get around the admin checks. On the flip side, if we're honest with ourselves there probably aren't many genuine newcomers who would decide to stick around and prove themselves after being rejected citizenship. I mean, there's a reason we've never thought about this issue before Hulldom came along.

Granted, there are benefits to this approach. By requiring the applicant's community record to be evaluated, it provides for opportunities to identify if the applicant is actually a previously banned member based on behaviour. But of course people's intuitions aren't foolproof. If this were to be passed I would prefer more government officials being required to endorse the applicant, or a narrower selection of officials to choose from, as Fregerson suggested. Perhaps the Security Council should have more involvement in this? At least a few Security Councillors have a long history in the region and are probably more likely than anyone else to be able to identify if the applicant is an old banned player.

Ultimately this whole thing is about risk vs. reward. How many new, contributing citizens can we get out of this proposal? Not many, I feel, and there would be an increased risk that some of them are actually banned players in disguise. What if we just opened the floodgates and abolished the admin check? Sure, a few bad actors would probably get in, but we would also get a good bump in new citizens. I'm not convinced that's any less acceptable than this proposal. I witnessed a debate in TEP over the same kind of issue when they were changing their citizenship system, and one argument that stuck with me was that if a banned player is really determined to sneak in, they could probably find a way around an IP check, so perhaps there's no point even in having an IP check. Now of coursethere is the issue of effort - the less effort it takes for a banned player to get in, the more likely it is they are gonna try. So I'm not saying we should just abolish admin checks, but with any proposal on this subject we need to carefully consider if it's more likely to let more genuine newcomers in or encourage banned players to try and sneak in. I'm not sure yet where this proposal stands on that scale.

Click to expand...

You echoed Fregerson and myself in some of your remarks, so I won’t touch on those. You spend a great deal of your post being concerned with banned players sneaking in. The admin check isn’t actually even concerned with that - it’s concerned with people who are judicially barred from citizenship or proxying. Admins enforcing a more serious administrative ban is obviously going to supersede any IC citizenship process.

And citing the SC to identify banned players sounds like you want them to use their knowledge to suss out players who they may be watching out for - that’s what the VD is for, and that will have already happened by the time this appeal process takes place. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the VD didn’t get around to it before the admins failed the applicant. This process doesn’t completely sidestep the other requirements - they still have to pass the other checks. The VD check is going to happen when the application moves forward. So I don’t see the need to do double work and mandate they essentially do this check a second time. I also rely on the fact that during the RA discussion the SC can in fact offer an assessment or be asked to make one.

I’m afraid you’ve lost me with the rest of your argument. We are not concerned with how many citizens we get with this method. This is about correcting an inadequacy in the system, an unequal opportunity for some residents in our community. I don’t care if we only get three new citizens out of this process - that’s three committed and valued members of our community who couldn’t fully participate in the past and now can. I want to balance the very real security concerns (as unlikely as they might be) with these other concerns. Your entire argument relies a lot on the specter of a banned player or nefarious actor (and honestly, if a would-be nefarious person has a residential ip, they get waved inside already unless we happen to catch on to them being a specific “villain” on our watchlist, so what do you even mean by this?), but then you suggest opening the door entirely? Yeah we can do that and it’s a lot easier, but I don’t think I agree it’s a good idea. I also don’t think it’s going to lead to a dramatic increase in new citizens, and certainly not active and engaged ones, because facts being facts most of the new citizens don’t even become the kind of person this proposed exception is designed to help.

I could go on all day with hypotheticals and scary what ifs. There is some truth to that TEP argument about dedicated individuals doing whatever they can to get around existing protections. We can’t throw up our hands and stop passing laws because bad guys will break them no matter what, but we also can’t close every possible loophole and make things airtight. We can come close. The admin check already works this way - they can’t stop someone who shouldn’t be coming in from getting a legit looking setup, they can only catch the obvious problems. Or they can catch people who are inconclusive, which is the category harmed by the existing law.

But really, all of you who are concerned with the boogeymen, please explain to me how this change directly enhances a coup plot that couldn’t otherwise happen with the current law; or explain to me what other kind of bad guy could get in this way that can’t right now? And please remember what the admin check is for and what it actually checks for, and be mindful of that IC and OOC difference.

Pathoal:

I have some thoughts, but they are too long to be typed on my phone, I’ll post them later. In the meantime, though, I recommend using the [.in] and [.out] tags for the markup, without the periods of course.

Click to expand...

I’m happy to see those are back because there was a time when I drafted legislation on this forum and they weren’t there. Certainly easier than the workaround I keep dragging out with these.

I fully support this, and I'm very very glad to see the discussion started.

For those concerned about the possibility of banned players and nefarious actors getting through, let me just flip the scenario and ask a question: how many potentially dedicated and active members have we lost over the years because they lacked a dedicated IP? I guarantee you it's a lot more than potential threats that could get by this new system. East Isles, recently a speaker of these very halls, failed the admin check repeatedly before later reapplying - and they're not the only ones to apply multiple times and get turned away multiple times. I took a look at citizenship applications from the start of last year to about May 2021 - there were at least a dozen applicants who failed the admin check for not applying from a residential IP, and four or five of those applied multiple times, one person applying five times. That, to me at least, is indicative that we're missing on people who would, in fact, be active and dedicated to the region, at least for a short time.

I think that's very much part of why this is so important to do. We do have to get the details right, yes, and be cognizant of potential security risks, but the opportunities here are just as important to focus on as those risks.

I am glad Pallaith took the time to write this out. Whilst I am normally the hasty type I believe this needs to take its time to be properly hashed out. With that said, I am fully in support.

I think it is worth noting that the admin check also generally considers whether a person has multiple accounts. So not simply just proxying or judicial bans.

I think the language could be simplified and I will circle back with some thoughts in due course. I also think it may be best to designate which government officials can provide that support. Thinking the obvious - Speaker, Delegate, Vice Delegate, would make more sense.

oops

Having been on the internet since it's inception and being in the industry the whole time, I also have two children (35 and 33 yrs old) and 3 stepsons (19,21 and 23) and they access the internet (and the world) very differently than their old man. 2 of the boys ONLY use their iphones to access anything and my oldest, my 35 yr old daughter (A LPN gaming nerd) can be on anything from a $5K gaming desktop to her android or one of 3 laptops she has. They all think Im out of date with my laptop.
I understand the reasoning behind a requirement of a residential IP but in 2021, more and more people are cutting the cord and just don't have one. My 33 yr old son lives on a 3000 sq foot house boat in a marina in New York and has access to the marina wifi, his iphone or his cellular modem/router and would never pass and would also never be a security risk. My stepsons are all in college and on educational/mobile IPs all the time as that's all they have

Residential IPs as a "security check" is pointless as just unplugging your modem for 20-30 minutes gets you a new IP address 90% of the time.

Proxies serve a legitimate purpose in hiding your IP as there are people I know that have ex spouses/girlfriends/boyfriends they want to protect themselves from.

Personally, I think individuals could seek an exemption due to circumstances and just be on a radar when granted. Known paid proxies should be allowed but the free ones banned because, well, you wouldn't use a free proxy as a life choice as there aren't any good ones out there

Alright, I got some things clarified, and with that, I shall reply to the replies to my concerns.

Pallaith:

So you feel the bar is too low having only three government officials vouch for the player. I find it hard to believe some random resident who barely does anything outside of wait out the clock would muster even one recommendation, let alone three. But feel free to suggest a different number - as I said, this kind of specific isn’t really a big deal, we can change it up. We can also specify which officials need to vouch for them. Maybe you say elected officials instead, or specify members of the executive or Security Council. Give me the specific formula you want to see and maybe we tweak the bill accordingly. I wouldn’t change the needed vote threshold based on those recommendations though, I don’t really see the connection.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think the number matters, but rather, who that does it that matters. I am with @mcmasterdonia on this one, I think we need to designate which government officials can provide that support. I am inclined to letting only elected officials do it, ie. Delegate, VD, Speaker, and Justices. It isn't going to hurt the overall mechanic to restrict the people who done it, since deserving people will always be able to get the recommendations they require. As for the vote threshold, I don't really have an opinion on it, just thought to bring it up to provide an alternative pathway to ensure that the deserving people get their citizenship this way.

Pallaith:

I got to admit, you have me curious - how would someone coup the region successfully because they became a citizen this way over a different way? This bill allows a specific type of resident to become a citizen when they otherwise wouldn’t. What advantage do you see this process giving a would-be couper? Because let’s get real, anyone we let become a citizen is a potential couper. Is your fear that the admins could stop someone dangerous who somehow sneaks in? Because they can do that anyway. In one hand this may seem to be easier, but they would have had to invest a lot of time being able to do very little to even qualify for this process.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I was thinking of something else in mind. In particular, the incident where Jocospor infiltrated our region and then got citizenship, entered the Executive Staff, wrote an article for Ministry of Comms, and left without anyone realising he was here until he admitted it. I was of the perception this particular bill would allow a known baddie who doesn't have an OOC ban to come in under a different persona, but I stand corrected. So if Jocospor comes back in again, we would know it is him simply because he used the same account as before; or that he would have been flagged out as having multiple accounts.

To resolve this, I would propose that we make it clear this path can only be used in the case where the admin check fails because of a lack of residential IP address - not because of proxing, evading bans, etc. A little extra work, you might think, but I rather be safe than sorry.

Pallaith:

Finally there’s the matter of the time frame. Since I did model the RA vote in part on the VD check process, why did I not specify a time frame? Well, the Vice Delegate has a week to review an applicant and decide if they want to block their citizenship. The Speaker has a lot more things to review than the VD, and doesn’t get to start doing it until the applicant attempts an appeal. I don’t think the nature of this process makes a rush advisable, and that includes the discussion that takes place in the RA. The nature of the process also isn’t the same as an otherwise normal applicant. The VD check happens when someone applies for citizenship, and their prior residency isn’t directly relevant to that process. Here, it’s a prerequisite, so the person in question has already been denied citizenship but has been in the community for a long time. I don’t see the need to rush the process when they arent

Click to expand...

Got what you mean by that.

I do have a different wording in mind with regards to how this can be done, I will leave it here for review by the rest of the Assembly.

Freg's wording for the Citizenship Reform Act:

1. Section 6.1 of the Legal Code will be amended to the following:

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.

Click to expand...

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 7 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 Vice Delegate will automatically fail any applicant who identifies as fascist or has engaged in the promotion of fascism.
7. The Speaker will reject applicants who fail an evaluation by either forum administration or the Vice Delegate.
8. 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.
9. The Regional Assembly may overturn a previous decision to uphold the rejection of an applicant by majority vote.
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 have maintained continuous residency for at least 6 months, previously applied for citizenship, passed an evaluation by the Vice Delegate, and failed the evaluation by the forum administration due to a lack of residential network address.
12. The Speaker will verify that at least 2 elected government officials recommend the applicant's appeal be accepted. The recommendation would be made based on their record of participation in the regional community.
13. If the applicant's appeal meets all the requirements as per the law, the Speaker will table the motion for the Regional Assembly to debate on the appeal.
14. The Regional Assembly will then decide whether to accept the appeal with a two-third majority.
15. The Speaker will accept all other applicants with valid applications.
16. 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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I am a bit worried about my wording on clause 10 and 11, but basically, I think that we need to make it clear that the applicant must pass all other checks, and only fail solely because of the lack of residential network address. By clause 5, if the applicant is serving a judicially-imposed penalty, an administrative ban, or by using proxies, then they will have failed the forum administration evaluation because of reasons other than a lack of residential network address, so repeating it seems rather unnecessary. Also, I tied the Speaker's hands in forcing the Speaker to accept all supported applications, because I felt that there isn't exactly a need for the Speaker to verify the applicant's participation record. This should have been done by the government official who supports the appeal (which, by the way, can also be the Speaker themselves), who has a very good understanding of how the applicant has served in their branch of the regional government. It is also with that that I reduced the number of recommendations from 3 to 2, since there are only 6 elected officials to choose from in the first place. I didn't touch the part about the vote threshold required, I believe we can leave it up for debate. As for the other details, I will leave it to Pallaith to see if my wording makes sense and adjust from there.

@Fregerson I think you missed a crucial part of my wording. One of the requirements for being eligible to appeal a rejection in the admin check is that the applicant is not confirmed to be judicially barred from citizenship. I also included language stating they can't have been banned or convicted of a crime - you have eliminated all of that in your proposed draft, and I am not sure why. I have also previously addressed that even if one successfully appeals this rejection, they still have to pass all the checks. Certainly you can force them to pass those checks first before getting an appeal, but I would point out that it is common for the VD and the Speaker, if the admin check is done first, not to continue with the process if the admin check is failed. So you create a potential scenario where if those two individuals never do their check, the appeal can't get off the ground. I suppose the appeal being sought could push them to do that, but either way, there is no way someone is getting citizenship without passing all three checks, appeal or no appeal. I personally see nothing wrong with either way though, so I am certainly open to that.

I really don't like being that specific with the ip thing. It's indirectly legislating admin behavior and I have always liked that we don't get into the hows of what they do. For another thing, there's a lot of ways not to have a residential ip address, and lacking one is an issue because it directly affects the admins' ability to verify the two specific things the law wants them to check. I understand you are specifically trying to carve the other stuff out, but as I said, I feel the language as written already does that.

I don't like the use of the word table. This is a place where mirroring existing language (earlier used in the Vice Delegate check) makes sense to me. I appreciate that you want the Speaker to be the button pusher in this process, much like the VD has to bring it to the RA once the applicant fails that check. I was trying to create an additional check by having the Speaker have some discretion at their disposal, but ultimately we have a lot of conditions as it is and the potential for a Speaker simply refusing to do appeals is a possibility that would exist under the current draft. I like to believe that wouldn't be abused, but I could see if being a political position and perhaps it is best avoided. I also agree that people making recommendations ought to know what they're talking about, but we should recognize that this is also a matter of discretion - an official could make the recommendation based on little or nothing, and the law accepts that recommendation as valid. Saying what it should be based on doesn't change that fact. The Speaker having the final say could judge those recommendations for their real value, and your language doesn't account for that. In terms of who makes the recommendation, the people best suited for this are people who have had a chance to work with or observe the applicant in their time in the region. Ministers and delegates will have the most opportunities to do this, followed by Speakers and their deputies. The Court doesn't lend itself to this sort of thing, so I wouldn't specifically call on them to offer a recommendation. I would say executive government officials, the Speaker's office, and maybe even the Security Council. Limiting this to an elected official takes ministers off the table and I think they could have a lot of valuable insight into an applicant's worthiness. Bringing them on makes it easier though, so I would advise it going back to 3 in that case.

mcmasterdonia:

I think it is worth noting that the admin check also generally considers whether a person has multiple accounts. So not simply just proxying or judicial bans.

I think the language could be simplified and I will circle back with some thoughts in due course. I also think it may be best to designate which government officials can provide that support. Thinking the obvious - Speaker, Delegate, Vice Delegate, would make more sense.

Click to expand...

I welcome more insight from admins on this matter. I mentioned proxying and judicial bans because the law specifically asks admins to check those. I am taking for granted to some extent that other relevant factors admin uncovers will be relayed as well, and that if serious enough would take certain applicants off the table entirely. We have seen in practice when the second account thing has come up.

I am very curious about the simplification of the language aspect, especially if it's clause 11, because my original wording was "11. In order to appeal the rejection, the applicant must have maintained continuous residency for at least 6 months, previously applied for citizenship, and have a clean disciplinary record" (something like that). I was advised to be more specific as to what that means, which of course made it longer. Otherwise much of it does seek to emulate the way the other parts of that section are written, and are very deliberate in sequence. I'm always up for polishing a draft though.

I'm going to echo what McM said about the admin check serving to protect the RA from multi-ing. I wish there was a better way to do it than the IP check. If someone has any ideas on this, please let us know. But we really do not want a person to be able to stack the RA and vote multiple times. It's a recipe for getting a rogue delegate.

This proposal makes the path to citizenship challenging enough that it should prevent that kind of thing happening.

The talk of opening the floodgates - that could be done too, as long as we have verified IPs for voting. Someone without a residential IP would be more or less a second-class citizen. They could do everything else except, say, vote for delegate.

Okay, later than I hoped, but here are my thoughts.

First of all, full support for the principle of making it possible for people with no residential IP gain citizenship. Requiring people to have a residential IP is going to become a less and less reasonable demand as time goes on, and we can't have that as a barrier.

That said, this is a real nothingburger of a proposal. First of all, the requirements to even appealing a rejection; prohibiting applicants who are banned administratively or judicially makes sense. But there's also a mysterious six-month residency requirement which is there because... reasons? That cuts of almost all of the people who would want to appeal their rejections and the people we most want to apply for citizenship - new people. Plus, there's no reason a committed bad actor couldn't park a nation in TNP for six months before applying from a proxy or something. Also, it's required that appellants have "previously applied for citizenship", which I feel like could be taken to mean "has applied for citizenship before the denied application that they are appealing".

Then, three government officials have to recommend the applicant. The above was not so great, but this basically kills any effectiveness the proposal has. A newbie who gets denied citizenship because they have no residential IP address would be hard-pressed to be recommended by three government officials they will not know and who will not know them. The effect of this is to make it so that this proposal is basically only for people like Hulldom who joined as residents and progressed in government as residents.

The same is true of the RA confirmation - no brand new, fairly unknown TNPer is going to pass RA muster. The added bonus of RA confirmation is that even if this bill was designed for the newbies I have been talking about, it would be absurd for the RA to vote on every hopeful citizen who failed the admin check.

The effect of this bill is that the contingent of people bills like this should help, new residents who hope to become citizens but can't because they have no residential IP address, which is a group that is only going to get larger, are excluded from the positive effects here. We are leaving out an ever-growing pool of potential valuable TNPers because of this IP requirement. I believe that at least some other regions do not have this requirement and I wonder if we could learn from their security practices rather than maintaining this onerous requirement. Otherwise, I see no way to address the probelm short of radically rethinking the way we view citizenship.

I will be voting for when this comes to vote because it will help people like Hulldom gain citizenship, but it does not address what I see as the fundamental issue of a residential IP requirement.

Pallaith:

You spend a great deal of your post being concerned with banned players sneaking in. The admin check isn’t actually even concerned with that - it’s concerned with people who are judicially barred from citizenship or proxying. Admins enforcing a more serious administrative ban is obviously going to supersede any IC citizenship process.

Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain the reason admins demand a residential IP is not only to prevent judicially barred members from getting in. Although the enforcement of OOC bans supersedes the citizenship process, I'm not sure there's a ton that admins can do if a player is using a different IP address and doesn't exhibit any suspicious behaviour, and so I've always thought that non-residential IPs (and proxies) are banned because it eliminates the easiest way for banned players to get in (or at least get citizenship). There's also the matter of VD/RA-barred people, who could also try something similar to circumvent their ban.

As GBM and McM also mentioned, the admin check also tries to prevent multi-ing - I didn't mention these in my previous post, but they're a different type of bad actors that this proposal could open a door for.

Pallaith:

And citing the SC to identify banned players sounds like you want them to use their knowledge to suss out players who they may be watching out for - that’s what the VD is for, and that will have already happened by the time this appeal process takes place. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the VD didn’t get around to it before the admins failed the applicant. This process doesn’t completely sidestep the other requirements - they still have to pass the other checks. The VD check is going to happen when the application moves forward. So I don’t see the need to do double work and mandate they essentially do this check a second time. I also rely on the fact that during the RA discussion the SC can in fact offer an assessment or be asked to make one.

Click to expand...

I'll concede this point to you. There's certainly a lot of checks in this proposal and another one by the SC is probably not necessary.

Pallaith:

I’m afraid you’ve lost me with the rest of your argument. We are not concerned with how many citizens we get with this method. This is about correcting an inadequacy in the system, an unequal opportunity for some residents in our community. I don’t care if we only get three new citizens out of this process - that’s three committed and valued members of our community who couldn’t fully participate in the past and now can. I want to balance the very real security concerns (as unlikely as they might be) with these other concerns. Your entire argument relies a lot on the specter of a banned player or nefarious actor (and honestly, if a would-be nefarious person has a residential ip, they get waved inside already unless we happen to catch on to them being a specific “villain” on our watchlist, so what do you even mean by this?), but then you suggest opening the door entirely? Yeah we can do that and it’s a lot easier, but I don’t think I agree it’s a good idea. I also don’t think it’s going to lead to a dramatic increase in new citizens, and certainly not active and engaged ones, because facts being facts most of the new citizens don’t even become the kind of person this proposed exception is designed to help.

Click to expand...

My point is that if we're going to potentially open the door for bad actors without much benefit in terms of new, committed citizens that we're getting, then we might as well open the door all the way and let more new, committed citizens get in as well as potentially bad actors. After all, there's a limited number of bad actors and an unlimited number of potential new citizens. I recognise that people who just leave after failing the admin check are probably not going to be the most active citizens even if they were accepted, but at least it gives them more of a chance to participate in the region. I mean, if everything I see tells me the first thing I should do is apply for citizenship, and then I get rejected, I would probably leave too.

The idea of finding a solution to the admin check issue is about "correcting an inadequacy in the system", but this proposal is a very narrow and specific correction that doesn't really have a realistic prospect in gaining us the new, committed citizens we want. As I said, the only reason this is even being discussed is because of Hulldom, and the result is a proposal that presently only applies to Hulldom, and might only ever apply to Hulldom. After all, the admin check has existed for a long time and this is the first time we've encountered this issue. So we might as well just pass a "Hulldom Naturalization Act" and give him the citizenship he deserves without opening the door to any risks.

St George:

For those concerned about the possibility of banned players and nefarious actors getting through, let me just flip the scenario and ask a question: how many potentially dedicated and active members have we lost over the years because they lacked a dedicated IP? I guarantee you it's a lot more than potential threats that could get by this new system.

Click to expand...

I think you missed the more important question here: How many potentially dedicated and active members would we gain through this new system? I guarantee you it's a lot less than what we have lost. That's why I don't feel this system is the right answer, given the lack of potential gain and increase in potential risk.

St George:

East Isles, recently a speaker of these very halls, failed the admin check repeatedly before later reapplying - and they're not the only ones to apply multiple times and get turned away multiple times. I took a look at citizenship applications from the start of last year to about May 2021 - there were at least a dozen applicants who failed the admin check for not applying from a residential IP, and four or five of those applied multiple times, one person applying five times. That, to me at least, is indicative that we're missing on people who would, in fact, be active and dedicated to the region, at least for a short time.

Click to expand...

That said, this is an intriguing argument, although a dozen rejections in a five month period is somewhat less than I thought. I'm curious about what these four or five people who re-applied ended up doing. Did they stay in TNP and get into non-governmental stuff? Did they move to another region? Did they CTE not long after? If they stayed in TNP or moved to another region, then this is a good sign for the proposal - they are potentially willing to put time into NS, just deprived of an opportunity to do so. If they fell inactive, then that's not such a positive sign. If you're able and willing to, I hope you can look a bit more into this. If not, then I would be happy to do it if you give me the names.

I'm also intrigued by some things that QD and GBM have said. Perhaps it's not unreasonable to admit people without residential IPs and just keep a closer eye on them in case a bad actor slips up and reverts to a known IP. Maybe that's too much of a workload for the admins, but since MJ only noted a dozen rejections in a five month period, that doesn't seem like too large a number to me (keeping in mind there are many people who gain citizenship and never log in again). And additional safeguards could be taken such as removing their ability to vote, and perhaps a WA check requirement.

Or perhaps we do none of this and simply open up every ministry's Executive Staff to residents rather than citizens. After all the executive staff is the main way most people end up getting involved in government. And maybe we could expand the government official exemption to Speaker appointees (i.e. Deputy Speakers) to provide them a way in to the Speaker's office as well. These could just as much encourage new players without residential IPs to get involved in the region.

Great Bights Mum:

I'm going to echo what McM said about the admin check serving to protect the RA from multi-ing. I wish there was a better way to do it than the IP check. If someone has any ideas on this, please let us know. But we really do not want a person to be able to stack the RA and vote multiple times. It's a recipe for getting a rogue delegate.

This proposal makes the path to citizenship challenging enough that it should prevent that kind of thing happening.

The talk of opening the floodgates - that could be done too, as long as we have verified IPs for voting. Someone without a residential IP would be more or less a second-class citizen. They could do everything else except, say, vote for delegate.

Click to expand...

I want to be clear that the admin check can do a lot of things, and give us a lot of information, I recognize that. Legally speaking, it is designed for two specific things. That's why those keep getting brought up. Finding that someone has a second account can be a factor in determining the criteria the citizenship law covers. I appreciate that you recognize what I was going for with this bill. I'll address the floodgate thing a little later.

Pathoal:

Okay, later than I hoped, but here are my thoughts.

First of all, full support for the principle of making it possible for people with no residential IP gain citizenship. Requiring people to have a residential IP is going to become a less and less reasonable demand as time goes on, and we can't have that as a barrier.

That said, this is a real nothingburger of a proposal. First of all, the requirements to even appealing a rejection; prohibiting applicants who are banned administratively or judicially makes sense. But there's also a mysterious six-month residency requirement which is there because... reasons? That cuts of almost all of the people who would want to appeal their rejections and the people we most want to apply for citizenship - new people. Plus, there's no reason a committed bad actor couldn't park a nation in TNP for six months before applying from a proxy or something. Also, it's required that appellants have "previously applied for citizenship", which I feel like could be taken to mean "has applied for citizenship before the denied application that they are appealing".

Then, three government officials have to recommend the applicant. The above was not so great, but this basically kills any effectiveness the proposal has. A newbie who gets denied citizenship because they have no residential IP address would be hard-pressed to be recommended by three government officials they will not know and who will not know them. The effect of this is to make it so that this proposal is basically only for people like Hulldom who joined as residents and progressed in government as residents.

The same is true of the RA confirmation - no brand new, fairly unknown TNPer is going to pass RA muster. The added bonus of RA confirmation is that even if this bill was designed for the newbies I have been talking about, it would be absurd for the RA to vote on every hopeful citizen who failed the admin check.

The effect of this bill is that the contingent of people bills like this should help, new residents who hope to become citizens but can't because they have no residential IP address, which is a group that is only going to get larger, are excluded from the positive effects here. We are leaving out an ever-growing pool of potential valuable TNPers because of this IP requirement. I believe that at least some other regions do not have this requirement and I wonder if we could learn from their security practices rather than maintaining this onerous requirement. Otherwise, I see no way to address the probelm short of radically rethinking the way we view citizenship.

I will be voting for when this comes to vote because it will help people like Hulldom gain citizenship, but it does not address what I see as the fundamental issue of a residential IP requirement.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that this bill doesn't go as far as you would like it to, but I hardly think it is a "nothingburger." We are creating an opportunity for people to get citizenship who currently cannot, while retaining the admin check and making it as hard as possible for it to be sidestepped. By definition, that approach is going to be difficult and leave a lot of people out. If we had a better way to help people in this situation, I would be all for it, but I am not sure if completely eliminating the admin check is that better way.

I modeled the appeal requirements after the Boston Amendment. I think 6 months is a solid length of time - if someone isn't super active, it gives them enough time to be recognizable and have a bit of a record. If they are super active, we can see some close community ties being forged. Sure, it is also possible that someone sits in the dark for 6 months and then applies and appeals, but I don't see such a person surviving the process. I suppose it may seem a bit strange that total strangers can walk right in if they have a residential ip, but we're more suspicious of strangers who don't have one, when in reality both groups are identical in nature and the former group, by virtue of comprising every successful citizen, is more likely to produce a bad actor. But that's just kind of how it works. To the extent we can develop trust and get to know someone, we have to rely on that if we cannot satisfy this first and important security itch. Building trust and getting to know someone obviously takes more time, and it's not going to favor brand new people no one knows. I get it, it is unfortunate, but it's the most measured way we can do this.

I would like to see admin find a more reliable to do their check without seeking out these ips, but that's not something we can legislate. That will be up to admin, and that could take time. At least we can have this in the meantime, as limited and disappointing as it may be to some of you.

Gorundu:

I'm fairly certain the reason admins demand a residential IP is not only to prevent judicially barred members from getting in. Although the enforcement of OOC bans supersedes the citizenship process, I'm not sure there's a ton that admins can do if a player is using a different IP address and doesn't exhibit any suspicious behaviour, and so I've always thought that non-residential IPs (and proxies) are banned because it eliminates the easiest way for banned players to get in (or at least get citizenship). There's also the matter of VD/RA-barred people, who could also try something similar to circumvent their ban.

As GBM and McM also mentioned, the admin check also tries to prevent multi-ing - I didn't mention these in my previous post, but they're a different type of bad actors that this proposal could open a door for.


I'll concede this point to you. There's certainly a lot of checks in this proposal and another one by the SC is probably not necessary.


My point is that if we're going to potentially open the door for bad actors without much benefit in terms of new, committed citizens that we're getting, then we might as well open the door all the way and let more new, committed citizens get in as well as potentially bad actors. After all, there's a limited number of bad actors and an unlimited number of potential new citizens. I recognise that people who just leave after failing the admin check are probably not going to be the most active citizens even if they were accepted, but at least it gives them more of a chance to participate in the region. I mean, if everything I see tells me the first thing I should do is apply for citizenship, and then I get rejected, I would probably leave too.

The idea of finding a solution to the admin check issue is about "correcting an inadequacy in the system", but this proposal is a very narrow and specific correction that doesn't really have a realistic prospect in gaining us the new, committed citizens we want. As I said, the only reason this is even being discussed is because of Hulldom, and the result is a proposal that presently only applies to Hulldom, and might only ever apply to Hulldom. After all, the admin check has existed for a long time and this is the first time we've encountered this issue. So we might as well just pass a "Hulldom Naturalization Act" and give him the citizenship he deserves without opening the door to any risks.


I think you missed the more important question here: How many potentially dedicated and active members would we gain through this new system? I guarantee you it's a lot less than what we have lost. That's why I don't feel this system is the right answer, given the lack of potential gain and increase in potential risk.


That said, this is an intriguing argument, although a dozen rejections in a five month period is somewhat less than I thought. I'm curious about what these four or five people who re-applied ended up doing. Did they stay in TNP and get into non-governmental stuff? Did they move to another region? Did they CTE not long after? If they stayed in TNP or moved to another region, then this is a good sign for the proposal - they are potentially willing to put time into NS, just deprived of an opportunity to do so. If they fell inactive, then that's not such a positive sign. If you're able and willing to, I hope you can look a bit more into this. If not, then I would be happy to do it if you give me the names.

I'm also intrigued by some things that QD and GBM have said. Perhaps it's not unreasonable to admit people without residential IPs and just keep a closer eye on them in case a bad actor slips up and reverts to a known IP. Maybe that's too much of a workload for the admins, but since MJ only noted a dozen rejections in a five month period, that doesn't seem like too large a number to me (keeping in mind there are many people who gain citizenship and never log in again). And additional safeguards could be taken such as removing their ability to vote, and perhaps a WA check requirement.

Or perhaps we do none of this and simply open up every ministry's Executive Staff to residents rather than citizens. After all the executive staff is the main way most people end up getting involved in government. And maybe we could expand the government official exemption to Speaker appointees (i.e. Deputy Speakers) to provide them a way in to the Speaker's office as well. These could just as much encourage new players without residential IPs to get involved in the region.

Click to expand...

Admin probably wants to rule a lot of things out, but I must reiterate, the legal code specifies two things they have to verify, and since we're, you know, changing the law, this keeps coming up. Multi-ing would be hard to detect without a residential ip, and it's obvious why it is something to be avoided - but it's also, in my view, another method to get at the specific criteria the admins are searching for, not necessarily something to be sought at for its own sake (though it can be both). That's why if you have a duplicate account, the admins can fail your check, even though the legal code doesn't technically mention multi-ing. All of this is just to say, again, I know admins can determine and look for a lot of things beyond the two in the legal code, but all they serve the same purpose in the end and they're all getting sidestepped potentially by the appeal process. That's why I'm being so deliberate with it.

Your post once again becomes less an argument against my bill and more an argument for living without the admin check. That isn't what I am trying to propose, but I will admit it would be a much simpler change. You keep appealing to utility and whether the change is "worth it" for us. I don't think that's a good way to evaluate it. My aim here is to do the most good for the most people while maintaining our safeguards. Just because unleashing the floodgates would let more people in doesn't make it inherently better as an option.

I will continue to reject this notion that the bill is just for Boston Castle. He is not the first person to be in this situation, and he will not be the last. It is not a new phenomenon - the fact we haven't tried to address it before doesn't mean that we just stumbled upon it. The Boston Amendment was so named because we had no legal process to achieve a desired end - making Boston the WA minister. The reason we had to have that conversation was because of this long-standing issue with our citizenship process. We see people affected by it all the time, not just Boston. He may be the most prominent member of our community in this situation, which makes him a symbol of it, but make no mistake, we're aiming to do more than just make a singular exception for one person. I don't care for laws like that, and I don't believe we should encourage that. You may be able to count the number of people who utilize this process on one or two hands, but that's sufficient in my book. We're taking an impossibility and creating a path. I do not pretend that this is the end of this problem, and I am sure more will develop on this in the future.

I honestly don't understand your argument. You're literally citing both the "lack of potential gain" and the "increase in potential risk." Adjusting this process to not make admin check fails absolute will increase potential risk no matter how carefully you do it. You seem to be advocating to go broader with the reduction in restrictions, but also holding this proposal to the fire for being risky. You're trying to have this both ways, and I can tell you, the sweet spot you seem to seek does not exist. And if it does, stop telling me how my bill doesn't hit it and show me where it is.

As for your last point, that's not as big a change as you seem to think it is. Yes the shift in Speaker office would be significant, but the executive staff already by and large allows residents to take part. It is only a handful of scenarios where that is not currently the case.

Now I want to address everyone: is there actually an appetite for replacing the admin check with a different way to track people to avoid letting citizenship-barred people or potential banned players come in during the citizenship process? I get that only a few people have weighed in so far, but I am detecting more of a willingness to go farther than I was expecting. I won't pretend that doesn't come with increased risks and tradeoffs, but I do understand the frustration that perhaps our ambitions, and the moral core of our argument for this bill, are not served by this particular bill. I know it's not what MadJack had in mind when he campaigned on this issue, and it certainly doesn't allow for what I was hoping we could see happen. But it is in my view the safest approach, leaves our system virtually intact, and is ideally the first step, the next step to be taken by admin. I can make some tweaks based on feedback so far, but if we're going to go in a very different direction with this, I may hold off on making another version just yet.

@Pallaith I am getting what you are trying to get at, I think I was overcomplicating things when I was writing those out. I am happy with what you suggested with regards to letting Executive Council members give recommendations. I think with some admin input, I would be happy to accept a version where we are clear on what is an acceptable ground of appeal, and what is not.

Pallaith:

Now I want to address everyone: is there actually an appetite for replacing the admin check with a different way to track people to avoid letting citizenship-barred people or potential banned players come in during the citizenship process? I get that only a few people have weighed in so far, but I am detecting more of a willingness to go farther than I was expecting. I won't pretend that doesn't come with increased risks and tradeoffs, but I do understand the frustration that perhaps our ambitions, and the moral core of our argument for this bill, are not served by this particular bill. I know it's not what MadJack had in mind when he campaigned on this issue, and it certainly doesn't allow for what I was hoping we could see happen. But it is in my view the safest approach, leaves our system virtually intact, and is ideally the first step, the next step to be taken by admin. I can make some tweaks based on feedback so far, but if we're going to go in a very different direction with this, I may hold off on making another version just yet.

Click to expand...

I rather accept the bill in its current form as compared to modifying it to this "open the floodgate" approach.

I do support the general concept of this, and may have more thoughts later - at the moment I agree that 6 months seems a bit long (especially since it appears to operate as a minimum and applicants can consequently spend more time if needed). I’d be minded to bump it down to something more like 4 months - if nothing else, it’d mean sticking around for 2ish elections rather than 2 or 3 (which just seems nicer to me).

In the interest of sparing my having to edit the original post every time tweaks are made to the bill, I hope I can highlight specific changes that I intend to make ahead of time and have those debated a bit before I edit the original post with a formal revised draft. I feel like the following changes would be broadly popular based on our discussion so far, but there's a few that may lend themselves to more of a back and forth. Here are the clauses in their updated form, followed by explanations of the changes:

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 have previously applied for citizenship, not been convicted of a crime or banned by administration in the last six months, and not have been confirmed by administration to have been linked to another forum account.
12. The Speaker will confirm that at least five government officials from any combination of the Executive, Speaker's Office, or Security Council recommend the applicant’s appeal be accepted based on an evaluation of the applicant's record of participation in the regional community and involvement in regional government.
13. The Speaker will formally grant the applicant’s appeal if the above criteria are met.
14. If the appeal is granted, the Regional Assembly will debate the appeal and will hold a majority vote on whether to uphold it.

1)Following input from @Fregerson I would eliminate the Speaker's veto from the process. That is, I would not make it conditional on the Speaker deciding to move the process forward. If an appeal is requested, the Speaker pushes the process along and has no say in whether it happens. Of course, the Speaker will still deny the appeal if the applicant does not meet the basic requirements.

2)I have removed the continuous residency requirement. A lot of concern was that this process would be too limited and not address the problem most of us want to see addressed. We can be careful and thoughtful in this process even with relatively unknown people, most of whom will likely fail such an appeal if it is made anyway. An arbitrary period can be waited out with or without time spent in the community, but someone who just waits 6 months before an appeal could get further than a newcomer who was continuously active and interested in doing more, even though both are likely to be under a lot of scrutiny for their relatively limited records. The 6 month wait is more likely to turn away people who are more likely to bring more to the region.

3)Instead of a 6 month wait, I revised the other requirements to include a prohibition on the applicant having been convicted of a crime or banned by administration in the last 6 months. The old wording did have an effect of making appeals impossible if the applicant had ever been convicted of a crime or banned, period, something that isn't even a problem for applicants without the ip issue. Obviously people evading either would still not be allowed - but this didn't limit it to just those evading a currently active punishment. Similarly, requiring admins to have not confirmed they were convicted or banned in the past is a bit redundant - instead I changed it to simply block them if administration catches them having another account they are linked to. As has been mentioned a few times in this debate, admin is seeking this too and it's not explicitly in the legal code. If someone is linked to another account, tat can be a way to catch people trying to evade punishment and slide in, and that is after all what we want to protect against.

4)The evaluation will be entirely handled by the RA debate and the officials offering recommendations. We can do this carefully and deliberately using the existing checks we have. The VD check is concerned with security threats, and yet we manage to get the RA vote down in two days with a majority vote. I have always believed this is because our laws place a great burden on those who would make citizenship harder to obtain, and only for very good reasons. If the door is to be barred, then a solid case must exist why. I understand that admins look at a different level than purely in-character government officials, but if we're going to place such an increasingly solid barrier in front of prospective citizens, we need to give that a fair hearing too. To that end I beefed up the recommendations, requiring 5 instead of 3, so that we really take a closer look at this person and maximize a variety of officials offering input.

4)Speaking of my comparison to the VD check - I think it may be a bit much to make this voting threshold higher than the VD check. Potentially getting around the admin check could be detrimental to our security, but so can overturning the VD's rejection of potential security threats. There is unlimited debate built into this law, along with a built in check by officials who need to evaluate the applicant's record. More people looking at an applicant for a longer period of time than the VD check. I think we can get by with a majority vote.

How do we feel about these changes?

I haven't really thought quite deeply about it yet, but this part stands out to me:

Pallaith:

3)Instead of a 6 month wait, I revised the other requirements to include a prohibition on the applicant having been convicted of a crime or banned by administration in the last 6 months. The old wording did have an effect of making appeals impossible if the applicant had ever been convicted of a crime or banned, period, something that isn't even a problem for applicants without the ip issue. Obviously people evading either would still not be allowed - but this didn't limit it to just those evading a currently active punishment. Similarly, requiring admins to have not confirmed they were convicted or banned in the past is a bit redundant - instead I changed it to simply block them if administration catches them having another account they are linked to. As has been mentioned a few times in this debate, admin is seeking this too and it's not explicitly in the legal code. If someone is linked to another account, tat can be a way to catch people trying to evade punishment and slide in, and that is after all what we want to protect against.

Click to expand...

Forgive me, but aren't admin bans permanent? In that case, our law shouldn't allow people to bypass admin bans...I think? I am unsure whether you meant that. I was thinking that the requirements on that would be:
- Cannot have been convicted of a crime in the last 6 months
- Cannot be under an admin ban
- Cannot be serving a judicial sentence barring the personnel from citizenship

Fregerson:

I haven't really thought quite deeply about it yet, but this part stands out to me:

Forgive me, but aren't admin bans permanent? In that case, our law shouldn't allow people to bypass admin bans...I think? I am unsure whether you meant that. I was thinking that the requirements on that would be:
- Cannot have been convicted of a crime in the last 6 months
- Cannot be under an admin ban
- Cannot be serving a judicial sentence barring the personnel from citizenship

Click to expand...

No. An admin ban can vary in length. Some are permanent and others have a limited duration. This law is actually more concerned with the second kind - obviously someone who was permanently banned isn’t going to be allowed in anyway, but someone may have been banned for a few months and tries to apply using this method upon their return. The idea behind this provision is to penalize someone who was banned as being unworthy of this special consideration. Of course, if they met the typical admin requirements, and served out their ban, the process would of course be simple if they applied for citizenship. But this is a special alternative path and I wanted to make it clear there’s a high standard. Practically speaking it doesn’t really protect, because if admins can’t verify someone is subverting a ban, we won’t necessarily know if this provision applies. I could be convinced to drop this part. I don’t agree that it gets people around admin bans though, unless you think that somehow someone permanently banned more than 6 months ago would somehow be able to post in the application thread despite being a known banned player.

The conditions you outlined as expected are already restricted by the law as written, because being judicially barred from citizenship is a result of a conviction and all convictions are subject to get someone’s appeal denied; and you cannot apply while under a ban (as explored in my previous paragraph).

So we are talking about 6 months from conviction of an admin ban, or 6 months from the completion of an admin ban? In that case, I would think the latter be better, given that it keeps in line with the "high standard" and is a good time to see if the person is at risk of getting himself banned again for bad admin behaviour.

Fregerson:

So we are talking about 6 months from conviction of an admin ban, or 6 months from the completion of an admin ban? In that case, I would think the latter be better, given that it keeps in line with the "high standard" and is a good time to see if the person is at risk of getting himself banned again for bad admin behaviour.

Click to expand...

If they were banned in the last 6 months. So 6 months from the day of the ban would be the end of the eligible period. To do what you would want to do, we would need to be specific about appealing 6 months after the completion of an admin ban.

Even if it can be easily avoided by someone who doesn't pass the admin check, I would be minded to keep in a prohibition on having been banned.

Firstly, because I can imagine scenarios involving someone who can still be identified someway else even if they don't pass the check itself.
Secondly, the principle of it that we don't want people banned by admin to be citizens - if it can't truly be enforced, I feel it better that the principle exists in the law (also, it then becomes that much easier to remove it if it is later proven, outside of other criminal acts).

As GBM mentioned above, I believ the use of mobile IP/unrestricted IP monitoring is more of a threat to elections and the Regional Assembly via vote-packing. A lone wolf here or there is not able to impact the regional negatively, or its democratic process, laws etc however a lone wolf with 5 mobile devices, 5 citizenships, 5 votes is much more of a real threat to the region. Especially if 2 or 3 bad actors used this process, and packed the mid-ranks of the minstry positions to support everything stated by one of their alts, it could result in pure chaos electorally, culturally, even legislatively.

I am not the most tech savy person in this discussion but that I think is what requires consideration, a throttle on these new citizens with 'non residential ips". Maybe a number per month? Also I think the increase in similiar IP addresses from high schools, colleges etc will increase dramtically but hopefully they can be teased apart from one another.

Pallaith:

No. An admin ban can vary in length. Some are permanent and others have a limited duration. This law is actually more concerned with the second kind - obviously someone who was permanently banned isn’t going to be allowed in anyway, but someone may have been banned for a few months and tries to apply using this method upon their return. The idea behind this provision is to penalize someone who was banned as being unworthy of this special consideration. Of course, if they met the typical admin requirements, and served out their ban, the process would of course be simple if they applied for citizenship. But this is a special alternative path and I wanted to make it clear there’s a high standard. Practically speaking it doesn’t really protect, because if admins can’t verify someone is subverting a ban, we won’t necessarily know if this provision applies. I could be convinced to drop this part. I don’t agree that it gets people around admin bans though, unless you think that somehow someone permanently banned more than 6 months ago would somehow be able to post in the application thread despite being a known banned player.

The conditions you outlined as expected are already restricted by the law as written, because being judicially barred from citizenship is a result of a conviction and all convictions are subject to get someone’s appeal denied; and you cannot apply while under a ban (as explored in my previous paragraph).

Click to expand...

I'm a little confused by the 6 months limit. Most admin bans I've seen on the forum are over 6 months. As I understand it, this clause wouldn't apply to anyone who was banned for a limited duration longer than 6 months, so anyone who was banned longer than 6 months would be able to apply (or reapply) for citizenship after the expiry of the ban, which doesn't really achieve your intended effect of penalizing these people. Makes more sense to just change it to anyone who has been banned or convicted of a crime. Unless...you're talking about Discord bans? There are certainly a few Discord bans I've seen that are only for a month or two.

As for the rest of the changes they are going in the right direction, even if I'm still not convinced about this concept in general. One thing I have some questions on is the list of government officials who can give a recommendation. I don't think the Speaker's Office should be included (though the Speaker should) given the practice of inducting relatively new members into the office as Deputy Speakers, some of whom I feel would not have passed the bar for a successful appeal were they to be in the position. Another question I have is on who exactly is included in the "Executive" - specifically, whether they include officials that the Delegate is required to appoint by law and are confirmed by the Regional Assembly (such as Election Commissioners), since the exemption clauses in the Legal Code would suggest that they belong to the executive branch.

The points @Gorundu makes about the ban language are well taken. I don’t know that I want the fact they were banned in the past to be a permanent blocker, but I think we should move more toward it being a check if they are currently banned. It still strikes me as a tad redundant though since if we can confirm they’re banned, they can’t get to the application thread anyway.

Fair point about the Speaker’s office. There are some deputies potentially whose input would be valuable but others who I wouldn’t take with even a grain of salt. However I could say that about some of the people who have served as Speaker as well…however I think we’ll carve the deputies out.

Executive could be tightened a bit. I wanted to include the ministers along with the delegate and vice delegate, but there’s a few smaller roles that I wouldn’t necessarily say ought to qualify. I’ll probably mirror the FoIA phrasing for that.

I am glad that this is moving in the right direction according to you, but I’m not sure what you’re struggling with as far as the concept. You outlined concerns that barely anyone would pass the bar we’re setting with this bill, so I have endeavored to increase its scope and essentially make it possible for all applicants who fail the check for the mobile ip to go through it. What more could I do to still ensure that we guard against the risks that come from disregarding the ip thing? I’m not opening the floodgates, but I’m also not keeping the passage the size of a needle. This seems like the best middle ground, how could I make it better?

Pallaith:

I am glad that this is moving in the right direction according to you, but I’m not sure what you’re struggling with as far as the concept. You outlined concerns that barely anyone would pass the bar we’re setting with this bill, so I have endeavored to increase its scope and essentially make it possible for all applicants who fail the check for the mobile ip to go through it. What more could I do to still ensure that we guard against the risks that come from disregarding the ip thing? I’m not opening the floodgates, but I’m also not keeping the passage the size of a needle. This seems like the best middle ground, how could I make it better?

Click to expand...

To be honest, I'm not really sure. If we do pass this law (or something like it), its success will depend on the implementation. It will depend on how well we can make this opportunity known to potential applicants, and how well we can let them know of the ways they can participate in the community and the government. But we don't need to pass a law to let residents know about how they can participate in the community and the government. In fact, there's a lot that can be done without changing the law, at least if we're just talking about letting those who can't obtain citizenship (under the current conditions) get more involved in the region. I know you talked about the purpose of this bil being about correcting an inequity, but to me that's just one part of it. So I suppose I'm not sure about this concept because I think we should try some things that don't require changing the law first, which would also be a proof of concept that this law can work.

This is not really gonna help you with drafting your bill though, so that's why I didn't really elaborate on it at first.

Gorundu:

To be honest, I'm not really sure. If we do pass this law (or something like it), its success will depend on the implementation. It will depend on how well we can make this opportunity known to potential applicants, and how well we can let them know of the ways they can participate in the community and the government. But we don't need to pass a law to let residents know about how they can participate in the community and the government. In fact, there's a lot that can be done without changing the law, at least if we're just talking about letting those who can't obtain citizenship (under the current conditions) get more involved in the region. I know you talked about the purpose of this bil being about correcting an inequity, but to me that's just one part of it. So I suppose I'm not sure about this concept because I think we should try some things that don't require changing the law first, which would also be a proof of concept that this law can work.

This is not really gonna help you with drafting your bill though, so that's why I didn't really elaborate on it at first.

Click to expand...

The point of the bill is to create a path to citizenship for people who don’t currently have one. There’s no way to do that with current law. As far as them getting involved, that’s key to a successful appeal, so I agree that we’ll need to remind people of that and get some outreach for prospective citizens so they know citizenship is important but not an impediment to them being involved in the community. I can’t legislate that as you correctly pointed out. So it’s fair to say then that your concern isn’t really about this bill and can’t really be accommodated. I hope it’s enough regardless for you to offer your support in the end.

The goal is noble indeed "The point of the bill is to create a path to citizenship for people who don’t currently have one"

However, we are treading into dangerous waters of possible abuse and exploitation - raiders will possibly definitely be looking for exploits.
If this is to be tried it would need to be in a completely separate region and tested for perhaps a year first.

The current admin process is sufficient although limiting. people who cant specifically join as citizen could perhaps still work via someone else that is, to represent them or their issues at least. In history not everyone who wanted to be on the roman senate was allowed, but their issues could still be brought and presented before the council via one of the current members of course.

voting options on this one should be: 1. yay (but separate region) or 2. nay. I'm on 1 though if separate region. else big NONO.
or option 3. change system entirely for voting folks into government based perhaps on different criteria than number of votes.

Webraven:

The goal is noble indeed "The point of the bill is to create a path to citizenship for people who don’t currently have one"

However, we are treading into dangerous waters of possible abuse and exploitation - raiders will possibly definitely be looking for exploits.
If this is to be tried it would need to be in a completely separate region and tested for perhaps a year first.

The current admin process is sufficient although limiting. people who cant specifically join as citizen could perhaps still work via someone else that is, to represent them or their issues at least. In history not everyone who wanted to be on the roman senate was allowed, but their issues could still be brought and presented before the council via one of the current members of course.

voting options on this one should be: 1. yay (but separate region) or 2. nay. I'm on 1 though if separate region. else big NONO.
or option 3. change system entirely for voting folks into government based perhaps on different criteria than number of votes.

Click to expand...

Um, I don't know how you'd want us to "test it in another region", as that would require us to basically create a "clone TNP", one which decided to do this and one that did not.

As much as I am a fan of the TNP multiverse, I do think I'd rather solve this with one TNP, and not two.

I would think consistency would be helpful on whether Deputies are allowed. I would assume Deputy Ministers won't be included, and if so, Deputy Speakers won't be. It would probably be fine to just allow the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Ministers, Speaker, and SCers in that list.

Fregerson:

I would think consistency would be helpful on whether Deputies are allowed. I would assume Deputy Ministers won't be included, and if so, Deputy Speakers won't be. It would probably be fine to just allow the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Ministers, Speaker, and SCers in that list.

Click to expand...

Deputy speakers are government officials and typically, deputy ministers are not. We wanted government officials to be the ones weighing in on the appeals so deputy ministers were basically never considered for this. I do agree that including deputy speakers by default would be strange since they can be chosen as easily as deputy ministers, and I have already given my thoughts on their potential reliability.

I am not sure what to do with the argument made by @Webraven (though I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts). Even if we did this in a test region, that wouldn’t be reliable because bad actors who want to exploit an opportunity in TNP will try to exploit TNP, even if this worked flawlessly in another region. You can’t really create a good simulation for this for a variety of reasons, though it would be nice if we had a way to peek into the future and see all the consequences intended or otherwise for the things we decided to do. Nope, this is going to be a leap of faith, as is so often the case.

I have tried very hard to consider all the possible exploits and make it as hard as possible for them to be used - which ones do you think I have missed with my approach so far? Do you think the checks I put in place fail to accomplish what I’m trying to do? At this point vague concerns about security aren’t very helpful - after all, literally anything can happen. I want to hear specifically where the provisions fall short and how I can work on tightening them up. What changes could I make that would reduce the loopholes or exploits even further?

Okay, I finally sat down to write a long post after relooking at the proposal. In order for us to figure out who needs to be able to write the recommendations, and how many recommendations are needed, we need to figure out what are the basic standards we would want for applicants who want to appeal for citizenship using this path.

1) Executive Staffers. I presume this is the easier path to show your interest in government. I know the policy differs from minister to minister, but last I understand, only Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs requires staffers to be citizens? (really, someone needs to correct me). If we can be clear that residents masking is enough to get to be a staffer, we can get more members on board. Based on their performance as a staffer, for a set period of time, this could be considered as a point that the person is deserving of the citizenship.
2) Regional Assembly Participation. In theory, this should be another easy path, but honestly, we don't see this currently happening. Basically, residents will utilise the Residents Lobby to provide their feedback on certain laws/proposals that are being debated in the Public Halls of the Regional Assembly. Their contributions and enthusiasm towards the Regional Assembly could be seen as an avenue for recommendation.
3) Gameside Involvement. This may be rather subjective in my opinion. Involvement gameside would probably include reaching out to new players and share them about the things to do in our region. Maybe they can be like gameside advocates, but just that they seem to be unable to obtain the citizenship required (is citizenship required to be a GA? I think so, right?), but that has not deterred them from being active gameside. For this to be a criteria of consideration, in my opinion, it would be in combination with other participation, because, if you are going to recommend others to come onboard to explore the full use of citizenship, then shouldn't you also be active on the forums? (I don't know about some of the chosen GAs at this point, but, oh well,)
4) Involvement in TNP RP Communities. Again, I don't think this alone warrants citizenship. But good participation in the RP Communities, recruiting people to join the communities, and possibility of going in the direction of contribution in the Ministry of Culture. In theory, this could be a path of contribution which could be a basis for recommendation. Given the entire story of this proposal allowing "deserved members of our broader TNP community" to obtain citizenship, I think it would be unfair to ignore the really active participants in our TNP RP communities. However, I think this would probably be done in conjunction with other pointers, such as 1 and 3, when being considered for citizenship by this path.
5) Track Record in Other Regions. Their known track record and involvement in other regions might be able to help their case. If we are going to recruit them to our region, there needs to be something special about their past contributions, something that they can contribute to TNP, that makes giving them citizenship valuable.

I only think of these 5 categories of reasons for recommendations. With that in mind, we then go back to look at who would probably be able to give the recommendations.
1) Ministers. This is the clearest category. Executive staffers serve under Ministers. The Minister's recommendation would definitely include the member's contribution to the ministry in general.
2) Delegate/Vice Delegate. The Delegate, as the main elected official in charge of the Executive, and therefore, the Ministers, has a view on all the ministries, and would be in a position to make a recommendation. In recent terms, the Vice Delegate has also been getting more involved in the Executive, and could provide a similar view.
3) Speaker. The Speaker would likely tap on their experiences outside of being a Speaker. As a Speaker, point 2 above would definitely fall into the Speaker's scope, given the Speaker's oversight on Regional Assembly Participation. Maybe 3, if we could prove that some of the new citizenship applications are recommended by this candidate.
4) Security Councilors. Security Councilors are involved in various areas of TNP, such as RP Community (like Lord Lore and Sil Dorsett), gameside RMB (like Marcus Antonius), Gameplay (like TlomzKrano), government involvement (like Dreadton), etc. These members, with their experience and understanding of security concerns, will probably help them to write solid recommendations for the candidates.
5) Lead Gameside Advocate. The above 4 have been discussed before, and will definitely make the shortlist. This one, however, is probably new. If point 3 above, that is, gameside involvement, is a criteria we are willing to accept, then there is a possibility of the LGA taking a lead in testifying on the levels of contribution of the said individual. The LGA, with their oversight on gameside relations, is definitely able to note which particular nations are the most involved in leading members from gameside to forumside, or reaching out to the nations, and therefore could be considered as a member on the list. If, however, we decide not to include the LGA in the namelist, then I guess the burden of showing this particular criteria has to fall on the Delegate, which appoints the LGA.

Is 5 recommendations too much? Too little? That would be dependent on whether how many of the above criteria needs to be checked off in order for us to consider giving them citizenship by this special path. Sometimes, the particular person may only be good in 1 of those areas. In that case, are we going to accept that these 5 recommendations talk about the same things about the person? Do we have a criteria for what constitutes as a "recommendation"? If we don't have any of these pointers in mind, then even if we create this path, it might not be useful at all if only 1-2 people can utilise the path to gain citizenship.

As with all things in life, such as developing cures in labs, its normally done in a seperate region so that of something goes wrong, your own region hopefully dont get affected.. Implementing this in the TNP means if something goes wrong, bye bye TNP. Therefore the suggestion to play with this elsewhere first.

Webraven:

As with all things in life, such as developing cures in labs, its normally done in a seperate region so that of something goes wrong, your own region hopefully dont get affected.. Implementing this in the TNP means if something goes wrong, bye bye TNP. Therefore the suggestion to play with this elsewhere first.

Click to expand...

So all we need to do is build a region exactly like TNP from scratch first?

TNP itself has far more ability to experiment with our security so long as we don’t compromise the core of it than most.

The core of that security is twofold - the obvious piles and piles of influence that give any couper about as much chance of success as trying TRR & the great mass or citizens and generally active people that prevent any small group from being able to subvert our systems with success.

Neither of these would be impacted much, if at all by a little loosening on the admin check (indeed, the number of good faith applicants is likely to be greater than the bad faith ones, and thus improve the latter security point). As such, we’re perfectly able to experiment with it if we so desire without undue risk, and I support such (at least broadly).

Fregerson:

Okay, I finally sat down to write a long post after relooking at the proposal. In order for us to figure out who needs to be able to write the recommendations, and how many recommendations are needed, we need to figure out what are the basic standards we would want for applicants who want to appeal for citizenship using this path.

1) Executive Staffers. I presume this is the easier path to show your interest in government. I know the policy differs from minister to minister, but last I understand, only Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs requires staffers to be citizens? (really, someone needs to correct me). If we can be clear that residents masking is enough to get to be a staffer, we can get more members on board. Based on their performance as a staffer, for a set period of time, this could be considered as a point that the person is deserving of the citizenship.
2) Regional Assembly Participation. In theory, this should be another easy path, but honestly, we don't see this currently happening. Basically, residents will utilise the Residents Lobby to provide their feedback on certain laws/proposals that are being debated in the Public Halls of the Regional Assembly. Their contributions and enthusiasm towards the Regional Assembly could be seen as an avenue for recommendation.
3) Gameside Involvement. This may be rather subjective in my opinion. Involvement gameside would probably include reaching out to new players and share them about the things to do in our region. Maybe they can be like gameside advocates, but just that they seem to be unable to obtain the citizenship required (is citizenship required to be a GA? I think so, right?), but that has not deterred them from being active gameside. For this to be a criteria of consideration, in my opinion, it would be in combination with other participation, because, if you are going to recommend others to come onboard to explore the full use of citizenship, then shouldn't you also be active on the forums? (I don't know about some of the chosen GAs at this point, but, oh well,)
4) Involvement in TNP RP Communities. Again, I don't think this alone warrants citizenship. But good participation in the RP Communities, recruiting people to join the communities, and possibility of going in the direction of contribution in the Ministry of Culture. In theory, this could be a path of contribution which could be a basis for recommendation. Given the entire story of this proposal allowing "deserved members of our broader TNP community" to obtain citizenship, I think it would be unfair to ignore the really active participants in our TNP RP communities. However, I think this would probably be done in conjunction with other pointers, such as 1 and 3, when being considered for citizenship by this path.
5) Track Record in Other Regions. Their known track record and involvement in other regions might be able to help their case. If we are going to recruit them to our region, there needs to be something special about their past contributions, something that they can contribute to TNP, that makes giving them citizenship valuable.

I only think of these 5 categories of reasons for recommendations. With that in mind, we then go back to look at who would probably be able to give the recommendations.
1) Ministers. This is the clearest category. Executive staffers serve under Ministers. The Minister's recommendation would definitely include the member's contribution to the ministry in general.
2) Delegate/Vice Delegate. The Delegate, as the main elected official in charge of the Executive, and therefore, the Ministers, has a view on all the ministries, and would be in a position to make a recommendation. In recent terms, the Vice Delegate has also been getting more involved in the Executive, and could provide a similar view.
3) Speaker. The Speaker would likely tap on their experiences outside of being a Speaker. As a Speaker, point 2 above would definitely fall into the Speaker's scope, given the Speaker's oversight on Regional Assembly Participation. Maybe 3, if we could prove that some of the new citizenship applications are recommended by this candidate.
4) Security Councilors. Security Councilors are involved in various areas of TNP, such as RP Community (like Lord Lore and Sil Dorsett), gameside RMB (like Marcus Antonius), Gameplay (like TlomzKrano), government involvement (like Dreadton), etc. These members, with their experience and understanding of security concerns, will probably help them to write solid recommendations for the candidates.
5) Lead Gameside Advocate. The above 4 have been discussed before, and will definitely make the shortlist. This one, however, is probably new. If point 3 above, that is, gameside involvement, is a criteria we are willing to accept, then there is a possibility of the LGA taking a lead in testifying on the levels of contribution of the said individual. The LGA, with their oversight on gameside relations, is definitely able to note which particular nations are the most involved in leading members from gameside to forumside, or reaching out to the nations, and therefore could be considered as a member on the list. If, however, we decide not to include the LGA in the namelist, then I guess the burden of showing this particular criteria has to fall on the Delegate, which appoints the LGA.

Is 5 recommendations too much? Too little? That would be dependent on whether how many of the above criteria needs to be checked off in order for us to consider giving them citizenship by this special path. Sometimes, the particular person may only be good in 1 of those areas. In that case, are we going to accept that these 5 recommendations talk about the same things about the person? Do we have a criteria for what constitutes as a "recommendation"? If we don't have any of these pointers in mind, then even if we create this path, it might not be useful at all if only 1-2 people can utilise the path to gain citizenship.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. I feel your point is more geared toward execution of the bill, and how the RA should consider these recommendations. I do not believe this can be legislated effectively. Every applicant is potentially very different, and will have a knack for one type of activity or another. But the reason for the multiple recommendations is to demonstrate not confirmation that the applicant brings a certain type of activity to the table, but that a broad range of government officials believes the applicant is trustworthy and deserves this consideration from the RA.

Webraven:

As with all things in life, such as developing cures in labs, its normally done in a seperate region so that of something goes wrong, your own region hopefully dont get affected.. Implementing this in the TNP means if something goes wrong, bye bye TNP. Therefore the suggestion to play with this elsewhere first.

Click to expand...

Sure, it would be nice if we could do that, but we can't. It's unrealistic. And something going wrong is not automatically the end of TNP. I think we ought to take care not to exaggerate here. I repeat my request that you explain to me how my measures could be improved to respond to the security flaws you feel exist. You may end up voting against this in the end, but since you did respond to this thread I hope you can offer something more constructive.

Lord Dominator:

TNP itself has far more ability to experiment with our security so long as we don’t compromise the core of it than most.

The core of that security is twofold - the obvious piles and piles of influence that give any couper about as much chance of success as trying TRR & the great mass or citizens and generally active people that prevent any small group from being able to subvert our systems with success.

Neither of these would be impacted much, if at all by a little loosening on the admin check (indeed, the number of good faith applicants is likely to be greater than the bad faith ones, and thus improve the latter security point). As such, we’re perfectly able to experiment with it if we so desire without undue risk, and I support such (at least broadly).

Click to expand...

I agree and I am glad you support the bill. The goal here is to open a door, but to place as many guards and checks on it as possible without making it an unrealistic path to citizenship.