At long last Mr. Speaker @Fregerson , I motion for a vote. Given the length of time this has been discussed, I request a shortened formal debate period, to last the duration of the weekend.
[PASSED] Citizenship Reform Act
- Thread starter Pallaith
- Start date
- TNP Nation
- PotatoFarmers
- Discord
- Freg#0420
Cretox
Somehow, Palpatine has returned
- TNP Nation
- Cretox State
- Discord
- Cretox#0125
Full support.
Dar Es Saalam
TNPer
- TNP Nation
- Dar Es Saalam
- Discord
- Dar Es Saalam
I think this does a great job of toeing the very fine line of rules meant to keep a community democratic (1 vote per person/no packing) as well as accessible enough to the players that seem to be using mobile these days as their primary log in, which I have noticed is increasing. Support!
@Fregerson I apologize for the sudden turnaround, but I request that this bill be pulled from the schedule until a later date. We’re keen to get this right in a way that everyone can agree and our sense of what our choices are may have been unnecessarily narrow.
- TNP Nation
- PotatoFarmers
- Discord
- Freg#0420
I would like to address the Regional Assembly at greater length, to explain my thought process on pulling the bill from the scheduled vote at the last minute. Thank you Mr. Speaker for accommodating me, and I hope we can all agree that there is no need to give this decision a third degree - I made the request, and I welcome the additional time for debate that will ensue. It can only be a good thing for such an important bill as this.
As I said earlier in Discord, it's important that we get this right. Unlike a personal idea that I want to see passed, this bill is meant to bring to life the delegate's vision and legislative priority for the term. MadJack ran on creating a path for citizenship for residents who fail the admin check through no fault of their own, but because they have technological limitations. This is the signature legislation that above everything else was singled out and identified in his platform, and it is not often that a delegate does something like this, so it had to be done in the best way possible. We want these prospective citizens to be able to join our community in a deeper way, but we also want to recognize that there are some who do not fall into this camp who could benefit from the law. That is why from the beginning we have tried to carefully balance security concerns with expanding access to citizenship.
Seeing the feedback everyone had on this bill, I identified two likely paths the bill could take. The first was my original, and admittedly restrictive, process. That was a version that changed in very dramatic ways from the first draft, and came together deliberately after weeks of discussion and refinement. I stand by that draft - I think it is a solid piece of work as is, but that does not mean it necessarily is best at achieving our goals. The one point of criticism I cannot deny is how limited it would be in application - the people who would successfully utilize the law would likely be few in number, and the process itself could be quite discouraging for them. I believe that helping anyone in this situation is better than no one, but the fact remains we would create a good process in theory that would in practice amount to very little change. The other option was what I called the "express" option, one that automatically granted citizenship to people who failed the admin check as long as they met almost all of the same criteria from my original version, and included a crucial requirement that they have a WA nation in TNP. This would be limited by how many of them appealed the rejection, and their citizenship could be revoked if they no longer had their WA in the region, but obviously this would allow potentially way more people to become citizens. In my view, it inadequately addressed the very real security concerns many people, including myself, had surrounding the admin check. But I can't say I gave the express option as much of a chance as I gave the original version. The language was never altered from is original draft, and discussion was entirely based on a binary choice - take the old version or take the new one.
Of course compromise is always possible, and I did not explore that potential compromise, because I believed that adding additional conditions to the express option would defeat its purpose. However, a compromise is going to lend itself to disappointing everyone to some degree, and if the express option fans saw a third version of this bill that expanded the access but had more checks in place, I suspect they would give it serious consideration. Likewise, those such as myself who want to guard against as much mischief as possible could live with this option if it was closer to the original even if its scope was widened. That's the theory, anyway, you'll have to let me know what you think. I have amended the original post with my new compromise draft, and I would like to highlight the changes.
This compromise version has eliminated the recommendation requirement. This was the biggest source of curating the potential applicants, and was the check most designed to filter them based on trust. We are placing all of the trust on the outcome of the RA debate. The express option only had prerequisites that if met led to an automatic overturning of the admin rejection - this version retains the RA vote to overturn the rejection. The only prerequisites are if admin confirms second accounts or use of proxies and of course, WA membership in TNP. The others (appealing within a week and not having had a previous rejection upheld) are mechanics and in place for I hope obvious reasons. Nothing else here is new, though I did reword the condition for removing citizenship to be if they do not have WA on their nation, not if they leave the WA, to avoid potential shenanigans. Similarly, I reworded the condition for this clause to be if the RA granted them the citizenship after failing the admin check, because before it said it would if they successfully appealed - obviously a successful appeal does not necessarily mean the RA grants them the citizenship.
Finally I wanted to offer a quick word about one aspect of the express version that did get questioned during its time in the spotlight. This compromise retains the exception to the WA requirement if it is used in NPA operations. It was pointed out that NPA applicants also have admin checks done. I reviewed the NPA code and I did not see this explicitly touched on, nor do I know precisely how it is used by the NPA in deciding who joins its ranks. I do not believe this law is wrong to include this exception however - the NPA code or procedures can be adjusted on their end (as far as I know) and if they are not, or cannot, then this exception will not be operative. I do not want to leave it out though because I believe if we are willing to allow people to become citizens, we should not preclude them from serving in every capacity a citizen can serve in, and if something else does that, then that is the thing that should be reconsidered, not this law.
I'm not completely comfortable with how open this process is, and I'm sure the express option supporters would have preferred fewer hoops. I think it's safe to say we're all going to be slightly uncertain in some ways. Here's what I believe is true though - many more people will benefit from this law. We will have more citizens and you never know what special contributions someone becoming a closer part of our community can bring. We have a chance to discuss and decide at length if we want to take a chance on someone. Given this bill incorporates aspects of both previously presented versions, I hope that we can get back to a vote soon, but I would like to give you all a chance to look it over first.
As I said earlier in Discord, it's important that we get this right. Unlike a personal idea that I want to see passed, this bill is meant to bring to life the delegate's vision and legislative priority for the term. MadJack ran on creating a path for citizenship for residents who fail the admin check through no fault of their own, but because they have technological limitations. This is the signature legislation that above everything else was singled out and identified in his platform, and it is not often that a delegate does something like this, so it had to be done in the best way possible. We want these prospective citizens to be able to join our community in a deeper way, but we also want to recognize that there are some who do not fall into this camp who could benefit from the law. That is why from the beginning we have tried to carefully balance security concerns with expanding access to citizenship.
Seeing the feedback everyone had on this bill, I identified two likely paths the bill could take. The first was my original, and admittedly restrictive, process. That was a version that changed in very dramatic ways from the first draft, and came together deliberately after weeks of discussion and refinement. I stand by that draft - I think it is a solid piece of work as is, but that does not mean it necessarily is best at achieving our goals. The one point of criticism I cannot deny is how limited it would be in application - the people who would successfully utilize the law would likely be few in number, and the process itself could be quite discouraging for them. I believe that helping anyone in this situation is better than no one, but the fact remains we would create a good process in theory that would in practice amount to very little change. The other option was what I called the "express" option, one that automatically granted citizenship to people who failed the admin check as long as they met almost all of the same criteria from my original version, and included a crucial requirement that they have a WA nation in TNP. This would be limited by how many of them appealed the rejection, and their citizenship could be revoked if they no longer had their WA in the region, but obviously this would allow potentially way more people to become citizens. In my view, it inadequately addressed the very real security concerns many people, including myself, had surrounding the admin check. But I can't say I gave the express option as much of a chance as I gave the original version. The language was never altered from is original draft, and discussion was entirely based on a binary choice - take the old version or take the new one.
Of course compromise is always possible, and I did not explore that potential compromise, because I believed that adding additional conditions to the express option would defeat its purpose. However, a compromise is going to lend itself to disappointing everyone to some degree, and if the express option fans saw a third version of this bill that expanded the access but had more checks in place, I suspect they would give it serious consideration. Likewise, those such as myself who want to guard against as much mischief as possible could live with this option if it was closer to the original even if its scope was widened. That's the theory, anyway, you'll have to let me know what you think. I have amended the original post with my new compromise draft, and I would like to highlight the changes.
This compromise version has eliminated the recommendation requirement. This was the biggest source of curating the potential applicants, and was the check most designed to filter them based on trust. We are placing all of the trust on the outcome of the RA debate. The express option only had prerequisites that if met led to an automatic overturning of the admin rejection - this version retains the RA vote to overturn the rejection. The only prerequisites are if admin confirms second accounts or use of proxies and of course, WA membership in TNP. The others (appealing within a week and not having had a previous rejection upheld) are mechanics and in place for I hope obvious reasons. Nothing else here is new, though I did reword the condition for removing citizenship to be if they do not have WA on their nation, not if they leave the WA, to avoid potential shenanigans. Similarly, I reworded the condition for this clause to be if the RA granted them the citizenship after failing the admin check, because before it said it would if they successfully appealed - obviously a successful appeal does not necessarily mean the RA grants them the citizenship.
Finally I wanted to offer a quick word about one aspect of the express version that did get questioned during its time in the spotlight. This compromise retains the exception to the WA requirement if it is used in NPA operations. It was pointed out that NPA applicants also have admin checks done. I reviewed the NPA code and I did not see this explicitly touched on, nor do I know precisely how it is used by the NPA in deciding who joins its ranks. I do not believe this law is wrong to include this exception however - the NPA code or procedures can be adjusted on their end (as far as I know) and if they are not, or cannot, then this exception will not be operative. I do not want to leave it out though because I believe if we are willing to allow people to become citizens, we should not preclude them from serving in every capacity a citizen can serve in, and if something else does that, then that is the thing that should be reconsidered, not this law.
I'm not completely comfortable with how open this process is, and I'm sure the express option supporters would have preferred fewer hoops. I think it's safe to say we're all going to be slightly uncertain in some ways. Here's what I believe is true though - many more people will benefit from this law. We will have more citizens and you never know what special contributions someone becoming a closer part of our community can bring. We have a chance to discuss and decide at length if we want to take a chance on someone. Given this bill incorporates aspects of both previously presented versions, I hope that we can get back to a vote soon, but I would like to give you all a chance to look it over first.
Last edited:
Cretox
Somehow, Palpatine has returned
- TNP Nation
- Cretox State
- Discord
- Cretox#0125
I am disappointed but not surprised at the relative lack of interest in this bill given the latest development.
Mr. Speaker @Fregerson I once again call for a vote, and request a shortened formal debate period to end at midnight eastern time (a bit more than 2 hours from now) or whenever you get online and can start the vote.
Mr. Speaker @Fregerson I once again call for a vote, and request a shortened formal debate period to end at midnight eastern time (a bit more than 2 hours from now) or whenever you get online and can start the vote.
- TNP Nation
- PotatoFarmers
- Discord
- Freg#0420
Absolutely not a fan, as a citizen already, and in the NPA of the WA requirement that it has to be on my main nation if not on an OP. WA has NOTHING to do with regional government and I only have it on my main nation primarily for delegate transitions. I see no benefit to TNP at all on what I do with my WA.
Well, I didn't realise you'd be moving this quickly, but now tht it is happening I'm speaking somewhat as a matter of urgency. I have come to mostly accept that the previous version of the bill was the most sensible option, even if it might not change things much. This new version, however, is flawed.
I think by far the largest hurdle in the previous process is the Regional Assembly vote, and not the government official recommendations, given the Regional Assembly is a much larger body of people to convince than a few government officials. I've always thought that in practice it would be the Regional Assembly that sets the standard for who would be accepted and who would be rejected, rather than the government officials. So with the vote still retained in this version, I'm not sure it'll be any less restrictive, especially considering the added WA requirement.
Regarding the WA requirement, I feel that the main effect it'll have is to put more appeals in front of the RA, but not more people ultimately accepted. The RA, I suspect, would want to see some kind of proof from the appellant that they intend to contribute to the community. And if they truely do, then why not have them contribute to the community first before voting to accept them as a citizen? Then recommendations from government officials would serve as proof of that. Plus, with the recommendations dropped, it opens the door to smart, possibly up to no good players to try to talk their way into an exemption, rather than having to work their way in.
Overall, I feel that this new version can hardly be called a compromise. It remains just as restrictive as the previous version, and all it would do is open the door for people to smooth talk their way in.
I was writing this just as the vote was put up and planned to object to the scheduling of the vote under Clause 1.3 of the Regional Assembly Rules, but since that is no longer possible, I am objecting to the duration of that vote under Clause 2.4 and asking for it to be lengthened to 7 days.
I think by far the largest hurdle in the previous process is the Regional Assembly vote, and not the government official recommendations, given the Regional Assembly is a much larger body of people to convince than a few government officials. I've always thought that in practice it would be the Regional Assembly that sets the standard for who would be accepted and who would be rejected, rather than the government officials. So with the vote still retained in this version, I'm not sure it'll be any less restrictive, especially considering the added WA requirement.
Regarding the WA requirement, I feel that the main effect it'll have is to put more appeals in front of the RA, but not more people ultimately accepted. The RA, I suspect, would want to see some kind of proof from the appellant that they intend to contribute to the community. And if they truely do, then why not have them contribute to the community first before voting to accept them as a citizen? Then recommendations from government officials would serve as proof of that. Plus, with the recommendations dropped, it opens the door to smart, possibly up to no good players to try to talk their way into an exemption, rather than having to work their way in.
Overall, I feel that this new version can hardly be called a compromise. It remains just as restrictive as the previous version, and all it would do is open the door for people to smooth talk their way in.
I was writing this just as the vote was put up and planned to object to the scheduling of the vote under Clause 1.3 of the Regional Assembly Rules, but since that is no longer possible, I am objecting to the duration of that vote under Clause 2.4 and asking for it to be lengthened to 7 days.
This law does not affect citizens who pass the admin check. The WA requirement is only for people who appeal an admin check rejection and pass a vote of the RA. That requirement also doesn’t apply to citizens who gain citizenship this way and engage in NPA operations. It gives them an exemption. As I warned though, NPA procedure may need to be amended to allow these citizens to join NPA without an admin check, since that happens too. But I hope that you understand that this is not changing citizenship requirements for other citizens. This only affects people who go through this process.
That I could live with but the way it's worded, in a court of law, someone would be removed from citizenship in any circumstance their registered nation isn't in the WA,. And every NPA app goes thru an admin check with citizenship not required. The admin check is only bypassed if the applicant is already a citizen.
Last edited:
I’m glad you can live with that because that’s what the law does. The new section added for removing citizenship only applies if the person got citizenship through the new process with the RA. You and me and other people who got it through the normal three checks don’t need to worry about that.
As for your note about how NPA handles admin checks, it sounds like there will have to be a change in NPA policy for these types of citizens to get membership there. This law will exempt them from losing their citizenship if they move their WA for an op, but obviously that doesn’t matter if the NPA has no way to let them join. That’s beyond the scope of this law however.
Cretox
Somehow, Palpatine has returned
- TNP Nation
- Cretox State
- Discord
- Cretox#0125
The amendment should already cover that:
You think the RA would fall for that if a player clearly hasn't contributed to the region in a way that would get them government approval anyway?
The government officials would be an unnecessary hurdle when, as you said, the RA vote would be the core component of the process. I'm not certain what point you're trying to make.
Last edited:
On thinking, I'm not enthused about a WA requirement to get around the admin check, but I can't really think of much of a better way that still serves our legitimate security interests as such, so support.
The government offical recommendations and an RA vote would mean that whoever manages a successful appeal would already have a record of service in the region. Dropping the government official recommendation would mean that is no longer guaranteed. Although I expect the RA to hold a relatively high standard to be convinced that someone who hasn't yet contributed to the region will do so in the future (hence why I believe dropping the requirement in place of a WA requirement doesn't make the system much less restrictive), we can't preclude the possibility that someone could talk their way through without doing much real work. After all we have elected officials who are more talk than work many times. So I think the recommendations still serve an important function in filtering those who talk big and those who do the work.
Last edited: